Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T00:41:21.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Practices of Action Ascription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

Edited by
Arnulf Deppermann  and
Michael Haugh
Arnulf Deppermann
Affiliation:
Universität Mannheim, Germany
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 133 - 276
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S. & Leudar, I., eds., Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–42.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 531–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, C., Barnes, R. & Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7(6), 627–47.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 229–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk, 27(3), 273–96.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Childs, C. (2012a). Directing and requesting: Two interactive uses of the mental state terms “want” and “need.” Text & Talk, 32(6), 727–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, C. (2012b). “I’m not X, I just want Y”: Formulating “wants” in interaction. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). The study of formulations as a key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–28.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2014). Handlungsverstehen und Intentionszuschreibung in der Interaktion I: Intentionsbekundungen mit wollen. In Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Gilles, P., Spiekermann, H. & Streck, T., eds., Sprache im Gebrauch. Räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional. Festschrift für Peter Auer. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 309–26.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Helmer, H. (2013). Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 32(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.Google Scholar
Drake, V. (2016). German questions and turn-final oder. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 17, 168–95.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In Glenn, P., Lebaron, C. & Mandelbaum, J., eds., Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 293–308.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2018). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4(1), pp. 241–59.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1993). Truth and intentionality: Towards an ethnographic critique. Cultural Anthropology, 8(2), 214–45.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017). On the concept of action in the study of interaction. Discourse Studies, 19, 515–35.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. (2000). Zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte von “wollen.” Futurisches, Epistemisches und Verwandtes. In Richter, G., Riecke, J. & Schuster, B.-M., eds., Raum, Zeit, Medium – Sprache und ihre Determinanten. Festschrift für Hans Ramge zum 60. Geburtstag. Darmstadt: Hessische Historische Kommission, pp. 263–81.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3, Speech Acts. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskes, I. & Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Implicature and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. & Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., ed. (2008b). Intention in pragmatics. Special issue of Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–260.Google Scholar
Helmer, H. & Zinken, J. (2019). Das heißt (“that means”) for formulations and du meinst (“you mean”) for repair? Interpretations of prior speakers’ turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 159–76.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. London: Irvington, pp. 123–62.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, M. J. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1950). Husserliana 3: Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie, ed. by Biemel, W.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1976). Husserliana 6: Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie, ed. by Biemel, W.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–114.Google Scholar
König, K. (2020). Prosodie und epistemic stance: Konstruktionen mit finalem oder. In Imo, W. & Lanwer, J., eds., Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 167–99.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–73.Google Scholar
Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 701–25.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–53.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. New York, NY: Hutchinson’s University Library.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1974 [1932]). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. & Luckmann, T. (1979). Strukturen der Lebenswelt, Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 423–46.Google Scholar
Weiste, E. & Peräkylä, A. (2013). A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 299–321.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1950). Philosophische Untersuchungen. In Wittgenstein, L., ed., Werkausgabe, Vol. I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 225–580.Google Scholar

References

Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in Political Interviews: Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, A. (2003). Das Parlament und seine Sprache: Studien zu Theorie und Geschichte parlamentarischer Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–98.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2013). Conversation analysis in the news interview. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 630–56.Google Scholar
Clark, H. & Schaefer, E. (1992). Dealing with overhearers. In Clark, H., ed., Arenas of Language Use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 248–73.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. In Capone, A. & Mey, J. L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 421–45.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. [1997] (2005). Glaubwürdigkeit im Konflikt. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2012). How does “cognition” matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 34(6), 746–67.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2014). Handlungsverstehen und Intentionszuschreibung in der Interaktion I: Intentionsbekundungen mit wollen. In Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Gilles, P., Spiekermann, H. & Streck, T., eds., Sprache im Gebrauch: Räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional. Festschrift für Peter Auer. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 309–26.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015). Gleiche Wörter – inkommensurable Bedeutungen: Zur interaktiven Entstehung von Undurchschaubarkeit in politischen Diskussionen am Beispiel von “Ökologie” in den Schlichtungsgesprächen zum Bahnprojekt “Stuttgart 21.” In Tuomarla, U., Härmä, J., Tiittula, L. et al., eds., Miscommunication and Verbal Violence: Du malentendu à la violence verbale: Misskommunikation und verbale Gewalt. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 25–41.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Helmer, H. (2013). Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 32(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar
Gohl, C. & Günther, S. (1999). Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18(1), 39–75.Google Scholar
Greatbatch, D. (1992). On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 268–301.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2000). Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskes, I. & Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmer, H. & Zinken, J. (2019). Das heißt (“that means”) for formulations and du meinst (“you mean”) for repair? Interpretations of prior speakers’ turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 159–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1990/1991). Intention, meaning and strategy: Observations on constraints on interaction analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24(1–4), 311–32.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.Google Scholar
Hopper, R. (2005). A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis: When do strategies affect spoken interaction? In te Molder, H. & Potter, Jonathan, eds., Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–58.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1997). Building alignments in public debate: A case study from british TV. Text, 17, 161–79.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2006). Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2009). Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (change-of-state-token) im Deutschen. In Günther, S. & Bücker, J., eds., Grammatik im Gespräch. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 57–86.Google Scholar
Kampf, Z. (2013). Mediated performatives. In Östman, J.-O. & Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics Online, Vol. 17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Komter, M. (2013). Conversation analysis in the courtroom. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, pp. 612–29.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Luginbühl, M. (1999). Gewalt im Gespräch. Verbale Gewalt in politischen Fernsehdiskussionen am Beispiel der “Arena”. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nothdurft, W. (1997). Konfliktstoff. Gesprächsanalyse der Konfliktbearbeitung in Schlichtungsgesprächen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nothdurft, W. & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (2005). Gesprächsanalyse von Schlichtungs-Interaktion. Methodische Probleme und ihre Hintergründe. In Busch, D. & Schröder, H., eds., Perspektiven interkultureller Mediation. Bd. 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 341–62.Google Scholar
Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 701–25.Google Scholar
Reineke, S. (2016). Wissenszuschreibungen in der Interaktion. Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung impliziter und expliziter Formen der Zuschreibung von Wissen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York, NY: The Free Press, pp. 31–74.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. 2 vols. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D. et al. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung, 10, 353–402.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Walker, T., Drew, P. & Local, J. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2434–51.Google Scholar

References

Butler, C. W., Potter, J., Danby, S., Emmison, M. & Hepburn, A. (2010). Advice-implicative interrogatives: Building “client-centered” support in a children’s helpline. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 265–87.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of “actually.” Language, 77(2), 245–91.Google Scholar
Craven, A. & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–42.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In Peräkylä, A. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 113–46.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. A. (2021). Ratschläge in der Alltagskommunikation: Zur Verwendung einer sedimentierten Form im Englischen (‘Advice in everyday talk: On the use of a sedimented form in English’). In Weidner, B., Imo, W., König, K. & Wegner, L., eds., Verfestigungen in der Interaktion – Konstruktionen, sequenzielle Muster, kommunikative Gattungen. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 299–322.Google Scholar
Curl, T. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129–53.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 295–325.Google Scholar
Emmison, M., Butler, C. W. & Danby, S. (2011). Script proposals: a device for empowering clients in counselling. Discourse Studies, 13(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N.J., eds. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9: 299–318.Google Scholar
Heinemann, T. & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2381–4.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. & Potter, J. (2011). Designing the recipient: Some practices that manage advice resistance in institutional settings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74, 216–41.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–83.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Lindström, A. (1998). Motherhood, medicine, and morality: Scenes from a medical encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 397–438.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Lindström, A. (2012). Advice giving – terminable and interminable: The case of British health visitors. In Limberg, H. & Locher, M. A., eds., Advice in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 169–94.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 359–419.Google Scholar
Hudson, T. (1990). The discourse of advice giving in English: “I wouldn’t feed until spring no matter what you do.” Language & Communication, 10(4), 285–97.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1995). Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes, 9(2), 19–238.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–41.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (1981). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a “troubles-telling” and a “service encounter.” Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 399–421.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Kinnell, A. M. K. & Maynard, D. W. (1996). The delivery and receipt of safer sex advice in pre-test counseling sessions for HIV and AIDS. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 405–37.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Mori, J. (2006). The workings of the Japanese token hee in informing sequences: An analysis of sequential context, turn shape, and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2013). Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilnick, A. (2001). The interactional organization of pharmacist consultations in a hospital setting: A putative structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1927–45.Google Scholar
Pilnick, A. (2003). “Patient counselling” by pharmacists: Four approaches to the delivery of counselling sequences and their interactional reception. Social Science & Medicine, 56(4), 835–49.Google Scholar
Pudlinski, C. (2002). Accepting and rejecting advice as competent peers: Caller dilemmas on a warm line. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 481–500.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (2012). Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect displays. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 387–415.Google Scholar
Shaw, C. & Hepburn, A. (2013). Managing the moral implications of advice in informal interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 344–62.Google Scholar
Shaw, C., Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2015). Advice-implicative actions: Using interrogatives and assessments to deliver advice in mundane conversation. Discourse Studies, 17(3), 317–42.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 423–46.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. (1997). Discourses of Counseling: HIV Counseling as Social Interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds. (2017). Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Heritage, J., Barnes, R. K. et al. (2018). Treatment recommendations as actions. Health Communication, 33(11), 1335–44.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2020). English why don’t you X as a formulaic expression. In Ono, T. & Laury, R., eds., Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99–132.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vatanen, A. (2018). Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequence. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 107–26.Google Scholar
Vehviläinen, S. (2001). Evaluative advice in educational counselling: The use of disagreement in the “stepwise entry” to advice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(3), 371–98.Google Scholar
Waring, H. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing center: Identity, expertise, and advice resisting. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 141–68.Google Scholar
Waring, H. Z. (2007). The multi-functionality of accounts in advice giving. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(3), 367–91.Google Scholar
Waring, H. Z. (2012). The advising sequence and its preference structures in graduate peer tutoring in an American university. In Limberg, H. & Locher, M. A., eds., Advice in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–118.Google Scholar

References

Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018). Inferential practices in social interaction: A conversationanalytic account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2013). The collaborative organisation of next actions in a semiotically rich environment: Shopping as a couple. In P. Haddington, Mondada, L. & Nevile, M., eds., Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 123–51.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2014). Establishing joint orientation towards commercial objects in a self-service store: How practices of categorisation matter. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. & Rauniomaa, M., eds., Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 271–94.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (forthcoming). Approaching the counter: Situated decision-making of couples shopping in a supermarket. In Fox, B. A., Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Encounters at the counter: Language, embodiment and material objects in shops. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2009). Marking a “noticing of departure” in talk: Eh-prefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 2100–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15, 551–78.Google Scholar
Keller, M. & Ruus, R. (2014). Pre‐schoolers, parents and supermarkets: Co‐shopping as a social practice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(1), 119–26.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592–611.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese language, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laurier, E. (2008). Drinking up endings: Conversational resources of the café. Language & Communication, 28(2), 165–81.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York, NY: The Free Press, pp. 31–74.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, L. M. (2018). Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. & Raevaara, L. (2014). On the grammatical form of requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–68.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 52, 1–37.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 779–803.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2013). Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.Google Scholar
Takagi, T. (2001). Sequence management in Japanese child-adult interactions. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Webster, F. E. & Wind, Y. (1972). Organizational Buying Behavior. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

References

Chao, Y. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (2), 129–53.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In Fitch, K. & Robert, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 71–102.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Chilton, K. (2000). Calling just to keep in touchy: Regular and habitualised telephone calls as an environment for small talk. In Coupland, J., ed., Small Talk. London: Pearson Education, pp. 137–62.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11(3), 225–50.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. & Bolden, G. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, D., ed., Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 3rd ed. London: Sage, pp. 208–30.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013a). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–78.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013b). Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 370–94.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In De Ruiter, J. P., ed. Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–92.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 359–419.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. A., ed. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 229–56.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Li, C. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Luke, K. K. (1990). Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lü, S. X. & Zhu, D. X. (1953). Yufa Xiuci Jianhua (Talks on Grammar and Rhetoric). Beijing: Zhonguo Qingnian.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–29.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In Robinson, J. D., ed. Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–54.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammatical and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–67.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in Interaction: Sound Objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J., eds., Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Fox, B., ed., Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 437–85.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In E. H. Hovy and D. Scott, eds., Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–82.Google Scholar
Shaw, C., Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2015). Advice-implicative actions: Using interrogatives and assessments to deliver advice in mundane conversation. Discourse Studies, 17(3), 317–42.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In Enfield, N., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 423–46.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 82–106.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Wang, L. (1955). Zhongguo Xiandai Yufa (A Modern Grammar of Chinese). Beijing: Zhonghua.Google Scholar
Wu, R. J. R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wu, R. J. R. & Heritage, J. (2017). Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. H. & Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 273–97.Google Scholar
Yu, G., Wu, Y. & Drew, P. (2019). Couples bickering: Disaffiliation and discord in Chinese conversation. Discourse Studies, 21(4), 458–80.Google Scholar

References

Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S., eds., Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Alarmiertes Verstehen: Kommunikation in Feuerwehrnotrufen. In Jung, T. & Mueller-Doohm, S., eds., Wirklichkeit in Deutungprozess: Verstehen und Methoden in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 287–328.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–53.Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Baranova, J. et al. (2018). Universals and cultural diversity in the expression of gratitude. Royal Society Open Science, 5, 180391.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1987). Establishing agreement. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. H., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–76.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, M.-B. M. (2016). Patterns of thanking in the closing section of UK service calls: Marking conversational macro-structure vs managing interpersonal relations. Pragmatics and Society, 7(4), 664–92.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Rights and responsibilities in calls for help: the case of the Mountain Glade Fire. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(1), 33–61.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2016). Closing matters: Alignment and mis-alignment in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction. Discourse Studies, 16(8), 716–36.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (2015) The request system in Italian interaction. Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Wakin, M. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1999). Reduction and specialization in emergency and directory assistance calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 409–37.Google Scholar
Whalen, M. R. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Sequential and institutional contexts in calls for help. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 172–85.Google Scholar
Whalen, M. R. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1990). Describing trouble: Practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society, 19, 465–92.Google Scholar
Whalen, J., Zimmerman, D. H. & Whalen, M. (1988). When words fail: A single case analysis. Social Problems, 35(4), 309–46.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Talk and its occasion: the case of calling the police. In Schiffrin, D., ed., Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 418–69.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S., eds., Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 87–106.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. & Wakin, M. (1995). Thank you’s and the management of closings in emergency calls. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington DC.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×