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

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

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

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

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

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