Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 2:1 (2022) ► pp.1–41

Suffixation and sequentiality

Notes on the study of morphology in interaction

ORCID logo | University of Colorado, Boulder
This paper offers some reflections on the study of morphology – broadly speaking, ‘word formation’ – as a participants’ resource in social interaction. I begin by calling attention to morphology as a comparatively underexamined component of linguistic structure by conversation analysts and interactional linguists, in that it has yet to receive the same dedicated consideration as have, e.g., phonetics and syntax. I then present an ongoing study of suffixes/suffixation in Spanish – focusing on diminutives (e.g., –ito), augmentatives (e.g., –ote), and superlatives (i.e., –ísimo) – and describe how the sequentiality of interaction can offer analysts profound insight into participants’ orientations to morphological resources. With what I refer to as ‘morphological transformations’ – exemplified here in both same-turn and next-turn positions – interactants sequentially construct and expose morphological complexity as such, locally instantiating its relevance in the service of action. It is argued that a focus on transformations therefore provides analysts with a means to ‘break into’ morphology-based collections. A range of cases are presented to illustrate this methodological approach, before a concluding discussion in which I describe how morphology-focused investigations may intersect with explorations of other interactional phenomena.
Keywords: morphology, grammar, conversation, Spanish, diminutives, augmentatives, superlatives, methods/methodology, conversation analysis (CA), interactional linguistics (IL)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguistic structure in action
    • 2.1The ‘P-side’
    • 2.2The ‘S-side’
    • 2.3What about morphology?
      • 2.3.1Morphology: The basics
      • 2.3.2Morphology in CA/IL research
      • 2.3.3What about ‘Morphosyntax’ (and ‘Morphophonology’)?
  • 3.Opening up morphology in action
    • 3.1Evaluative suffixes in Spanish: Building a collection
    • 3.2Explicit orientations
  • 4.Sequential morphological transformations
    • 4.1Sequentiality as a resource
    • 4.2Suffixation in next-turn
    • 4.3Suffixation within the same turn
  • 5.Discussion and next steps
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21012.ray
References (198)
References
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. MIT.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., & Fudeman, K. (2011). What is Morphology. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1):7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (2011). Constructions: Emerging and emergent. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbaresi, L. M., & Dressler, W. U. (2020). Pragmatic explanations in morphology. In V. Pirrelli, I. Plag, & W. U. Dressler (Eds.), Word knowledge and word usage (pp.405–451). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2016). Intonation units revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., Küttner, U.-A., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Pivots revisited: Cesuring in action. Open Linguistics. issue 71, pages 613–637 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E., & Selting, M. (2010). Prosody in Interaction. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, G. B. (2014). Negotiating Understanding in “Intercultural Moments” in Immigrant Family Interactions. Communication Monographs, 81 (2):208–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation. In Sorjonen, Raevaara & Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 175–211). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, G. B., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with ‘why’-interrogatives in naturally occurring English conversation. Journal of Communication, 61 1:94–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 34(2):421–435.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., & Raymond, C. W. (2015). Modular Pivots: A Resource for Extending Turns at Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 (4):388–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). ‘You know’ as invoking alignment: A generic resource for emerging problems of understanding and affiliation. Journal of Pragmatics 1821:293–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of “actually.” Language, 77 (2):245–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10 (5):569–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Clift, R., & Raymond, C. W. (2018). Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20 (1):90–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). Interactional Prosody: High Onsets in Reason-for-the-Call Turns. Language in Society 30(1): 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes 49(3–4):273–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Finding a place for body movement in grammar. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1):22–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Etelämäki, M. (2014). On divisions of labor in request and offer environments. In Drew & Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp. 115–144). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. E. (2004). Sound Patterns in Interaction. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). Incrementing in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German, and Japanese. Pragmatics 17 (4):513–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (1996). Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 1:1257–1280. DOI logoGoogle 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):1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies, 34 1:115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Inferential Practices in Social Interaction: A Conversation-Analytic Account. Open Linguistics, 4 1:35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 140 1:140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (2000). Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In U. Doleschal & A. M. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (pp.1–10). LINCOM.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., & Barbaresi, L. M. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1978). Accusations: The use of members’ knowledge of “religious geography” in describing events. Sociology, 12 1:1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Precision and exaggeration in interaction. American Sociological Review, 68 1:917–938. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Turn Design. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.131–149). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2018a). Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies, 20 (1):163–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4 (1):241–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1988). Complainable Matters: The Use of Idiomatic Expressions in Making Complaints. Social Problems, 35 (4):398–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Hayashi, Raymond, & Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 71–94). Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2008). Polar questions. In M. Haspelmath, et al. (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, vol. 1161. Max Planck Digital Library. Available at: [URL]
Egbert, M. (2004). Other-initiated repair and membership categorization: Some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 1:1467–1498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C. W., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., & Levinson, S. C. (2019). Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55 (2):277–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escobar, A. M. (2011). Spanish in contact with Quechua. In M. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), The Handbook of Spanish Sociolinguistics, pp.323–352. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp.14–38). Oxford.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, Schegloff, & Thompson, (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.134–184). Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A. (2001). An exploration of prosody and turn projection in English conversation. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 287–315). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T. (2016). Rethinking format: An examination of requests. Language in Society 45(4):499–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics, 3 1:31–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1999). A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation. Language, 66 (2):297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A., Wouk, F., Fincke, S., Hernandez Flores, W., Hayashi, M., Laakso, M., Maschler, Y., Mehrabi, A., Sorjonen, M.-L., Uhmann, S., & Yang, H. J. (2017). Morphological self-repair: Self-repair within the word. Studies in Language, 41 (3):638–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaarder, A. B. (1966). Los llamados diminutivos y aumentativos en el español de México. PMLA 81(7):585–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gill, V. T., Halkowski, T., & Roberts, F. (2001). Accomplishing a request without making one: A single case analysis of a primary care visit. Text, 21 (1/2):55–81.Google Scholar
Gill, V. T., & Maynard, D. W. (1995). On “Labeling” in Actual Interaction: Delivering and Receiving Diagnoses of Developmental Disabilities. Social Problems, 42 (1):11–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1971). Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7 1:394–415.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp.97–121). Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
(1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2018). Co-Operative Action. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1 1:1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grandi, N., & Körtvélyessy, L. (2015). Introduction: Why evaluative morphology? In N. Grandi & L. Körtvélyessy (Eds.), Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology (pp. 3–20). Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harjunpää, K., Deppermann, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2021). Constructing the Chekhovian inner body in instructions: An interactional history of factuality and agentivity. Journal of Pragmatics 1711:158–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2011). The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45 (1):31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The last word on polysynthesis: A review article. Linguistic Typology, 22 (2):307–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. (2010). Understanding Morphology (2nd). Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2003). Language and the body as resources for collaborative action: A study of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36 (2):109–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmer, H. (2020). How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of German x heißt y (‘x means y’). Discourse Processes, 57 (3):278–299. DOI logoGoogle 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(3):159–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson & Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge.Google Scholar
(1984b). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.Google Scholar
(1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27 (3):291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). A Galilean Moment in Social Theory? Language, Culture and their Emergent Properties. Qualitative Sociology, 34 1:263–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1):1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1):30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal to the “epistemics of epistemics” group. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 14–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 (1):39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68 (1):15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives (pp.179–192). Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13 1:139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 99–123). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, S. (2009). Initiating Interactive Turn Spaces in Japanese Conversation: Local Projection and Collaborative Action. Discourse Processes 46 1:226–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Collaboratively organized stancetaking in Japanese: Sharing and negotiating stance within the turn constructional unit. Journal of Pragmatics 83 1:104–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1978). What’s In a “Nyem”? Sociology, 12 (1):135–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1985). An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Vol. 3) (pp.25–34). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1996). A case of transcriptional stereotyping. Journal of Pragmatics 26 1:159–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 721:533–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2011). Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 1:2879–2896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 511, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168 1:119–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. (2014). Evaluative derivation. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (pp. 296–316). Oxford.Google Scholar
Laury, R., & Ono, T. (2014). The limits of grammar: Clause combining in Finnish and Japanese conversation. Pragmatics 24(3):561–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, R., & Suzuki, R. (2011). Subordination in conversation: a cross-linguistic perspective. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress. Language in Society, 20 1:441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J. (1996). Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In Couper-Kuhlen & Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation. (pp.177–230). Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J., & Walker, G. (2004). Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 1:1375–1403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 42 (3):255–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2007). The TalkBank Project. In J. C. Beal, K. P. Corrigan, & H. L. M. Moisl (Eds.), Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Synchronic Databases, vol.1. Palgrave-Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandelbaum, J. (1990/91). Beyond mundane reason: Conversation analysis and context. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24 1:333–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marrese, O. M., Raymond, C. W., Fox, B. A., Ford, C. E., & Pielke, M. (2021). The grammar of obviousness: Gesture in argument sequences. Frontiers in Communication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, M. A. (2012). Los diminutivos en español: aspectos morfológicos, semánticos y pragmáticos. In L. Luque Toro, J. F. Medina Montero, & R. Luque (Eds.), Léxico Español Actual III (pp. 123–140). Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, L., & Keevallik, L. (2020). Emergent syntax for conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology (2nd). Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (2011). On “interactional semantics” and problems of meaning. Human Studies, 34 (2):199–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51 (1):85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montes Giraldo, J. J. (1972). Funciones del diminutivo en español: ensayo de clasificación. Thesaurus 27 (1):71–88.Google Scholar
Mushin, I., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Linguistic structures in social interaction: Moving temporality to the forefront of a linguistic science. Interactional Linguistics, 1 (1):1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norén, N., & Linell, P. (Eds.) (2013). Pivot constructions as everyday conversational phenomena within a cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as Theory. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental Pragmatics (pp. 43–72). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ogden, R. (2001). Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31 (1):139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Non-modal voice quality and turntaking in Finnish. In Couper-Kuhlen & Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction (pp. 29–62). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 1:1752–1775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R., & Walker, T. (2013). Phonetic resources in the construction of social actions. In B. Szczepek-Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk, Units of action (pp. 277–312). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2019). At the Interface of Grammar and the Body: Chais pas (“dunno”) as a Resource for Dealing with Lack of Recipient Response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (4):365–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penny, R. (2002). A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfänder, S., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2019). Turn-sharing revisited: An exploration of simultaneous speech in interactions between couples. Journal of Pragmatics, 147 1:22–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling my side: ‘limited access’ as a ‘fishing device’. Sociological Inquiry 501:186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984). Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge.Google Scholar
(1988). Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy. Communication Monographs, 55 1:360–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct (pp. 61–77). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, V. M. (2005). Spanish evaluative morphology: Pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and semantic issues. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.
Raymond, C. W. (2012). Reallocation of pronouns through contact: In-the-moment identity construction amongst Southern California Salvadorans. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16(5):669–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Epistemic Brokering in the Interpreter-mediated Medical Visit: Negotiating “Patient’s Side” and “Doctor’s Side” Knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 47 (4):426–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). Dialectos, identidades y tratamientos en el discurso cotidiano: Un argumento concreto a favor de los métodos mixtos en las investigaciones dialectológicas y sociolingüísticas. In J. Rodríguez & M. Pérez (Eds.), Amicitia Fecunda: Estudios en Homenaje a Claudia Parodi (pp. 213–234). Madrid: Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
(2015b). Questions and Responses in Spanish Monolingual and Spanish-English Bilingual Conversation. Language & Communication, 42 1:50–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Linguistic reference in the negotiation of identity and action: Revisiting the T/V distinction. Language, 92 (3):636–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Indexing a contrast: The ‘do’-construction in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 118 1:22–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). On the Relevance and Accountability of Dialect: Conversation Analysis and Contact Linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22 (2):161–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Intersubjectivity, normativity, and grammar. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82 (2):182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., Clift, R., & Heritage, J. (2021). Reference without anaphora: On agency through grammar. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 59 (3):715–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., & Fox, B. A. (2020). Asserting No-Problemness in Spanish: ‘No hay (ningún) problema’ and the Study of Noun Phrases in Interaction. In T. Ono & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Pragmatics of the ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages (pp. 119–152). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., & Heritage, J. (2021). Probability and Valence: Two Preferences in the Design of Polar Questions and their Management. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 (1):60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., Olguín, L. M. (2022). Análisis de la Conversación: Fundamentos, metodología y alcances. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., Fox, B. A., Thompson, S. A., & Montiegel, K. (2021). Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting. Language in Society, 50 1:53–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68(6):939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2013). Overall Structural Organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 257–280). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2016). Accountability in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 3–46). Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement. Research on Language & Social Interaction 53(4):425–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, G. (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes, 49 (5):426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone Has to Lie. In M. Sanches & B. G. Blount (Eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use (pp. 57–80). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1984). Notes on Methodology. In Atkinson & Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge.Google Scholar
(1987[1973]). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1992). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50 1:696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The Relevance of Repair for Syntax-for-Conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 261–288). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse (pp. 71–93). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided for place for the defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (5):1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996a). Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action. American Journal of Sociology, 102 (1):161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996b). Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction. In Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis Volume 1. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In Hayashi, Raymond, & Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 41–70). Cambridge.Google Scholar
(2016[2000]). Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 239–263). Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening Up Closings. Semiotica, 8 (4):289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In Ochs, Schegloff & Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair initiation. In Couper-Kuhlen & Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation (pp. 231–270). Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29 (4):477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (3):483–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2017). Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A., & Luís, A. R. (2012). Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The canonical clitic. In D. Brown, M. Chumakina, & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2017). Managing Compliance in Violin Instruction: The Case of the Finnish Clitic Particles –pa and –pAs in Imperatives and Hortatives. In Sorjonen, Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 357–380). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30 (2):260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38 (2):131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 82–106). Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). How We Manage Social Relationships Through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections. Discourse Processes, 56 (3):191–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints. Language in Society, 39 1:1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. (2012). Beyond the particular: Prosody and the coordination of actions. Language and Speech, 55 (1):13–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H. (2004). Prosody for marking transition-relevance places in Japanese conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen & Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction (pp. 63–96). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The Clause as a Locus of Grammar and Interaction. Language and Linguistics, 6 (4):807–837.Google Scholar
(2020). English why don’t you X as a formulaic expression. In R. Laury & T. Ono (Eds.), Fixed Expressions: Building Linguistic Structure and Social Action (pp. 99–132). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Carranza, A. (2016). Remembering and noticing: A conversation-analytic study of “ah” in Mexican Spanish talk. Spanish in Context, 13 (2):212–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Some uses of “no” in Spanish talk-in-interactions. International Review of Pragmatics, 9 1:224–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. (2007). On the design and use of pivots in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (12):2217–2243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The phonetic constitution of a turn-holding practice: Rush-throughs in English talk-in-interaction. In Barth-Weingarten, Reber, & Selting, Prosody in Interaction (pp. 51–72). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Phonetics and Prosody in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 455–474). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2017). Pitch and the projection of more talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50 (2):206–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, T., Drew, P., & Local, J. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (9):2434–2451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J. (2016). Requesting responsibility: The morality of grammar in Polish and English family interaction. Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J., & Deppermann, A. (2017). A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns: Evidence from German and Polish. In Sorjonen, Raevaara, & Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 27–63). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuluaga Ospina, A. (1970). La función del diminutivo en español. Thesaurus, 1 (1):23–48.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: The case of English n’t . Language 59(3):502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987). Plain morphology and expressive morphology. Berkeley Linguistics Society 131:330–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Deppermann, Arnulf & Elwys De Stefani
2023. Meaning in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Helmer, Henrike
2023. Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Raymond, Chase Wesley
2023. Chapter 8. Code-switching, agency, and the answer possibility space of Spanish-English bilinguals. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Raymond, Chase Wesley & Anne Elizabeth Clark White
2022. On the recognitionality of references to time in social interaction. Language & Communication 83 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.