Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 4:1 (2024) ► pp.6896
References
Alm, M.
(2004) Contribution of sentence position: the word also in spoken German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 35 (1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, C.
(2012) Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14 (5), 531–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P.
(1996) The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics, 6 (3), 295–322.Google Scholar
Auer, P., & Günthner, S.
(2005) Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 335–362). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blühdorn, H., Foolen, A., & Loureda, O.
(2017) Diskursmarker: Begriffsgeschichte – Theorie – Beschreibung. Ein bibliographischer Überblick. In H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen (pp. 3–36). Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B.
(2006) Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56 (4), 661–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Discourse markers. In K. Tracy, T. Sandel, & C. Ilie (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1–7). Chichester: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
(2018) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
(2020) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. [URL][URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2021) Language over time. Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English. Interactional Linguistics, 1 (1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
(2018) Interactional linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A.
(2011) The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34 (2), 115–128. DOI logoGoogle 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), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2021) Longitudinal conversation analysis – Introduction to the special issue. ROLSI, 54 (2), 127–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Reineke, S.
Dittmar, N.
(2011) Zum Verhältnis von Form und (kommunikativer) Funktion in der mündlichen Rede am Beispiel des Konnektors also . In N. Dittmar & N. Bahlo (Eds.), Beschreibungen für gesprochenes Deutsch auf dem Prüfstand: Analysen und Perspektiven (pp. 99–135). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P.
(1997) “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. JoP, 28 1, 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dudenredaktion
n.d.). also. Duden Online. Retrieved August 13, 2021, from [URL]
Egbert, M.
(2004) Other-initiated repair and membership categorization – Some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization. JoP, 36 (8), 1467–1498.Google Scholar
Fernández-Villanueva, M.
(2007) Uses of also in oral semi-informal German. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6 1, 95–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2006) Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the volume. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H.
(1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H.
(1970) On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Golato, A.
(2012) German oh: Marking an emotional change of state. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (3), 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülich, E.
(2002) Reformulierungen. In I. Kolboom, T. Kotschi, & E. Reichel (Eds.), Handbuch Französisch. Sprache-Literatur-Kultur-Gesellschaft (pp. 350–357). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Hellermann, J.
(2008) Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
(1998)  Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27 (3), 291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L.
(2018) Introduction. Analyzing turn-initial particles. In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between turn and sequence. Turn-Initial particles across languages (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R.
(1979) Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–163). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
(1980) Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analysed. Semiotica, 30 (3–4), 245–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishida, M.
(2009) Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study-abroad. In H. thi Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–387). Honolulu: National Foreign Resource Center-University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T.
(2013) Conversation analysis and learning in interaction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1038–1043). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, J.
(2013) Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 492–507). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2018) Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9 (1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence. State of the art and implications for praxis. In S. Salaberry, Rafael M. Kunitz (Ed.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence (pp. 25–59). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E.
(2018) L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39 (4), 555–578.Google Scholar
(2019) On the reflexive relation between developing L2 interactional competence and evolving social relationships: A longitudinal study of word-searches in the ‘wild.’ In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action. The complex ecology of second language acquisition “in the wild” (pp. 51–75). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Eskildsen, S. W.
(2022) Emergent L2 grammars in and for social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. MLJ, 106 (1), 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, M.
(2017) Über die Funktion der Reparaturmarker im Deutschen. In H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen (pp. 259–283). Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1997) Third turn repair. In G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov (pp. 31–40). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Ten operations of self-initiated, same-turn repair. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversation repair and human understanding. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H.
(2009) Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. ROLSI, 42 (2), 91–115.Google Scholar
Schirm, R. S. K.
(2022) L2 discourse markers and the development of interactional competence during study abroad [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of Waterloo.
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., … Uhmann, S.
(2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung, 12 1, 1–51.Google Scholar
Shively, R. L.
(2011) L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. JoP, 43 (6), 1818–1835. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skogmyr Marian, K.
(2023) Longitudinal change in linguistic resources for interaction. The case of tu vois (‘you see’) in L2 French. Interactional Linguistics, 1–35.Google Scholar
Skogmyr Marian, K., & Balaman, U.
(2018) Second language interactional competence and its development: An overview of conversation analytic research on interactional change over time. Linguistics and Language Compass, 12 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L.
(2018) Reformulating prior speaker’s turn in Finnish. Turn-initial siis, eli(kkä), and nii(n) et(tä) . In J. Heritage & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages (pp. 251–286). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J., Pekarek Doehler, S., & González-Martínez, E.
(2018) Longitudinal research on the organization of social interaction: Current developments and methodological challenges. In S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Wagner, & E. González-Martínez (Eds.), Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction (pp. 3–35). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar