Chapter published in:
Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Jürgen Streeck
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 293] 2018
► pp. 3168


Auer, Peter
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text and Talk 25 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
2015 “The Temporality of Language in Interaction: Projection and Latency.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner, 27–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brooks, Rechele, and Andrew N. Meltzoff
2014 “Gaze Following: A Mechanism for Building Social Connections between Infants and Adults.” In Mechanisms of Social Connection: From Brain to Group, ed. by Mikulincer, Mario, and Phillip R. Shave, 167–183. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl
2011[1934]. Theory of Language. The Representational Function of Language. Translated by D. F. Goodwin in collaboration with A. Eschbach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
2011 “A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 translated and adapted for English.” Gesprächsforschung – Onlinezeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12, 1–51. Retrieved from www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de.Google Scholar
Dausenschön-Gay, Ulrich, and Ulrich Krafft
2009 “Preparing Next Actions in Routine Activities.” Discourse Processes 46: 247–268.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2015 “When Recipient Design Fails: Egocentric Turn-Design of Instructions in Driving Lessons Leading to Breakdowns of Intersubjectivity.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 16: 63–101.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner
(eds) 2015Temporality in Interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Reinhold Schmitt
2007 “Koordination. zur Begründung eines neuen Forschungsgegenstandes.” In Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, ed. by Schmitt, Reinhold, 15–54. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Daniele Gazin
2014 “Instructional Sequences in Driving Lessons: Mobile Participants and the Temporal and Sequential Organization of Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 63–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duchowski, Andrew T.
2003Eye Tracking Methodology. Theory and Practice. Berlin: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1997Lectures on Deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1963Behavior in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1980 “Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of a State of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 272–302.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “Professional Vision.” American Anthropologist 96 (3): 606–633.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Pointing as Situated Practice.” In Pointing. Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet, ed. by Kita, Sotaro, 217–241. NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2007 “Interactive Footing.” In Reporting Talk. Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Holt, Elizabeth, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin
1987 “Concurrent Operations on Talk. Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1 (1): 1–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H.
2006 “Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences.” Text and Talk 26: 513–541.Google Scholar
Hausendorf, Heiko
2003 “Deixis and Speech Situation Revisited. The Mechanism of Perceived Perception.” In Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person, ed. by Lenz, Friedrich, 249–269. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Christian
1986Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2013 “Here in Time and Space: Decomposing Movement in Dance Instruction.” In Interaction and Mobility. Language and the Body in Motion, ed. by Haddington, Pentti, Mondada, Lorenza, and Maurice Nevile, 345–370. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1990Conducting Interaction. Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004Gesture. Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kita, Sotaro
(ed) 2003Pointing. Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Land, Michael F.
2006 “Eye Movement and the Control of Actions in Everyday Life.” Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 25: 296–324.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2013 “Action Ascription and Formation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Wiley: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindwall, Oskar, and Anna Ekström
2012 “Instruction-in-Interaction: The Teaching and Learning of a Manual Skill.” Human Studies 35: 27–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, Oskar, Lymer, Gustav, and Christian Greiffenhagen
2015 “The Sequential Analysis of Instruction.” In The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction, ed. by Markee, Numa 142–157. Oxford: Wiley and Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meyer, Christian, Streeck, Jürgen, and Scott Jordan
eds to appear Intercorporeality. Emerging Socialities in Interaction Oxford Oxford University Press
Mondada, Lorenza
2009 “The Embodied and Negotiated Production of Assessments in Instructed Actions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4): 329–361.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 137–156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Multimodal Completions.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner, 267–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rauniomaa, Mira, and Tiina Keisanen
2012 “Two multimodal formats for responding to requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 44, 829–842.Google Scholar
Rossano, Federico
2012Gaze Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Series.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1972 “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Speaking, ed. by Gumperz, John J., and Dell Hymes, 329–345. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1984 “Notes on Methodology.” In Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Atkinson, John M., and John C. Heritage, 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70 (6): 1075–1095.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “In Another Context.” In Rethinking Context. Language as an Interpretative Phenomenon, ed. by Goodwin, Charles, and Alessandro Duranti, 191–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks
1973 “Opening Up Closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret
et al. (2009) “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Onlinezeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10, 353–402. Retrieved from www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
2010 “A Scalar View of Response Relevance.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1), 49–54.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen
1988 “The Significance of Gesture: How it is Established.” IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 2(1-2), 60–83.Google Scholar
1993 “Gesture as Communication I: Its Coordination with Gaze and Speech.” Communication Monographs 60 (4): 275–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 “On Projection.” In Social Intelligence and Interaction. Expressions and Implications of Social Bias in Human Intelligence, ed. by Goody, Esther N., 87–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Grammars, Words, and Embodied Meanings: On the Uses and Evolution of So and Like.” Journal of Communication 52 (3): 581–596.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Geste und verstreichende Zeit: Innehalten und Bedeutungswandel der “bietenden Hand.” In Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion, ed. by Hausendorf, Heiko, 157–180. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2009Gesturecraft. The Manu-Facture of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, and Ulrike Hartge
1992 “Previews: Gestures at the Transition Place.” In The Contextualization of Language, ed. by Auer, Peter, and Aldo Di Luzio, 135–158. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja
2008 ““Wo ist der Hauptschmerz?” – Zeigen am eigenen Körper in der medizinischen Kommunikation.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 9: 1–33.Google Scholar
2009 “Referenz durch Zeigen: Zur Theorie der Deixis.” Deutsche Sprache 37: 289–315.Google Scholar
2010 “Überlegungen zu einem multimodalen Verständnis der gesprochenen Sprache am Beispiel deiktischer Verwendungsweisen des Ausdrucks so.” InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 47 (http://​www​.inlist​.uni​-bayreuth​.de​/issues​/47​/index​.htm).
2014a “Take the Words out of My Mouth: Verbal Instructions as Embodied Practices.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 80–102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b “Pointing to an ‘Empty’ Space: Deixis am Phantasma in Face-to-Face Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 74: 70–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015aDeixis in der face-to-face-Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015b “pi mal Daumen. Über eine kontextreiche Unschärferelation beim Zeigen.” In Sprache im Gebrauch: räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional, ed. by Bergmann, Pia, Birkner, Gilles, Peter, Spiekermann, Helmut, and Tobias Streck, 343–360. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
2016 “Deiktische Praktiken: Zwischen Interaktion und Grammatik.” In Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken. Jahrburch 2015 des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache, ed. by Deppermann, Arnulf, Feilke, Helmut, and Angelika Linke, 81–126. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2017 “Intercorporeal Phantasms: Kinesthetic Alignment with Imagined Bodies in Self-Defense Trainings.” In: Intercorporeality. Emerging Socialities in Interaction, ed. by Meyer, Christian, Streeck, Jürgen, and Scott Jordan, 237–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
in press. “Mobile Dual Eye-Tracking in Face-to-Face Interaction: The Case of Deixis and Joint Attention.” In Eye Tracking in Interaction. Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue ed. by Brône, Geert, and Bent Oben Amsterdam John Benjamins
Stukenbrock, Anja, and Karin Birkner
2012 “Multimodale Ressourcen bei Stadtführungen.” In Deutschland als fremde Kultur: Vermittlungsverfahren in Touristenführungen, ed. by Costa, Marcella, and Bernd Müller-Jacquier, 214–243. München: Judicium.Google Scholar
Svensson, Marcus S., Luff, Paul, and Christian Heath
2009 “Embedding Instruction in Practice: Contingency and Collaboration during Surgical Training.” Sociology of Health and Illness 31 (6): 889–906.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Dimitrova, Nevena
2020. The Role of Common Ground on Object Use in Shaping the Function of Infants’ Social Gaze. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo
Stukenbrock, Anja
2020. Deixis, Meta-Perceptive Gaze Practices, and the Interactional Achievement of Joint Attention. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo
Stukenbrock, Anja & Anh Nhi Dao
2019.  In Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings,  pp. 177 ff. Crossref logo
Tschacher, Wolfgang & Hermann Haken
2019.  In The Process of Psychotherapy,  pp. 153 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 january 2021. 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.