Displaying Recipiency

Reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction

| Hunan University
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027201867 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027266576 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This book is intended to address students, researchers and teachers of spoken language. It presents an empirical study of task-oriented language data in which coparticipants display levels of recipiency through reactive tokens. An in-depth investigation of displaying recipiency is of interest primarily to conversation analysts and pragmaticians involved in the research on talk-in-interaction in general and Mandarin Chinese conversations in particular. The communicative aspect makes this book relevant to the areas of language use. While previous research has shown that one single reactive token has different discourse functions in different conversational environments, this study shows that participants’ collaborative orientation to each other’s status of displayed recipiency seems decisive for the selection of reactive tokens, rather than one specific reactive token being employed for specific conversational purposes in varying interactional contexts. This book also contributes to fields in linguistics, pragmatics, and sociology which specialize in the investigation of spontaneous human communication.
[Studies in Chinese Language and Discourse, 6]  2016.  xvii, 198 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.6
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
ix–x
Abbreviations
xi–xii
List of tables
xiii–xiv
List of figures
xv–xvi
List of graphics
xvii–xviii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–6
Chapter 2. Reactive tokens in English and Mandarin conversation
7–30
Chapter 3. Data and approach
31–56
Chapter 4. A sequential analysis of reactive tokens in Mandarin
57–116
Chapter 5. Displaying levels of recipiency through reactive tokens
117–144
Chapter 6. Selection of reactive tokens in information mismatch sequences
145–172
Chapter 7. Conclusion
173–180
References
181–190
Appendix
191–194
List of Names
195–196
List of Subjetcs
197–198
“The contributions of this book are multifaceted. Its theorizations of reactive tokens and recipiency are inspiring to conversation analysts. Its qualitative, context-based approach to reactive tokens provides a necessary complement to the popular quantitative approach. The explorations into the forms and functions of Mandarin reactive tokens and the factors conditioning their use contribute to Chinese conversation studies, and the similarity shown between Mandarin and English reactive tokens is also a contribution to comparative linguistics and intercultural communication studies. The highlight of the recipient’s role in conversation provides a good complement to speaker-oriented conversation analysis studies and provides insights into the interactional nature of human language.”
References

References

Allen, Donald E. and Guy, Rebecca F.
1974 Conversation Analysis: The Sociology of Talk. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Allwood, Jens, Nivre, Jaakim and Ahlsen, Elisabeth
1993 “On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback.” Journal of Semantics 9: 1-26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Anne H., Bader, Miles, Bard, Ellen Gurman, Boyle, Elizabeth, Doherty, Gwyneth, Garrod, Simon, Isard, Stephen, Kowtko, Jacqueline, McAllister, Jan, Sotillo, Catherine, Thompson, Henry and Weinert, Regina
1991 “The HCRC map task corpus.” Language and Speech 34: 351-366.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Maxwell
1984 “Public speaking and audience responses: Some techniques for inviting applause.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 370-409. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Maxwell and Heritage, John
(eds.) 1984 Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beach, Wayne
1991 “Searching for universal features of conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 24, 351-368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ ‘Okay’ usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 19, 325-352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biq, Yung-O.
2004 “From collocation to idiomatic expression: The grammaticalization of hao phrase/constructions in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of Chinese Language and Computing 14: 73-95.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul and Weenink, David
2006 Praat: Doing phonetics by computer.Google Scholar
Bryman, Alan
2001 Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfgang
1988 Supportive Fellow-speakers and Cooperative Conversations: Discourse Topics and Topical Actions, Participant Roles and ‘Recipientaction’ in a Particular Type of Everyday Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caspers, Johanneke
2003 “Local speech melody as a limiting factor in the turn-taking system in Dutch.” Journal of Phonetics 31: 251-276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hui Ching
2001 “Harmony as performance: The turbulence under Chinese interpersonal communication.” Discourse Studies 3: 155-179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren
1930 “A system of tone letters.” La maître phonétique 45: 24-27.Google Scholar
1968 A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Chiou-mei and Lee, Shih-wen
1998 “The conversation use of reactive tokens in Taiwanese.” Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Humanity and Social Science 43(2): 37-55.Google Scholar
Chen, Yiya and He, Agnes Weiyun
2001 “Dui bu dui as a pragmatic marker: Evidence from Chinese classroom discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1441-1465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chui, Kawai
2002 “Ritualization in evolving pragmatic functions: A case study of DUI.” Language and Linguistics 3.4: 645-663.Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia, Thompson, Sandra, Suzuki, Ryoko and Tao, Hongyin
1996 “The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 355-387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
1986 Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Sex Differences in Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2003 Men talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Condon, Sherri
1986 “The discourse functions of OK.” Semiotica 60: 73-101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2009 “A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’.” In Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions. M. Haakana, M. Laakso & J. Lindstrom (eds.), 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
2012 “Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions.” In Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. J.P. De Ruiter (ed.), 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan
1986 Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
David, Brazil
1985 The Communicative Value of Intonation. Birmingham: English Language Research.Google Scholar
Deng, Xudong
2008 “The use of listener responses in Mandarin Chinese and Australian English conversations.” Pragmatics 18(2): 303-328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, Félix, Antaki, Charles and Collins, Alan F.
1996 “Using completion to formulate a statement collectively.” Journal of Pragmatics 26, 525-542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dittman, Allen. T. and Llewellyn, Lynn. G.
1967 “The phonemic clause as a unit of speech decoding.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6: 341-349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
1998 “Complaints about transgressions and misconduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(3): 295–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, Kent and Hopper, Robert
1993 “Back channels revisited: Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipiency.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 157-177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. Du, Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna and Paolino, Danae
1993 “Outline of discourse transcription.” In Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research, Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert (eds.), 45-89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan
2002 “Legal institutions, nonspeaking recipiency and participants’ orientations.” Discourse and Society 13: 731-747. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Jane
1980 The Duet as a Conversational Process. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Fellegy, Anne-Marie
1995 “Patterns and functions of minimal response.” American Speech 70: 186-199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William. A.
1997 Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fong, Mary
2000 “ ‘Luck Talk’ in celebrating the Chinese New Year.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 219-237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foot, Hugh C.
1997 “Humor and laughter.” In The Handbook of Conversation Skills (2nd edn.) C.D. CO. Hargie (ed.), 259-288. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia. E. and Thompson, Sandra A.
1996 “Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns.” In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 134-184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Charles
1952 The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod
1998 “Between speaking and listening: The vocalizations of understanding.” Applied Linguistics 19: 204-224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Acknowledging strong ties between utterances in talk: Connections through Right as a response token.” Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society .
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 “Practical sociological reasoning: Some features of the work of the Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Centre.” In Essays in Self-destruction, Edwin S. Schneidman (ed). New York: International Science Press.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1992 From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left Dislocation in English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, Phillip
2003 Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, Phillip and Holt, Elezabeth
2013 “An Introduction.” In Studies of Laughter in Interaction, Glenn, Phillip and Holt, Elezabeth, 1-22. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Goffman, Eving
1961 Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1963 Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
1978 “Response cries.” Language 54: 787-815. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1980 “Restarts, pauses and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn beginning.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 272-302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1984 “Notes on story structure and the organization of participation.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 225-246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1986 “Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments.” Human Studies 9: 205-217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities.” Discourse and Society 18: 53-73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles and Heritage, John
1990 “Conversation analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 283-307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grivičić, Tamara and Nilep, Chad
2004 “When phonation matters: The use and function of yeah and creaky voice.” Colorado Research in Linguistics 17: 1-11.Google Scholar
Guo, Jiansheng
1999 “From information to emotion: The affective function of right-dislocation in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1103-1128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret
2005 “Introduction.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting (eds.), 1-14. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael
1967 Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ten Have, Paul
1990 “Methodological issues in conversation analysis.” Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique 27: 23-51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto
2000 Practices in Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Colorado: University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2004 “Shared syntax: The grammar of co-constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1315-1336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 “A change-of-state token: Aspects of its sequential placement.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 299-345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987 “Ethnomethodology.” In Social Theory Today, Anthony Giddens and Jonathan Turner (eds.), 224-272. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1988 “Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective.” In Analyzing Lay Explanation: A Case Book of Methods, Charles Antaki (ed), 127-144. London: Sage.Google Scholar
1990 “Intention, meaning and strategy: Observations on constraints on interaction analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 24: 311-332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998a “Harold Garfinkel.” In Key Sociological Thinkers, Rob Stones (ed), 175-188. London: Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998b “Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry.” Language in Society 27: 291-334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 “Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects.” In Aspects of Oral Communication, Uta M. Quasthoff (ed.), 391-418. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement.” In The Language of turn and sequence, Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 196–224. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson Sanra A.
1980 “Transitivity in grammar and discourse.” Language 56: 251-299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Rebecca
1996 English in Speech and Writing: Investigating Language and Literature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2002 Teaching and Researching Speaking. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian and Wooffitt, Robin
1998 Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practice and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
2008 Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi
1997 “The Northridge earthquake conversations: The floor structure and the ‘loop’ sequence in Japanese conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 661-693. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1974 “A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation.” Semiotica 9: 56-59.Google Scholar
1972 “Side sequences.” In Studies in Social Interaction, David Sudnow (ed.), 294-338. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
1978 “Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, Jim Schenkein (ed.), 219-248. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979 “A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed), 79-96. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
1984a “Notes on a systematic deployment of acknowledgement tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mm hm’.” Papers in Linguistics 17: 197-216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984b “On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 346-369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1985 “An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue, Teun A. Van Dijk (ed.), 25-34. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1987 “On exposed and embedded correction in conversation.” In Talk and Social Organization, Graham Button and John Lee (eds.), 86-100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1988 “On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation.” Social Problems 35: 418-442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 1-30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, Sacks, Harvey and Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1987 “Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy.” In Talk and Social Organization, Graham Button and John R.E. Lee (eds.), 152-205. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
2003 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A description of its interactional functions, wiht a focus on I think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1967 “Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction.” Acta Psychological 26: 22-63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Friederike
2007 “Prosody as a resource in children’s game explanations: Some aspects of turn construction and recipiency.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 111-133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyu-hyun
1999 “Phrasal unit boundaries and organization of turns and sequences in Korean conversation.” Human Studies 22: 425-446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Dawn and Adolphs, Svenja
2008 “Multi-modal corpus pragmatics: The case of active listenership.” In Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente, Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed), 175-190. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kurhila, Salia
2005 “Different orientations to grammar correctness.” In Analyzing Conversation Analysis, Keith Richards and Paul Seedhouse (eds.), 143-158. New York: Palgrave Macmilan.Google Scholar
2006 Second Language Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1989 “Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 53(2): 167–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 “On the syntax of sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society 20: 441-458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “Responsive list construction.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13: 20-33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 “Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities.” Discourse Processes 19: 111-131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation:” Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 238-276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004a “On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 151-184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b “Collaborative turn sequences.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, Gene H. Lerner (ed), 225-256. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. and Takagi, Tomoyo
1999 “On the placement of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 49-75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1997 “Language and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1): 98–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A.
1981 Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Han Zao
2006 “Backchannel responses as misleading feedback in intercultural discourse.” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 35: 99-116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Wendan
2000 “The pragmatic function of numeral-classifiers in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1113-1133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Local, John
1996 “Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk.” In Prosody in Conversation, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting (eds.), 177-230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luke, Kang Kwong and Zhang, Wei
2007 “Retrospective turn constructions in Mandarin Chinese conversation.” Pragmatics 17: 605-635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ma, Ringo
1996 “Saying ‘yes’ for ‘no’ and ‘no’ for ‘yes’: A Chinese rule.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 257-266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. and Clayman, Steven. E.
2003 “Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis.” In The Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, Larry T. Reynolds and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney (eds.), 173-202. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira PressGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. and Schaeffer, Nora Cate
1997 “Keeping the gate: Declinations of the request to participate in a telephone survey interview.” Sociological Methods and Research 26: 34-79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael
2002 “Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal response tokens in everyday conversation.” In Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation, Randi Reppen, Susan M. Fitzmaurice and Douglas Biber (eds.), 49-71. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Talking back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation.” Research on Language in Social Interaction 36: 33-63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael and Slade, Diana
2007 “Extending our understanding of spoken discourse.” In International Handbook of English Language Teaching, Christine Davison and Jim Cummins (eds.), 859-873. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, Graham and White, R.S.
1990 “Introduction.” In Reception and Response: Hearer Creativity and the Analysis of Spoken and Written Texts, Graham McGregor and R. White (eds.), 1-7. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn
1984 “On the use of okay in service encounters.” In Language in Use, John Baugh and Joel Sherzer (eds.), 139-147. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Mott, Helen and Petrie, Helen
1995 “Workplace in interactions: Women's linguistic behavior.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14: 324-336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulac, Anthony, Erlandson, Karen, Farrar, W. Jeffery, Hallet, Jennifer, Molloy, Jennifer and Prescott, Margret
1998 “ ‘Uh-huh. What’s that all about?’: Differing interpretations of conversational backchannels and questions as sources of miscommunication across gender boundaries.” Communication Research 25: 641-668. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Frank-Ernst
1996 “Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency.” In Prosody in Conversation, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting (eds.), 131-176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal R.
2000 Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in Everyday Talk. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O'Keefe, Anne and Adolphs, Svenja
2007 “Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics:” Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. In Variational Pragmatics, Klaus P. Schneider and Anne Barron (eds.), 69-98. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O'Keefe, Anne, McCarthy, Michael and Carter, Ronald
2007 From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Thompson, Sandra A.
1996 “Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse.” In Discourse Processing: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Eduard H. Hovy and Donia R. Scott (eds.), 67-96. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Oreström, Bengt
1983 Turn-taking in English Conversation. Lund: Liber Förllag.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi
1997 “Reliability and validity in research based on transcripts.” In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, David Silverman (ed), 201-220. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge
1980 The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. The Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute Technology.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth Lee
1967 Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. Mouton: The Hague. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984a “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 57-101. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1984b “Pursuing a response.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 152-163. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1988 “Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy.” Communication Monographs 55: 360-373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. and Heritage, John
2013 Preference. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya (eds.), 210-228. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Psathas, George
1991 “The structure of direction-giving in interaction.” In Talk and Social Structure, Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman (eds.), 196-216. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1995 Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-interaction. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rapley, Tim
2007 Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Keith
2005 “Introduction.” In Analyzing Conversation Analysis, Keith Richards and Paul Seedhouse (eds.), 1-15. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Roach, Peter
1983 English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roger, Derek, Bull, Peter and Smith, Sally
1988 “The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7: 27-34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roger, Derek and Nesshoever, Willfried
1987 “Individual differences in dyadic conversation strategies: A further study.” British Journal of Social Psychology 26: 247-255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna
2013 “Emotion, Affect and Conversation”. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya (eds.), 330-349. Oxford: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1984 “Notes on methodology.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), 2-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987 “On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.” In Graham Button and John Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organization 54-69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1992 Lectures on Conversation Volume 1 and 2. (ed) by Gail Jefferson. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail
1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50: 696-735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropologist 70: 1075-1095. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1972 “Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, David Sudnow (ed), 75-119. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
1982 “Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, Deborah Tannen (ed), 71-93. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1988 “Discourse as an interactional achievement II: An exercise in conversation analysis.” In Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding: Lectures from the 1985 LSA/TESOL and NEH Institutes, Deborah Tannen (ed.), 135–158. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
1989 “Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction.” In Interaction in Human Development, Marc H. Bornstein and Jerome S. Bruner (eds.), 139-153. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1996a “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 52-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b “Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology 102: 161-216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Sacks, Harvey
1973 “Opening up closings.” Semiotics 7: 289-327.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Sacks, Harvey & Jefferson, Gail
1977 “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 53: 361–382.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979 Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, Paul
2004 The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2005 “Conversation analysis as research methodology.” In Analyzing Conversation Analysis, Keith Richards and Paul Seedhouse (eds.), 251-266. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Selting, Margaret
2000 “The construction of units in conversational talk.” Language in Society 29: 477-517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Syntax and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in conversation.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting (eds.), 17-44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margaret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
(eds.) 2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics: Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Xiao-nan Susan
1990 The Prosody of Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010 Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverman, David
1998 Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Starkey, Jr. Duncan and Niederehe, George
1974 “On signaling that it’s your turn to speak.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23: 283-292.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya., and Rossano, Federico
2010 “Mobilizing response”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 (1), 3–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan
2004 “Other-repetition as a display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance.” Discourse Studies 6: 489-516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szczepek, Beatrice
2000a “Formal aspects of collaborative productions in English conversation.” InLiSt—Interaction and Linguistic Structures 17.Google Scholar
2000b “Functional aspects of collaborative productions in English conversation.” InLiSt—Interaction and Linguistic Structures 21.Google Scholar
Szczepek-Reed, Beatrice
2006 Prosodic Orientation in English Conversation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko
2004 “Prosody for making transition-relevance places in Japanese conversation: The case of turns unmarked by utterance-final objects.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford (eds.), 63-96. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1987 “Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk.” Language 63 (3): 574-605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin
1996 Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse and Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “The grammar of demonstratives in Mandarin conversational discourse: A case study.” Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27: 69-103.Google Scholar
2003 “Turn initiators in spoken English: A corpus-based approach to interaction and grammar.” In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, Pepi Leistyna and Charles F. Meyer (eds.), 187-207. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin and Thompson, Sandra A.
1991 “English backchannels in Mandarin conversations: A case study of superstratum pragmatic ‘interference’.” Journal of Pragmatics 16: 209-233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, Alene Kiku
2004 “Pre-announcement sequences in conversation.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, Gene H. Lerner (ed.), 171-223. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel
1991 “Conversational style in British and American English: The case of backchannels.” In English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg (eds.), 254-271. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tseng, Shu-chuan
2001 “Highlighting utterances in Chinese spoken discourse.” Paper presented at the 15 Pacific Asia Conference on Language , Information and Computation. Hong Kong.
Wang, Yufang
2002 “The preferred information sequences of adverbial linking in Mandarin Chinese discourse.” Text 22: 141-172.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Nigel and Tsukahara, Wataru
2000 “Prosodic features which cue back-channel responses in English and Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1177-1207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Martin
2006 Features of Naturalness in Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue and Kitzinger, Celia
2006 “Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69: 150-182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Dale E.
1999 Personal Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina
2002 “Discourse-pragmatic principles for temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese conversation.” Studies in Language 26: 513-541. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Jun
2008 The Prosody of Interrogatives at Transition-relevance Places in Mandarin Chinese Conversation. Nottingham: The University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
2012 Linguistic resourses in Mandarin Chinese conversations [hanyu huihua yuyan celue]. Changsha: Hunan University PressGoogle Scholar
2014 “Displaying status of recipiency through reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction”. Journal of Pragmatics, 74: 33-51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yngve, Victor
1970 “On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth regional meeting.” Chicago Linguistic Society , 567-577. Chicago.
Zhang, Wei
1998 Repair in Chinese Conversation. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Dexi
1982 Yufa jiangyi ‘Lectures on Chinese Grammar’. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Zhu, Hua, Li, Wei and Qian, Yuan
2000 “The sequential organization of gift offering and acceptance in Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 81-103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Don and West, Candace
1975 “Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation.” In Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley (eds.), 105-129. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Gipper, Sonja
2020. Repeating responses as a conversational affordance for linguistic transmission. Studies in Language 44:2 ► pp. 281 ff. Crossref logo
Yeh, Meng
2018. Active listenership: Developing beginners’ interactional competence . Chinese as a Second Language Research 7:1 ► pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 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.

Subjects & Metadata

Linguistics

Discourse studies
Pragmatics
Sino-Tibetan languages
BIC Subject: CF/2GDCM – Linguistics/Mandarin
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2016025742 | Marc record