OKAY across Languages

Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction

Editors
| University of Waterloo
| Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache
| University of Basel
| University of Helsinki
HardboundForthcoming
ISBN 9789027208156 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-BookOrdering information
ISBN 9789027260284 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
OKAY has been termed a ‘spectacular expression’ and ‘America’s greatest invention.’ This volume offers an in-depth empirical study of the uses that have resulted from its global spread. Focusing on actions and interactional practices, it investigates OKAY in a variety of settings in 13 languages. The collected work showcases the importance of a holistic analysis: Prosodic realization and the placement of OKAY in its larger sequential and multimodal context emerge as constitutive for distinct uses in individual languages. An inductive approach makes it possible to identify practices not previously documented, for example OKAY used for ‘qualified acceptance’ or as a ‘continuer’, and to document a core of recurrent, similar uses across languages. This work also outlines new research directions for comparative analysis by offering first insights into the diachronic development of OKAY’s uses and the relationship of OKAY to other particles in specific languages.
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34]  Expected March 2021.  vii, 425 pp. + index
Publishing status: In production
Table of Contents
This is a provisional table of contents, and subject to changes.
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1. Introduction: OKAY emerging as a cross-linguistic object of study in prior research
Emma Betz and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
Chapter 2. Data and methods used in the study of OKAY across languages
Arnulf Deppermann and Lorenza Mondada
Generic sequential uses of OKAY across languages
Chapter 3. OKAY in responding and claiming understanding
Emma Betz and Arnulf Deppermann
Chapter 4. OKAY in closings and transitions
Lorenza Mondada and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
OKAY in specific languages
Chapter 5. The prosody and phonetics of OKAY in American English
Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
Chapter 6. Rising OKAY in third position in Danish talk-in-interaction
Søren Sandager Sørensen and Jakob Steensig
Chapter 7. OKAY as a response to informings in Finnish
Aino Koivisto and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
Chapter 8. When OKAY is repeated: Closing the talk so far in Korean and Japanese conversations
Satomi Kuroshima, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, Kaoru Hayano, Mary Shin Kim and Seung-Hee Lee
OKAY in specific activities and settings
Chapter 9. OKAY in health helpline calls in Brazil: Managing alignment and progressivity
Ana Cristina Ostermann and Katariina Harjunpää
Chapter 10. A resource for action transition: OKAY and its embodied and material habitat
Elwys De Stefani and Lorenza Mondada
Chapter 11. OKAY projecting embodied compliance to directives
Leelo Keevallik and Matylda Weidner
Chapter 12. Coordination of OKAY, nods, and gaze in claiming understanding and closing topics
Henrike Helmer, Emma Betz and Arnulf Deppermann
Appendix. Transcription conventions and glossing symbols
Bibliography
References

Bibliography

Adegbija, Efurosibina, and Janet Bello
2001 “The Semantics of ‘Okay’ (OK) in Nigerian English.” World Englishes 20 (1): 89–98.Google Scholar
Ainsworth-Vaughn, Nancy
1992 “Topic Transitions in Physician-Patient Interviews: Power, Gender, and Discourse Change.” Language in Society 21: 409–426.Google Scholar
Al-Khalil, Talal
2005 “Discourse Markers in Syrian Arabic: A Study of Halla’, Ya’ni, Tayyeb, and Lakan .” PhD diss., Essex University, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Al Makoshi, Manal A.
2014 “Discourse Markers and Code-Switching: Academic Medical Lectures in Saudi Arabia Using English as the Medium of Instruction.” PhD diss., Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Anderson, Richard J., John A. Hughes, and Wes Sharrock
1989Working for Profit: The Social Organisation of Calculation in an Entrepreneurial Firm. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, and Mark Rapley
2000 “ ‘Brilliant. Next Question…’: High-Grade Assessment Sequences in the Completion of Interactional Units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (3): 235–262.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Alexandra Kent
2012 “Telling People What to Do (and, Sometimes, Why): Contingency, Entitlement and Explanation in Staff Requests to Adults with Intellectual Impairments.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (6–7): 876–889.Google Scholar
Argyle, Michael, and Mark Cook
1976Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka
2006 “Social Functions of Location in Mobile Telephony”. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 1 (5): 319–323.Google Scholar
2010 “On Comparative Methodology in Studies of Social Interaction.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso and Jan Lindström, 48–69. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Maxwell J.
1984 “Public Speaking and Audience Responses: Some Techniques for Inviting Applause.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Maxwell J. Atkinson, and John Heritage, 346–369. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Maxwell J., and John Heritage
1984 “Aspects of Responses.” Introduction to the section. In Structures of Social Action, ed. by Maxwell J. Atkinson, and John Heritage, 297–298. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter
1990 “Rhythm in Telephone Closings.” Human Studies 13 (4): 361–392.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Yael Maschler
(eds) 2016NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: De Gryuter.Google Scholar
Ayash, Maha Ghaleb
2016Pragmaticalization of Discourse Markers in Lebanese Conversational Arabic. Master’s thesis, American University of Beirut.Google Scholar
Baker, Caroly, Michael Emmison, and Alan Firth
(eds) 2005Calling for Help: Language and Social Interaction in Telephone Helplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bangerter, Adrian, and Herbert H. Clark
2003 “Navigating Joint Projects with Dialogue.” Cognitive Science 27 (2): 195–223.Google Scholar
Bangerter, Adrian, Herbert H. Clark, and Anna R. Katz
2004 “Navigating Joint Projects in Telephone Conversation.” Discourse Processes 37 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Bańko, Mirosław
2008, January 4. “Re: Chwila! [Little Moment!]” (Online discussion group). Accessed 2019, May 7. https://​sjp​.pwn​.pl​/poradnia​/haslo​/Chwila;8820​.html
Barske, Tobias
2006 “Co-Constructing Social Roles in German Business Meetings: A Conversation Analytic Study.” PhD diss., German Applied Linguistics, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
2009 “Same Token, Different Actions: A Conversation Analytic Study of Social Roles, Embodied Actions, and ok in German Business Meetings.” Special issue, Journal for Business Communication 46 (1): 120–149.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
2002 “Weil die Hälfte eben erst die Hälfte ist – zur prosodischen Gestaltung als Projektionsmittel bei konzessiven Konstruktionen im Englischen [Because half is simply only half – prosodic make-up as means of projecting in concessive constructions in English].” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 37: 77–105.Google Scholar
2009 “Contrasting and Turn Transition: Prosodic Projection with Parallel-Opposition Constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (11): 2271–2294.Google Scholar
2011a “Double Sayings of German JA – More Observations on Their Prosodic-Phonetic Make-up and Alignment Function.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (2): 157–185.Google Scholar
2011b “Response Tokens in Interaction – Prosody, Phonetics and a Visual Aspect of German JAJA.” Gesprächsforschung 12: 301–370.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Arnulf Deppermann
2020 “Konstruktionsgrammatik und Prosodie: OH in englischer Alltagsinteraktion [Construction Grammar and prosody: OH in English conversation].” In Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik, ed. by Wolfgang Imo, and Jens Lanwer, 35–73. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory, and Margaret Mead
1951Bathing Babies in Three Cultures. Film.Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard
1975 “Verbal Art as Performance.” American Anthropologist 77 (2): 290–311.Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson
2002 “Listener Responses as a Collaborative Process: The Role of Gaze.” Journal of Communication 52 (3): 566–580.Google Scholar
Beach, Wayne A.
1990a “Language as and in Technology: Facilitating Topic Organization in a Videotex Focus Group Meeting.” In Communication and the Culture of Technology, ed. by Martin J. Medhurst, Alberto Gonzalez, and Tarla Ray Peterson, 197–220. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press.Google Scholar
1990b “Orienting to the Phenomenon.” In Communication Yearbook 13, ed. by James A. Anderson, 216–244. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
1993 “Transitional Regularities for ’Casual’ ”Okay” Usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 19 (4): 325–352.Google Scholar
1995a “Conversation Analysis: ‘Okay’ as a Clue for Understanding Consequentiality.” In The Consequentiality of Communication, ed. by Stuart J. Sigman, 121–161. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1995b “Preserving and Constraining Options: ”Okays” and ’Official’ Priorities in Medical Interviews.” In The Talk of the Clinic: Explorations in the Analysis of Medical and Therapeutic Discourse, ed. by G. H. Morris, and Ronald J. Chenail, 259–289. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2018 “Incongruous ‘Okays’.” Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA), Loughborough, UK.
Benjamin, Trevor
2013 “Signaling Trouble: On the Linguistic Design of Other-Initiation of Repair in English Conversation.” PhD diss., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Best, Katie, and Jon Hindmarsh
2019 “Embodied Spatial Practices and Everyday Organization: The Work of Tour Guides and Their Audiences.” Human Relations 72 (2): 248–271.Google Scholar
Betz, Emma
2015 “Recipient Design in Reference Choice: Negotiating Knowledge, Access, and Sequential Trajectories.” Gesprächsforschung 16: 137–173.Google Scholar
Betz, Emma, and Andrea Golato
2008 “Remembering Relevant Information and Withholding Relevant Next Actions: The German Token Achja .” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 58–98.Google Scholar
Betz, Emma, Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Veronika Drake, and Andrea Golato
2013 “Third-Position Repeats in German: The Case of Repair- and Request-for-Information Sequences.” Gesprächsforschung 14: 133–166.Google Scholar
Bertils, Klara
2016 “Amning, kunskap och självbestämmande: Språkliga och interaktionella perspektiv på amningsrådgivning [Breastfeeding, Knowledge and Empowerment: A Conversation Analytic Study of a Breastfeeding Helpline].” Master’s thesis, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University. http://​www​.diva​-portal​.org​/smash​/get​/diva2:935650​/FULLTEXT01​.pdf
Bickel, Balthasar, Bernard Comrie, and Martin Haspelmath
2008 “The Leipzig glossing rules. Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses.” https://​www​.eva​.mpg​.de​/lingua​/resources​/glossing​-rules​.php
Birkner, Karin
2001Bewerbungsgespräche mit Ost- und Westdeutschen: Eine kommunikative Gattung in Zeiten gesellschaftlichen Wandels [Job interviews with East and West Germans: A communicative genre in times of societal change]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane Hause, and Gabriele Kasper
(eds) 1989Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain
1984 “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 196–213.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans
1889 “On Alternating Sounds.” American Anthropologist 2 (1): 47–54.Google Scholar
Boden, Deidre
1994The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink
2018 “Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program].” http://​www​.praat​.org/
Bolden, Galina 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.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina
2008 “’So What’s Up?’: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (3): 302–337.Google Scholar
2009 “Implementing Incipient Actions: The Discourse Marker ‘So’ in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (5): 974–998.Google Scholar
2017 “Opening up Closings in Russian.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Tnteraction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner, and John Heritage, 231–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight Le Merton
1957Interrogative Structures of American English: The Direct Question. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Bowker, David
2012 “ Okay? Yeah? Right?: Negotiating Understanding and Agreement in Master’s Supervision Meetings with International Students.” PhD diss., Stirling School of Education, University of Stirling.Google Scholar
Broderick, Julie E., and John P. Broderick
2003 “Okay as a Discourse Marker in the Speech of Bilingual Elementary School Teachers in New York City.” In Actas I del VIII Simposio Internacionale de Comunicación Social. Santiago, Chile: Centro de Linguistica Applicada.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Steven C. Levinson
1978Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruxelles, Sylvie, Luca Greco, and Lorenza Mondada
2009 “Pratiques de transition: ressources multimodales pour la structuration de l’activité [Practices of transition: multimodal resources for structuring the activity].” In Méthodologies d’analyse de situations coopératives de conception: Corpus Mosaic, ed. by Françoise Détienne, and Véronique Traverso, 221–302. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
Button, Graham
1987 “Moving out of Closings.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 101–151. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1990 “On Varieties of Closings.” In Interaction Competence, ed. by George Psathas, 93–148. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Cassidy, Frederic G.
1981 “OK-is it African?American Speech 56 (4): 269–273.Google Scholar
Cekaite, Asta
2007 “A Child’s Development of Interactional Competence in a Swedish L2 Classroom.” The Modern Language Journal 91 (1): 45–62.Google Scholar
Chaudron, Craig, and Richards, Jack C.
1986 “The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Comprehension of Lectures.” Applied Linguistics 7 (2): 113–127.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Susan Brennan
1991 “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 222–233. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Clark White, Anne Elizabeth
2019 “Authority and Camaraderie: The Delivery of Directives Amongst the Ice Floes.” Language in Society (FirstView).Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., Marc N. Elliott, John Heritage, and Laurie L. McDonald
2006 “Historical Trends in Questioning Presidents, 1953–2000.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36 (4): 561–583.Google Scholar
Clifft, Rebecca
2016Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Condon, Sharon L.
1986 “The Discourse Functions of OK.” Semiotica 60 (1–2): 73–101.Google Scholar
2001 “Discourse OK Revisited: Default Organization in Verbal Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (4): 491–513.Google Scholar
Condon, Sharon L., and Claude G. Cech
2007 “OK, Next One: Discourse Markers of Common Ground.” In Lexical Markers of Common Ground, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Kerstin Fischer, 17–45. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2001 “Interactional Prosody: High Onsets in Reason-for-the-Call Turns.” Language in Society 30 (1): 29–53.Google Scholar
2004a “Prosodische Stilisierungen im Gespräch [Prosodic stylizations in conversation].” In Zwischen Literatur und Anthropologie: Diskurse, Medien, Performanzen, ed. by Aleida Assmann, Ulrich Gaier, and Gisela Trommsdorff, 315–337. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2004b “Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation: The Case of New Beginnings.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2009 “A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of ‘Disappointment’.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
2012a “Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories.” In Emotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 113–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012b “Some Truths and Untruths about Final Intonation in Conversational Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 123–45. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2014 “Prosody as Dialogic Interaction.” In Prosodie und Phonetik in der Interaktion. Prosody and Phonetics in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, and Beatrice Szczepek Reed, 221–251. Radolfzell: Verlag Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
2019a “American English OKAY Over Time: Challenge and Chance for Interactional Linguistics.” Paper presented at the 9th annual meeting of the Language and Social Interaction Working Group (LANSI), New York.
2019b “Comparing Language Use in Social Interaction.” In Studies in Comparative Pragmatics, ed. by Hartmut E. H. Lenk, Juhani Härmä, Begoña Sanromán Vilas, and Elina Suomela-Härmä, 3–18. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki
2015 “Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 7–24.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson
2000 “Concessive Patterns in Conversation.” In Cause, Condition, Concession, and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2003Typology and Universals, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan
1997Intonation, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2): 129–153.Google Scholar
Davidson, Judy
1984 “Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 102–128. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1990 “Modifications of Invitations, Offers, and Rejections.” In Interaction Competence, ed. by George Psathas, 149–179. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
DeCarlo, Doug, Matthew Stone, Corey Revilla, and Jennifer J. Venditti
2004 “Specifying and Animating Facial Signals for Discourse in Embodied Conversational Agents.” Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 15 (1): 27–38.Google Scholar
Del Corona, Marcia, and Ana Cristina Ostermann
2012 “Formulação de lugar, intersubjetividade e categorias de pertença em chamadas de emergência para o 190 [Place formulation, intersubjectivity, and membership categorization in calls to a Brazilian police emergency service helpline].” Veredas 16 (1): 112–119.Google Scholar
Den Danske Ordbog (DDO) [The Danish Dictionary]
. n.d. s.v. okay. Accessed June 16, 2018. https://​ordnet​.dk​/ddo​/ordbog​?query​=okay
Deppermann, Arnulf
2001Gespräche analysieren [Analyzing Conversations]. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
2015 “Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 57–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Elwys De Stefani
2019 “Defining in Talk-in-Interaction: Recipient-Design through Negative Definitional Components.” Journal of Pragmatics 140: 140–155.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Henrike Helmer
2013 “Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann [On the grammar of understanding in conversation: Displaying inferences and formulating next actions with the connectives also and dann ].” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32 (1): 1–40.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Jürgen Streeck
2018 “The Body in Interaction: Its Multiple Modalities and Temporalities.” In Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Jürgen Streeck, 1–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, Reinhold Schmitt, and Lorenza Mondada
2010 “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (6): 1700–1718.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys
2011‘Ah petta ecco, io prendo questi che mi piacciono’. Agire come coppia al supermercato: Un approccio conversazionale e multimodale allo studio dei processi decisionali [‘Oh wait, I take these coz I like them’. Doing being a couple in supermarkets: A conversational and multimodal approach to the study of decision making]. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar
2013 “The Collaborative Organisation of Next Actions in a Semiotically Rich Environment: Shopping as a Couple.” In Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion, ed. by. Pentti Haddington, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 123–151. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2018 “Institutional Invitations to a Meeting: Cold Calls to Bank Clients.” Journal of Pragmatics 125: 180–199.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
2018 “Mundane Talk at Work: Multiactivity in Interactions between Professionals and Their Clientele.” Discourse Studies 20 (2): 221–245.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Lorenza Mondada
2017 “Who’s the Expert? Negotiating Competence and Authority in Guided Tours.” In Identity Struggles: Evidence from Workplaces Around the World, ed. by Dorien Van De Mieroop, and Stephanie Schnurr, 95–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer
2018 “Formats for Other-Initiation of Repair Across Languages: An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Linguistic Typology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, vol. 4, ed. by Irina Nikolaeva, 322–357. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Seán G. Roberts, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Paul Drew, Simeon Floyd, Rosa S. Gisladottir, Kobin H. Kendrick, Stephen C. Levinson, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield
2015 “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.” PLOS ONE 10 (9): e0136100.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Francisco Torreira, and Nick J. Enfield
2013 “Is ‘Huh?’ a Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items.” PLoS One 8 (11): e78273.Google Scholar
Dittmann, Allen T., and Lynn G. Llewellyn
1968 “Relationship between Vocalizations and Head Nods as Listener Responses.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (1): 79–84.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul
1997 “ ‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1): 69–101.Google Scholar
2003 “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings: A Sketch.” In Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper, ed. by Phillip Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron, and Jenny Mandelbaum, 293–308. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2012 “What Drives Sequences?Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 61–68.Google Scholar
2013 “Turn Design.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 131–149. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2014a “Requesting – from Speech Act to Recruitment.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(eds) 2014bRequesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
1992Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dudenredaktion
(ed.) 1954Duden Rechtschreibung mit Berücksichtigung der häufigsten Fremdwörter [Duden Spelling (Dictionary), Reflecting the most Frequent Foreign Words]. 14th ed., first Duden West (Germany) edition. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut AG.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro
1988 “Intentions, Language, and Social Action in a Samoan Context. Journal of Pragmatics 12 (1): 13–33.Google Scholar
1997Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Efron, David
1941Gesture and Environment. New York: King’s Crown Press.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus
1979 “Human Ethology: Concepts and Implications for the Sciences of Man.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (1): 1–57.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Katie, Joanne McDermott, Claire Moynihan, Lucy Brindle, Paul Little, and Geraldine M. Leydon
2014 “The Role of Cancer Helplines in Cancer Care: Intertwining Emotional Support with Information or Advice-Seeking Needs.” Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 32 (3): 359–381.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.
2011 “Sources of Asymmetry in Human Interaction: Enchrony, Status, Knowledge and Agency.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 285–312. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Tanya Stivers
(eds) 2007Person Reference in Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Katariina Harjunpää, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann et al.
2018 “Polar answers.” Journal of Linguistics 55 (2): 277–304.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Tanya Stivers, Stephen C. Levinson
2010 “Question–Response Sequences in Conversation Across Ten Languages: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2615–2619.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan
1976 “ ‘Is Sybil There?’ The Structure of Some American English Directives.” Language in Society 5 (1): 25–67.Google Scholar
European Union (EU)
2016 “Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).” Accessed June 17, 2018. http://​data​.europa​.eu​/eli​/reg​/2016​/679​/oj​/eng
Fagan, Drew S.
2012 “ Okay as a Multifunctional Resource for Giving Feedback in Classrooms.” Language & Information Society 16: 9–41.Google Scholar
Filipi, Anna, and Roger Wales
2003 “Differential Uses of Okay, Right, and Alright, and Their Function in Signaling Perspective Shift or Maintenance in a Map Task.” Semiotica 147: 429–455.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2006 “Frames, Constructions and Invariant Meanings. The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 427–447. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, Nydia
2014 “So pues entonces: An Examination of Bilingual Discourse Markers in Spanish Oral Narratives of Personal Experience of New York City-Born Puerto Ricans.” Sociolinguistic Studies 8 (1): 57–83.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and N. J. Enfield
. In press. Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.
Ford, Cecilia E.
2008Women Speaking Up: Getting and Using Turns in Workplace Meetings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Barbara A. Fox
2010 “Multiple Practices for Constructing Laughables.” In Prosody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 339–368. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Sandra A. Thompson
1996 “Interactional Units in Conversation. Syntactic, Interactional, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 134–184. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsberg, Julia, and Åsa Abelin
2018 “Intonation and Levels of Agreement in Interactions between Swedish Adolescents.” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 55–59. Poznań, Poland. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara
2014 “On the Notion of Pre-Requests.” Discourse Studies 17 (1): 43–61.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi, and Robert Jasperson
1996 “Resources and Repair: A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Syntactic Organization of Repair.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 185–237. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Sandra A. Thompson
2010 “Responses to Wh-Questions in English Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (2): 133–156.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Fay Wouk, Makoto Hayashi, Steven Fincke, Liang Tao, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Minna Laakso, and Wilfridio Flores Hernandez
2009 “A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of the Site of Initiation in Same-Turn Self-Repair.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 60–103. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frake, Charles O.
1964 “How to Ask for a Drink in Subanun.” American Anthropologist 66 (6, pt. 2): 127–132.Google Scholar
Fung, Loretta, and Ronals Carter
2007 “Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Native and Learner Use in Pedagogic Settings.” Applied Linguistics 28 (3): 185–208.Google Scholar
Gaines, Philip
2011 “The Multifunctionality of Discourse Operator Okay: Evidence from a Police Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14): 3291–3315.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod
1997 “The Listener and Minimal Responses in Conversational Interaction.” Prospect 12 (2): 12–32.Google Scholar
1998 “Between Speaking and Listening: The Vocalisation of Understanding.” Applied Linguistics 19 (2): 204–24.Google Scholar
2001 “When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance.” Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2007 “The Right Connections: Acknowledging Epistemic Progression in Talk.” Language in Society 36 (3): 319–341.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
2002Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1974Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
[1976] 1981 “Replies and Responses.” In Forms of Talk, by Erving Goffman, 5–77. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Citations refer to the University of Pennsylvania version. Previously published in Language in Society 5 (3): 257–313 1976.
Golato, Andrea
2010 “Marking Understanding Versus Receipting Information in Talk: Achso. and Ach in German Interaction.” Discourse Studies 12 (2): 147–176.Google Scholar
2012 “Impersonal Quotatives and Hypothetical Discourse.” In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea, and Emma Betz
2008 “German Ach and Achso in Repair Uptake: Resources to Sustain or Remove Epistemic Asymmetry.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27 (1): 7–37.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea, and Zsuzsanna Fagyal
2008 “Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token Ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (3): 241–270.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.Google Scholar
1981Conversational Organization. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
1986 “Between and Within: Alternative Sequential Treatments of Continuers and Assessments.” Human Studies 9 (2–3): 205–217.Google Scholar
2000 “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522.Google Scholar
2017Co-operative Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
1990He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2006 “Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences.” Text & Talk 26 (4–5): 515–543.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Charles Goodwin
1986 “Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word.” Semiotica 62 (1–2): 51–75.Google Scholar
Gravano, Agustín, Štefan Beňuš, Julia Hirschberg, Shira Mitchell, and Ilia Vovsha
2007 “Classification of Discourse Functions of Affirmative Words in Spoken Dialogue.” In Proceedings of Interspeech 2007, 1613–1616. Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
Gravano, Agustín, Julia Hirschberg, and Štefan Beňuš
2012 “Affirmative Cue Words in Task-Oriented Dialogue.” Computational Linguistics 38 (1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Greco, Frank A., and Mary Degges
1975 “The Etymology of OK Again.” American Speech 50 (3/4): 333–335.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1963Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J.
1977 “The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding.” Technical Note 151, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
1982 “Discourse Analysis.” In Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains, ed. by Richard Kittredge, and John Lehrberger, 138–174. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J.
1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2016 “Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter Zuwendung [Practices of Increased Dialogism: Onymic Forms of Address as Gestures of Personified Other-Orientation].” ZGL 44 (3): 406–436.Google Scholar
Guthrie, Anna M.
1997On the Systematic Deployment of Okay and Mmhmm in Academic Advising Sessions. Pragmatics 7: 397–415.Google Scholar
Haddington, Pentti
2006 “The Organization of Gaze and Assessments as Resources for Stance Taking.” Text & Talk 26 (3): 281–328.Google Scholar
Hadar, Uri, Timothy Steiner, and Frank Clifford Rose
1985 “Head Movement during Listening Turns in Conversation.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 9 (4): 214–228.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1980 “The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation.” Language 56 (3): 515–540.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2012 “Being Equivocal: Affective Responses Left Unspecified.” In Emotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 147–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Edward T.
1966The Hidden Dimension. Garden City NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Hamann, Magnus
2018Memory in Interaction: A Case Study of Memory, Engagement and Interaction after Traumatic Brain Injury. PhD diss., Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Handke, Kwiryna
2011 “Polszczyzna codzienna geneza i czynniki stabilizujące [The language of everyday Polish communication: Genesis and the control factors].” In Rozprawy Komisji Językowej, Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe LVII, 57–67. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Harren, Inga, and Mia Raitaniemi
2008 “The Sequential Structure of Closings in Private German Phone Calls.” Gesprächsforschung 9: 198–223.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2010 “Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies.” Language 86 (3): 663–687.Google Scholar
Have, Paul ten
1998Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Fumiko
1954Meshi [Meals]. Tokyo: Shincho-sha.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, and Kyung-eun Yoon
2009 “Negotiating Boundaries in Talk.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 250–278. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Christian, and Lorenza Mondada
2019 “Transparency and Embodied Action: Turn Organisation and Fairness in Complex Institutional Environments.” Social Psychology Quarterly 82 (3): 274–302.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine
2005 “Where Grammar and Interaction Meet: The Preference for Matched Polarity in Responsive Turns in Danish.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2006 “ ‘Will You or Can’t You?’ Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (7): 1081–1104.Google Scholar
2009 “Two Answers to Inapposite Inquiries.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “The Question-Response System in Danish.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2703–2725.Google Scholar
2016a “From ‘Looking’ to ‘Seeing’: Indexing Delayed Intelligibility of an Object with the Danish Change-of-State Token n↑å↓: .” Journal of Pragmatics 104: 108–132.Google Scholar
2016b “Registering Revision: The Reduplicated Danish Change-of-state Token .” Discourse Studies 18 (1): 44–63.Google Scholar
2017a “Receipting Answers That Are Counter to Expectations: The Polar Question-Answer- Sequence in Danish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50 (3): 249–267.Google Scholar
2017b “Transitioning Between Activities with the Danish Change-of-State Token .” Journal of Pragmatics 118: 1–21.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, and Aino Koivisto
2016a “Indicating a Change-of-State in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Explorations.” Editorial, Journal of Pragmatics 104: 83–88.Google Scholar
(eds) 2016b “Indicating a Change-of-State in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Explorations.” Special section, Journal of Pragmatics 104: 83–210.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig
2017 “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction”. In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Liisa Raevaara, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 139–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heisler, Troy
1996 “OK – a Dynamic Marker in Montréal French.” In Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory, and Analysis, ed. by Jennifer Arnold, Renée Blake, Brad Davidson, Scott Schwenter, and Julie Solomon, 293–312. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hellermann, John
2005 “Syntactic and Prosodic Practices for Cohesion in Series of Three-Part Sequences in Classroom Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (1): 105–130.Google Scholar
Helmer, Henrike, and Jörg Zinken
2019 “ Das Heißt (‘That Means’) for Formulations and Du Meinst (‘You Mean’) for Repair? Interpretations of Prior Speakers’ Turns in German.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (2): 159–176.Google Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit
2000 “Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara 3. Partiklid [Introduction to spoken Estonian IV. Special vocabulary 3. Particles].” Akadeemia 8: 1773–1806.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden
2013 “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2017Transcribing for Social Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Jonathan Potter
2011 “Threats: Power, Family Mealtimes and Social Influence.” British Journal of Social Psychology 50 (1): 99–120.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
1984a “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1984bGarfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1985 “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Teun van Dijk, 95–119. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1998 “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27 (3): 291–334.Google Scholar
2002 “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox and Sandra Thompson, 196–224. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006 “Cognition in Discourse.” In Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig Te Molder, and Jonathan Potter, 184–202. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Conversation Analysis: Practices and Methods.” In Qualitative Sociology, 3rd ed., ed. by David Silverman, 208–230. London: Sage.Google Scholar
2011 “Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction.” In Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 159–183. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012a “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 30–52.Google Scholar
2012b “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29.Google Scholar
2013 “Epistemics in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 370–394. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2015 “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 89–104.Google Scholar
2018a “Turn-Initial Particles in English: The Cases of Oh and Well .” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 155–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2018b “The Ubiquity of Epistemics: Action Rebuttal to the ‘Epistemics of Epistemics’ Group.” Discourse Studies 20 (1): 14–56.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman
2010Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiesence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, John, and Andrew Roth
1995 “Grammar and Institution: Questions and Questioning in the Broadcast News Interview.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28: 1–60.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi
1992 “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions Between Health Visitors and First Time Mothers.” In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 359–419. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
1994 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities Across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society 23 (1): 1–29.Google Scholar
(eds) 2018Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and D. Rod Watson
1979 “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Hockey, Beth Ann
1993 “Prosody and the Role of Okay and Uh-Huh in Discourse.” In ESCOL ’92: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Michael Bernstein, 128–136. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Honeman, Diane E.
1995 “Simultaneous Functions of the Discourse Marker Ok in Daytime Television Talk Shows.” PhD diss., Indiana University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hotten, John Camden
(ed.) 1864The Slang Dictionary; or, The Vulgar Words, Street Phrases, and “Fast” Expressions of High and Low Society: Many with their Etymology, and a Few with their History Traced. London: John Camden Hotten, Piccadilly.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1874The Slang Dictionary: Etymological, Historical, and Anecdotal. London: Chatto and Windus Publishers.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
2013 “Developing Pragmatic Competence in English as a Lingua Franca: Using Discourse Markers to Express (Inter)subjectivity and Connectivity.” Journal of Pragmatics 59 (Part A): 57–67.Google Scholar
Huddlestone, Kate, and Melanie Fairhurst
2013 “The Pragmatic Markers anyway, okay, and shame: A South African English Corpus Study.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 42: 93–110.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von
1836Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Trans. by Hans Aarsleff as On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 1988).Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt
1998Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell
1972 “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life.” The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, 270–320. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2009 “Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (‘change-of-state-tokens’) im Deutschen [Construction or function? Change-of-state-tokens in German].” In Grammatik im Gespräch, ed. by Susanne Günthner, and Jörg Bücker, 57–86. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jacknis, Ira
1988 “Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali: Their Use of Photography and Film.” Cultural Anthropology 3 (2): 160–177.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 219–248. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1980 “On ‘Trouble-Premonitory’ Response to Inquiry.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 153–185.Google Scholar
1981aThe Abominable ‘Ne?’: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response. Occasional Paper No. 6, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
1981b “Caveat Speaker: A Preliminary Exploration of Shift Implicative Recipiency in the Articulation of Topic.” Final report to the British Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
[1983a] 1993 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 16 (l): l–30. Previously published in Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 30 1983.Google Scholar
[1983b] 1984 “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mm Hm’.” Paper in Linguistics 17 (2): 197–216. Previously published in Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 30 1983.Google Scholar
1984a “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” In Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, ed. by Valentina D’Urso, 11–38. Padua: Cleup.Google Scholar
1984b “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned Matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1984c “On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 346–369. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1988 “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles Talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems 35 (4): 418–442.Google Scholar
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, and John R. E. Lee
1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics 5 (5): 399–422.Google Scholar
Jensen, N. M.
1987 “Topic Management in Doctor-Patient Conversations: An Exploratory Analysis of the Use of the Speech Particle ‘OK’.” Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Johansson, Maria
2016 “Positive assessments as resources for affiliation and learning during handicraft meetings.” Master’s thesis, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Johnson, Sharon E.
2016 “Book Clubs in the ESL Classroom: A Microinteractional Analysis of Literacy Development in Adult ESL Students.” Master’s thesis, Department of English, University of Alaska Fairbanks.Google Scholar
Jones, Charlotte M.
2001 “Missing Assessments: Lay and Professional Orientations in Medical Interviews.” Text 21 (1–2): 113–150.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Julia
2011 “Okay in ärztlichen Gesprächen – eine linguistische Gesprächsanalyse [Okay in doctor-patient conversations – a linguistic conversation analysis].” Master’s thesis, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Karlina, Yeni
2015 “The Little Words that Matter: Discourse Markers in Teacher Talk.” Journal Paedagogia 18 (2): 81–89.Google Scholar
Kastari, Anna
2006 “Dialogipartikkelien aha(a) ja ai jaa tehtävistä keskustelussa [Usages of the dialogue particles aha(a) and ai jaa in conversation].” Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kato, Michio
2001Nijusseeki no kotoba no nenpyo [The history of Japanese language in the 20th century]. Tokyo: Tokyodo Shuppan.Google Scholar
Kaukomaa, Timo, Anssi Peräkylä, and Johanna Ruusuvuori
2015 “How Listeners Use Facial Expression to Shift the Emotional Stance of the Speaker’s Utterance.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (3): 319–341.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2003 “Terminally Rising Pitch Contours of Response Tokens in Estonian.” Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture 5: 49–65.Google Scholar
2006 “Pragmaatiliste partiklite laenutüübid rootsieesti keeles [Types of borrowed pragmatic particles in Swedish Estonian].” In Mitmekeelsus ja keelevahetus läänemeresoome piirkonnas, ed. by Helen Koks, and Jand Rahman, 116–133. Võro: Võro Instituudi toimõndusõq 18.Google Scholar
2010a “Marking Boundaries Between Activities: The Particle nii in Estonian.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (2): 157–182.Google Scholar
2010b “Pro-adverbs of Manner as Markers of Activity Transition.” Studies in Language 34 (2): 350–381.Google Scholar
2010c “Social Action of Syntactic Reduplication.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (3): 800–824.Google Scholar
2012 “Pragmatics of the Estonian Heritage Speakers in Sweden.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 35: 1–22.Google Scholar
2013 “Mundane Reaction Words in Swedish Estonian.” In Keelemees Raimo Raag 60, ed. by T. Söderman, 50–65. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
2017 “Negotiating Deontic Rights in Second Position: Young Adult Daughters’ Imperatively Formatted Responses to Mothers’ Offers in Estonian.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 271–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2018a “Making up One’s Mind in Second Position: Estonian No-preface in Action Plans.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 309–331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2018b “The Temporal Organization of Conversation While Mucking out a Sheep Stable.” In Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Jürgen Streeck, 97–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina, Mirka Rauniomaa, and Pentti Haddington
2014 “Suspending Action: From Simultaneous to Consecutive Ordering of Multiple Courses of Action. In Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 109–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina, Mirka Rauniomaa, and Pauliina Siitonen
2017 “Transitions as Sites of Socialization in Family Interaction Outdoors.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14: 24–37.Google Scholar
Kelly, Ann
2010 “Explicating Literacy Activities at Work: The Use of ‘Okay’ as an Effective Topic-Changing Device in Service Request Calls.” Literacy & Numeracy Studies 18 (1): 19–34.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1967 “Some Functions of Gaze-Direction in Social Interaction.” Acta Psychologica 26: 22–63.Google Scholar
1990Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H.
2010 “Epistemics and Action Formation in Mandarin Chinese.” PhD diss., University of California.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Francisco Torreira
2015 “The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study.” Discourse Processes 52 (4): 255–289.Google Scholar
Kent, Alexandra
2012a “Responding to Directives: What Can Children Do When a Parent Tells Them What to Do?” In Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People, ed. by Maryanne Theobald, and Susan Danby, 57–84. Bingley, England: Emerald Books.Google Scholar
2012b “Compliance, Resistance and Incipient Compliance when Responding to Directives.” Discourse Studies 14 (6): 711–730.Google Scholar
Kessler, Christine
2010 “Okay – Die Bedeutung eines Wortes zwischen Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeit [The meaning of a word between writing and speaking].” In Semantische Unbestimmtheit im Lexikon, ed. by Inge Pohl, 151–166. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.Google Scholar
Kielitoimiston sanakirja [New dictionary of modern Finnish] 2012Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. Accessed May 30, 2018. https://​www​.kielitoimistonsanakirja​.fi​/#​/okei
Kim, Kyu-hyun, and Kyung-Hee Suh
1996 “Dealing with Prior Talk: Discourse Connectives in Korean Conversation.” In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Susan Strauss, 83–99. Stanford, CA: SCLI.Google Scholar
2004 “An Analysis of Korean Sentence-ending Suffixes in Caregiver-child Interaction.” Language Research 40 (4): 923–950.Google Scholar
Knudsen, Anette Dahl
2003 “Prosodi som resurse til at udføre positiv vurderingsaktivitet – Et studie af okay2-respons” [Prosody as a resource for performing positive assessment activities: A study of okay2 responses]. Unpublished. Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik.Google Scholar
2015 “’O(↑)kay(?), ↑Ohkay’ – En Prosodiafhængig ytringspartikel? [“O(↑)kay(?), ↑Ohkay” – A prosody dependent discourse particle?].” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 2 (1). https://​samtalegrammatik​.dk​/tidsskrift​/aargang​-2/
Knutsen, Dominique, Gilles Col, and Ludovic Le Bigot
2018 “An Investigation of the Determinants of Dialogue Navigation in Joint Activities.” Applied Psycholinguistics 39 (6): 1345–1371.Google Scholar
Koiso, Hanae, Yasuharu Den, Yuriko Iseki, Wakako Kashino, Yoshiko Kawabata, Ken’ya Nishikawa, Yayoi Tanaka, and Yasuyuki Usuda
2018 “Construction of the Corpus of Everyday Japanese Conversation: An Interim Report.” Proceedings of the 11th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 4259–4264.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino
2013 “On the Preference for Remembering: Acknowledging an Answer With Finnish Ai Nii(n) (‘Oh That’s Right’)”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 277–297.Google Scholar
2015a “Dealing with Ambiguities in Informings: Finnish Aijaa as a “Neutral” News Receipt.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (4): 365–387.Google Scholar
2015b “Displaying Now-Understanding: The Finnish Change-of-State Token Aa .” Discourse Processes 52 (2): 111–148.Google Scholar
2016 “Receipting Information as Newsworthy vs. Responding to Redirection: Finnish News Particles Aijaa and Aha(a) .” Journal of Pragmatics 104: 163–179.Google Scholar
2019 “Repair Receipts: On their Motivation and Interactional Import.” Discourse Studies 21 (4): 398–420.Google Scholar
Kovarsky, Dana
1989 “On the Occurrence of Okay in Therapy.” Child Language Teaching and Therapy 5 (2): 137–145.Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo
1996 “Syllable and Accent in Japanese: Evidence from Loanword Accentuation.” The Bulletin (Phonetic Society of Japan) 211: 71–82.Google Scholar
2006 “Where Does Loanword Prosody Come From?: A Case Study of Japanese Loanword Accent.” Lingua 116 (7): 1140–1170.Google Scholar
Kunnari, Miia
2011 “Kahdentunut dialogipartikkeli joojoo keskustelussa [The reduplicated dialogue particle joojoo in conversation].” Master’s thesis, Finnish language, University of Helsinki. https://​helda​.helsinki​.fi​/handle​/10138​/37879
Kyratzis, Amy, and Ervin-Tripp, Susan
1999 “The Development of Discourse Markers in Peer Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (10): 1321–1338.Google Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel
1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Laforest, Marty
1992 “Le back-channel en situation d’entrevue sociolinguistique [Backchannels in sociolinguistic interview situations].” PhD diss., Faculté des Lettres, L’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Landmann-Szwarcwald, Celia, and James Macinko
2016 “A Panorama of Health Inequalities in Brazil.” International Journal for Equity in Health 15: 174.Google Scholar
Landqvist, Håkan
2005 “Constructing and Negotiating Advice in Calls to a Poison Information Center.” In Calling for Help: Language and Social Interaction in Telephone Helplines, ed. by Carolyn Baker, Michael Emmison, and Alan Firth, 207–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laurier, Eric
2001 “Why People Say Where They Are During Mobile Phone Calls.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19 (4): 485–504.Google Scholar
Lee, Jong Kuk
1937The New Dictionary of Foreign Words in Modern Korean. Kyungsung: Hansung Publisher.Google Scholar
Lee, Jong-Mi
2017 “The Multifunctional Use of a Discourse Marker Okay by Korean EFL teachers.” Foreign Language Education Research 21: 41–65.Google Scholar
Lee, Mwu Yeong
1932Cichwukul tollinun salamtul [The people who spin Earth on its axis]. Donga Newspaper.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee
2011 “Responding at a Higher Level: Activity Progressivity in Calls for Service.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 904–917.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1982 “Directions for Interlinear Morphemic Translations.” Folia Linguistica 16 (1–4): 199–224.Google Scholar
Leskelä, Satu
1999 “Koripalloharjoitusten kielestä ja vuorovaikutuksesta [On language and interaction in basketball practice].” Master’s thesis, Finnish language, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Levin, Harry, and Deborah Gray
1983 “The Lecturer’s OK .” American Speech 58 (3): 195–200.Google Scholar
Leydon, Geraldine M., Katie Ekberg, Moira Kelly, and Paul Drew
2013 “Improving Ethnic Monitoring for Telephone-Based Healthcare: A Conversation Analytic Study.” BMJ Open 28;3(6): e002676.Google Scholar
Liao, Silvie
2009 “Variation in the Use of Discourse Markers by Chinese Teaching Assistants in the US.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (7): 1313–1328.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna
1997 “Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).Google Scholar
1999 “Language as Social Action. Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation.” PhD diss., Department of Scandinavian languages, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
2017 “Accepting Remote Proposals.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner, and John Heritage, 125–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2018 “Calibrating an Agnostic Epistemic Stance in Swedish Conversation: The Case of Okej-Prefacing in Calls to the Swedish Board for Study Support.” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 339–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Local, John
1996 “Conversational Phonetics: Some Aspects of News Receipts in Everyday Conversation.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 177–230. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Looney, Stephen Daniel, Dingding Jia, and Daisuke Kimura
2017 “Self-Directed Okay in Mathematics Lectures.” Journal of Pragmatics 107: 46–59.Google Scholar
Lopriore, Stefanie, Amanda LeCouteur, Stuart Ekberg, and Katie Ekberg
2017 “Delivering Healthcare at a Distance: Exploring the Organisation of Calls to a Health Helpline.” International Journal of Medical Informatics 104: 45–55.Google Scholar
Lucy, John A.
1997 “Linguistic Relativity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291–312.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
2007 “The Talkbank Project.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Synchronic Database, vol. 1, ed. by Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan, Hermann L. Moisl, 163–180. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, and Johannes Wagner
2010 “Transcribing, Searching and Data Sharing: The CLAN Software and the TalkBank Data Repository.” Gesprächsforschung 11: 154–173.Google Scholar
Malaska, Jonna
2017 “Välitöntä toimintaa vaativat direktiivit teatteriharjoituksissa [Directives requiring immediate action in theatre rehearsals].” Master’s thesis, Finnish language, University of Helsinki. https://​helda​.helsinki​.fi​/handle​/10138​/173502
Mańczak-Wohlfeld, Elżbieta
2006Angielsko-polskie kontakty językowe [English-Polish Language Contacts]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
Margutti, Piera, Liisa Tainio, Paul Drew, and Véronique Traverso
(eds) 2018 “Inviting in Telephone Calls: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Social Actions in Interaction.” Special section, Journal of Pragmatics 125: 52–199.Google Scholar
Martini, Leo F.
2020 “Grammar in Interaction: Polar Interrogative Sequences in Syrian Arabic Talk-in-Interaction.” Doctoral diss., University of Essex.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael
2002 ”The Role of Discourse Markers in the Construction of Multivocality in Israeli Hebrew Talk in Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
1997 “The News Delivery Sequence: Bad News and Good News in Conversational Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (2): 93–130.Google Scholar
2003Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael
2003 “Talking Back. ‘Small’ Interactional Response Tokens in Everyday Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 36 (1): 33–63.Google Scholar
McClave, Evelyn Z.
2000 “Linguistic Functions of Head Movements in the Context of Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (7): 855–878.Google Scholar
Mead, George H.
1934Mind, Self, and Society. Works of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mehan, Hugh
1979Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Christoph
2002Arbeitsbesprechungen: Interaktionsstruktur, Interaktionsdynamik und Konsequenzen einer sozialen Form [Work meetings: Interactional structure, interactional dynamics, and consequences of a social form]. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. http://​www​.verlag​-gespraechsforschung​.de​/2002​/pdf​/arbeitsbesprechungen​.pdf
Meillet, Alphonse
1903Introduction a l’Étude comparative des langues Indo-Européennes [Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages]. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn
1976 “On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters.” Language in Society 5 (3): 315–357.Google Scholar
1978 “On the Use of ‘O.K.’ in Service Encounters.” Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 42: 6–17. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, TX. Reprinted in Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, ed. by John Baugh, and Joel Sherzer 1984, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn W.
1980 “On the Use of OK in Service Encounters.” In Language Use and Uses of Language, ed. by Roger W. Shuy, and Anna Shnukal, 162–172. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Allan
2010OK: The Improbable Story of America’s Greatest Word. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ministério da Saúde
2014Manual das Ouvidorias do SUS. Brasília, DF: Secretaria de Gestão Estratégica e Participativa, Departamento de Ouvidoria-Geral do SUS. bvsms​.saude​.gov​.br​/bvs​/publicacoes​/manual​_ouvidoria​_sus​.pdf
Modaff, Daniel P.
2003 “Body Movement in the Transition from Opening to Task in Doctor-Patient Interviews.” In Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Phillip Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron, and Jenny Mandelbaum, 411–422. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Moerman, Michael
1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in a Tai Conversational Corpus.” Language 53 (4): 872–882.Google Scholar
1988Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversational Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Janus, and Sune Sønderberg Mortensen
2009 “ Okay i engelsk og dansk” [ Okay in English and Danish]. In Dramatikken i grammatikken. Festskrift til Lars Heltoft, ed. by Rita Therkelsen, and Eva Skafte Jensen, 281–304. Roskilde: Institut for Kultur og Identitet, Roskilde Universitet.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2005 “L’analyse de corpus en linguistique interactionnelle: de l’étude de cas singuliers à l’étude de collections [The analysis of corpora in interactional linguistics: From single-case analysis to the study of collections].” In Sémantique et corpus, ed. by Anne Condamines, 97–108. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
2007 “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible Next Speakers.” Discourse Studies 9 (2): 194–225.Google Scholar
2008 “Using Video for a Sequential and Multimodal Analysis of Social Interaction: Videotaping Institutional Telephone Calls.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9 (3), Art. 39. http://​www​.qualitative​-research​.net​/index​.php​/fqs​/article​/view​/1161​/2571
2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552.Google Scholar
2013 “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-Taking in Institutional Multi-party Interactions: The Example of Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 46: 39–68.Google Scholar
2014a “The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 137–156.Google Scholar
2014b “The Temporal Orders of Multiactivity: Operating and Demonstrating in the Surgical Theatre.” In Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 33–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015 “Multimodal Completions.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 267–308. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2016 “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (3): 336–366.Google Scholar
2018a “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1): 85–106.Google Scholar
2018b “Turn-Initial Voilà in Closings in French: Reaffirming Authority and Responsibility over the Sequence. In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 371–411. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2016 “Making Multiple Requests in French and Finnish Convenience Stores.” Language in Society 45 (5): 733–765.Google Scholar
Müller, Cornelia
2004 “Forms and Uses of the Palm Up Open Hand: A Case of a Gesture Family? In The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures, ed. by Cornelia Müller, and Roland Posner, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
Murdoch, Jamie, Rebecca Barnes, Jillian Pooler, Valerie Lattimer, Emily Fletcher, and John L. Campbell
2015 “The Impact of Using Computer Decision-Support Software in Primary Care Nurse-Led Telephone Triage: Interactional Dilemmas and Conversational Consequences.” Social Science & Medicine 126: 36–47.Google Scholar
Näslund, Shirley
2016 “Tacit Tango: The Social Framework of Screen-Focused Silence in Institutional Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics 91: 60–79.Google Scholar
Nattrass, Rhona, Jennifer Watermeyer, Catherine Robson, and Claire Penn
2017 “Local Expertise and Landmarks in Place Reformulations During Emergency Medical Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics 120: 73–87.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice
2004Beyond the Black Box: Talk-in-Interaction in the Airline Cockpit. Ashgate: Aldershot.Google Scholar
2007 “Action in Time: Ensuring Timeliness for Collaborative Work in the Airline Cockpit.” Language in Society 36 (2): 233–257.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard
2001 “Turn Transition, Creak and Glottal Stop in Finnish Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43 (3): 299–320.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard, Auli Hakulinen, and Liisa Tainio
2004 “Indexing ’No News’ with Stylization in Finnish.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia Ford, 299–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young, and Yong-Yae Park
2017 “Interactional Uses of Acknowledgment Tokens: ‘ung’ and ‘e’ as Responses to Multi-Unit Turns in Korean Conversation.” In Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner, and John Heritage, 145–166. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Oloff, Florence
2018 “Emploi du marqueur OK en allemand et en tchèque parlés [Use of the marker OK in spoken German and Czech].” Paper presented at ‘OK’ Workshop, research group Discourse and Cognition, theme ‘OK’ (June 21–22, 2018, Salerno, Italy).
2019 “ Okay as a Neutral Acceptance Token in German Conversation.” Lexique 25: 197–225.Google Scholar
Onysko, Alexander, and Esme Winter-Froemel
2011 “Necessary Loans – Luxury Loans? Exploring the Pragmatic Dimension of Borrowing.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6): 1550–1567.Google Scholar
Ordbog over Dansk Talesprog (ODT) [Dictionary of Spoken Danish]
Ordbog over det danske Sprog [Dictionary of the Danish Language]. n.d. s.v. okay. Accessed June 16, 2018. https://​ordnet​.dk​/ods​/ordbog​?query​=okay
Ostermann, Ana Cristina
2005Gênero, sexualidade e violência: uma investigação sociolinguística interacional de atendimentos à saúde da mulher. Projeto 0000001036. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações.Google Scholar
Othman, Zarina
2010 “The Use of Okay, Right and Yeah in Academic Lectures by Native Speaker Lecturers: Their ‘Anticipated’ and ‘Real’ Meanings.” Discourse Studies 12 (5): 665–681.Google Scholar
Panzini, Alfredo
1931Dizionario moderno [Modern Dictionary], 6th ed. Torino: Hoepli.Google Scholar
Pak, Maria, Richard Sprott, and Elena Escalera
1996 “Little Words, Big Deal: The Development of Discourse and Syntax in Child Language.” In Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, ed. by Dan Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis and Jiansheng Guo, 287–308. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pärnu Postimees
2019 “Ajakirjanikud otse-eetris: kas ’olgu’ või ’okei’? [Journalists in the studio: is it ‘olgu’ (approx. let it be like that) or ‘okay’?]”. March 15 2019 https://​parnu​.postimees​.ee​/6546187​/ajakirjanikud​-otse​-eetris​-kas​-olgu​-voi​-okei
Paunonen, Heikki, and Marjatta Paunonen
2000Tsennaaks stadii, bonjaaks slangii – Stadin slangin suursanakirja [Dictionary of Helsinki slang]. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia
1998 “Greek and German Telephone Closings: Patterns of Confirmation and Agreement.” Pragmatics 8 (1): 79–94.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Henriette Folkmann
2015 “ Jamen som svarindleder efter hv-spørgsmål [ Jamen as a response-initiator after wh-questions].” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 2 (2). https://​samtalegrammatik​.dk​/tidsskrift​/aargang​-2/
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Johannes Wagner, and Esther Gonzalez-Martinez
(eds) 2018Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pekkanen, Niina
2017 “ Okei-dialogipartikkelin käyttötavoista keskustelussa [On usages of the dialogue particle okei in conversation].” Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Persson, Rasmus
2015 “Indexing One’s Own Previous Action as Inadequate: On ah-Prefaced Repeats as Receipt Tokens in French Talk-in-Interaction.” Language in Society 44 (4): 497–524.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, Wolfgang et al.
1993Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen, digitalisierte und von Wolfgang Pfeifer überarbeitete Version im Digitalen Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [Etymological Dictionary of German, Wolfgang Pfeifer’s digitized and revised version in the Digital Dictionary of the German Language], s.v. okay. Accessed November 22, 2019. https://​www​.dwds​.de​/wb​/okay
Pillet-Shore, Danielle
2003 “Doing Okay: On the Multiple Metrics of an Assessment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 36 (3): 285–319.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Livia, and Scha, R. J. H.
1983 “The Syntax of Discourse.” Text 3 (3): 261–270.Google Scholar
Pulkkinen, Paavo
1984Lokarista sponsoriin: Englantilaisia lainoja suomen kielessä [From lokari to sponsori: English loanwords in the Finnish language]. Keuruu: Otava.Google Scholar
Querol-Julián, Mercedes, and Begoña Bellés-Fortuño
2001 “The Use of Pragmatic Discourse Markers And, So, and Okay in Academic Conference Presentations.” Language Forum 36 (1–2): 81–94.Google Scholar
Råman, Joonas
2018 “The Organization of Transitions between Observing and Teaching the Budo Class.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 19 (1): Art. 5.Google Scholar
Rauniomaa, Mirka, and Tiina Keisanen
2012 “Two Multimodal Formats for Responding to Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (6–7): 829–842.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone so in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 185–218.Google Scholar
Read, Allen W.
1963a “The First Stage in the History of ‘O.K.’.” American Speech 38 (1): 5–27.Google Scholar
1963b “The Second Stage in the History of ‘O.K.’.” American Speech 38 (2): 83–102.Google Scholar
Read, Allen Walker
1964a “The Folklore of O.K .” American Speech 39 (1): 5–25.Google Scholar
1964b “Later Stages in the Development of O.K .” American Speech 39 (2): 83–101.Google Scholar
1964c “Successive Revisions in the Explanation of O.K .” American Speech 39 (4): 243–267.Google Scholar
Reichert, Tetyana, and Grit Liebscher
2018 “Transitions with ‘Okay’”. In Conversation Analysis and Language Alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom, ed. by Anna Filipi and Numa Markee, 129–148. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna
2000 “When ‘Okay’ is Okay in Computer Science Seminar Talk.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22 (2): 19–33.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D.
2009 “Managing Counterinformings: An Interactional Practice for Soliciting Information that Facilitates Reconciliation of Speakers’ Incompatible Positions.” Human Communication Research 35 (4): 561–587.Google Scholar
2013 “Overall Structural Organization.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 257–280. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
2014 “What ‘What?’ Tells us About How Conversationalists Manage Intersubjectivity.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 47 (2): 109–129.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., and John Heritage
2005 “The Structure of Patients’ Presenting Concerns: The Completion Relevance of Current Symptoms.” Social Science and Medicine 61 (2): 481–493.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., and Tanya Stivers
2001 “Achieving Activity Transitions in Primary-Care Encounters: From History Taking to Physical Examination.” Human Communication Research 27 (2): 253–298.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, Michelle Z.
1982 “The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy.” Language in Society 11 (2): 203–37.Google Scholar
Rossano, Federico
2012 “Gaze Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction.” PhD diss., Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
2013 “Gaze in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 308–329. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rossano, Frederico, Penelope Brown, and Stephen C. Levinson
2009 “Gaze, Questioning, and Culture.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 187–249. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49 (5): 426–458.Google Scholar
ed In press. “Other-Repetition in Conversation Across Languages: Bringing Prosody into Pragmatic Typology.” Special issue, Language in Society.
Sacks, Harvey
1967 “The Search for Help: No One to Turn To.” In Essays in Self-destruction, ed. by Edwin S. Shneidman, 203–223. New York: Science House.Google Scholar
1992Lectures on Conversation, vols. 1–2, ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
2002 “Home Position.” Gesture 2 (2): 133–146. Originally presented orally at the American Anthropological Association 1975.
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
Samtalegrammatik.dk
Samtalegrammatik.dk
2019a “Nå (stigende kontur) [Oh (rising intonation)].” Accessed May 31, 2019. http://​samtalegrammatik​.dk​/opslag​/artikel​/naa​-stigende​-kontur/
Samtalegrammatik.dk
2019b “Nå (jævn kontur) [Oh (level intonation)].” Accessed May 31, 2019. http://​samtalegrammatik​.dk​/opslag​/artikel​/naa​-jaevn​-kontur/
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70 (6): 1075–1095.Google Scholar
1979 “Identification and Recognition in Telephone Conversation Openings.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodoiogy, ed. by George Psathas, 23–78. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel
1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things that Come between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1984 “On Some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 266–296. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1986 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 9 (2–3): 111–151.Google Scholar
1987 “Some Sources of Misunderstanding in Talk-in-Interaction.” Linguistics 25 (1): 201–218.Google Scholar
1989 “Reflections on Language, Development, and the Interactional Character of Talk-in-Interaction.” In Interaction in Human Development, ed. by Marc H. Bornstein, and Jerome S. Bruner, 139–152. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1990 “On the Organization of Sequence as a Source of ‘Coherence’ in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Conversational Organization and Its Development, ed. by Bruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
1991 “Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 150–171. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1998 “Body Torque.” Social Research 65 (3): 535–596.Google Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2009 “One Perspective on Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 357–406. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner
2009 “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (2): 91–115.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks
1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8 (4): 289–327.Google Scholar
Schleef, Erik
2005 “Navigating Joint Activities in English and German Academic Discourse: Forms, Functions, and Sociolinguistic Distribution of Discourse Markers and Question Tags.” PhD diss., University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Schleef, Eric
2008 “The ‘Lecturer’s OK’ Revisited: Changing Discourse Conventions and the Influence of Academic Division.” American Speech 83 (1): 62–84.Google Scholar
Schubert, Christoph
2019 “ ‘OK, Well, First of All, Let Me Say …’: Discursive Uses of Response Initiators in US Presidential Primary Debates.” Discourse Studies 21 (4): 438–457.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret
1987 “Reparaturen und lokale Verstehensprobleme, oder: Zur Binnenstruktur von Reparatursequenzen. [Repair and local problems in understanding, or: On the internal structure of repair sequences.]” Linguistische Berichte 108, 128–149.Google Scholar
1988 “The Role of Intonation in the Organization of Repair and Problem-Handling Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 12 (3): 293–323.Google Scholar
1996 “Prosody as an Activity-Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The Case of So-Called ‘Astonished’ Questions in Repair Initiation.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selting, Margaret
2016 “Praktiken des Sprechens und Interagierens im Gespräch aus der Sicht von Konversationsanalyse und Interaktionaler Linguistik [Practices of speaking and interacting in conversation from the prespective of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics].” In Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken, Jahrbuch 2015 des IDS, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Helmuth Feilke and Angelika Linke, 27–56. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Selting, Margaret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen et al.
2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2) [Conversation analytic transcription system 2].” Gesprächsforschung 10: 353–402. http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-online​.de​/fileadmin​/dateien​/heft2009​/px​-gat2​.pdf
2011 “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2; Translated and Adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten.” Gesprächsforschung 12: 1–51. http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-online​.de​/fileadmin​/dateien​/heft2011​/px​-gat2​-englisch​.pdf. Translation and adaptation of “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2)” by Margaret Selting et al., Gesprächsforschung 10: 353–402 2009.
Seuren, Lucas M.
2018 “Assessing Answers: Action Ascription in Third Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1): 33–51.Google Scholar
Seuren, Lucas, Mike Huiskes, and Tom Koole
2016 “Remembering and Understanding with Oh-prefaced Yes/No Declaratives in Dutch.” Journal of Pragmatics 104: 180–192.Google Scholar
2018 “Resolving Knowledge Discrepancies in Informing Sequences.” Language in Society 47 (3): 409–434.Google Scholar
Sharp, Harriet
2001English in Spoken Swedish. A Corpus Study of Two Discourse Domains. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis: Stockholm Studies in English XCV.Google Scholar
Shaw, Rebecca, and Celia Kitzinger
2007 “Memory in Interaction: An Analysis of Repeat Calls to a Home Birth Helpline. Research on Language and Social Interaction 40 (1): 117–144.Google Scholar
Shrikant, Natasha, Emma Betz, Mary Clinkenbeard, Emi Morita, Darcey DeSousa (Searles), and William A. Tuccio
2018 “Okay as a Second-Position Preface for Multi-unit Turns in English.” Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA), Loughborough, UK.
Sidnell, Jack
2009 “Comparative Perspectives in Conversation Analysis.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 3–28. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Conversation Analysis: An Introduction.” Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2013 “Basic Conversation Analytic Methods.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 77–99. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2014 “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited.” In Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, Paul Kockelman, and Jack Sidnell, 364–399. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2016 “A Conversation Analytic Approach to Research on Early Childhood”. In SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Research, ed. by Ann Farrell, Sharon Lynn Kagan, and E. Kay, M. Tisdall, 255–276. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and N. J. Enfield
2012 “Language Diversity and Social Action: A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity.” Current Anthropology 53 (3): 302–333.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John M., and Malcolm Coulthard
1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2002 “Recipient Activities: The Particle “no” as a Go-Ahead Response in Finnish Conversations.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 165–195. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2017 “Imperatives and Responsiveness: Turn Designs with vaan in Finnish.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Liisa Raevaara, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 241–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2018 “Reformulating Prior Speaker’s Turn in Finnish: Turn-Initial siis, eli(kkä) and nii(n) et(tä) .” In Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 251–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds) 2017Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Birte Asmuß
2005 “Notes on Disaligning ‘Yes But’-Initiated Utterances in Danish and German Conversations: Two Construction Types for Dispreferred Responses.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 349–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Paul Drew
(eds) 2008 “Questioning and Affiliation/Disaffiliation in Interaction.” Special issue, Discourse Studies 10 (1).Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Trine Heinemann
2013 “When ‘Yes’ Is Not Enough – as an Answer to a Yes/No Question.” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed, and Geoffrey Raymond, 207–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita
1994An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2014Teenage Talk: From General Characteristics to the Use of Pragmatic Markers in a Contrastive Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures 52.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2004 “’No no no’ and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction.” Human Communication Research 30 (2): 260–293.Google Scholar
2006 “Treatment Decisions: Negotiations Between Doctors and Parents in Acute Care Encounters.” In Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. by John Heritage, and Doug W. Maynard, 279–312. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007Prescribing under Pressure. Parent-Physician Conversations and Antibiotics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (5): 31–57.Google Scholar
2010 “An Overview of the Question-Response System in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2772–2781.Google Scholar
2018 “How We Manage Social Relationships Through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections.” Discourse Processes 56 (3): 191–209.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and N. J. Enfield
2010 “A Coding Scheme for Question–Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10): 2620–2626.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann et al.
2009 “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (26), 10587–10592.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and John Heritage
2001 “Breaking the Sequential Mold: Answering ‘More Than the Question’ during Comprehensive History Taking. Text 21 (1–2): 151–185.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, John Heritage, Rebecca K. Barnes, Rose McCabe, Laura Thompson, and Merran Toerien
2017 “Treatment Recommendations as Actions.” Health Communication 33 (11): 1335–1344.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey Robinson
2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35 (3): 367–392.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
2010 “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1): 3–31.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Jack Sidnell, and Clara Bergen
2018 “Children’s Responses to Questions in Peer Interaction: A Window into the Ontogenesis of Interactional Competence.” Journal of Pragmatics 124: 14–30.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen
2008 “Gesture in Political Communication. A Case Study of the Democratic Presidential Candidates during the 2004 Primary Campaign.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 154–186.Google Scholar
Svennevig, Jan
2004 “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse Studies 6 (4): 589–516.Google Scholar
2018 “Decomposing Turns to Enhance Understanding by L2 Speakers. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (4): 398–416.Google Scholar
Svensk ordbok (NE’s ordbok) [Dictionary of Swedish]
Svinhufvud, Kimmo
2016 “Nodding and Note-Taking. Multimodal Analysis of Writing and Nodding in Student Counseling Interaction.” Language and Dialogue 6 (1): 81–109.Google Scholar
Swales, John M., and Bonnie Malczewski
2001 “Discourse Management and New-Episode Flags in MICASE.” In Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium, ed. by Rita C. Simpson, and John M. Swales, 145–164. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Szatrowski, Polly
2000 “Relation between Gaze, Head Nodding and aizuti ‘Back Channel’ at a Japanese Company Meeting.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 26: 283–294.Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice
2006Prosodic Orientation in English Conversation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
2011Analyzing Conversation: An Introduction to Prosody. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Talkbank
2018 “SamtaleBank.” Accessed June 16, 2018. https://​samtalebank​.talkbank​.org/
Tekin, Burak S.
2019 “Bodies at Play: Exploring Participation, Spectatorship, and Morality in Videogaming Activities.” PhD diss., University of Basel.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Kimberley
1999Functional Variation of Okay/Alright Usage in Spoken Discourse. MA Special Project. UNSW, Sydney.Google Scholar
Turner, Roy
1972 “Some Formal Properties of Therapy Talk.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 367–396. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Tyagunova, Tanya, and Christian Greiffenhagen
2017 “Closing Seminars and Lectures: The Work That Lecturers and Students Do.” Discourse Studies 19 (3): 314–340.Google Scholar
Urbaani Sanakirja [Urban dictionary]. Accessed August 9, 2018. https://​urbaanisanakirja​.com/
van Zyl, Marianne, and Johan J. Hanekom
2013 “When ‘Okay’ is not Okay: Acoustic Characteristics of Single-Word Prosody Conveying Reluctance.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133 (1): EL13.Google Scholar
Vepsäläinen, Heidi
2019 ”Suomen no-partikkeli ja kysymyksiin vastaaminen keskustelussa [The Finnish particle no and answering questions].” PhD diss., University of Helsinki. http://​urn​.fi​/URN:ISBN:978​-952​-10​-7309​-0
Verby, J. E.
1991 “OK is Sometimes Not Ok.” Learning Resources Journal/University of Minnesota Health Sciences.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria
1993 “Finnish Juuri and Just: Varieties of Contextual Uniqueness.” In Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland 6, ed. by Maria Vilkuna, and Susanna Shore, 97–122.Google Scholar
Wait, William Bell
1941 “Richardson’s ‘O. K.’ of 1815.” American Speech 16 (2): 85–86, 136.Google Scholar
Walker, Gareth
2017 “Visual Representations of Acoustic Data: A Survey and Suggestions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50 (4): 363–387.Google Scholar
Wang, Yu-Fang, Pi-Hua Tsai, David Goodman, and Meng-Ying Lin
2010 “Agreement, Acknowledgment, and Alignment: The Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Hao and Dui in Taiwan Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Studies 12 (2): 241–267.Google Scholar
Waring, Hansun J.
2008 “Using Explicit Positive Assessment in the Language Classroom: IRF, Feedback, and Learning Opportunities.” The Modern Language Journal 92 (4): 577–594.Google Scholar
Waris, Tuula
2006 “ Just keskustelussa [ Just in conversation].” Master’s thesis, Finnish language, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Weidner, Matylda
2016The particle no in Polish talk-in-interaction. In NU / NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Yael Maschler, and Peter Auer, 104–131. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weilenmann, Alexandra
2003 “’I Can’t Talk Now, I’m in a Fitting Room’: Formulating Availability and Location in Mobile-Phone Conversations.” Environment and Planning A 35 (9): 1589–1605.Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, Ann, and Andrew F. Siegel
2003 “Keeping the Floor in Multiparty Conversations: Intonation, Syntax, and Pause.” Discourse Processes 36 (2): 77–107.Google Scholar
Werlen, Iwar
1984Ritual und Sprache. Zum Verhältnis von Sprechen und Handeln in Ritualen [Ritual and language. On the relationship of language and action in rituals]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Werth, Alexander
2016 “Artikel bei Rufnamen [Articles used with first names].” In SyHD-atlas. Accessed February 2, 2019. http://​www​.syhd​.info​/apps​/atlas​/#artikel​-bei​-rufnamen
Whitehead, Kevin A.
2011 “Some Uses of Head Nods in “Third Position” in Talk-in-Interaction.” Gesture 11 (2): 103–122.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin
1956Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. by John B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
2003Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Woods, Catherine J., Paul Drew, and Geraldine M. Leydon
2015 “Closing Calls to a Cancer Helpline: Expressions of Caller Satisfaction.” Patient Education and Counseling 98 (8): 943–953.Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J.
1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1981 “Two Request Forms for Four Year Olds.” Journal of Pragmatics 5 (6): 511–523.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO)
Wright, Melissa
2011 “The Phonetics–Interaction Interface in the Initiation of Closings in Everyday English Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (4): 1080–1099.Google Scholar
Xian, Li-Xia
2007 “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Marker Hao .” Journal of Xichang College 19 (3): 1–5.Google Scholar
Yeh, Kanyu, and Chiung-chih Huang
2016 “Mandarin-Speaking Children’s Use of the Discourse Markers Hao ‘Okay’ and Dui ‘Right’ in Peer Interaction. Language Sciences 57: 1–20.Google Scholar
Yngve, Victor
1970 “On Getting a Word in Edgewise.” In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 567–577. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H.
1992 “The Interactional Organization of Calls for Emergency Assistance.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 418–469. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg
2016Requesting Responsibility. The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Arnulf Deppermann
2017 “A Cline of Visible Commitment in the Situated Design of Imperative Turns. Evidence from German and Polish.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 27–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics