Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 4972
References (44)
References
Auer, Peter. 1996. “The Pre-front Field in Spoken German and Its Relevance as a Grammaticalization Position.” Pragmatics 6, 3: 295–322.Google Scholar
. 2009. “On-line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Undh (ähm) ja.” In Prosodie und Multimodalität / Prosody and Multimodality. Empirische Beiträge der Interaktionalen Linguistik, ed. by Maxi Kupetz and Friederike Kern, 91–118. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Betz, Emma. 2017. “Diskursmarker aus konversationsanalytischer Sicht: Prosodisch integriertes ja am Beginn von responsiven Turns.” In Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen, ed. by Hardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 183–206. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2013. “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 290–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2004. “Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation: The Case of New Beginnings.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “OH + OKAY in Informing Sequences: On Fuzzy Boundaries in a Particle Combination.” Open Linguistics 2021, 7: 816–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debras, Camille. 2017. “The Shrug: Forms and Meanings of a Compound Enactment.” Gesture 16, 1: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and Anita Pomerantz. 2015. “Introduction.” In Gail Jefferson, Talking about Troubles in Conversation, ed. by Paul Drew, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and Anita Pomerantz, 1–26. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Englert, Christina. 2010. “Questions and Responses in Dutch Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42, 10: 2666–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flick, Uwe. 1998. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2008. “‘Die Sache ist …’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im Gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2013. “Turn-initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.). 2018. Between Turn and Sequence. Turn-initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam / NY: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop, Hanneke, and Harrie Mazeland. 1985. “Turns and Discourse Units in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 9: 595–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. “On a Failed Hypothesis: Conjunctionals as Overlap-vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28.Google Scholar
. 1984. “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mm hm’.” Papers in Linguistics 17: 198–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. “On the ‘Semi-permeable’ Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 238–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 2009. “Projecting nonalignment in conversation.” In Conversation Analysis. Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 135–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan. 2006. “Grammar in the Service of Interaction: Exploring Turn Organization in Swedish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39, 1: 81–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, Paul Drew, and Peter Auer. 2010. “Retrieving, Redoing, and Resuscitating Turns in Conversation.” In Prosody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 131–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie. 1990. “‘Yes’, ‘no’, ‘mhm’: Variations in Acknowledgment Choices.” In Les formes de la conversation, Vol. 1, ed. by Bernard Conein, Michel de Fornel, and Louis Quéré, 251–282. Issy les Moulineaux: Reseaux. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Inleiding in de conversatieanalyse. Bussum: CoutinhoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “The Positionally Sensitive Workings of the Dutch Particle nou.” In NU/NÅ. A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Language of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 377–408. Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Activities as Discrete Organizational Domains.” In Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings, ed. by Elisabeth Reber, and Cornelia Gerhardt, 29–61. London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “Mid-turn ja (yes) as a Repair Preface.” Paper presented at the AWIA symposium, Amsterdam, October 2022.
Mazeland, Harrie, and Leendert Plug. 2010. “Doing Confirmation with ja/nee hoor. Sequential and Prosodic Characteristics of a Dutch Discourse Particle.” In Prosody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 161–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raclaw, Joshua. 2013. Indexing Inferables and Organizational Shifts: ‘No’-Prefaces in English Conversation. PhD dissertation University Colorado
Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2013. “Overall Structural Organization.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 257–280. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Volume I/II. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-conversation.” In Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 261–299. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of ‘Coherence’ in Talk-in-interaction.” In Conversational Organization and Its Development, ed. by Bruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.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: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. “Interaction: The Infrastructure for Social Institutions, the Natural Ecological Niche for Language, and the Arena in Which Culture is Enacted.” In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson, 71–96. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Some other ‘Uh(m)’s.” Discourse Processes 47: 130–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 7: 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1996. “On the Interplay of Syntax and Prosody in the Constitution of Turn-constructional Units and Turns in Conversation.” Pragmatics 6, 3: 371–388.Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob. 2001. Sprog i virkeligheden. Bidrag til en interaktionel lingvistik. Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. “Alternative Recognitionals in Person Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. Gesturecraft: The Manufacture of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar