Article published in:
Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activity
Edited by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa
[Not in series 186] 2014
► pp. 5778
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Björk-Willén, Polly
2016.  In Friendship and Peer Culture in Multilingual Settings [Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 21],  pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
Childs, Carrie & Dave Walsh
2018. Paradoxical Invitations: Challenges in Soliciting More Information from Child Witnesses. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51:4  pp. 363 ff. Crossref logo
Dolata, Mateusz, Susanne Steigler, Fiona Nüesch, Ulrike Schock, Doris Agotai, Simon Schubiger, Mehmet Kilic & Gerhard Schwabe
2019.  In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019 [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11748],  pp. 600 ff. Crossref logo
Heinonen, Pilvi, Jarkko Niemi & Timo Kaski
2021. Changing participation in web conferencing: the shared computer screen as an online sales interaction resource. Applied Linguistics Review 0:0 Crossref logo
Ishino, Mika
2021. Teachers’ embodied mitigation against allocating turns to unwilling students. Classroom Discourse  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Kääntä, Leila, Gabriele Kasper & Arja Piirainen-Marsh
2016. Explaining Hooke’s Law: Definitional Practices in a CLIL Physics Classroom. Applied Linguistics  pp. amw025 ff. Crossref logo
Lehtinen, Esa & Pekka Pälli
2021. On the participatory agency of texts: Using institutional forms in performance appraisal interviews. Text & Talk 41:1  pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo
Mondada, Lorenza & Kimmo Svinhufvud
2016. Writing-in-interaction. Language and Dialogue 6:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Ro, Eunseok
2021. Note-taking/making as a resource for substantiating advice at a second language speaking center. Text & Talk 0:0 Crossref logo
Ro, Eunseok
2021. Using written task answer sheets as notes while speaking: changing task-report practices in a second language book club. Text & Talk 41:3  pp. 335 ff. Crossref logo
Ruusuvuori, Johanna, Birte Asmuß, Pentti Henttonen & Niklas Ravaja
2019. Complaining About Others at Work. Research on Language and Social Interaction 52:1  pp. 41 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., & Rapley, M.
(2000) “Brilliant. Next question…”: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(3), 235–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asmuss, B.
(2008) Performance appraisal interviews: Preference organization in assessment sequences. Journal of Business Communication, 45(4), 408–429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beach, W.A.
(1995) Preserving and constraining options: “Okays” and ‘official’ priorities in medical interviews. In G.H. Morris, & R.J. Chenail (Eds.), The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse (pp. 259–289). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Button, G.
(1991) Conversation-in-a-series. In D. Boden, & D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 251–277). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, J.
(2012) Conversation analysis in dialogue with stocks of interactional knowledge: Facework and appraisal interviews. Journal of Business Communication, 49(4), 283–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L.
(2010) Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1700–1718. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, P., & LeBaron, C.
(2011) Epistemic authority in employment interviews: Glancing, pointing, touching. Discourse & Communication, 5(1), 3–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C.
(1986) Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holt, E.
(2010) The last laugh: Shared laughter and topic termination. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1513–1525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.
(2000) Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Komter, M.
(2006) Introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(3), 195–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., & Feltovich, P.
(2011) “Can you see the cystic artery yet?”: A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 521–541. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laurier, E.
(2008) Drinking up endings: Conversational resources of the café. Language & Communication, 28(2), 165–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M.
(2002) Protocols, practices, and the reproduction of technique in molecular biology. British Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 203–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2006) Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 117–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: The case of architects at work. Qualitative Research, 12(3), 304–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, K., & Lundsgaard, C.
(2011) Preliminary notes on ‘grooming the object’: The example of an architectural presentation. In J. Buur (Ed.), Participatory Innovation Conference, 13th–15th January, Sønderborg, Denmark (pp. 91–96).Google Scholar
Nevile, M.
(2004) Integrity in the airline cockpit: Embodying claims about progress for the conduct of an approach briefing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(4), 447–480. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M.F.
(2012) Using artifacts in brainstorming sessions to secure participation and decouple sequentiality. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 87–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M.F., Nielsen, S.B., Gravengaard, G., & Due, B.
(2012) Interactional functions of invoking procedure in institutional settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(11), 1457–1473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J., & Stivers, T.
(2001) Achieving activity transitions in primary-care encounters: From history taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 253–298.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, J.
(2000). Control in medical consultation: Practices of giving and receiving the reason for the visit in primary health care. Tampere: Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 16.Google Scholar
(2001) Looking means listening: Coordinating displays of engagement in doctor–patient interaction. Social Science & Medicine, 52(7), 1093–1108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1992) Lectures on conversation. Volume I. Edited by G. Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H.
(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A.
(1998) Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.Google Scholar
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L.
(2007) Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J.
(2012) The agenda as resource for topic introduction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 53–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svinhufvud, K., & Vehviläinen, S.
(2013) Papers, documents, and the opening of an academic supervision encounter. Text & Talk, 33(1), 139–166.Google Scholar