Cover not available
Part of
Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual
Edited by Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman
[Handbook of Pragmatics M2] 2022
► pp. 374–386

Conversation analysis

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Origins and overview
  • 3.Data, transcription and analysis
  • 4.Exhibiting an understanding in next turn
  • 5.Conditional relevance of next position
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 3 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m2.con4
References (99)
References
Atkinson, J. M. 1984. Our masters’ voices. Methuen.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. & P. Drew. 1979. Order in court. Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. & J. Heritage. 1984. Structures of social action. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Button, G. & J. R. E. Lee. 1987. Talk and social organization. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. & J. Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. 2001. Meaning in interaction: The case of “actually”. Language 77: 245–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Discovering order. Lingua 115: 1641–1665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2001. Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society 30: 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting. 1996. Prosody in conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen E. & C. E. Ford (eds.) 2004. Sound Patterns in Interaction. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. 1984. Subsequent versions of invitations offers, requests and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 102–128.Google Scholar
Drew, P. 1984. Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 129–151.Google Scholar
1987. Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25: 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 295–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. & J. Heritage. 1992. Talk at work. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & E. Holt. 1988. Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35: 398–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. E. Holt. 1998. Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society 27: 495–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, M. 1997a. Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Language in Society 25: 587–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997b. Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multi-person conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 611–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson. 2002. The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. 1997. The conversation object Mm: a weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30: 131–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in public places. Free Press.Google Scholar
1964. The neglected situation. American Anthropologist 66: 133–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational organization. Academic Press.Google Scholar
1995. Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28: 233–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. 1990. He-said-she-said. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2002. Building power asymmetries in girls’ interaction. Discourse & Society 13: 715–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greatbatch, D. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language In Society 17: 401–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. 1999. Where grammar and interaction meet: A study of co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. Human Studies 22: 475–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M., J. Mori & T. Takagi. 2002. Contingent achievement of co-tellership in a Japanese conversation. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (eds.): 81–122.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 299–345.Google Scholar
1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27: 291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. “Oh”- prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (eds.): 196–224.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & G. Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & D. Maynard. 2006. Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, E. & P. Drew. 2005. Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 35–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the organization of conversational interaction: 219–248. Academic Press.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980. On trouble-premonitory response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50: 153–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984a. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 191–222.Google Scholar
1984b. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds): Cambridge University Press. 346–369.Google Scholar
1986. Notes on latency in overlap onset. Human Studies 9: 153–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. H. Sacks & E. A. Schegloff. 1987. Notes on laughter in pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.): 152–205.Google Scholar
Kim, K. 1999. Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation as interactional resources. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3: 3–18.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. 2005. Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems 52: 477–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, C. & S. Wilkinson. 2006. Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69: 150–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. 1991. On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. Assisted storytelling: deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology 15: 247–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, I. 1996. On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker!! In Ochs et al. (eds.): 238–276.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. & T. Takagi. 1999. On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 49–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. & D. H. Zimmerman. 2003. Action and the appearance of action in the conduct of very young children. In P. Glenn, C. D. Lebaron & J. Mandelbaum (eds.) Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper: 441–457. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A. 1994. Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Language in Society 23: 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J. 2005. On the interactional and phonetic design of collaborative completions. In W. Hardcastle & J. Beck (eds.) A Figure of Speech: a Festschrift for John Laver: 263–282. Lawrence Erbaum.Google Scholar
Local, J. & J. Kelly. 1986. Projection and “silences”: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9: 185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J. & G. Walker. 2004. Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1375–1403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. 1984. Inside plea bargaining. Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H. & M. Huiskes. 2001. Dutch ‘But’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Studies in Interactional Linguistics: 141–169. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning lessons. Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moerman, M. 1988. Talking culture. University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. 2004. Non-modal voice quality and turn-taking in Finnish. In Couper-Kuhlen E. & C. E. Ford (eds.): 29–62: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, T. & S. Thompson. 1996. Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse. In E. Hovy & D. Scott (eds.) Discourse processing: An interdisciplinary perspective: 67–96. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 57–101.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 185–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.): 54–69.Google Scholar
1992. Lectures on conversation ,2 vols. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Giv (ed.) Syntax and semantics, volume 12: Discourse and Syntax: 261–286. Academic Press.Google Scholar
1980. Preliminaries to preliminaries. Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981. Discourse as an interactional achievement. In D. Tannen (ed.) Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics: 71–93. Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9: 111–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988a. On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news. Social Problems 35: 442–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988b. Presequences and indirection. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. On the organization of sequences as a source of ‘coherence’ in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (ed.) Conversational organization and its development: 51–77. Ablex.Google Scholar
1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97: 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 99–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of social action. American Journal of Sociology 102: 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23: 499–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29: 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Sequence Organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., G. Jefferson & H. Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M-L. 1996. On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (eds.). 277–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Recipient activities: The particle no as a go-ahead response in Finnish conversations. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (eds.): 165–195.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & J. Heritage. 2001. Breaking the sequential mould: Narrative and other methods of answering “more than the question” during medical history taking. Text 21: 151–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A. 1976. Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. Social Science Working Paper 99 University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. 1992. Achieving context: openings in emergency calls. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (eds.) Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology: 35–51. Sage.Google Scholar
1998. Identity context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (eds.) Identity in Talk: 87–106. Sage.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Pan, Zhaoyi
2024. Impoliteness in polylogal intercultural communication among Asian EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics 21:2 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.