Part of
Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
Edited by John Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31] 2018
► pp. 445476
References (56)

References

Asmuß, Birte
2011 “Proposing Shared Knowledge as a Means of Pursuing Agreement.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 207–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Danske Ordbog. Moderne dansk sprog
The Danish dictionary. Modern Danish language]. Url: [URL], visited on August 28, 2016.
DDO, altså
2016 “altså.” In Den danske ordbog [The Danish dictionary]. Url: [URL], visited on August 28, 2016
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 talk: Showing inferences and drawing action-consequences with ‘also’ and ‘dann’].” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32 (1):1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
1997 “’Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28:69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmertsen, Sofie, and Trine Heinemann
2010 “Realization as a Device for Remedying Problems of Affiliation in Interaction.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 43 (2):109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Mats
1988 “Ju, väl, då, alltså. En studie av talaktsadverbial i stockholmskt talspråk [Ju, väl, då, alltså.A study of speech act adverbials in Stockholm spoken language].” Studier i stockholmsspråk 1. (MINS) 27:75–120.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Sandra A. Thompson
2010 “Responses to Wh-Questions in English Conversation.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 43 (2):133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1986 “Gesture as a Resource for the Organization of Mutual Orientation.” Semiotica 62:29–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 “Insisting on ‘My Side’: Siis-prefaced Utterances in Finnish.” Journal of Pragmatics 75:111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Erik, and Lars Heltoft
2011Grammatik over det Danske Sprog [Grammar of the Danish Language]. Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog-og Litteraturselskab.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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Two Answers to Inapposite Inquiries.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 [2003]Negation in Interaction, in Danish Conversation. Skrifter om samtalegrammatik 2:12. Url: [URL], visited on August 28, 2016. Originally [2003]: PhD thesis, University of York, UK.
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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b “Registering Revised Understanding: The Reduplicated Danish Change-of-State Token .” Discourse Studies 18 (1):44–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2013 “Turn-Initial Position and Some of its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1972 “Side Sequences.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 294–338. New York: Free Press.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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte
2000Danske sætningsadverbialer og topologi i diakron belysning [Danish clausal adverbs and topology in a diachronic perspective]. PhD thesis, Copenhagen University, Denmark.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2003From Interaction to Grammar. Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. PhD thesis, University of Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Kim, Hye Ri Stephanie
2013 “Reshaping the Response Space with ‘kulenikka’ in Beginning to Respond to Questions in Korean Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 57:303–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, Anette Dahl
2015 “’O(↑)kay(?), ↑Ohkay’ – En Prosodiafhængig ytringspartikel? [’O(↑)kay(?), ↑Ohkay’ – A prosodically dependent utterance particle?].” Skrifter om samtalegrammatik 2(1). Url: [URL], visited on August 28, 2016.
Laakso, Minna, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2010 “Cut-off or Particle: Devices for Initiating Self-Repair in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42:1151–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee
2009 “Extended Requesting: Interaction and Collaboration in the Production and Specification of Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 41:1248–1271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
2013 “Defensive Mechanisms: I-Mean-Prefaced Utterances in Complaint and Other Conversational Sequences.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, 198–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie
2007 “Parenthetical Sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics 39:1816–1869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Mie Femø
2002 “Nå! en skiftemarkør med mange funktioner [Nå! a change-of-state token with many functions].” Studier i nordisk 2000–2001:52–67.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). Url: [URL], visited on August 28, 2016.
Raymond, Geoffrey
2000The Structure of Responding: Type-Conforming and Nonconforming Responses to YNIs. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6):939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D.
2006 “Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships during Conversational Repair.” Communication Monographs 73 (2):137–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Benjamin M.
2008 “A Resource for Repair in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction: The Phrase TTEYUU KA.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 41 (2):227–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna
2005 “”Empathy” and “Sympathy” in Action: Attending to Patients’ Troubles in Finnish Homeopathic and General Practice Consultations.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (3):204–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryave, A. Lincoln
1978 “On the Achievement of a Series of Stories.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim N. Schenkein, 113–132. New York: Academic Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1987 “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and J. R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1992aLectures on Conversation. Vol 1, ed. by Gail Jefferson with introductions by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1992bLectures on Conversation. Vol 2, ed. by Gail Jefferson with introductions by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil 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
Schachtenhaufen, Ruben
2013Fonetisk reduktion i dansk [Phonetic Reduction in Danish]. PhD thesis, Copenhagen University, Denmark.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
1979 “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol.12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givon, 261–288. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1988 “Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, ed. by Paul Drew, and Anthony Wootton, 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1992 “Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5):1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle 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
1997 “Third Turn Repair.” In Towards a Social Science of Language 2, ed. by Gregory R. Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh, 31–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
1977 “The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner
2009 “Beginning to Respond: Well-prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 42 (2):91–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Birte Asmuß
2005 “Notes on Disaligning ‘Yes but’ Initiated Utterances in German and Danish Conversations. Two Construction Types for Dispreferred Responses.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 349–373. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society 39 (1):1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35:367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen
1993 “Gesture as Communication I: Its Coordination with Gaze and Speech.“ Communication Monographs 60 (December 1993):275–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by 8 other publications

Beck Nielsen, Søren
Nielsen, Søren Beck
2021. Interactional integration of talk and note-taking. Psychology of Language and Communication 25:1  pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Svennevig, Jan, Paweł Urbanik & Aafke Diepeveen
2024. How police investigators seek to secure that suspects speaking a second language understand their rights in investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research 25:3  pp. 324 ff. DOI logo
Arita, Yuki
2023.  Demo “but”-prefaced responses to inquiry in Japanese . Discourse Processes 60:8  pp. 594 ff. DOI logo
Svennevig, Jan
2023. Self-Reformulation as a Preemptive Practice in Talk Addressed to L2 Users. Research on Language and Social Interaction 56:3  pp. 250 ff. DOI logo
Emborg, Christina
2022. Perseverative storytelling in autism as an interactional phenomenon. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders 14:1 DOI logo
Floyd, Simeon
2021. Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50:1  pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Heinemann, Trine & Jakob Steensig

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 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.