1932

Abstract

Conversation analysis is a method for the systematic study of interaction in terms of a sequential turn-taking system. Research in conversation analysis has traditionally focused on speakers of English, and it is still unclear to what extent the system observed in that research applies to conversation more generally around the world. However, as this method is now being applied to conversation in a broader range of languages, it is increasingly possible to address questions about the nature of interactional diversity across different speech communities. The approach of pragmatic typology first applies sequential analysis to conversation from different speech communities and then compares interactional patterns in ways analogous to how traditional linguistic typology compares morphosyntax. This article discusses contemporary literature in pragmatic typology, including single-language studies and multilanguage comparisons reflecting both qualitative and quantitative methods. This research finds that microanalysis of face-to-face interaction can identify both universal trends and culture-specific interactional tendencies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110158
2021-10-21
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/50/1/annurev-anthro-101819-110158.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110158&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aronsson K, Morgenstern A. 2021.. “ Bravo!”: co-constructing praise in French family life. J. Pragmat. 173:1–14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baranova J 2020a. Reasons for every-day activities PhD Thesis, Radboud Univ. Nijmegen, Neth:.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baranova J. 2020b. Recruiting assistance and collaboration in Russian. See Floyd et al. 2020 325–67
  4. Betz E, Deppermann A. 2018. Indexing priority of position: eben as response particle in German. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 51:171–93 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1449449
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beukeleers I, Brône G, Vermeerbergen M. 2018. Turn-taking in Flemish Sign Language interactions: on the interplay between eye gaze and other turn-taking devices Paper presented at International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA) Loughborough, UK: July 11–15
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka S. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies Norwood, NJ: Ablex
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blythe J 2009. Prosodic person reference in Murriny Patha reported interaction. Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics: Research at the Interface D Barth-Weingarten, N Dehé, A Wichman 23–52 Bingley, UK: Emerald
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blythe J 2011. Laughter is the best medicine: roles for prosody in a Murriny Patha conversational narrative. Indigenous Language and Social Identity: Papers in Honour of Michael Walsh BJ Baker, I Mushin, M Harvey, R Gardner 223–36 Canberra: Pac. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blythe J. 2012. From passing-gesture to ‘true’ romance: kin-based teasing in Murriny Patha conversation. J. Pragmat. 44:508–28
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blythe J. 2013. Preference organization driving structuration: evidence from Australian Aboriginal interaction for pragmatically motivated grammaticalization. Language 89:883–919 https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0057
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Blythe J, Gardner R, Mushin I, Stirling L. 2018. Tools of engagement: selecting a next speaker in Australian Aboriginal multiparty conversations. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 51:145–70 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1449441
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolaños-Carpio A. 2017. Interactions in calls to the 9-1-1 Emergency System in Costa Rica PhD Thesis, Rutgers Univ. New Brunswick, NJ: https://doi.org/10.7282/T3G44T25
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bolden GB 2018a. Nu-prefaced responses in Russian conversation. Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages J Heritage, M-L Sorjonen 25–58 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bolden GB. 2018b. Speaking ‘out of turn’: epistemics in action in other-initiated repair. Discourse Stud 20:142–62
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bongelli R, Riccioni I, Vincze L, Zuczkowski A 2018. Questions and epistemic stance: some examples from Italian conversations. Ampersand 5:29–44 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2018.11.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bono M, Sakaida R, Makino R, Okada T, Kikuchi K et al. 2018. Tactile Japanese sign language and finger braille: an example of data collection for minority languages in Japan. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Language Community M Bono, E Efthimiou, S-E Fotinea, T Hanke, J Hochgesang et al. Paris: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brown P. 2010. Questions and their responses in Tzeltal. J. Pragmat. 42:2627–48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Brown P, Levinson SC. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Burdelski M. 2020. Classroom socialisation: repair and correction in Japanese as a heritage language. Classr. Discourse https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1789483
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Byun K-S, de Vos C, Zeshan U, Levinson S 2019. Repair in cross-signing: trouble sources, repair strategies and communicative success. Sign Language Typology, Vol. 7: Sign Multilingualism M Coppola, O Crasborn, U Zeshan 23–80 Berlin: de Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503528-002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cekaite A, Goodwin MH. 2021. Towards an interactional approach to touch. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 50:20318
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cekaite A, Mondada L 2020. Touch in Social Interaction: Touch, Language and the Body London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Choe H. 2019. Eating together multimodally: collaborative eating in mukbang, a Korean livestream of eating. Lang. Soc 48:171–208 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404518001355
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Chung H. 2019. Korean discourse markers developed from question words, focusing onmwe”, “way”, “ettehkeyandmwusun PhD Thesis, Univ. Hawaiʻi Mānoa:
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cibulka P. 2016. On how to do things with holds: manual movement phases as part of interactional practices in signed conversation. Sign Lang. Stud. 16:447–72 https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2016.0015
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. de León L. 2019. Playing at being bilingual: bilingual performances, stance, and language scaling in Mayan Tzotzil siblings’ play. J. Pragmat. 144:92–108 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.02.006
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. De Stefani E 2020. Nel senso (che) in Italian conversation: turn-taking, turn-maintaining and turn-yielding. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 25–54 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.02ste
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. De Stefani E, Broth M, Deppermann A. 2019. On the road: communicating traffic. Lang. Commun. 65:1–6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.009
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. de Vos C, Torreira F, Levinson SC. 2015. Turn-timing in signed conversations: coordinating stroke-to-stroke turn boundaries. Front. Psychol. 6:268 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00268
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Deppermann A. 2019. Intersubjectivity and other grounds for action-coordination in an environment of restricted interaction: coordinating with oncoming traffic when passing an obstacle. Lang. Commun. 65:22–40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.005
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Dingemanse M. 2020. Recruiting assistance and collaboration: a West-African corpus study. See Floyd et al. 2020 369–421
  32. Dingemanse M, Blythe J, Dirksmeyer T. 2014. Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: an exercise in pragmatic typology. Stud. Lang. 38:5–43 https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.1.01din
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Dingemanse M, Enfield NJ. 2015. Other-initiated repair across languages: towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguist 1:96–118 https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0007
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Dingemanse M, Floyd S 2014. Conversation across cultures. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology NJ Enfield, P Kockelman, J Sidnell 447–80 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dingemanse M, Roberts SG, Baranova J, Blythe J, Drew P et al. 2015. Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLOS ONE 10:e0136100 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136100
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. Dong B, Wu Y. 2020. Generic solicitude in sequence-initial position as a practice for pre-closing proposals in Mandarin telephone calls. East Asian Pragmat 5:393–418 https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.39605
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Droste P, Günthner S. 2020. Enacting ‘being with you’: vocative uses of du (“you”) in German everyday interaction. Pragmatics 31:87–113 https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19030.dro
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Dundon JT. 2019.. “ tsɑrɑŋ?”—telephone conversation openings in the Rushani language. Stud. Appl. Linguist. 19:1–16 https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-7psy-qc04
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Duranti A. 1997. Polyphonic discourse: overlapping in Samoan ceremonial greetings. Text Talk 17:349–82 https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1997.17.3.349
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Endo T, Vatanen A, Yokomori D. 2018. Agreeing in overlap: a comparison of response practices and resources for projection in Finnish, Japanese and Mandarin talk-in-interaction. Jpn. J. Lang. Soc. 21:160–74
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Enfield NJ. 2018. Subprehension in action; or, the first rule of elite mat-weaving. Co-Operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin D Favareau 85–95 Tartu, Estonia: Univ. Tartu Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Enfield NJ. 2020. Recruitments in Lao. See Floyd et al. 2020 203–29
  43. Enfield NJ, Dingemanse M, Baranova J, Blythe J, Brown P et al. 2013. Huh? What?—a first survey in 21 languages. Conversational Repair and Human Understanding M Hayashi, G Raymond, J Sidnell 343–80 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Enfield NJ, Stivers T, Brown P, Englert C, Harjunpää K et al. 2019. Polar answers. J. Linguist. 55:277–304 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Floyd S 2016. Insubordination in interaction: the Cha'palaa counter-assertive. Typological Studies in Language N Evans, H Watanabe 341–66 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.13flo
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Floyd S. 2020. Getting others to do things in the Cha'palaa language of Ecuador. See Floyd et al. 2020 51–92
  47. Floyd S, Giovanni R, Enfield NJ 2020. Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments Berlin: Lang. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Floyd S, Manrique E, Rossi G, Torreira F. 2016. Timing of visual bodily behavior in repair sequences: evidence from three languages. Discourse Process 53:175–204 https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.992680
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Floyd S, Rossi G, Baranova J, Blythe J, Dingemanse M et al. 2018. Universals and cultural diversity in the expression of gratitude. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5:180391 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180391
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Gago PC, Sant'Anna PF 2017. O protagonismo na linguagem na mediação familiar judicial. Rev. Bras. Linguíst. Apl. 17:731–58
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Galatolo R, Caronia L 2018. Morality at dinnertime: the sense of the Other as a practical accomplishment in family interaction. Discourse Soc 29:43–62 https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517726110
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Gardner R, Mushin I. 2010. An introduction to ‘Studies in Australian Indigenous Conversation.’ Aust. J. Linguist. 30:393–96 https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2010.518552
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Garfinkel H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Garfinkel H. 2018. 1967. Estudos de etnometodologia, transl PC Gago Petrópolis, Braz: Ed. Vozes
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Ghasemi AA. 2020. Tag questions in Persian: investigating the conversational functions. Int. J. Foreign Lang. Teach. Res. 8:25–43
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gialabouki L, Pavlidou T-S. 2019. Beyond answering: interviewees’ use of questions in TV political interviews. J. Pragmat. 151:18–29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.014
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Girard-Groeber S. 2020. Swiss German and Swiss German sign language resources in repair initiations: an examination of two types of classroom. Atypical Interaction: The Impact of Communicative Impairments Within Everyday Talk R Wilkinson, JP Rae, G Rasmussen 435–64 Cham, Switz: Springer Int https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28799-3_15
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Goffman E. 1964. The neglected situation. Am. Anthropol. 66:133–36
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Golato P 2020. Recruitments in French: declarative statements and accompanying actions which result in offers of assistance. Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis Within Larger Activities C Taleghani-Nikazm, E Betz, P Golato 83–114 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.33.04gol
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Gonzalez Temer V 2017. A multimodal analysis of assessment sequences in Chilean Spanish interaction. PhD Thesis Univ. York Heslington, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Goodwin C, Heritage J. 1990. Conversation analysis. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:283–307
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Günthner S. 2020. Practices of clause-combining: from complex wenn-constructions to insubordinate (‘stand-alone’) conditionals in everyday spoken German. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 185–220 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.07gun
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Haakana M, Laakso M, Lindström J 2009. Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions Helsinki: Finl. Lit. Soc https://doi.org/10.21435/sflin.14
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. Hamdani F, Barnes S. 2018. Polar questions in Colloquial Indonesian: a pilot study. J. Pragmat. 132:1–20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Hauser E. 2019. Upgraded self-repeated gestures in Japanese interaction. J. Pragmat. 150:180–96 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Haviland JB. 2017. Mayan conversation and interaction. The Mayan Languages J Aissen, NC England, R Zavala Maldonado 401–32 London: Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315192345-16
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. Hayano K. 2017. When (not) to claim epistemic independence: the use of ne and yone in Japanese conversation. East Asian Pragmat 2:163–93
    [Google Scholar]
  68. He AW. 2016. Discursive roles and responsibilities: a study of interactions in Chinese immigrant households. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 37:667–79 https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1127930
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Heinemann T, Steensig J. 2018. Justifying departure from progressivity: the Danish turn-initial particle altså. Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. J Heritage, M-L Sorjonen445–76 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.15hei
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Hepburn A, Bolden GB. 2017. Transcribing for Social Research Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Heritage J. 2012. Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 45:1–29 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Hömke P, Holler J, Levinson SC. 2017. Eye blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 50:54–70 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262143
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Huhtamäki M, Lindström J, Londen A-M 2020. Other-repetition sequences in Finland Swedish: prosody, grammar, and context in action ascription. Lang. Soc 49:653–86 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000056
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Hymes DH. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Ilomäki S, Ruusuvuori J. 2020. From appearings to disengagements: openings and closings in video-mediated tele-homecare encounters. Soc. Interact. 3:Spec. Issue https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i3.122711
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Iwasaki S. 2018a. Evolving questions, questioning and affiliation in ongoing ethnographic interviews. Discourse, Gender and Shifting Identities in Japan: The Longitudinal Study of Kobe Women's Ethnographic Interviews 1989–2019, Phase One C Maree, K Okano 112–40 New York: Taylor & Francis https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315102122
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Iwasaki S 2018b. Suspending talk: multimodal organization of participation and stance in Japanese. Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources A Deppermann, J Streeck 69–96 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Iwasaki S, Bartlett M, Manns H, Willoughby L. 2019. The challenges of multimodality and multi-sensoriality: methodological issues in analyzing tactile signed interaction. J. Pragmat. 143:215–27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Kamunen A. 2019. How to disengage: suspension, body torque, and repair. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 52:406–26 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1657287
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Kaneyasu M. 2020. Interactional relevance of linguistic categories: epistemic modals daroo and deshoo in Japanese conversation. J. Pragmat. 155:145–59 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.10.007
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Karafoti E. 2021. Negotiating preferred norms in requests and offers: Is the (dis)preferred answer so obviously (im)polite?. J. Pragmat. 173:134–47 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.07.010
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. Kazemi A. 2019. On dynamics of telephone conversation closedown in Farsi. J. Pragmat. 151:45–61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.020
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Keevallik L 2020. Grammatical coordination of embodied action: the Estonian ja ‘and’ as a temporal organizer of Pilates moves. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 221–44 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Keevallik L, Hakulinen A. 2018. Epistemically reinforced kyl()/küll-responses in Estonian and Finnish: word order and social action. J. Pragmat. 123:121–38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Kendrick KH, Brown P, Dingemanse M, Floyd S, Gipper S et al. 2020. Sequence organization: a universal infrastructure for social action. J. Pragmat. 168:119–38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. Koivisto AL. 2019. Repair receipts: on their motivation and interactional import. Discourse Stud 21:398–420 https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619842737
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. Konrad PG, Ostermann AC. 2020.. “ ¿Tú sabes? ¿Te acuerdas?”: protegiendo información en los interrogatorios oficiales a través de la (com)posición de preguntas y respuestas. Ling. Discurso 20:73–95 https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-200105-1119
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Laury R, Helasvuo M-L 2020. The emergence and routinization of complex syntactic patterns formed with ajatella ‘think’ and tietää ‘know’ in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 55–86 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.03lau
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. Levinson SC. 1983. Pragmatics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Levinson SC 2006. The human interaction engine. Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Human Interaction NJ Enfield, SC Levinson 39–69 Oxford, UK: Berg
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Levinson SC. 2015. Other-initiated repair in Yélî Dnye: seeing eye-to-eye in the language of Rossel Island. Open Linguist 1:386–410 https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0009
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Li X 2019. Multimodal turn construction in Mandarin conversation—verbal, vocal, and visual practices in the construction of syntactically incomplete turns. Multimodality in Chinese Interaction X Li, T Ono 181–212 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Li X, Luo J 2019. Some interactional functions of Yinwei-clauses in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Current Studies in Chinese Language and Discourse Y Xiao, L Tsung 81–103 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Li Z, Li F. 2020. When one question is not enough: the import of a second question in information seeking. East Asian Pragmat 5:373–394 https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.40997
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Lindström J, Laury R, Lindholm C 2019. Insubordination and the contextually sensitive emergence of if-requests in Swedish and Finnish institutional talk-in-interaction. Insubordination: Theoretical and Empirical Issues K Beijering, G Kaltenböck, M Sol Sansiñena 55–78 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Luke K-K 2019. Chinese conversation analysis. The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Discourse Analysis C Shei 21–35 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Mahzari M. 2019. Conversation analysis: opening sequences and ritual expressions of informal mobile phone calls between Saudis. Arab World Engl. J. 5:250–51 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3431772
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Manrique E. 2016. Other-initiated repair in Argentine Sign Language. Open Linguist 2:1–34 https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. Manrique E. 2017. Achieving mutual understanding in Argentine Sign Language PhD Thesis, Radboud Univ. Nijmegen, Neth:.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Mansfield J. 2019. Epistemic authority and sociolinguistic stance in an Australian Aboriginal language. Open Linguist 5:25–48 https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Margutti P, Galatolo R. 2018. Reason-for-calling invitations in Italian telephone calls: action design and recipient commitment. J. Pragmat. 125:76–95 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.017
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. Martini LF. 2020. Grammar in interaction: polar interrogative sequences in Syrian Arabic talk-in-interaction PhD Thesis, Univ. Essex Colchester, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Maschler Y 2020. The insubordinate–subordinate continuum: prosody, embodied action, and the emergence of Hebrew complex syntax. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 87–126 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.04mas
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Mazeland H. 2019. Activities as discrete organizational domains. Embodied Activities in Face-to-Face and Mediated Settings: Social Encounters in Time and Space E Reber, C Gerhardt 29–61 Cham, Switz: Springer Int https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97325-8_2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. Mesch J, Raanes E, Ferrara L. 2015. Co-forming real space blends in tactile signed language dialogues. Cogn. Linguist. 26:261–87 https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0066
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Mihas E. 2015. A Grammar of Alto Perené (Arawak) Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Mihas E. 2017. Conversational Structures of Alto Perené (Arawak) of Peru Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Moerman M. 1977. The preference for self-correction in a Tai conversational corpus. Language 53:872–82
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Moerman M. 1988. Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Moerman M. 1990. Exploring talk and interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 24:173–87
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Moerman M. 1996. The field of analyzing foreign language conversations. J. Pragmat. 26:147–158 https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(96)00009-4
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Mondada L., Bänninger J, Bouaouina SA, Camus L, Gauthier G et al. 2020. Human sociality in the times of the Covid-19 pandemic: a systematic examination of change in greetings. J. Socioling. 24:441–68 https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12433
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. Morita E, Takagi T. 2020. Interjectional use of demonstratives: anoo and sonoo as resources for interaction in Japanese conversation. J. Pragmat. 169:120–35
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Mushin I, Gardner R. 2009. Silence is talk: conversational silence in Australian Aboriginal talk-in-interaction. J. Pragmat. 41:2033–52 https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. Ogiermann E 2018. Discourse completion tasks. Methods in Pragmatics A Jucker, K Schneider, W Bublitz 229–55 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Oloff F. 2019. Okay as a neutral acceptance token in German conversation. Lexique 25:197–225
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Park J-E. 2018. Replacing to supplement: the case of Korean conversation. Korean Soc. Appl. Lang. Appl. Linguist. 34:199–222 https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2018.3.34.1.199
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Pehkonen S. 2020. Response cries inviting an alignment: Finnish huh huh. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53:19–41 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712965
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. Persson R. 2020a. Prosody and grammar of other-repetitions in French: the interplay of position and composition. Addendum. Lang. Soc 49:687 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000822
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Persson R. 2020b. Taking issue with a question while answering it: prefatory particles and multiple sayings of polar response tokens in French. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53:380–403 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1786977
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Placencia ME. 1997. Opening up closings—the Ecuadorian way. Text Talk 17:53–82 https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1997.17.1.53
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. Polak-Yitzhaki H. 2020. Emergent patterns of predicative clauses in spoken Hebrew discourse: the ha'emet (hi) she- ‘the truth (is) that’ construction. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 127–50 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.05pol
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. Proske N, Deppermann A. 2020. Right-dislocated complement clauses in German talk-in-interaction: (re-)specifying propositional referents of the demonstrative pronoun das. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 275–302 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.10pro
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. Raymond CW 2018. Bueno-, pues-, and bueno-pues-prefacing in Spanish conversation. Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages J Heritage, M-L Sorjonen 59–96 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Raymond CW, Olguín LM. 2022. Análisis de la Conversación: Fundamentos, Metodología y Alcances New York: Routledge. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Renner B. 2020. (In)directness as an (im)politeness strategy in the contact between German and Brazilian Portuguese as additional languages PhD Thesis, Univ. Brasilia Braz:.
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Rossi G. 2018. Composite social actions: the case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 51:379–97 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. Rossi G. 2020a. Other-repetition in conversation across languages: bringing prosody into pragmatic typology. Lang. Soc 49:495–520 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000251
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. Rossi G. 2020b. The prosody of other-repetition in Italian: a system of tunes. Lang. Soc 49:619–52 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000627
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Rossi G. 2020c. The recruitment system in Italian. See Floyd et al. 2020 147–201
  131. Rossi G, Zinken J. 2016. Grammar and social agency: the pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language. 92e296–325 https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0083
    [Crossref]
  132. Routarinne S, Tainio L. 2018. Sequence and turn design of invitations in Finnish telephone calls. J. Pragmat. 125:149–63 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  133. Rüsch M. 2020. A Conversational Analysis of Acholi: Structure and Socio-Pragmatics of a Nilotic Language of Uganda Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Schegloff EA. 1972. Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. Studies in Social Interaction DN Sudnow 75–119 New York: Macmillan/Free
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Schegloff EA. 2009. One perspective on Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives See Sidnell 2009 357–406
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Sicoli MA. 2016a. Formulating place, common ground, and a moral order in Lachixío Zapotec. Open Linguist 2:180–210 https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0009
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  138. Sicoli MA. 2016b. Repair organization in Chinantec whistled speech. Language 92:411–32
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Sicoli MA. 2020. Saying and Doing in Zapotec: Multimodality, Resonance, and the Language of Joint Actions London: Bloomsbury
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Sidnell J. 2005. Talk and Practical Epistemology: The Social Life of Knowledge in a Caribbean Community Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Sidnell J. 2007. Comparative studies in conversation analysis. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 36:229–44 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094313
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  142. Sidnell J 2009. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Sidnell J. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Sidnell J. 2019. Vietnamese interlocutor reference, linguistic diversity and semiotic mediation. Paradigmi 37:467–90
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Sidnell J, Enfield NJ. 2012. Language diversity and social action: a third locus of linguistic relativity. Curr. Anthropol. 53:302–33 https://doi.org/10.1086/665697
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  146. Sidnell J, Stivers T. 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Silverstein M 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. Meaning in Anthropology KH Basso, HA Selby 11–55 Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Skedsmo K. 2020. Other-initiations of repair in Norwegian Sign Language. Soc. Interact. 3:2 https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i2.117723
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  149. Song G. 2019. Person references in Korean PhD Thesis, Teach. Coll., Columbia Univ. New York: https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-cd8c-yk46
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  150. Sorjonen M-L 2018. Reformulating prior speaker's turn in Finnish. Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages J Heritage, M-L Sorjonen 251–86 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Spielmann RW. 1998.. “ You're So Fat!Exploring Ojibwe Discourse Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Stevanovic M, Hakulinen A, Vatanen A. 2020a. Prosody and grammar of other-repetitions in Finnish: repair initiations, registerings, and affectivity. Lang. Soc 49:553–84 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000044
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  153. Stevanovic M, Valkeapää T, Weiste E, Lindholm C. 2020b. Joint decision making in a mental health rehabilitation community: the impact of support workers’ proposal design on client responsiveness. Couns. Psychol. Q. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  154. Stivers T, Enfield NJ, Brown P, Englert C, Hayashi M et al. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. PNAS 106:10587–592 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  155. Stoenica I-M, Pekarek Doehler S 2020. Relative-clause increments and the management of reference: a multimodal analysis of French talk-in-interaction. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 303–30 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.11sto
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  156. Stommel W, te Molder H. 2018. Empathically designed responses as a gateway to advice in Dutch counseling calls. Discourse Stud 20:523–43 https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618754436
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  157. Stommel W, van Goor H, Stommel M. 2019. Other-attentiveness in video consultation openings: a conversation analysis of video-mediated versus face-to-face consultations. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 24:275–92 https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz015
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  158. Suomalainen K, Varjo M. 2020. When personal is interpersonal: organizing interaction with deictically open personal constructions in Finnish everyday conversation. J. Pragmat. 168:98–118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  159. Taleghani-Nikazm C, Drake V, Golato A, Betz E 2020. Mobilizing for the next relevant action. Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis Within Larger Activities C Taleghani-Nikazm, E Betz, P Golato 47–81 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Vázquez Carranza A 2016. Remembering and noticing: a conversation-analytic study of ‘ah’ in Mexican Spanish talk. Span. Context 13:212–36
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Vázquez Carranza A 2020. Saludos y despedidas: tipología y contraste entre datos intuitivos y observacionales. [Greetings and farewells: a typology and a contrast between intuitive and observational data.]. Pragmát. Sociocult. 8:182–203 https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2020-0009
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  162. Wang W, Tao H. 2020. From matrix clause to turn expansion: the emergence of wo juede ‘I feel/think’ in Mandarin conversational interaction. Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action Y Maschler, S Pekarek Doehler, J Lindström, L Keevallik 151–82 Amsterdam: Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.06wan
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  163. Williams N. 2017. Place reference in Kula conversation. Open Linguist 3:554–81 https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0028
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  164. Wong J, Olsher D. 2000. Reflections on conversation analysis and nonnative speaker talk: an interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff. Issues Appl. Linguist. 11:111–28
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Zhang Y, Yu G. 2020. The sequential environments of positive assessments as responsive actions in Mandarin daily interaction. East Asian Pragmat 5:295–321 https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/OLDEAP/article/view/39611
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Zinken J. 2020a. Recruiting assistance and collaboration in Polish. See Floyd et al. 2020 281–324
  167. Zinken J. 2020b. The comparative study of social action: what you must and what you can do to align with a prior speaker. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53:443–62 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826764
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110158
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error