Repeated use of request for confirmation in atypical interaction

References

• Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 531–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., Finlay, W., Walton, C., & Pate, L. (2008). Offering choice to people with an intellectual impairment: An interactional study. Journal of Intellectual Disability research, 52, 1165–1175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation Analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bjerre, L. (2006). Når jeg kommunikerer: Metodebog om kommunikation, sociale netværk og handicap [When I communicate: A book of methods in communication, social network and handicap]. København: UFC Handicap.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2004). AAC in context: A conversation analysis study of AAC use in acquired dysarthria. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 272–282.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer, C. (2012). Talking ‘cognition’ in the audiology clinic. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer and D. Day (Eds.) Evaluating cognitive competences in interaction (pp. 189–211). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In H. Hiz (Ed.), Questions. (pp. 87–105). Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, E. A., & Heritage, J. (2006). Taking the history: Questioning during comprehensive history-taking. In J. Heritage and D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 151–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, M. T., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). Interaction between children with cerebral palsy and their peers 1: Organizing and understanding VOCA use. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 336–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, M. T., & Wilkinson, R. (2009). The collaborative construction of non-serious episodes of interaction by non-speaking children with cerebral palsy and their peers. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 23, 583–597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (1996). Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen and M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional Studies (pp. 11–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. (Ed.) (2013). Conversation analytic studies of multimodal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. Special Issue, 46(1), 1–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131–149). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 279–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1981). The abominable ne?: Post-response-initiation response-solicitation. In P. Schröder (Ed), Sprache der Gegenwart (pp. 53–88). Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.
   Google Scholar
• Klippi, A. (2003). Collaborating in aphasic group conversations: striving for mutual understanding. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 117–143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laakso, M (1999). A closer look at the ‘hint and guess’ sequences in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology, 13 (4–5), 345–364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberman, K. (2011). The reflexive intelligibility of affairs: ethnomethodological perpectives on communicating sense. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 64, 73–99.
   Google Scholar
• Pilesjö, M., & Ramussen, G. (2011). Exploring interaction between a non-speaking boy using aided AAC and his everyday communication partners: features of turn organizing and turn design. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 2(2), 181–213.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: an information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55, 360–373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Rapley, M. (2004). The social construction of intellectual disability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, G. (2013). That’s my story! Resisting disabling processes in a therapeutic activity. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 4(2), 273–298.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, G., Hazel, S., & Mortensen, K. (Eds.) (2014). A body of resources – CA studies of social conduct. Journal of Pragmatics Special Issue, 65, 1–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity and interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Robillard, A. B. (1999). Meaning of a disability: The lived experience of paralysis. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D., & Heritage, J. (2005). The structure of patients’ presenting symptoms. Social Science and Medicine, 61(2), 481–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1995). Rules of conversational sequence. In G. Jefferson (Ed.). Harvey Sacks, lectures on conversation, I (pp. 3–11). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Garfinkel, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J.C. McKinney and E.A. Tiryakian (Eds.) Theoretical sociology (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conveation. Language, 53, 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Steensig, J., & Heinemann, T. (2013). When ‘yes’ is not enough - as an answer to a yes/no question. In B.S. Reed and G. Raymond (Eds). Units of talk - Units of action (pp. 207–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2772–2781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. A practical guide. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• WHO (2013). How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Exposure draft for comment. October 2013. Geneve: WHO.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (1999). Sequentiality as a problem and a resource for intersubjectivity in aphasic conversation: analysis and implications for therapy. Aphasiology, 13 (4), 327–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar