Affiliating Through Agreements: The Context of Antenatal Consultations

References

• Antaki C 2002 ‘“Lovely”: turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings’ Discourse Studies 4: 5–23. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040010101
   Google Scholar
• Antaki C, H Houtkoop-Steenstra and M Rapley 2000 ‘“Brilliant. Next question … ”: high-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units’ Research on Language & Social Interaction 33: 235–262. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3303_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council 2012 Clinical Practice Guidelines: antenatal care – module 1 Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee 2004 The Specialist Obstetrics and Gynaecology Workforces in Australia—an update: 2003–2013 Sydney AMWAC Report 2004.2.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes S 2012 ‘On that's right and its combination with other tokens’ Journal of Pragmatics 44: 243–260. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes SE 2011 ‘Claiming mutual stance: on the use of that's right by a person with aphasia’ Research on Language and Social Interaction 44: 359–384. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2011.619312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilmes J 1988 ‘The concept of preference in conversation analysis’ Language in Society 17: 161–181. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500012744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne J, M O'Brien & J Taylor, et al. 2014 ‘“You've got it within you”: the political act of keeping a wellness focus in the antenatal time’ Midwifery 30: 420–426. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.04.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew P, J Chatwin and S Collins 2001 ‘Conversation analysis: a method for research into interactions between patients and health-care professionals’ Health Expectations 4: 58–70. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00125.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drew P and M-L Sorjonen 1997 ‘Institutional dialogue’ Discourse as Social Interaction 2: 92–118.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner R 2001 When Listeners Talk Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gill VT 1998 ‘Doing attributions in medical interactions: patients’ explanations for illness and doctors’ responses’ Social Psychology Quarterly 61: 342–360. doi: 10.2307/2787034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill VT and D Maynard 2006 ‘Explaining illness: patients’ proposals and physicians’ responses’ in J Heritage and D Maynard (eds) Communication in Medical Care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 115–150.
   Google Scholar
• Halkowski T 2006 ‘Realizing the illness: patients’ narratives of symptom discovery’ in J Heritage and DW Maynard (eds) Communication in Medical Care Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 86–114.
   Google Scholar
• ten Have P 1990 ‘Methodological issues in conversation analysis’ Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique 27: 23–51. doi: 10.1177/075910639002700102
   Google Scholar
• Heath C 1981 ‘The opening sequence in doctor–patient interaction’ in P Atkinson and C Heath (eds) Medical Work: realities and routines Westmead: Gower. pp. 71–90.
   Google Scholar
• Heath C 1992 ‘The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general practice consultation’ in P Drew and J Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: interaction in institutional settings Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 235–267.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage J 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage J 2012a ‘The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge’ Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 30–52. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage J 2012b ‘Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge’ Research on Language & Social Interaction 45: 1–29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage J 2013 ‘Language and social institutions: the conversation analytic view’ Journal of Foreign Languages 36: 2–27.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage J and DW Maynard 2006a Communication in Medical Care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage J and DW Maynard 2006b ‘Problems and prospects in the study of physician–patient interaction: 30 years of research’ Annual Review of Sociology 32: 351–374. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.32.082905.093959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage J and G Raymond 2005 ‘The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction’ Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hester S and D Francis 2001 ‘Is institutional talk a phenomenon? Reflections on ethnomethodology and applied conversation analysis’ in A McHoul and M Rapley (eds) How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: a casebook of methods London: Continuum. pp. 206–217.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson G 1984 ‘Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset’ in V D'Urso and P Leonardi (eds) Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetorics Padua: Cleup Editore. pp. 11–38.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson G 2004a ‘Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction’ in GH Lerner (ed.) Conversation Analysis: studies from the first generation Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. pp. 13–31.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson G 2004b ‘A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation (1975)’ in GH Lerner (ed.) Conversation Analysis: studies from the first generation Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 13–23.
   Google Scholar
• Jones CM 2001 ‘Missing assessments: lay and professional orientations in medical interviews’ Text 21: 113–150.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner G 1996 ‘Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction’ Social Psychology Quarterly 59: 303–321. doi: 10.2307/2787073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindström A and M-L Sorjonen 2012 ‘Affiliation in conversation’ in The Handbook of Conversation Analysis Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 250–369.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard DW 1991 ‘Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse’ American Journal of Sociology 97: 448–495. doi: 10.1086/229785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia 2008 Code of Ethics for Midwives - August 2008 - rebranded: a midwife’s guide to professional boundaries Melbourne: Australian Health Practitioner Regulation.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä A 1998 ‘Authority and accountability: the delivery of diagnosis in primary health care’ Social Psychology Quarterly 61: 301–320. doi: 10.2307/2787032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peräkylä A 2002 ‘Agency and authority: extended responses to diagnostic statements in primary care encounters’ Research on Language and Social Interaction 35: 219–247. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3502_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peräkylä A 2004 ‘Making links in psychoanalytic interpretations: a conversation analytic perspective’ Psychotherapy Research 14: 289–307. doi: 10.1093/ptr/kph026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peräkylä A 2006 ‘Communicating and responding to diagnosis’ in J Heritage and DW Maynard (eds) Communication in Medical Care Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 214–247.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä A and S Vehviläinen 2003 ‘Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge’ Discourse and Society 14: 727–750. doi: 10.1177/09579265030146003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz A 1978 ‘Compliment responses: notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints’ in J Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction New York: Academic Press. pp. 79–112.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz A 1984 ‘Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes’ in JH Atkinson (ed.) Structures of Social Interaction: studies in conversation analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–101.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz A 1986 ‘Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing claims’ Human Studies 9: 219–229. doi: 10.1007/BF00148128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz A 2002 ‘How patients handle lay diagnoses during medical consultations’ Tenth Annual Symposium about Language and Society, Texas Linguistic Forum, Austin, Texas. pp. 127–138.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz A and J Heritage 2012 ‘Preference’ in J Sidnell and T Stivers (eds) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 210–228.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond G 2003 ‘Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding’ American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risa CF, E Lidén & F Friberg 2011 ‘Communication patterns in antenatal diabetes care: an explorative and descriptive study of midwife-led consultations’ Journal of Clinical Nursing 20: 2053–2063. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03552.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson J 2003 ‘An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation’ Health Communication 15: 27–59. doi: 10.1207/S15327027HC1501_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruusuvuori J 2005 ‘“Empathy” and “sympathy” in action: attending to patient's troubles in finnish homeopathic and general practice consultations’ Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 204–222. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruusuvuori J 2007 ‘Managing affect: integration of empathy and problem-solving in health care encounters’ Discourse Studies 9: 597–622. doi: 10.1177/1461445607081269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks H 1987 ‘On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation’ in G Button and JRE Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organisation Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. pp. 54–69.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff EA 2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seefat-van Teeffelen A, M Nieuwenhuijze and I Korstjens 2011 ‘Women want proactive psychosocial support from midwives during transition to motherhood: a qualitative study’ Midwifery 27: e122–e127. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2009.09.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sibbritt DW, CJ Catling-Paull & VL Scarf, et al. 2013 ‘The profile of women who consult midwives in Australia’ Women and Birth 26: 240–245. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2013.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton H, M Kirkham & G Thomas, et al. 2002 ‘Language use in antenatal consultations’ British Journal of Midwifery 10: 273–277. doi: 10.12968/bjom.2002.10.5.10345
   Google Scholar
• Steensig J & P Drew 2008 ‘Introduction: questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction’ Discourse Studies 10: 5–15. doi: 10.1177/1461445607085581
   Web of Science ®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: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernon B 2011 ‘The right to a midwife’ Health Issues 105: 35–38.
   Google Scholar
• Wooffitt R & C Clark 1998 ‘Mobilizing discourse and social identities in knowledge talk’ in C Antaki and S Widdicombe (eds) Identities in Talk London: Sage Publications. pp. 105–120.
   Google Scholar