What “What?” Tells Us About How Conversationalists Manage Intersubjectivity

REFERENCES

• Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2008). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In H. Colston & A. N. Katz ( Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences ( pp. 21–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Barth-Weingarten, D. (2012). Of ens “n” ands: Observations on the phonetic make-up of a coordinator and its uses in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 55, 35–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A., & Metzger, T. R. (1997). Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research, 23, 562–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley ( Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition ( pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: APA Books.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., Dingemanse, M., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Brown, P., Dirksmeyer, T., … Torreira, F. (2013). Huh? What?—A first survey in twenty-one languages. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell ( Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding ( pp. 343–380). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., & Stivers, T. ( Eds.). (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C. E., Fox, S. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford, S. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson ( Eds.), The language of turn and sequence ( pp. 14–38). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson ( Eds.), Interaction and grammar ( pp. 134–184). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, “trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey ( Ed.), Motivation and social interaction ( pp. 187–238). New York, NY: Ronald.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 292–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hacohen, G., & Schegloff, E. A. (2006). On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1305–1312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halkowski, T. (2006). Realizing the illness: Patients’ narratives of symptom discovery. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard ( Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients ( pp. 86–114). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage ( Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis ( pp. 299–345). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In T. Stivers & N. J. Enfield ( Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives ( pp. 255–280). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, E., & Clift, R. (2007). Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1980). On “trouble-premonitory” response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 153–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984a). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso & P. Leonardi ( Eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetoric ( pp. 11–38). Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984b). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage ( Eds.), Structures of social action ( pp. 191–222). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). “At first I thought”: A normalizing device for extraordinary events. In G. H. Lerner ( Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation ( pp. 131–167). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. (2005). Alternative questions used in conversational repair. Discourse Studies, 7, 193–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson ( Eds.), Interaction and grammar ( pp. 238–276). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In M. Bertuccelli Papi & J. Verschueren ( Eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference ( pp. 61–129). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, F., & Francis, A. (2013). Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(6), 471–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 291–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication Monographs, 73, 137–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2013). Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell ( Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding ( pp. 261–292). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D., & Heritage, J. (2005). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: The completion relevance of current symptoms. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 481–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers ( Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis ( pp. 308–329). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone has to lie. In B. Blount & M. Sanches ( Eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of language use ( pp. 57–80). New York, NY: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992a). Lecture 3: A collaboratively built sentence; The use of “we.” In G. Jefferson ( Ed.), Lectures on conversation ( Vol. 1; pp. 144–149). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992b). Lecture 5: “First” and “second” stories; Topical coherence; Storing and recalling experiences. In G. Jefferson ( Ed.), Lectures on conversation ( Vol. 2; pp. 249–260). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992c). Lecture 9: Sound shifts; Showing understanding; Dealing with “utterance completion”; Practical mysticism. In G. Jefferson ( Ed.), Lectures on conversation ( Vol. 2; pp. 137–149). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas ( Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology ( pp. 15–21). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen ( Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk ( pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 185–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox ( Ed.), Studies in anaphora ( pp. 437–485). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson ( Eds.), Interaction and grammar ( pp. 52–133). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2001, June). Increments. Paper presented at the Summer Linguistic Institute sponsored by the Linguistic Society of America, Santa Barbara, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2004). On dispensability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 95–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific American ( Eds.). (2012). The Higgs boson: Searching for the God particle. New York, NY: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair initiation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting ( Eds.), Prosody in conversation ( pp. 231–270). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seo, M., & Koshik, I. (2010). A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL conversational tutoring. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2219–2239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10587–10592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar