Indexing Uncertainty: The Case of Turn-Final Or

REFERENCES

• Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: Social organization of accounts. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Barth-Weingarten, D., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2002). On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In I. Wischer & G. Diewalds (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 345–361). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topical initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., & O’Leary, K. (1989). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In J. Coates & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex (pp. 74–93). London, England: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ono, T. (2007). “Incrementing” in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 17, 513–552. doi:10.1075/prag.17.4
   Google Scholar
• De Ruiter, J.-P. (2012). Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., & de Ruiter, J.-P. (2012). Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sentence-final particles in comparative perspective. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 193–221). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., & Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question–response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction, editorial. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2615–2619. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, C. E. (2001). At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (Vol. 10, pp. 51–80). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and compliment responses: Grammatical structure and sequential organization. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hagemann, J. (2009). Tag questions als Evidenzmarker: Formulierungsdynamik, sequentielle Struktur und Funktionen redezuginterner tags [Tag questions as evidential markers: Dynamics of formulations, sequential structure and functions of intra-turn tags]. Gesprächsforschung–Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaction, 10, 145–176.
   Google Scholar
• Harren, I. (2001). “Ne?” in Alltagsgesprächen—Interaktive Funktionen und Positionierung in Turn und Sequenz [“Ne?” in ordinary conversation—Interactional functions and positioning in turn and sequence]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T. (2008). Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies, 10, 55–71. doi:10.1177/1461445607085590
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). 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). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012a). 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. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45, 30–52. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 1–15). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (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
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). 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. 179–192). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, J. (1982). The function of tag questions. English Language Research Journal, 3, 40–65.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, J. (1984). Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo, 27, 47–62.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London, England: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47–96. doi:10.1515/semi.1973.9.1.47
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1983). Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature (No. 28). Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on “latency” in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9, 153–183. doi:10.1007/BF00148125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2008). Conjunction and sequenced actions: The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et. In R. Laury (Ed.), Studies of clause-combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 125–152). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Keisanen, T. (2006). Patterns of stance-taking: Negative yes/no interrogatives and tag questions in American English conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Koivisto, A., Laury, R., & Seppänen, E.-L. (2011). Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish että-clauses. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 69–103). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. A. (2002a). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851–1877. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. A. (2002b). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 35, 277–309. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. A. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Laury, R., & Seppänen, E.-L. (2008). Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että. In R. Laury (Ed.), Studies of clause-combining: The multifunctionality of conjunction (pp. 153–178). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   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. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 11–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindstrom, A. (1997). Designing social actions: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. (2007). The TalkBank Project. In J. C. Beal, K. P. Corrigan, & H. L. Moisl (Eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora: Synchronic databases (Vol. 1). Houndsmills, England: Palgrave-Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, E., & Podesva, R. (2009). Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society, 38, 447–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, J., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In R. Laury (Ed.), Studies of clause-combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 179–204). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   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 (pp. 79–112). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing device.” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 186–198. doi:10.1111/soin.1980.50.issue-3-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55, 360–373. doi:10.1080/03637758809376177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (2012). Fragen mit Antwortangebot, soziales Handeln und moralische Ordnung [Candidate answer queries, actions, and the moral order]. In R. Ayass & C. Meyer (Eds.), Sozialität in slow motion: Theoretische und empirische Perspektiven Festschrift fur Jorg Bergmann [Sociality in slow motion: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Festschrift for Jorg Bergmann] (pp. 333–352). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “So” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37, 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
   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. doi:10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 111–151. doi:10.1007/BF00148124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63. doi:10.1017/S0047404500001019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh- questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42, 91–115. doi:10.1080/08351810902864511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., & Uhmann, S. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2) [Conversation analytic transcription system (GAT 2)]. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, 10, 353–402.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39, 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–27). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43, 3–31. doi:10.1080/08351810903471258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. (2010). “Have you been married, or … ?”: Eliciting and accounting for relationship histories in speed-dating interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43, 260–282. doi:10.1080/08351813.2010.497988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, G. (2012). Coordination and interpretation of vocal and visible resources: “Trail-off” conjunctions. Language and Speech, 55, 141–163. doi:10.1177/0023830911428858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, B., & Macfarlane, S. (1998). Prosody as an interactional resource: Turn-projection and overlap. Language and Speech, 41, 265–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar