Proposals for Activity Collaboration

References

• Asmuß, B., & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 67–86. doi:10.1177/1461445611427215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for casual “okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A. (1995). Preserving and constraining options: “okays” and “official” priorities in medical interviews. In B. Morris & R. Chenail (Eds.), Talk of the clinic. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bergen, C. (2014). Doing make-believe: Embodied action in children’s imaginary character play (Unpublished master’s thesis). Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In E. J. Lawler & S. R. Thye (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust and solidarity (pp. 229–253). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & P. Drew (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 355–376). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. doi:10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. doi:10.1080/08351810802028613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 102–128). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Depperman, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1700–1718. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 152–164). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting—from speech act to recruitment. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requests in social interaction (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J. (2011, March). Elements of action ascription: A generative account? Paper presented at the Workshop on Proposals and Action Ascription in Conversation, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J. (2014). Human agency and the infrastructure for requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requests in social interaction (pp. 35–50). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, J. A. (1978). Amplitude shift: A mechanism for the affiliation of utterances in conversational interaction. In J. N. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 199–218). New York, NY: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, M. H. (1980). Directive/response speech sequences in girls’ and boys’ task activities. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 157–173). New York, NY: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 67, 53–59.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & N. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2012). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   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 (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization 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). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. doi:10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtkoop, H. (1987). Establishing agreement: An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49, 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidwell, M. (2011). Epistemics and embodiment in the interactions of very young children. In T. Stivers, J. Steensig, & L. Mondada (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 29–57). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177–201. doi:10.1017/S004740450332202X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human “interactional engine”. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Cognition, culture, and interaction (pp. 39–69). London, England: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and “silences”: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies, 9, 185–204. doi:10.1007/BF00148126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Local, J. K. (1992). Continuing and restarting. In P. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 273–296). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Bejamins.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (1984). Inside plea bargaining: The language of negotiation. New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1977–1997. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pillet-Shore, D. (2010). Making way and making sense: Including newcomers in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 152–175.
   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: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (1998). Getting down to business: Talk, gaze, and body orientation during openings of doctor-patient consultations. Human Communication Research, 25(1), 97–123. doi:10.1111/hcre.1998.25.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D., & Stivers, T. (2001). Achieving activity transitions in primary-care encounters: From history taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 253–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, G. (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes, 49(5), 426–458. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136
   Web of Science ®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. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095. doi:10.1525/aa.1968.70.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151. doi:10.1007/BF00148124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.
   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
• Sidnell, J. (2011). The epistemics of make believe. In T. Stivers, J. Steensig, & L. Mondada (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 131–156). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2772–2781. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universality and cultural specificity in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106(26), 10587–10592. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903616106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. doi:10.1017/S0047404506060179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 1–31. doi:10.1017/S0047404509990637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar