Using Conversation Analysis in the Lab

References

• Bavelas, J. B. (1995). Quantitative versus qualitative. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to communication (pp. 49–62). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Never say no … How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0145474. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bögels, S., & Levinson, S. C. (2017 /this issue). The brain behind the response—Insights into turn-taking in conversation from neuroimaging. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 71–89. doi:10.1080/08351813.2017.1262118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bögels, S., Magyari, L., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation. Scientific Reports, 5, 12881. doi:10.1038/srep12881
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bögels, S., & Torreira, F. (2015). Listeners use intonational phrase boundaries to project turn ends in spoken interaction. Journal of Phonetics, 52, 46–57. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Gill, V. T. (2004). Conversation analysis. In M. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 589–606). London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Davidsen, J., & McIlvenny, P. (2016). Jacob Davidsen and Paul McIlvenny on experiments with big video. Retrieved from https://rolsi.net/2016/10/17/guest-blog-jacob-davidsen-and-paul-mcilvenny-on-experiments-with-big-video/
   Google Scholar
• De Ruiter, J. (2013). Methodological paradigms in interaction research. In I. Wachsmuth, J. De Ruiter, P. Jaecks, & S. Kopp (Eds.), Alignment in communication. Towards a new theory of communication (pp. 11–31). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• De Ruiter, J. P., & Albert, S. (2017 /this issue). An appeal for a methodological fusion of conversation analysis and experimental psychology. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 90–107. doi:10.1080/08351813.2017.1262050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535. doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (2014). Conversation analysis in sociolinguistics. In J. Holmes & K. Hazen (Eds.), Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical guide (pp. 230–245). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Eshghi, A., & Healey, P. G. T. (2016). Collective contexts in conversation: Grounding by proxy. Cognitive Science, 40(2), 299–324. doi:10.1111/cogs.12225
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Fröhlich, M., Kuchenbuch, P., Müller, G., Fruth, B., Furuichi, T., Wittig, R. M., & Pika, S. (2016). Unpeeling the layers of language: Bonobos and chimpanzees engage in cooperative turn-taking sequences. Scientific Reports, 6, 25887. doi:10.1038/srep25887
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gisladottir, R. S., Chwilla, D. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120068
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazel, S. (2015). The paradox from within: Research participants doing-being-observed. Qualitative Research, 16(4), 1468794115596216. doi:10.1177/1468794115596216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliott, M. N., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(10), 1429–1433. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0279-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirvenkari, L., Ruusuvuori, J., Saarinen, V.-M., Kivioja, M., Peräkylä, A., & Hari, R. (2013). Influence of turn-taking in a two-person conversation on the gaze of a viewer. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71569. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoey, E. M., & Kendrick, K. H. (in press). Conversation analysis. In P. Hagoort & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Holler, J., & Kendrick, K. H. (2015). Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 98. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hömke, P., Holler, J., & Levinson, S. C. (2017 /this issue). Eye blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 54–70. doi:10.1080/08351813.2017.1262143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howes, C., Healey, P. G. T., Purver, M., & Eshghi, A. (2012). Finishing each other’s … Responding to incomplete contributions in dialogue. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 479–484). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Howes, C., Purver, M., Healey, P. G. T., Mills, G., & Gregoromichelaki, E. (2011). On incrementality in dialogue: Evidence from compound contributions. Dialogue & Discourse, 2(1), 279–311. doi:10.5087/d&d.v2i1.362
   Google Scholar
• Jaegher, H. D., Paolo, E. D., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441–447. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaegher, H. D., Peräkylä, A., & Stevanovic, M. (2016). The co-creation of meaningful action: Bridging enaction and interactional sociology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371(1693), 20150378. doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, N., & Raymond, G. (2012). “The camera rolls”: Using third-party video in field research. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 642(1), 109–123. doi:10.1177/0002716212438205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H., & Holler, J. (2017 /this issue). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 12–32. doi:10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 255–289. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns ( Highlighting edition). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Laurier, E., & Philo, C. (2006). Natural problems of naturalistic video data. In H. Knoblauch, J. Raab, H.-G. Soeffner, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Video-analysis: Methodology and methods: Qualitative audiovisual data analysis in sociology (pp. 183–192). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20(3), 441–458. doi:10.1017/S0047404500016572
   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). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication—Origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 6–14. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magyari, L., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., de Ruiter, J. P., & Levinson, S. C. (2014). Early anticipation lies behind the speed of response in conversation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2530–2539. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00673
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magyari, L., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2012). Prediction of turn-ends based on anticipation of upcoming words. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 376. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation-configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In H. Knoblauch, J. Raab, H. G. Soeffner, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Video analysis (pp. 1–18). Bern, Switzerland: Lang. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242678662_Video_Recording_as_the_Reflexive_Preservation_and_Configuration_of_Phenomenal_Features_for_Analysis
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2008). Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), Art. 39.Retrieved fromhttp://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1161
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 32–56). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A., Henttonen, P., Voutilainen, L., Kahri, M., Stevanovic, M., Sams, M., & Ravaja, N. (2015). Sharing the emotional load: Recipient affiliation calms down the storyteller. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(4), 301–323. doi:10.1177/0190272515611054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–190. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed 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
• Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, F., & Francis, A. L. (2013). Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(6), EL471. doi:10.1121/1.4802900
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, F., Francis, A. L., & Morgan, M. (2006). The interaction of inter-turn silence with prosodic cues in listener perceptions of “trouble” in conversation. Speech Communication, 48(9), 1079–1093. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2006.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, F., Margutti, P., & Takano, S. (2011). Judgments concerning the valence of inter-turn silence across speakers of American English, Italian, and Japanese. Discourse Processes, 48(5), 331–354. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2007). The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 65–75. doi:10.1080/19312450709336663
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D., & Heritage, J. (2014). Intervening with conversation analysis: The case of medicine. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 201–218. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.925658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 2–14. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. 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
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. doi:10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   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 (p. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp. 44–70). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Introduction. In H. Sacks, Lectures on conversation (G. Jefferson, Ed.; vol. 1, pp. ix–lxii). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 26, 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. doi:10.1086/230911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott (Eds.), Computational and conversational discourse (pp. 3–35). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_1
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 41(3–4), 235–263. doi:10.1177/002383099804100402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 393–414. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Speed, L. J., Wnuk, E., & Majid, A. (in press). Studying psycholinguistics out of the lab. In P. Hagoort & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. A. (2002). “Natural” and “contrived” data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies, 4(4), 511–525. doi:10.1177/14614456020040040601
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. A., & Hutchby, I. (2003). From ethics to analytics: Aspects of participants’ orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices. Sociology, 37(2), 315–337. doi:10.1177/0038038503037002006
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., Himberg, T., Niinisalo, M., Kahri, M., Peräkylä, A., Sams, M., & Hari, R. (2017 /this issue). Sequentiality, mutual visibility, and behavioral matching: Body sway and pitch register during joint decision-making. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 33–53. doi:10.1080/08351813.2017.1262130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2015). Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.993837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903616106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voutilainen, L., Henttonen, P., Kahri, M., Kivioja, M., Ravaja, N., Sams, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Affective stance, ambivalence, and psychophysiological responses during conversational storytelling. Journal of Pragmatics, 68, 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zellers, M. (2016). Prosodic variation and segmental reduction and their roles in cuing turn transition in Swedish. Language and Speech, 0023830916658680. doi:10.1177/0023830916658680. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307619266_Prosodic_Variation_and_Segmental_Reduction_and_Their_Roles_in_Cuing_Turn_Transition_in_Swedish.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar