On the Use of “I Just Thought” Formulations for Modifying One’s Stance Toward a Problematic Action

References

• Bolden, G. B., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 94–119. doi:10.1111/jcom.2011.61.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S., & Levinson, P. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. Group Cohesion and Solidarity, 19, 229–253.
   Google Scholar
• Curl, T., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. doi:10.1080/08351810802028613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–199. doi:10.1515/IP.2008.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of and experiments with “trust” as a condition of concerted stable actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social order: Cognitive determinants (pp. 187–238). New York, NY: Ronald Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (eds)., Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays of face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Designing the recipient: Managing advice resistance in institutional settings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(2), 216–241. doi:10.1177/0190272511408055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984b). 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. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334. doi:10.1017/S0047404500019990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10/11), 1427–1446. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in references to persons (and places). In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 255–280). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). 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 talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. doi:10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303–321. doi:10.2307/2787073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (2016). Defending solidarity: Self-repair on behalf of other-attentiveness. In J. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 73–107). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, C. W., & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In J. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 321–354). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In J. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 1–46). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114. doi:10.2307/2786745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (2006). On possibles. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 141–157. doi:10.1177/1461445606059563
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction, Volume 1: A primer. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E., & Lerner, G. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115. doi:10.1080/08351810902864511
   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(2), 131–158. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turowetz, J., & Hollander, M. M. (2012). Assessing the experience of speed dating. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 635–658. doi:10.1177/1461445612454083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar