Assessing Answers: Action Ascription in Third Position

References

• Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8(1), 3–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., & De Ruiter, J. P. (2012). Epistemic dimensions of polar questions. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 193–221). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139045414.014
   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
• Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54(4), 787–815.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assesments. Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–54.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 147–190). 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 (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2009). Questioning in medicine. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why do you ask? (pp. 42–68). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0003
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (in press). The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal of the “epistemics of epistemics” group. Discourse Studies, 20.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123–162). New York, NY: Irvington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1985). Kan een verzoek met “ja” worden geaccepteerd? [Can a request be accepted with a “yes”?]. TTT Interdisciplinair Tijdschrift Voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap, 5(1), 23–40.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984). 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. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G., & Schenkein, J. (1977). Some sequential negotiations in conversation: Unexpanded and expanded versions of projected sequences. Sociology, 11(1), 87–103.
   Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 255–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kevoe-Feldman, H. (2015). Working the overall structural organization of a call: How customers use third position as leverage for gaining service representatives’ assistance in dealing with service problems. Language & Communication, 43, 47–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kevoe-Feldman, H., & Robinson, J. D. (2012). Exploring essentially three-turn courses of action: An institutional case study with implications for ordinary talk. Discourse Studies, 14, 217–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 101–130). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch6
   Google Scholar
• Lindström, A. (2017). Accepting remote proposals. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
   Google Scholar
• Lindström, A., & Mondada, L. (2009). Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 299–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(2), 93–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreement/disagreement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA.
   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. 57–101). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   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. 57–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (2017). Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.273.04pom
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2010). Grammar and social relations. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why do you ask? (pp. 87–107). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0005
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommetveit, R. (1976). On the architecture of intersubjectivity. In L. Strickland (Ed.), Social psychology in transition (pp. 201–214). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337–353). 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.
   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. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 364–399). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46, 313–337. doi:10.1017/S0047404517000173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action in interaction. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 423–446). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 148–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tsui, A. B. M. M. (1989). Beyond the adjacency pair. Language in Society, 18(4), 545–564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar