Responding in Early Overlap: Recognitional Onsets in Assertion Sequences

References

• Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36. doi:10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, S. (2012). On that’s right and its combination with other tokens. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(3), 243–260. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427–454. doi:10.1075/prag.6.3.07for
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C., & 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
• French, P., & Local, J. (1983). Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 17–38. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(83)90147-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, P., & Local, J. (1986). Prosodic features and the management of interruptions. In C. Johns-Lewis (Ed.), Intonation in discourse (pp. 157–180). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9, 205–217. doi:10.1007/BF00148127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 1–54. doi:10.1075/iprapip
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–189). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A. (2001a [1976]). Liitepartikkelin -han/-hän syntaksia ja pragmatiikkaa [Syntax and pragmatics of the clitic particle -han/-hän]. In L. Laitinen, P. Nuolijärvi, M.-L. Sorjonen, & M. Vilkuna (Eds.), Lukemisto: Kirjoituksia kolmelta vuosikymmeneltä [A reader: writings from three decades] (pp. 44–90). Helsinki, Finland: SKS. ( Original work published 1976)
   Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A. (2001b). On some uses of the discourse particle ‘kyl(lä)’ in Finnish conversation. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 171–198). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 58–81). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Helasvuo, M.-L. (2004). Shared syntax: The grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1315–1336. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.007
   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. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 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
• Jefferson, G. (1983). Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation: Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University.
   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
• Jefferson, G. (2004). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 43–59). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2011). Grammar for adjusting assumptions in interaction: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 2879–2896. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laitinen, L. (1995). Nollapersoona [Zero person]. Virittäjä, 99(3), 337–358.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (1992). Assisted story-telling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 247–271. doi:10.1007/BF00990328
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (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
• Lerner, G. (2002). Turn-sharing. The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 225–256). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. (2004). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Collaborative turn sequences (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Metslang, H. (2009). Estonian grammar between Finnic and SAE: Some comparisons. Language Typology and Universals, 62, 49–71. doi:10.1524/stuf.2009.0004
   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
• Rauniomaa, M. (2007). Stance markers in spoken Finnish: Minun mielestä and minusta in assessments. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 221–252). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation I & II (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Cambridge, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & 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. (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
• Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2012). Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 53(3), 302–333. doi:10.1086/665697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L., & Hakulinen, A. (2009). Alternative responses to assessments. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 281–303). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   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
• Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 82–106). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vatanen, A. (2014). Responding in overlap: Agency, epistemicity and social action in conversation ( Doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
   Google Scholar