Indexing Priority of Position: Eben as Response Particle in German

References

• Barnes, S. (2011). Claiming mutual stance: On the use of that’s right by a person with aphasia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(4), 359–384. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.619312
   Web of Science ®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
• Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). Double sayings of German JA—More observations on their phonetic form and alignment function. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(2), 157–185. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.567099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betz, E. (2014, June). Confirming and agreeing: Different uses of responsive genau in German Paper presented at the .International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Betz, E. (2015). Indexing epistemic access through different confirmation formats: Uses of responsive (das) stimmt in German interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 251–266. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betz, E., Taleghani-Nikazm, C., Drake, V., & Golato, A. (2013). Third-position repeats in German: The case of repair- and request-for-information sequences. Gesprächsforschung, 14, 133–166. Retrieved from http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2013/ga-betz.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 661–688. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. (2008). “So what’s up?”: Using the discourse marker so to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–337. doi:10.1080/08351810802237909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandom, R. B. (1998). Making it explicit. Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bruner, J. (1957). Going beyond the information given. In H. Gruber, K. Hammond, & R. Jessor (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 41–69). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. (in press). Inferential practices in social interaction: A conversation-analytic account. Open Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A., & Günthner, S. (2015). Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Diewald, G., & Kresić, M. (2010). Ein übereinzelsprachliches kontrastives Beschreibungsmodell für Partikelbedeutungen [A non-language-specific, contrastive model for describing the meaning of particles]. Linguistik Online, 44(10), 1–18. doi:10.13092/lo.44.400
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony and human sociality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2007). Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In A. Fetzer & K. Fischer (Eds.), Lexical markers of common grounds (pp. 47–66). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Franck, D. (1980). Grammatik und Konversation [Grammar and conversation]. Königstein, Germany: Scriptor.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. (2007). The right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society, 36(3), 319–341. doi:10.1017/s0047404507070169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A. (2010). Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso. and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies, 12(2), 147–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A., & Betz, E. (2008). German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 27, 7–37. doi:10.1515/zfsw.2008.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A., Betz, E., Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Drake, V. (2017). Repeated assessments in German. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody—A conversation analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 1–30. doi:10.1080/08351810802237834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayano, K. (2013). Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T. (2016). Registering revision: The reduplicated Danish change-of-state token nå. Discourse Studies, 18(1), 44–63. doi:10.1177/1461445615614131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helbig, G. (1988). Lexikon deutscher partikeln [Encyclopedia of German particles]. Leipzig, Germany: Enzyklopädie.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Boston, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2016). On the diversity of “changes of state” and their indices. Journal of Pragmatics, 104, 207–210. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 659–673). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   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 (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38. doi:10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York, NY: Free Press.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Küttner, U. (2016). That-initial turns in English conversation—An interactional linguistic investigation of two formats for designedly tying a current turn to a prior (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Lutten, J. (1979). Die Rolle der Partikeln doch, eben und ja als Konsens-Konstitutiva in gesprochener Sprache [The role of the particles doch, eben, and ja in constituting consensus in spoken language]. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache [Particles in the German language] (pp. 30–38). Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Margutti, P., & Drew, P. (2014). Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction. Language and Education, 28(5), 436–458. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.898650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazeland, H., & Plug, L. (2010). Doing confirmation with ja/nee hoor: Sequential and prosodic characteristics of a Dutch discourse particle. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 161–188). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213. doi:10.1017/s0047404500005522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oloff, F. (2017). Genau als redebeitragsinterne, responsive, sequenzschließende oder sequenzstrukturierende Bestätigungspartikel im Gespräch [Genau as turn-internal, responsive, sequence-closing or sequence-structuring confirmation particle in conversation]. In H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen [Discourse markers in German: Reflections and analyses] (pp. 207–232). Göttingen, Germany: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. Retrieved from http://www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2017/pdf/diskursmarker.pdf
   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. 79–112). New York, NY: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Proske, N. (2014). °h ach KOMM; hör AUF mit dem klEInkram. Die Partikel komm zwischen Interjektion und Diskursmarker [°h oh come on; stop the pettiness: The particle komm (come on) between interjection and discourse marker]. Gesprächsforschung [Discourse and Conversation Analysis], 15, 121–160. Retrieved from http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2014/ga-proske.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Reineke, S. (2016). Wissenszuschreibungen in der Interaktion [Knowledge attributions in interaction]. Heidelberg, Germany: Winter.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation [1964–1972, 2 Vols.]. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150–171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161–216. doi:10.1086/230911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–153). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schütz, A. (1962). Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2007). Indirect anaphora in text. A cognitive account. In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten, & M. Knees (Eds.), Anaphora in text (pp. 3–20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands : John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Schwitalla, J. (2003). Gesprochenes Deutsch [Spoken German]. Berlin, Germany: Erich Schmidt.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanović, M., & Peräkylää, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43, 185–207. doi:10.1017/s0047404514000037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30, 260–293. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for 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
• Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge, England: Cambrdige University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willkop, E.-M. (1988). Gliederungspartikeln im dialog[Structuring particles in dialogue]. Munich, Germany: Iudicium.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, M. (2011). On clicks in english talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 41(2), 207–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Grammar of the German language]. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar