How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation

References

• Arminen, I., Koskela, I., & Palukka, H. (2014). Multimodal production of second pair parts in air traffic control training. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 46–62. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auer, P. (2015). The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In A. Deppermann & S. Günther (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp. 27–56). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4
   Web of Science ®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. (2009). Implementing delayed actions. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 326–354). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8, 3–55. doi:10.1007/BF00143022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ergül, H. (2016). Adjournments during TV watching: A closer look into the organisation of continuing states of incipient talk. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 144–164. doi:10.1177/1461445615623904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, 191(1/4), 257–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond multitasking: Multiactivity in social interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Haugh, M. (2017). Teasing. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Handbook of language and humor (pp. 204–218). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hayashi, M. (2013). Turn allocation and turn sharing. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Oxford, England: 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: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), ‘Why do you ask?’: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 42–68). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoey, E. M. (2015). Lapses: How people arrive at, and deal with, discontinuities in talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 430–453. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.1090116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoey, E. M. (2017). Sequence recompletion: A practice for lapse management. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 47–63. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.008
   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 Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1981). ‘Caveat speaker’: A preliminary exploration of shift implicative recipiency in the articulation of topic. Final report to the (British) Social Science Research Council.
   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. 13–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2015). Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (eds.), Temporality in Interaction (pp. 309–336). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H. (2015). The intersection of turn-taking and repair: The timing of other-initiations of repair in conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(250), 10–3389. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00010
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30(3–4), 263–290. doi:10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.263
   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. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (2013). Defensive mechanisms: I-mean-prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 198–233). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1977–1997. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved from https://franz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/franz/user_upload/redaktion/Mondada_conv_multimodality.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pillet-Shore, D. (2017a, July). Making the sensory social: Registering in copresent interaction. Paper presented at the 15th Conference of the International Pragmatics Association. Belfast, Northern, Ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Pillet-Shore, D. (2017b). Preference organization. In J. Nussbaum (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.132
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (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. M. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 219–229. doi:10.1007/BF00148128
   Web of Science ®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. (2013). Overall structural organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 257–280). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in conversation. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in 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 use of “uh-huh” and other things that come between sentences. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, 71–93.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 111–151. doi:10.1007/BF00148124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1990). Sequence as a source of coherence in conversation. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (pp. 111–151). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and interaction (pp. 70–96). Oxford, England: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. doi:10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Steensig, J., (chair), Baldauf-Quilliatre, H., Heinemann, T., & Grønkjær, C. (2015, August). Registering the material world. Panel conducted at the 2015 Conference of the International Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Kolding, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Szymanski, M. H. (1999). Re-engaging and dis-engaging talk in activity. Language in Society, 28(1), 1–23. doi:10.1017/S0047404599001013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ten Bosch, L., Oostdijk, N., & Boves, L. (2005). On temporal aspects of turn taking in conversational dialogues. Speech Communication, 47(1), 80–86. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2005.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, G. (2012). Coordination and interpretation of vocal and visible resources: ‘Trail off’ conjunctions. Language and Speech, 55(1), 141–163. doi:10.1177/0023830911428858
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), 150–182. doi:10.1177/019027250606900203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar