Imagined Constructed Thought: How Staff Interpret the Behavior of Patients with Intellectual Disabilities

References

• Anderson, D. L. (2005). “What you’ll say is…”: Represented voice in organizational change discourse. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 63–77. doi:10.1108/09534810510579850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, E., & Doehler, S. P. (2015). Direct reported speech in storytellings: Enacting and negotiating epistemic entitlements. Text & Talk, 35(6), 789–813. doi:10.1515/text-2015-0023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974–998. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caffi, C. (1999). On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 881–909. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clift, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(5), 569–595. doi:10.1111/josl.2006.10.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egbert, M. (2012). Conversation analysis applied to user centred design: A study of who ‘the User’ is. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 207–221). London, England: Palgrave Advances.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work, interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior (pp. 5–46). New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis - an essay in the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern Press.
   Google Scholar
• Günthner, S. (1999). Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(5), 685–708. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00093-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijkoop, J. (2015). Ontdekkend kijken: Basisboek Methode Heijkoop. Heusden, The Netherlands: Heijkoop Academy.
   Google Scholar
• Heijkoop, J., & Clegg, J. (2012). Introduction to the Heijkoop approach to challenging behaviour in ID. Paper presented at the Ideas Exchange: Emerging Good Practice in ATU Intellectual Disability Specialist Services, Nottingham, pp. 1–7.
   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. (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
• Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219–245. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kalisch, B. J. (1973). What is empathy? American Journal of Nursing, 73, 1548–1552.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Labov, W., & Fanshell, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Markkanen, R., & Schroeder, H. (1997). Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, M. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mental Capacity Act. (2007). Code of practice. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dca.gov.uk/legalpolicy/mental-capacity/mca-cp.pdf London, England: The Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, G. (1999). Functions of reported speech in group discussions. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 376–401. doi:10.1093/applin/20.3.376
   Web of Science ®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: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–198. doi:10.1111/soin.1980.50.issue-3-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinz, J. J. (2011). Is empathy necessary for morality? In P. G. A. Coplan (Ed.), Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives (pp. 211–229). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 939–967. doi:10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1984). On doing” being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In J. J. Gumpertz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 346–380). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1995). Waiting for the mouse: Constructed dialogue in conversation. In D. Tedlock & B. Mannheim (Eds.), The dialogic emergence of culture (pp. 198–217). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (2003). Power maneuvers or connection maneuvers? Ventriloquizing in family interaction. In D. Tannen & J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Linguistics, language, and the real world: Discourse and beyond (pp. 50–62). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (2004). Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(4), 399–420. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weatherall, A. (2011). I don’t know as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 44(4), 317–337. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.619310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar