Composite Social Actions: The Case of Factual Declaratives in Everyday Interaction

References

• Asmuß, B. (2011). Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing agreement. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 207–234). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, T. M., & Walker, T. S. (2013). Managing problems of acceptability through high rise-fall repetitions. Discourse Processes, 50(2), 107–138. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2012.739143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 430–477. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(79)90020-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2010). Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse & Communication, 4(2), 161–183. doi:10.1177/1750481310364330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries. Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 51–82). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action?. Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. doi:10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 129–151). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1998). Complaints About Transgressions and Misconduct. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 295–325. doi:10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting - From Speech Act to recruitment. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1988). Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems, 35(4), 398–417. doi:10.2307/800594
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7(1), 5–29. doi:10.1177/1461445605048765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100(1), 23–41. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship thinking: Enchrony, agency and human sociality. London, England/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66. doi:10.1017/S0047404500006849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasulo, A., & Monzoni, C. M. (2009). Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(4), 362–376. doi:10.1080/08351810903296481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J. (Eds.). (in press). Getting others to do things: A pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524–533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G. (1971). Conversational postulates. Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago 1971 (pp. 63–84).
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T., & Traverso, V. (2009). Editorial: Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2381–2384. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.006
   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. (2012). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and 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
• Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, A., & Kendrick, K. H. (2016). Imperative directives: Orientations to accountability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(3), 272–288. doi:10.1080/08351813.2016.1201737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201. doi:10.1017/S004740450332202X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   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. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Monzoni, C. M. (2009). Direct complaints in (Italian) calls to the ambulance: The use of negatively framed questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2465–2478. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, R. (2015). Registering and repair-initiating repeats in French talk-in-interaction. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 583–608. doi:10.1177/1461445615590721
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pino, M. (2016). Delivering criticism through anecdotes in interaction. Discourse Studies, 18(6), 695–715. doi:10.1177/1461445616668069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1978). Attributions of responsibilty: Blamings. Sociology, 12(1), 115–121. doi:10.1177/003803857801200107
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited Access’ as a “Fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3‐4), 186–198. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: 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
• Raymond, G. (2013). At the intersection of turn and sequence organization. On the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk - Units of action (pp. 169–206).  Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2013). Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 261–292). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction (Ph.D. dissertation). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, G. (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes, 49(5), 426–458. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, G. (2015a). Responding to pre-requests: The organization of hai x ‘do you have x’ sequences in Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 82(SupplementC), 5–22. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.008
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, G. (2015b). The request system in Italian interaction (Ph.D. dissertation). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, G., & Zinken, J. (2016). Grammar and social agency: The pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language, 92(4), e296–e325. doi:10.1353/lan.2016.0083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. G. Jefferson. Ed.. Vol. 1. Blackwell, England: Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew & A. J. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89–135). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 185–211. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. doi:10.1086/230911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–546. doi:10.1080/01638539709545001
   Web of Science ®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., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 59–82). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (1996). Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair initiation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 231–270). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sicoli, M. A., Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Marked initial pitch in questions signals marked communicative function. Language and Speech, 58(2), 204–223. doi:10.1177/0023830914529247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chirchester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2012). Declaratives, questioning, defeasibility. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 53–60. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646686
   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. 411–433). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, 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(02), 185–207. doi:10.1017/S0047404514000037
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 191–209). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2015). Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis?. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.993837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. doi:10.1080/08351810903471258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terasaki, A. K. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 171–223). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge, England/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vinkhuyzen, E., & Szymanski, M. H. (2005). Would you like to do it yourself? Service requests and their non-granting responses. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 91–106). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Weizman, E. (1989). Requestive hints. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 71–95). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, R.-J. R. (2006). Initiating repair and beyond: The use of two repeat-formatted repair initiations in mandarin conversation. Discourse Processes, 41(1), 67–109. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4101_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar