When Someone Other than the Addressed Recipient Speaks Next: Three Kinds of Intervening Action After the Selection of Next Speaker

References

• Bolden, G. B. (2011). On the organization of repair in multiperson conversation: The case of “other”-selection in other-initiated repair sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 44(3), 237–262. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.591835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, J. A. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 102–128). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., & Stokoe, E. (2011). “You don’t have to answer”: Lawyers’ contributions in police interrogations of suspects. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 44(1), 21–43. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.543877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and compliment responses: Grammatical structure and sequential organization. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Interstitial argument. In A. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 85–117). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79–96). New York, NY: Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘standard maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 166–196). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G., & Lee, J. R. E. (1981). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a “Troubles Telling” and a “Service Encounter”. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 399–422. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 51–77. doi:10.1177/14614456030050010301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 167–177. doi:10.1080/10570318909374298
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15(3), 247–271. doi:10.1007/BF00990328
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13(2), 213–245. doi:10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303–321. doi:10.2307/2787073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (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). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   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
• Lerner, G. H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H., & Takagi, T. (1999). On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(1), 49–75. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00051-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. (1986). Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans). Human Studies, 9, 261–286. doi:10.1007/BF00148131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell-Kernan, C. (1972). Signifying & marking. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 161–179). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
   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 Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984a). 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. (1984b). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–163). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of ‘explicit’ apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37(3), 291–330. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2
   Web of Science ®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 organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Edited by Gail Jefferson; with an Introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York, NY: Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & 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. (1995). Parties and joint talk: Two ways in which numbers are significant for Talk-in-Interaction. In P. Ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities (pp. 31–42). Washington, DC: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices of referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2005). On complainability. Social Problems, 52(4), 449–476. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449
   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, 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. doi:10.1017/S0047404506060179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terasaki, A. K. (2004). Pre-announcement sequence in conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 174–223). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar