Revisiting Preference Organization in Context: A Qualitative and Quantitative Examination of Responses to Information Seeking

References

• Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A. (1997). Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 562–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00410.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogels, S., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Never say no How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. Plos One, 10(12), e0145474. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. L. (1957). Interrogative structures of American English: The direct question. University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, E., & Heritage, J. (2006). Taking the patient’s medical history: Questioning during comprehensive history taking. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interactions between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 151–184). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In E. J. Lawler & S. R. Thye (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust, and solidarity (pp. 229–253). Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 749–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C. W., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., & Levinson, S. (2019). Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55(2), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giannakidou, A., & Etxeberria, U. (2018). Assessing the role of experimental evidence for interface judgment: Licensing of negative polarity items, scalar readings, and focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heldner, M. (2011). Detection thresholds for gaps, overlaps, and no-gap-no-overlaps. The. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 508–513. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3598457
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984a). 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 University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 42–68). Oxford 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (in press). Turn-initial particles in English: The cases of oh and well. In J. Heritage & M. Sorjonen (Eds.), Turn-initial particles across languages (pp. 155–190). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J. P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 179–192). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1900–1908. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1363-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hömke, P., Holler, J., & Levinson, S. C. (2017). Eye blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9(2/3), 153–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148125
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H., & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 255–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication – Origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Science, 20(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational orer in everyday talk and clinical settings. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. H. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. M. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammarof the English language. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, C. W., & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 321–353). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2010a). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes/no–type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In A. Freed & S. Erlich (Eds.), Why do you ask?: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 87–107). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2010b). Prosodic variation in response: The case of type-conforming responses to yes/no interrogatives. In E. Reber, M. Selting, & D. Barth-Weingarten (Eds.), Prosody in Interaction (pp. 109–130). John Benjamins Publishing.
   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). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, F., & Francis, A. L. (2013). Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(6), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4802900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, F., Francis, A. L., & Morgan, M. (2006). The interaction of silence and prosodic cues in listener perception of ‘trouble’ in interaction. Speech Communication, 48(9), 1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2006.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, S. G., Torreira, F., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). The effects of processing and sequence organization on the timing of turn taking: A corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2019). Candidate answers, inference, and preference. Paper presented to the Division of Language and Social Interaction at the 105th annual convention of the National Communication Association, Baltimore, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (Vol. 27, pp. 187–249). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In G. Button & J. R. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 70–85). Multilingual Matters LTD.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems, 35, 442–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. https://doi.org/10.1086/230911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2016). Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 239–263). Oxford 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. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Blackwell-Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2007). Prescribing under pressure: Physician-parent conversations and antibiotics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2772–2781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2019). How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Enfield, N. J. (2010). A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2620–2626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2011). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Van Rooy, R. (2003). Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance. Journal of Semantics, 20(3), 239–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/20.3.239
   Google Scholar
• Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1556–1559).
   Google Scholar