Responses to Wh-questions in english conversation

Research on Language and Social Interaction

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 133-156

  Fox, Barbara A ^a   Thompson, Sandra A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952487450     PISSN: 08351813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08351811003751680     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Bolden, G., & Robinson, J. D. (in press). Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication.
2. Bybee, J. (2002a). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of repetition. In R. Janda and B. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602-623). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
3. Bybee, J. (2002b). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon and B. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language (pp. 109-132). Amsterdam The Netherlands: Benjamins.
4. Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82, 529-551.
5. Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
6. Bybee, J. (2009). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
7. Clayman, S. E., Elliott, M. N., Heritage, J., & MacDonald, L. L. (2006). Historical trends in questioning presidents 1953-2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 561-583.
8. Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002a). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9. Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002b). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52, 749-775.
10. Drew, P., & Curl, T. (2008). Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1212), 2400-2414.
11. Egbert, M., & Vöge, M. (2008). Wh-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why. Discourse Studies, 10, 17-36.
12. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Hellerman, J. (2004). Getting past no. In E. Couper-Kuhlen andC. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 233-269). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
13. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Social interaction and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Vol. 2, pp. 119-143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Fox, B. A. (1987). Anaphora and the structure of discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Fox, B. A. (1996). Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
16. Fox, B. A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9, 299-318.
17. Günthner, S. (1996). The prosodic contextualization of moral work: An analysis of reproaches in why-formats. In E. Couper-Kuhlen and M. Selting (Eds.), Prosodyin conversation (pp. 271 -302). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18. Haiman, J. (1994). Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 3-28). Amsterdam The Netherlands: Benjamins.
19. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20. Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291-334.
21. Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15-38.
22. Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139-157.
23. Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155-175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Kärkkäinen, E. (2004). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
25. Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Ssubjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 183-219). Amsterdam The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
26. Kidwell, M. (2009). What happened?: An epistemics of before and after in at-the-scene police questioning. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 20-41.
27. Koshik, I. (2003). WH-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5,51-77.
28. Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
29. Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse. New York, NY: Academic.
30. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
31. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In J. Verscheuren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 61-129). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
33. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79-112). New York, NY: Academic.
35. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features found in preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36. Raymond, G. (2000). The structure of responding: Type-conforming and nonconforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Los Angeles.
37. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding, American Sociological Review, 68, 939-967.
38. Sacks, H., & Schegoff, E. (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.
39. Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: "Can I ask you a question?". Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 104-152.
40. Schegloff, E. A. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems, 35, 442-457.
41. Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 185-211.
42. Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437-485). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
43. Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
44. Schegloff, E. A. (1996c). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161-216.
45. Schegloff, E. A. (2005). On complainability. Social Problems, 52, 449-476.
46. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
47. Schegloff, E., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to Wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42,91-115.
48. Selting, M. (1992). Prosody in conversational questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 315-245.
49. Stivers, T. (2007). Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In T. Stivers and N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 73-96). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50. Stivers, T., & Enfield, N. J. (Eds.) (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
51. Stivers, T., & Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mode: Answering more than the question during comprehensive history taking. Text, 21, 151-185.
52. Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367-392.
53. Thompson, S. A. (2002). "Object complements" and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26, 125-164.
54. Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7, 481-505.
55. Thompson, S. A., & Hopper, P. J. (2001). Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. L. Bybee and P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 27-60). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.