Realization as a device for remedying problems of affiliation in interaction

Research on Language and Social Interaction

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 109-132

  Emmertsen, Sofie ^a   Heinemann, Trine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952526612     PISSN: 08351813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08351811003738059     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Asmuß, B., & Kjærbeck, S. (2005) Negotiating meaning in narratives: An investigation of the interactional construction of the punch line and the post punch line sequence. Narrative Inquiry, 15(1), 1-24.
2. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3. Betz, E., & Golato, A. (2008). Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token achja. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 58-98.
4. Clayman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In E. J. Lawler & S. R. Thye (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust, and solidarity (Vol. 19, pp. 229-253). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
5. Drew, P., & Curl, T. (2009). Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2400-2414.
6. Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
7. Goffman, E. (1981). Response cries. Language, 54, 787-815.
8. Golato, A., & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Comparing single and double sayings of the German response token ja and the role of prosody: A conversation analytic perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 241-270.
9. Green-Vänttinen, M. (2001). Lyssnaren I fokus. En samtalsanalytisk studie i uppbackningar [The listener in focus. A conversation analytic study of feed-back]. Helsingfors, Finland: Svenska litteratursallskapet i Finland.
10. Heath, C. (1989). Pain talk: The expression of suffering in the medical consultation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52,113-125.
11. Heinemann, T. (2008). Questions of accountability: Yes-no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies, 2008 (10), 55-71.
12. Heinemann, T. (2009a). Participation and exclusion in third party complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2435-2451.
13. Heinemann, T. (2009b). Two types of answers to inapposite inquiry. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 159-186). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14. Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England, and New York, NY: Polity.
15. Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures ofsocial action (pp. 299-345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16. Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10-11), 1427-1446.
17. Heritage, J. (2005). Cognition in discourse. In H. T. Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 184-202). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18. Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everydaylanguage: Studies in ethnomethodology(pp. 79-96). New York, NY: Irvington.
19. Mandelbaum, J. (1991/1992). Conversational non-cooperation: An exploration of disattended complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 97-138.
20. Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL, and London, England: The University of Chicago Press.
21. Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch but as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141-170). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
22. Monzoni, C. M. (2008). Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of pre-sequences. Discourse Studies, 10,73-87.
23. Nielsen, M. F. (2002). Nå! En skiftemarkør med mange funktioner [Oh! A change-of-state token with many functions]. In Studier i Nordisk 2000-2001 (pp. 51-67). Copenhagen, Denmark: Selskab for Nordisk Filologi.
24. 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 (pp. 57-101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25. Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 152-164). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27. Schubiger, M. (1972). English intonation and German modal particles: A comparative study. In D. Bolinger (Ed.), Intonation (pp. 175-193). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
28. Steensig, J., & Asmuß, B. (2005). Notes on disaligning "yes but" initiated utterances in German and Danish conversations: Two construction types for dispreferred responses. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 349-374). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
29. Stivers, T. (2004). "No no no" and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30, 250-293.
30. Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: When nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language in Social Interaction, 41,31-57.
31. Svennevig, J. (2008). Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 333-348.
32. Whalen, J., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Observations on the display and management of emotions in naturally occurring activities: The case of "hysteria" in calls to 9-1-1. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 141-159.
33. Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 150-182.
34. Wu, R.-J. R. (2004). Stance in talk: A conversation analysis ofMandarin final particles. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.