Oxford Bibliographies - Conversation Analysis

Oxford Bibliographies - Conversation Analysis
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-97...
Conversation Analysis
Jack Sidnell
Introduction
Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction that emerged in the 1960s in the writings and lectures of the
late sociologist Harvey Sacks and was consolidated in his collaborations with Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson in the later 1960s
and early 1970s. CA is not a subfield of linguistics and does not take language per se as its primary object of study. Rather, the object of
study is the organization of human social interaction. However, because language figures centrally in the way humans interact, CA
typically (though not necessarily) involves the analysis of talk. For all practical purposes, CA can be thought of as the study of talk in
interaction and other forms of human conduct in interaction other than talk, for example, gaze, gesture, body orientations, and their
combinations. The boundaries of the field are not always completely clear. In this article, however, I treat the application of the
conversation analytic method as criterial to inclusion within the field. This method involves a series of steps beginning with what Sacks
described as unmotivated observation of some stretch of recorded interaction (copresent or telephone) with the goal merely of noticing
something about it. Once a noticing has been made (e.g., some responses to yes-no questions are prefaced by oh), the researcher
can then start assembling a collection of possible instances. A collection constitutes the empirical basis upon which to develop an
analysis of what distinctive work the phenomenon or practice initially noticed through unmotivated observation accomplishesthis being
independent of the contextual specifics of any particular instance. The method is thus fundamentally qualitative in that it involves
case-by-case study of each instance. However, though fundamentally qualitative in this sense, the method also involves looking across
multiple instances in a collection of casesit is this that allows us to see and to describe the generic, stable features of the practice that
are independent of the particular contextual features of any given instance. The scholarship within CA can be divided up in a number of
different ways. One possible categorization distinguishes studies concerned primarily with the organization of talk itself and those
concerned to use the methods of CA to investigate some other aspect of the social world. Another possible categorization distinguishes
studies of ordinary conversation from those of institutional interaction.
General Overviews and Introductory Works

For many years there were two standard introductions to the field that offered complementary views from sociology, on the one hand
(Heritage 1984), and linguistics, on the other (Levinson 1983). In both cases, conversation analysis (CA) is covered in a single chapter
and is embedded in a larger discussion. While these two texts still provide excellent entry points to the field, a number of book-length
introductions are now available. Ten Have 2007 offers a more explicitly practical approachguiding the reader through various steps
involved in developing an analysis. Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998 takes a similarly practical approach. Sidnell 2010 is, in comparison,
more of a general overview of the major findings of the field, with chapters on turn taking, action and understanding, sequence
organization, preference, and so on. Atkinson and Heritage 1984 is a classic collection of chapters covering many important topics. Drew
2005 is an eloquent introduction to a wide range of topics in CA.
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage, eds. 1984. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A classic collection of contributions from leading conversation analysts. The introductory essays that begin the book and the various
sections provide an excellent point of entry.
Drew, Paul. 2005. Conversation analysis. In Handbook of language and social interaction. Edited by Kristine L. Fitch and
Robert E. Sanders, 71102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
An excellent and relatively recent overview of the field.
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
1 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Exceptionally clear, exegetical account of the roots of ethnomethodology and CA. Chapter 8 focuses on CA.
Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation analysis: Principles, practices, and applications. Malden, MA: Polity.
A useful introductory text that covers some of the most important topics in CA.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Chapter 6 provides an introduction to CA from the point of view of linguistic pragmatics.
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Book-length introduction to the field. Reviews the major domains of conversational organization, such as turn taking, action sequencing,
and repair.
Ten Have, Paul. 2007. Doing conversation analysis. 2d ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
A guide to doing CA. Useful chapters on transcription and data collection.
Theoretical Foundations
Although conversation analysis (CA) is more focused on method and empirical studies than on theory per se, some work in the field has
important theoretical implications for the social and human sciences. Moreover, CA draws on certain basic theoretical traditions. The
primary readings here are Goffman 1957, Goffman 1972, Garfinkel 1974, Garfinkel and Sacks 1970, and Sacks 1992. These works in
turn drew on a wide range of work in anthropology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and linguistics. Important background reading
includes the Durkheim 1964 classic statement on method and on social facts and the remarks on language in Philosophical
Investigations (Wittgenstein 1953). An excellent introduction to at least some of the theoretical issues in CA is Heritage 1984. Another
useful source is Schegloff 1992, the introduction to Volume 1 of the Sacks lectures.
Durkheim, mile. 1964. The rules of sociological method. Translated by Sarah A. Solovay and John H. Mueller. Edited by
George E. G. Catlin. 8th ed. New York: Free Press.
The classic statement on the nature of social facts. Perhaps the most important sociologist for both Harold Garfinkel and Erving
Goffman.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1974. On the origins of the term ethnomethodology. In Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Edited by
Roy Turner, 1518. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Interesting, first-person narrative account of the origins of Garfinkels ethnomethodological studies and the name he gave to them.
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In Theoretical sociology: Perspectives
and developments. Edited by John C. McKinney and Edward A. Tiryakian, 337366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
A difficult but fascinating discussion by the founder of CA (Sacks) and the founder of ethnomethodology. Considers the fact that
participants in a conversation can formulate what they are doing but in doing so are inevitably engaged in doing something more than
simply describing what they are doing.
2 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Goffman, Erving. 1957. Alienation from interaction. Human Relations 10:4760.

An early essay in which Goffman considers the various ways participants in conversation can become alienated from it and what this
might tell us about the nature of social interaction in general.
Goffman, Erving. 1972. The neglected situation. In Language and social context: Selected readings. Edited by Pier Paolo
Giglioli, 6166. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
A short essay in which Goffman proposes that social situationsthat is, forms of human interactionneed to be studied in their own
right and not treated solely as external variables that constrain behavior. The key point here is that structures of social interaction are
Durkheimian social facts. Reprinted from American Anthropologist 66 (1964): 133136.

Exceptionally clear, exegetical account of the roots of ethnomethodology and CA. Particularly useful discussion of Talcott Parsons and
Alfred Schutz.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sackss lectures range over many topics, including the theoretical roots of the field he created. See especially the lecture An Impromptu
Survey of the Literature.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. Introduction. In Lectures on conversation. Vol. 1, Fall 1964Spring 1968. By Harvey Sacks, ixlxii.
Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Discusses the intellectual milieu within which CA emerged.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.
An important philosophical influence on both Harvey Sacks and Harold Garfinkel.
Discipline History
Conversation analysis (CA) is a young discipline, and a comprehensive history has yet to be written. However, Emanuel A. Schegloffs
introductions to the Harvey Sacks lectures (Schegloff 1992a, Schegloff 1992b) as well as Silverman 1998, a book on Sacks, provide
useful beginnings. Other snippets of history are available in Jefferson 1996 and Jefferson 2004 and at various points within Harvey
Sackss lectures (Sacks 1992, cited under Theoretical Foundations).
Jefferson, Gail. 1996. On the poetics of ordinary talk. Text and Performance Quarterly 16.1: 161.
An extended discussion of topics Jefferson thought had been neglected. Begins with a brief discussion of the aftermath of Sackss death
and its impact on the development of CA.
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. At first I thought: A normalizing device for extraordinary events. In Conversation analysis: Studies from
the first generation. Edited by Gene H. Lerner, 131167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Begins with a discussion of Sackss method of collecting.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992a. Introduction. In Lectures on conversation. Vol. 1, Fall 1964Spring 1968. By Harvey Sacks, ixlxii.
3 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Documents the beginnings of CA to 1968.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992b. Introduction. In Lectures on conversation. Vol. 2, Fall 1968Spring 1972. By Harvey Sacks, ixlii.
Discusses developments in CA after 1968.
Silverman, David. 1998. Harvey Sacks: Social science and conversation analysis. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
A readable and lively account of the career of Harvey Sacks.
Methods
Conversation analysis (CA) is distinguished from other traditions of analysis primarily in terms of the methods employed. This involves a
series of steps beginning with unmotivated observation, which leads to noticing a possible phenomenon for study. The next step
involves making a collection of possible instances. Once a collection is assembled, case-by-case analysis allows the researcher to
discern the stable, generic, context-independent features of the practice. There are other aspects to the method involved in acquiring
(recording) conversational data and transcribing it. Sacks 1984 provides a rationale for the CA method.
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. Notes on methodology. In The structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Edited by J.
Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 2127. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Extracts from his lectures that together form a classic statement on the methodological principles of CA.
MAKING RECORDINGS AND DATA COLLECTION
Methods involved in collecting data are described in Goodwin 1993. A more recent discussion in Mondada 2012 includes consideration
of both technical issues and more theoretical ones.
Goodwin, Charles. 1993. Recording human interaction in natural settings. Pragmatics 3:181209.
Now slightly dated but still useful guide to recording naturally occurring interaction.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2012. The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In The handbook of conversation analysis.
Edited by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Overview of audio and video recording data for CA. Also discusses the larger theoretical issues involved.
TRANSCRIPTION
The classic statement on transcription and the symbols used in CA is in Jefferson 1985 and Jefferson 2004. Gail Jefferson discusses the
rationale behind detailed transcriptions. Hepburn and Bolden 2012 provides a more recent overview of the issues, while Hepburn 2004
and Jefferson 1983 discuss issues that arise in the transcription of particular sorts of phenomena (e.g., nonlexical vocalizations).
Hepburn and Bolden 2012 also describes issues involved in transcribing nonvocal conduct. Rossano, et al. 2009 introduces a
transcription system for representing gaze between speaker and recipient.
Hepburn, Alexa. 2004. Crying: Notes on description, transcription, and interaction. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 37:251290.
Discussion of the various issues involved in the transcription and analysis of crying.
4 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina Bolden. 2012. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In The handbook of
conversation analysis. Edited by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Overview of the state of the art, including the representation of gesture and body orientation on the printed page.
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. Issues in the transcription of naturally-occurring talk: Caricature versus capturing pronunciational
particulars. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 34. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg Univ., Department of Language and
Linguistics.
An argument in favor of attempting to capture the particular way something was said when transcribing it.
Jefferson, Gail. 1985. An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In The handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 3,
Discourse and dialogue. Edited by Teun A. van Dijk, 2534. London: Academic Press.
A penetrating discussion of the issues involved in making transcriptions from audio recordings. Brilliantly illustrated with examples of
laughter and analysis of its various uses in conversation.
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first
generation. Edited by Gene H. Lerner, 1331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A near-comprehensive glossary of the symbols used in CA to represent the particularities of speech production.
Rossano, Federico, Penelope Brown, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. Gaze, questioning, and culture. In Conversation analysis:
Comparative perspectives. Edited by Jack Sidnell, 187249. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Introduces a transcription system for representing gaze between speaker and recipient.
STEPS IN DEVELOPING AN ANALYSIS
The analytic methods, including observation, collection, and case-by-case analysis, constitute the core techniques of this field. Sidnell
2012, Wootton 1988, and Heritage 2010 introduce these methods as a series of steps and exemplify their application through
consideration of the analysis of the English particle oh. Schegloff 1996 is a case study in the application of conversation CA methods,
while Schegloff 1997 discusses a number of issues encountered in the analysis of other-initiated repair.
Heritage, John. 2010. Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Qualitative sociology. 3d ed. Edited by David
Silverman, 208230. London: SAGE.
Very clear and well-illustrated discussion of the steps involved in developing an analysis.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology
102:161216.
Provides a detailed account of how Schegloff came to identify a previously undescribed action.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23:499545.
A useful discussion of some of the complications involved in building a collection of instances of a phenomenon (here instances of otherinitiated repair).
Sidnell, Jack. 2012. Basic analytic methods. In The handbook of conversation analysis. Edited by Tanya Stivers and Jack
Sidnell. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
5 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
An overview of the various steps involved in developing an analysis, beginning with observation and moving through collection and
case-by-case analysis.
Wootton, A. J. 1988. Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. In Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective.
Edited by Derek Roger and Peter Bull, 238258. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sensible and persuasive discussion of some basic principles of analysis.
Turn Taking
Any form of interaction qua interaction requires some organization of opportunities to participate in it. For conversation, such
opportunities are distributed among the participants via a turn-taking system initially described in sketch form in Sacks 2004 and in full
form in Sacks, et al. 1974. In this paper Sacks and colleagues describe conversational turn taking in terms of two components (a
turn-construction component and a turn-allocation component) and the rules that organize their relation. According to Harvey Sacks and
colleagues account (one, it should be noted, that has never faced serious empirical challenge since its publication despite a great many
subsequent studies spanning a wide range of languages), turns are constructed out of a sharply delimited set of possible unit types:
lexical, phrasal, clausal, and sentential. These unit types have a property of projectability such that a recipient hearing the beginning of
such a unit can typically project or anticipate (often with great precision) what it will amount to and thus where it will come to a point of
possible completion. The system accords rights to produce just one unit at a time, and thus at the possible completion of any such unit,
transition to a next speaker becomes a relevant possibilitywhether it happens or not, both speakers and hearers can be seen to orient
to such possible completions as places where transition is relevant. The allocation component describes a set of practices for selecting
next speaker and for self-selecting at unit completion. The entire system is locally managed by and for the participants (unlike many
other turn-taking systems, e.g., court, debate). Indeed, a central claim of Sacks, et al. 1974 is that the system operates over just two
turns: current and next. This accounts for the enormous flexibility of the system, which organizes conversation regardless of the number
of participants involved; their relation to one another; their age, gender, race; and the setting in which the talk takes place. The simplest
systematics ultimately provides an account of just what distinguishes conversation from all other forms of talk in interaction: its
distinctive locally managed turn-taking system.
THE TURN-TAKING SYSTEM
The foundational work on turn taking as a system is in Sacks 2004 and Sacks, et al. 1974. Schegloff 1992 identifies problems with the
speech-act analysis of John Searle by highlighting the importance of turn taking in conversation and describing some of its basic
features. Stivers, et al. 2009 is a quantitative study of speaker transitions in ten languages. It provides strong evidence in support of the
proposal that conversational turn taking is organized in the same way regardless of language spoken.
Sacks, Harvey. 2004. An initial characterization of the organization of speaker turn-taking in conversation. In Conversation
analysis: Studies from the first generation. Edited by Gene H. Lerner, 3542. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A highly compressed and somewhat abstract account of the system described in Sacks, et al. 1974.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language 50:696735.
The classic and monumental description of the turn-taking system for ordinary conversation. A brilliant piece of analytic and empirical
work with broad implications for the study of language and interaction. Essential reading and the most frequently downloaded article from
the journal Language (according to JSTOR; cited fifty-nine hundred times according to Google Scholar).
Schegloff, E. A. 1992. To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In (On) Searle on conversation. Edited by Herman Parret and
Jef Verschueren, 113128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
An interesting response to the philosopher of language focusing on the importance of understanding conversation as a form of
interaction and as such built around a system of distributing turns at talk.
6 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico
Rossano, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking
in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.26: 1058710592.
A quantitative study examining turn transition between questions and their responses in ten languages. Provides strong evidence that
the turn-taking system for ordinary conversation does not vary significantly between languages and cultures.
PROJECTION, TURN CONSTRUCTION, TURN ALLOCATION
A number of studies focus on various aspects of projection, turn construction, and allocation, which together account for the orderly
transition between speakers. De Ruiter, et al. 2006 is an experimental study that suggests that intonation plays a very limited role in
projection. Ford, et al. 1996 attempts to discern exactly what constitutes possible completion for participants. Ford, et al. 2002 is a
detailed study of postcompletion continuations (increments). Lerner 1996 is an important study of collaborative turn building and provides
robust evidence for the projectability of turn beginnings. Lerner 2003 describes a variety of practices used to select next speaker.
Schegloff 1996 is a detailed study of turn construction.
De Ruiter, Jan Peter, Holger Mitterer, and N. J. Enfield. 2006. Projecting the end of a speakers turn: A cognitive cornerstone of
conversation. Language 82.3: 515535.
A fascinating experimental study that suggests that intonation does not factor significantly in a hearers ability to project the possible
completion of an ongoing turn.
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Practices in the construction of turns: The TCU revisited.
Pragmatics 6:427454.
A detailed examination of several fragments of conversation in an attempt to discern what constitutes possible completion and
transition relevance. Considers whether several bits of talk consist of one turn-constructional unit (TCU) or several.
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In The
language of turn and sequence. Edited by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 1438. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press.
A discussion of the grammar and interactional organization of turn increments (i.e., bits of talk added to a turn-constructional unit [TCU]
that has already come to completion).
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. On the semi-permeable character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the
turn-space of another speaker. In Interaction and grammar. Edited by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A.
Thompson, 238276. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Describes various kinds of collaboratively built turnsa topic originally discussed by Harvey Sacks in his lectures (Sacks 1992, cited
under Discourse as an Interactional Achievement)with attention to the grammatical formats in English that allow one speaker to project
what another is going to say.
Lerner, Gene H. 2003. Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in
Society 32.2: 177201.
A description of the various practices for selecting a next speaker.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and grammar.
Edited by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52133. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
An important and detailed consideration of the internal anatomy of turns at talk.
7 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
OVERLAP
Several early studies by Gail Jefferson showed that overlap between turns at talk is often intricately organized. In Jefferson 1973 and
Jefferson 1984 she shows that overlapping talk typically provides evidence for a turn-taking system of the kind described in Sacks, et al.
1974 (cited under The Turn-Taking System). Jefferson 1986 furthers the study of overlap through the use of some rough quantitative
techniques, while Jefferson 2004 is a study of the way participants deal with overlapped talk in its aftermath. Lerner 1989 addresses
similar themes, while Schegloff 2000 documents a range of practices by which participants compete for the floor.
Jefferson, Gail. 1973. A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing
sequences. Semiotica 9:4796.
A classic examination of the timing of next-turn onset in conversation and an analysis of what such onsets reveal about the organization
of turn taking. Lays much of the empirical foundation of Sacks, et al. 1974 (cited under The Turn-Taking System).
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In Discourse analysis and natural rhetorics. Edited by
Valentina DUrso and Paolo Leonardi, 1138. Padua, Italy: CLEUP Editore.
Another classic contribution from the master of close observation; distinguishes various kinds of overlap in conversation according to the
position at which the talk is overlapped.
Jefferson, Gail. 1986. Notes on latency in overlap onset. Human Studies 9.23: 153183.
Develops ideas from earlier papers about the regularity of overlap in and around transition relevance places. Uses some rough
quantification techniques.
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In Conversation analysis: Studies
from the first generation. Edited by Gene H. Lerner, 4359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
An important early study in which the author describes the various practices conversationalists have for dealing with overlapping talk in
its aftermath. Originally published in 1975.
Lerner, Gene H. 1989. Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of
Speech Communication 53.2: 167177.
Considers speakers completions of turns that have been interrupted by another.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society
29:163.
A detailed look at the organization of overlapping talk, including the various ways overlapping speakers compete for the floor.
Discourse as an Interactional Achievement

Of course speakers in conversation often produce turns composed of more than one unit. The turn-taking systematics described in
Sacks, et al. 1974 (cited under The Turn-Taking System) provides a framework of analysis in which it is possible to ask just how
speakers (and recipients) bring this off. One kind of multiunit turn in conversation is the story, and this is well described in a series of
publications, most importantly Jefferson 1978, Sacks 1974, Sacks 1978, and Sacks 1992. Schegloff 1982 discusses the production of
multiunit turns with a focus on the recipients use of uh huh. In what is a brilliant application of conversation analysis (CA) method,
Emanuel A. Schegloff identifies the sense and import of uh huh and other continuers not in their form or even in their use so much as
in the particular turn-constructional locations where they appear. Thus Schegloff shows that these forms typically occur at or just before
possible completion in the current speakers talka position, that is, in which there is a discrete range of relevant things that can be
done. At a point of possible completion, recipients can begin their own turns, can initiate repair of the prior turn, or can produce a
continuer. The continuer (uh huh and so on) takes its sense from what it is notthat is, not a full turn and not an initiation of repair. This
8 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
negative identity confers upon it the sense of I understand . . . (i.e., not a repair initiation) and go on (not a full turn).
Jefferson, Gail. 1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational
interaction. Edited by Jim Schenkein, 219248. New York: Academic Press.
A study of the way stories are occasioned from the talk that precedes them and the way they in turn occasion talk that responds to them.
Sacks, Harvey. 1974. An analysis of the course of a jokes telling in conversation. In Explorations in the ethnography of
speaking. Edited by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, 337353. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A classic analysis in which Sacks describes various aspects of storytelling, including the use of story prefaces.
Sacks, Harvey. 1978. Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction.
Edited by Jim Schenkein, 249269. New York: Academic Press.
A classic from the Sacks catalogue focusing on the internal organization of a dirty joke and various social functions it serves.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Many of the lectures are concerned with storytelling. See especially the lectures on second stories that begin Volume 2 of the lectures.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of uh huh and other things that come
between sentences. In Analyzing discourse: Text and talk; Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics
1981. Edited by Deborah Tannen, 7193. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
A brilliant analysis of the use of continuers, such as uh huh and mhmm. Shows how these are systematically deployed in such a
way as to show that their producers are aligned as recipients for an extended turn at talk (i.e., a discourse).
Action and Understanding

A central idea of conversation analysis (CA) is that all talk is produced to accomplish action. So when a speaker says, Thats a really
nice jacket, he or she not only describes someones clothing but also gives the recipient a compliment. When a speaker says, The
traffic was terrible today, he or she only describes his or her commute but also complains about it. And when he or she says, Could you
give me a lift? he or she not only asks a question but also makes a request (see Curl and Drew 2008). These are obvious examples, but
they indicate that when speakers talk they are performing actionsthey are complimenting, complaining, inviting, requesting, agreeing,
disagreeing, and so on (see Drew 1984, Sacks 1992). A significant part of CA research is more or less dedicated to discovering just what
actions people accomplish in and through talk and what specific practices of speaking they use to bring those actions off. A key early
study in this area is opening up closings, which describes, among other things, the practices of speaking that participants use to initiate
the close of a conversation. Schegloff 1996 provides a detailed account of the discovery of a previously undescribed actionthat of
confirming an allusion. One of the key insights of early research in CA (Sacks, et al. 1974 was that ordinary people exploit the
properties of conversation as a system in reasoning about it online. For instance, participants in a conversation can inspect next turns
as evidence for if and how their own talk has been understood (Moerman and Sacks 1988). Displayed misunderstandings can then
prompt the initiation of repair in third position (see Schegloff 1992; see also Repair). The upshot of this is that in conversation
understanding (intersubjectivity) is achieved turn by turn and is maintained in and through the sequential organization of talk (see also
Goodwin and Goodwin 1987). The sequential organization of talk provides for, in the words of John Heritage, an architecture of
intersubjectivity or a continuously updated context of intersubjective understanding (see Heritage 1984).
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language
and Social Interaction 41:129153.
An important and influential study in which the authors propose that the design of offers is sensitive to both the extent of imposition
(contingency) and the degree to which the speaker may feel entitled to make the request.
9 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Drew, Paul. 1984. Speakers reportings in invitation sequences. In The structures of social action: Studies in conversation
analysis. Edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 152164. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
A key study of the ways invitations are rejected.
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization
of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1.1: 154.
A classic study of assessments in conversation. In contrast to the usual focus on next turn, the Goodwins emphasize the importance of
recipients talk and conduct, which is produced simultaneous with the assessment. Encourages the reader to consider interaction within
turns as well as between them.

Includes an important discussion of intersubjectivity in conversation.
Moerman, Michael, and Harvey Sacks. 1988. On understanding in the analysis of natural conversation. In Talking culture:
Ethnography and conversation analysis. Edited by Michael Moerman, 180186. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
A theoretical piece that develops central ideas about the maintenance of understanding in conversation. Originally published in 1970.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Poetics: Requests, offers, and threats; The old man as an evolved natural object. In Lectures on
conversation. Vol. 1, Fall 1964Spring 1968. By Harvey Sacks, 318331. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
A profound analysis of the way multiple offers and requests directed at a senior citizen position him as an old man who must be
managed by others. Originally published in 1971.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language 50:696735.
Includes a discussion of the next-turn proof procedure by which analysts along with participants can check to see how a turn in
conversation was understood.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation.
American Journal of Sociology 97:12951345.
This article begins with a penetrating discussion of intersubjectivity in conversation before turning to consider the way it is maintained in
the face of possible problems through the use of third position repair.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology
102:161216.
A remarkable account of the discovery of a previously undescribed action.
Sequence Organization
Action in interaction is organized into sequences. The most basic sequence is composed of just two turns or actions: a first action, or first
pair part; and a second action, or second pair part. For instance, a request (first action) may be met by a granting or a rejection (both
second pair parts). One of the first published papers in conversation analysis (CA), Schegloff 1968 describes the relation between a first
and a second pair part in terms of conditional relevance: By the conditional relevance of one item on another we mean: given the first,
the second is expectable; upon its occurrence it can be seen to be a second item to the first; upon its nonoccurrence it can be seen to be
officially absentall this provided by the occurrence of the first item. Sequence organization is constituted in a fundamental way through
10 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
the operation of such pairs. A later paper, Schegloff and Sacks 1973, describes the various features of such adjacency pairs: (1) they
consist of two utterances or turns, (2) these utterances or turns are adjacently positioned, (3) these utterances or turns are produced by
different speakers, and (4) these utterances or turns are type related. Schegloff 2007 provides a comprehensive overview of sequence
organization. Stivers and Rossano 2010 develops an alternative to the essentially binary view of conditional relevance in which
response relevance relations between utterances or turns are conceptualized as fundamentally scalar.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70:10751095.

One of the earliest published papers in CAintroduces the idea of conditional relevance.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Schegloffs comprehensive discussion of sequencing organization and sequence expansion. Essential reading.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8:289327.
Essential reading. Though focusing on closings of telephone calls, the discussion ranges over everything from turn taking to adjacency
pairs, topic organization, and overall structural organization.
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43.1: 331
A somewhat controversial rethinking of binary conditional relevance as a scalar phenomenon that is the outcome of various
contributing factors.
PREFERENCE
Running throughout talk in interaction is a set of biases that we refer to collectively as preference. Some aspects of preference have
been well described, at least for a few isolated domains. An example would be the twin preferences for minimization and recognition in
references to persons (see Enfield and Stivers 2007). Other aspects of preference are strongly suggested by the data and various
studies, though they remain at this point less well understood. Examples here would be the preference for agreement first described in
Sacks 1987. Important studies by Anita Pomerantz (Pomerantz 1978, Pomerantz 1984) focused on competing preferences implicated in
responding to compliments and self-deprecations. Schegloff 1979 describes preferences operative in telephone openings, while
Schegloff, et al. 1977 describes the preference for self-correction in the domain of repair. Raymond 2003 reveals a preference for typeconformity: a yes-no question prefers a type-conforming answer that includes a yes or no token. Geoffrey Raymond shows that
answers with such tokens are produced for cause. Stivers and Robinson 2006 argues for a basic preference for progressivity running
throughout all interaction.
Enfield, N. J., and Tanya Stivers, eds. 2007. Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
An important collection of papers focused on person reference and the various preferences that organize them.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1978. Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Studies in the
organization of conversational interaction. Edited by Jim Schenkein, 79112. New York: Academic Press.
An important study in which the author considers cases in which recipients of compliments must balance the competing demands of two
preferences: one against self-praise and one for agreement.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57101.
11 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
A classic description of preferred and dispreferred responses.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American
Sociological Review 68:939967.
An important and influential study that describes a preference for type-conforming answers to yes-no interrogatives.
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Talk and social
organisation. Edited by Graham Button and John R. E. Lee, 5469. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
A classic discussion of the preferences for agreement and contiguity and the various ways participants organize their conduct by
reference to them. Originally published in 1973.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In Everyday language: Studies
in ethnomethodology. Edited by George Psathas, 2378. New York: Irvington.
Describes preferences that organize identification and recognition in telephone openings.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair
in conversation. Language 53:361382.
Describes a preference for self- over other correction.
Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35:367392.
Describes a very basic preference for sequences of action to progress to whatever is projectably nextfor instance, for questions to be
followed by answers.
SEQUENCE EXPANSION
Sequence expansion refers to the elaboration of a base-adjacency pair either before its first pair part (preexpansion), after the first but
before the second (insert expansion), or after the second pair part (postexpansion). A number of early studies described various forms of
preexpansion (Schegloff 1968, Schegloff 1980, Schegloff 1988, Terasaki 2004, Levinson 1983 ). A major class of insert expansions are
the various forms of other-initiated repair (see Repair). Other kinds of insert expansions were also described in Merritt 1976 and
Jefferson 1972. Postexpansions were up until recently less completely described. Schegloff 2007 went a long way to correcting this.
Jefferson, Gail. 1972. Side sequences. In Studies in social interaction. Edited by David Sudnow, 294338. New York: Free
Press.
Describes various kinds of expansion, including inserts between first- and second-pair part.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Engagingly written textbook that includes an important analysis of presequences in relation to so-called indirect speech acts.
Merritt, Marilyn. 1976. On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5.3: 315357.
Describes insert expansions in service encounters.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70:10751095.

An early publication in which Schegloff describes a generic presequence: the summons-answer sequence.
12 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1980. Preliminaries to preliminaries: Can I ask you a question? Sociological Inquiry 50:104152.
Describes a presequence in which details are introduced in advance of and as preliminary to a subsequent telling.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics 12:5562.
Discusses the relation of presequences to ideas about indirect speech acts.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK:
Schegloffs comprehensive discussion of sequencing organization and sequence expansion. Essential reading.
Terasaki, Alene Kiku. 2004. Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first
generation. Edited by Gene H. Lerner, 171223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A classic paper in which Terasaki describes the preannouncement sequence. Originally published in 1976.
Repair
Repair refers to the various practices used by speakers and recipients to fix or correct problems of speaking, hearing, and understanding
(Schegloff, et al. 1977). The most fundamental distinction organizing the domain is that between self-initiated repair and other-initiated
repair (where self refers to the speaker of the trouble source and other to any other participant). Self-initiated repair often results in repair
in the same turn as the trouble source. Other-initiated repair results in a sequence and often in the production of a repair in a turn
removed from the trouble source. Repair is a pervasive feature of all talk in interaction and has been extensively studied by conversation
analysts. Schegloff, et al. 1977 describes a preference for self-correction (over all other possibilities). Later work has described repair in
a number of positions and contexts as well as the relevance of repair for an understanding of language and syntax (Schegloff 1979).
Another strand of research has described the various interactional functions that repair serves in conversation (Jefferson 1974) beyond
fixing problems. A significant body of recent work describes repair in a range of different languages.
Jefferson, Gail. 1974. Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 3:181199.
A classic and brilliant study of the way speakers can achieve a range of interactional effects (such as attention to a setting) through
self-correction or even momentary hesitation.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. In Discourse and syntax. Edited by Talmy
Givn, 261288. Syntax and Semantics 12. New York: Academic Press.
Wide-ranging discussion of the relation between repair, turn organization, and syntax.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair
in conversation. Language 53:361382.
Key early study laying out the domain of repair in conversation.
SAME-TURN REPAIR
Same-turn repair typically involves repair by the speaker of the trouble source and is thus same-turn, self-initiated self-repair. Fox, et al.
1996 is one of the first studies to explore this universal phenomenon from a cross-linguistic perspective. Goodwin 1980 and Schegloff
1987 consider the role self-repair can play in the management of recipiency and overlap, respectively. Lerner and Kitzinger 2007 focuses
13 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
on the use of self-repair in references to persons.
Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi, and Robert Jasperson. 1996. Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and
repair. In Interaction and grammar. Edited by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 185237.
A key study in which the authors compare various repair types in Japanese and English.
Goodwin, Charles. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological
Inquiry 50:272302.
Goodwin shows that speakers routinely restart a turn in order to elicit the gaze of a nongazing recipient.
Lerner, Gene H., and Celia Kitzinger. 2007. Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference.
Discourse Studies 9.4: 526557.
An interesting study of one use to which self-repair is put.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversations turn-taking organisation.
In Talk and social organisation. Edited by Graham Button and John R. E. Lee, 7085. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
A study of turn restarts focusing on their use in relation to overlapping talk.
INITIATED IN NEXT TURN
When repair is initiated in the next turn (after the occurrence of the trouble source), it is typically initiated by someone other than the
speaker of the trouble source. Typically, the trouble is repaired in the following turn by the speaker of the trouble source, resulting then in
next-turn, other-initiated self-repair. Of course, it is also possible for next-turn repair to be both initiated and executed by other (i.e., the
recipient of the trouble source); when this happens it often takes the form of correction. Next-turn repair initiators range from so-called
open-class types, which signal only that a problem has been encountered but are mute with respect to the kind of problem it is (Drew
1997, Egbert 1997, Robinson 2006), to so-called understanding checks, which in English often take the form of a candidate
understanding appended by you mean? and so on (e.g., Mr. Lemay, you mean?; see Schegloff 1997). Jefferson 1987 discusses the
alternative ways corrections can be done. Exposed corrections locate a problem in prior talk and make relevant apologies and excuses
from the speaker of the trouble source. Embedded corrections, in contrast, fix a problem without drawing explicit attention to it.
Drew, Paul. 1997. Open class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of
Drew describes the use of open-class repair initiators, such as what? and hah?.
Egbert, Maria M. 1997. Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multiperson conversation. Journal of
A discussion of the various interactional purposes to which other-initiated repair is put.
Jefferson, Gail. 1987. Exposed and embedded corrections. In Talk and social organisation. Edited by Graham Button and John
R. E. Lee, 86100. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
An inspired study in which Jefferson distinguishes between repairs that are below the interactional surface (embedded) and those that
are more visible (exposed).
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2006. Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication
14 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Monographs 73:137161.
An important contribution that attempts to track participants orientation to the issue of who is responsible for the trouble in a repair
sequence.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23:499545.
Lucid discussion of methods in CA focusing on the formats and uses of other-initiated repair.
OTHER POSITIONS
Repair may also be affected in other positions, such as in third turn or in third position (also, Schegloff 1992 suggests, in fourth position,
though this may be a rather different kind of thing). Schegloff 1997 uses the case of third-position repair to develop an account of the
nature of intersubjectivity in conversation.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided for place for the defense of intersubjectivity
in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97:12951345.
Brilliant and thorough analysis of third-position repair.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Third turn repair. In Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov. Vol.
2, Social interaction and discourse structures. Edited by Gregory R. Guy, Crawford M. Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John
Baugh, 3140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Describes the phenomenon of third-turn repair, which is, according to the analysis given, actually a variant of same-turn repair (in the
transition space).
Gesture, Gaze, and the Body in Interaction

While early work in conversation analysis (CA) drew primarily on recordings of telephone calls, since the pioneering work of Charles
Goodwin and Marjorie Harness Goodwin (e.g., Goodwin 1979, Goodwin 1980a, Goodwin 1981, Goodwin 1986, Goodwin 1980b,
Goodwin and Goodwin 1986), it has become increasingly common to use video recordings of face-to-face or copresent interaction for
analysis. Of course, such materials require that the analyst take into account not just the details of talk but also the use of gesture, the
direction of gaze, and the organization of the body more generally. A consideration of the body, including gesture and gaze, provides for
an analysis of interaction within the turn at talk. As Goodwin and Goodwin 1987 notes, a speaker monitors a recipient in the course of a
turns production and can adjust that turn to make it suited to observed changes in the state or disposition of the recipient. Similarly,
recipients can actively and consequentially participate in a turns production through a variety of vocal and nonvocal means. Kidwell
2005 shows an early sensitivity of infants to differences in the way adults look at them. Sidnell 2006 considers configurations of gesture,
gaze, talk, and bodily comportment in the service of producing reenactments.
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Everyday language: Studies in
ethnomethodology. Edited by George Psathas, 97121. New York: Irvington.
Classic early study that shows how a speaker takes into account the relative attentiveness of his or her recipients in adjusting his or her
sentence during the course of its production.
Goodwin, Charles. 1980a. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological
Inquiry 50:272302.
Another important study that shows the way speakers will restart a turn in order to request the gaze of a recipient.
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
15 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Book-length treatment of several issues concerning the relation of gesture and body orientation to the organization of talk.
Goodwin, Charles. 1986. Gesture as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica 62.12: 2950.
Discusses the use of gesture to organize participation in the activity.
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization
of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1.1: 154.
Considers various vocal and nonvocal resources used in the production and reception of assessments.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1980b. Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences.
Sociological Inquiry 50:303317.
Key early study that shows speakers and recipients adjusting in relation to one another during the course of producing a single turn at
talk.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Charles Goodwin. 1986. Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word.
Semiotica 62.12: 5176.
Concerns the use of gesture in this particular form of self-repair (word searching).
Kidwell, Mardi. 2005. Gaze as social control: How very young children differentiate the look from a mere look by their adult
caregivers. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38.4: 417449.
Shows, among other things, that infants are sensitive to the gaze of others from a very young age and take into account where an adult
is looking in designing their own actions.
Sidnell, Jack. 2006. Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction
39:377409.
Considers the integration of gesture, talk, and gaze in the particular activity of reenacting a scene from the past.
Talk in Institutions
Drew and Heritage 1992 gathers a range of contributions that employ the methods of conversation analysis (CA) to examine talk in
institutions. Since its publication, this area has continued to grow and to interact in various ways with a number of research paradigms
that focus on a particular institution rather than talk in interaction. Growth along these lines has been most extensive with respect to
research on medical interaction (see Heritage and Maynard 2006; Heritage, et al. 2007; Stivers 2007). Other forms of institutional talk
that have drawn the attention of conversation analysts include broadcast news (Greatbatch 1988, Clayman and Heritage 2002), court
(Atkinson and Drew 1979), and policing (Kidwell 2006).
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London:
Macmillan.
Agenda-setting study of the use of language in the courtroom.
16 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge, UK:
Clear and engaging study of news interviews.
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. Analyzing talk at work. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Edited by Paul
Drew and John Heritage, 365. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Classic introduction to the study of talk in institutions. Discusses key areas in which participants orientations to the institutional context
may be observed.
Greatbatch, David. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society 17:401430.
A key early study in which the turn-taking system for interviews is compared with that for conversation.
Heritage, John, and Douglas W. Maynard. 2006. Analyzing interaction between doctors and patients in primary care
encounters. In Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Edited by John
Heritage and Douglas W. Maynard, 121. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Useful introduction to the study of talk in medical encounters.
Heritage, John, Jeffrey D. Robinson, Marc N. Elliott, Megan Beckett, and Michael Wilkes. 2007. Reducing patients unmet
concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22:14291433.
Fascinating study of the different ways patients respond to the apparently similar questions Is there anything else you want to address
in the visit today? and Is there something else you want to address in the visit today?.
Kidwell, Mardi. 2006. Calm down!: The role of gaze in the interactional management of hysteria by the police. Discourse
Studies 8.6: 745770.
Considers practices of gaze pursuit in interactions between police officers and a woman they believe to be hysterical.
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. Prescribing under pressure: Parent-physician conversations and antibiotics. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press.
Important study of the ways parents request and physicians resist the use of antibiotics in treating sick children.
Cross-Linguistic Comparison
A significant growth area in conversation analysis (CA) involves cross-linguistic comparison. Early work in CA focused on English
materials. Some studies by anthropologists in the 1970s suggested that the key findings of CA (concerning the organization of turn
taking, for instance) did not hold for societies and languages from far-flung corners of the globe. A number of works by conversation
analysts responded to such claims (e.g., Moerman 1977, Sidnell 2001). At the same time, conversation analysts began to document
some of the consequences of language differences for the organization of interaction (Egbert 1996). As CA spread and students
speaking a range of languages were trained in the method, studies of languages such as Japanese, Korean, Swedish, Finnish, and
Mandarin began to appear. This set the stage for a comparative exercise, the goal of which is to understand the consequences of
language-specific grammatical and lexical patterns and sociocultural forms for the organization of interaction (Levinson 2005; Enfield and
Levinson 2006; Sidnell 2009; Stivers, et al. 2009).
Egbert, Maria M. 1996. Context-sensitivity in conversation: Eye gaze and the German repair initiator bitte? Language in Society
25:587612.
17 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Important early intervention in which Egbert compares German bitte with English pardon.
Enfield, N. J., and Stephen C. Levinson, eds. 2006. Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and interaction. Oxford: Berg.
Includes important agenda-setting chapters by Emanuel A. Schegloff and Stephen C. Levinson.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2005. Living with Mannys dangerous idea. Discourse Studies 7.45: 431453.
Levinson compares person reference in English with person reference in Yl Dnye, spoken in the society of Rossel Island.
Moerman, Michael. 1977. The preference for self-correction in a Tai conversational corpus. Language 53:872882.
Compares the organization of repair in Thai and English conversation.
Sidnell, Jack. 2001. Conversational turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole. Journal of Pragmatics 33:12631290.
Provides evidence that, contrary to claims by a number of anthropologists, turn-taking in Caribbean English Creole operates in just the
way Sacks, et al. 1974 (cited under The Turn-Taking System) describes it for American English.
Sidnell, Jack. 2009. Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives.
Edited by Jack Sidnell, 327. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Introduction to the study of talk in interaction from a cross-linguistic, comparative perspective.
Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico
Rossano, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking
in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.26: 1058710592.
Shows that turn transitions between questions and answers are managed in essentially the same way across the ten languages studied.
Epistemics
A significant growth area in conversation analysis (CA) focuses on the various ways participants in conversation take into account the
distribution of knowledge in designing turns at talk and in organization sequences of action. Although work along these lines, broadly
construed, has a long-standing presence in CA (these themes were broached in many of Harvey Sackss lectures; see Sacks 1992, cited
under Discourse as an Interactional Achievement), Heritage and Raymond 2005 systematizes a number of important points and
underscores the importance of epistemics to the organization of interaction. Raymond and Heritage 2006 extends this analysis,
focusing on a single case. Stivers 2005 considers resources deployed from second position. Stivers, et al. 2011 brings together a
number of recent studies of relevant practices from a range of languages.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in
talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68:1538.
Key study in which the authors show that even when participants agree they negotiate issues of epistemic authority.
Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage. 2006. The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society
35:677705.
Companion piece to Heritage and Raymond 2005 focusing on a particular interaction.
18 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language
and Social Interaction 38:131158.
Key study of confirming repeats and the epistemic claims they make.
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, eds. 2011. The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge, UK.
Collection including studies from a range of languages and contexts.
LAST MODIFIED: 10/28/2011
DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0062
BACK TO TOP
19 of 19
4/28/12 12:19 PM

Oxford Bibliographies - Conversation Analysis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Oxford Bibliographies - Conversation Analysis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Oxford Bibliographies - Conversation Analysis

General Overviews and Introductory Works

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.