Cover not available

Article published In: The Quality of Quantity, the Quantity of Quality
Edited by Steven Schoonjans
[Nota Bene 2:1] 2025
► pp. 5–40

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Transforming interactional structures into codes

Methodological cycle for a CA-based coding of conversational actions

ORCiD logo with link | University of Basel
Published online: 26 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00022.spi
Abstract
The compatibility of conversation analysis and quantification has been the subject of considerable debate. However, the question seems to be shifting from whether to how a combination of the two approaches can be as fruitful and empirically valid as possible. The “CA-based action coding cycle” (“CABAC cycle”) I present in this paper contributes to answering this question. It traces four steps in the development of a scheme for coding conversational actions: initial and embedding in previous observations, systematization, extensive sequential analysis, and application of the coding scheme. It becomes clear that the fundamental tools of conversation analysis provide a particularly sound basis for coding actions. Furthermore, the “CABAC cycle” shows that special attention should be paid to the corpus characteristics and the associated research questions when creating a coding scheme. Finally, the great potential of quantifying actions is emphasized, especially for the field of applied conversation analysis.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Coding actions in a conversation-analytical framework
    • 2.1A set of arguments in favor of integration
    • 2.2A set of studies in favor of integration
  • 3.Corpus-specific contextualization
    • 3.1Data and collection
    • 3.2Research interest and theoretical framework
    • 3.3Findings from previous CA work on the data
  • 4.From the initial observations to the final codes: A guide
    • 4.1Initial and embedding in previous observation
    • 4.2Formal systematization
    • 4.3Extensive qualitative-sequential analysis
    • 4.4Application of the coding scheme
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (58)
References
Arendt, Birte. 2019. Argumentieren mit Peers: Erwerbsverläufe und -muster bei Kindergartenkindern. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4). 243–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bressem, Jana & Cornelia Müller. 2017. The “negative-assessment construction”: A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture? Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 20160053. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burch, Alfred R. 2014. Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on communication strategies. Language Learning 641. 651–684. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2024. Working with collections in conversation analysis. In Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick & Chase Wesley Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis, 191–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. Desiderata einer gesprächsanalytischen Argumentationsforschung. In Arnulf Deppermann & Martin Hartung (eds.), Argumentieren in Gesprächen, 10–26. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Alexandra Gubina. [Forthcoming]. Coding actions in social interaction: Potentials and problems.
Dingemanse, Mark, Kobin H. Kendrick & Nick J. Enfield. 2016. A coding scheme for other-initiated repair across languages. Open Linguistics 2(1). 35–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2024. The history of a collection: Apologies. In Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick & Chase Wesley Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis, 253–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi & Nick J. Enfield. 2020. A coding scheme for recruitment sequences in interaction. In Simeon Floyd, Giovanni Rossi & Nick J. Enfield (eds.), Getting others to do things: A pragmatic typology of recruitments, 25–50. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foster, Pauline & Amy Snyder Ohta. 2005. Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics 26(3). 402–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Fay Wouk, Makoto Hayashi, Steven Fincke, Liang Tao, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Minna Laakso & Wilfrido Flores Hernandez. 2009. A cross-linguistic investigation of the site of initiation in same-turn self-repair. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 60–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grundler, Elke. 2011. Kompetent argumentieren: Ein gesprächsanalytisch fundiertes Modell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hausendorf, Heiko & Uta M. Quasthoff. 1996. Sprachentwicklung und Interaktion: Eine linguistische Studie zum Erwerb von Diskursfähigkeiten. Wiesbaden: VS. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Konversations-/Diskursanalyse: (Sprach)Entwicklung durch Interaktion. In Günter Mey (ed.), Handbuch qualitative Entwicklungspsychologie, 585–618. Köln: Kölner Studien Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauser, Stefan & Martin Luginbühl. 2017. Wenn Kinder argumentieren: Grundlagen und erste Befunde einer Studie zur mündlichen Argumentationskompetenz von Schulkindern. In Iris Meißner & Eva L. Wyss (eds.), Begründen — Erklären — Argumentieren: Konzepte und Modellierungen in der Angewandten Linguistik, 89–105. Tubingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, Vivien. 2012. Kommunikative Erfahrungen von Kindern in Familie und Unterricht: Passungen und Divergenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2004. Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In Kristine L. Fitch & Robert E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 103–147. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In David Silverman (ed.), Qualitative research, 242–258. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John & David Greatbatch. 1986. Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology 92(1). 110–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. & Francisco Torreira. 2015. The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes 52(4). 255–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22(2). 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, Judith. 2021. Ko-konstruiertes Begründen unter Kindern: Eine gesprächsanalytische Studie von Kleingruppeninteraktionen in der Primarschule. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, Judith & Martin Luginbühl. 2020. From flat propositions to deep co-constructed and modalized argumentations: Oral argumentative skills among elementary school children from grades 2 to 6. Research on Children and Social Interaction 4(1). 93–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, Judith & Vera Mundwiler. 2016. „verbAndskasten !MÜS!sen wir haben“: Zum argumentativen Potenzial von Prosodie am Beispiel von Einigungsdiskussionen bei Grundschulkindern. Studia Linguistica 351. 99–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, Judith, Martin Luginbühl & Vera Mundwiler. 2019. Gesprächsorganisation in argumentativen Peer-Gesprächen von Schulkindern. In Ines Bose, Kati Hannken-Illjes & Stephanie Kurtenbach (eds.), Kinder im Gespräch — mit Kindern im Gespräch, 33–62. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2012. Action Formation and Ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers, The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin & Daniel Müller-Feldmeth. 2022. Oral argumentation skills between process and product. Languages 7(2), Article 139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin, Vera Mundwiler, Judith Kreuz, Daniel Müller-Feldmeth & Stefan Hauser. 2021. Quantitative and qualitative approaches in conversation analysis: Methodological reflections on a study of argumentative group discussions. Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 221. 179–236.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller-Feldmeth, Daniel, Tamara Koch, Chantal Wanderon & Martin Luginbühl. 2023. ‹Yes, we’re done› — ‹except Ricardo›: Using speech, body and artefacts to perform inclusion and exclusion in peer discussions. Research on Children and Social Interaction 6(2). 229–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mundwiler, Vera, Judith Kreuz, Stefan Hauser, Brigit Eriksson & Martin Luginbühl. 2017. Mündliches Argumentieren als kommunikative Praktik: Schulbuchübungen und empirische Befunde im Vergleich. In Stefan Hauser & Martin Luginbühl (eds.), Gesprächskompetenz in schulischer Interaktion: Normative Ansprüche und kommunikative Praktiken, 91–123. Bern: hep.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mundwiler, Vera & Judith Kreuz. 2018. Collaborative decision-making in argumentative group discussions among primary school children. In Steve Oswald, Thierry Herman & Jérôme Jacquin (eds.), Argumentation and language — linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations, 263–285. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne & Steve Walsh. 2012. Applying corpus linguistics and conversation analysis in the investigation of small group teaching in higher education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1). 159–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, Martin & Katharina König. 2024. Request for confirmation sequences across ten languages. Open Linguistics 10(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 2015. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2020. Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(2). 197–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2024. Coding and statistically associating inter-action to advance conversation-analytic findings. In Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick & Chase W. Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis, 452–484. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1). 99–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996. Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action. American Journal of Sociology 102(1). 161–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23(3). 499–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonjans, Steven. 2018. Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen: Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, et al. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 101. 152–183.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spiess, Oliver. 2025. Frames are for talking: Modeling interactants’ co-constructed semantic and pragmatic structures. Journal of Pragmatics 2461. 170–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. [Submitted]. Exploring participatory dynamics in conversational argumentation: Operationalizations, visualizations, and cooccurrences.
Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas. 2006. Alles Argumentieren, oder was? Zur Konstitution von Argumentation in Gesprächen. In Arnulf Deppermann & Martin Hartung (eds.), Argumentieren in Gesprächen, 27–39. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob & Trine Heinemann. 2015. Opening up codings? Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(1). 20–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2015. Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis? Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(1). 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Nick J. Enfield. 2010. A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). 2620–2626. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ten Have, Paul. 1990. Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology 27(1). 23–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. 2nd ed. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, Traci. 2024. History of a collection: Repetition repairs. In Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick & Chase Wesley Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis, 234–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zahn, Christopher J. 1984. A reexamination of conversational repair. Communication Monographs 51(1). 56–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Dean H. & Candace West. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversations. In Barrie Thorne & Nancy Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance, 105–129. Rowley: Newbury House (Series in Sociolinguistics).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue