Cover not available

Article published In: The Quality of Quantity, the Quantity of Quality
Edited by Steven Schoonjans
[Nota Bene 2:1] 2025
► pp. 41–68

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

Integrating quantitative methods into conversation analysis

Exploring psychological reactance through interactional coding

 | University of Duisburg-Essen
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Duisburg-Essen.

Published online: 26 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00023.kru
Abstract
This paper explores integrating quantitative methods into Conversation Analysis (CA) to examine psychological reactance in face-to-face interactions. Although extensively studied in mediated contexts, psychological reactance – a motivational state triggered by perceived threats to autonomy – remains underexplored in natural conversations. Addressing this gap, the study investigates how reactance manifests and affects conversational dynamics, such as stance-taking and disalignments. Video-recorded interactions were collected where participants faced reactance-inducing conditions (e.g., limiting smartphone use). Using GAT2 transcription and multimodal annotations, a systematic triple manual coding was used to identify markers of reactance. For statistical tests, the averages of the coding decisions were used to utilize the interpretative flexibility inherent in coding. Quantitative analyses showed significant relationships: reactance correlated positively with perceived freedom restriction, negatively with stance, and predicted conversational disalignment. Findings demonstrate that integrating quantitative methods into CA enhances its capacity to analyze complex phenomena like reactance, linking interactional practices with psychological concepts and advancing methodological discussions within CA.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Investigating psychological reactance through quantitative methods in conversation analysis
  • 3.Methodological challenges and benefits of integrating quantitative approaches into conversation analysis
    • Quantification in CA
    • Benefits and opportunities of quantification for CA
  • 4.Data: Study design and methods
    • Study design
    • Methods & coding
    • Hypotheses
  • 5.Hypothesis testing
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (90)
References
Almazyad, Fadi, Purvi Shah & Eleanor T. Loiacono. 2023. Social media activism for resurrecting deleted brands: the role of consumers’ psychological reactance. Journal of Brand Management 30(4). 367–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka. 2009. On comperative methodology in studies of social interaction. In Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso & Jan Lindstrom (eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, 48–69. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, Adrian A. W., Neal Conway, Claudia Doblinger, Stefanie Steinhauser, Agata Paszko, Ferdinand Lehmann, Gerhard Schneider, Christian M. Schulz & Frederick Schneider. 2022. Mitigation of climate change in health care: A survey for the evaluation of providers’ attitudes and knowledge, and their view on their organization’s readiness for change. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 1731. 108–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brehm, Jack W. 1966. A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, Carly W., Susan Danby & Michael Emmison. 2011. Address Terms in Turn Beginnings: Managing Disalignment and Disaffiliation in Telephone Counseling. Research on Language & Social Interaction 44(4). 338–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Button, Graham, Michael Lynch & Wes Sharrock. 2022. Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis and Constructive Analysis: On Formal Structures of Practical Action. 1st edn. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayton, Russell B., Glenn Leshner, Ashley Sanders-Jackson & Joshua Hendrickse. 2020. When Counterarguing Becomes the Primary Task: Examination of Dogmatic Anti-Vaping Messages on Psychological Reactance, Available Cognitive Resources, and Memory. Journal of Communication 70(4). 522–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conway, Lucian Gideon, Meredith A. Repke & Shannon C. Houck. 2017. Donald Trump as a cultural revolt against perceived communication restriction: Priming political correctness norms causes more Trump support. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 5(1). 244–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2009. A sequential approach to affect: The case of “dissapointment.” In Markku Haakana, Nina Laakso & Jan Lindstrom (eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. Text & Talk 32(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. 2011. A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 121. 1–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dillard, James Price & Lijiang Shen. 2005. On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication. Communication Monographs 72(2). 144–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dix, Carolin & Alexandra Groß. 2024. Surprise About News or Just Receiving Information?: Moving and holding Both Eyebrows in Co-Present Interaction. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 6(3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. & Elise Kärkkäinen. 2012. Taking a stance on emotion: affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk 32(4). 433–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter. 2000. Discursive psychology (Inquiries in Social Construction). Repr. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehmer, Oliver. 2021. Aligned Corpus Toolkit. [URL], [URL]
Eiswirth, Mirjam Elisabeth. 2022. Developing and testing interaction-based coding schemes for the analysis of sociolinguistic variation. Language & Communication 871. 11–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ELAN. 2024. ELAN. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. [URL]
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi & Nick J. Enfield. 2020. A coding scheme for recruitment sequences in interaction. In Simeon Floyd, Giovanni Rossi & N. J. Enfield (eds.), Getting others to do things: A pragmatic typology of recruitments, 25–50. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2018. Co-operative action (Learning in Doing). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grandpre, Joseph, Eusebio M. Alvaro, Michael Burgoon, Claude H. Miller & John R. Hall. 2003. Adolescent Reactance and Anti-Smoking Campaigns: A Theoretical Approach. Health Communication 15(3). 349–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graupmann, Verena, Eva Jonas, Ester Meier, Stefan Hawelka & Markus Aichhorn. 2012. Reactance, the self, and its group: When threats to freedom come from the ingroup versus the outgroup. European Journal of Social Psychology 42(2). 164–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hajek, Katharina V. & Lara Kobilke. 2025. Beyond Boomerang — Introducing a New Psychological Reactance Process Model for Communication Science. Open Science Framework. osf.io/pkf87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Marissa G., Paschal Sheeran, Seth M. Noar, Kurt M. Ribisl, Marcella H. Boynton & Noel T. Brewer. 2017. A brief measure of reactance to health warnings. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 40(3). 520–529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heatherly, Matthew, D. A. Baker & Casey Canfield. 2023. Don’t touch that dial: Psychological reactance, transparency, and user acceptance of smart thermostat setting changes. (Ed.) Hans H. Tung. PLOS ONE 18(7). e0289017. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heilman, Madeline E. & Barbara Ley Toffler. 1976. Reacting to reactance: An Interpersonal interpretation of the need for freedom. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12(6). 519–529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, Vivien. 2016. „dass VOLL verARsche hier“: Aligment und Disalignment mit jugendsprachlichen Praktiken in der Unterrichtsinteraktion. In Carmen Spiegel & Daniel Gysin (eds.), Jugendsprache in Schule, Medien und Alltag, 91–108. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, Vivien, Nora Schönfelder & Denise Robbins. 2024. Displaying a Critical Stance: Eyebrow Contractions in Children’s Multimodal Oppositional Actions. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 6(3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Chase Wesley Raymond. 2021. Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(1). 39–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2011. ‘Some’ versus ‘Any’ Medical Issues: Encouraging Patients to Reveal Their Unmet Concerns. In Charles Antaki (ed.), Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk, 15–31. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holler, Judith & Kobin H. Kendrick. 2015. Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology 61. 98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hong, Sung-Mook & Salvatora Faedda. 1996. Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56(1). 173–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, Xiaohan & Kevin Wise. 2021. How playable ads influence consumer attitude: exploring the mediation effects of perceived control and freedom threat. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 15(2). 295–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Humă, Bogdana, Jack B. Joyce & Geoffrey Raymond. 2023. What Does “Resistance” Actually Look Like? The Respecification of Resistance as an Interactional Accomplishment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 42(5–6). 497–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Humă, Bogdana & Elizabeth Stokoe. 2023. Resistance in Business-to-Business “Cold” Sales Calls. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 42(5–6). 630–652. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jehoul, Annelies & Kurt Feyaerts. 2017. Multimodale uitdrukkingen van vanzelfsprekendheid: Een empirische corpusstudie. Nederlandse Taalkunde 22(2). 189–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. & Judith Holler. 2017. Gaze Direction Signals Response Preference in Conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(1). 12–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klatt, Marie & Maximilian Krug. 2023. Von der Disalignierung zum Disengagement: Aushandlung von Partizipation in konfliktären Eltern-Kind-Interaktionen. fokus:interaktion: eine Open-Access-Zeitschrift für Nachwuchswissenschaftler*innen der Gesprächsforschung. DuEPublico: Duisburg-Essen Publications online, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany 2022/2023. 291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kobilke, Lara, Katharina V. Hajek & Maximilian Krug. 2025. A Multidimensional Measure for Psychological State Reactance. Open Science Framework. osf.io/4pwn6.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krug, Maximilian. 2025. Gaze aversion as a marker of disalignment in interactions. In Elisabeth Zima & Anja Stukenbrock (eds.), Mobile Eye Tracking: New avenues for the study of gaze in social interaction, 165–187. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krug, Maximilian, Katharina V. Hajek & Lara Kobilke. in press. Collaborative Negotiation of Reactance in Climate Activism: Freedom Restoration Strategies in Face-to-Face Interactions. (Ed.) Susan Reichelt & Steffen Krämer. Kulturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Affektive Praktiken im digitalen Klimaaktivismus: Figurations-und Positionierungsprozesse in umkämpften Protestnarrativen([Special Issue]). 1–26.
Küttner, Uwe-A., Laurenz Kornfeld & Jörg Zinken. 2023. A coding scheme for (dis)approval-relevant events involving the direct social sanctioning of problematic behavior in informal social interaction. Online-only Publikationen des Leibniz-Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, Shuning & Hai Liang. 2024. Reactance to Uncivil Disagreement?: The Integral Effects of Disagreement, Incivility, and Social Endorsement. Journal of Media Psychology 36(1). 15–26. 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. Gesprächsforschung Online 221. 179–236.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mair, Michael, Wes W. Sharrock & Christian Greiffenhagen. 2022. Research with Numbers. In Douglas W. Maynard & John Heritage (eds.), The Ethnomethodology Program, 348–370. 1st edn. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miron, Anca M. & Jack W. Brehm. 2006. Reactance Theory — 40 Years Later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 37(1). 9–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2018. Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1). 85–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Transcribing silent actions: a multimodal approach of sequence organization. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 2(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortensen, Kristian. 2016. The Body as a Resource for Other-Initiation of Repair: Cupping the Hand Behind the Ear. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1). 34–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nabi, Robin L. 2003. Exploring the Framing Effects of Emotion: Do Discrete Emotions Differentially Influence Information Accessibility, Information Seeking, and Policy Preference? Communication Research 30(2). 224–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortner, Heike. 2021. Emotionen als Forschungsgegenstand — Emotionen im Forschungsprozess: Zum Umgang mit interaktionalen Daten. In Sebastian Ernst (ed.), Emotionen in Wissensinstitutionen. Zur Bedeutung affektiver Dimensionen in Forschung, Lehre und Unterricht, 51–67. Bielefeld: Transcript. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Innhwa. 2010. Marking an impasse: The use of anyway as a sequence-closing device. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12). 3283–3299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesarin, Anna, Marco Cristani, Vittorio Murino & Alessandro Vinciarelli. 2012. Conversation analysis at work: detection of conflict in competitive discussions through semi-automatic turn-organization analysis. Cognitive Processing 13(S2). 533–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plohl, Nejc & Bojan Musil. 2023. Trust in science moderates the effects of high/low threat communication on psychological reactance to COVID-19-related public health messages. Journal of Communication in Healthcare 16(4). 401–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In John Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Second Series), 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quick, Brian L. & Jennifer R. Considine. 2008. Examining the Use of Forceful Language When Designing Exercise Persuasive Messages for Adults: A Test of Conceptualizing Reactance Arousal as a Two-Step Process. Health Communication 23(5). 483–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quick, Brian L., Jennifer A. Kam, Susan E. Morgan, Claudia A. Montero Liberona & Rebecca A. Smith. 2015. Prospect Theory, Discrete Emotions, and Freedom Threats: An Extension of Psychological Reactance Theory. Journal of Communication 65(1). 40–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quick, Brian L., Lijiang Shen & James Price Dillard. 2012. Reactance Theory and Persuasion. In James Dillard & Lijiang Shen (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, 167–183. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quick, Brian L. & Michael T. Stephenson. 2007. The Reactance Restoration Scale (RRS): A Measure of Direct and Indirect Restoration. Communication Research Reports 24(2). 131–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rains, Stephen A. 2013. The Nature of Psychological Reactance Revisited: A Meta-Analytic Review. Human Communication Research 39(1). 47–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey & Don H. Zimmerman. 2016. Closing matters: Alignment and misalignment in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction. Discourse Studies 18(6). 716–736. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reiss, Stefan, Eline Leen-Thomele, Johannes Klackl & Eva Jonas. 2021. Exploring the landscape of psychological threat: A cartography of threats and threat responses. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 15(4). e12588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2007. The Role of Numbers and Statistics within Conversation Analysis. Communication Methods and Measures 1(1). 65–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosen, L. D., K. Whaling, L. M. Carrier, N. A. Cheever & J. Rokkum. 2013. The Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior 29(6). 2501–2511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Benjamin D. & Jason T. Siegel. 2018. A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science 4(4). 281–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph & Matthew Brook O’Donnell. 2012. Introducing a corpus of conversational stories. Construction and annotation of the Narrative Corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(2). 313–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna. 2013. Emotion, Affect and Conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 330–349. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-talking in conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Satti, Ignacio. 2023. Requests for Verification across Varieties of Spanish: A Comparative Approach to Gaze Behaviour. Contrastive Pragmatics 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1993. Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction 26(1). 99–128. 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
2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg R. Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, et al. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 101. 353–402.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2013. Basic Conversation Analytic Methods. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 77–99. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sikveland, Rein Ove & Elizabeth Stokoe. 2020. Should Police Negotiators Ask to “Talk” or “Speak” to Persons in Crisis? Word Selection and Overcoming Resistance to Dialogue Proposals. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(3). 324–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stadler, Stefanie Alexa. 2011. Coding speech acts for their degree of explicitness. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1). 36–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, Pentti Henttonen, Emmi Koskinen, Anssi Peräkylä, Taina Nieminen von-Wendt, Elina Sihvola, Pekka Tani, Niklas Ravaja & Mikko Sams. 2019. Physiological responses to affiliation during conversation: Comparing neurotypical males and males with Asperger syndrome. (Ed.) Atsushi Senju. PLOS ONE 14(9). e0222084. 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, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, et al. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(26). 10587–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & N. 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
Stivers, Tanya & Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35(03). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth, Geoffrey Raymond & Kevin A. Whitehead. 2024. Categories in Social Interaction: Unlocking the Resources of Conversation Analysis and Membership Categorization for Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 2007. The Role (Or Not) for Numbers and Statistics in Qualitative Research: An Introduction. Communication Methods and Measures 1(1). 31–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voutilainen, Liisa, Pentti Henttonen, Mikko Kahri, Maari Kivioja, Niklas Ravaja, Mikko Sams & Anssi Peräkylä. 2014. Affective stance, ambivalence, and psychophysiological responses during conversational storytelling. Journal of Pragmatics 681. 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voutilainen, Liisa, Anssi Peräkylä & Johanna Ruusuvuori. 2010. Misalignment as a Therapeutic Resource. Qualitative Research in Psychology 7(4). 299–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watson, Rod. 2008. Comparative Sociology, Laic and Analytic: Some Critical Remarks on Comparison in Conversation Analysis. Cahiers de praxématique (50). 203–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zemel, Alan, Fatos Xhafa & Murat Cakir. 2007. What’s in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction 17(4). 405–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue