Cover not available

In:Visual Linguistics with R: A practical introduction to quantitative Interactional Linguistics
Christoph Rühlemann
[Not in series 228] 2020
► pp. 245–254

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

References

Published online: 17 July 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.228.ref
Aijmer, K. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers. A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. & Rühlemann, C. 2015. Corpus Pragmatics. A Handbook. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ameka, F. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amerman, J. D. & Parnell, M. M. 1992. Speech timing strategies in elderly adults. Journal of Phonetics 20: 65–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. 1984. Public speaking and audience response: Some techniques for inviting applause. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), 370–409. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L. & Johnson, T. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 941–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication 52: 566–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beattie, G., Cutler, A. & Pearson, M. 1982. Why is Mrs. Thatcher interrupted so often? Nature 300: 744–747.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blackwell, N. L., Perlman, M. & Fox Tree, M. E. 2015. Quotation as multi-modal construction. Journal of Pragmatics 81: 1–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boersma, P. 2013. Acoustic analysis. In Research Methods in Linguistics, R. J. Podesta & D. Sharma (eds), 375–396. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. 2012. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bögels, S. & Torreira, F. 2015. Listeners use intonational phrase boundaries to project turn ends in spoken interaction. Journal of Phonetics 52: 46–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. H. & Levinson, S. C. 2015. Never say no … How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. PLoS ONE 10(12): e0145474. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, G. 2004. The quote and beyond: Defining boundaries of reported speech in conversational Russian. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1071–1118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ten Bosch, L., Oostdijk, N. & Boves, L. 2005. On temporal aspects of turn taking in conversational dialogues. Speech Communication 47: 80–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Historical Pragmatics [Handbooks of Pragmatics 8], A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds), 285–314. Berlin: D. Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buysse, L. 2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1764–1782. j.pragma.2012.08.012. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. 2004. Language and Creativity. The Art of Common Talk. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. 1997. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. A., Hughes, R. & McCarthy, M. J. 2000. Exploring Grammar in Context. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66(4): 764–805. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. 2013. Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds), 150–166.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cleveland, W. S. 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74: 829–836. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, J., Baghai-Ravary, L., Pybus, J. & Grau, S. 2012. Audio BNC. The Audio Edition of the Spoken British National Corpus. Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1985. Direct and indirect speech: General problems and problems of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 41–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2012. Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In Emotion in Interaction, A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (eds), 113–146. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. 2017. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 2007. The R book. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 5th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalgaard, P. 2008. Introductory Statistics with R, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diani, G. 2004. The discourse functions of I don’t know in English conversation. In Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 120], K. Aijmer & B. Stenström (eds), 157–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. & Enfield, N. J. 2014. Let’s talk: Universal social rules underlie languages. Scientific American Mind, 25: 64–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. & Akita, K. 2017. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 53(3): 501–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., Gisladottir, S. R., Kendrick, K. H., Levinson, S. C., Manrique, E., Rossi, G. & Enfield, N.J. 2015. Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0136100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Rossi, G. & Floyd, S. 2017. Place reference in story beginnings: A cross-linguistic study of narrative and interactional affordances. Language in Society 46(2): 129–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doherty, W. 1997. The emotional contagion scale: A measure of individual differences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 21(2): 131–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P. 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 295–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Turn design. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds), 131–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duncan, S. 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 283–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1974. On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society 3: 161–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2017. How we Talk. The Inner Workings of Conversation. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. & Küntay, A. 1997. The occasioning and structure of conversational stories. In Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 34], T. Givón (ed.),133–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, R. 1998. Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics 19(2): 204–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1984. Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), 225-246. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Between and within alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies 9: 205–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. 1990. Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 283–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golato, A. 2000. An innovative German quotative for reporting embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so ‘and I’m like/and he’s like’. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 29–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2009. Statistics for Linguistics with R. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. 1996. The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds), 347–406. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, M. I. M. 2004. A. Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haselow, A. 2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics 146: 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, M. & Musgrave, S. 2019. Conversational lapses and laughter: Towards a combinatorial approach to building collections in conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 143: 279–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. & Rapson, R. 1994. Emotional Contagion. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heldner, M. 2011. Detection thresholds for gaps, overlaps, and no-gaps-no-overlap. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(1): 508–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heldner, M. & Edlund, J. 2010. Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics 38: 555–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Structures of Social Action, J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), 299–345. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27(3): 291–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Conversation analysis at century’s end: Practices of talk-in-Interaction, their distributions, and their outcomes. Research on Language & Social Interaction 32(1–2): 69–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 88–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage. J. 2013. Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 331–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 2018. Turn-initial particles in English: The cases of of and well. In Between Turn and Sequence. Turn-initial Particles across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 31], J. Heritage & M. L. Sorjonen (eds), 155–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Sorjonen, M. L. 2018. Analyzing turn-initial particles. In Between Turn and Sequence. Turn-initial Particles across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 31], J. Heritage & M. L. Sorjonen (eds), 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical Priming. A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, E. M. 2015. Lapses: How people arrive at, and deal with, discontinuities in talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(4): 430–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 109: 47–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D. & Berglund Prytz, Y. 2008. Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – A Practical Guide. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holler, J. & Levinson, S. C. 2019. Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23(8): 639–652. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H. & Levinson, S. C. 2018. Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonometric Bulletin Review 25: 1900–1918. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holler, J., Shovelton, H. & Beattie, G. 2009. Do iconic gestures really contribute to the semantic information communicated in face-to-face interaction? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 33: 73–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hömke, P., Holler, J. & Levinson, S. C. 2017. Eye blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(1): 54–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holt, E. 1996. Reporting talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(3): 219–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4): 425–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. ‘I’m eying your chop up mind’: Reporting and enacting. In Reporting Talk. Reported Speech in Interaction, E. Holt & R. Clift (eds), 47–80. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Indefrey, P. & Levelt, W. J. M. 2004. The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition 92: 101–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1): 23–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language, T. A. Sebeok (ed.), 351–377. Cambridge, MA: The MI. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1973. A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotics 9: 47–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Studies in the Organization of Conversatonal Interaction, J. Schenkein (ed.), 219–248. New York NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1979. A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination. In Everyday Language – Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 79–95. New York NY: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1984. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (ed.), 191–222. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies 9: 153–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, G. H. Lerner (ed.), 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. 1987. Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy, G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds), 152–205. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jescheniak, J. D. & Levelt, W. J. M. 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 824–843.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 2013. Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. 2015. Processibility. In Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (eds.), 117–142. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly, S. D., Özyürek, A. & Maris, E. 2010. Two sides of the same coin: Speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychological Science 21(2): 260–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26: 22–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Some reasons for studying gesture. Semiotica 62(1–2): 3–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. 2016. Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1): 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koester, A. & Handford, M. 2018. It’s not good saying “Well it it might do that or it might not”’: Hypothetical reported speech in business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics 130: 67–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. & Waletzky. J. 1967/1997. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, J. Helms (ed.), 12–44. Seattle WA: University of Washington Press. Reprinted in Journal of Narrative Inquiry and Life History 7(1–4): 3–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1): 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds), 103–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Turn-taking in human communication–Origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(1): 6–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson S. C. & Holler, J. 2014. The origin of human multi-modal communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 369: 20130302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Torreira, F. 2015. Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 731. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liebenthal, E., Silbersweig, D. A. & Stern, E. 2016. The language, tone and prosody of emotions: Neural substrates and dynamics of spoken-word emotion perception. Frontiers of Neuroscience 10: 506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J. 2007. A. Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Local, J., & Walker, G. 2012. How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42: 255–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magyari, L., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., de Ruiter, J. P. & Levinson, S. C. 2014. Early anticipation lies behind the speed of response in conversation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26(11): 2530–2539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mathis, T. & Yule, G. 1994. Zero quotatives. Discourse Processes 18(1): 63–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayes, P. 1990. Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language 14: 325–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 2003. Talking back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36(1): 33–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McIntyre, D., Bellard Thomson, C., Heywood, J., McEnery, T., Semino, E. & Short, M. 2004. Investigating the presentation of speech, writing and thought in spoken British English: A corpus-based approach. ICAME Journal 28: 49–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramirez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. 2007. Are women really more talkative than men? Science 317: 82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, F. E. 1996. Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: prosodic aspects of recipiency. In Prosody in Conversation, E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds), 131–176. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, N. 2009. Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 866–891. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. & Thompson, S. A. (eds). 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. B., Scott, M., Mahlberg, M. & Hoey, M. 2012. Exploring text-initial words, clusters and concgrams in a newspaper corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 73–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, R. 2001. Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31(1): 139–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. & Adolphs, S. 2008. Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In Variational Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 178], K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (eds), 69–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A., Henttonen, P., Voutilainen, L., Kahri, M., Stevanovic, M., Sams, M. & Ravaja, N. 2015. Sharing the emotional load: Recipient affiliation calms down the storyteller. Social Psychology Quarterly 78(4): 301–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. 2013. Preference. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds), 210–228.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–255. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riest, C., Jorschnik, A. B. & de Ruiter, J. P. 2015. Anticipation in turn-taking: Mechanisms and information sources. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riggenbach, H., 1991. Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes 14: 423–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, S. G., Torreira, F. & Levinson, S. C. 2015. The effects of processing and sequence organization on the timing of turn taking: A corpus study. Frontiers of Psychology 6: 509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. & Cullicover, P. 1990. English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. 2018. Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C. 2013. Narrative in English Conversation. A Corpus Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Integrating corpus-linguistic and conversation-analytic transcription in XML. The case of backchannels and overlap in storytelling interaction. Corpus Pragmatics 1(3): 201–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018a. Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018c. How long does it take to say ‘well’? Evidence from the Audio BNC. Corpus Pragmatics 3(1): 49–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forthcoming a. What dialog is absent from constructed dialog? English Text Construction.
Forthcoming b. Turn structure and inserts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
Rühlemann, C. & Dingemanse, M. In preparation. Response time for backchannels.
Rühlemann, C. & Gee, M. 2017. Conversation analysis and the XML method. Gesprächsforschung 18: 274–296Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C. & Gries, S. T. Under review. Speakers advance-project turn completion by slowing down – A multifactorial corpus study.
Rühlemann, C. & Schweinberger, M. In preparation. Nucleus placement – A multifactorial corpus analysis.
Rühlemann, C. & O’Donnell, M.B. 2012. Introducing a corpus of conversational narratives. Construction and annotation of the Narrative Corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(2): 313–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C., Bagoutdinov, A. & O’Donnell, M. B. 2015. Modest XPath and XQuery for corpora: Exploiting deep XML annotation. ICAM. Journal 39: 47–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H. & Enfield, N. J. 2006. Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language 82(3): 515–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Structures of Social Action, J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), 21–27. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1987. On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Talk and Social Organisation, G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. Lectures on Conversation, Vols. I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. & Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, D. Tannen (ed.), 71–93. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 99–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and Grammar, E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (eds), 53–133. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29: 1–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (eds), 229–249. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation-Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Lerner, G. H. 2009. Beginning to respond: “well”-prefaced responses to WH-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1985. Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language 61: 640–667. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schleppgrell, M. 1991. Paratactic because. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 323–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schourup, L. 2001. Rethinking well. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1025–1060. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Syntax and Semantics III, P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds), 59–82. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2006. Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39(4): 377–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. 2000. Lexical grammar. Naujoji Metodologija 24: 191–203.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soulaimani, D. 2018. Talk, voice and gestures in reported speech: Toward an integrated approach. Discourse Studies 20(3): 361–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stec, K., Huiskes, M. & Redeker, G. 2016. Multimodal quotation: Role shift practices in spoken narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 104: 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1): 31–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Sequence organization. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds), 191–209.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, T. & Robinson, J. D. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35: 367–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, T. 2013. Introduction. In Sidnell & Stivers (eds), 1–8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E. & Levinson, S. C. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences U.S.A. 106(26): 10587–10592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, E. 2018. Talk: The Science of Conversation. London: Robinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2002. Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stubblebine, T. 2007. Regular Expression, 2nd edn. Sebastopol CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tognini Bonelli, E. 2010. The evolution of corpus linguistics. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (eds), 14–27. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torreira, F., Bögels, S. & Levinson, S. C. 2015. Breathing for answering: The time course of response planning in conversation. Frontiers in Psychology. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vachek, J. (ed.). 1964. A Prague School Reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vatanen, A. 2018. Responding in early overlap: Recognitional onsets in assertion sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wade, E. & Clark, H. H. 1993. Reproduction and demonstration in quotations. Journal of Memory and Language 32(6): 805–819. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wald, B. 1983. Referents and topic within and across discourse units: Observations from current vernacular English. In Discourse Perspectives on Syntax, F. Klein-Andreu (ed.), 91–116. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, B. & Macfarlane, S. 1998. Prosody as an interactional resource: Turn-projection and overlap. Language and Speech 41(3–4): 265–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. 2001. The Music of Everyday Speech. Prosody and Discourse Analysis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wesseling, W. & van Son, R. J. J. H. 2005. Timing of experimentally elicited minimal responses as quantitative evidence for the use of intonation in projecting trps. Interspeech 6: 3389–3392.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, S. 1989. Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language in Society 18(1): 59–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woods, A., Fletcher, P. & Hughes A. 1986. Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yngve, V. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Robert I. Binnick (ed.), 567–77. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yuan, J., Liberman, M. & Cieri, C. 2006. Towards an integrated understanding of speaking rate in conversation. Interspeech 2006.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. A. Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue