OKAY across Languages

Toward a comparative approach to its use in talk-in-interaction

image of OKAY across Languages

OKAY has been termed ‘a spectacular expression’ and ‘America’s greatest invention.’ This volume offers an in-depth empirical study of the uses that have resulted from its global spread. Focusing on actions and interactional practices, it investigates OKAY in a variety of settings in 13 languages. The collected work showcases the importance of a holistic analysis: prosodic realization and the placement of OKAY in its larger sequential and multimodal context emerge as constitutive for distinct uses in individual languages. An inductive approach makes it possible to identify practices not previously documented, for example OKAY used for ‘qualified acceptance’ or as a ‘continuer’, and to document a core of recurrent, similar uses across languages. This work also outlines new research directions for comparative analysis by offering first insights into the diachronic development of OKAY’s uses and the relationship of OKAY to other particles in specific languages.


  1. Adegbija, Efurosibina , and Janet Bello
    2001 “The Semantics of ‘Okay’ (OK) in Nigerian English.” World Englishes20 (1): 89–98. 10.1111/1467‑971X.00198
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00198 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ainsworth-Vaughn, Nancy
    1992 “Topic Transitions in Physician-Patient Interviews: Power, Gender, and Discourse Change.” Language in Society21: 409–426. 10.1017/S0047404500015505
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500015505 [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Khalil, Talal
    2005 “Discourse Markers in Syrian Arabic: A Study of Halla’, Ya’ni, Tayyeb, and Lakan .” PhD diss., Essex University, Essex, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Al Makoshi, Manal A.
    2014 “Discourse Markers and Code-Switching: Academic Medical Lectures in Saudi Arabia Using English as the Medium of Instruction.” PhD diss., Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics, University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, Richard J. , John A. Hughes , and Wes W. Sharrock
    1989Working for Profit: The Social Organisation of Calculation in an Entrepreneurial Firm. Aldershot: Avebury.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Antaki, Charles , Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra , and Mark Rapley
    2000 “‘Brilliant. Next Question…’: High-Grade Assessment Sequences in the Completion of Interactional Units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33 (3): 235–262. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3303_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3303_1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Antaki, Charles , and Alexandra Kent
    2012 “Telling People What to Do (and, Sometimes, Why): Contingency, Entitlement and Explanation in Staff Requests to Adults with Intellectual Impairments.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (6–7): 876–889. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  8. Argyle, Michael , and Mark Cook
    1976Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Arminen, Ilkka
    2006 “Social Functions of Location in Mobile Telephony.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing1 (5): 319–323. 10.1007/s00779‑005‑0052‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0052-5 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 “On Comparative Methodology in Studies of Social Interaction.” InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana , Minna Laakso and Jan Lindström , 48–69. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Atkinson, J. Maxwell
    1984 “Public Speaking and Audience Responses: Some Techniques for Inviting Applause.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 346–369. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.022 [Google Scholar]
  12. Atkinson, J. Maxwell , and John Heritage
    1984 “Aspects of Response.” Introduction to the section. InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 297–298. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.019 [Google Scholar]
  13. Auer, Peter
    1990 “Rhythm in Telephone Closings.” Human Studies13 (4): 361–392. 10.1007/BF00193570
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00193570 [Google Scholar]
  14. Auer, Peter , and Yael Maschler
    (eds) 2016NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: De Gryuter. 10.1515/9783110348989
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348989 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ayash, Maha Ghaleb
    2016 Pragmaticalization of Discourse Markers in Lebanese Conversational Arabic. Master’s thesis, American University of Beirut.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Baker, Carolyn , Michael Emmison , and Alan Firth
    (eds) 2005Calling for Help: Language and Social Interaction in Telephone Helplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.143
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.143 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bangerter, Adrian , and Herbert H. Clark
    2003 “Navigating Joint Projects with Dialogue.” Cognitive Science27 (2): 195–223. 10.1207/s15516709cog2702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2702_3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bangerter, Adrian , Herbert H. Clark , and Anna R. Katz
    2004 “Navigating Joint Projects in Telephone Conversations.” Discourse Processes37 (1): 1–23. 10.1207/s15326950dp3701_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3701_1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bańko, Mirosław
    2008, January4. “Re: Chwila! [Little Moment!]” (Online discussion group). AccessedMay 7, 2019. https://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/haslo/Chwila;8820.html
  20. Barske, Tobias
    2006 “Co-Constructing Social Roles in German Business Meetings: A Conversation Analytic Study.” PhD diss., German Applied Linguistics, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2009 “Same Token, Different Actions: A Conversation Analytic Study of Social Roles, Embodied Actions, and ok in German Business Meetings.” Special issue, Journal for Business Communication46 (1): 120–149. 10.1177/0021943608325748
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325748 [Google Scholar]
  22. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
    2002 “Weil die Hälfte eben erst die Hälfte ist – zur prosodischen Gestaltung als Projektionsmittel bei konzessiven Konstruktionen im Englischen [Because half is simply only half – prosodic make-up as means of projecting in concessive constructions in English].” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik37: 77–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2009 “Contrasting and Turn Transition: Prosodic Projection with Parallel-Opposition Constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (11): 2271–2294. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011a “Double Sayings of German JA – More Observations on Their Prosodic-Phonetic Make-up and Alignment Function.” Research on Language and Social Interaction44 (2): 157–185. 10.1080/08351813.2011.567099
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.567099 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2011b “Response Tokens in Interaction – Prosody, Phonetics and a Visual Aspect of German JAJA .” Gesprächsforschung12: 301–370.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Arnulf Deppermann
    2020 “Konstruktionsgrammatik und Prosodie: OH in englischer Alltagsinteraktion [Construction Grammar and prosody: OH in English everyday interaction].” InProsodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik, ed. by Wolfgang Imo , and Jens Lanwer , 35–73. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Bateson, Gregory , and Margaret Mead
    1951Bathing Babies in Three Cultures. New Guinea. Film.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Bauman, Richard
    1975 “Verbal Art as Performance.” American Anthropologist77 (2): 290–311. 10.1525/aa.1975.77.2.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1975.77.2.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  29. Bavelas, Janet Beavin , Linda Coates , and Trudy Johnson
    2002 “Listener Responses as a Collaborative Process: The Role of Gaze.” Journal of Communication52 (3): 566–580. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02562.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Beach, Wayne A.
    1990a “Language as and in Technology: Facilitating Topic Organization in a Videotex Focus Group Meeting.” InCommunication and the Culture of Technology, ed. by Martin J. Medhurst , Alberto Gonzalez , and Tarla Ray Peterson , 197–220. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1990b “Orienting to the Phenomenon.” InCommunication Yearbook 13, ed. by James A. Anderson , 216–244. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.1080/23808985.1990.11678755
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1990.11678755 [Google Scholar]
  32. 1993 “Transitional Regularities for ’Casual’ ”Okay” Usages.” Journal of Pragmatics19 (4): 325–352. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  33. 1995a “Conversation Analysis: ‘Okay’ as a Clue for Understanding Consequentiality.” InThe Consequentiality of Communication, ed. by Stuart J. Sigman , 121–161. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1995b “Preserving and Constraining Options: ”Okays” and ’Official’ Priorities in Medical Interviews.” InThe Talk of the Clinic: Explorations in the Analysis of Medical and Therapeutic Discourse, ed. by G. H. Morris , and Ronald J. Chenail , 259–289. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2020 “Using prosodically marked ‘Okays’ to display epistemic stances and incongruous actions.” Journal of Pragmatics169: 15–164. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  36. Benjamin, Trevor
    2013 “Signaling Trouble: On the Linguistic Design of Other-Initiation of Repair in English Conversation.” PhD diss., University of Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Best, Katie , and Jon Hindmarsh
    2019 “Embodied Spatial Practices and Everyday Organization: The Work of Tour Guides and Their Audiences.” Human Relations72 (2): 248–271. 10.1177/0018726718769712
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718769712 [Google Scholar]
  38. Betz, Emma
    2015 “Recipient Design in Reference Choice: Negotiating Knowledge, Access, and Sequential Trajectories.” Gesprächsforschung16: 137–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Betz, Emma , and Andrea Golato
    2008 “Remembering Relevant Information and Withholding Relevant Next Actions: The German Token Achja .” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (1): 58–98. 10.1080/08351810701691164
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691164 [Google Scholar]
  40. Betz, Emma , Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm , Veronika Drake , and Andrea Golato
    2013 “Third-Position Repeats in German: The Case of Repair- and Request-for-Information Sequences.” Gesprächsforschung14: 133–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Bertils, Klara
    2016 “Amning, kunskap och självbestämmande: Språkliga och interaktionella perspektiv på amningsrådgivning [Breastfeeding, Knowledge and Empowerment: A Conversation Analytic Study of a Breastfeeding Helpline].” Master’s thesis, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University. www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:935650/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  42. Bickel, Balthasar , Bernard Comrie , and Martin Haspelmath
    2008 “The Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses.” https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php
  43. Birkner, Karin
    2001Bewerbungsgespräche mit Ost- und Westdeutschen: Eine kommunikative Gattung in Zeiten gesellschaftlichen Wandels [Job interviews with East and West Germans: A communicative genre in times of societal change]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110915129
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110915129 [Google Scholar]
  44. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana , Juliane House , and Gabriele Kasper
    (eds) 1989Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana , and Elite Olshtain
    1984 “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics5 (3): 196–213. 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 [Google Scholar]
  46. Boas, Franz
    1889 “On Alternating Sounds.” American Anthropologist2 (1): 47–54. 10.1525/aa.1889.2.1.02a00040
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1889.2.1.02a00040 [Google Scholar]
  47. Boden, Deidre
    1994The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Boersma, Paul , and David Weenink
    2018 “Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program].” www.praat.org/
  49. Bolden, Galina B.
    2006 “Little Words that Matter: Discourse Markers ’So’ and ’Oh’ and the Doing of Other-Attentiveness in Social Interaction.” Journal of Communication56 (4): 661–688. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2006.00314.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Bolden, Galina B.
    2008 “’So What’s Up?’: Using the Discourse Marker So to Launch Conversational Business.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (3): 302–337. 10.1080/08351810802237909
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237909 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2009 “Implementing Incipient Actions: The Discourse Marker ‘So’ in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (5): 974–998. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2017 “Opening up Closings in Russian.” InEnabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond , Gene H. Lerner , and John Heritage , 231–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.13bol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.13bol [Google Scholar]
  53. Bolinger, Dwight Le Merton
    1957Interrogative Structures of American English: The Direct Question. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Bowker, David
    2012 “ Okay? Yeah? Right?: Negotiating Understanding and Agreement in Master’s Supervision Meetings with International Students.” PhD diss., Stirling School of Education, University of Stirling.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Broderick, Julie E. , and John P. Broderick
    2003 “Okay as a Discourse Marker in the Speech of Bilingual Elementary School Teachers in New York City.” InActas I del VIII Simposio Internacionale de Comunicación Social. Santiago, Chile: Centro de Linguistica Applicada.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    1978Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Bruxelles, Sylvie , Luca Greco , and Lorenza Mondada
    2009 “Pratiques de transition: ressources multimodales pour la structuration de l’activité [Practices of transition: multimodal resources for structuring the activity].” InMéthodologies d’analyse de situations coopératives de conception: Corpus Mosaic, ed. by Françoise Détienne , and Véronique Traverso , 221–302. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Button, Graham
    1987 “Moving out of Closings.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button , and John R. E. Lee , 101–151. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 1990 “On Varieties of Closings.” InInteraction Competence, ed. by George Psathas , 93–148. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Cassidy, Frederic G.
    1981 “OK–is it African?” American Speech56 (4): 269–273. 10.2307/455123
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455123 [Google Scholar]
  61. Cekaite, Asta
    2007 “A Child’s Development of Interactional Competence in a Swedish L2 Classroom.” The Modern Language Journal91 (1): 45–62. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00509.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00509.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Chaudron, Craig , and Jack C. Richards
    1986 “The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Comprehension of Lectures.” Applied Linguistics7 (2): 113–127. 10.1093/applin/7.2.113
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.113 [Google Scholar]
  63. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  64. Clark, Herbert H. , and Susan E. Brennan
    1991 “Grounding in Communication.” InPerspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick , John M. Levine , and Stephanie D. Teasley , 222–233. Washington, DC: APA. 10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  65. Clark White, Anne Elizabeth
    2020 “Authority and Camaraderie: The Delivery of Directives Amongst the Ice Floes.” Language in Society49 (2): 207–230. 10.1017/S0047404519000721
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000721 [Google Scholar]
  66. Clayman, Steven E. , Marc N. Elliott , John Heritage , and Laurie L. McDonald
    2006 “Historical Trends in Questioning Presidents, 1953–2000.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36 (4): 561–583. 10.1111/j.1741‑5705.2006.02568.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2006.02568.x [Google Scholar]
  67. Clift, Rebecca
    2016Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139022767
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139022767 [Google Scholar]
  68. Comrie, Bernard
    1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology, 2nd ed.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Condon, Sharon L.
    1986 “The Discourse Functions of OK.” Semiotica60 (1–2): 73–101. 10.1515/semi.1986.60.1‑2.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.60.1-2.73 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2001 “Discourse Ok Revisited: Default Organization in Verbal Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics33 (4): 491–513. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00039‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00039-4 [Google Scholar]
  71. Condon, Sharon L. , and Claude G. Cech
    2007 “OK, Next One: Discourse Markers of Common Ground.” InLexical Markers of Common Ground, ed. by Anita Fetzer , and Kerstin Fischer , 17–45. New York: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2001 “Interactional Prosody: High Onsets in Reason-for-the-Call Turns.” Language in Society30 (1): 29–53. 10.1017/S0047404501001026
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501001026 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2004a “Prosodische Stilisierungen im Gespräch [Prosodic stylizations in conversation].” InZwischen Literatur und Anthropologie: Diskurse, Medien, Performanzen, ed. by Aleida Assmann , Ulrich Gaier , and Gisela Trommsdorff , 315–337. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2004b “Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation: The Case of New Beginnings.” InSound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Cecilia E. Ford , 335–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62.17cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.17cou [Google Scholar]
  75. 2009 “A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of ‘Disappointment’.” InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana , Minna Laakso , and Jan Lindström , 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2012a “Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories.” InEmotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen , 113–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2012b “Some Truths and Untruths about Final Intonation in Conversational Questions.” InQuestions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter , 123–45. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.009 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2014 “Prosody as Dialogic Interaction.” InProsodie und Phonetik in der Interaktion. Prosody and Phonetics in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten , and Beatrice Szczepek Reed , 221–251. Radolfzell: Verlag Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 2019a “American English OKAY Over Time: Challenge and Chance for Interactional Linguistics.” Paper presented at the9th annual meeting of the Language and Social Interaction Working Group (LANSI), New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 2019b “Comparing Language Use in Social Interaction.” InStudies in Comparative Pragmatics, ed. by Hartmut E. H. Lenk , Juhani Härmä , Begoña Sanromán Vilas , and Elina Suomela-Härmä , 3–18. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Marja Etelämäki
    2015 “Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics78: 7–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  82. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Margret Selting
    2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Sandra A. Thompson
    2000 “Concessive Patterns in Conversation.” InCause, Condition, Concession, and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Bernd Kortmann , 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.4.381
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.381 [Google Scholar]
  84. Craven, Alexandra , and Jonathan Potter
    2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies12 (4): 419–442. 10.1177/1461445610370126
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126 [Google Scholar]
  85. Croft, William
    2003Typology and Universals, 2nd ed.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Cruttenden, Alan
    1997Intonation, 2nd ed.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166973
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166973 [Google Scholar]
  87. Curl, Traci S. , and Paul Drew
    2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (2): 129–153. 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  88. Davidson, Judy
    1984 “Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 102–128. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.009 [Google Scholar]
  89. 1990 “Modifications of Invitations, Offers, and Rejections.” InInteraction Competence, ed. by George Psathas , 149–179. Lanham: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. DeCarlo, Doug , Matthew Stone , Corey Revilla , and Jennifer J. Venditti
    2004 “Specifying and Animating Facial Signals for Discourse in Embodied Conversational Agents.” Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds15 (1): 27–38. 10.1002/cav.5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/cav.5 [Google Scholar]
  91. Del Corona, Marcia , and Ana Cristina Ostermann
    2012 “Formulação de lugar, intersubjetividade e categorias de pertença em chamadas de emergência para o 190 [Place formulation, intersubjectivity, and membership categorization in calls to a Brazilian police emergency service helpline].” Veredas16 (1): 112–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Den Danske Ordbog (DDO) [The Danish Dictionary]
    Den Danske Ordbog (DDO) [The Danish Dictionary]. n.d. s.v.okay. AccessedJune 16, 2018. https://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=okay
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2001Gespräche analysieren [Analyzing Conversations]. Wiesbaden: VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑91359‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-91359-3 [Google Scholar]
  94. 2015 “Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction.” InTemporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , and Susanne Günthner , 57–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27.02dep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.02dep [Google Scholar]
  95. Deppermann, Arnulf , and Elwys De Stefani
    2019 “Defining in Talk-in-Interaction: Recipient-Design through Negative Definitional Components.” Journal of Pragmatics140: 140–155. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  96. Deppermann, Arnulf , and Henrike Helmer
    2013 “Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann [On the grammar of understanding in conversation: Displaying inferences and formulating next actions with the connectives also and dann ].” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft32 (1): 1–40. 10.1515/zfs‑2013‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  97. Deppermann, Arnulf , and Jürgen Streeck
    2018 “The Body in Interaction: Its Multiple Modalities and Temporalities.” InTime in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , and Jürgen Streeck , 1–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.293.intro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293.intro [Google Scholar]
  98. Deppermann, Arnulf , Reinhold Schmitt , and Lorenza Mondada
    2010 “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (6): 1700–1718. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  99. De Stefani, Elwys
    2011‘Ah petta ecco, io prendo questi che mi piacciono’. Agire come coppia al supermercato: Un approccio conversazionale e multimodale allo studio dei processi decisionali [‘Oh wait, I take these coz I like them’. Doing being a couple in supermarkets: A conversational and multimodal approach to the study of decision making]. Rome: Aracne.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 2013 “The Collaborative Organisation of Next Actions in a Semiotically Rich Environment: Shopping as a Couple.” InInteraction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion, ed. by. Pentti Haddington , Lorenza Mondada , and Maurice Nevile , 123–151. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110291278.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291278.123 [Google Scholar]
  101. 2018 “Institutional Invitations to a Meeting: Cold Calls to Bank Clients.” Journal of Pragmatics125: 180–199. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  102. De Stefani, Elwys , and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
    2018 “Mundane Talk at Work: Multiactivity in Interactions between Professionals and Their Clientele.” Discourse Studies20 (2): 221–245. 10.1177/1461445617734935
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734935 [Google Scholar]
  103. De Stefani, Elwys , and Lorenza Mondada
    2017 “Who’s the Expert? Negotiating Competence and Authority in Guided Tours.” InIdentity Struggles: Evidence from Workplaces Around the World, ed. by Dorien Van De Mieroop , and Stephanie Schnurr , 95–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.69.06des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.69.06des [Google Scholar]
  104. DeSouza, Darcey K. , Emma Betz , Mary Clinkenbeard , Emi Morita , Natasha Shrikant , and William A. Tuccio
    2021 “Taking a detour before answering the question: Turn-initial okay in second position in English interaction.” Language & Communication76, 47–57. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  105. Dingemanse, Mark , Joe Blythe , and Tyko Dirksmeyer
    2018 “Formats for Other-Initiation of Repair Across Languages: An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Linguistic Typology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, vol.4, ed. by Irina Nikolaeva , 322–357. London: Routledge. 10.1075/sl.38.1.01din
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.1.01din [Google Scholar]
  106. Dingemanse, Mark , Seán G. Roberts , Julija Baranova , Joe Blythe , Paul Drew , Simeon Floyd , Rosa S. Gisladottir , Kobin H. Kendrick , Stephen C. Levinson , Elizabeth Manrique , Giovanni Rossi , and N. J. Enfield
    2015 “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.” PLOS ONE10 (9): e0136100. 10.1371/journal.pone.0136100
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136100 [Google Scholar]
  107. Dingemanse, Mark , Francisco Torreira , and Nick J. Enfield
    2013 “Is ‘Huh?’ a Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items.” PLoS One8 (11): e78273. 10.1371/journal.pone.0078273
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078273 [Google Scholar]
  108. Dittmann, Allen T. , and Lynn G. Llewellyn
    1968 “Relationship between Vocalizations and Head Nods as Listener Responses.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology9 (1): 79–84. 10.1037/h0025722
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025722 [Google Scholar]
  109. Drew, Paul
    1997 “‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics28 (1): 69–101. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  110. 2003 “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings: A Sketch.” InStudies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper, ed. by Phillip Glenn , Curtis D. LeBaron , and Jenny Mandelbaum , 293–308. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 2012 “What Drives Sequences?” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 61–68. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646688
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646688 [Google Scholar]
  112. 2013 “Turn Design.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 131–149. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  113. Drew, Paul , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2014a “Requesting – from Speech Act to Recruitment.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.01dre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.01dre [Google Scholar]
  114. (eds) 2014bRequesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26 [Google Scholar]
  115. Drew, Paul , and John Heritage
    1992Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Dudenredaktion
    Dudenredaktion (ed.) 1954Duden Rechtschreibung mit Berücksichtigung der häufigsten Fremdwörter [Duden Spelling (Dictionary), Reflecting the most Frequent Foreign Words]. 14th ed., first Duden West (Germany) edition. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut AG.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Duranti, Alessandro
    1988 “Intentions, Language, and Social Action in a Samoan Context.” Journal of Pragmatics12 (1): 13–33. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90017-3 [Google Scholar]
  118. 1997Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190 [Google Scholar]
  119. Efron, David
    1941Gesture and Environment. New York: King’s Crown Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus
    1979 “Human Ethology: Concepts and Implications for the Sciences of Man.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences2 (1): 1–57. 10.1017/S0140525X00060416
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00060416 [Google Scholar]
  121. Ekberg, Katie , Joanne McDermott , Claire Moynihan , Lucy Brindle , Paul Little , and Geraldine M. Leydon
    2014 “The Role of Helplines in Cancer Care: Intertwining Emotional Support with Information or Advice-Seeking Needs.” Journal of Psychosocial Oncology32 (3): 359–381. 10.1080/07347332.2014.897294
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2014.897294 [Google Scholar]
  122. Enfield, N. J.
    2011 “Sources of Asymmetry in Human Interaction: Enchrony, Status, Knowledge and Agency.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig , 285–312. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013 [Google Scholar]
  123. Enfield, N. J. , and Tanya Stivers
    (eds) 2007Person Reference in Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746 [Google Scholar]
  124. Enfield, N. J. , Tanya Stivers , Penelope Brown , Christina Englert , Katariina Harjunpää , Makoto Hayashi , Trine Heinemann
    2018 “Polar answers.” Journal of Linguistics55 (2): 277–304. 10.1017/S0022226718000336
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336 [Google Scholar]
  125. Enfield, N. J. , Tanya Stivers , Stephen C. Levinson
    2010 “Question–Response Sequences in Conversation Across Ten Languages: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (10): 2615–2619. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  126. Ervin-Tripp, Susan
    1976 “‘Is Sybil There?’ The Structure of Some American English Directives.” Language in Society5 (1): 25–67. 10.1017/S0047404500006849
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006849 [Google Scholar]
  127. European Union (EU)
    European Union (EU) 2016 “Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).” AccessedJune 17, 2018. data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj/eng
  128. Fagan, Drew S.
    2012 “ Okay as a Multifunctional Resource for Giving Feedback in Classrooms.” Language & Information Society16: 9–41. 10.29211/soli.2012.16..002
    https://doi.org/10.29211/soli.2012.16..002 [Google Scholar]
  129. Filipi, Anna , and Roger Wales
    2003 “Differential Uses of Okay, Right, and Alright, and Their Function in Signaling Perspective Shift or Maintenance in a Map Task.” Semiotica147: 429–455. 10.1515/semi.2003.102
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2003.102 [Google Scholar]
  130. Fischer, Kerstin
    2006 “Frames, Constructions and Invariant Meanings. The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles.” InApproaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer , 427–447. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Flores-Ferrán, Nydia
    2014 “So pues entonces: An Examination of Bilingual Discourse Markers in Spanish Oral Narratives of Personal Experience of New York City-Born Puerto Ricans.” Sociolinguistic Studies8 (1): 57–83. 10.1558/sols.v8i1.57
    https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v8i1.57 [Google Scholar]
  132. Floyd, Simeon , Giovanni Rossi , and N. J. Enfield
    2020Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Sciences Press. 10.5281/zenodo.4017493
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4017493 [Google Scholar]
  133. Ford, Cecilia E.
    2008Women Speaking Up: Getting and Using Turns in Workplace Meetings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230582187
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582187 [Google Scholar]
  134. Ford, Cecilia E. , and Barbara Fox
    2010 “Multiple Practices for Constructing Laughables.” InProsody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten , Elisabeth Reber , and Margret Selting , 339–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.23.27for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.27for [Google Scholar]
  135. Ford, Cecilia E. , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 “Interactional Units in Conversation. Syntactic, Interactional, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 134–184. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  136. Forsberg, Julia , and Åsa Abelin
    2018 “Intonation and Levels of Agreement in Interactions between Swedish Adolescents.” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 55–59. Poznań, Poland. doi:  10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018‑11
    https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-11 [Google Scholar]
  137. Fox, Barbara
    2014 “On the Notion of Pre-Request.” Discourse Studies17 (1): 41–63. 10.1177/1461445614557762
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614557762 [Google Scholar]
  138. Fox, Barbara , Makoto Hayashi , and Robert Jasperson
    1996 “Resources and Repair: A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Syntactic Organization of Repair.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 185–237. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004 [Google Scholar]
  139. Fox, Barbara , and Sandra A. Thompson
    2010 “Responses to Wh-Questions in English Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (2): 133–156. 10.1080/08351811003751680
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003751680 [Google Scholar]
  140. Fox, Barbara , Fay Wouk , Makoto Hayashi , Steven Fincke , Liang Tao , Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Minna Laakso , and Wilfridio Flores Hernandez
    2009 “A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of the Site of Initiation in Same-Turn Self-Repair.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 60–103. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004 [Google Scholar]
  141. Frake, Charles O.
    1964 “How to Ask for a Drink in Subanun.” American Anthropologist66 (6, pt. 2): 127–132. 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00080
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00080 [Google Scholar]
  142. Fung, Loretta , and Ronald Carter
    2007 “Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Native and Learner Use in Pedagogic Settings.” Applied Linguistics28 (3): 185–208. 10.1093/applin/amm030
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030 [Google Scholar]
  143. Gaines, Philip
    2011 “The Multifunctionality of Discourse Operator Okay: Evidence from a Police Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (14): 3291–3315. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  144. Gardner, Rod
    1997 “The Listener and Minimal Responses in Conversational Interaction.” Prospect12 (2): 12–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 1998 “Between Speaking and Listening: The Vocalisation of Understandings.” Applied Linguistics19 (2): 204–24. 10.1093/applin/19.2.204
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.2.204 [Google Scholar]
  146. 2001 “When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance.” Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  147. 2007 “The Right Connections: Acknowledging Epistemic Progression in Talk.” Language in Society36 (3): 319–341. 10.1017/S0047404507070169
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070169 [Google Scholar]
  148. Garfinkel, Harold
    2002Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  150. [1976] 1981 “Replies and Responses.” InForms of Talk, by Erving Goffman , 5–77. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Citations refer to the University of Pennsylvania version. Previously published in Language in Society 5 (3): 257–313 1976.
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Golato, Andrea
    2010 “Marking Understanding Versus Receipting Information in Talk: Achso. and Ach in German Interaction.” Discourse Studies12 (2): 147–176. 10.1177/1461445609356497
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609356497 [Google Scholar]
  152. 2012 “Impersonal Quotatives and Hypothetical Discourse.” InQuotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller , and Ingrid van Alphen , 3–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.04gol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.04gol [Google Scholar]
  153. Golato, Andrea , and Emma Betz
    2008 “German Ach and Achso in Repair Uptake: Resources to Sustain or Remove Epistemic Asymmetry.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft27 (1): 7–37. 10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  154. Golato, Andrea , and Zsuzsanna Fagyal
    2008 “Comparing Single and Double Sayings of the German Response Token Ja and the Role of Prosody: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (3): 241–270. 10.1080/08351810802237834
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237834 [Google Scholar]
  155. Goodwin, Charles
    1980 “Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of a State of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning.” Sociological Inquiry50 (3–4): 272–302. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00023.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x [Google Scholar]
  156. 1981Conversational Organization. New York: Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 1986 “Between and Within: Alternative Sequential Treatments of Continuers and Assessments.” Human Studies9 (2–3): 205–217. 10.1007/BF00148127
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148127 [Google Scholar]
  158. 2000 “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics32 (10): 1489–1522. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  159. 2017Co-operative Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139016735
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735 [Google Scholar]
  160. Goodwin, Marjorie H.
    1990He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  161. 2006 “Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences.” Text & Talk26 (4–5): 515–543. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021 [Google Scholar]
  162. Goodwin, Marjorie H. , and Charles Goodwin
    1986 “Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word.” Semiotica62 (1–2): 51–75. 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1‑2.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.51 [Google Scholar]
  163. Gravano, Agustín , Štefan Beňuš , Julia Hirschberg , Shira Mitchell , and Ilia Vovsha
    2007 “Classification of Discourse Functions of Affirmative Words in Spoken Dialogue.” InProceedings of Interspeech 2007, 1613–1616. Antwerp, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Gravano, Agustín , Julia Hirschberg , and Štefan Beňuš
    2012 “Affirmative Cue Words in Task-Oriented Dialogue.” Computational Linguistics38 (1): 1–39. 10.1162/COLI_a_00083
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00083 [Google Scholar]
  165. Greco, Frank A. , and Mary Degges
    1975 “The Etymology of OK Again.” American Speech50 (3/4): 333–335. 10.2307/3088024
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3088024 [Google Scholar]
  166. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    1963Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Grosz, Barbara J.
    1977 “The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding.” Technical Note 151, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.
    [Google Scholar]
  168. 1982 “Discourse Analysis.” InSublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains, ed. by Richard Kittredge , and John Lehrberger , 138–174. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110844818‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110844818-006 [Google Scholar]
  169. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  170. Günthner, Susanne
    2016 “Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter Zuwendung [Practices of Increased Dialogism: Onymic Forms of Address as Gestures of Personified Other-Orientation].” ZGL44 (3): 406–436. 10.1515/zgl‑2016‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2016-0022 [Google Scholar]
  171. Guthrie, Anna M.
    1997 On the Systematic Deployment of Okay and Mmhmm in Academic Advising Sessions. Pragmatics7: 397–415. 10.1075/prag.7.3.06gut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.7.3.06gut [Google Scholar]
  172. Haddington, Pentti
    2006 “The Organization of Gaze and Assessments as Resources for Stance Taking.” Text & Talk26 (3): 281–328. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  173. Hadar, Uri , Timothy Steiner , and Frank Clifford Rose
    1985 “Head Movement during Listening Turns in Conversation.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior9 (4): 214–228. 10.1007/BF00986881
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986881 [Google Scholar]
  174. Haiman, John
    1980 “The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation.” Language56 (3): 515–540. 10.2307/414448
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414448 [Google Scholar]
  175. Hakulinen, Auli , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2012 “Being Equivocal: Affective Responses Left Unspecified.” InEmotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen , 147–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  176. Hall, Edward T.
    1966The Hidden Dimension. Garden City NY: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Hamann, Magnus
    2018 Memory in Interaction: A Case Study of Memory, Engagement and Interaction after Traumatic Brain Injury. PhD diss., Aarhus University.
    [Google Scholar]
  178. Handke, Kwiryna
    2011 “Polszczyzna codzienna geneza i czynniki stabilizujące [The language of everyday Polish communication: Genesis and the control factors].” InRozprawy Komisji Językowej, Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe LVII, 57–67. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
    [Google Scholar]
  179. Harren, Inga , and Mia Raitaniemi
    2008 “The Sequential Structure of Closings in Private German Phone Calls.” Gesprächsforschung9: 198–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  180. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 “Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies.” Language86 (3): 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  181. Have, Paul ten
    1998Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  182. Hayashi, Fumiko
    1954Meshi [Meals]. Tokyo: Shincho-sha.
    [Google Scholar]
  183. Hayashi, Makoto , and Kyung-eun Yoon
    2009 “Negotiating Boundaries in Talk.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 250–278. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.009 [Google Scholar]
  184. Heath, Christian , and Lorenza Mondada
    2019 “Transparency and Embodied Action: Turn Organisation and Fairness in Complex Institutional Environments.” Social Psychology Quarterly82 (3): 274–302. 10.1177/0190272519843303
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519843303 [Google Scholar]
  185. Heinemann, Trine
    2005 “Where Grammar and Interaction Meet: The Preference for Matched Polarity in Responsive Turns in Danish.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen , and Margret Selting , 375–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.18hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.18hei [Google Scholar]
  186. 2006 “‘Will You or Can’t You?’ Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (7): 1081–1104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  187. 2009 “Two Answers to Inapposite Inquiries.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 159–186. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.007 [Google Scholar]
  188. 2010 “The Question-Response System in Danish.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (10): 2703–2725. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  189. 2016a “From ‘Looking’ to ‘Seeing’: Indexing Delayed Intelligibility of an Object with the Danish Change-of-State Token n↑å↓: .” Journal of Pragmatics104: 108–132. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  190. 2016b “Registering Revision: The Reduplicated Danish Change-of-state Token .” Discourse Studies18 (1): 44–63. 10.1177/1461445615614131
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615614131 [Google Scholar]
  191. 2017a “Receipting Answers That Are Counter to Expectations: The Polar Question-Answer- Sequence in Danish.” Research on Language and Social Interaction50 (3): 249–267. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1340705
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1340705 [Google Scholar]
  192. 2017b “Transitioning Between Activities with the Danish Change-of-State Token .” Journal of Pragmatics118: 1–21. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  193. Heinemann, Trine , and Aino Koivisto
    2016a “Indicating a Change-of-State in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Explorations.” Editorial, Journal of Pragmatics104: 83–88. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  194. (eds) 2016b “Indicating a Change-of-State in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Explorations.” Special section, Journal of Pragmatics104: 83–210. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  195. Heinemann, Trine , and Jakob Steensig
    2017 “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction”. InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Liisa Raevaara , Marja-Leena Sorjonen , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 139–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.05hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.05hei [Google Scholar]
  196. Heisler, Troy
    1996 “OK – a Dynamic Marker in Montréal French.” InSociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory, and Analysis, ed. by Jennifer Arnold , Renée Blake , Brad Davidson , Scott Schwenter , and Julie Solomon , 293–312. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  197. Hellermann, John
    2005 “Syntactic and Prosodic Practices for Cohesion in Series of Three-Part Sequences in Classroom Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38 (1): 105–130. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_4 [Google Scholar]
  198. Helmer, Henrike , and Jörg Zinken
    2019 “ Das Heißt (‘That Means’) for Formulations and Du Meinst (‘You Mean’) for Repair? Interpretations of Prior Speakers’ Turns in German.” Research on Language and Social Interaction52 (2): 159–176. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1608098
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1608098 [Google Scholar]
  199. Hennoste, Tiit
    2000 “Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara 3. Partiklid [Introduction to spoken Estonian IV. Special vocabulary 3. Particles].” Akadeemia8: 1773–1806.
    [Google Scholar]
  200. Hepburn, Alexa , and Galina B. Bolden
    2013 “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 57–76. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  201. 2017Transcribing for Social Research. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781473920460
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920460 [Google Scholar]
  202. Hepburn, Alexa , and Jonathan Potter
    2011 “Threats: Power, Family Mealtimes and Social Influence.” British Journal of Social Psychology50 (1): 99–120. 10.1348/014466610X500791
    https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X500791 [Google Scholar]
  203. Heritage, John
    1984a “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 299–345. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020 [Google Scholar]
  204. 1984bGarfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  205. 1985 “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Teun van Dijk , 95–119. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  206. 1998 “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society27 (3): 291–334. 10.1017/S0047404500019990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019990 [Google Scholar]
  207. 2002 “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford , Barbara Fox and Sandra Thompson , 196–224. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  208. 2006 “Cognition in Discourse.” InConversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig Te Molder , and Jonathan Potter , 184–202. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.009 [Google Scholar]
  209. 2010 “Conversation Analysis: Practices and Methods.” InQualitative Sociology, 3rd ed., ed. by David Silverman , 208–230. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  210. 2011 “Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction.” InMorality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig , 159–183. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  211. 2012a “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  212. 2012b “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  213. 2013 “Epistemics in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 370–394. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch18
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  214. 2015 “ Well-Prefaced Turns in English Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics88: 89–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  215. 2018a “Turn-Initial Particles in English: The Cases of Oh and Well .” InBetween Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen , 155–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.06her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.06her [Google Scholar]
  216. 2018b “The Ubiquity of Epistemics: A Rebuttal to the ‘Epistemics of Epistemics’ Group.” Discourse Studies20 (1): 14–56. 10.1177/1461445617734342
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734342 [Google Scholar]
  217. Heritage, John , and Steven Clayman
    2010Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444318135
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135 [Google Scholar]
  218. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiesence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” InQuestions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter , 179–192. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  219. Heritage, John , and Andrew Roth
    1995 “Grammar and Institution: Questions and Questioning in the Broadcast News Interview.” Research on Language and Social Interaction28: 1–60. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2801_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2801_1 [Google Scholar]
  220. Heritage, John , and Sue Sefi
    1992 “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions Between Health Visitors and First Time Mothers.” InTalk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. by Paul Drew , and John Heritage , 359–419. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  221. Heritage, John , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    1994 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities Across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society23 (1): 1–29. 10.1017/S0047404500017656
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  222. Heritage, John , and D. Rod Watson
    1979 “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 123–162. New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  223. Hockey, Beth Ann
    1993 “Prosody and the Role of Okay and Uh-Huh in Discourse.” InESCOL ’92: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Michael Bernstein , 128–136. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  224. Honeman, Diane E.
    1995 “Simultaneous Functions of the Discourse Marker Ok in Daytime Television Talk Shows.” PhD diss., Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  225. Hotten, John Camden
    (ed.) 1864The Slang Dictionary; or, The Vulgar Words, Street Phrases, and “Fast” Expressions of High and Low Society: Many with their Etymology, and a Few with their History Traced. London: John Camden Hotten, Piccadilly.
    [Google Scholar]
  226. (ed.) 1874The Slang Dictionary: Etymological, Historical, and Anecdotal. London: Chatto and Windus Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  227. House, Juliane
    2013 “Developing Pragmatic Competence in English as a Lingua Franca: Using Discourse Markers to Express (Inter)subjectivity and Connectivity.” Journal of Pragmatics59 (Part A): 57–67. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  228. Huddlestone, Kate , and Melanie Fairhurst
    2013 “The Pragmatic Markers anyway, okay, and shame: A South African English Corpus Study.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus42: 93–110. 10.5842/42‑0‑170
    https://doi.org/10.5842/42-0-170 [Google Scholar]
  229. Humboldt, Wilhelm von
    1836Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Trans. by Hans Aarsleff asOn Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 1988).
    [Google Scholar]
  230. Hutchby, Ian , and Robin Wooffitt
    1998Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  231. Hymes, Dell
    1972 “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life.” InDirections in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz , and Dell Hymes , 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  232. Imo, Wolfgang
    2009 “Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (‘change-of-state-tokens’) im Deutschen [Construction or function? Change-of-state-tokens in German].” InGrammatik im Gespräch, ed. by Susanne Günthner , and Jörg Bücker , 57–86. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213638.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213638.57 [Google Scholar]
  233. Jacknis, Ira
    1988 “Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali: Their Use of Photography and Film.” Cultural Anthropology3 (2): 160–177. 10.1525/can.1988.3.2.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1988.3.2.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  234. Jefferson, Gail
    1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein , 219–248. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  235. 1980 “On ‘Trouble-Premonitory’ Response to Inquiry.” Sociological Inquiry50 (3–4): 153–185. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00019.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00019.x [Google Scholar]
  236. 1981aThe Abominable ‘Ne?’: A Working Paper Exploring the Phenomenon of Post-Response Pursuit of Response. Occasional Paper No. 6, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  237. 1981b “Caveat Speaker: A Preliminary Exploration of Shift Implicative Recipiency in the Articulation of Topic.” Final report to the British Social Science Research Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  238. [1983a] 1993 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature.” Research on Language and Social Interaction16 (l): l–30. Previously published in Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 30 1983 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_1 [Google Scholar]
  239. [1983b] 1984 “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mm Hm’.” Paper in Linguistics17 (2): 197–216. Previously published inTilburg Papers in Language and Literature30 1983 10.1080/08351818409389201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 [Google Scholar]
  240. 1984a “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” InDiscourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, ed. by Valentina D’Urso , 11–38. Padua: Cleup.
    [Google Scholar]
  241. 1984b “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned Matters.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 191–222. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.014 [Google Scholar]
  242. 1984c “On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 346–369. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.021 [Google Scholar]
  243. 1988 “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles Talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems35 (4): 418–442. 10.2307/800595
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800595 [Google Scholar]
  244. 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  245. Jefferson, Gail , and John R. E. Lee
    1981 “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’.” Journal of Pragmatics5 (5): 399–422. 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90026‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6 [Google Scholar]
  246. Jensen, N. M.
    1987 “Topic Management in Doctor-Patient Conversations: An Exploratory Analysis of the Use of the Speech Particle ‘OK’.” Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin.
    [Google Scholar]
  247. Johansson, Maria
    2016 “Positive assessments as resources for affiliation and learning during handicraft meetings.” Master’s thesis, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University, Sweden.
    [Google Scholar]
  248. Johnson, Sharon E.
    2016 “Book Clubs in the ESL Classroom: A Microinteractional Analysis of Literacy Development in Adult ESL Students.” Master’s thesis, Department of English, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
    [Google Scholar]
  249. Jones, Charlotte M.
    2001 “Missing Assessments: Lay and Professional Orientations in Medical Interviews.” Text21 (1–2): 113–150. 10.1515/text.1.21.1‑2.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.21.1-2.113 [Google Scholar]
  250. Kaiser, Julia
    2011 “Okay in ärztlichen Gesprächen – eine linguistische Gesprächsanalyse [Okay in doctor-patient conversations – a linguistic conversation analysis].” Master’s thesis, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  251. Karlina, Yeni
    2015 “The Little Words that Matter: Discourse Markers in Teacher Talk.” Journal Paedagogia18 (2): 81–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  252. Kastari, Anna
    2006 “Dialogipartikkelien aha(a) ja ai jaa tehtävistä keskustelussa [Usages of the dialogue particles aha(a) and ai jaa in conversation].” Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  253. Kato, Michio
    2001 Nijusseeki no kotoba no nenpyo [The history of Japanese language in the 20th century]. Tokyo: Tokyodo Shuppan.
  254. Kaukomaa, Timo , Anssi Peräkylä , and Johanna Ruusuvuori
    2015 “How Listeners Use Facial Expression to Shift the Emotional Stance of the Speaker’s Utterance.” Research on Language and Social Interaction48 (3): 319–341. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1058607
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058607 [Google Scholar]
  255. Keevallik, Leelo
    2003 “Terminally Rising Pitch Contours of Response Tokens in Estonian.” Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture5: 49–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  256. 2006 “Pragmaatiliste partiklite laenutüübid rootsieesti keeles [Types of borrowed pragmatic particles in Swedish Estonian].” InMitmekeelsus ja keelevahetus läänemeresoome piirkonnas, ed. by Helen Koks , and Jand Rahman , 116–133. Võro: Võro Instituudi toimõndusõq 18.
    [Google Scholar]
  257. 2010a “Marking Boundaries Between Activities: The Particle nii in Estonian.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (2): 157–182. 10.1080/08351811003737697
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737697 [Google Scholar]
  258. 2010b “Pro-adverbs of Manner as Markers of Activity Transition.” Studies in Language34 (2): 350–381. 10.1075/sl.34.2.05kee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.05kee [Google Scholar]
  259. 2010c “Social Action of Syntactic Reduplication.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (3): 800–824. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  260. 2012 “Pragmatics of the Estonian Heritage Speakers in Sweden.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen35: 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  261. 2013 “Mundane Reaction Words in Swedish Estonian.” InKeelemees Raimo Raag60, ed. by T. Söderman , 50–65. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.
    [Google Scholar]
  262. 2017 “Negotiating Deontic Rights in Second Position: Young Adult Daughters’ Imperatively Formatted Responses to Mothers’ Offers in Estonian.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 271–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.09kee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.09kee [Google Scholar]
  263. 2018a “Making up One’s Mind in Second Position: Estonian No-preface in Action Plans.” InBetween Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen , 309–331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.11kee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.11kee [Google Scholar]
  264. 2018b “The Temporal Organization of Conversation While Mucking out a Sheep Stable.” InTime in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , and Jürgen Streeck , 97–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.293.03kee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293.03kee [Google Scholar]
  265. Keisanen, Tiina , Mirka Rauniomaa , and Pentti Haddington
    2014 “Suspending Action: From Simultaneous to Consecutive Ordering of Multiple Courses of Action.” InMultiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington , Tiina Keisanen , Lorenza Mondada , and Maurice Nevile , 109–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.187.04kei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.04kei [Google Scholar]
  266. Keisanen, Tiina , Mirka Rauniomaa , and Pauliina Siitonen
    2017 “Transitions as Sites of Socialization in Family Interaction Outdoors.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction14: 24–37. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  267. Kelly, Ann
    2010 “Explicating Literacy Activities at Work: The Use of ‘Okay’ as an Effective Topic-Changing Device in Service Request Calls.” Literacy & Numeracy Studies18 (1): 19–34. 10.5130/lns.v18i1.1424
    https://doi.org/10.5130/lns.v18i1.1424 [Google Scholar]
  268. Kendon, Adam
    1967 “Some Functions of Gaze-Direction in Social Interaction.” Acta Psychologica26: 22–63. 10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  269. 1990Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  270. Kendrick, Kobin H.
    2010 “Epistemics and Action Formation in Mandarin Chinese.” PhD diss., University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  271. Kendrick, Kobin H. , and Francisco Torreira
    2015 “The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study.” Discourse Processes52 (4): 255–289. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 [Google Scholar]
  272. Kent, Alexandra
    2012a “Responding to Directives: What Can Children Do When a Parent Tells Them What to Do?” InDisputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People, ed. by Maryanne Theobald , and Susan Danby , 57–84. Bingley, England: Emerald Books. 10.1108/S1537‑4661(2012)0000015007
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S1537-4661(2012)0000015007 [Google Scholar]
  273. 2012b “Compliance, Resistance and Incipient Compliance when Responding to Directives.” Discourse Studies14 (6): 711–730. 10.1177/1461445612457485
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457485 [Google Scholar]
  274. Kessler, Christine
    2010 “Okay – Die Bedeutung eines Wortes zwischen Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeit [The meaning of a word between writing and speaking].” InSemantische Unbestimmtheit im Lexikon, ed. by Inge Pohl , 151–166. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  275. Kielitoimiston sanakirja [New dictionary of modern Finnish] 2012 Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. AccessedMay 30, 2018. https://www.kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi/#/okei
    [Google Scholar]
  276. Kim, Kyu-hyun , and Kyung-Hee Suh
    1996 “Dealing with Prior Talk: Discourse Connectives in Korean Conversation.” InJapanese/Korean Linguistics 5, ed. by Noriko Akatsuka , Shoichi Iwasaki , and Susan Strauss , 83–99. Stanford, CA: SCLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  277. 2004 “An Analysis of Korean Sentence-ending Suffixes in Caregiver-child Interaction.” Language Research40 (4): 923–950.
    [Google Scholar]
  278. Knudsen, Anette Dahl
    2003 “Prosodi som resurse til at udføre positiv vurderingsaktivitet – Et studie af okay2-respons” [Prosody as a resource for performing positive assessment activities: A study of okay2 responses]. Unpublished. Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik.
    [Google Scholar]
  279. 2015 “’O(↑)kay(?), ↑Ohkay’ – En Prosodiafhængig ytringspartikel? [“O(↑)kay(?), ↑Ohkay” – A prosody dependent discourse particle?].” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik2 (1). https://samtalegrammatik.dk/tidsskrift/aargang-2/
    [Google Scholar]
  280. Knutsen, Dominique , Gilles Col , and Ludovic Le Bigot
    2018 “An Investigation of the Determinants of Dialogue Navigation in Joint Activities.” Applied Psycholinguistics39 (6): 1345–1371. 10.1017/S0142716418000358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000358 [Google Scholar]
  281. Koiso, Hanae , Yasuharu Den , Yuriko Iseki , Wakako Kashino , Yoshiko Kawabata , Ken’ya Nishikawa , Yayoi Tanaka , and Yasuyuki Usuda
    2018 “Construction of the Corpus of Everyday Japanese Conversation: An Interim Report.” Proceedings of the 11th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 4259–4264.
    [Google Scholar]
  282. Koivisto, Aino
    2013 “On the Preference for Remembering: Acknowledging an Answer With Finnish Ai Nii(n) (‘Oh That’s Right’)”. Research on Language and Social Interaction46 (3): 277–297. 10.1080/08351813.2013.810411
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.810411 [Google Scholar]
  283. 2015a “Dealing with Ambiguities in Informings: Finnish Aijaa as a “Neutral” News Receipt.” Research on Language and Social Interaction48 (4): 365–387. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1090109
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1090109 [Google Scholar]
  284. 2015b “Displaying Now-Understanding: The Finnish Change-of-State Token Aa .” Discourse Processes52 (2): 111–148. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.914357
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.914357 [Google Scholar]
  285. 2016 “Receipting Information as Newsworthy vs. Responding to Redirection: Finnish News Particles Aijaa and Aha(a) .” Journal of Pragmatics104: 163–179. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  286. 2019 “Repair Receipts: On their Motivation and Interactional Import.” Discourse Studies21 (4): 398–420. 10.1177/1461445619842737
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619842737 [Google Scholar]
  287. Kovarsky, Dana
    1989 “On the Occurrence of Okay in Therapy.” Child Language Teaching and Therapy5 (2): 137–145. 10.1177/026565908900500202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026565908900500202 [Google Scholar]
  288. Kubozono, Haruo
    1996 “Syllable and Accent in Japanese: Evidence from Loanword Accentuation.” The Bulletin (Phonetic Society of Japan) 211: 71–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  289. 2006 “Where Does Loanword Prosody Come From?: A Case Study of Japanese Loanword Accent.” Lingua116 (7): 1140–1170. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  290. Kunnari, Miia
    2011 “Kahdentunut dialogipartikkeli joojoo keskustelussa [The reduplicated dialogue particle joojoo in conversation].” Master’s thesis, Finnish language, University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/37879
  291. Kyratzis, Amy , and Ervin-Tripp, Susan
    1999 “The Development of Discourse Markers in Peer Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics31 (10): 1321–1338. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00107‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00107-6 [Google Scholar]
  292. Labov, William , and David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  293. Laforest, Marty
    1992 “Le back-channel en situation d’entrevue sociolinguistique [Backchannels in sociolinguistic interview situations].” PhD diss., Faculté des Lettres, L’Université Laval.
    [Google Scholar]
  294. Landmann-Szwarcwald, Celia , and James Macinko
    2016 “A Panorama of Health Inequalities in Brazil.” International Journal for Equity in Health15: 174. 10.1186/s12939‑016‑0462‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0462-1 [Google Scholar]
  295. Landqvist, Håkan
    2005 “Constructing and Negotiating Advice in Calls to a Poison Information Center.” InCalling for Help: Language and Social Interaction in Telephone Helplines, ed. by Carolyn Baker , Michael Emmison , and Alan Firth , 207–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.143.14lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.143.14lan [Google Scholar]
  296. Laurier, Eric
    2001 “Why People Say Where They Are During Mobile Phone Calls.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space19 (4): 485–504. 10.1068/d228t
    https://doi.org/10.1068/d228t [Google Scholar]
  297. Lee, Jong Kuk
    1937The New Dictionary of Foreign Words in Modern Korean. Kyungsung: Hansung Publisher.
    [Google Scholar]
  298. Lee, Jong-Mi
    2017 “The Multifunctional Use of a Discourse Marker Okay by Korean EFL teachers.” Foreign Language Education Research21: 41–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  299. Lee, Mwu Yeong
    1932Cichwukul tollinun salamtul [The people who spin Earth on its axis]. Donga Newspaper.
    [Google Scholar]
  300. Lee, Seung-Hee
    2011 “Responding at a Higher Level: Activity Progressivity in Calls for Service.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (3): 904–917. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.028
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.028 [Google Scholar]
  301. Lehmann, Christian
    1982 “Directions for Interlinear Morphemic Translations.” Folia Linguistica16 (1–4): 199–224. 10.1515/flin.1982.16.1‑4.199
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1982.16.1-4.199 [Google Scholar]
  302. Leskelä, Satu
    1999 “Koripalloharjoitusten kielestä ja vuorovaikutuksesta [On language and interaction in basketball practice].” Master’s thesis, Finnish language, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  303. Levin, Harry , and Deborah Gray
    1983 “The Lecturer’s OK .” American Speech58 (3): 195–200. 10.2307/455226
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455226 [Google Scholar]
  304. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/cbo9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  305. Leydon, Geraldine M. , Katie Ekberg , Moira Kelly , and Paul Drew
    2013 “Improving Ethnic Monitoring for Telephone-Based Healthcare: A Conversation Analytic Study.” BMJ Open28;3(6): e002676. 10.1136/bmjopen‑2013‑002676
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002676 [Google Scholar]
  306. Liao, Silvie
    2009 “Variation in the Use of Discourse Markers by Chinese Teaching Assistants in the US.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (7): 1313–1328. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026 [Google Scholar]
  307. Lindström, Anna
    1997 “Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
    [Google Scholar]
  308. 1999 “Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation.” PhD diss., Department of Scandinavian languages, Uppsala University.
    [Google Scholar]
  309. 2017 “Accepting Remote Proposals.” InEnabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond , Gene H. Lerner , and John Heritage , 125–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.07lin [Google Scholar]
  310. 2018 “Calibrating an Agnostic Epistemic Stance in Swedish Conversation: The Case of Okej-Prefacing in Calls to the Swedish Board for Study Support.” InBetween Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages, ed. by John Heritage , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen , 339–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.12lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.12lin [Google Scholar]
  311. Local, John
    1996 “Conversational Phonetics: Some Aspects of News Receipts in Everyday Conversation.” InProsody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Margret Selting , 177–230. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.007 [Google Scholar]
  312. Looney, Stephen Daniel , Dingding Jia , and Daisuke Kimura
    2017 “Self-Directed Okay in Mathematics Lectures.” Journal of Pragmatics107: 46–59. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  313. Lopriore, Stefanie , Amanda LeCouteur , Stuart Ekberg , and Katie Ekberg
    2017 “Delivering Healthcare at a Distance: Exploring the Organisation of Calls to a Health Helpline.” International Journal of Medical Informatics104: 45–55. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  314. Lucy, John A.
    1997 “Linguistic Relativity.” Annual Review of Anthropology26: 291–312. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.291
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.291 [Google Scholar]
  315. MacWhinney, Brian
    2007 “The Talkbank Project.” InCreating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Synchronic Database, vol.1, ed. by Joan C. Beal , Karen P. Corrigan , Hermann L. Moisl , 163–180. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230223936_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230223936_7 [Google Scholar]
  316. MacWhinney, Brian , and Johannes Wagner
    2010 “Transcribing, Searching and Data Sharing: The CLAN Software and the TalkBank Data Repository.” Gesprächsforschung11: 154–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  317. Malaska, Jonna
    2017 “Välitöntä toimintaa vaativat direktiivit teatteriharjoituksissa [Directives requiring immediate action in theatre rehearsals].” Master’s thesis, Finnish language, University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/173502
  318. Mańczak-Wohlfeld, Elżbieta
    2006Angielsko-polskie kontakty językowe [English-Polish Language Contacts]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  319. Margutti, Piera , Liisa Tainio , Paul Drew , and Véronique Traverso
    (eds) 2018 “Inviting in Telephone Calls: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Social Actions in Interaction.” Special section, Journal of Pragmatics125: 52–199. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  320. Martini, Leonardo F.
    2020 “Grammar in Interaction: Polar Interrogative Sequences in Syrian Arabic Talk-in-Interaction.” Doctoral diss., University of Essex.
    [Google Scholar]
  321. Maschler, Yael
    2002 ”The Role of Discourse Markers in the Construction of Multivocality in Israeli Hebrew Talk in Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction35 (1): 1–38. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI35‑1_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI35-1_1 [Google Scholar]
  322. Maynard, Douglas W.
    1997 “The News Delivery Sequence: Bad News and Good News in Conversational Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction30 (2): 93–130. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1 [Google Scholar]
  323. 2003Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  324. McCarthy, Michael
    2003 “Talking Back. ‘Small’ Interactional Response Tokens in Everyday Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction36 (1): 33–63. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 [Google Scholar]
  325. McClave, Evelyn Z.
    2000 “Linguistic Functions of Head Movements in the Context of Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics32 (7): 855–878. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00079‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00079-X [Google Scholar]
  326. Mead, George H.
    1934Mind, Self, and Society. Works of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  327. Mehan, Hugh
    1979Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  328. Meier, Christoph
    2002Arbeitsbesprechungen: Interaktionsstruktur, Interaktionsdynamik und Konsequenzen einer sozialen Form [Work meetings: Interactional structure, interactional dynamics, and consequences of a social form]. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2002/pdf/arbeitsbesprechungen.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  329. Meillet, Alphonse
    1903Introduction a l’Étude comparative des langues Indo-Européennes [Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages]. Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  330. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. OK
    Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. OK . AccessedApril 4, 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/OK
  331. Merritt, Marilyn
    1976 “On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters.” Language in Society5 (3): 315–357. 10.1017/S0047404500007168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007168 [Google Scholar]
  332. 1978 “On the Use of ‘O.K.’ in Service Encounters.” Working Papers in Sociolinguistics42: 6–17. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, TX. Reprinted inLanguage in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, ed. by John Baugh , and Joel Sherzer 1984, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  333. 1980 “On the Use of OK in Service Encounters.” InLanguage Use and Uses of Language, ed. by Roger W. Shuy , and Anna Shnukal , 162–172. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  334. Metcalf, Allan
    2010OK: The Improbable Story of America’s Greatest Word. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  335. Ministério da Saúde
    Ministério da Saúde 2014Manual das Ouvidorias do SUS [Manual for the Unified Health System Ombudsman Departments]. Brasília, DF: Secretaria de Gestão Estratégica e Participativa, Departamento de Ouvidoria-Geral do SUS. bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/manual_ouvidoria_sus.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  336. Modaff, Daniel P.
    2003 “Body Movement in the Transition from Opening to Task in Doctor-Patient Interviews.” InStudies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Phillip Glenn , Curtis D. LeBaron , and Jenny Mandelbaum , 411–422. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  337. Moerman, Michael
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in a Tai Conversational Corpus.” Language53 (4): 872–882. 10.2307/412915
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412915 [Google Scholar]
  338. 1988Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversational Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 10.9783/9780812200355
    https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812200355 [Google Scholar]
  339. Mortensen, Janus , and Sune Sønderberg Mortensen
    2009 “ Okay i engelsk og dansk” [ Okay in English and Danish]. InDramatikken i grammatikken. Festskrift til Lars Heltoft, ed. by Rita Therkelsen , and Eva Skafte Jensen , 281–304. Roskilde: Institut for Kultur og Identitet, Roskilde Universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  340. Mondada, Lorenza
    2005 “L’analyse de corpus en linguistique interactionnelle: de l’étude de cas singuliers à l’étude de collections [The analysis of corpora in interactional linguistics: From single-case analysis to the study of collections].” InSémantique et corpus, ed. by Anne Condamines , 97–108. Paris: Hermès.
    [Google Scholar]
  341. 2007 “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible Next Speakers.” Discourse Studies9 (2): 194–225. 10.1177/1461445607075346
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  342. 2008 “Using Video for a Sequential and Multimodal Analysis of Social Interaction: Videotaping Institutional Telephone Calls.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research9 (3), Art. 39. 10.17169/fqs‑9.3.1161www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1161/2571
    https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.3.1161 [Google Scholar]
  343. 2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 542–552. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  344. 2013 “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-Taking in Institutional Multi-party Interactions: The Example of Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics46: 39–68. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  345. 2014a “The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics65: 137–156. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  346. 2014b “The Temporal Orders of Multiactivity: Operating and Demonstrating in the Surgical Theatre.” InMultiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington , Tiina Keisanen , Lorenza Mondada , and Maurice Nevile , 33–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.187.02mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.02mon [Google Scholar]
  347. 2015 “Multimodal Completions.” InTemporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , and Susanne Günthner , 267–308. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27.09mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.09mon [Google Scholar]
  348. 2016 “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics20 (3): 336–366. 10.1111/josl.1_12177
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.1_12177 [Google Scholar]
  349. 2018a “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction51 (1): 85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  350. 2018b “Turn-Initial Voilà in Closings in French: Reaffirming Authority and Responsibility over the Sequence. InBetween Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen , 371–411. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.13mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.13mon [Google Scholar]
  351. Mondada, Lorenza , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2016 “Making Multiple Requests in French and Finnish Convenience Stores.” Language in Society45 (5): 733–765. 10.1017/S0047404516000646
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404516000646 [Google Scholar]
  352. Müller, Cornelia
    2004 “Forms and Uses of the Palm Up Open Hand: A Case of a Gesture Family?” InThe Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures, ed. by Cornelia Müller , and Roland Posner , 233–256. Berlin: Weidler.
    [Google Scholar]
  353. Murdoch, Jamie , Rebecca Barnes , Jillian Pooler , Valerie Lattimer , Emily Fletcher , and John L. Campbell
    2015 “The Impact of Using Computer Decision-Support Software in Primary Care Nurse-Led Telephone Triage: Interactional Dilemmas and Conversational Consequences.” Social Science & Medicine126: 36–47. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.013 [Google Scholar]
  354. Näslund, Shirley
    2016 “Tacit Tango: The Social Framework of Screen-Focused Silence in Institutional Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics91: 60–79. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  355. Nattrass, Rhona , Jennifer Watermeyer , Catherine Robson , and Claire Penn
    2017 “Local Expertise and Landmarks in Place Reformulations During Emergency Medical Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics120: 73–87. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  356. Nevile, Maurice
    2004Beyond the Black Box: Talk-in-Interaction in the Airline Cockpit. Ashgate: Aldershot.
    [Google Scholar]
  357. 2007 “Action in Time: Ensuring Timeliness for Collaborative Work in the Airline Cockpit.” Language in Society36 (2): 233–257. 10.1017/S0047404507070121
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070121 [Google Scholar]
  358. Ogden, Richard
    2001 “Turn Transition, Creak and Glottal Stop in Finnish Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association43 (3): 299–320. 10.1017/S0025100313000224
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100313000224 [Google Scholar]
  359. Ogden, Richard , Auli Hakulinen , and Liisa Tainio
    2004 “Indexing ’No News’ with Stylization in Finnish.” InSound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia Ford , 299–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62.16ogd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.16ogd [Google Scholar]
  360. Oh, Sun-Young , and Yong-Yae Park
    2017 “Interactional Uses of Acknowledgment Tokens: ‘ung’ and ‘e’ as Responses to Multi-Unit Turns in Korean Conversation.” InEnabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond , Gene H. Lerner , and John Heritage , 145–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.08oh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.08oh [Google Scholar]
  361. Oloff, Florence
    2018 “Emploi du marqueur OK en allemand et en tchèque parlés [Use of the marker OK in spoken German and Czech].” Paper presented at‘OK’ Workshop, research group Discourse and Cognition, theme ‘OK’ (June 21–22, 2018, Salerno, Italy).
    [Google Scholar]
  362. 2019 “ Okay as a Neutral Acceptance Token in German Conversation.” Lexique25: 197–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  363. Onysko, Alexander , and Esme Winter-Froemel
    2011 “Necessary Loans – Luxury Loans? Exploring the Pragmatic Dimension of Borrowing.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6): 1550–1567. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  364. Ordbog over Dansk Talesprog (ODT) [Dictionary of Spoken Danish]
    Ordbog over Dansk Talesprog (ODT) [Dictionary of Spoken Danish]. n.d. s.v.okay. AccessedJune 16, 2018. https://odt.hum.ku.dk/form/okay/
    [Google Scholar]
  365. Ordbog over det danske Sprog [Dictionary of the Danish Language]. n.d. s.v.okay. AccessedJune 16, 2018. https://ordnet.dk/ods/ordbog?query=okay
    [Google Scholar]
  366. Ostermann, Ana Cristina
    2005Gênero, sexualidade e violência: uma investigação sociolinguística interacional de atendimentos à saúde da mulher [Gender, sexuality, and violence: an interactional sociolinguistic investigation of women's health care]. Projeto 0000001036. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações.
    [Google Scholar]
  367. Othman, Zarina
    2010 “The Use of Okay, Right and Yeah in Academic Lectures by Native Speaker Lecturers: Their ‘Anticipated’ and ‘Real’ Meanings.” Discourse Studies12 (5): 665–681. 10.1177/1461445610376365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610376365 [Google Scholar]
  368. Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. OK
    Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. OK , adj., int.1, n.2, and adv.Oxford University Press. AccessedApril 4, 2020. https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/130925
  369. Panzini, Alfredo
    1931Dizionario moderno [Modern Dictionary], 6th ed.Torino: Hoepli.
    [Google Scholar]
  370. Pak, Maria , Richard Sprott , and Elena Escalera
    1996 “Little Words, Big Deal: The Development of Discourse and Syntax in Child Language.” InSocial Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, ed. by Dan Slobin , Julie Gerhardt , Amy Kyratzis and Jiansheng Guo , 287–308. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  371. Pärnu Postimees
    Pärnu Postimees 2019 “Ajakirjanikud otse-eetris: kas ’olgu’ või ’okei’? [Journalists in the studio: is it ‘olgu’ (approx. let it be like that) or ‘okay’?]”. March15 2019 https://parnu.postimees.ee/6546187/ajakirjanikud-otse-eetris-kas-olgu-voi-okei
  372. Paunonen, Heikki , and Marjatta Paunonen
    2000Tsennaaks stadii, bonjaaks slangii – Stadin slangin suursanakirja [Dictionary of Helsinki slang]. Helsinki: WSOY.
    [Google Scholar]
  373. Pavlidou, Theodossia
    1998 “Greek and German Telephone Closings: Patterns of Confirmation and Agreement.” Pragmatics8 (1): 79–94. 10.1075/prag.8.1.03pav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.8.1.03pav [Google Scholar]
  374. Pedersen, Henriette Folkmann
    2015 “ Jamen som svarindleder efter hv-spørgsmål [ Jamen as a response-initiator after wh-questions].” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik2 (2). https://samtalegrammatik.dk/tidsskrift/aargang-2/
    [Google Scholar]
  375. Pekarek Doehler, Simona , Johannes Wagner , and Esther Gonzalez-Martinez
    (eds) 2018Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑57007‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9 [Google Scholar]
  376. Pekkanen, Niina
    2017 “ Okei-dialogipartikkelin käyttötavoista keskustelussa [On usages of the dialogue particle okei in conversation].” Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  377. Persson, Rasmus
    2015 “Indexing One’s Own Previous Action as Inadequate: On ah-Prefaced Repeats as Receipt Tokens in French Talk-in-Interaction.” Language in Society44 (4): 497–524. 10.1017/S004740451500041X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740451500041X [Google Scholar]
  378. Pfeifer, Wolfgang
    1993 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen, digitalisierte und von Wolfgang Pfeifer überarbeitete Version im Digitalen Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [Etymological Dictionary of German, Wolfgang Pfeifer’s digitized and revised version in the Digital Dictionary of the German Language], s.v.okay. AccessedNovember 22, 2019. https://www.dwds.de/wb/okay
    [Google Scholar]
  379. Pillet-Shore, Danielle
    2003 “Doing Okay: On the Multiple Metrics of an Assessment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction36 (3): 285–319. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_03 [Google Scholar]
  380. Polanyi, Livia , and R. J. H. Scha
    1983 “The Syntax of Discourse.” Text3 (3): 261–270. 10.1515/text.1.1983.3.3.261
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1983.3.3.261 [Google Scholar]
  381. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies9 (2–3): 219–229. 10.1007/bf00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00148128 [Google Scholar]
  382. Pulkkinen, Paavo
    1984Lokarista sponsoriin: Englantilaisia lainoja suomen kielessä [From lokari to sponsori: English loanwords in the Finnish language]. Keuruu: Otava.
    [Google Scholar]
  383. Querol-Julián, Mercedes , and Begoña Bellés-Fortuño
    2010 “The Use of Pragmatic Discourse Markers And, So, and Okay in Academic Conference Presentations.” Language Forum36 (1–2): 81–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  384. Råman, Joonas
    2018 “The Organization of Transitions between Observing and Teaching the Budo Class.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung19 (1): Art. 5. 10.17169/fqs‑19.1.2657
    https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.1.2657 [Google Scholar]
  385. Rauniomaa, Mirka , and Tiina Keisanen
    2012 “Two Multimodal Formats for Responding to Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (6–7): 829–842. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  386. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2004 “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone so in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37: 185–218. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 [Google Scholar]
  387. Read, Allen Walker
    1963a “The First Stage in the History of ‘O.K.’.” American Speech38 (1): 5–27. 10.2307/453580
    https://doi.org/10.2307/453580 [Google Scholar]
  388. 1963b “The Second Stage in the History of ‘O.K.’.” American Speech38 (2): 83–102. 10.2307/453285
    https://doi.org/10.2307/453285 [Google Scholar]
  389. 1964a “The Folklore of O.K .” American Speech39 (1): 5–25. 10.2307/453922
    https://doi.org/10.2307/453922 [Google Scholar]
  390. 1964b “Later Stages in the Development of O.K .” American Speech39 (2): 83–101. 10.2307/453111
    https://doi.org/10.2307/453111 [Google Scholar]
  391. 1964c “Successive Revisions in the Explanation of O.K .” American Speech39 (4): 243–267. 10.2307/454321
    https://doi.org/10.2307/454321 [Google Scholar]
  392. Reichert, Tetyana , and Grit Liebscher
    2018 “Transitions with “Okay”: Managing Language Alternation in Role-Play Preparations.” InConversation Analysis and Language Alternation: Capturing Transitions in the Classroom, ed. by Anna Filipi and Numa Markee , 129–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.295.07rei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.295.07rei [Google Scholar]
  393. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2000 “When ‘Okay’ is Okay in Computer Science Seminar Talk.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics22 (2): 19–33. 10.1075/aral.22.2.02ren
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.22.2.02ren [Google Scholar]
  394. Robinson, Jeffrey D.
    2009 “Managing Counterinformings: An Interactional Practice for Soliciting Information that Facilitates Reconciliation of Speakers’ Incompatible Positions.” Human Communication Research35 (4): 561–587. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2009.01363.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01363.x [Google Scholar]
  395. 2013 “Overall Structural Organization.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 257–280. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  396. 2014 “What ‘What?’ Tells us About How Conversationalists Manage Intersubjectivity.” Research on Language and Social Interaction47 (2): 109–129. 10.1080/08351813.2014.900214
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.900214 [Google Scholar]
  397. Robinson, Jeffrey D. , and John Heritage
    2005 “The Structure of Patients’ Presenting Concerns: The Completion Relevance of Current Symptoms.” Social Science and Medicine61 (2): 481–493. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  398. Robinson, Jeffrey D. , and Tanya Stivers
    2001 “Achieving Activity Transitions in Primary-Care Encounters: From History Taking to Physical Examination.” Human Communication Research27 (2): 253–298. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2001.tb00782.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00782.x [Google Scholar]
  399. Rosaldo, Michelle Z.
    1982 “The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy.” Language in Society11 (2): 203–37. 10.1017/S0047404500009209
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009209 [Google Scholar]
  400. Rossano, Federico
    2012 “Gaze Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction.” PhD diss., Radboud University Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  401. 2013 “Gaze in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 308–329. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  402. Rossano, Federico , Penelope Brown , and Stephen C. Levinson
    2009 “Gaze, Questioning, and Culture.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 187–249. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.008 [Google Scholar]
  403. Rossi, Giovanni
    2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes49 (5): 426–458. 10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136 [Google Scholar]
  404. (ed) 2020 “Other-Repetition in Conversation Across Languages: Bringing Prosody into Pragmatic Typology.” Special issue, Language in Society49 (4): 495–687. 10.1017/S0047404520000251
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000251 [Google Scholar]
  405. Sacks, Harvey
    1967 “The Search for Help: No One to Turn to.” InEssays in Self-Destruction, ed. by Edwin S. Shneidman , 203–223. New York: Science House.
    [Google Scholar]
  406. 1992Lectures on Conversation, vols.1–2, ed. by Gail Jefferson . Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  407. Sacks, Harvey , and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    2002 “Home Position.” Gesture2 (2): 133–146. Originally presented orally at theAmerican Anthropological Association 1975 10.1075/gest.2.2.02sac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.2.2.02sac [Google Scholar]
  408. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  409. Samtalegrammatik.dk
    Samtalegrammatik.dk 2018 “Data.” AccessedJune 17, 2018. samtalegrammatik.au.dk/om-samtalegrammatikdk/vores-metode/data/
  410. Samtalegrammatik.dk
    Samtalegrammatik.dk 2019a “Nå (stigende kontur) [Oh (rising intonation)].” AccessedMay 31, 2019. samtalegrammatik.dk/opslag/artikel/naa-stigende-kontur/
  411. Samtalegrammatik.dk
    Samtalegrammatik.dk 2019b “Nå (jævn kontur) [Oh (level intonation)].” AccessedMay 31, 2019. samtalegrammatik.dk/opslag/artikel/naa-jaevn-kontur/
  412. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist70 (6): 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  413. 1979 “Identification and Recognition in Telephone Conversation Openings.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodoiogy, ed. by George Psathas , 23–78. New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  414. Schegloff, Emanuel
    1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things that Come between Sentences.” InAnalyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen , 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  415. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1984 “On Some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 266–296. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.018 [Google Scholar]
  416. 1986 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies9 (2–3): 111–151. 10.1007/BF00148124
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148124 [Google Scholar]
  417. 1987 “Some Sources of Misunderstanding in Talk-in-Interaction.” Linguistics25 (1): 201–218. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201 [Google Scholar]
  418. 1989 “Reflections on Language, Development, and the Interactional Character of Talk-in-Interaction.” InInteraction in Human Development, ed. by Marc H. Bornstein , and Jerome S. Bruner , 139–152. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  419. 1990 “On the Organization of Sequence as a Source of ‘Coherence’ in Talk-in-Interaction.” InConversational Organization and Its Development, ed. by Bruce Dorval , 51–77. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  420. 1991 “Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition.” InPerspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick , John M. Levine , and Stephanie D. Teasley , 150–171. Washington, DC: APA. 10.1037/10096‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-007 [Google Scholar]
  421. 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 52–133. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  422. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1997 “Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair.” Discourse Processes23: 499–545. 10.1080/01638539709545001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  423. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1998 “Body Torque.” Social Research65 (3): 535–596.
    [Google Scholar]
  424. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol.1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  425. 2009 “One Perspective on Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 357–406. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.013 [Google Scholar]
  426. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , and Gene H. Lerner
    2009 “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (2): 91–115. 10.1080/08351810902864511
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511 [Google Scholar]
  427. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica8 (4): 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  428. Schleef, Erik
    2005 “Navigating Joint Activities in English and German Academic Discourse: Forms, Functions, and Sociolinguistic Distribution of Discourse Markers and Question Tags.” PhD diss., University of Michigan.
    [Google Scholar]
  429. 2008 “The ‘Lecturer’s OK’ Revisited: Changing Discourse Conventions and the Influence of Academic Division.” American Speech83 (1): 62–84. 10.1215/00031283‑2008‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2008-003 [Google Scholar]
  430. Schubert, Christoph
    2019 “‘OK, Well, First of All, Let Me Say …’: Discursive Uses of Response Initiators in US Presidential Primary Debates.” Discourse Studies21 (4): 438–457. 10.1177/1461445619842734
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619842734 [Google Scholar]
  431. Selting, Margret
    1987 “Reparaturen und lokale Verstehensprobleme, oder: Zur Binnenstruktur von Reparatursequenzen. [Repair and local problems in understanding, or: On the internal structure of repair sequences.]” Linguistische Berichte108, 128–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  432. 1988 “The Role of Intonation in the Organization of Repair and Problem-Handling Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics12 (3): 293–323. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90035‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90035-5 [Google Scholar]
  433. 1996 “Prosody as an Activity-Type Distinctive Cue in Conversation: The Case of So-Called ‘Astonished’ Questions in Repair Initiation.” InProsody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Margret Selting , 231–270. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
  434. 2016 “Praktiken des Sprechens und Interagierens im Gespräch aus der Sicht von Konversationsanalyse und Interaktionaler Linguistik [Practices of speaking and interacting in conversation from the prespective of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics].” InSprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken, Jahrbuch 2015 des IDS, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , Helmuth Feilke and Angelika Linke , 27–56. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110451542‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110451542-003 [Google Scholar]
  435. Selting, Margret , Peter Auer , Dagmar Barth-Weingarten , Jörg Bergmann , Pia Bergmann , Karin Birkner , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2) [Conversation analytic transcription system 2].” Gesprächsforschung10: 353–402. www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2009/px-gat2.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  436. 2011 “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2; Translated and Adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten.” Gesprächsforschung12: 1–51. www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2011/px-gat2-englisch.pdf. Translation and adaptation of “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2)” by Margret Selting , Gesprächsforschung10: 353–402 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  437. Seuren, Lucas M.
    2018 “Assessing Answers: Action Ascription in Third Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction51 (1): 33–51. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413890
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413890 [Google Scholar]
  438. Seuren, Lucas , Mike Huiskes , and Tom Koole
    2016 “Remembering and Understanding with Oh-prefaced Yes/No Declaratives in Dutch.” Journal of Pragmatics104: 180–192. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  439. 2018 “Resolving Knowledge Discrepancies in Informing Sequences.” Language in Society47 (3): 409–434. 10.1017/S0047404518000362
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404518000362 [Google Scholar]
  440. Sharp, Harriet
    2001English in Spoken Swedish. A Corpus Study of Two Discourse Domains. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis: Stockholm Studies in English XCV.
    [Google Scholar]
  441. Shaw, Rebecca , and Celia Kitzinger
    2007 “Memory in Interaction: An Analysis of Repeat Calls to a Home Birth Helpline. Research on Language and Social Interaction40 (1): 117–144. 10.1080/08351810701331307
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701331307 [Google Scholar]
  442. Sidnell, Jack
    2009 “Comparative Perspectives in Conversation Analysis.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell , 3–28. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.002 [Google Scholar]
  443. 2010 “Conversation Analysis: An Introduction.” Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  444. 2013 “Basic Conversation Analytic Methods.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 77–99. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  445. 2014 “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited.” InCambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Nick J. Enfield , Paul Kockelman , and Jack Sidnell , 364–399. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018 [Google Scholar]
  446. 2016 “A Conversation Analytic Approach to Research on Early Childhood”. InSAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Research, ed. by Ann Farrell , Sharon Lynn Kagan , and E. Kay , M. Tisdall , 255–276. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  447. Sidnell, Jack , and N. J. Enfield
    2012 “Language Diversity and Social Action: A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity.” Current Anthropology53 (3): 302–333. 10.1086/665697
    https://doi.org/10.1086/665697 [Google Scholar]
  448. Sinclair, John M. , and Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  449. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  450. 2002 “Recipient Activities: The Particle “no” as a Go-Ahead Response in Finnish Conversations.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford , Barbara Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson , 165–195. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  451. 2017 “Imperatives and Responsiveness in Finnish Conversation.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Liisa Raevaara , Marja-Leena Sorjonen , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 241–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.08sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.08sor [Google Scholar]
  452. 2018 “Reformulating Prior Speaker’s Turn in Finnish: Turn-Initial siis, eli(kkä) and nii(n) et(tä) .” InBetween Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages, ed. by John Heritage , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen , 251–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.09sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.09sor [Google Scholar]
  453. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    (eds) 2017Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30 [Google Scholar]
  454. Steensig, Jakob , and Birte Asmuß
    2005 “Notes on Disaligning ‘Yes But’-Initiated Utterances in Danish and German Conversations: Two Construction Types for Dispreferred Responses.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen , and Margret Selting , 349–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.17ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.17ste [Google Scholar]
  455. Steensig, Jakob , and Paul Drew
    (eds) 2008 “Questioning and Affiliation/Disaffiliation in Interaction.” Special issue, Discourse Studies10 (1). 10.1177/1461445607085581
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085581 [Google Scholar]
  456. Steensig, Jakob , and Trine Heinemann
    2013 “When ‘Yes’ Is Not Enough – as an Answer to a Yes/No Question.” InUnits of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Szczepek Reed , and Geoffrey Raymond , 207–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.07ste [Google Scholar]
  457. Stenström, Anna-Brita
    1994An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  458. 2014Teenage Talk: From General Characteristics to the Use of Pragmatic Markers in a Contrastive Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137430380
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137430380 [Google Scholar]
  459. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures52.
    [Google Scholar]
  460. Stevanovic, Melisa , and Anssi Peräkylä
    2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (3): 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  461. Stivers, Tanya
    2004 “’No no no’ and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction.” Human Communication Research30 (2): 260–293. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  462. 2006 “Treatment Decisions: Negotiations Between Doctors and Parents in Acute Care Encounters.” InCommunication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. by John Heritage , and Doug W. Maynard , 279–312. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607172.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607172.012 [Google Scholar]
  463. 2007Prescribing under Pressure. Parent-Physician Conversations and Antibiotics. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311150.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311150.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  464. 2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (5): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  465. 2010 “An Overview of the Question-Response System in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (10): 2772–2781. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  466. 2018 “How We Manage Social Relationships Through Answers to Questions: The Case of Interjections.” Discourse Processes56 (3): 191–209. 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1441214 [Google Scholar]
  467. Stivers, Tanya , N. J. Enfield , Penelope Brown , Christina Englert , Makoto Hayashi , Trine Heinemann , Gertie Hoymann
    2009 “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106 (26), 10587–10592. 10.1073/pnas.0903616106
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106 [Google Scholar]
  468. Stivers, Tanya , and Makoto Hayashi
    2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society39 (1): 1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  469. Stivers, Tanya and John Heritage
    2001 “Breaking the Sequential Mold: Answering ‘More Than the Question’ during Comprehensive History Taking.” Text21 (1–2): 151–185. 10.1515/text.1.21.1‑2.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.21.1-2.151 [Google Scholar]
  470. Stivers, Tanya , John Heritage , Rebecca K. Barnes , Rose McCabe , Laura Thompson , and Merran Toerien
    2017 “Treatment Recommendations as Actions.” Health Communication33 (11): 1335–1344. 10.1080/10410236.2017.1350913
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1350913 [Google Scholar]
  471. Stivers, Tanya , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig , 3–24. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  472. Stivers, Tanya , and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society35 (3): 367–392. 10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  473. Stivers, Tanya , and Federico Rossano
    2010 “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (1): 3–31. 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  474. Stivers, Tanya , Jack Sidnell , and Clara Bergen
    2018 “Children’s Responses to Questions in Peer Interaction: A Window into the Ontogenesis of Interactional Competence.” Journal of Pragmatics124: 14–30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.013 [Google Scholar]
  475. Streeck, Jürgen
    2008 “Gesture in Political Communication. A Case Study of the Democratic Presidential Candidates during the 2004 Primary Campaign.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (1): 154–186. 10.1080/08351810802028662
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028662 [Google Scholar]
  476. Svennevig, Jan
    2004 “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse Studies6 (4): 589–516. 10.1177/1461445604046591
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604046591 [Google Scholar]
  477. 2018 “Decomposing Turns to Enhance Understanding by L2 Speakers. Research on Language and Social Interaction51 (4): 398–416. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1524575
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1524575 [Google Scholar]
  478. Svensk ordbok (NE’s ordbok) [Dictionary of Swedish]
    Svensk ordbok (NE’s ordbok) [Dictionary of Swedish]. n.d. s.v.okay. AccessedAugust 1, 2020. https://www.ne.se/ordböcker/#/search/ne-ordbok-sv-sv?q=okej
    [Google Scholar]
  479. Svinhufvud, Kimmo
    2016 “Nodding and Note-Taking. Multimodal Analysis of Writing and Nodding in Student Counseling Interaction.” Language and Dialogue6 (1): 81–109. 10.1075/ld.6.1.03svi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.03svi [Google Scholar]
  480. Swales, John M. , and Bonnie Malczewski
    2001 “Discourse Management and New-Episode Flags in MICASE.” InCorpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium, ed. by Rita C. Simpson , and John M. Swales , 145–164. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  481. Szatrowski, Polly
    2000 “Relation between Gaze, Head Nodding and aizuti ‘Back Channel’ at a Japanese Company Meeting.” Berkeley Linguistics Society26: 283–294. 10.3765/bls.v26i1.1154
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v26i1.1154 [Google Scholar]
  482. Szczepek Reed, Beatrice
    2006Prosodic Orientation in English Conversation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230625273
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625273 [Google Scholar]
  483. 2011Analyzing Conversation: An Introduction to Prosody. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑04514‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-04514-0 [Google Scholar]
  484. Talkbank
    Talkbank 2018 “SamtaleBank.” AccessedJune 16, 2018. https://samtalebank.talkbank.org/
  485. Tekin, Burak S.
    2019 “Bodies at Play: Exploring Participation, Spectatorship, and Morality in Videogaming Activities.” PhD diss., University of Basel.
    [Google Scholar]
  486. Thompson, Sandra A. , Barbara Fox , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  487. Turner, Kimberley
    1999Functional Variation of Okay/Alright Usage in Spoken Discourse. MA Special Project. UNSW, Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  488. Turner, Roy
    1972 “Some Formal Properties of Therapy Talk.” InStudies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow , 367–396. New York, NY: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  489. Tyagunova, Tanya , and Christian Greiffenhagen
    2017 “Closing Seminars and Lectures: The Work That Lecturers and Students Do.” Discourse Studies19 (3): 314–340. 10.1177/1461445617701992
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617701992 [Google Scholar]
  490. Urbaani Sanakirja [Urban dictionary]. AccessedAugust 9, 2018. https://urbaanisanakirja.com/
    [Google Scholar]
  491. Urbandictionary.com, s.v. Rules, OK?
    Urbandictionary.com, s.v. Rules, OK? AccessedApril 4, 2020. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rules%2C%20OK%3F
  492. van Zyl, Marianne , and Johan J. Hanekom
    2013 “When ‘Okay’ is not Okay: Acoustic Characteristics of Single-Word Prosody Conveying Reluctance.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America133 (1): EL13. 10.1121/1.4769399
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4769399 [Google Scholar]
  493. Vepsäläinen, Heidi
    2019 ”Suomen no-partikkeli ja kysymyksiin vastaaminen keskustelussa [The Finnish particle no and answering questions].” PhD diss., University of Helsinki. urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-5189-6
  494. Verby, J. E.
    1991 “OK is Sometimes Not Ok.” Learning Resources Journal/University of Minnesota Health Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  495. Vilkuna, Maria
    1993 “Finnish Juuri and Just: Varieties of Contextual Uniqueness.” InYearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland6, ed. by Maria Vilkuna , and Susanna Shore , 97–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  496. Wait, William Bell
    1941 “Richardson’s ‘O. K.’ of 1815.” American Speech16 (2): 85–86, 136. 10.2307/487427
    https://doi.org/10.2307/487427 [Google Scholar]
  497. Walker, Gareth
    2017 “Visual Representations of Acoustic Data: A Survey and Suggestions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction50 (4): 363–387. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1375802
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1375802 [Google Scholar]
  498. Wang, Yu-Fang , Pi-Hua Tsai , David Goodman , and Meng-Ying Lin
    2010 “Agreement, Acknowledgment, and Alignment: The Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Hao and Dui in Taiwan Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Studies12 (2): 241–267. 10.1177/1461445609346922
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609346922 [Google Scholar]
  499. Waring, Hansun J.
    2008 “Using Explicit Positive Assessment in the Language Classroom: IRF, Feedback, and Learning Opportunities.” The Modern Language Journal92 (4): 577–594. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00788.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x [Google Scholar]
  500. Waris, Tuula
    2006 “ Just keskustelussa [ Just in conversation].” Master’s thesis, Finnish language, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  501. Weidner, Matylda
    2016 “The Particle no in Polish Talk-in-Interaction.” InNU / NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Yael Maschler , and Peter Auer , 104–131. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110348989‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348989-004 [Google Scholar]
  502. Weilenmann, Alexandra
    2003 “’I Can’t Talk Now, I’m in a Fitting Room’: Formulating Availability and Location in Mobile-Phone Conversations.” Environment and Planning A35 (9): 1589–1605. 10.1068/a34234
    https://doi.org/10.1068/a34234 [Google Scholar]
  503. Wennerstrom, Ann , and Andrew F. Siegel
    2003 “Keeping the Floor in Multiparty Conversations: Intonation, Syntax, and Pause.” Discourse Processes36 (2): 77–107. 10.1207/S15326950DP3602_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3602_1 [Google Scholar]
  504. Werlen, Iwar
    1984Ritual und Sprache. Zum Verhältnis von Sprechen und Handeln in Ritualen [Ritual and language. On the relationship of language and action in rituals]. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  505. Werth, Alexander
    2016 “Artikel bei Rufnamen [Articles used with first names].” InSyHD-atlas. AccessedFebruary 2, 2019. www.syhd.info/apps/atlas/#artikel-bei-rufnamen
    [Google Scholar]
  506. Whitehead, Kevin A.
    2011 “Some Uses of Head Nods in ‘Third Position’ in Talk-in-Interaction.” Gesture11 (2): 103–122. 10.1075/gest.11.2.01whi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.11.2.01whi [Google Scholar]
  507. Whorf, Benjamin Lee
    1956Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. by John B. Carroll . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  508. Wierzbicka, Anna
    2003Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220964
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220964 [Google Scholar]
  509. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, s.v. OK
    Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, s.v. OK . AccessedApril 5, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OK&oldid=989332360
  510. Woods, Catherine J. , Paul Drew , and Geraldine M. Leydon
    2015 “Closing Calls to a Cancer Helpline: Expressions of Caller Satisfaction.” Patient Education and Counseling98 (8): 943–953. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.015 [Google Scholar]
  511. Wootton, Anthony J.
    1981 “Two Request Forms for Four Year Olds.” Journal of Pragmatics5 (6): 511–523. 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90016‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90016-3 [Google Scholar]
  512. 1997Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519895
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519895 [Google Scholar]
  513. World Health Organization (WHO)
    World Health Organization (WHO) 2006 “Health Inequities in Brazil: Our most serious disease.” www.who.int/social_determinants/country_action/health_inequalities_bz.pdf
  514. Wright, Melissa
    2011 “The Phonetics–Interaction Interface in the Initiation of Closings in Everyday English Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (4): 1080–1099. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  515. Xian, Li-Xia
    2007 “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Marker Hao .” Journal of Xichang College19 (3): 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  516. Yeh, Kanyu , and Chiung-chih Huang
    2016 “Mandarin-Speaking Children’s Use of the Discourse Markers Hao ‘Okay’ and Dui ‘Right’ in Peer Interaction. Language Sciences57: 1–20. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  517. Yngve, Victor
    1970 “On Getting a Word in Edgewise.” InPapers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 567–577. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  518. Zimmerman, Don H.
    1992 “The Interactional Organization of Calls for Emergency Assistance.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew , and John Heritage , 418–469. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  519. Zinken, Jörg
    2016Requesting Responsibility. The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  520. Zinken, Jörg , and Arnulf Deppermann
    2017 “A Cline of Visible Commitment in the Situated Design of Imperative Turns: Evidence from German and Polish.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen , Liisa Raevaara , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 27–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.02zin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.02zin [Google Scholar]
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error