“So what does this show us?”

References

1. Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J.
   (Eds.) (1984) Structures of social interaction: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Brown, G. & Yule, G.
   (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
3. Button, G.
   (1990) On varieties of closing. In G. Psathas , (Ed.) Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, (pp.93–147) Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Button, G.
   (1991) Conversation-in-a-series. In D. Boden , & D. Zimmerman (Eds.) Talk and social structure. (pp.251–277) Cambridge: Polity Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Button, G. & Lee, J.R.E.
   (Eds.) (1987) Talk and social organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Chafe W.L.
   (1979) The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givón (Ed.) Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntaxVol12. (pp.159–81) New York: Academic Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Chaudron, C. & Richards, J.
   (1986) The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics7 (2), 113–127. doi: 10.1093/applin/7.2.113
   https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.113 [Google Scholar]
8. Flowerdew, J. & Tauroza, S.
   (1995) The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition17, 435–458. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014406
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014406 [Google Scholar]
9. Fraser, B.
   (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14, 383–395. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
   https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
10. Gardner, R.
    (1994) Conversation analysis transcription. In R. Gardner (Ed.) Spoken interaction studies in Australia. (Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series S No. 11) (pp.185–191) ALAA: Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Goodwin, C.
    (1996) Transparent vision. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds.) Interaction and grammar, (pp.370–404) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 [Google Scholar]
13. Gumperz, J.J.
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
14. Heritage, J.
    (1985) Analysing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol.3. Discourse and dialogue, (pp.95–117) London: Academic Press Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Heritage, J. & Watson, D.R.
    (1980) Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversation: Some instances analysed. Semiotica. 30 (3/4) 245–262.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hinds, J.
    (1979) Organizational patterns in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.) Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax. (pp. 135–54) New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Jucker, A.H.
    (1993) The discourse marker well: a relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics19, 435–452. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
18. Ochs, E. , Gonzales, P. & Jacoby, S.
    (1996) “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretative activity of physicists. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (Eds.) Interaction and grammar. (pp. 328–69) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.007 [Google Scholar]
19. Rendle-Short, J.
    (1998) Discourse markers in computer science seminar talk. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Linguistics, ANU.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Rendle-Short, J.
    (1999) When ‘okay’ is okay in computer science seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics22/2, 19–33.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Rendle-Short, J.
    (2002) Talk and action in the computer science seminar. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, ANU.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Rendle-Short, J.
    (forthcoming). Showing structure: Using ‘um’ in monologic talk.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Sacks, H. , Jefferson, G. & Schegloff, E.A.
    (1977) The preference for self-correc-tion in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53 (2), 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
24. Sacks, H.
    (1984) On doing “being ordinary”. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (1984) (pp.413–429).
    [Google Scholar]
25. Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest semantics for the organisation of turn-raking in conversation. Language50 (4), 695–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
26. Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica8, 289–327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
27. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
28. Schourup, L.
    (1999) Discourse markers. Lingua107, 227–265. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
29. Segel, E.M. , Duchan, J.F. & Scott, P.J.
    (1991) The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes14, 27–54. doi: 10.1080/01638539109544773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544773 [Google Scholar]
30. Watson, D.R.
    (1990) Some features of the elicitation of confessions in murder interrogations. In G. Psathas (Ed.) Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, (pp. 263–295) Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]