1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Nota Bene
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2 Number 1
  • ISSN 2950-189X
  • E-ISSN: 2950-1881
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The compatibility of conversation analysis and quantification has been the subject of considerable debate. However, the question seems to be shifting from to a combination of the two approaches can be as fruitful and empirically valid as possible. The “CA-based action coding cycle” (“CABAC cycle”) I present in this paper contributes to answering this question. It traces four steps in the development of a scheme for coding conversational actions: initial and embedding in previous observations, systematization, extensive sequential analysis, and application of the coding scheme. It becomes clear that the fundamental tools of conversation analysis provide a particularly sound basis for coding actions. Furthermore, the “CABAC cycle” shows that special attention should be paid to the corpus characteristics and the associated research questions when creating a coding scheme. Finally, the great potential of quantifying actions is emphasized, especially for the field of applied conversation analysis.

© 2025 The Author(s)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00022.spi
2025-09-26
2026-07-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/nb.00022.spi
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arendt, Birte
    2019 Argumentieren mit Peers: Erwerbsverläufe und -muster bei Kindergartenkindern. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, Douglas
    1993 Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing8(4). 243–257. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
     https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bressem, Jana & Cornelia Müller
    2017 The “negative-assessment construction”: A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture?Linguistics Vanguard3(s1). 20160053. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0053
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0053 [Google Scholar]
  4. Burch, Alfred R.
    2014 Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on communication strategies. Language Learning641. 651–684. 10.1111/lang.12064
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12064 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clayman, Steven E.
    2024 Working with collections in conversation analysis. InJeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick & Chase Wesley Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis, 191–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108936583.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108936583.008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2014 What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics24(3). 623–647. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  7. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2006 Desiderata einer gesprächsanalytischen Argumentationsforschung. InArnulf Deppermann & Martin Hartung (eds.), Argumentieren in Gesprächen, 10–26. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Deppermann, Arnulf & Alexandra Gubina
    . [Forthcoming]. Coding actions in social interaction: Potentials and problems.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dingemanse, Mark, Kobin H. Kendrick & Nick J. Enfield
    2016 A coding scheme for other-initiated repair across languages. Open Linguistics2(1). 35–46. 10.1515/opli‑2016‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Drew, Paul
    2024 The history of a collection: Apologies. InJeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick & Chase Wesley Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis, 253–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108936583.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108936583.011 [Google Scholar]
  11. Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi & Nick J. Enfield
    2020 A coding scheme for recruitment sequences in interaction. InSimeon Floyd, Giovanni Rossi & Nick J. Enfield (eds.), Getting others to do things: A pragmatic typology of recruitments, 25–50. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.5281/zenodo.4018371
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4018371 [Google Scholar]
  12. Foster, Pauline & Amy Snyder Ohta
    2005 Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics26(3). 402–430. 10.1093/applin/ami014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami014 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, Barbara, Fay Wouk, Makoto Hayashi, Steven Fincke, Liang Tao, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Minna Laakso & Wilfrido Flores Hernandez
    2009 A cross-linguistic investigation of the site of initiation in same-turn self-repair. InJack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 60–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, Charles
    1981 Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Grundler, Elke
    2011 Kompetent argumentieren: Ein gesprächsanalytisch fundiertes Modell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hausendorf, Heiko & Uta M. Quasthoff
    1996 Sprachentwicklung und Interaktion: Eine linguistische Studie zum Erwerb von Diskursfähigkeiten. Wiesbaden: VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑11463‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11463-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2005 Konversations-/Diskursanalyse: (Sprach)Entwicklung durch Interaktion. InGünter Mey (ed.), Handbuch qualitative Entwicklungspsychologie, 585–618. Köln: Kölner Studien Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hauser, Stefan & Martin Luginbühl
    2017 Wenn Kinder argumentieren: Grundlagen und erste Befunde einer Studie zur mündlichen Argumentationskompetenz von Schulkindern. InIris Meißner & Eva L. Wyss (eds.), Begründen — Erklären — Argumentieren: Konzepte und Modellierungen in der Angewandten Linguistik, 89–105. Tubingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Heller, Vivien
    2012 Kommunikative Erfahrungen von Kindern in Familie und Unterricht: Passungen und Divergenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, John
    2004 Conversation analysis and institutional talk. InKristine L. Fitch & Robert E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 103–147. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2016 Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. InDavid Silverman (ed.), Qualitative research, 242–258. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, John & David Greatbatch
    1986 Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology92(1). 110–157. 10.1086/228465
     https://doi.org/10.1086/228465 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kendon, Adam
    2004 Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kendrick, Kobin H. & 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]
  25. Kotthoff, Helga
    1993 Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society22(2). 193–216. 10.1017/S0047404500017103
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kreuz, Judith
    2021 Ko-konstruiertes Begründen unter Kindern: Eine gesprächsanalytische Studie von Kleingruppeninteraktionen in der Primarschule. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kreuz, Judith & Martin Luginbühl
    2020 From flat propositions to deep co-constructed and modalized argumentations: Oral argumentative skills among elementary school children from grades 2 to 6. Research on Children and Social Interaction4(1). 93–114. 10.1558/rcsi.12416
     https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12416 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kreuz, Judith & Vera Mundwiler
    2016 „verbAndskasten !MÜS!sen wir haben“: Zum argumentativen Potenzial von Prosodie am Beispiel von Einigungsdiskussionen bei Grundschulkindern. Studia Linguistica351. 99–118. 10.19195/0137‑1169.35.6
     https://doi.org/10.19195/0137-1169.35.6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kreuz, Judith, Martin Luginbühl & Vera Mundwiler
    2019 Gesprächsorganisation in argumentativen Peer-Gesprächen von Schulkindern. InInes Bose, Kati Hannken-Illjes & Stephanie Kurtenbach (eds.), Kinder im Gespräch — mit Kindern im Gespräch, 33–62. Berlin: Frank & Timme. 10.26530/20.500.12657/42800
     https://doi.org/10.26530/20.500.12657/42800 [Google Scholar]
  30. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2012 Action Formation and Ascription. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers, The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–130. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  31. Luginbühl, Martin & Daniel Müller-Feldmeth
    2022 Oral argumentation skills between process and product. Languages7(2), Article 139. 10.3390/languages7020139
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020139 [Google Scholar]
  32. Luginbühl, Martin, Vera Mundwiler, Judith Kreuz, Daniel Müller-Feldmeth & Stefan Hauser
    2021 Quantitative and qualitative approaches in conversation analysis: Methodological reflections on a study of argumentative group discussions. Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion221. 179–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Müller-Feldmeth, Daniel, Tamara Koch, Chantal Wanderon & Martin Luginbühl
    2023 ‹Yes, we’re done› — ‹except Ricardo›: Using speech, body and artefacts to perform inclusion and exclusion in peer discussions. Research on Children and Social Interaction6(2). 229–265. 10.1558/rcsi.23791
     https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.23791 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mundwiler, Vera, Judith Kreuz, Stefan Hauser, Brigit Eriksson & Martin Luginbühl
    2017 Mündliches Argumentieren als kommunikative Praktik: Schulbuchübungen und empirische Befunde im Vergleich. InStefan Hauser & Martin Luginbühl (eds.), Gesprächskompetenz in schulischer Interaktion: Normative Ansprüche und kommunikative Praktiken, 91–123. Bern: hep.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mundwiler, Vera & Judith Kreuz
    2018 Collaborative decision-making in argumentative group discussions among primary school children. InSteve Oswald, Thierry Herman & Jérôme Jacquin (eds.), Argumentation and language — linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations, 263–285. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_12
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_12 [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Keeffe, Anne & Steve Walsh
    2012 Applying corpus linguistics and conversation analysis in the investigation of small group teaching in higher education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory8(1). 159–181. 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0007 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pfeiffer, Martin & Katharina König
    2024 Request for confirmation sequences across ten languages. Open Linguistics10(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Pike, Kenneth L.
    2015 Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783111657158
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111657158 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InJ. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008 [Google Scholar]
  40. Robinson, Jeffrey D.
    2020 Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction53(2). 197–222. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2024 Coding and statistically associating inter-action to advance conversation-analytic findings. InJeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick & Chase W. Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis, 452–484. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108936583.017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108936583.017 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey
    1992 Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1993 Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction26(1). 99–128. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1996 Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action. American Journal of Sociology102(1). 161–216. 10.1086/230911
     https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1997 Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes23(3). 499–545. 10.1080/01638539709545001
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schoonjans, Steven
    2018 Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen: Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110566260
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110566260 [Google Scholar]
  47. Selting, Margret,
    2009 Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion101. 152–183.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Spiess, Oliver
    2025 Frames are for talking: Modeling interactants’ co-constructed semantic and pragmatic structures. Journal of Pragmatics2461. 170–187. 10.1016/j.pragma.2025.07.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2025.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  49. . [Submitted]. Exploring participatory dynamics in conversational argumentation: Operationalizations, visualizations, and cooccurrences.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas
    2006 Alles Argumentieren, oder was? Zur Konstitution von Argumentation in Gesprächen. InArnulf Deppermann & Martin Hartung (eds.), Argumentieren in Gesprächen, 27–39. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Steensig, Jakob & Trine Heinemann
    2015 Opening up codings?Research on Language and Social Interaction48(1). 20–25. 10.1080/08351813.2015.993838
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993838 [Google Scholar]
  52. Stivers, Tanya
    2015 Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis?Research on Language and Social Interaction48(1). 1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2015.993837
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993837 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stivers, Tanya & Nick J. Enfield
    2010 A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics42(10). 2620–2626. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ten Have, Paul
    1990 Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology27(1). 23–51. 10.1177/075910639002700102
     https://doi.org/10.1177/075910639002700102 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2007 Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. 2nd ed.London: Sage. 10.4135/9781849208895
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895 [Google Scholar]
  56. Walker, Traci
    2024 History of a collection: Repetition repairs. InJeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick & Chase Wesley Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis, 234–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108936583.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108936583.010 [Google Scholar]
  57. Zahn, Christopher J.
    1984 A reexamination of conversational repair. Communication Monographs51(1). 56–66. 10.1080/03637758409390183
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390183 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zimmerman, Dean H. & Candace West
    1975 Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversations. InBarrie Thorne & Nancy Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance, 105–129. Rowley: Newbury House (Series in Sociolinguistics).
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00022.spi
Loading
Transforming interactional structures into codes
Nota Bene 2, 5 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00022.spi
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00022.spi
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00022.spi
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): action coding; CABAC cycle; conversation analysis; oral argumentation; quantification

Most Cited

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