(Co-)Constructing Interpersonally Sensitive Activities Across Institutional Settings
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper analyses video recorded interactions between police officers and drivers in traffic stops in Russia. The interactions were recorded via cameras installed on the drivers’ car dashboards, and subsequently uploaded to YouTube; a practice to which over one million Russian motorists have resorted to counterbalance perceived high levels of bribery and corruption (Griaznova 2007). The analysis focuses on responses to opening requests for identification in five different encounters. These show that the drivers repeatedly engage in potentially interpersonally sensitive activities in which the vulnerability of face, especially that of the police officer, is interactionally manifested by launching counter requests in return. The organisation of the request–counter request sequences highlights how face and identity related concerns are interwoven in the participants’ attempts to contest each other’s authority.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Al Jazeera
    2012 Russian Car Cams Aim to Drive out Corruption. Accessed2 September 2016. www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/11/20121125185931399478.html
  2. Antaki, Charles , and Sue Widdicombe
    (eds) 1998Identities in Talk. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Balmforth, Tom
    2012 Cops, Cars, and Videotape: Russians Embrace Dash-Cam Craze. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Accessed2 September 2016. www.rferl.org/content/dash-cams-russia-fighting-corruption-and-scams-car-crashes/24780355.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bax, Ingrid
    1986 “How to Assign Work in an Office: A Comparison of Spoken and Written Directives in American English.” Journal of Pragmatics10 (6): 673–692. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(86)90146‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90146-3 [Google Scholar]
  5. BBC
    2013Meteor Highlights Rise of Dashboard Cameras in Russia. Accessed2 September 2016. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21478361
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blitvich, Pilar Garcés-Conejos
    2013 “Introduction: Face, Identity and Im/politeness. Looking Backward, Moving Forward: From Goffman to Practice Theory.” Journal of Politeness Research9 (1): 1–33. doi: 10.1515/pr‑2013‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bousfield, Derek
    2008Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bucholtz, Mary
    1999 “‘Why Be Normal?’: Language and Identity Practices in a Community of Nerd Girls.” Language in Society28 (2): 203–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheloukhine, Serguei , Sanja Kutnjak Ivković , Qasim Haq , and Maria R. Haberfeld
    2015 “Police Integrity in Russia.” InMeasuring Police Integrity Across the World, ed. by Sanja Kutnjak Ivković and Maria R. Haberfeld , 153–181. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4939‑2279‑6_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2279-6_6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chistyakova, Yulia , and Annette Robertson
    2012 “YouTube Cops and Power without Limits: Understanding Police Violence in 21st Century Russia.”The Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies13. Assessed31 August 2016. pipss.revues.org/3949.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Church, Amelia
    2012Preference Organisation and Peer Disputes: How Young Children Resolve Conflict. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark, Herbert , and Dale Schunk
    1980 “Polite Responses to Polite Requests.” Cognition8 (2): 111–143. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(80)90009‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90009-8 [Google Scholar]
  14. Corsaro, William A. , and Douglas W. Maynard
    1996 “Format Tying in Discussion and Argumentation among Italian and American Children.” InSocial Interaction, Social Context, and Language, ed. by Dan I. Slobin , Julie Gerhardt , Amy Kyratzis , and Jiansheng Guo , 157–174. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25 (3): 349–367. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2005 “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture1 (1): 35–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2011Impoliteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  18. Culpeper, Jonathan , Derek Bousfield , and Ann Wichmann
    2003 “Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics35 (10): 1545–1579. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00118‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. doi: 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dastjerdi, Hossein Vahid , Mehdi Latifi , and Elham Mohammadi
    2011 “Analysis of Power and Threat Manifestation in the Discourse of Traffic Police Officers: A CDA Perspective.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research2 (1): 255–260.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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 Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage , 102–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dorodnych, Anatoly
    1995 “A Study of Requests in English, Russian and Ukrainian.” Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics30: 55–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Drew, Paul
    1997 “Open Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics28 (1): 69–101. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Eisenberg, Ann R. , and Catherine Garvey
    1981 “Children’s Use of Verbal Strategies in Resolving Conflicts.” Discourse Processes4 (2): 149–170. doi: 10.1080/01638538109544512
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538109544512 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ervin-Tripp, Susan
    1976 “‘Is Sybil There?’ The Structure of Some American English Directives.” Language in Society5 (1): 25–66. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006849
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006849 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Farman, Jason
    2012Mobile Interface Theory: Embodied Space and Locative Media. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fraser, Bruce , and William Nolen
    1981 “The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language27: 93–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Friedrich, Paul
    1972 “Social Context and Semantic Feature: The Russian Pronominal Usage.” InDirections in Sociolinguistics, ed. by John J. Gumperz and Dell H. Hymes , 270–300. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Galperina, Marina
    2012Dash-cams: Russia’s Last Hope for Civility and Survival on the Road. AccessedAugust 31, 2016. www.animalnewyork.com/2012/russian-dashcam/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Garfinkel, Harold
    1984Studies in Ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Goffman, Erving
    1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1961Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Interaction. New York: Pantheon.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Goodwin, Charles
    2006 “Retrospective and Prospective Orientation in the Construction of Argumentative Moves.” Text & Talk. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies26 (4–5): 443–461. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.018 [Google Scholar]
  36. Goodwin, Marjorie H
    2002 “Exclusion in Girls’ Peer Groups: Ethnographic Analysis of Language Practices on the Playground.” Human Development45: 392–415. doi: 10.1159/000066260
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000066260 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goodwin, Marjorie H. , and Charles Goodwin
    1987 “Children’s Arguing.” InLanguage, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective, ed. by Susan U. Philips , Susan Steele , and Christine Tanz , 200–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621918.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621918.011 [Google Scholar]
  38. Griaznova, Olga S
    2007 “Russian Residents’ Attitudes Toward the Law-Enforcement Agencies: A Review of Recent Research.” Russian Politics and Law45 (3): 74–104. doi: 10.2753/RUP1061‑1940450304
    https://doi.org/10.2753/RUP1061-1940450304 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gudkov, Lev
    2000 “Otnoshenie k Pravovym Institutam v Rossii [The attitude toward legal institutions in Russia].” Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes3 (47): 30–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gumperz, John J
    1982Discourse Strategies. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  41. Gumperz, John. J
    1992 “Contextualization and Understanding.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin , 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hale, Sandra B
    2004The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness, and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  43. Haugh, Michael
    2013 “Im/politeness, Social Practice and the Participation Order.” Journal of Pragmatics58: 52–72. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  44. Have, Paul ten
    2007Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781849208895
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895 [Google Scholar]
  45. Haworth, Kate
    2006 “The Dynamics of Power and Resistance in Police Interview Discourse.” Discourse & Society117 (6): 739–759. doi: 10.1177/0957926506068430
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506068430 [Google Scholar]
  46. Heritage, John J
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Heinemann, Trine
    2006 “‘Will You or Can’t You?’: Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (7): 1081–1104. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hester, Stephen , and Peter Eglin
    (eds) 1997Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Holtgraves, Thomas
    1992 “The Linguistic Realization of Face Management: Implications for Language Production and Comprehension, Person Perception, and Cross-cultural Communication.” Social Psychology Quarterly552: 141–159. doi: 10.2307/2786943
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786943 [Google Scholar]
  50. Housley, William , and Richard Fitzgerald
    2009 “Membership Categorization, Culture and Norms in Action.” Discourse & Society20 (3): 345–362. doi: 10.1177/0957926509102405
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509102405 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hudson, James R
    1970 “Police-citizen Encounters that Lead to Citizen Complaints.” Social Problems18 (2): 179–193. doi: 10.2307/799580
    https://doi.org/10.2307/799580 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hutchby, Ian , and Robin Wooffitt
    1998Conversational Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ilie, Cornelia
    1994What Else Can I Tell You?: A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Jaffe, Alexandra
    (ed) 2009Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Jayyusi, Lena
    1984Categorization and the Moral Order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 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. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 12–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  58. Kádár, Daniel , and Rosina Márquez Reiter
    2015 “(Im)politeness and (Im)morality: Insights from Intervention.” Journal of Politeness Research11 (2): 239–260. doi: 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0010 [Google Scholar]
  59. Keisanen, Tiina , and Mirka Rauniomaa
    2012 “The Organization of Participation and Contingency in Prebeginnings of Request Sequences.” Research on Language & Social Interaction45 (4): 323–351. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.724985
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724985 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kent, Alexandra
    2012 “Compliance, Resistance and Incipient Compliance When Responding to Directives.” Discourse Studies14 (6): 711–730. doi: 10.1177/1461445612457485
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457485 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Cathérine
    2005 “Politeness in France: How to Buy Bread Politely.” InPoliteness in Europe, ed. by Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart , 29–57. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kienpointner, Manfred
    1997 “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances.” Functions of Language4 (2): 251–287. doi: 10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie [Google Scholar]
  63. Kovalev, Vitaly V. , Liliya V. Sazhina , and Natalia B. Ivanova
    2014 “Ljubov’ k videoregistratoram v Rossii: sociokul’turnye osobennosti mentaliteta ili zashchita ot korrupcii dorozhnoj policii? [Love of Video Cameras In Russia: Socio-cultural Peculiarities of Mentality or Protection Against Corruption of Traffic Police?].” Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology1 (17): 128–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Leech, Geoffrey N
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Levinson, Stephen
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 1979 Activity Types and Language. Linguistics17 (5–6): 365–399. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  67. Liddicoat, Anthony J
    2011An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Limberg, Holger
    2008 “Threats in Conflict Talk: Impoliteness and Manipulation.” InImpoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher , 155–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Lindström, Anna
    2005 “Language as Social Action. A Study of How Senior Citizens Request Assistance with Practical Tasks in the Swedish Home Help Service.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction, ed. by Auli Hakulinen and Margaret Selting , 209–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.11lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.11lin [Google Scholar]
  70. Locher, Miriam A
    2004Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110926552
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2010 “Relational work, politeness, and identity construction”. InAPA Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, ed. by David Matsumoto , 112–138. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 2011 “Situated Impoliteness: The Interface Between Relational Work and Identity Construction.” InSituated Politeness, ed. by Bethan L. Davies , Michael Haugh , and Andrew John Merrison , 187–208. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria
    2008 “Real disorder in the court: An investigation of conflict talk in US television courtroom shows.” Media, Culture & Society30 (1): 189–216. doi: 10.1177/0163443708088613
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443708088613 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2009 “You’re barking mad, I’m out?: Impoliteness and broadcast talk.” Journal of Politeness Research, Language, Behaviour, Culture5 (2): 159–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Markee, Numa
    1995 “Teachers’ Answers to Students’ Questions: Problematizing the Issue of Making Meaning.” Issues in Applied Linguistics6 (2): 63–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2004 “Zones of Interactional Transition in ESL Classes.” Modern Language Journal88 (4): 583–596. doi: 10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.t01‑20‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-20-.x [Google Scholar]
  77. Márquez Reiter, Rosina
    2000Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.83
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.83 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2011Mediated Business Interactions: Intercultural Communication Between Speakers of Spanish. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    1988 “Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics12 (4): 403–426. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90003‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 [Google Scholar]
  80. McKinlay, Andy , and Anne Dunnett
    1998 “How Gun Owners Accomplish Being Deadly Average.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. by Charles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe , 34–51. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Merritt, Marilyn
    1976 “On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters.” Language in Society5 (3): 315–357. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500007168
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007168 [Google Scholar]
  82. Miller, Daniel
    (ed) 2001Car Cultures. Oxford: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Mills, Sara
    2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  84. Minchin, Elizabeth
    2002 “Verbal Behaviour in its Social Context: Three Question Strategies in Homer’s Odyssey.” The Classical Quarterly (New Series)52 (1): 15–32. doi: 10.1093/cq/52.1.15
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cq/52.1.15 [Google Scholar]
  85. MVD Rossii
    2013Gosavtoinspekcija o videoregistratorah [The State Motor Vehicle Inspectorate on DVR cams]. AssessedAugust 31 2016. https://11.мвд.рф/news/item/1401036
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Ogiermann, Eva
    2009 Politeness and In-directness Across Cultures: A Comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian Requests. Journal of Politeness Research5 (2): 189–216. doi: 10.1515/JPLR.2009.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.011 [Google Scholar]
  87. Perelmutter, Renee
    2010 “Impoliteness Recycled: Subject Ellipsis in Modern Russian Complaint Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (12): 3214–3231. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  88. 2015 “Shaming, group face, and identity construction in a Russian virtual community for women.” InInterdisciplinary Perspectives on Im/politeness, ed. by Marina Terkourafi , 149–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aals.14.08per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.14.08per [Google Scholar]
  89. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” InStudies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Pomerantz, Anita , and Jenny Mandelbaum
    2005 “Conversation Analytic Approaches to the Relevance and Uses of Relationship Categories in Interaction.” InHandbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Kristine Fitch and Robert Sanders , 149–171. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Rawls, Anne Warfield
    1987 “The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman’s Contribution to Social Theory.” Sociological Theory5 (2): 136–149. doi: 10.2307/201935
    https://doi.org/10.2307/201935 [Google Scholar]
  92. Rønneberg, Kari , and Jan Svennevig
    2010 “Declining to Help: Rejections in Service Requests to the Police.” Discourse & Communication4 (3): 279–305. doi: 10.1177/1750481310373217
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310373217 [Google Scholar]
  93. Rossijskaja Gazeta
    2009 “Prikaz Ministersva Vnutrennih Del Rossijskoj Federacii ot 2 Marta 2009 goda N 185” [Order of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Russia No 185 of March 2, 2009]. Rossijskaja gazeta. Federal’nyj vypusk4946 (122). AssessedAugust 31, 2016. https://rg.ru/2009/07/07/mvd-reglament-dok.html
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 2011 “Federal’nyj Zakon ot 7 Fevralja 2011 g. N 3-FZ ‘O Policii’” [Federal Law No. 3-FZ of February 7, 2011 ‘On the Police’]. Rossijskaja gazeta. Federal’nyj vypusk5401 (25). AssessedOctober 19, 2016. https://rg.ru/2011/02/07/police-dok.html
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Sacks, Harvey
    1995Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II, ed. by Gail Jefferson (with an Introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff.) Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  96. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  97. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1991 “Reflections on Talk and Social Structure.” InTalk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. by Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman , 44–70. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 1992 “Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  99. 1980 “Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question?’” Sociological Inquiry50 (3–4): 104–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  100. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Vol. 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  101. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction 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]
  102. Searle, John R
    1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  103. Shon, Phillip C
    1998 “Now You Got a Dead Baby on Your Hands’: Discursive Tyranny in ‘Cop Talk’.” Revue Internationale de Semiotique Juridique11 (3): 275–301. doi: 10.1007/BF01110410
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01110410 [Google Scholar]
  104. 2002 “Bringing the Spoken Words Back: Conversationalizing (Postmodernizing) Police-Citizen Encounter Research.” Critical Criminology11 (2): 151–172. doi: 10.1023/A:1025428605662
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025428605662 [Google Scholar]
  105. 2005 “‘I’d Grab the SOB by His Hair and Yank Him out the Window’: The Fraternal Order of Warnings and Threats in Police-Citizen Encounters.” Discourse & Society16 (6): 829–845. doi: 10.1177/0957926505056673
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505056673 [Google Scholar]
  106. 2008Language and Demeanor in Police-Citizen Encounters. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Silverman, David
    1998Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    (ed) 2000Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 2013 “Relating at Work: Facets, Dialectics and Face.” Journal of Pragmatics58: 121–137. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.010 [Google Scholar]
  110. Tajfel, Henry
    1982 “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.” Annual Review of Psychology33 (1): 1–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 [Google Scholar]
  111. Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen
    2006Request Sequences: The Intersection of Grammar, Interaction and Social Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.19
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.19 [Google Scholar]
  112. TASS
    2013Fines for Traffic Violations Registered by Video Cameras on Roads in the Moscow Region Amounted to 800 Million Roubles Last Year. Accessed1 September 2016. www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/639858.html
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Thompson, Sandra A. , Barbara A. Fox , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    (eds) 2015Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  114. Toepfl, Florian
    2011 “Managing Public Outrage: Power, Scandal, and New Media in Contemporary Russia.” New Media & Society13 (8): 1301–1319. doi: 10.1177/1461444811405021
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811405021 [Google Scholar]
  115. Tracy, Karen , and Donald L. Anderson
    1999 “Relational Positioning Strategies in Police Calls: A Dilemma.” Discourse Studies1 (2): 201–225. doi: 10.1177/1461445699001002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001002004 [Google Scholar]
  116. Transparency International
    2015Corruption Perceptions Index 2015. AssessedSeptember 2 2016. www.transparency.org/cpi2015/#results-table
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Vinkhuyzen, Erik , and Margaret H. Szymanski
    2005 “‘Would you Like to Do it Yourself?’ Service Requests and their Non-granting Responses.” InApplying Conversation Analysis, ed. by Keith Richards and Paul Seedhouse , 91–106. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230287853_6
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230287853_6 [Google Scholar]
  118. Wade, Terence L.B
    1992A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Whalen, Marilyn R. , and Don H. Zimmerman
    1987 “Sequential and Institutional Contexts in Calls for Help.” Social Psychology Quarterly50 (2): 172–185. doi: 10.2307/2786750
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786750 [Google Scholar]
  120. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1991Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Yoong, David
    2010 “Interactional Norms in the Australian Police Interrogation Room.” Discourse & Society21 (6): 693–713. doi: 10.1177/0957926510381223
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510381223 [Google Scholar]
  122. Zimmerman, Don H
    1984 “Talk and Its Occasion: The Case of Calling the Police.” InMeaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin , 210–228. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 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: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 1998 “Identity, Context and Interaction.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. by Charles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe , 87–106. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
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