Evading and resisting answering

References

1. Atkinson, John , and Paul Drew
   1979 Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
   [Google Scholar]
2. BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
   2011 Mexican Poll Contender Peña Nieto Falters at Book Event. 6 December 2011. [online] Accessed on30 August 2016from www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-16044216
3. Bull, Peter
   1994 “On Identifying Questions, Replies, and Non-replies in Political Interviews.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology13 (2): 115–131. doi: 10.1177/0261927X94132002
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94132002 [Google Scholar]
4. Bull, Peter , and Kate Mayer
   1993 “How Not to Answer Questions in Political Interviews”. Political Psychology14 (4): 651–666. doi: 10.2307/3791379
   https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
5. Clayman, Steven E
   1988 “Displaying Neutrality in Television News Interviews.” Social Problems35 (4): 474–492. doi: 10.2307/800598
   https://doi.org/10.2307/800598 [Google Scholar]
6. Clayman, Steven E
   1992 “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News Interview Discourse.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage , 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Clayman, Steven E
   2001 “Answers and Evasions.” Language and Society30 (3): 403–442.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Clayman, Steven E. , and John Heritage
   2002 The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
9. Clementson, David E
   2015 “Why Do We Think Politicians Are So Evasive? Insight From Theories of Equivocation and Deception, with a Content Analysis of U.S. Presidential Debates, 1996–2012.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology35 (3): 247–267. doi: 10.1177/0261927X15600732
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15600732 [Google Scholar]
10. Drew, Paul , and John Heritage
    1992 Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Garibay Kintana, Ángel M
    1964 La Literatura de los Aztecas. Mexico, DF: Joaquín Mortiz.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Goodwin, Charles , and Marjorie H. Goodwin
    1987 “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” IPRA Papers in Pragmatics1 (1): 1–54. doi: 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
13. Harris, Sandra
    1991 “Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews.” InBroadcast Talk, ed. by Paddy Scannell , 76–99. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Heritage, John
    2012 “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 30–57. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
15. Jefferson, Gail
    1990 “List Construction as a Task and Resource.” InInteraction Competence, ed. by George Psathas , 63–93. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcription Conventions.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 14–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125 [Google Scholar]
17. Paz, Octavio
    1989 [1950] El Laberinto de la Soledad [The Labyrinth of Solitude]. Mexico, DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Actions, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review68: 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
20. Sacks, Harvey
    1987 “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button and John R.E. Lee , 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Sacks, Harvey
    1992 Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Sacks, Harvey , and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 15–21. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Schegloff, Emanuel. A
    1996 “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-interaction: A Partial Sketch of Systematic.” InStudies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox , 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
24. Schegloff, Emanuel. A
    2007 Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A Prime in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
25. Vázquez Carranza, Ariel
    2013 “Responding and Clarifying: An Analysis of pues as a Sequential Marker in Mexican Spanish Talk-in-interactions.” Spanish in Context10 (2): 284–309. doi: 10.1075/sic.10.2.05vaz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.10.2.05vaz [Google Scholar]
26. Vázquez Carranza, Ariel
    2014 Sequential Markers in Mexican Spanish Talk: A Conversation Analytic Study. PhD Thesis. University of Essex.
    [Google Scholar]