Social identity and procedural consequentiality in welfare interviews

References

Antaki, Charles & Widdicombe, Sue. 1998. Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In Charles Antaki & Sue Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in talk, 1–14. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446216958.n1Search in Google Scholar

Arminen, Ilkka. 2000. On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction. Discourse & Society 11(4). 435–458.10.1177/0957926500011004001Search in Google Scholar

Arminen, Ilkka. 2009. On comparative methodology in studies of social interaction. In Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso & Jan Lindström (eds.), Talk in Interaction. Comparative Dimensions, 48–69. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society (SKS).Search in Google Scholar

Button, Graham. 1992. Answers as interactional products: two sequential practices used in job interviews. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, 212–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul & John Heritage. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, Derek. 1998. The relevant thing about her: Social identity categories in use. In Charles Antaki & Sue Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in talk, 15–33. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 14–38. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195124897.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Gill, Virginia Teas & Felicia Roberts. 2013. Conversation analysis in medicine. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 1st edn, 575–592. Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781118325001.ch28Search in Google Scholar

Gumperz, John J. 1992. Interviewing in intercultural situations. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, 302–328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hakulinen, Auli. 2001a. On some uses of the discourse particle kyl(lä) in Finnish conversation. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 171–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/sidag.10.09hakSearch in Google Scholar

Hakulinen, Auli. 2001b. Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes-no questions. Pragmatics 11(1). 1–15.10.1075/prag.11.1.01hakSearch in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2005. Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In Robert Sanders & Kristine Fitch (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 103–147. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & David Greatbatch. 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In Deidre Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, 93–137. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 1994. Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23(1). 1–29.10.1017/S0047404500017656Search in Google Scholar

Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 2000. Interaction and the standardized survey interview. The living questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511489457Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar

Lavin, Danielle & Douglas W. Maynard. 2002. Standardization vs. Rapport: How interviewers handle the laughter of respondents during telephone surveys. In Douglas W. Maynard, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Nora Cate Schaeffer & Johannes van der Zouwen (eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge. Interaction and practice in the survey interview, 335–364. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Action Formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 1st edn, 103–130. Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781118325001.ch6Search in Google Scholar

Maynard, Douglas W. 2013. Everyone and no one to turn to: Intellectual roots and contexts for conversation analysis. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 1st edn, 11–31. Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781118325001.ch2Search in Google Scholar

Maynard, Douglas W. & Nora Cate Schaeffer. 2006. Standardization-in-interaction: The survey interview. In Paul Drew, Geoffrey Raymond & Darin Weinberg (eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods. London: SAGE.10.4135/9781849209991.n2Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 1st edn, 32–56. Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781118325001.ch3Search in Google Scholar

Olaison, Anna & Elisabet Cedersund. 2006. Assessment for home care: Negotiating solutions for individual needs. Journal of Aging Studies 20. 367–380.10.1016/j.jaging.2005.11.004Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita & John Heritage. 2013. Preference. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 1st edn, 210–228. Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.10.1002/9781118325001.ch11Search in Google Scholar

Raevaara, Liisa. 2001. Kysymisestä ja vastaamisesta institutionaalisena toimintana. [on asking questions and answering as an institutional activity.] In Mia Halonen & Sara Routarinne (eds.), Keskustelunanalyysin näkymiä. Kieli 13, 47–69. Helsinki: Publications of the Department of Finnish language, University of Helsinki.Search in Google Scholar

Sarangi, Srikant. 2003. Institutional, professional, and lifeworld frames in interview talk. In Harry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell & Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.), Analyzing race talk. Multidisciplinary perspectives on the research interview, 64–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511489792.006Search in Google Scholar

Sarangi, Srikant. 2010. Practising discourse analysis in healthcare settings. In Ivy Bourgeault, Robert Dingwall & Raymond De Vries (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research, 397–416. London: SAGE.10.4135/9781446268247.n21Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthopologist 70(6). 1075–1095.10.1515/9783110880434-006Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. On talk and its institutional occasions. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, 101–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2002. Survey interviews as talk-in-interaction. In Douglas W. Maynard, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Nora Cate Schaeffer & Johannes van der Zouwen (eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge. Interaction and practice in the survey interview, 151–157. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2009. One perspective on conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis. Comparative perspectives, 357–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511635670.013Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closing. Semiotica 8(4). 289–327.10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289Search in Google Scholar

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001a. Responding in conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.70Search in Google Scholar

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001b. Simple answers to polar questions. The case of Finnish. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics, 405–431. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.10.18sorSearch in Google Scholar

Suchman, Lucy & Brigitte Jordan. 1990. Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85(409). 232–241.10.1080/01621459.1990.10475331Search in Google Scholar

Tainio, Liisa. 2002. Negotiating gender identities and sexual agency in elderly couples’ talk. In Paul McIlvenny (ed.), Talking gender and sexuality, 181–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.94.08taiSearch in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1987. Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language 63(3). 574–605.10.1017/CBO9780511618987.004Search in Google Scholar