The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A preference for progressivity in interaction
Open accessAbstract
This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party interaction, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organization is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals an observable preference for progressivity in interaction.Thank you to Nick Enfield, Steve Levinson and Manny Schegloff for useful discussions about the phenomena discussed in this article, and to John Heritage for his careful reading and comments on earlier drafts. Portions of this article were presented at the 2002 Western States Communication Association convention, Long Beach, California, and at the Workshop on Feedback in Interaction at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, in February 2004.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350
The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977) · Language · doi:10.2307/413107 · Cited by 5,150
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 10.2307/2096221 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02880.x · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02880.x
- 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00410.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00040-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/1519752 · doi:10.2307/1519752 · Paper page
- 10.1017/S004740450332202X · DOI · Paper page
- Goodwin, 1986, Semiotica, 62, 51, 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.29 · DOI · Paper page
- Schegloff, 1973, Semiotica, 8, 289, 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0903616106 · Cited by 1,533
Self-citationResponses to Wh -Questions in English Conversation
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2010) · Research on Language and Social Interaction · doi:10.1080/08351811003751680 · Cited by 244
(2017) · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998298 · Cited by 131
What “What?” Tells Us About How Conversationalists Manage Intersubjectivity
Robinson, J. D. (2014) · Research on Language and Social Interaction · doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.900214 · Cited by 94
Self-citationEnfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J. (2017) · doi:10.1017/9781139025928 · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- STIVERS, T., & ROBINSON, J. D.
- Venue
- Language in Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2006-05-02
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 03
- ISSN
- 0047-4045 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8013
- OpenAlex
- W2135034724
- Cited by
- 664
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 46.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A preference for progressivity in interaction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0047404506060179
- The paper
- STIVERS, T., & ROBINSON, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404506060179
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.