Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 664

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 access
STIVERS, TANYA, ROBINSON, JEFFREY D.·2006·Language in Society

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0047404506060179

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. 10.2307/2096221 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02880.x · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02880.x
  3. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00410.x · DOI
  4. 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00040-6 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.2307/1519752 · doi:10.2307/1519752 · Paper page
  6. 10.1017/S004740450332202X · DOI · Paper page
  7. Goodwin, 1986, Semiotica, 62, 51, 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.29 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Schegloff, 1973, Semiotica, 8, 289, 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 664

Metadata

Authors
STIVERS, T., & ROBINSON, J. D.
Venue
Language in Society
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.