The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contingency and Units in Interaction
Abstract
Starting with Houtkoop and Mazeland’s (1985) study of discourse units, and touching upon recent studies aimed at detailing unit projection in interaction, this article argues that the drive toward abstract and discrete models for units and unit projection is potentially misleading. While it has been established that to engage in talk-in-interaction, as it unfolds in real time, participants rely on projectable units (Sacks et al., 1974, 1978), research aimed at defining units unintentionally backgrounds the contingency inherent in interaction. A central function of language for collaborative action is the management of simultaneously unfolding facets of action, sound production, gesture, and grammar – produced by multiple participants. This article draws upon classic and current data analyses foregrounding linguistic/interactional practices designed to manage local contingencies. It is argued that attention to participants’ regular methods for managing and exploiting contingencies be incorporated from the outset in our descriptions of language and the nature of unit building in interaction.
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
Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication
Kantowitz, B., & Suchman, L. A. (1990) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423221 · Cited by 5,299
SCHEGLOFF, E. A., & SACKS, H. (1973) · Semiotica · doi:10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 · Cited by 4,589
(1985) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868 · Cited by 4,133
Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular
Burling, R., & Labov, W. (1975) · Language · doi:10.2307/412879 · Cited by 3,019
Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes
Pomerantz, A. (1985) · Structures of Social Action · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868.008 · Cited by 2,905
Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology
Psathas, G. (1979) · Human Studies · Cited by 2,349
Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers
Goodwin, C. (1981) · Cited by 2,305
Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking
(1989) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511611810 · Cited by 1,774
Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction
Schegloff, E. A. (1996) · Interaction and Grammar · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511620874.002 · Cited by 1,615
Cited by
Mondada, L. (2006) · Discourse Studies · doi:10.1177/1461445606059561 · Cited by 317
Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching
Lee, Y.-A. (2007) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.004 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Ford, C. E.
- Venue
- Discourse Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-52
- ISSN
- 1461-4456 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7080
- OpenAlex
- W2044347089
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 45.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Contingency and Units in Interaction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1461445604039438
- The paper
- Ford, C. E. (2004). Contingency and Units in Interaction. Discourse Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039438
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.