The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis
Abstract
In a period given to emphasizing diversity among humans, we would do well to explore diversity among forms of discourse and among forms of talk-in-interaction in particular. Among the speech-exchange systems, ordinary conversation has been claimed to be distinctive and fundamental, but questions have been raised about both claims. The resources for discriminating among speech-exchange systems are located in such generic organizations of practice as turn-taking, sequence organization, the organization of repair and the overall structural organization of episodes of interaction. I try to show that `conversation' as a distinctive speech-exchange system is real and is not only a residual category, and that it is to be understood as the `basic' speech-exchange system, in part by reference to the distinctive turn-taking organization (among others) through which it is implemented. The `motivation' for having developed a formal account of this turn-taking organization is recounted, and that formal account is defended for its usability in the analytic explication of singular, contexted episodes of talk. The remainder of the article is given over to such an exemplary account - an examination of an episode of interaction during a testing session between a man whose brain hemispheres had been surgically separated and a researcher.
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
Self-citationWEST, C., & ZIMMERMAN, D. H. (1987) · Gender & Society · doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002 · Cited by 8,954
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986) · Cited by 6,708
Sacks, H. (1995) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781444328301 · Cited by 5,169
Levinson, S. C. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813313 · Cited by 5,137
(1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,644
(1985) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868 · Cited by 4,133
Goodwin, C. (1994) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 · Cited by 3,117
Schiffrin, D. (1987) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511611841 · Cited by 2,810
You just don't understand : women and men in conversation
Tannen, D. (1992) · Cited by 2,589
Cited by
Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088705qp045oa · Cited by 823
Schegloff's Texts' as `Billig's Data': A Critical Reply
SCHEGLOFF, E. A. (1999) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/0957926599010004006 · Cited by 279
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- SCHEGLOFF, E. A.
- Venue
- Discourse Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 405-435
- ISSN
- 1461-4456 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7080
- OpenAlex
- W2102780352
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 68
- FWCI
- 59.30
- 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: Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1461445699001004002
- The paper
- SCHEGLOFF, E. A. (1999). Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis. Discourse Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001004002
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.