The DOI matches its Crossref record.
2 On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Wide-focus questions are used with preference for contiguity in natural talk.
“and are used with preference for contiguity in natural talk [25].”
From Field evaluation with cognitively-impaired older adults of attention management in the Embodied Conversational Agent Louise (2016) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
What Makes a Good Conversation?: Challenges in Designing Truly Conversational Agents
Clark, L., Pantidi, N., Cooney, O., Doyle, P., Garaialde, D., Edwards, J., Spillane, B., Gilmartin, E., Murad, C., Munteanu, C., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300705 · Cited by 461
Wargnier, P., Carletti, G., Laurent-Corniquet, Y., Benveniste, S., Jouvelot, P., & Rigaud, A.-S. (2016) · 2016 IEEE International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH) · doi:10.1109/segah.2016.7586282 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Sacks, H.
- Corresponding author
- Sacks, Harvey
- Venue
- Talk and Social Organisation
- Publisher
- Multilingual Matters
- Published
- 1987-12-31
- Pages
- 54-69
- OpenAlex
- W4376475404
- Cited by
- 861
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 34.41
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Multilingual Matters eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Keywords
- agreement, contiguity, sequence preference, conversation, discourse structure, turn-taking
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
