The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Finding "Face" in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction
Abstract
This article connects the concept of face to interactionally characterizable locations in conversation and to a specific speaking practice used there. I consider the relevance of the self/other distinction for the organization of some action sequences in order to locate face concerns in interactional terms. In conversation, next speakers ordinarily begin speaking at or near a place where the current speaker could be finished. Occasionally, however, participants do not wait for the current speaker to finish, but complete the current turn themselves. One systematic basis for this relaxation of turn-taking practices is found in a preference organization for alternative actions in conversation. The anticipatory completion of speaking turn by another speaker can be used to preempt an emerging dispreferred action and change it into the alternative preferred action. This preference structure includes a preference for agreement over disagreement, a preference for self-correction over other-correction, and a preference far offers over requests. A recipient's anticipatory completion of an ongoing speaking turn is one conversational practice that makes possible a preference relationship between asymmetrical (i.e., differently valued) action types, and furnishes a basis for the recognizability offace concerns.
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
Cited by
Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008) · Research on Language and Social Interaction · doi:10.1080/08351810802028613 · Cited by 802
An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory
Arundale, R. B. (2022) · Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) · doi:10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru · Cited by 326
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
Sterie, A.-C., Weber, O., Jox, R. J., & Rubli Truchard, E. (2022) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.07.042 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Lerner, G. H.
- Venue
- Social Psychology Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 303
- ISSN
- 0190-2725 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2325523317
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.72
- 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: Finding "Face" in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2787073
- The paper
- Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding "Face" in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073
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.