No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Linguistic Reference in the Negotiation of Identity and Action: Revisiting the T/V Distinction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2026
Abstract
The present study uses naturally occurring conversational data from various dialects of Spanish to examine the role of second-person (T/V) reference forms in the accomplishment of social action in interaction. I illustrate how the turn-by-turn progression of talk can occasion shifts in the linguistic means through which speakers refer to their hearers, an interactional commonality between dialects (and possibly languages) that are otherwise pronominally dissimilar. These shifts contribute to the action of an utterance by mobilizing the semantic meaning of a pronominal form in order to recalibrate who the interactants project they are, and who they project they are to one another—not in general, but rather at that particular moment in the ongoing interaction. The analysis posits a distinction between identity status and identity stance to argue in favor of a more microlevel conceptualization of identities and contexts as emergent features of moment-by moment discourse, co-constructed through the deployment of grammatical structure.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2016 Linguistic Society of America
References
Antaki, Charles. 2012. Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies 14. 531–47. DOI: 10.1177/1461445612454074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Kent, Alexandra. 2012. Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 876–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Heritage, John (eds.) 1984. Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Luzio, Aldo di (eds.) 1992. The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benavides, Carlos. 2003. La distribución del voseo en Hispanoamérica. Hispania 86. 612–23. DOI: 10.2307/20062914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blas-Arroyo, José, Luis, . 1994. De nuevo sobre el poder y la solidaridad: Apuntes para un análisis interaccional de la alternancia tú/usted. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 42. 385–414. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40299610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blythe, Joe. 2013. Preference organization driving structuration: Evidence from Australian Aboriginal interaction for pragmatically motivated grammaticalization. Language 89. 883–919. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina В. 2010. ‘Articulating the unsaid’ via and-prefaced formulations of others'talk. Discourse Studies 12. 5–32. DOI: 10.1177/1461445609346770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina В. 2016. A simple da? Affirming responses to polar questions in Russian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 100. 40–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972a. A look at equations and cleft sentences. Studies for Einar Haugen: Presented by friends and colleagues, ed. by Firchow, Evelyn Scherabon, Grimstad, Kaaren, Hasselmo, Nils, and O’Neil, Wayne A., 96–114. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen С.. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Gilman, Albert. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. Style in language, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., 253–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Buesa Oliver, Tomás, and Flórez, Luis. 1954. El atlas lingüístico-etnográfico de Colombia (ALEC). Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Calderón Campos, Miguel, and Morales, Francisca Medina. 2010. Historia y situación actual de los pronombres de tratamiento en el español peninsular. In Hummel et al., 195–222.Google Scholar
Callejas, Dorothea. 1983. Formas de tratamiento en el marco de la familia santiaguera. Santiago: Revista de la Universidad de Oriente 51. 97–115.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2010. Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse and Communication 4. 161–83. DOI: 10.1177/1750481310364330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and Heritage, John. 2014. Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. Requesting in social interaction, ed. by Drew, Paul and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S., and Drew, Paul. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41. 1–25. DOI: 10.1080/08351810802028613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Nebrija, Antonio. 1492. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Asociación Cultural Antonio de Nebrija. Online: http://www.antoniodenebrija.org/indice.html.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Heritage, John (eds.) 1992. Talk at work: Language use in institutional and work-place settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro, and Goodwin, Charles (eds.) 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2003. Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language 79. 82–117. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2003.0075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2007. Meanings of the unmarked: How ‘default’ person reference does more than just refer. In Enfield & Stivers, 97–120.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Stivers, Tanya (eds.) 2007. Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz. 1999. Sistemas pronominales de tratamiento usados en el mundo hispánico. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 1: Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras, ed. by Barreto, Violeta Demonte and Bosque, Ignacio, 1399–1426. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1966. Structural implications of Russian pronominal usage. Sociolinguistics, ed. by Bright, William, 214–53. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nikolas; and Coupland, Justine. 1991. Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. Contexts of accommodation, ed. by Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine, and Coupland, Nikolas, 1–68. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1984. Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In Atkinson & Heritage, 225–46.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics. 1. 1–54. DOI: 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. by Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, 147–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982a. Discourse strategies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982b. Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru. 2010. Claiming of epistemic primacy: Fo-marked assessments in Japanese. The morality of knowledge in conversation, ed. by Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Loreza, and Steensig, Jakob, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Bolden, Galina В.. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. by Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, 57–76. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, Wilkinson, Sue; and Shaw, Rebecca. 2012. Repairing self- and recipient reference. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. 175–90. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2012.673914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2005. Conversation analysis and institutional talk. Handbook of language and social interaction, ed. by Fitch, Kristine L. and Sanders, Robert E., 103–47. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2011. Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. The morality of knowledge in conversation, ed. by Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, and Steensig, Jakob, 159–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012a. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. 30–52. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012b. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. 1–29. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2013. Epistemics in conversation. The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. by Sidnell, Jack and Stivers, Tanya, 370–94. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Clayman, Steven E.. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Drew, Paul. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew & Heritage, 3–65.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Raymond, Geoffrey. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68. 15–38. DOI: 10.1177/019027250506800103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Raymond, Geoffrey. 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, ed. by de Ruiter, Jan P., 179–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Wu, Ruey-Jiuan. 2017. Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. Enabling human conduct: Naturalistic studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. by Lerner, Gene H., Raymond, Geoffrey, and Heritage, John. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Hummel, Martin, Klug, Bettina; and Laslop, María Eugenia Vázquez (eds.) 2010. Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1964. Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist 66. 1–34. DOI: 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaramillo, June A. 1996. Tú and usted: Address etiquette in the Mexican American family. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 18. 522–32. DOI: 10.1177/07399863960184006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1974. Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 2. 181–99. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500004334.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1988. On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35. 418–41. DOI: 10.2307/800595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. by Lerner, Gene H., 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Rules for ritual insults. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular, 297–353. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hee. 2015. Two forms of affirmative responses to polar questions. Discourse Processes 52. 21–46. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.899001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H., and Kitzinger, Celia. 2007. Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies 9. 526–57. DOI: 10.1177/1461445607079165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2007. The TalkBank project. Creating and digitizing language corpora: Synchronic databases, vol. 1, ed. by Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P., and Moisl, Hermann L., 163–80. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronisław. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. The meaning of meaning, ed. by Ogden, Charles K. and Richards, I. A., 296–336. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas. 2003. Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 1996. Clefts, particles and word order in languages of Europe. Language Sciences 18. 111–25. DOI: 10.1016/0388-0001(96)00010-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montes Giraldo, José, Joaquín, . 1982. El español de Colombia: Propuesta de clasificación dialectal. Thesaurus 32. 23–92. Online: http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/thesaurus/pdf/37/TH_37_001_023_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Moser, Karolin. 2010. Las formas de tratamiento verbales-pronominales en Guatemala, El Salvador, Panamá (y Costa Rica): Hacia una nueva sistematización en la periferia centroamericana. In Hummel et al., 271–91.Google Scholar
Murillo, Jorge. 2003. La cortesía verbal en Costa Rica: Percepciones de los hablantes sobre la (des)cortesía en puestos de atención al público. Pragmática sociocultural: Estudios sobre el discurso de cortesía en español, ed. by Bravo, Diana and Briz, Antonio, 181–96. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2007. The interactional meanings of quasi-pronouns in Korean conversation. In Enfield & Stivers, 203–25.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2010. Invoking categories through co-present person reference: The case of Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1219–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orozco, Leonor. 2006. No me hable de tú despectivo, hábleme de tú correcto. Líderes lingüísticos, ed. by Butragueño, Pedro Martín, 131–58. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Ostermann, Ana Cristina. 2003. Localizing power and solidarity: Pronoun alternation at an all-female police station and a feminist crisis intervention center in Brazil. Language in Society 32. 351–81. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404503323036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Páez Urdaneta, Iraset. 1981. Historia y geografía hispanoamericana del voseo. Caracas: Casa de Bello.Google Scholar
Parodi, Claudia. 2003. Contacto de dialectos del español en Los Ángeles. Ensayos de lengua y pedagogía, ed. by Perissinotto, Giorgio, 23–38. Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.Google Scholar
Parodi, Claudia. 2004. Contacto de dialectos en Los Ángeles: Español chicano y español salvadoreño. VII Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, ed. by Leyva, María del Carmen Morúa, and Ciscomani, Rosa María Ortiz, 277–93. Hermosillo: Editorial UniSon.Google Scholar
Parodi, Claudia. 2009. Normatividad y diglosia en Los Ángeles: Un modelo de contacto lingüístico. Normatividad y uso lingüístico, ed. by Airoldi, Fulvia Colombo and Arrechalde, María Ángeles Soler, 160–83. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Parodi, Claudia. 2011. El otro México: Español chicano, koineización y diglosia en Los Ángeles, California. Realismo en el análisis de corpus orales: Primer coloquio de cambio y variación lingüística, ed. by Villanueva, Rebeca Barriga and Butragueño, Pedro Martín, 217–43. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Placencia, María Elena. 2010. El estudio de formas de tratamiento en Colombia y Ecuador. In Hummel et al., 341–73.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita Μ. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage, 57–101.Google Scholar
Quesada Pacheco, Miguel A. 1996. El español de América Central. Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de América, ed. by Alvar, Manuel, 101–15. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2012a. Generational divisions: Dialect divergence in a Los Angeles-Salvadoran household. Hispanic Research Journal 13. 297–316. DOI: 10.1179/1468273712Z.00000000017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2012b. Reallocation of pronouns through contact: In-the-moment identity construction amongst Southern California Salvadorans. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16. 669–90. DOI: 10.1111/josl.12001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2015. Questions and responses in Spanish monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual conversation. Language & Communication 42. 50–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2016. Reconceptualizing identity and context in the deployment of forms of address. Forms of address in the Spanish of the Americas, ed. by Rivera-Mills, Susana and Moyna, María Irene, 263–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2017a. Bueno-, pues-, and bueno-pues-prefacing in Spanish conversation. Turn-initial particles across languages, ed. by Heritage, John and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2017b. Linguistic negotiations on the radio in Los Angeles. Spanish in the global city, ed. by Lynch, Andrew. London: Routledge, to appear.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and Heritage, John. 2006. The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35. 677–705. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404506060325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1974. An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, ed. by Bauman, Richard and Sherzer, Joel, 337–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1987 [1973]. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. Talk and social organisation, ed. by Button, Graham and Lee, John R. E., 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Schegloff, Emanuel A.. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. by Psathas, George, 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel a.; and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50. 696–735. DOI: 10.2307/412243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanromán Vilas, Begoña. 2010. El uso de tú y usted en los jóvenes de Cádiz. In Hummel et al., 735–53.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70. 1075–95. DOI: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. The micro-macro link, ed. by Alexander, Jeffrey C., Giesen, Bernhard, Münch, Richard, and Smelser, Neil J., 207–34. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. Reflections on talk and social structure. Talk and social structure, ed. by Boden, Deirdre and Zimmerman, Don H., 44–70. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. On talk and its institutional occasions. In Drew & Heritage, 101–34.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. Studies in anaphora, ed. by Fox, Barbara, 437–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007a. Conveying who you are: The presentation of self, strictly speaking. In Enfield & Stivers, 123–48.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007b. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007c. A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 462–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail; and Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53. 361–82. DOI: 10.2307/413107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreffler, S. L. 1994. Second-person singular pronoun options in the speech of Salvadorans in Houston, Texas. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 13. 101–19.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. 1993. Diferenciación dialectal por medio de pronombres: Una comparación del uso de tú y usted en España y México. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 41. 127–49. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40299212.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5. 1–23. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500006837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2007. ‘Look’-prefaced turns in first and second position: Launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies 9. 387–408. DOI: 10.1177/1461445607076204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solé, Yolanda R. 1970. Correlaciones socio-culturales del uso de tú/vos y usted en la Argentina, Perú y Puerto Rico. Thesaurus 25. 161–95. Online: http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/thesaurus/pdf/25/TH_25_002_001_1.pdf.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Peräkylä, Anssi. 2012. Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. 297–321. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Peräkylä, Anssi. 2014. Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society 43. 185–207. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404514000037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2004. ‘No no no’ and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research 30. 260–93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38. 131–58. DOI: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. Alternative recognitionals in initial references to persons. In Enfield & Stivers, 73–96.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47. 31–57. DOI: 10.1080/08351810701691123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, Alene K. 2004 [1976]. Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. by Lerner, Gene H., 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Torrejón, Alfredo. 1986. Acerca del voseo culto en Chile. Hispania 69. 677–83. DOI: 10.2307/342781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 1997. Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30. 315–43. DOI: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3004_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uber, Diane Ringer. 1985. The dual function of usted: Forms of address in Bogotá, Colombia. Hispania 68. 388–92. DOI: 10.2307/342216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas, D., Alonso, Carlos. 1974. El uso de los pronombres ‘vos’ y ‘usted’ en Costa Rica. Revista de Ciencias Sociales (Universidad de Costa Rica) 8. 7–30.Google Scholar
Vázquez Laslop, María Eugenia, and Orozco, Leonor. 2010. Formas de tratamiento del español en México. In Hummel et al., 247–70.Google Scholar
Wakin, Michelle, and Zimmerman, Don. 1999. Reduction and specialization in emergency and directory assistance calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32. 409–37. DOI: 10.1207/S15327973rls3204_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidner, Matylda. 2012. On the organization of Polish doctor-patient communication: Practices for building questions, negotiating knowledge, and recommending treatment. Antwerp: University of Antwerp dissertation.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1984. Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police. Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics), ed. by Schiffrin, Deborah, 210–28. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1992a. Achieving context: Openings in emergency calls. Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology, ed. by Watson, Graham and Seiler, Robert M., 35–51. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1992b. The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In Drew & Heritage, 418–69.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1998. Identity, context and interaction. Identities in talk, ed. by Antaki, Charles and Widdicombe, Sue, 87–106. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- 48
- Cited by