Person Reference and a Preference for Association in Emergency Calls

References

• Brown, P. (2007). Principles of person reference in Tzeltal conversation. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction (pp. 172–202). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.009
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trail for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., & Stokoe, E. (2007). Self-help in calls for help with problem neighbors. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 40(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701331208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, R., & Housley, W. (2015). Advances in membership categorisation analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, A. C., & Parmer, P. A. (1999). Misplaced mistrust: The collaborative construction of doubt in 911 emergency calls. Symbolic Interaction, 22(4), 297–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6086(00)87399-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hanks, W. F. (2007). Person reference in Yucatec Maya conversation. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction (pp. 149–171). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.008
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). Transcribing for social research. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920460
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kevoe-Feldman, H. (2019). Inside the Emergency service call-center: Reviewing Thirty years of language and social interaction research. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1631038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the Heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems, 52(4), 477–498. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambie, I. (2018). Every 4 minutes: A discussion paper on preventing family violence in New Zealand (pp. 65). Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (Ed.). (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). John Bejamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.12ler
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse. (2017). New Zealand police definitions. University of Auckland. https://nzfvc.org.nz/nz-police-definitions
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A., Heritage, J. (2012). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 210–228). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch11
   Google Scholar
• Rafaely, D., & Whitehead, K. A. (2020). Extraordinary emergencies: Reproducing moral discourses of the child in institutional interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 11(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17001.raf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1972a). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1972b). On the Analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 325–345). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (G. Jefferson, Ed.) Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75–119). The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics, and B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–486). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007a). Sequence Organisation in Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007b). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007c). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 433–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607079162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2007). Person reference in interaction. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp. 1–20). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E., & Richardson, E. (2023). Asking for help without asking for help: How victims request and police offer assistance in cases of domestic violence when perpetrators are potentially co-present. Discourse Studies, 25(3), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231157293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tegler, H., Fernqvist, S., & Flinkfeldt, M. (2023). Challenges in recognizing and facilitating disclosures of intimate partner violence in customer service calls about maintenance support. Discourse Studies, 25(5), 641–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456221150140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennent, E., & Weatherall, A. (2019). Disclosing violence in calls for help. Gender and Language, 13(2), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.35106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weatherall, A., & Tennent, E. (2020). “I don’t have an address”: Housing instability and domestic violence in help-seeking calls to a support service. Feminism & Psychology, 095935352096397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353520963977
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whalen, M. R., & Zimmerman, D. (1990). Describing trouble: Practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police. Language in Society, 19(4), 465–492. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead, K. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). When are persons ‘white’?: On some practical asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse & Society, 20(5), 613–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509106413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead, K. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2020). Referring to somebody: Generic person reference as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 161, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Talk and its occassion: The case of calling the police. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 210–228). Georgetown University. Press.
   Google Scholar