1. Let’s keep it real
and
other business
conversations
Lynda Chubak | TESL Toronto | May 25, 2013
Instructor: Toronto District School Board | University of Toronto | Fair Tide Communications
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
1

2. What’s coming up
• Examine an overview of
social talk at work
• Look at new Canadian
research
• Discuss applications to
teaching and learning
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
2

3. MA Thesis, SLA
“I feel like a bag lady”: Personal interstices, self-disclosures
and empathetic affiliation during workplace meetings.
University of Toronto, November, 2012
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
3

4. Un/under-employment factors
• Foreign credentials not recognized
• Limited or no Canadian experience
• Insufficient language skills
(Gilmore, 2009, Statistics Canada, 2009, Galarneau & Morisette, 2004, 2008
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
4

5. Understanding interaction
“In order to understand the relationship
between interaction and the process of
language learning, it is vital to understand how
the interaction is organized.”
Seedhouse, 2005 (p.172)
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
5

6. Social talk
a.k.a.
Institutional talk
a.k.a.
off-task
relational
transactional
minimally informative
mundane/ordinary
everyday
non-restricted
small talk
on-task
maximally informative
business
work-oriented
restricted
gossip
humour
greetings/closings
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
6

7. Early days of ‘small’ talk
1923
Malinowski
phatic communion
1960
Jakobson
worthy of study
1975
Laver
indexical of social
roles and attitudes
1984
Sacks
everyday
conversation
becomes a focus
Phatic Communion
Phaticity
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
7

8. On closer examination…
• Creates co-membership (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005)
• Builds interpersonal equity (Mirivel & Tracy, 2005)
• Employed as a people management tool (Tracy &
Naughton, 2000)
• Used strategically (Boyle, 2000)
• Self-perception of abilities mixed (Cunningham, 2006)
• Develops cohesiveness (Coupland, 2000)
• Fundamental to on-the-job integration (Holmes, 2005a)
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
8

9. From idealized to authentic
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
9

10. social talk
institutional talk
a.k.a.
off-task
relational
a.k.a.
on-task
transactional
minimally informative
maximally informative
mundane/ordinary
business
everyday
work-oriented
non-restricted
restricted
small talk
gossip
humour
greetings/closings
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
10

11. Blurring the boundaries
• Introduced fluidly during driving lessons and at
the hair salon (McCarthy, 2000).
• Used to offset uncomfortable intrusions during
doctor-patient encounters (Maynard & Hudak,
2008, Walsh, 2007).
• Pursued concurrently, with rules of
engagement (Koester, 2004).
• Categorized by whether institutional or
personal roles are foregrounded (Jaworski,
2000, Holmes, 2000b).
• Applied as a linguistic tool, not necessarily
determined by topic (Coupland & YlanneMcEwen, 2000).
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
11

12. Defining a new term
Interstices
On the web
In science
In art
Laurie Anderson
In architecture
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
12

13. Interstices in architecture
“interstices where human feelings
may cling and overgrow it like ivy”
Nathanial Hawthorne, 1876
Campanile di Giotto, Florence, Italy
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
13

14. Personal Interstice*
a.k.a
social talk
pop up*
*coined by Lynda Chubak
These two new terms…
• underscore the emergence
of ordinary conversation
within ongoing
institutional talk.
• highlight placement as an
interactional feature.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
14

15. Social talk and institutional culture
• Local conventions are expected (Tarone, 2005).
• Topics are highly context-specific
(Subramanian, 2007; Coupland, 2003).
• Organizational culture becomes apparent.
Off-task anecdotes foster team identity
(Holmes, 2006, Mirivel & Tracy, 2005).
• Social distance is negotiated (Coupland, 2000).
• Subterranean power and institutional
authority is constructed (Holmes & Stubbe,
2003; Holmes, 2006).
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
15

16. Social talk and institutional culture
Power
Excerpt 1 construction
Context:
Tom enters Greg’s (his boss) office to make a
request for a day off.
1
Tom:
can I just have a quick word
2
Greg:
yeah sure have a seat
3
Tom:
[sitting down] great weather eh
4
Greg:
mm
5
Tom:
yeah been a good week did you get away skiing at
the weekend
6
Greg:
yeah we did, now how can I help you
7
Tom:
I was just wondering if I could take Friday off and
make it a long weekend.
Excerpt from: Language in the Workplace, Holmes, 2006, Holmes & Stubbe, 2003
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
16

17. Difficulties and variations
• Transitioning from brief to extended exchanges
found to be difficult (Holmes, 2005a).
• Gender variations arise (Eggins and Slade,1997).
• Lack of variation in overlap and formulaic speech
acts present, both features common to native
speakers (Meierford, 2000).
• Variations between genres in use of modals,
hedges, intensifiers appear (Koester, 2005).
• Variation in communication skills is
connected to task type (Walsh, 2007).
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
17

18. Self-disclosure
“I look like a bag lady.”
“I ate way too much sugar.”
“I had a bunch of health issues.”
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
18

19. Self-disclosure
“the process of
making the self known
to other persons”
– (Jourard & Lasakow, 1958, p. 91)
Canadian psychologist
Sidney Jourard (1926-1974)
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
19

20. Self-disclosure features
• Hargie and Dickson (2004)
– Use of a self-referent (I, my, mine)
– Content dealing with facts or feelings
– Expression of one’s own experience or a reaction to
another’s
– Past, present or future being represented
– A number of possible functions
• Stokoe (2009), Antaki Barnes and Leudar (2005)
– “a social performance which must be brought off in
interaction” (p. 181).
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
20

21. Self-disclosure: situated
• Antaki et al (2005)
– something said “on one’s own behalf”,
something above and beyond what is
readily knowable
– presented as newsworthy
– understood as volunteered
• Stokoe (2009)
– position of response central to understanding action
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
21

22. Norm of reciprocity
A common social
phenomenon of giving or
feeling something that
corresponds to something
previously received.
Reciprocal sequence:
Anne: Hi Bob, how are you doing?
Bob: I’m fine thanks,
Bob: How are you?
Anne: Great thanks.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
22

23. Stories are multifunctional
• Entertaining
• Informative
• Sites of identity (re)construction (Holmes, 2005b)
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
23

24. Second stories
A form of reciprocity – a second
story that resembles the first.
Sacks observed “how finely the
second story picked up at least
one sense of the point of the
first” (1992, p. 765).
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
24

25. Conversation Analysis
“there is order at all points”
American sociologist
Harvey Sacks, 1935-1976
Conversation Analysis is the
study of recorded, naturally
occurring conversation or
talk-in-interaction.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
25

26. Conversation Analysis
John Heritage:
• The “dominant method for the sociological study of
interaction” (2009, p. 300).
• Used in anthropology, engineering, palliative care,
communications, linguistics, politics and law (2010).
• Practiced in an estimated half of the world’s
countries (2010).
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
26

27. Conversation Analysis
•
A conversation model hypothesis:
– A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974).
• The order of our everyday social interactions are what
conversation analysts seek to locate.
• Talk as action, not talk as language (Kitzinger, 2000).
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
27

28. Talk as Action
We are always “doing”.
• Doing being ordinary (Sacks, 1970/1984)
• Doing influence (Clifton, 2009)
• Doing avoidance (Markee, 2011)
• Doing gender (Kitzinger, 2009)
• Doing power (Ladegaard, 2011)
• Doing collegiality (Holmes, 2000b)
• Doing self-disclosure (Chubak, 2012)
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
28

29. Why that now?*
*Schegloff & Sacks, 1973
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
29

30. Ordinary
Institutional
Forms of institutional talk
are measured and examined
against the primordial form
of ordinary conversation
(Drew, 2005).
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
30

31. Canadian Workplace Research
Data collection summer and fall of 2011
– Marketing firm
~100 employees
– Institutional catering company
~60 employees
– Engineering firm
~30 employees
– 34 hours of audio | 69 individuals | 165 conversations
from 1 to 107 minutes
– 17 hours pre/post interviews | on-site
observations | publically available information
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
31

32. Unmotivated listening
Through unmotivated listening orderliness emerges.
“[T]he aspects of things that
are most important for us are
hidden because of their
simplicity and familiarity”.
Wittgenstein (1953/2009)
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
32

33. Developing a collection
Moving from one interactional practice
to a collection, “talk” must:
1. be recurrent
2. be specifically positioned within a
turn or sequence (or both), and
3. have some specific interpretation,
consequence, or set of consequences.
Heritage & Clayman, 2010
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
33

34. A potential collection…
Self-reference, self-disclosure personal interstices
87 turns-at-talk included these 3 features:
• the first person pronoun “I” (self-reference);
• personal information about self to another (self-disclosure);
• insertion into institutional talk (personal interstice).
21 were part one/part two of a reciprocal selfdisclosure a.k.a. second story sequence
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
34

35. Self-disclosure sampling
1st: “I don’t want to do this [have a baby] again.” Dianne
2nd:“I don’t want a newborn. I don’t want a teenager.” Rachel
1st: “I had a bunch of chocolate and I felt like shit.” Dianne
2nd: “I ate way too much sugar…I was so sick.” Jake
1st: “I got pretty sick when I came to Toronto.” Jake
2nd: “I mean I had a bunch of health issues.” Denise
Features: personal interstice, self-reference, self-disclosure, voluntarily offered, news
component, second incorporates features and forms of first.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
35

36. Participants:
Penny, Bookkeeper
Rachel, Director, School
Programs
Context:
Food Co.
20 minute meeting to
review accounting issues.
Food Co. Penny and Rachel
Example 3a/b
1
[O↑kay, well that’s good to know.
Pen
2
(1.1) ((paper rustling))
3
Pen
4
Rac
5
(Thanks very [much.)
[(But it’s still) screwing up elsewhere¿
(.)
6
Pen
(°°I kno:w°°)=
7
Rac
=I have a feeling that the report is right,
8
but where: we’re communicating is probably
9
where thuh (1.5) breakdown is. You look frozen.
10
(2.1)
11
Pen a Well I’m not bad except I look like a bag lady
12
cuz I’m [wearing
]hh=
[↑No: you do:n’t.]
13
Rac
14
Pen
15
Rac
16
Pen
[
17
Rac
[You look good:]
18
=[s(h)o
]ma(hhh)ny la(hh)yers •hh haha •hh haha
[hehaha ha]
he ha
] he•hhe thank yo(hh)u but.
(0.3)
19
Rac
I like it.
20
Pen
•h I feel kinda crazy [but hhe]hehhe but=
21
Rac
22
Pen
23
Rac
24
Pen
25
26
[hmhhm
=[I’m
]warm actually.
[(xxx)]
•hh usually- usually I feel- I-I am freezing
usually [•hheh h heh he
Rac b
]
]
[yeah >I know. People] are always>when
27
I dress like that<People are always like
28
are you freezing¿ I’m like<not anymore.
29
[(Like I)]
30
31
Pen
[hehe ha ]I was before when I was dress like a
nor(h)mal [per(h)son(h])hehe ha
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
32 Rac
[exactly.
]
36

37. Participants:
Frank, President
Sanjaya, Engineering Intern
Engineering Co. Frank and Sanjaya
Example 9a/b
Fra
Y’ever feel¿
20
San
Oh: yah
21
San
oh [yah.
22
Context:
Engineering Co.
20 minute meeting to
review site modifications.
19
Fra
23
San a Y’ah: (.) I’m- five uh: five s:::even
24
Fra
Five seven,
25
San
Five seven.
(.)
26
27
San
28
29
[yah:: (x) Y-yu are what five six five seven?
°Yah.
(1.5)
Fra
30
Wow.
(1.5)
31
San
‘n he’s what six f:↑our?
32
Fra
Six ↑six
33
San
Oh: man.
34
Fra
Six six.
35
San
It’s a foot(uh hu hu
36
37
(.)
Fra b (I’m a)five eleven in a good day.
38
(.)((papers shuffling))
39
>I’m lucky(if I’ve a xx that’s six eight).
40
[>(I’ve]looked for)] a good excuse.=
41
San
[huhu h]
42
Fra
=>Ever since I’ve started shavin my head I’m five
43
ten.< •h: Anyway. uhm: (0.3) So that’s pretty
44
well it for room D.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
37

38. Discussion:
Personal Interstices revisited
• Personal interstices are architecturally embedded
into institutional goal-oriented interactions.
• Hierarchical roles do not systematically influence
how these reciprocal sequences are either
initiated or closed.
• Returning to business talk is sometimes achieved
as a multi-step, co-constructed endeavour.
• Personal interstices do not necessarily have to be
relevant to on-going task performance.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
38

39. Discussion:
Norm of reciprocity and second stories revisited
• Key descriptors/features are retained, mirroring
another’s self and displaying empathetic
affiliation.
• “my mind is with you” (Sacks, 1992b, p.257)
• Second parts display agreement, display
understanding because:
I also don’t want a newborn | I also ate too much sugar
I also like the salt | I’m also not as tall as I say
I’ve also had health issues | I’m also cook from scratch
I also never click those things | I also dress in layers.
• Workplace camaraderie is possibly achieved
through these exchanges.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
39

40. Discussion
• Careful examination of personal interstices reveals how collegial
relationships are shaped by talk, and make the “seen but
unnoticed” (Clifton 2006, p. 206) visible.
• “These little exchanges are, then, the mundane sites in which
the grand, macrotheoretical themes about norms and values
and cultural capital are played out” (Schegloff, 1996b, p. 171).
• Language proficiency may require having equal access to
participating in these personal interstices, and access begins by
becoming aware that they exist.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
40

41. Research applications
This and other conversation
analysis-based research can:
1. Better inform instruction.
2. Provide access to authentic
conversation models.
3. Heighten awareness of
workplace social talk’s
pervasiveness and functions.
4. Demonstrate one way to show
empathy and build workplace
affiliation.
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
41

42. Over to you…
How can you see turning the findings
from these studies into teachables?
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
42

43. Thank you!
Contact information:
Email: Lynda.chubak@gmail.com
Twitter: @lyndachubak
LinkedIn: ca.linkedin.com/in/lyndachubak/
© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013
43

44. References
Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Self-disclosure as a situated interactional practice. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 44, 181-199.
Arminen, I. (2004). Second stories: The salience of interpersonal communication for mutual help in Alcoholics
Anonymous. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 319-347.
Atkinson, J.M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Part II. Preference organization. In J.M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Structures of Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 53-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (2005). Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics research. In K.
Bardovi-Harlig & B.S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 7-36).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clifton, J. (2006). A conversation analytical approach to business communication. Journal of Business
Communication, 43, 202-219.
Clifton, J. (2009). Beyond taxonomies of influence. “Doing” influence and making decisions in management team
meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 57-79.
Coupland, J. (2000). Introduction: Sociolinguistic perspectives on small talk. In. J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp.131). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Coupland, J. (2003). Small talk: Social functions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36, 1-6.
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., Henwood, K., & Wiemann, J. (1988). Elderly self-disclosure: Interactional and
intergroup issue. Language & Communication, 8, 109-133.
Coupland, N. & Ylänne-McEwen, V. (2000). Talk about the weather: small talk, leisure talk and the travel industry. In
J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 163-182). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Cozby, P.C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological bulletin, 79, 73-91.
Derlega, V.J, Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S.T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications.
Downes, M., Hemmasi, M., Graf, L., Lane, K., & Huff, L. (2002). The propensity to trust: A comparative study of
United States and Japanese managers. International Journal of Management, 19, 614-621.
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In K.L. Fitch, & R.E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social
interaction (pp. 71-102). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work:
Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
Farber, B.A. (2006). Self-disclosure in psychotherapy. New York: Guildford Press.
Farber, B.A., Berano, K.C., & Capobiano, J.A. (2004). Clients’ perceptions of the process and consequences of selfdisclosure in psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 340-346.
Galarneau, D., & Morissette, R. (2004). Immigrants settling for less? Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 75-001-XIE.
Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/10604/6921-eng.pdf
Galarneau, D., & Morissette, R. (2008). Immigrants’ education and required job skills. Statistics Canada – Catalogue
no. 75-001-X. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008112/pdf/10766-eng.pdf
Gilmore, J. (2009). The 2008 Canadian immigrant labour market: Analysis of quality of employment. Statistics Canada
– Catalogue no. 71-606-X, no.5. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-606-x/71-606-x2009001eng.pdf
Gunnarsson, B-L. (2009). Professional discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication research, theory and practice (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

45. Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled interpersonal communication research, theory and practice (4th ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Hawthorne, N. (1876). Passages from the French and Italian note-books of Nathanial Hawthorne. Boston: J. R.
Osgood and Company. Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://go.utlib.ca/cat/4813969
Heritage, J. (1998). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing distinctive turn-taking systems. In S.
Cmerjrková, J. Hoffmannová, O. Müllerová, & J. Svetlá (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of
IADA (International Association for Dialog Analysis) (pp. 3-17). Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Heritage, J. (2001). Goffman, Garfinkel and conversation analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S.J. Yates (Eds.),
Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp.47-56). London: Sage Publications.
Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K.L Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of
language and social interaction (pp.103-147). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heritage, J. (2009). Conversation analysis as social theory. In B. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social
theory (pp. 300-320). Oxford: Blackwell.
Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Issues
of theory, method and practice (pp. 208-230). London: Sage. Retrieved from
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/heritage/Site/Publications_files/CA_PRACTICES_AND_METHODS.pd
f
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interaction, identities, and institutions. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Hill, C.E., & Knox, S. (2001). Self-disclosure. Psychotherapy, 38, 413-417.
Holmes, J. (2000a). Talking English from 9 to 5: challenges for ESL learners at work. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 10, 125-140.
Holmes, J. (2000b). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 32-61).
London: Pearson Education Limited.
Holmes, J. (2000c). Victoria University of Wellington’s Language in Workplace Project: an overview. Language in the
Workplace Occasional Papers, 1. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/docs/ops/op1.pdf.
Holmes, J. (2005). When small talk is a big deal: Sociolinguistic challenges in the workplace. In M. Long (Ed.),
Second language needs analysis (pp. 344-372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. (2005). Why tell stories? Contrasting themes and identities in the narratives of Maori and Pakeha women
and men. In S. F. Kiesling & C. B. Paulston (Eds.), Intercultural discourse and communication. The essential
readings (pp. 110-134). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Holmes, J. (2006). Workplace narratives, professional identity and relational practice. In A. de Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M.
Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and identity (pp. 166-187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes J., & Riddiford, N. (2011). Professional and personal identity at work: achieving a synthesis through
intercultural workplace talk. Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr22/holmes.htm
Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: negotiating norms and identifying
contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 121-149.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. London: Longman.
Holtgraves, T. (1990). The language of self-disclosure. In H. Giles, & W.P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language
and social psychology (pp. 190-207). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Innes, B. (2010). “Well, that’s why I asked the question sir”: Well as a discourse marker in court. Language in Society,
39, 95-117.
Jamandre, N.K.F., & Arce, R.T. (2011). Self-disclosure and work relationships of call center agents with their coemployees. Journal of US-China public administration, 8, 990-1003.

46. Jaworski, A. (2000). Silence and small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 110-132). London: Pearson
Education Limited.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the
organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219-248). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Jefferson, C. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mm hm’. Papers
in Linguistics, 17, 197-216.
Joseph, B.D. (2003). The Editor’s Department: Reviewing our contents. Language, 79, 461-463.
Jourard, S.M. (1964). The transparent self: self-disclosure and well-being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jourard, S.M. (1971). Self-disclosure. An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley.
Jourard, S.M., & Jaffe, P.E. (1970). Influence of an interviewer’s disclosure on the self-disclosing behavior of
interviewees. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 17, 252-257.
Jourard, S.M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 56, 91-98.
Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 163-193.
Kitzinger, C. (2009). Doing gender. A conversation analytic perspective. Gender & Society, 23, 94-98.
Koester, A. (2004). Relational sequences in workplace genres. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1405-1428.
Koester, A. (2005). A corpus-based study of politeness and solidarity in workplace conversations. Tesol Forum: 25,
Retrieved from
http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/article.asp?SID=1&NID=2857&DID=3601&VID=142&CIDQS=&Taxonomy=Fal
se&specialSearch=False
Kuiper, K., & Flindall, M. (2000). Social rituals, formulaic speech and small talk at the supermarket checkout. In J.
Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 183-207). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1, 97-120.
Ladegaard, Hans J. (2011). ‘Doing power’ at work: Responding to male and female management styles in a global
business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 4-19.
Language in the Workplace Project (2010). Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Laver, J. (1975). Communicative functions of phatic communion. In A. Kendon, R. Harris, & M. Ritchie Key (Eds.),
Organization of behaviour in face-to-face interaction (pp. 215-238). The Hague: Mouton & Co.
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in
institutional settings (pp. 66-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C.K. Ogden & I.A. Richards (Eds.), The
Meaning of Meaning (pp. 296-336). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.
Markee, N. (2011). Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 602-615.
Maynard, D.W., & Hudak, P.L. (2008). Small talk, high stakes: Interactional disattentiveness in the context of
prosocial doctor-patient interaction. Language in Society, 37, 661-688.
McCarthy, M. (2000). Mutually captive audiences: small talk and the genre of close-contact service encounters. In J.
Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 84-109). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Meierford, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: An analysis of non-native-/non-native small talk
conversations in English. Retrieved from Linguistik online 5, 1/00. http://www.linguistikonline.de/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM
Mirivel, J.C., & Tracy, K. (2005). Premeeting talk: An organizationally crucial form of talk. Research of Language and
Social Interaction, 38, 1-34.

47. Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in
the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 501-518.
Mori, J. (2007). Border crossings? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition, conversation analysis and
foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 849-862.
OED (2012a). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/98353?redirectedFrom=interstice#eid
OED (2012b). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/142290?rskey=YeBSpr&result=5&isAdvanced=f
alse#
Padilla Cruz, M. (2007). Phatic utterances and the communication of social information: A relevance-theoretic
approach. In P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, M. Padilla Cruz, R. Gómez Morón, & L. Fernández Amaya (Eds.),
Studies in intercultural, cognitive and social pragmatics (pp 112-129). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy dialectics of disclosure. Albany, New York: State of University of New
York Press.
Polletta, F., Chen, P.C.B., Gardner, B.G., & Motes, A. (2011). The sociology of storytelling. Annual Review of
Sociology, 37, 109-130.
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access: as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186-198.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.
In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Power, J.L. et al. (2011). Acceptability of workplace bullying: A comparative study on six continents. Journal of
Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.018.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: the study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pudlinski, C. (2005). Doing empathy and sympathy: caring responses to troubles telling on a peer support line.
Discourse studies, 7, 267-288.
Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). (Eds.) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics.
Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited.
Richards, K. (2006). ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27, 51-77.
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.),
Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-353). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1984a). Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures in social action: Studies in
conversation analysis (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1984b). On doing “being ordinary”. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures in social action:
Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413-429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992a). April 24: Second stories. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation (Vol. I & II) (pp. 764772). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Sacks, H. (1992b). Lecture 5: ‘First’ and ‘second’ stories; Topical coherence; Storing and recalling experiences. In G.
Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation (Vol. I & II) (pp. 249-268). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for
conversations. Language, 50, 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075-1095.
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.) Erving Goffman:
Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89-135). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in
conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295-1345.

48. Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Turn Organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction: In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff,
& S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of
Sociology, 102, 161-216
Schegloff, E.A. (1997c). “Narrative analysis”: Thirty years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 97-106.
Schegloff, E.A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language,
and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.) Roots of human sociality:
Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70-96). London: Berg.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequential organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis 1. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E.A. (2009). A practice for (re-)exiting a sequence: And/but/so + uh(m) + silence. In B. Fraser, & K. Turner
(Eds.), Language in life and a life in language: Jacob Mey – A Festschrift (pp. 365-374).
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H., (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in
conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, VIII, 289-327.
Schegloff, E.A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3-31.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, K.P. (1988). Small talk: Analysing phatic discourse. Marburg/Lahn: Hitzeroth.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38, 165-187.
Sidnell, J. (2010) Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, V., Collard, P., Nicolson, P., & Bayne, R. (2012). Key concepts in counseling and psychotherapy: A critical A-Z
guide to theory. New York: McGraw-Hill International.
Statistics Canada. (2009). College and university graduates with low earnings in Canada – Demographic and labour
market characteristics. In Education matters: Insights on education, learning and training in Canada. Vol. 6,
No. 2. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2009002/article/10897-eng.htm
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 31-57.
Stokoe, E. (2009). “I've got a girlfriend”: Police officers doing self-disclosure in their interrogations of suspects
Narrative Inquiry, 19, 154-182.
.
Stricker, G. & Fisher, M. (1990). Self-disclosure in the therapeutic relationship. New York: Plenum Publishing.
Stubbe, M. (2001). From office to production line: Collecting data for the Wellington Language in the Workplace
Project. Language in the Workplace Occasional Papers, Number 2. Retrieved from
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/docs/ops/op2.pdf
Subramanian, G. (2007). The final word on small talk. Negotiation, November, 8. Retrieved from
http://www.pon.harvard.edu/?p=10493
Tardy, C., & Dindia, K. (1997) Self-disclosure. In O. Hargie (Ed.), The handbook of communication skills (pp. 213235) (2nd ed.), London: Routledge.
Tarone, E. (2005). English for specific purposes and interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B.S. Hartford
(Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk (pp. 157-173). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Tracy, K., & Naughton, J.M. (2000). Institutional identity-work: a better lens. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 6283). London: Pearson Education Limited.

49. Walsh, I.P. (2007). Small talk is ‘Big Talk’ in clinical discourse: Appreciating the value of conversation in SLP clinical
interactions. Topics in Language Disorders, 27, 24-36.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.
Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common?
Applied Linguistics, 9, 45-58.
Wittgenstein, L., (1953/2009). Philosophical Investigations. (G.E.M. Anscombe, P.E.M. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.).
(4th ed.) P.M.S. Hacker & J. Schulte (Eds.).West Sussex, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Wong, J., (2002). “Applying” conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second
language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 37-60.
Wynn, R., & Wynn, W. (2006). Empathy as an interactionally achieved phenomenon in psychotherapy. Characteristics
of some conversational resources. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1385-1398.
Žegarac, V., & Clark, B. (1999). Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics, 35, 321-346.