A written-up version of a talk I gave at the 7th Language and Social Interaction (LANSI) Working Group Meeting in New York, September 2017.

Citation information:

Albert, S. (2017, September). Assessments in the service of rhythmical closings [Conference presentation]. 7th Language and Social Interaction (LANSI) Working Group Meeting, New York, NY, United States. /blog/assessments-in-the-production-of-routine-rhythmical-closings/

Have you ever been to a partner dance class?

In this post I look at data from this situation, a novice dance class, where people are working their way through joint movements for the first few times. Where novice dancers are unfamiliar with the mutual demands of these moves, they may only have their mundane, everyday interactional practices to fall back on, and the way they must use them to manage the contingencies of this situation can be very informative when you are investigating those mundane interactional practices. I am going to talk specifically about how the interactional practice of assessment is used in the closing of unfamiliar joint dance moves.

What I’m presenting comes from a long-standing interest I have in the relationship between conversational assessment sequences, compliments and compliment responses, in the sequential terms we get from Anita Pomerantz, and evaluative practices. I’ll review terminal assessments, then look at terminal assessments and performance evaluations in the dance workshop setting, looking at a variety of interactional resources, procedures and outcomes. Towards the end I’ll return to how this analysis, and some future work I plan in this area, relates to broader issues of valence and evaluative practice.

Assessments in routine closings and shifts

Assessments in conversation are often associated with the closing phases of routine interactional situations: ending phone calls (Antaki, 2002), concluding stories or topical structures (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1992), moving from one interview question to the next (Antaki, 2000), or a routine service-assessment sequence, such as when a barber finishes a haircut and presents the mirror to the customer for inspection, grinning, hopefully (Oshima & Streeck, 2015). More recently, video analyses have explored how the ‘closing-implicative’ function of these kinds of assessment provides methods for coordinating the closure of mobile group interactions, such as visitors moving between exhibits or shifting points of interest during guided tours (Broth & Mondada, 2013; De Stefani & Mondada, 2014), or drivers and passengers completing a manoeuvre and reaching a destination with a terminal assessment (De Stefani & Gazin, 2014).

These are highly routinised environments for what Wiggins and Potter (2003) describe as pro-forma ‘category assessments’ that are designed and produced to fit a ‘slot’ in a familiar interactional landscape where an assessment becomes sequentially relevant.

How do routine terminal assessments work?

“[B]y virtue of the way in which they appreciate the details of what has just been said without marking that talk as a prelude to something else, assessments are apt structures for doing terminal work on an extended sequence.” (C. Goodwin, 1986)

As Goodwin points out in relation to the familiar everyday sequential environment of a story-telling, routine terminal assessments are useful devices for ushering an extended sequence to a close, because they are primarily retrospective and may not lead to expansion beyond a second assessment, which may in any case only turn out to be optionally relevant following an ostensibly evaluative ‘first’ assessment. I’ll return to that later.

The situation I’m going to look at, the novice partner dance class, is a very rich source of these kinds of terminal assessment. Almost every time a class of novices completes a partner dance move together, the teacher does a terminal assessment and students evaluate their just-completed performance before trying the move again. What I find particularly interesting about these assessments is how students use them to coordinate the conclusion of a very unfamiliar set of interactional challenges, where they manage the contingencies of two untrained bodies moving together and reflect on and guide the course of ongoing practice.

The setting

Dirk vom Lehn and I recorded 4.5 hours of a novice Lindy Hop dance class. Lindy Hop is an African-American partnered jazz dance form developed in Harlem’s Savoy Ballroom in the 1920s and 30s. This workshop, however, was in London’s Brick Lane. It involved 20 people, mostly previously unacquainted, who registered as ‘lead’ or ‘follow’ dancers (traditionally these were gendered roles, although these days most people do both). The lead and follow students formed two concentric circles with teachers in the middle, and three camera angles captured two couples and the teachers. In this workshop situation, students take instruction from the teachers, practise, then the follow partners rotate around the circle.

You may hear my voice in there and recognise that I’m teaching the lead role with Simone, who is teaching the follow role. I promise that when I taught this workshop in 2013 I wasn’t sneakily producing terminal assessments for the purposes of this presentation. Those of you who have read Leelo Keevallik’s work on Lindy Hop workshops will recognise aspects of this same dance style and workshop room layout, although her work has tended to focus on far more experienced dancers (Keevallik, 2010, 2013; Broth & Keevallik, 2014).

The routine of practising a dance move

What you’ll see in the first video is the routine of practising a dance move:

1. Partners move one position around the circle.
2. Students greet their new partner.
3. The teacher instructs or demonstrates the move.
4. The teacher counts the partners in and calls the steps (clapping, clicking fingers or singing in a swung rhythm).
5. Students copy or perform the current move.
6. The teacher does an assessment directed to the class.
7. Students evaluate their performance (often together with the ‘rotate’ call).
8. The teacher either initiates a second practice session (back to 4) or calls out ‘rotate partners’ (back to 1).

First I’ll show the whole routine, which is too complicated to analyse here in full, and then I’ll show examples that focus on steps 4–7, especially the students’ performance evaluation. Don’t worry too much about following this closely, because we won’t see most parts of it again; just notice the phases.

	
	
((TchL instructs, then counts in snapping 1st 3 beats))

1 TchL:	Fi̲:ve, (.) si̲x? (.) fi:̲:̲ve six se:̲:̲:ven a:̲:̲n?  
2      ↓o̲n̲e̲ two three an fo:ur? five six seven an eight 
3	((... continues count, looking/turning around))
4	Fi:ve si̲x? se::ven an eight, (.) LO:VELY LET'S   
5       ROTATE PA:̲:̲RTNE::RS≈
6 Dave:	≈Thank you.≈
7 Kath:	((smiles, head dip))
8 Sall:	≈↑Huh (.) ⌈>that easy.<
9 Geor:	          ⌊Thank you kHeh heh

((follows move around the circle, greet next partner))

Interactional resources in the setting

Let me run through a few of the interactional resources we can observe being used to coordinate the closing of each practice session. Firstly, there is the dancers’ physical arm connection, and the instructions they’ve been given that day (which we can’t see in each clip). What we can see, though, is how the teacher’s count-in also provides a regular rhythmical and prosodic structure that marshals the dancers with ‘five, six’, then tees them up to start dancing together, and how the dance call ‘rock step, triple step, triple step’ describes their footwork pattern. Here we see Anne’s appreciation of the ‘elbow thing’, a technique Paul has just shown her; their latched assessment sequences interleave with the teacher’s assessments ‘good’, ‘lovely’, ‘okay’.

One note before the clip: the ‘yep’ and laughter at lines 2 and 3 are part of the tail end of the previous performance evaluation. Now the teacher counts them in again and they practise, and then you’ll see their performance evaluation sequence in lines 5, 7, 9 and 10 interleaved with the teacher’s assessments. It’s also important to note that the teachers say things like ‘good’ and ‘lovely’ in this same slot after every practice session, almost irrespective of how well the students do, and that this provides a routine terminal resource for the students’ own closing.

  1 Tchl:  FIve, (.) s⌈ix? (.)⌉ ↓five six se::ven eight? 
  2 Paul:             ⌊Ye::⌈p.⌋ 
  3 Anne:                  ⌊∙hh aHhh ∙Hhh 
  4 TchL:  Rock step. (.) tri:ple, (.) tri:ple. 
> 5 Anne:  You're right the el⌈bow thing w↑o̲r̲k̲s̲?≈ 
  6 TchL:                     ⌊G O :̲ ̲:̲ ̲O̲ : : d. 
> 7 Paul:  ≈It d̲o̲e̲s̲ izn' i⌈t ye:ah≈ 
  8 TchL:                 ⌊L̲o̲v̲e̲l̲y̲⌈̲::. 
> 9 Anne:                        ⌊≈Works rilly w↑e̲l̲l̲:≈ 
> 10 Paul:  ≈Ye̲h.≈ 
  11 TchL:  OKA::Y! 

It’s worth pointing out that the teachers are using the musical structure, the swing rhythm. This is two ‘phrases’ of a six-count footwork pattern, rock step triple step triple step, rock step triple step triple step. There are also eight-count footwork patterns that teachers and students use to project next actions and imminent closings. If you watch carefully for the last footfall here, you’ll see how the teacher’s call is exquisitely timed with the dancers’ footwork, and slows down to hit the precise point when they come to rest on ‘GOOD’. Watch the video above again – and look at their feet to see how closely timed this really is.

Neatly coordinated closings

Here’s a first example of a neatly coordinated closing, where everything seems to go just fine, and we can see the focal section of the move practice move neatly along: from step 4, the count-in and call, to the performance, the teacher assessment, and the student evaluation. Once again, note the close timing of the teacher’s ‘lovely’ with the final footfall of this practice session.

 TchL:   Fi̲:̲v̲e̲ (.) si̲x̲ (.) five six se::ven and, ba:::si:̲c 
	   tri:ple brI:̲:NGING I::N (.) r̲o̲ck step tri::ple (.)
         tri::ple. ≈l̲o̲::vely. °really goo⌈:d.° 
> Soph:	                                ⌊Very ni̲::̲ce, thank y↑OU?≈ 
> Paul:	≈Very good (.) >thanks<. (0.2) ahH huh 

‘Early’ evaluations lead to premature closings

We can see the terminal function of the students’ performance evaluations most clearly when they appear in a deviant case, outside of their neat ‘slot’. Here Sophie says ‘great’ in the midst of an ongoing practice session, just at the end of one phrase of the dance call. George treats this as a terminal assessment: he stops dancing and looks up quickly towards the teachers, only to find them still dancing, while Sophie laughs. There’s a lot of ‘trouble-management’ laughter like this in these data.

    TchL:	 Fi::ve? (.) six, (.) fi::ve six se::ven a::nd 
		 BAck and front? a::nd BAck and back >>herewego<<
		 R̲o̲ck step tri̲::ple rock ba̲c̲k tri::ple fo̲:̲:rwards.≈  
--> Soph:	 ≈Grea:̲:t̲. kHhuh he⌈he (0.5)   hhEH
    TchL:		           ⌊Ro̲c̲k̲ step tri:̲:ple (.) Ro̲ck step
		 tri::ple step.

Assessments designed for continuation

We also see how performance evaluations can be designed for continuation. In the midst of this dance practice, Paul issues a performance evaluation after they complete a new move for the first time within a practice session. He does this very quick ‘so far so good’, slotted into the end of the teacher’s six-count call on line 3, and Liz reciprocates while continuing to dance, also rushing before the next phrase starts with ‘BASIC’. Later, they produce an orderly performance evaluation following the teacher’s terminal assessment and rotate-partner call in line 9.

   1 TchF:	BA::SIC (.) TRI:PLE, (.) TRI:̲Ple 
   2 TchL:	O̲n̲e̲ two. (.) three and four (.)⌈ five and  six? 
-> 3 Paul:	          	                   ⌊>So far so good,≈< 
-> 4 Liz :	≈>Yep (.)⌈ (not ba::d?)< 
   5 TchF:	 	   ⌊BA::SIC (.) tri:ple, 
   6 TchL:	Br̲i̲::ngi⌈ng i:̲:̲n, a::n (.) r̲o̲ck step (.) tri:ple 
   7 TchF:	        ⌊BRINGING I̲::N.    ROCK step (.) tri:ple 
   8 TchF:	⌈tri:ple.
   9 TchL:	⌊tri:ple. (.) GOO- ROTA⌈TE PA:̲:RTNE̲:RS ple::ase. 
  10 Liz :	 		       ⌊D'y↑ouo↓::w. (.)⌈we d̲i̲d̲ that. 
  11 Paul:	        		                ⌊Ye̲:̲:̲A̲hh. 
  12 Paul:	Good wo̲:̲rk. 
  13 Liz :	Thank y⌈ou. 
  14 Paul:	       ⌊aHAH hah ⌈heh 
  15 Liz :	                 ⌊uh Huh 

Delayed terminal assessments may occasion equivocal evaluations

We can also learn more about the contingent relationship between the teacher’s terminal assessments and the students’ performance evaluations when the teacher’s assessment comes a little later than the completion of the dance call and practice session. Here there is a one-beat gap before the teachers say ‘Good’ in chorus. The students’ performance evaluations reflect a degree of uncertainty as to the success of having completed this unfamiliar move. Sally (on the left) issues a tentative ‘o::kay?’ on line 6, and Dave, dancing with Kath on the right, rallies to produce a performance assessment that Kath reciprocates with a shrugging, nodding movement that, we can at least say, does something less than enthusiastic agreement. So the teacher’s routine assessments may cue the performance evaluations, and give students unfamiliar with the trajectory of the action, how it should look, when it should end, and what it should feel like, some warrant to positively evaluate their just-prior performance.

1  TchL:	Fi::ve, (.) six? (.) fi::ve six se::ven a̲↓::nd st̲e̲p̲ step 
2  	      tr̲i̲::ple step, ste̲p ste:p tri::ple step. 		
3 	(1.0) 
4  TchL:	  ⌈(↑GOOD)
5  TchF:	  ⌊Good≈
6  Sall:	≈O̲:̲ka:̲:y?
7  Dave:	hmmh that's go:od,
8  Kath:	((shrug-nods)) 

Normative accountability in performance evaluations

Before summing up, I want to point to a few hints as to what else might be happening in these performance evaluations. Let’s look again at the practice session we saw earlier, and notice how we not only have a neatly coordinated closing of this move, we also have a neat balancing act in the performance evaluation sequence. Paul has just told Anne about this ‘elbow thing’, so the way she starts the evaluation is with a ‘you’re right’ and then an assessment of the ‘elbow watching’ move Paul has just taught her. Paul’s response deals with Anne’s evaluation of the move he’s taught her by doing more than just agreement: he inserts ‘it does isn’ it’ before the agreement ‘yeah’ on line 7, with a stress on the copula ‘does’, to which Anne then responds, recalibrating ‘works’ to ‘works really well’, which now just gets a ‘yeh’ from Paul.

Without saying much more, from this and many other student performance evaluations in these data, we can observe a delicate balancing act between evaluating their performance, their individual contributions, the question of whether the assessment is a compliment, who is the accountable recipient of that compliment, and which contingencies follow. All I have time to say here is that these performance evaluations move from joining in with the work of terminal assessment towards doing more normative, evaluative and moral work.

    1 Tchl:	FIve, (.) s⌈ix? (.)⌉ ↓five six se::ven eight? 
    2 Paul:	           ⌊Ye::⌈p.⌋ 
    3 Anne:	                ⌊∙hh aHhh ∙Hhh 
    4 TchL:	Rock step. (.) tri:ple, (.) tri:ple. 
--> 5 Anne:	You're right the el⌈bow thing w↑o̲r̲k̲s̲?≈ 
    6 TchL:	                   ⌊G O :̲ ̲:̲ ̲O̲ : : d. 
--> 7 Paul:	≈It d̲o̲e̲s̲ izn' i⌈t ye:ah≈ 
    8 TchL:	               ⌊L̲o̲v̲e̲l̲y̲⌈̲::. 
--> 9 Anne:	                      ⌊≈Works rilly w↑e̲l̲l̲:≈ 
--> 10 Paul:	≈Ye̲h.≈ 
    11 TchL:	OKA::Y! 

Accountability in breakdown

I’ve only scratched the surface here. I haven’t even shown you people dancing to music; that work remains to be done. What you’ve seen is a focus on a small segment of the routine activity of the class, and the role of terminal assessments in that segment. But to give you a sense of where I’m planning to go with this research and this data, here’s an extract I analysed for a presentation with Dirk vom Lehn, which we used for thinking about how novices display and recognise, apologise for, and account for troubles in dance practice, and how they work to deal with them and move on. The thing to pay attention to is the final student-assessment phase, where Sally, who comes into the frame from the left, apologises to us, the viewers, into the lavalier microphone on George’s chest, claiming some degree of accountability for the total train wreck of a dance practice session that is about to unfold.

How do terminal assessments work here?

A few points to summarise. In structural terms:

• Terminal assessments usher an unfamiliar activity to a routine close.
• Teachers’ routine assessments cue student performance evaluations.
• Student performance evaluations shift the participants from dancing to talking.

However, where things go wrong:

• Student assessments begin to do more normative, evaluative work.
• They do ‘balanced’ or reciprocal assessments of each other’s performances.
• Assessments can be treated as compliments and reciprocated as such.
• In a disaster, this evaluative work deals with issues of accountability.

What can we learn about assessments here?

There are some issues with how CA studies have tended to analyse assessments that I think this project might begin to address. Many analyses draw on Pomerantz’s (1984) observation that first assessments, where the ‘referent’ is expectably accessible to all parties, tend to occasion a reciprocal second assessment:

“When a speaker assesses a referent that is expectably accessible to a recipient, the initial assessment provides the relevance of the recipient’s second.” (Pomerantz, 1984)

Many examples of this practice deal with reports of past events and activities (Lindström & Mondada, 2009) or routine ‘category assessments’ (Wiggins & Potter, 2003). This led me to explore situations where the ‘referent’ is co-produced but unfamiliar, and possibly even inaccessible, inchoate, or only partly intelligible to all parties to the assessment.

Pomerantz also points out that the second assessment is normatively ‘upgraded’ in valence, but it’s not always clear how that ‘valence’ is constituted in situ, interactionally, rather than ascribed to particular familiar terms or ‘slots’ by analysts. This leads to a more basic methodological point: in CA we tend to locate assessments by looking for terms like ‘good’ or ‘beautiful’, where there’s a conventionally associated valence to upgrade or downgrade, i.e. utterances “that are positively or negatively valenced through use of specific lexically assessing terms” (Thompson, Fox, & Couper-Kuhlen, 2015, p. 139; see also Ogden, 2006). But as Goodwin and Goodwin (1992) point out, there’s no inherent relationship between what they call assessment ‘segments’, words like ‘good’ or ‘beautiful’; assessment ‘signals’, noises like ‘wow’ and ‘mmm’; and the social actions through which these methods constitute an accountable, evaluative practice.

These issues have led some scholars to suggest that assessments, as we have characterised them in CA, might not always involve the kinds of routinely corresponding initial and subsequent components that can be analysed in sequences of adjacency pairs (cf. Stivers & Rossano, 2010). Our reliance on the ostensible relationship to conventional ‘lexically assessing terms’ may be a case, as Garfinkel (1967, p. 70) puts it, of seeking descriptive theories of a phenomenon but then settling for normative ones because they are more readily amenable to analysis.

“We are concentrating, not on the words ‘good’ or ‘beautiful’, which are entirely uncharacteristic, generally just subject and predicate (‘This is beautiful’), but on the occasions on which they are said, on the enormously complicated situation in which the aesthetic expression has a place, in which the expression itself has almost a negligible place.” (Wittgenstein, 1967, p. 2)

What I’ve shown is just a starting point, but by focusing on these specific terminal assessments I’ve tried to take Wittgenstein’s advice from his lectures on aesthetics, psychology and religious belief. He says that we shouldn’t concentrate on the terms ‘good’ or ‘beautiful’, but on the “enormously complicated situation in which the aesthetic expression has a place”. That’s what I attempt here: to look at a situation where the establishment of a convention, and the expected course of a body’s movement towards the completion of some new, unfamiliar joint activity, is being mutually accomplished for the first time. I’m treating this particular moment as a perspicuous setting for seeing how terminal assessments are used in unfamiliar courses of action, and whether and how novice dancers work to manage and constitute accountable methods for evaluation.

A note on rhythm

I didn’t have time to discuss how music is used as a resource, and how different rhythms in the music function as pacing resources for both teachers and dancers. I’ve written about this before (Albert, 2015), where I used a framework of synchrony from the ‘tapping’ literature, which investigates human and animal sensorimotor synchrony, to explore rhythmical methods of coordination between professional dancers and audiences during a performance. What I would have tried to show with an analysis of these musical rhythms is how aperiodic (causally related but non-periodic) events and periodically spaced events provide very differently organised analytic and interactional resources. A related point is made by Schütz (1951, pp. 90–94; see also Weeks, 1996) in ‘Making Music Together’, drawing on Husserl’s phenomenology of time and the series of polythetic steps that must be taken before meaning and intelligibility become available as a ‘monothetic whole’.

Some more recent reference points (since I gave this talk)

Since this talk (2017), several lines of work have developed exactly the themes it was reaching for, treating assessments less as verdicts than as devices for segmenting and timing an activity. Lindholm (2024) analyses positive assessments by their placement against an ongoing task, marking attempts, progress and completion, which is close to the ‘warrant’ role described above. Ivaldi (2019) shows that explicit assessments (‘excellent’) close down a learning dialogue while performative ones (‘that’s closer’) open it up, a direct parallel to the closing-versus- continuation contrast. Ehmer (2021, 2025), working on Argentine Tango instruction, shows how a vocalisation timed to a movement marks its accomplishment, which is very similar to the footfall-timing argument I make here. And Szczepek Reed (2023) and Ro and Lee (2025) extend the analysis of how instructional turns project continuation rather than closure. On ‘category assessments’, Edwards and Potter (2017) and Wiggins (2023) restate the category/subject-side framework, with Oshima (2025) and Svensson (2025) carrying it into new settings. I’m just putting this here to remind me to update the references if I ever write this up!

References

Albert, S. (2015). Rhythmical coordination of performers and audience in partner dance: Delineating improvised and choreographed interaction. Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 3, 399–428.

Antaki, C. (2002). “Lovely”: Turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings. Discourse Studies, 4(1), 5–23.

Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., & Rapley, M. (2000). “Brilliant. Next question…”: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 33(3), 235–262.

Broth, M., & Keevallik, L. (2014). Getting ready to move as a couple: Accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class. Space and Culture, 17(2), 107–121.

Broth, M., & Mondada, L. (2013). Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 41–58.

De Stefani, E., & Gazin, A.-D. (2014). Instructional sequences in driving lessons: Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 63–79.

De Stefani, E., & Mondada, L. (2014). Reorganizing mobile formations: When “guided” participants initiate reorientations in guided tours. Space and Culture, 17(2), 157–175.

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2017). Some uses of subject-side assessments. Discourse Studies, 19(5), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617715171

Ehmer, O. (2021). Synchronization in demonstrations: Multimodal practices for instructing body knowledge. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(s4), 20200038. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0038

Ehmer, O. (2025). Marking action accomplishment with non-lexical vocalizations. Interactional Linguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1075/il.25001.ehm

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.

Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 205–217.

Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–189). Cambridge University Press.

Ivaldi, A. (2019). Explicit versus performative assessments in music pedagogical interactions. British Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051717000262

Keevallik, L. (2010). Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(4), 401–426.

Keevallik, L. (2013). Here in time and space: Decomposing movement in dance instruction. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 345–370). De Gruyter.

Lindholm, C. (2024). Positive assessments, monitoring of activities, and dementia. Discourse Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456241279961

Lindström, A., & Mondada, L. (2009). Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 299–308.

Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1752–1775.

Oshima, S. (2025). Evaluating in interaction: Subjective-side and objective-side assessments in design review. CoDesign. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2025.2568510

Oshima, S., & Streeck, J. (2015). Coordinating talk and practical action: The case of hair salon service assessments. Pragmatics and Society, 6(4), 538–564.

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 University Press.

Ro, E., & Lee, J. M. (2025). Assessments in L2 conversation-for-learning discussions. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688251352274

Schütz, A. (1951). Making music together: A study in social relationship. Social Research, 18(1), 76–97.

Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.

Svensson, H. (2025). Claiming and attributing (dis)taste: Issues of sharing a meal as a competent member. Appetite, 205, 107546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107546

Szczepek Reed, B. (2023). “Go on keep going”: The instruction of sustained embodied activities. Discourse Studies, 25(5), 692–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231153578

Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press.

Weeks, P. (1996). Synchrony lost, synchrony regained: The achievement of musical co-ordination. Human Studies, 19(2), 199–228.

Wiggins, S. (2023). How infant food likes become established as knowledge: Parental food assessments during infant mealtimes in the home. Appetite, 184, 106489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106489

Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2003). Attitudes and evaluative practices: Category vs. item and subjective vs. objective constructions in everyday food assessments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 513–531.

Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Lectures and conversations on aesthetics, psychology and religious belief (C. Barrett, Ed.). University of California Press.