about  |   publications  |   links  |     bibliographies  |     home  |  

in Russian

Very little conversation analytic work on Russian has been done. I am looking for more publications to include in the archive. If you would like to submit your work or suggest another publication, please e-mail me at gbolden@rci.rutgers.edu

Bolden (2000)
Bolden (2003)
Bolden (2004)
Bolden (2005)
Paukkeri (2006)
Bolden (2008)
Bolden (frth a)
Bolden (2009a)
Bolden (2009b)
Robinson & Bolden (2009)
Bolden (2011)
Turchik (2010)
Bolden (2012)
Bolden & Guimaraes (2012)
Furman (2013)
Kaikkonen (2015)

Publications Archive

You can download these publications by clicking on the PDF links. Technical information is provided below.

  • Bolden, G. (2000). Towards understanding practices of medical interpreting: Interpreters' involvement in history taking. Discourse Studies, 2(4), 387-419.  PDF
Abstract: This article examines the role of medical interpreters in structuring interaction between physicians and their patients. Through a detailed analysis of interpreters’ involvement in the history-taking part of medical consultations, it is demonstrated that their participation in this activity is organized by their understanding of its goals rather than by the task of translation alone. Specifically, the different ways in which interpreters participate in history taking display their orientation to obtaining from the patient and conveying to the doctor medically relevant information about the patient’s symptoms – and doing so as effectively as possible. Medical interpreters are found to share the physicians’ normative orientation to obtaining objectively formulated information about relevant biomedical aspects of patients’ conditions. Thus, far from being passive participants in the interaction, interpreters will often pursue issues they believe to be diagnostically relevant, just as they may choose to reject patients’ information offerings if they contain subjective accounts of their socio-psychological concerns.

  • Bolden, G. (2003). Doing being late: The use of the Russian particle -to in personal state inquiries. CLIC: Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture, 5, 3-27. PDF
Abstract: The paper examines interactional functions of the Russian enclitic particle -to in “howareyou” type inquiries. Drawing on a corpus of recorded telephone conversations and using the methodology of conversation analysis, this paper argues that by marking a particular "howareyou" question with -to, the speaker indicates that the inquiry is late relative to where it should have been appropriately launched. Two senses are lateness are discussed: one is “structural,” dealing with the conventional ways in which conversation is organized; the other is “normative,” which is meant to refer to the speaker’s judgment about the question’s importance relative to its placement in conversation.

  • Bolden, G. (2004). The quote and beyond: Defining boundaries of reported speech in conversational Russian. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(6), 1071-1118.  PDF
Abstract: This article investigates ways in which direct reported speech is set apart from the current speaker’s own talk. Drawing on a corpus of conversational Russian materials, the article examines ways in which the onset and the offset of reported speech are marked in ordinary talk. The analysis shows that in most cases quotations are separated from other talk at their beginnings and ends through a variety of devices including grammatical framing, re-anchoring devices, and prosodic shifts for their onset and several repositioning devices and sequence organization practices for their offset. There are, however, ambiguous cases when a particular stretch of talk occurring after a quote is neither clearly separated from the quote nor clearly marked as being part of it. Such cases, referred to in this study as ‘fading out,’ appear to have specific interactional functions allowing the speaker to deal with several potential problems. The findings of this study demonstrate the importance of studying linguistic phenomena on the basis of real conversational data and suggest that the different ways in which reported speech boundaries are demarcated (or not) provide participants with a set of tools they can employ for a variety of interactional purposes.

  • Bolden, G. (2005). Delayed and incipient actions: The discourse markers "-to" and "so" in Russian and English conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Email me at  gbolden@rci.rutgers.edu

This dissertation investigates ways in which two different languages, English and Russian, deal with a common interactional issue - how to show that the current utterance is occasioned by something other than the immediately preceding talk. The focus is on two discourse markers, the
Russian particle '-to' and the English marker 'so,' both of which are involved, in somewhat different ways, in indicating that the action implemented by the utterance should or could have been performed earlier. Using the methodology of conversation analysis, the dissertation investigates the communicative functions of these discourse markers in contexts of their use through a close analysis of recorded, naturally occurring conversations.

The first part of the dissertation examines the use of the Russian particle '-to' in turns of talk that initiate new action sequences. I argue that the particle marks the action implemented by the utterance as delayed by reference to the organization of sequences and larger activities, the overall structural organization of the conversation as a unit, and in relation to real time events. The analysis shows that speakers use the particle not only for structural reasons but also for normative ones - to display their interactional accountability for the action's late placement.

The second part of the dissertation explores the English discourse marker 'so,' also focusing on its use in sequence-initial positions. The analysis demonstrates that 'so' can be characterized as a marker of emergence from incipiency, indicating that the action being launched by the turn has been
on the speaker's agenda. The dissertation explores ways in which 'so' can be used to preface actions that have been projected to occur next, to introduce pending matters, and to retrojectedly mark an action as having been incipient. 'So' prefacing on new topic initiations is also contrasted with 'oh' prefacing in the same position, showing that 'so' and 'oh' can function as indexes of other- and self-regardingness, and, thereby, be involved in negotiating social relationships.

  • Paukkeri, Pirkko (2006). Retsipient v russkom razgovore: o raspredelenii funkcij mezhdu otvetami da, nu i tak. (Recipient in Russian conversation:division of tasks between the response words da, nu and tak). Slavica Helsingiensia 28. Arto Mustajoki & Pekka Pesonen & Jouko Lindstedt (eds.) University of Helsinki: Department  of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literature. Link

Abstract: The study investigates actions by recipients in spontaneous Russian conversations by focusing on DA, NU and TAK, when they are used as responses to the main speaker's larger on-going turn. The database for the study consists of some 7 hours of spontaneous conversations. The participants of the conversations come from different parts of Russia.

The use of DA, NU and TAK was analyzed by applying the method of ethnomethodological conversation analysis from the point of view of the type of the context, the sequential placement of the response and its manner of production. The particles were analyzed both in contexts in which they responded to an informing and in affective contexts. The particles NU and TAK were used by the speakers almost exclusively in informing contexts, whereas DA was the central response type in affective contexts. DA was also the most common response to information with affective implications.

The information, to which the particle NU provided as response, was often unspesific and projected a spesification or explanation by its speaker as the next action. DA and TAK, by contrast, treated the information as one that could be followed and was sufficient in its local context. As a response to parenthetical information NU responded to information that was only loosely connected with the mainline of talk. The particle DA, by contrast, was used as a response to such parenthetical information, which was more crucial for the larger on-going activity. Only NU was used as a response that invited the main speaker to continue a turn that she or he had offered as possibly complete. NU was also used by the recipient after her or his own contribution as a continuer.

In affective contexts, DA expressed, depending on its more spesific context, not only agreement but also other functions, such as giving up arguing or prior knowledge on the topic being discussed. In addition DA responses were used to display empathy and identification with the state of affairs expressed by the co-participant. NU, by contrast, was seldom used as a response to a turn that expressed affect. When it was used in affective contexts, it displayed agreement with the co-participant or just registered an assessment by her or him.

  • Bolden, G. (2008). Reopening Russian conversations: The discourse particle -to and the negotiation of interpersonal accountability in closings. Human Communication Research, 34, 99-136.  PDF

Abstract: The article examines how the goals of maintaining and reaffirming interpersonal relationships are accomplished through the details of talk during closing sections of social encounters. On the basis of Russian language telephone conversations between close familiars, the article explicates ways in which interactions may be reopened and, more specifically, the role of the Russian discourse particle -to on utterances that raise new issues in closing environments. The analysis shows that while many kinds of new matters are commonly raised in conversation closings, only those that deal with the addressee – and only those raised by the person who initiated the closing - are marked so that to indicate the speaker’s accountability for raising the matter late. This suggests that ways in which new topics are introduced in conversation closings reflect the speaker’s orientation to displaying concern for and interest in the addressee.

  • Bolden, G. (forthcoming). Opening up closings in Russian. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: Naturalistic studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Email me at  gbolden@rci.rutgers.edu

  • Bolden, G. (2009). Implementing delayed actions, In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 326-353), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Book info; PDF

  • Bolden, G. (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs, 76(2), 121-143. PDF Link

Abstract: The article presents a conversation analytic investigation of one technique for responding to questions in naturally occurring social interactions: repeating the question verbatim in part or as a whole before providing a required response. A close examination of production features of repeat prefacing in Russian demonstrates that it is used by conversationalists to resist agendas and presuppositions generated by questions and other sequence initiating actions. The study shows that some repeat prefaces characterize questions as problematic by contesting or outright rejecting its presuppositions or implications. Depending on how precisely repeat prefaces are articulated, they may also display the speaker's difficulty in retrieving requested information. The study extends our understanding of devices conversationalists can deploy to resist, sidestep, or curtail the constraints imposed by questioners' interactional agendas, thereby providing an insight into how communicative goals are discerned, responded to, and negotiated in social interaction.

  • Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2010). Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 501-533. Link; PDF

Abstract: This article extends prior conversation analytic research on the preference organization of sequence-initiating actions. Across two languages (English and Russian), this article examines one such action: explicitly soliciting an account for human conduct (predominantly with why-type interrogatives). Prior work demonstrates that this action conveys a challenging stance towards the warrantability of the accountable event/conduct (Bolden and Robinson, forthcoming). When addressees are somehow responsible for the accountable event/conduct, explicit solicitations of accounts are frequently critical of, and thus embody disaffiliation with, addressees. This article demonstrates that, when explicit solicitations of accounts embody disaffiliation, they are systematically ‘withheld’ and, thus, can be characterized as ‘dispreferred’ actions. This article also examines: a) deviant cases, where account solicitations are not withheld, which is a practice for embodying aggravated disaffiliation; and b) negative cases, where account solicitations actually embody affiliation , and as such are typically treated as preferred actions and not withheld.

  • Bolden, G. B. (2011). On the organization of repair in multiperson conversation: The case of “other”-selection in other-initiated repair sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 44(3), 237-262. PDF

This article examines a previously undocumented way in which the presence of more than two interlocutors matters for the organization of repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977): when the repair initiation is addressed to – and thereby selects as the next speaker – somebody other than the speaker of the trouble-source turn (“other”-selection for short). The speaker of the trouble-source turn is ordinarily the one who is selected to repair it (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Under what circumstances, then, is “other”-selection used? The analysis shows that, while rare, “other”-selection in other-initiation of repair is a systematically deployed practice. In selecting somebody other than the speaker of the trouble-source turn to provide a repair solution, the repair initiator orients to two broad considerations (sometimes concurrently): progressivity and social epistemics. The article examines how these considerations play out in a variety of contexts and considers implications of “other”-selection for our understanding of the repair organization.

  • Turchik, Anna. (2010). Конверсационный анализ речевого взаимодействия в ситуации исследовательского интервью. [Conversation analysis of interaction in research interview situations.] Disseration. Candidate in Social Sciences. Moscow. PDF

Abstract: The thesis explores characteristics of sequential organization of interaction between interviewers and interviewees in research interview situations. It demonstrates that institutional features of such interactions impose on and collide with the rules of ordinary conversation, resulting in communicative failures. The analysis explores various strategies of speaking in this institutional context. The thesis argues for the expediency and necessity of applying conversation analysis to different kinds of interviews, both standardized and non-standardized, face-to-face and mediated.

  • Bolden, G.B. (2012). Across languages and cultures: Brokering problems of understanding in conversational repair. Language in Society, 41(1), 97-121. PDF
Abstract: This article examines the interactional construction of language competence in bilingual immigrant communities. The focus is on how participants in social interaction resolve problems of understanding that are demonstrably rooted in their divergent linguistic and cultural expertise. Using the methodology of conversation analysis to examine mundane video-recorded conversations in Russian-American immigrant families, I describe a previously unanalyzed communicative practice for solving understanding problems: by one participant enacting the role of a language broker in a repair sequence. The article thus contributes to the existing research on the interactional construction of language competence, on the one hand, and on the organization of repair and its relationship to social epistemics, on the other.

  • Bolden, G. & Guimaraes, E. (2012). Grammatical flexibility as a resource in explicating referents. Special issue of Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(2) (Eds. Celia Kitzinger & Gene Lerner), 156-174. Journal link PDF
This article examines one aspect of interplay between grammar and social interaction: how speakers of different languages explicate referents that had been referred to tacitly, i.e., without using an explicit referential expression. The focus is on situations when speakers go on to explicate the referent in the transition space, after bringing the turn constructional unit to a possible completion. Depending on the grammatical affordances of the language, rendering a tacit reference explicit may either expose or mask this operation. Focusing on the latter, we show that the grammars of Russian and Brazilian Portuguese (and, to a lesser extent, English) enable speakers of these languages to explicate referents by extending a possibly complete turn constructional unit with a grammatically fitted increment and, thereby, embed this remedial operation into the progressive construction of the turn without engaging repair machinery. We discuss how tacit referring and flexible word order can enable speakers to carry out this repair-like operation in a covert or embedded fashion, and we examine some interactional functions of this referent-explicating operation.
  • NEW Furman, Michael. (2013). Impoliteness and mock-impoliteness: A descriptive analysis." In Approaches to Slavic Interaction, edited by Nadine Thielemann and Peter Kosta, 237-256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. PDF

  • NEW Kaikkonen, Suvi. (2015). "Put the card in": The use of second person imperatives by bookstore sellers - A Conversation Analysis. University of Helsinki, Masters thesis. PDF

The software required to read and print PDF documents is available free from the Adobe website; follow this link to download Acrobat Reader.

Get Acrobat Reader

You need a free Real One Player (PC or Mac OS X) or Real Player 8 (Mac OS 9 and older) to play sound clips. Be sure to choose the free Basic Player, not Player Plus (which costs money).