A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation

Abstract

the background and motivations for the study, and describes the data supplied by the researchers who applied this coding scheme. Each researcher was asked to code at least 350 questions taken from ordinary conversation among a range of dyadic and multi-participant interactions. The ten single-authored articles contained in this special issue give detailed information concerning the results of the coding scheme foreach language. Our reasons for publishing the coding scheme and instructions informationherearetwo:(1)wewanttogivereadersofthosearticlessomeinsightinto how thedatawerecollectedand what the findings mean, including how particular coding categories were operationalized, and (2) we want to provide researchers with a tool to investigate this domain in other languages, for future comparisons with our findings. This coding scheme is part of a methodology that we think provides an optimal solution to the problem of balancing conflicting motivations of ecological validity, on the one hand, and quantitative control and evaluability, on the other. We insist that natural data are indispensable to an account of what people do in social interaction (rather than, say, using questionnaires that are at risk of tapping into ideology about practices rather than actual practices). At the same time, we assume that quantitative data are useful methodologically. This coding scheme was developed through two cycles of pilot coding and evaluation, involving the application of draft coding categories to data from different languages, and collaborative discussion of conceptual and analytic issues that arose. This means that the coding scheme supplied here not only embodies the work of a large number of people (including all contributors to this special issue), it has been developed through iterative consideration in light of language-specific facts and the cumulative experience of analysts in applying the scheme. We therefore feel that the scheme is empirically wellgrounded and analytically well-motivated, and stands a good chance of usefully handling the kinds of distinctions in this domain that are likely to be relevant for any language in any cultural setting. This is not to say that the scheme is perfect. For instance, we found that it was difficult to attain validity or reliability in the coding of some aspects of sequential position and as a result we were unable to include information about sequential position in our comparative analysis. We hope that if