Conversation analysts draw upon a range of types of evidence as we make claims about practices and actions in interaction. In this workshop, we will review several of these sources of evidence (e.g., the next-turn proof procedure, self-repair, ‘deviant’ case analysis), using specific interactional phenomena as concrete exemplars. Emphasis will be placed on bringing multiple, different types of evidence to bear in constructing a convincing argument, as well as on the ‘fit’ between types of evidence and the phenomena under examination. Because our claims about action in interaction are not being made in a vacuum, but rather are intended to be read and taken up by others, our discussion about evidence will necessarily include discussion about writing up an analysis for particular readers – that is, what is the intended audience for this analysis (e.g., linguists, sociologists, medical practitioners), and what sorts of evidence is that audience accustomed to seeing? Workshop participants who are working up analyses of particular phenomena in their own data (e.g., an action-type, a grammatical form, a particle, etc.) will be invited to bring cases for the group to consider.

Facilitated by: Chase Raymond