Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:26:04.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

30 - CoCo

A Category System for Coding Coherence in Conversations

from Coordination and Coherence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

By
Margarete Boos
Edited by
Elisabeth Brauner ,
Margarete Boos  and
Michaela Kolbe
Elisabeth Brauner
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Margarete Boos
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen
Michaela Kolbe
Affiliation:
ETH Zürich
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 502 - 509
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Boos, M., & Cornelius, C. (2001). Bedeutung und Erfassung konversationaler Kohärenz in direkter und computervermittelter Kommunikation [Meaning and Measurement of Conversational Coherence in Direct and Computer-mediated Communication]. In Hesse, F.W. & Friedrich, H.F. (Eds.). Partizipation und Interaktion im virtuellen Seminar (pp. 55–80). Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training: Trade-offs in judgmental tasks. Communication Research, 30, 147–177. doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250874CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Secondary Sources

Boos, M., Riethmüller, M., & Cornelius, C. (2013). Sozialer Einfluss in Chat‐Gruppen: Geschlechtsspezifische Auswirkungen auf konversationale Partizipation und Kohärenz [Social influence in chat groups: Gender-specific effects on conversational participation and coherence]. Gruppendynamik & Organisationsberatung, 44, 445‐460. doi.org/10.1007/s11612-013-0226-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappella, J. N. (1994). The management of conversational interaction in adults and infants. In Knapp, M. L. & Miller, G. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 380–418). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C. (1996). Themenentwicklung in Gruppendiskussionen [Topic development in group discussions]. University of Konstanz: Unpublished Diploma Thesis.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C. (2001). Gegenseitiges Verständnis in Computerkonferenzen. Voraussetzungen und Folgen konversationaler Kohärenz in Entscheidungsfindungsgruppen im Medienvergleich [Mutual understanding in computer conferences: Conditions and effects of conversational coherence in decision-making groups]. Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (1999). Es lohnt sich, kohärent zu sein! [It is worthwile to be coherent!] In Reips, U.-D. (Ed.), Aktuelle Online Forschung – Trends, Techniken, Ergebnisse [Current internet science – trends, techniques, results]. Zürich, Switzerland: Online Press. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from http://iscience.deusto.es/archive/reips/books/tband99/pdfs/a_h/cornelius.pdfGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Crow, B. K. (1983). Topic shifts in couples’ conversations. In Craig, R. T. & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 136–156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. (1977). The representation and use of focus in a system for understanding dialogs. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 67–76). Cambridge, Massachusetts. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/77-1/Papers/009.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making. An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In Hirokawa, R. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 179–211). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1972). Einfache Sozialsysteme [Simple social systems]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1, 51–65. doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1972-0105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomb, T. M. (1959). Individual systems of orientation. In Koch, S. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 3 (pp. 384–422). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26, 303–321. doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piontkowski, U., Oehlschlegel-Haubrock, S., & Hoelker, P. (1997). Annaeherung oder Abgrenzung? [Approximation or avoidance?] Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 26, 128–138. doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1997-0204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, R. (1978). Conversational coherency. Cognitive Science, 2, 283–327. doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0204_1Google Scholar
Tracy, K. (1985). Conversational coherence: A cognitively grounded rules approach. In Street, R. L. & Cappella, J. N. (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (pp. 30–49). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 371–393. doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. New York, NY: Longmann.Google Scholar
Willke, H. (1978). Elemente einer Systemtheorie der Gruppe: Umweltbezug und Prozesssteuerung [Elements of a systems theory of groups: Environment relationship and process steering]. Soziale Welt, 29, 343–357. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from www.jstor.org/stable/40877230Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×