References

• Chatwin, J. (2014). Conversation analysis as a method for investigating interaction in care home environments. Dementia, 13(6), 737- 746.
• Coates, J. (2015). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language: Routledge
• Dunbar, N. E. (2015). A Review of Theoretical Approaches to Interpersonal Power, Review of Communication, 15(1), 1- 18, DOI: 10.1080/15358593.2015.1016310
• Faiz, R., Azher, M., & Tehseem, T. (2021). Relational Practice in Multilingual Peer Discourse: Talk as a Marker of Gender Identity. Review of Applied Management and Social Sciences, 4(1), 181- 193.
• Fasold, R. W., & Connor-Linton, J. (2006). An introduction to language and linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
• Hellermann, J. (2006). Classroom interactive practices for literacy. Applied Linguistics. 27, 377-404.
• Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing social identity through workplace interaction: Wiley Online Library.
• Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational dominance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1859-1880
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. (pp: 13-31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
• Kanwal, R., Khan, F. R., & Baloch, S. M. (2017). Comparative study of linguistic features in gender communication in Pakistani television talk show. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 6(2), 54-62.
• Keevallik, L. (2003). From Interaction to Grammar : Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation (PhD dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis).
• Khan, S. A., & Shahid, M. B. (2019). Managing Agenda Setting in Pakistani Political Talk- Shows: A Functional Analysis of Interruptions. Global Regional Review, 4(1), 43-54.
• Korolija, N. (1998). Episodes in talk : Constructing coherence in multiparty conversation (PhD dissertation).
• Koshik, I. (2010). Questions that convey information in teacher-student conferences. In, Freed, A. F. and Ehrlich, S.
• Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in society, 2(1), 45-79.
• Lee, Y. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics. 39, 180-206
• Lindström, A. (1999). Language as social action : Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation : grammatik, prosodi och interaktion i svenska samtal (PhD dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis).
• Pakzadian, M., & Tootkaboni, A. A. (2018). The role of gender in conversational dominance: A study of EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1560602.
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4 Part 1), 696-735.
• Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation Analysis and language learning. Language Teaching. 38(4), 165-187
• Sert, O., & Seedhouse, P. (2011). Introduction: Conversation Analysis in Applied Linguistics. Online Submission, 5(1), 1-14.
• Sidnell, J. (2007). Comparative studies in conversation analysis. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 36, 229- 244.
• Stokoe, E. H., & Smithson, J. (2001). Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction. Discourse & Society, 12(2), 217-244
• Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation: Morrow New York.
• Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction: Sage