LISO Data Sessions (Winter 2026)
Time: 10 am - 12 pm (Pacific) / 1 - 3 pm (Eastern) / 6 - 8 pm (GMT)
Venue: SSMS 3410; or join via Zoom
Coordinator: Marat Zheng (Sociology) | FAQs for first-time presenters/attendees
January 9, 2026
~Unmotivated observations on a fragment of English conversation
January 16, 2026
~Unmotivated observations on a fragment of English conversation (cont.)
January 23, 2026
Marat Zheng (Sociology, UCSB)
~A telephone call between a Chinese official and a foreign person during Shanghai's 2022 covid lockdown
January 30, 2026
Sam Olds (Sociology, UCSB)
~An interaction between a judge and defense attorney over the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order to stop mass firings during the government shutdown, 2025
February 6, 2026
Amarachi Ugwu (Sociology, UCSB)
~A phone call between a comedian and a kindergarten teacher on a fake hotline for reporting illegal immigrants created by the comedian
February 13, 2026
Evelyn Vera-Flández (Education, UCSB)
~Data TBD
February 20, 2026
Jeffrey Aguinaldo (Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University)
~Data TBD
February 27, 2026
NO SESSION PLANNED
March 6, 2026
Munira Kairat (Education, UCSB)
~Data TBD
March 13, 2026
Jean-Marie Nau (Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg)
~Doing Bahá’í Consultation
LISO Proseminars (Winter 2026)
Time: 1:30 - 3:30 pm (Pacific) / 4:30 - 6:30 pm (Eastern) / 9:30 - 11:30 pm (GMT)
Venue: Education 1205; or join via Zoom
Coordinator: Kevin Whitehead (Sociology)
February 6
John Heritage (Department of Sociology, UCLA) and Jeffrey Robinson (Department of Communication, Portland State University)
“On the Perimeter of Preference: Low-Stakes Polar Questions”
John Heritage (Department of Sociology, UCLA) and Jeffrey Robinson (Department of Communication, Portland State University)
“On the Perimeter of Preference: Low-Stakes Polar Questions”
Abstract:
It is widely believed that positively framed polar questions generally invite affirmative responses, and that this contributes to the activation of preference organization. This paper investigates the limits of such activation with the aim of determining the perimeter of preference. Across American- and British-English corpora of ordinary conversation, we collected all positively framed polar questions that were answered with ‘No’ (i.e., unmitigated disaffirmation) within 300 ms, a timeframe characteristic of preferred answer types. Using Conversation Analysis to inductively examine our core collection of 121 sequences, we identified three properties that characterize what we term ‘low-stakes’ questions: (1) these questions universally implement the action of information seeking (vs. recruitment, etc.); (2) questions are overwhelmingly interrogatives (vs. declaratives, etc.); and (3) questions’ proposed states of affairs are largely about facts in the world (vs. recipient or third-party conduct/actions). Most questions combined these properties, such that a significant number were information-seeking, interrogatively formed questions about facts-in-the-world. We argue that these ‘low stakes’ questions embody low levels of relational risk, which infuses many manifestations of preference organization. We conclude that, in the case of positively framed polar questions, and in a context of low relational risk, question design, per se, does not contribute to preference-organizational features of responses.
February 13
Hanna Asmaeil (Department of Education, UCSB)
“‘Teacher, are those words how you spell in Arabic?’: Socializing Linguistic and Cultural Awareness through Metalinguistic Conversations in Preschool”
February 20
Alvin Chu (Department of Sociology, UCLA)
Title TBC
March 6 (TBC)
Possible event to be determined – please save the date just in case!
March 13
Emilie Daugherty (Department of Sociology, UCSB)
“Intervening in Disputes Involving Language Discrimination”
It is widely believed that positively framed polar questions generally invite affirmative responses, and that this contributes to the activation of preference organization. This paper investigates the limits of such activation with the aim of determining the perimeter of preference. Across American- and British-English corpora of ordinary conversation, we collected all positively framed polar questions that were answered with ‘No’ (i.e., unmitigated disaffirmation) within 300 ms, a timeframe characteristic of preferred answer types. Using Conversation Analysis to inductively examine our core collection of 121 sequences, we identified three properties that characterize what we term ‘low-stakes’ questions: (1) these questions universally implement the action of information seeking (vs. recruitment, etc.); (2) questions are overwhelmingly interrogatives (vs. declaratives, etc.); and (3) questions’ proposed states of affairs are largely about facts in the world (vs. recipient or third-party conduct/actions). Most questions combined these properties, such that a significant number were information-seeking, interrogatively formed questions about facts-in-the-world. We argue that these ‘low stakes’ questions embody low levels of relational risk, which infuses many manifestations of preference organization. We conclude that, in the case of positively framed polar questions, and in a context of low relational risk, question design, per se, does not contribute to preference-organizational features of responses.
February 13
Hanna Asmaeil (Department of Education, UCSB)
“‘Teacher, are those words how you spell in Arabic?’: Socializing Linguistic and Cultural Awareness through Metalinguistic Conversations in Preschool”
February 20
Alvin Chu (Department of Sociology, UCLA)
Title TBC
March 6 (TBC)
Possible event to be determined – please save the date just in case!
March 13
Emilie Daugherty (Department of Sociology, UCSB)
“Intervening in Disputes Involving Language Discrimination”