{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011811023622047244, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.9363636363636365, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Using Conversation Analysis in the Lab

ABSTRACT In this introduction to the special issue of Research on Language and Social Interaction on “Experimental and Laboratory Approaches to Conversation Analysis,” I make the case that while naturalistic observation should take precedence over other methods, Conversation Analysis as a field should embrace a methodological pluralism that includes not only quantification but also experimentation and laboratory observation. Before I introduce the contributions to the special issue, I discuss the prohibition against such methods in the field, situate naturalistic and laboratory research on a methodological continuum, and develop a series of arguments in favor of experimental and laboratory studies of interaction.