Speer2012a
| Speer2012a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Speer2012a |
| Author(s) | Susan A. Speer |
| Title | Hypothetical questions: a comparative analysis and implications for “applied” vs. “basic” conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Questions, Applied |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 45 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 352–374 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2012.724987 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Hypothetical questions (HQs) are a special class of conditional question that seek a response by proposing a “what-if” situation. It is not clear to what extent view testing HQs represent a generic conversational device that operates in a similar way across contexts. I conduct a comparative analysis of HQs across four different interactional settings: ordinary conversations, research interactions, broadcast news interviews, and doctor–patient consultations. I show that while the practice of using HQs to test recipients' views and commitments is generic, or context free, both the form and function of HQs and the precise way they run off in each case are attentive in their detail to the interactional demands and affordances of the setting. I suggest that in the future, both “applied” and “basic” conversation analysis (CA) might benefit from conducting comparative analyses.
Notes
