Chevalier2011

From emcawiki
Revision as of 07:35, 26 April 2015 by DarceySearles (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Fabienne H.G. Chevalier |Title=Managing impartiality in French tourist offices: Responses to recommendation-seeking questions |Tag(s)=EM...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Chevalier2011
BibType ARTICLE
Key Chevalier2011
Author(s) Fabienne H.G. Chevalier
Title Managing impartiality in French tourist offices: Responses to recommendation-seeking questions
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Conversation Analysis, French, Tourism, Tourist office, Affiliation, Institutional restrictions, Evasion, Nonconforming responses, Questions, Recommendations, Impartiality
Publisher
Year 2011
Language
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 13
Number
Pages 139-161
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1461445610392134
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article examines the ways in which French tourist officers manage impartiality in telephone calls when faced with recommendation-seeking questions (RSQs). Using Conversation Analysis and drawing on a corpus of 700+ telephone calls, it shows that, by typically avoiding conforming responses, officers resist confirming the evaluative element embodied in RSQs and, thus, avoid making recommendations. Instead, they opt to treat the questions as unanswerable in their own terms, a practice that may be deployed on its own or in conjunction with other practices such as supplying information that will assist callers in making their choices and/or constructing responses as contingent. Further, officers typically do not decline to make recommendations on institutional grounds and, through their choices of interactional practices, obscure the institutional restrictions under which they operate. Thus, the selection of nonconforming responses by tourist officers is shown to contribute to the maintenance of an impartial stance. Finally, the article addresses the notions of affiliation and alignment and shows that nonconforming responses are less disaffiliative than outright rejections.

Notes