Difference between revisions of "Heritage2013a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
Line 10: Line 10:
 
|Number=5
 
|Number=5
 
|Pages=551–578
 
|Pages=551–578
|URL=http://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/551
+
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445613501449
 
|DOI=10.1177/1461445613501449
 
|DOI=10.1177/1461445613501449
 
|Abstract=This article reviews arguments that, in the process of action formation and ascription, the relative status of the participants with respect to a projected action can adjust or trump the action stance conveyed by the linguistic form of the utterance. In general, congruency between status and stance is preferred, and linguistic form is a fairly reliable guide to action ascription. However incongruities between stance and status result in action ascriptions that are at variance with the action stance that is otherwise conveyed in the turn. This argument is presented, first, in relation to epistemic status and stance where the process is argued to be both fundamental and universal across all declarative and interrogative utterances. Some consequences of this way of viewing action are discussed. The argument is then briefly extended to deontics and benefactives.
 
|Abstract=This article reviews arguments that, in the process of action formation and ascription, the relative status of the participants with respect to a projected action can adjust or trump the action stance conveyed by the linguistic form of the utterance. In general, congruency between status and stance is preferred, and linguistic form is a fairly reliable guide to action ascription. However incongruities between stance and status result in action ascriptions that are at variance with the action stance that is otherwise conveyed in the turn. This argument is presented, first, in relation to epistemic status and stance where the process is argued to be both fundamental and universal across all declarative and interrogative utterances. Some consequences of this way of viewing action are discussed. The argument is then briefly extended to deontics and benefactives.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 14:17, 4 December 2019

Heritage2013a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Heritage2013a
Author(s) John Heritage
Title Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Epistemics, Action formation
Publisher
Year 2013
Language
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 15
Number 5
Pages 551–578
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1461445613501449
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article reviews arguments that, in the process of action formation and ascription, the relative status of the participants with respect to a projected action can adjust or trump the action stance conveyed by the linguistic form of the utterance. In general, congruency between status and stance is preferred, and linguistic form is a fairly reliable guide to action ascription. However incongruities between stance and status result in action ascriptions that are at variance with the action stance that is otherwise conveyed in the turn. This argument is presented, first, in relation to epistemic status and stance where the process is argued to be both fundamental and universal across all declarative and interrogative utterances. Some consequences of this way of viewing action are discussed. The argument is then briefly extended to deontics and benefactives.

Notes