Difference between revisions of "Ran2019"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(BibTeX auto import 2019-08-28 07:46:35)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
|Key=Ran2019
+
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Key=Ran2019
+
|Author(s)=Yongping Ran; Xu Huang;
 
|Title=Deontic authority in intervention discourse: Insights from bystander intervention
 
|Title=Deontic authority in intervention discourse: Insights from bystander intervention
|Author(s)=Yongping Ran; Xu Huang;
 
 
|Tag(s)=bystander intervention; victim; deontic authority; deontics; intervention discourse; pragmatics; Chinese
 
|Tag(s)=bystander intervention; victim; deontic authority; deontics; intervention discourse; pragmatics; Chinese
|BibType=ARTICLE
+
|Key=Ran2019
 
|Year=2019
 
|Year=2019
 +
|Language=English
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Volume=21
 
|Volume=21
 
|Number=5
 
|Number=5
|Pages=540-560
+
|Pages=540–560
|URL=https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619846705
+
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461445619846705
 
|DOI=10.1177/1461445619846705
 
|DOI=10.1177/1461445619846705
 
|Abstract=Our study offers a linguistic–pragmatic examination of instances of bystander intervention, a social action that takes place when a bystander or a group of bystanders intervenes when a wrongdoer abuses a victim or behaves outside socially acceptable norms. We approach this social phenomenon by analyzing data drawn from a database of 11 video-recordings that all involve naturally occurring interactions in public settings in China. The notion of intervention discourse is tentatively introduced in this study to distinguish it from those used to achieve other communicative purposes and to disclose some recurrent patterns of language use in bystander intervention. The data analysis summarizes six categories of intervention discourse along the continuum of strong to weak intervention: terminating, consequence-stating, advising, judging, appealing and stance-taking. Our study demonstrates that the skillful exercise of deontic authority embodied in intervention discourse might have a tangible influence on the outcome of the intervention.
 
|Abstract=Our study offers a linguistic–pragmatic examination of instances of bystander intervention, a social action that takes place when a bystander or a group of bystanders intervenes when a wrongdoer abuses a victim or behaves outside socially acceptable norms. We approach this social phenomenon by analyzing data drawn from a database of 11 video-recordings that all involve naturally occurring interactions in public settings in China. The notion of intervention discourse is tentatively introduced in this study to distinguish it from those used to achieve other communicative purposes and to disclose some recurrent patterns of language use in bystander intervention. The data analysis summarizes six categories of intervention discourse along the continuum of strong to weak intervention: terminating, consequence-stating, advising, judging, appealing and stance-taking. Our study demonstrates that the skillful exercise of deontic authority embodied in intervention discourse might have a tangible influence on the outcome of the intervention.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 09:43, 16 January 2020

Ran2019
BibType ARTICLE
Key Ran2019
Author(s) Yongping Ran, Xu Huang
Title Deontic authority in intervention discourse: Insights from bystander intervention
Editor(s)
Tag(s) bystander intervention, victim, deontic authority, deontics, intervention discourse, pragmatics, Chinese
Publisher
Year 2019
Language English
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 21
Number 5
Pages 540–560
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1461445619846705
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Our study offers a linguistic–pragmatic examination of instances of bystander intervention, a social action that takes place when a bystander or a group of bystanders intervenes when a wrongdoer abuses a victim or behaves outside socially acceptable norms. We approach this social phenomenon by analyzing data drawn from a database of 11 video-recordings that all involve naturally occurring interactions in public settings in China. The notion of intervention discourse is tentatively introduced in this study to distinguish it from those used to achieve other communicative purposes and to disclose some recurrent patterns of language use in bystander intervention. The data analysis summarizes six categories of intervention discourse along the continuum of strong to weak intervention: terminating, consequence-stating, advising, judging, appealing and stance-taking. Our study demonstrates that the skillful exercise of deontic authority embodied in intervention discourse might have a tangible influence on the outcome of the intervention.

Notes