Difference between revisions of "Seuren2016"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Key=Seuren2016 | |Key=Seuren2016 | ||
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
| − | | | + | |Language=English |
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=104 | |Volume=104 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=180–192 |
| + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216616000527 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.006 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Shared understanding is at the heart of social interaction: it is demonstrated and maintained with every turn-at-talk. Still intersubjectivity can on occasion break down, and this can happen for a plethora of reasons. Using conversation analysis, this paper demonstrates three practices that participants in Dutch talk-in-interaction use to repair breakdowns of intersubjectivity. The first practice consists of an oh ja-prefaced declarative. With this practice an interactant conveys that s/he remembers here-and-now some information which s/he thereby treats as relevant for understanding the prior talk. The second practice consists of an oh-prefaced declarative, with which the speaker claims to now understand something s/he earlier did not understand or had misunderstood. Both practices are declarative yes/no-type initiating actions, meaning that confirmation is treated as the relevant next action. Both practices, however, do very distinct actions. With a remembering, an interactant claims independent epistemic access, whereas with doing understanding access is local, and inferred from and dependent on the co-interactant's talk. We compare these two practices to oh-prefaced yes/no-type interrogatives. These too are used to address problems with intersubjectivity, but they claim instead that the prior talk by the interlocutor somehow contradicts the speakers background assumptions. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 02:12, 17 December 2019
| Seuren2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Seuren2016 |
| Author(s) | Lucas Seuren, Mike Huiskes, Tom Koole |
| Title | Remembering and understanding with oh-prefaced yes/no declaratives in Dutch |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Dutch, Yes/No declaratives, understanding, remembering |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 104 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 180–192 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.006 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Shared understanding is at the heart of social interaction: it is demonstrated and maintained with every turn-at-talk. Still intersubjectivity can on occasion break down, and this can happen for a plethora of reasons. Using conversation analysis, this paper demonstrates three practices that participants in Dutch talk-in-interaction use to repair breakdowns of intersubjectivity. The first practice consists of an oh ja-prefaced declarative. With this practice an interactant conveys that s/he remembers here-and-now some information which s/he thereby treats as relevant for understanding the prior talk. The second practice consists of an oh-prefaced declarative, with which the speaker claims to now understand something s/he earlier did not understand or had misunderstood. Both practices are declarative yes/no-type initiating actions, meaning that confirmation is treated as the relevant next action. Both practices, however, do very distinct actions. With a remembering, an interactant claims independent epistemic access, whereas with doing understanding access is local, and inferred from and dependent on the co-interactant's talk. We compare these two practices to oh-prefaced yes/no-type interrogatives. These too are used to address problems with intersubjectivity, but they claim instead that the prior talk by the interlocutor somehow contradicts the speakers background assumptions.
Notes
