Difference between revisions of "Sidnell2007a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(BibTeX auto import 2018-06-11 02:54:33)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
|Key=Sidnell2007a
+
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Key=Sidnell2007a
+
|Author(s)=Jack Sidnell;
 
|Title=Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis
 
|Title=Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis
|Author(s)=Jack Sidnell;
 
 
|Tag(s)=cross-cultural comparison; cross-linguistic comparison; person-reference; repair; social interaction; turn-taking
 
|Tag(s)=cross-cultural comparison; cross-linguistic comparison; person-reference; repair; social interaction; turn-taking
|BibType=ARTICLE
+
|Key=Sidnell2007a
 
|Year=2007
 
|Year=2007
|Month=sep
 
 
|Journal=Annual Review of Anthropology
 
|Journal=Annual Review of Anthropology
 
|Volume=36
 
|Volume=36

Latest revision as of 13:54, 24 November 2019

Sidnell2007a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Sidnell2007a
Author(s) Jack Sidnell
Title Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis
Editor(s)
Tag(s) cross-cultural comparison, cross-linguistic comparison, person-reference, repair, social interaction, turn-taking
Publisher
Year 2007
Language
City
Month
Journal Annual Review of Anthropology
Volume 36
Number 1
Pages 229–244
URL Link
DOI 10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094313
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Conversation analysis initially drew its empirical materials from recordings of English conversation. However, over the past 20 years conversation analysts have begun to examine talk-in-interaction in an increasingly broad range of languages and communities. These studies allow for a new comparative perspective, which attends to the consequences of linguistic and social differences for the organization of social interaction. A framework for such a comparative analysis focusing on a series of generic interactional issues or “problems” (e.g., how turns are to be distributed among participants) and the way they are solved through the mobilization of local resources (grammar, social categories, etc.) is sketched. Comparative studies in conversation analysis encourage us to think of interaction in terms of generic organizations of interaction, which are inflected or torqued by the local circumstances within which they operate (Schegloff 2006).

Notes