Difference between revisions of "Stivers2006a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
Line 5: Line 5:
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interaction; conversation analysis; sequence organization; Progressivity; Response tokens; Peference; Non-response;
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interaction; conversation analysis; sequence organization; Progressivity; Response tokens; Peference; Non-response;
 
|Key=Stivers2006a
 
|Key=Stivers2006a
|Publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP)
 
 
|Year=2006
 
|Year=2006
 
|Month=may
 
|Month=may
 
|Journal=Language in Society
 
|Journal=Language in Society
 
|Volume=35
 
|Volume=35
|Number=03
+
|Number=3
 
|Pages=367–392
 
|Pages=367–392
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
+
|URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/preference-for-progressivity-in-interaction/C177F5A5337136B02C3F17E91776952B
|DOI=10.1017/s0047404506060179
+
|DOI=10.1017/S0047404506060179
|Abstract=This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction:
+
|Abstract=This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party interaction, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organization is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals an observable preference for progressivity in interaction.
in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party inter-
 
action, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category
 
of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is
 
asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jeffer-
 
son (1974)which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker
 
at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once
 
beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organi-
 
zation is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over
 
a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals
 
an observable preference for progressivity in interaction.
 
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 15:09, 10 November 2019

Stivers2006a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Stivers2006a
Author(s) Tanya Stivers, Jeffrey D. Robinson
Title A preference for progressivity in interaction
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Interaction, conversation analysis, sequence organization, Progressivity, Response tokens, Peference, Non-response
Publisher
Year 2006
Language
City
Month may
Journal Language in Society
Volume 35
Number 3
Pages 367–392
URL Link
DOI 10.1017/S0047404506060179
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party interaction, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organization is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals an observable preference for progressivity in interaction.

Notes