Difference between revisions of "Koivisto2019"
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) (BibTeX auto import 2019-06-19 10:33:02) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 03:33, 19 June 2019
| Koivisto2019 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Koivisto2019 |
| Author(s) | Aino Koivisto |
| Title | Repair receipts: On their motivation and interactional import |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, change-of-state token, repair, repair receipt, response particles, other-initiated repair, Finnish |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2019 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 21 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 398-420 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445619842737 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article discusses a less-studied aspect of repair sequences in conversation, that is, their exit phases. It will be argued that while the most common way of exiting is a resumption of the main activity straight after requested repair, sometimes specific receipt objects are also needed. The focus of the article is on the use of these repair receipts. Two types of motivation for using them as exit devices are discussed: prolongation of the repair sequence and the repairers’ critical stance toward the repair initiation. The article will also consider the use of different change-of-state tokens as repair receipts in Finnish conversation. It will be argued that a claim of now-understanding (aa) is the repair receipt proper, enabling sequence closure and resumption of the main activity, while news receipts target the newsworthiness of the information provided in the repair turn, enabling sequence expansion.
Notes
