Difference between revisions of "Bolden2018"
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) m |
HaydenBlain (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Galina B Bolden; | + | |Author(s)=Galina B. Bolden; |
|Title=Speaking ‘out of turn': Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair | |Title=Speaking ‘out of turn': Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; correction; epistemics; multiparty conversation; repair; turn-taking; repair initiation; trouble source; other-initiated repair | |Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; correction; epistemics; multiparty conversation; repair; turn-taking; repair initiation; trouble source; other-initiated repair | ||
Latest revision as of 01:57, 5 July 2019
| Bolden2018 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Bolden2018 |
| Author(s) | Galina B. Bolden |
| Title | Speaking ‘out of turn': Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, conversation analysis, correction, epistemics, multiparty conversation, repair, turn-taking, repair initiation, trouble source, other-initiated repair |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2018 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 20 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 142–162 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445617734346 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article provides an empirical demonstration of the saliency of epistemics to two core conversational organizations, turn-taking and repair. To that end, I examine cases in which a participant of a multiparty conversation intervenes into a repair sequence to respond to a repair initiation addressed to the trouble-source speaker, that is, in violation of the turn-taking rules, without having an epistemically grounded entitlement to do so. I show that such interventions enact a range of corrective actions vis-a-vis the repair initiation, such as contesting and correcting assumptions or understandings conveyed by the repair initiation. In providing these corrections ‘out of turn', the intervening speakers demonstrate their own attentive recipiency or cultural expertise and, at the same time, expose the repair initiator's interactional faux pas. The analysis demonstrates the procedural consequentiality of epistemic considerations (such as who knows, should know and has the right to know what) for the interlocutors – and, thus, the necessity to incorporate them into an empirically grounded analysis of their actions.
Notes
