Difference between revisions of "Robinson-Bolden2010"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jeffrey D. Robinson; Galina B. Bolden; |Title=Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account sol...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Jeffrey D. Robinson; Galina B. Bolden; | |Author(s)=Jeffrey D. Robinson; Galina B. Bolden; | ||
| − | |Title=Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: | + | |Title=Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: the case of explicit account |
solicitations | solicitations | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; accounts; conversation analysis; disaffiliation; other initiation of repair; preference; transition space | |Tag(s)=EMCA; accounts; conversation analysis; disaffiliation; other initiation of repair; preference; transition space | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
|Pages=501–533 | |Pages=501–533 | ||
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461445610371051 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/1461445610371051 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445610371051 | ||
| − | |Abstract=This | + | |Abstract=This article extends prior conversation analytic research on the preference organization of sequence-initiating actions. Across two languages (English and Russian), this article examines one such action: explicitly soliciting an account for human conduct (predominantly with why-type interrogatives). Prior work demonstrates that this action conveys a challenging stance towards the warrantability of the accountable event/conduct (Bolden and Robinson, forthcoming). When addressees are somehow responsible for the accountable event/conduct, explicit solicitations of accounts are frequently critical of, and thus embody disaffiliation with, addressees. This article demonstrates that, when explicit solicitations of accounts embody disaffiliation, they are systematically ‘withheld’ and, thus, can be characterized as ‘dispreferred’ actions. This article also examines: a) deviant cases, where account solicitations are not withheld, which is a practice for embodying aggravated disaffiliation; and b) negative cases, where account solicitations actually embody affiliation , and as such are typically treated as preferred actions and not withheld. |
| − | sequence-initiating actions. Across two languages (English and Russian), this article examines one | ||
| − | such | ||
| − | interrogatives). Prior work demonstrates | ||
| − | the warrantability of the accountable event/conduct (Bolden and Robinson, forthcoming). When | ||
| − | addressees | ||
| − | of | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:35, 18 October 2019
| Robinson-Bolden2010 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Robinson-Bolden2010 |
| Author(s) | Jeffrey D. Robinson, Galina B. Bolden |
| Title | Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: the case of explicit account
solicitations |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, accounts, conversation analysis, disaffiliation, other initiation of repair, preference, transition space |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2010 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 12 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 501–533 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445610371051 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article extends prior conversation analytic research on the preference organization of sequence-initiating actions. Across two languages (English and Russian), this article examines one such action: explicitly soliciting an account for human conduct (predominantly with why-type interrogatives). Prior work demonstrates that this action conveys a challenging stance towards the warrantability of the accountable event/conduct (Bolden and Robinson, forthcoming). When addressees are somehow responsible for the accountable event/conduct, explicit solicitations of accounts are frequently critical of, and thus embody disaffiliation with, addressees. This article demonstrates that, when explicit solicitations of accounts embody disaffiliation, they are systematically ‘withheld’ and, thus, can be characterized as ‘dispreferred’ actions. This article also examines: a) deviant cases, where account solicitations are not withheld, which is a practice for embodying aggravated disaffiliation; and b) negative cases, where account solicitations actually embody affiliation , and as such are typically treated as preferred actions and not withheld.
Notes
