Difference between revisions of "Jasperson-Hayashi-Fox1994"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Robert Jasperson; Makoto Hayashi; Barnara Fox; |Title=Semantics and interaction: Three exploratory case studies |Tag(s)=IL; Semantics;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Robert Jasperson; Makoto Hayashi; Barnara Fox; | |Author(s)=Robert Jasperson; Makoto Hayashi; Barnara Fox; | ||
| − | |Title=Semantics and interaction: | + | |Title=Semantics and interaction: three exploratory case studies |
| − | |Tag(s)=IL; Semantics; | + | |Tag(s)=IL; Semantics; |
|Key=Jasperson-Hayashi-Fox1994 | |Key=Jasperson-Hayashi-Fox1994 | ||
|Year=1994 | |Year=1994 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=14 | |Volume=14 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages=555- | + | |Pages=555–580 |
| + | |URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.1.1994.14.issue-4/text.1.1994.14.4.555/text.1.1994.14.4.555.xml | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1515/text.1.1994.14.4.555 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Conversation analytic studies in the area of interaction and grammar have indicated that the syntactic organization of talk is systematically subordinated to interactional pressures. The present study elaborates this finding by focussing on the relationship between semantics and interaction. We explore three instances from English and Japanese conversational data in which speakers displayed an orientation to conflict between the semantic integrity of their utterances and their larger interactional concerns. Three case studies investigate how speakers managed such conflict at the moment of utterance. In each case we found that the semantic integrity of an utterance was systematically subordinated to interactional concerns. speakers in some sense knowingly produced utterances which were factually incorrect or problematic in scope. The systematicity of the subordination has implications for the nature of the organization of meaning: our analysis strongly suggests that it is not the case that speakers form a mental representation of the meaning they want to communicate and then select the lexico-syntactic structures which will convey that meaning most accurately. Processes of grammaticalization, or 'semanticalization', are also implicated. Finally, we note how the experience of syntax as independent of semantics can be seen to arise when semantics is subordinated to interaction. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:40, 24 October 2019
| Jasperson-Hayashi-Fox1994 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Jasperson-Hayashi-Fox1994 |
| Author(s) | Robert Jasperson, Makoto Hayashi, Barnara Fox |
| Title | Semantics and interaction: three exploratory case studies |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | IL, Semantics |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1994 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Text |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 555–580 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/text.1.1994.14.4.555 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Conversation analytic studies in the area of interaction and grammar have indicated that the syntactic organization of talk is systematically subordinated to interactional pressures. The present study elaborates this finding by focussing on the relationship between semantics and interaction. We explore three instances from English and Japanese conversational data in which speakers displayed an orientation to conflict between the semantic integrity of their utterances and their larger interactional concerns. Three case studies investigate how speakers managed such conflict at the moment of utterance. In each case we found that the semantic integrity of an utterance was systematically subordinated to interactional concerns. speakers in some sense knowingly produced utterances which were factually incorrect or problematic in scope. The systematicity of the subordination has implications for the nature of the organization of meaning: our analysis strongly suggests that it is not the case that speakers form a mental representation of the meaning they want to communicate and then select the lexico-syntactic structures which will convey that meaning most accurately. Processes of grammaticalization, or 'semanticalization', are also implicated. Finally, we note how the experience of syntax as independent of semantics can be seen to arise when semantics is subordinated to interaction.
Notes
