Difference between revisions of "Reynolds2011"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Edward Reynolds | |Author(s)=Edward Reynolds | ||
| − | |Title=Enticing a | + | |Title=Enticing a challengeable in arguments: sequence, epistemics and preference organisation |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Questions; Arguments; Conflict; Epistemics; Conversation Analysis; Argument; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Questions; Arguments; Conflict; Epistemics; Conversation Analysis; Argument; |
|Key=Reynolds2011 | |Key=Reynolds2011 | ||
|Year=2011 | |Year=2011 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=21 | |Volume=21 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=411–430 |
| − | |URL=https:// | + | |URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey |
| − | |Abstract=This article reports on an interactional practice found in one form of adversarial talk, arguments during protests, where participants work to ‘entice’ a particular answer from an opponent using an uncontroversial questions in order to challenge the opponent on the basis of their own answer. Based on a collection of arguments during protests posted to YouTube, this article uses conversation analysis (CA) in order to investigate the way in which participants employ these uncontroversial questions as ‘pre-challenges’, using speaker selection, recipient focused topics and a moral ordering of talk to work to | + | |DOI=10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey |
| − | obligate a particular answer from the recipient. The results of the analysis illustrate several ways in which participants manipulate epistemics, speaker selection, and recipient design as resources for enacting social conflict. | + | |Abstract=This article reports on an interactional practice found in one form of adversarial talk, arguments during protests, where participants work to ‘entice’ a particular answer from an opponent using an uncontroversial questions in order to challenge the opponent on the basis of their own answer. Based on a collection of arguments during protests posted to YouTube, this article uses conversation analysis (CA) in order to investigate the way in which participants employ these uncontroversial questions as ‘pre-challenges’, using speaker selection, recipient focused topics and a moral ordering of talk to work to obligate a particular answer from the recipient. The results of the analysis illustrate several ways in which participants manipulate epistemics, speaker selection, and recipient design as resources for enacting social conflict. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 06:14, 28 November 2019
| Reynolds2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Reynolds2011 |
| Author(s) | Edward Reynolds |
| Title | Enticing a challengeable in arguments: sequence, epistemics and preference organisation |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Questions, Arguments, Conflict, Epistemics, Conversation Analysis, Argument |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Pragmatics |
| Volume | 21 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 411–430 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article reports on an interactional practice found in one form of adversarial talk, arguments during protests, where participants work to ‘entice’ a particular answer from an opponent using an uncontroversial questions in order to challenge the opponent on the basis of their own answer. Based on a collection of arguments during protests posted to YouTube, this article uses conversation analysis (CA) in order to investigate the way in which participants employ these uncontroversial questions as ‘pre-challenges’, using speaker selection, recipient focused topics and a moral ordering of talk to work to obligate a particular answer from the recipient. The results of the analysis illustrate several ways in which participants manipulate epistemics, speaker selection, and recipient design as resources for enacting social conflict.
Notes
