Difference between revisions of "Sidnell2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jack Sidnell; |Title=“Who knows best?”: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation |Tag(s)=EMCA; Evidentiality; convers...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Jack Sidnell; | + | |Author(s)=Jack Sidnell; |
| − | |Title=“Who knows best?”: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation | + | |Title=“Who knows best?”: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Evidentiality; conversation analysis; epistemic asymmetry; interaction; questions; assessments; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Evidentiality; conversation analysis; epistemic asymmetry; interaction; questions; assessments; | ||
|Key=Sidnell2012 | |Key=Sidnell2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
| − | |Journal=Pragmatics and Society | + | |Journal=Pragmatics and Society |
|Volume=3 | |Volume=3 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=294–320 | |Pages=294–320 | ||
| − | |URL=https:// | + | |URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid |
|DOI=10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid | |DOI=10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid | ||
|Abstract=This essay reviews current work in conversation analysis with an eye to what it might contribute to the study of evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry. After a brief review of some aspects of the interactional organization of conversation, I turn to consider the way in which participants negotiate relative epistemic positioning through the use of particular practices of speaking. The analytic focus here is on agreements and confirmations especially in assessment sequences. In conclusion, I consider a single case in which various practices are employed to convey a delicate balance of knowledge and simultaneously to attend to a range of other, non-epistemic, interactional issues. | |Abstract=This essay reviews current work in conversation analysis with an eye to what it might contribute to the study of evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry. After a brief review of some aspects of the interactional organization of conversation, I turn to consider the way in which participants negotiate relative epistemic positioning through the use of particular practices of speaking. The analytic focus here is on agreements and confirmations especially in assessment sequences. In conclusion, I consider a single case in which various practices are employed to convey a delicate balance of knowledge and simultaneously to attend to a range of other, non-epistemic, interactional issues. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 05:22, 30 November 2019
| Sidnell2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Sidnell2012 |
| Author(s) | Jack Sidnell |
| Title | “Who knows best?”: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Evidentiality, conversation analysis, epistemic asymmetry, interaction, questions, assessments |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Pragmatics and Society |
| Volume | 3 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 294–320 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/ps.3.2.08sid |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This essay reviews current work in conversation analysis with an eye to what it might contribute to the study of evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry. After a brief review of some aspects of the interactional organization of conversation, I turn to consider the way in which participants negotiate relative epistemic positioning through the use of particular practices of speaking. The analytic focus here is on agreements and confirmations especially in assessment sequences. In conclusion, I consider a single case in which various practices are employed to convey a delicate balance of knowledge and simultaneously to attend to a range of other, non-epistemic, interactional issues.
Notes
