Difference between revisions of "Nishizaka2015a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(BibTeX auto import 2015-05-08 07:06:33)
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
 +
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
 +
|Author(s)=Aug Nishizaka; Kaoru Hayano;
 +
|Title=Conversational preference
 +
|Editor(s)=Karen Tracy; Cornelia Ilie; Todd Sandel;
 +
|Tag(s)=EMCA; communication theory; language and social interaction; qualitative methods
 
|Key=Nishizaka2015a
 
|Key=Nishizaka2015a
|Key=Nishizaka2015a
+
|Publisher=John Wiley & Sons
|Title=Conversational Preference
+
|Year=2015
|Author(s)=Aug Nishizaka; Kaoru Hayano;
+
|Language=English
|Tag(s)=EMCA;  communication theory;  language and social interaction;  qualitative methods
+
|Address=London
|Editor(s)=Karen Tracy; Cornelia Ilie; Todd Sandel;
 
 
|Booktitle=The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction
 
|Booktitle=The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction
 +
|Volume=1
 +
|Pages=229–236
 +
|URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
 +
|DOI=10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
 
|ISBN=9781118611463
 
|ISBN=9781118611463
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
 
|Publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 
|Year=2015
 
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
 
|DOI=10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
 
 
|Abstract=Conversation-analytic studies have noted various preferences that operate across different dimensions of interaction. These preferences operate on alternative forms or actions by favoring one over another. This article discusses preferences by focusing on two dimensions of interaction. The first is preferences in person reference, where the preference for minimization and the preference for recipient design determine the person reference form. The second is preferences in action sequence, where agreeing actions are preferred over disagreeing actions, each of which exhibits distinct formal features. Finally, this article suggests that other constraints may interfere with conversational preferences.
 
|Abstract=Conversation-analytic studies have noted various preferences that operate across different dimensions of interaction. These preferences operate on alternative forms or actions by favoring one over another. This article discusses preferences by focusing on two dimensions of interaction. The first is preferences in person reference, where the preference for minimization and the preference for recipient design determine the person reference form. The second is preferences in action sequence, where agreeing actions are preferred over disagreeing actions, each of which exhibits distinct formal features. Finally, this article suggests that other constraints may interfere with conversational preferences.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 03:34, 15 December 2019

Nishizaka2015a
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Nishizaka2015a
Author(s) Aug Nishizaka, Kaoru Hayano
Title Conversational preference
Editor(s) Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, Todd Sandel
Tag(s) EMCA, communication theory, language and social interaction, qualitative methods
Publisher John Wiley & Sons
Year 2015
Language English
City London
Month
Journal
Volume 1
Number
Pages 229–236
URL Link
DOI 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
ISBN 9781118611463
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Conversation-analytic studies have noted various preferences that operate across different dimensions of interaction. These preferences operate on alternative forms or actions by favoring one over another. This article discusses preferences by focusing on two dimensions of interaction. The first is preferences in person reference, where the preference for minimization and the preference for recipient design determine the person reference form. The second is preferences in action sequence, where agreeing actions are preferred over disagreeing actions, each of which exhibits distinct formal features. Finally, this article suggests that other constraints may interfere with conversational preferences.

Notes