Difference between revisions of "Seuren2016"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Key=Seuren2016 | |Key=Seuren2016 | ||
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
− | | | + | |Language=English |
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=104 | |Volume=104 | ||
− | |Pages= | + | |Pages=180–192 |
+ | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216616000527 | ||
+ | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.006 | ||
+ | |Abstract=Shared understanding is at the heart of social interaction: it is demonstrated and maintained with every turn-at-talk. Still intersubjectivity can on occasion break down, and this can happen for a plethora of reasons. Using conversation analysis, this paper demonstrates three practices that participants in Dutch talk-in-interaction use to repair breakdowns of intersubjectivity. The first practice consists of an oh ja-prefaced declarative. With this practice an interactant conveys that s/he remembers here-and-now some information which s/he thereby treats as relevant for understanding the prior talk. The second practice consists of an oh-prefaced declarative, with which the speaker claims to now understand something s/he earlier did not understand or had misunderstood. Both practices are declarative yes/no-type initiating actions, meaning that confirmation is treated as the relevant next action. Both practices, however, do very distinct actions. With a remembering, an interactant claims independent epistemic access, whereas with doing understanding access is local, and inferred from and dependent on the co-interactant's talk. We compare these two practices to oh-prefaced yes/no-type interrogatives. These too are used to address problems with intersubjectivity, but they claim instead that the prior talk by the interlocutor somehow contradicts the speakers background assumptions. | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 02:12, 17 December 2019
Seuren2016 | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Seuren2016 |
Author(s) | Lucas Seuren, Mike Huiskes, Tom Koole |
Title | Remembering and understanding with oh-prefaced yes/no declaratives in Dutch |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | EMCA, Dutch, Yes/No declaratives, understanding, remembering |
Publisher | |
Year | 2016 |
Language | English |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
Volume | 104 |
Number | |
Pages | 180–192 |
URL | Link |
DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.006 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
Shared understanding is at the heart of social interaction: it is demonstrated and maintained with every turn-at-talk. Still intersubjectivity can on occasion break down, and this can happen for a plethora of reasons. Using conversation analysis, this paper demonstrates three practices that participants in Dutch talk-in-interaction use to repair breakdowns of intersubjectivity. The first practice consists of an oh ja-prefaced declarative. With this practice an interactant conveys that s/he remembers here-and-now some information which s/he thereby treats as relevant for understanding the prior talk. The second practice consists of an oh-prefaced declarative, with which the speaker claims to now understand something s/he earlier did not understand or had misunderstood. Both practices are declarative yes/no-type initiating actions, meaning that confirmation is treated as the relevant next action. Both practices, however, do very distinct actions. With a remembering, an interactant claims independent epistemic access, whereas with doing understanding access is local, and inferred from and dependent on the co-interactant's talk. We compare these two practices to oh-prefaced yes/no-type interrogatives. These too are used to address problems with intersubjectivity, but they claim instead that the prior talk by the interlocutor somehow contradicts the speakers background assumptions.
Notes