Difference between revisions of "Heritage2016"
(BibTeX auto import 2016-03-03 09:49:47) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| − | | | + | |BibType=ARTICLE |
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Author(s)=John Heritage | |Author(s)=John Heritage | ||
| + | |Title=The recruitment matrix | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA | |Tag(s)=EMCA | ||
| − | | | + | |Key=Heritage2016 |
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | |Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | ||
|Volume=49 | |Volume=49 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=27–31 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126440 |
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2016.1126440 | |DOI=10.1080/08351813.2016.1126440 | ||
|Abstract=This article discusses Kendrick and Drew’s (2016/this issue) conceptualization of recruitment. It is argued that the critical feature of recruitment as a category is its focus on forms of local, here-and-now assistance, which gives recruitment actions a different suite of affordances and constraints than actions soliciting assistance on some future occasion disjoined from the present. It is suggested that these latter actions must be “language heavy” and may be likely to involve heavier impositions than the aims for which recruitment generally functions, thus justifying an enhanced focus on linguistic structure and sequence. Data are in American English. | |Abstract=This article discusses Kendrick and Drew’s (2016/this issue) conceptualization of recruitment. It is argued that the critical feature of recruitment as a category is its focus on forms of local, here-and-now assistance, which gives recruitment actions a different suite of affordances and constraints than actions soliciting assistance on some future occasion disjoined from the present. It is suggested that these latter actions must be “language heavy” and may be likely to involve heavier impositions than the aims for which recruitment generally functions, thus justifying an enhanced focus on linguistic structure and sequence. Data are in American English. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:26, 27 December 2019
| Heritage2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Heritage2016 |
| Author(s) | John Heritage |
| Title | The recruitment matrix |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 49 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 27–31 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2016.1126440 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article discusses Kendrick and Drew’s (2016/this issue) conceptualization of recruitment. It is argued that the critical feature of recruitment as a category is its focus on forms of local, here-and-now assistance, which gives recruitment actions a different suite of affordances and constraints than actions soliciting assistance on some future occasion disjoined from the present. It is suggested that these latter actions must be “language heavy” and may be likely to involve heavier impositions than the aims for which recruitment generally functions, thus justifying an enhanced focus on linguistic structure and sequence. Data are in American English.
Notes
