Difference between revisions of "Kendrick2019"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Social action; Sequence organisation; Perception verbs; English; Disputes; Retro-sequences | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Social action; Sequence organisation; Perception verbs; English; Disputes; Retro-sequences | ||
|Key=Kendrick2019 | |Key=Kendrick2019 | ||
| + | |Publisher=John Benjamins | ||
|Year=2019 | |Year=2019 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
| + | |Address=Amsterdam | ||
|Booktitle=Perception Metaphors | |Booktitle=Perception Metaphors | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=253–274 |
|URL=https://benjamins.com/catalog/celcr.19.13ken | |URL=https://benjamins.com/catalog/celcr.19.13ken | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1075/celcr.19.13ken |
|Abstract=Perception verbs are frequent in conversation across diverse languages and cultures. This chapter presents a case study of a recurrent but previously undocumented use of the perception verb see in everyday English conversation. Using conversation analysis, the chapter explicates the use of “See?” – the verb see produced with rising intonation as a possibly complete turn-constructional unit – as claim of evidential vindication. With “See?” a speaker claims a just prior turn, action, or event as support for a previous assertive action. The analysis demonstrates that the practice exploits two distinct forms of sequence organisation, adjacency pairs and retro-sequences, and reflects on the fit between the perception verb see and the action it implements within this practice. | |Abstract=Perception verbs are frequent in conversation across diverse languages and cultures. This chapter presents a case study of a recurrent but previously undocumented use of the perception verb see in everyday English conversation. Using conversation analysis, the chapter explicates the use of “See?” – the verb see produced with rising intonation as a possibly complete turn-constructional unit – as claim of evidential vindication. With “See?” a speaker claims a just prior turn, action, or event as support for a previous assertive action. The analysis demonstrates that the practice exploits two distinct forms of sequence organisation, adjacency pairs and retro-sequences, and reflects on the fit between the perception verb see and the action it implements within this practice. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:12, 19 January 2020
| Kendrick2019 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Kendrick2019 |
| Author(s) | Kobin H. Kendrick |
| Title | Evidential vindication in next turn: Using the retrospective “see?” in conversation |
| Editor(s) | Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O'Meara, Lila San Roque, Asifa Majid |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Social action, Sequence organisation, Perception verbs, English, Disputes, Retro-sequences |
| Publisher | John Benjamins |
| Year | 2019 |
| Language | English |
| City | Amsterdam |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 253–274 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/celcr.19.13ken |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Perception Metaphors |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Perception verbs are frequent in conversation across diverse languages and cultures. This chapter presents a case study of a recurrent but previously undocumented use of the perception verb see in everyday English conversation. Using conversation analysis, the chapter explicates the use of “See?” – the verb see produced with rising intonation as a possibly complete turn-constructional unit – as claim of evidential vindication. With “See?” a speaker claims a just prior turn, action, or event as support for a previous assertive action. The analysis demonstrates that the practice exploits two distinct forms of sequence organisation, adjacency pairs and retro-sequences, and reflects on the fit between the perception verb see and the action it implements within this practice.
Notes
