Difference between revisions of "Cerna2015"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=62 | |Number=62 | ||
|URL=http://www.biograf.org/clanek.html?clanek=v6201 | |URL=http://www.biograf.org/clanek.html?clanek=v6201 | ||
| − | | | + | |Note=Who is a dominant speaker?: Analysis of informal interactions |
| − | + | |Abstract=This study perceives a dialogue to be a social event, a negotiation process. Participants negotiate their positions (the dominant or submissive one) through communicative actions which are, at the same time, social actions. Interactional dominance and the structure of the dialogue are examined through methods of conversation analysis and discourse analysis (Linell, Gustavsson & Juvonen 1988; Madsen 2003). The authentic interaction of pupils of a Czech and a German class during their excursion was analysed: 1.763 turns, 440 minutes. In each turn a communicative action is accomplished. The action is motivated by the communicative purpose and implies the speaker’s position in a given interaction. Doing analysis turn by turn we follow three variables: communicative purpose – communicative action – speaker’s position. The data shows, that the whole conversation is segmented into structured communicative episodes. The expression of a communicative purpose starts an episode. After that, other speakers express their communicative purposes, and by this, it comes to negotiating. Dominance in this communicative episode is won by the speaker, whose purpose is enforced and realized. I found that a simple communicative episode is composed of following communicative actions: proposal, ratification or refusal, realization and evaluation. The dominant position is linked to communicative actions proposal, refusal and evaluation, the submissive one to ratification and realization. These conclusions could be used to examine common dialogues and determine the speaker’s position. Some problems could arise with more complicated dialogues involving more speakers, or if the purpose is not clearly expressed. | |
| − | This study perceives a dialogue to be a social event, a negotiation process. Participants negotiate their positions (the dominant or submissive one) through communicative actions which are, at the same time, social actions. Interactional dominance and the structure of the dialogue are examined through methods of conversation analysis and discourse analysis (Linell, Gustavsson & Juvonen 1988; Madsen 2003). The authentic interaction of pupils of a Czech and a German class during their excursion was analysed: 1.763 turns, 440 minutes. In each turn a communicative action is accomplished. The action is motivated by the communicative purpose and implies the speaker’s position in a given interaction. Doing analysis turn by turn we follow three variables: communicative purpose – communicative action – speaker’s position. The data shows, that the whole conversation is segmented into structured communicative episodes. The expression of a communicative purpose starts an episode. After that, other speakers express their communicative purposes, and by this, it comes to negotiating. Dominance in this communicative episode is won by the speaker, whose purpose is enforced and realized. I found that a simple communicative episode is composed of following communicative actions: proposal, ratification or refusal, realization and evaluation. The dominant position is linked to communicative actions proposal, refusal and evaluation, the submissive one to ratification and realization. These conclusions could be used to examine common dialogues and determine the speaker’s position. Some problems could arise with more complicated dialogues involving more speakers, or if the purpose is not clearly expressed. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:02, 22 June 2020
| Cerna2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Cerna2015 |
| Author(s) | Kateřina Černá |
| Title | Kdo je dominantní mluvčí? Analýza neformálních interakcí |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Czech, Interviews, Power, Conversation Analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | Czech |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Biograf |
| Volume | |
| Number | 62 |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This study perceives a dialogue to be a social event, a negotiation process. Participants negotiate their positions (the dominant or submissive one) through communicative actions which are, at the same time, social actions. Interactional dominance and the structure of the dialogue are examined through methods of conversation analysis and discourse analysis (Linell, Gustavsson & Juvonen 1988; Madsen 2003). The authentic interaction of pupils of a Czech and a German class during their excursion was analysed: 1.763 turns, 440 minutes. In each turn a communicative action is accomplished. The action is motivated by the communicative purpose and implies the speaker’s position in a given interaction. Doing analysis turn by turn we follow three variables: communicative purpose – communicative action – speaker’s position. The data shows, that the whole conversation is segmented into structured communicative episodes. The expression of a communicative purpose starts an episode. After that, other speakers express their communicative purposes, and by this, it comes to negotiating. Dominance in this communicative episode is won by the speaker, whose purpose is enforced and realized. I found that a simple communicative episode is composed of following communicative actions: proposal, ratification or refusal, realization and evaluation. The dominant position is linked to communicative actions proposal, refusal and evaluation, the submissive one to ratification and realization. These conclusions could be used to examine common dialogues and determine the speaker’s position. Some problems could arise with more complicated dialogues involving more speakers, or if the purpose is not clearly expressed.
Notes
Who is a dominant speaker?: Analysis of informal interactions
