Difference between revisions of "Caldwell2023"
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Marissa Caldwell; Joshua Raclaw; |Title=‘I just need a yes or no’: Managing resistant responses in U.S. Senate hearings |Tag(s)=EMCA...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Marissa Caldwell; Joshua Raclaw; | |Author(s)=Marissa Caldwell; Joshua Raclaw; | ||
|Title=‘I just need a yes or no’: Managing resistant responses in U.S. Senate hearings | |Title=‘I just need a yes or no’: Managing resistant responses in U.S. Senate hearings | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation analysis; Resistant responses; US Senate hearings; Metacommentary | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation analysis; Resistant responses; US Senate hearings; Metacommentary |
|Key=Caldwell2023 | |Key=Caldwell2023 | ||
|Year=2023 | |Year=2023 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Discourse Studies | |Journal=Discourse Studies | ||
| + | |Volume=25 | ||
| + | |Number=5 | ||
| + | |Pages=618–640 | ||
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14614456231159026 | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14614456231159026 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/14614456231159026 | |DOI=10.1177/14614456231159026 | ||
|Abstract=Using conversation analysis, this article examines how questioners manage resistant responses in the context of U.S. Senate hearings. In particular, we examine how questioning Senators use explicit metacommentary – a turn constructional practice in which speakers offer ‘on-record’ comments on the manner in which a prior turn was formulated – to manage a recipient’s resistant responses to polar questions. Within these contexts, metacommentary becomes a resource for highlighting the preference organization of the original question and challenging the adequacy of the recipient’s response. The analysis shows how metacommentary not only serves to guide a question recipient toward producing an adequate response, but additionally works to register the questioning Senator’s stance toward the inadequacy of the response while highlighting this inadequacy for both the co-present audience and viewers of these publicly televised hearings. | |Abstract=Using conversation analysis, this article examines how questioners manage resistant responses in the context of U.S. Senate hearings. In particular, we examine how questioning Senators use explicit metacommentary – a turn constructional practice in which speakers offer ‘on-record’ comments on the manner in which a prior turn was formulated – to manage a recipient’s resistant responses to polar questions. Within these contexts, metacommentary becomes a resource for highlighting the preference organization of the original question and challenging the adequacy of the recipient’s response. The analysis shows how metacommentary not only serves to guide a question recipient toward producing an adequate response, but additionally works to register the questioning Senator’s stance toward the inadequacy of the response while highlighting this inadequacy for both the co-present audience and viewers of these publicly televised hearings. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:58, 26 September 2023
| Caldwell2023 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Caldwell2023 |
| Author(s) | Marissa Caldwell, Joshua Raclaw |
| Title | ‘I just need a yes or no’: Managing resistant responses in U.S. Senate hearings |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation analysis, Resistant responses, US Senate hearings, Metacommentary |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2023 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 25 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 618–640 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/14614456231159026 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Using conversation analysis, this article examines how questioners manage resistant responses in the context of U.S. Senate hearings. In particular, we examine how questioning Senators use explicit metacommentary – a turn constructional practice in which speakers offer ‘on-record’ comments on the manner in which a prior turn was formulated – to manage a recipient’s resistant responses to polar questions. Within these contexts, metacommentary becomes a resource for highlighting the preference organization of the original question and challenging the adequacy of the recipient’s response. The analysis shows how metacommentary not only serves to guide a question recipient toward producing an adequate response, but additionally works to register the questioning Senator’s stance toward the inadequacy of the response while highlighting this inadequacy for both the co-present audience and viewers of these publicly televised hearings.
Notes
