Difference between revisions of "Kendrick2014a"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Kobin H. Kendrick; Francisco Torreira; | |Author(s)=Kobin H. Kendrick; Francisco Torreira; | ||
|Title=The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study | |Title=The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=Preference; Timing; EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=Preference; Timing; EMCA; Quantitative; |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Kendrick2015 |
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2015 |
|Journal=Discourse Processes | |Journal=Discourse Processes | ||
| − | |Number= | + | |Volume=52 |
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=4 |
| + | |Pages=255-289 | ||
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 | |URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 | |DOI=10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 | ||
|Abstract=Conversation-analytic research has argued that the timing and construction of preferred responding actions (e.g., acceptances) differ from that of dispreferred responding actions (e.g., rejections), potentially enabling early response prediction by recipients. We examined 195 preferred and dispreferred responding actions in telephone corpora and found that the timing of the most frequent cases of each type did not differ systematically. Only for turn transitions of 700 ms or more was the proportion of dispreferred responding actions clearly greater than that of preferreds. In contrast, an analysis of the timing that included turn formats (i.e., those with or without qualification) revealed clearer differences. Small departures from a normal gap duration decrease the likelihood of a preferred action in a preferred turn format (e.g., a simple "yes"). We propose that the timing of a response is best understood as a turn-constructional feature, the first virtual component of a preferred or dispreferred turn format. | |Abstract=Conversation-analytic research has argued that the timing and construction of preferred responding actions (e.g., acceptances) differ from that of dispreferred responding actions (e.g., rejections), potentially enabling early response prediction by recipients. We examined 195 preferred and dispreferred responding actions in telephone corpora and found that the timing of the most frequent cases of each type did not differ systematically. Only for turn transitions of 700 ms or more was the proportion of dispreferred responding actions clearly greater than that of preferreds. In contrast, an analysis of the timing that included turn formats (i.e., those with or without qualification) revealed clearer differences. Small departures from a normal gap duration decrease the likelihood of a preferred action in a preferred turn format (e.g., a simple "yes"). We propose that the timing of a response is best understood as a turn-constructional feature, the first virtual component of a preferred or dispreferred turn format. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:40, 30 May 2015
| Kendrick2014a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kendrick2015 |
| Author(s) | Kobin H. Kendrick, Francisco Torreira |
| Title | The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Preference, Timing, EMCA, Quantitative |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Processes |
| Volume | 52 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 255-289 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Conversation-analytic research has argued that the timing and construction of preferred responding actions (e.g., acceptances) differ from that of dispreferred responding actions (e.g., rejections), potentially enabling early response prediction by recipients. We examined 195 preferred and dispreferred responding actions in telephone corpora and found that the timing of the most frequent cases of each type did not differ systematically. Only for turn transitions of 700 ms or more was the proportion of dispreferred responding actions clearly greater than that of preferreds. In contrast, an analysis of the timing that included turn formats (i.e., those with or without qualification) revealed clearer differences. Small departures from a normal gap duration decrease the likelihood of a preferred action in a preferred turn format (e.g., a simple "yes"). We propose that the timing of a response is best understood as a turn-constructional feature, the first virtual component of a preferred or dispreferred turn format.
Notes
