Difference between revisions of "Gibson2005a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=David R. Gibson; |Title=Opportunistic Interruptions: Interactional Vulnerabilities Deriving from Linearization |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interrupti...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
− | |Author(s)=David R. Gibson; | + | |Author(s)=David R. Gibson; |
− | |Title=Opportunistic | + | |Title=Opportunistic interruptions: interactional vulnerabilities deriving from linearization |
− | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interruptions; Press briefings; Courtroom Interaction; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interruptions; Press briefings; Courtroom Interaction; |
|Key=Gibson2005a | |Key=Gibson2005a | ||
|Year=2005 | |Year=2005 | ||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=68 | |Volume=68 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
− | |Pages= | + | |Pages=316–337 |
− | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019027250506800402 |
− | |Abstract= Speaking involves | + | |DOI=10.1177/019027250506800402 |
− | + | |Abstract=Speaking involves “linearizing” a message into a string of words. This process leaves us vulnerable to being interrupted in such a way that the aborted turn is a misrepresentation of the intended message. Further, because we linearize our messages in standard ways, we are recurrently vulnerable to interruptions at particular turn-construction junctures, and consequently to recurrent types of self-misrepresentation. These vulnerabilities can be exploited strategically when an interrupter responds to the truncated turn in a way that might not have been possible if the turn had run to completion: I refer to interruptions of this sort as “opportunistic.” I explore the connection between linearization and opportunistic interruptions using data from two institutional settings characterized by confrontational exchanges: Supreme Court oral arguments and Pentagon press briefings. The extracts illustrate how speakers open themselves to opportunistic interruptions through projection of incipient options, actions, reasons, consequences, opinions, and restrictions. | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 11:41, 3 November 2019
Gibson2005a | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Gibson2005a |
Author(s) | David R. Gibson |
Title | Opportunistic interruptions: interactional vulnerabilities deriving from linearization |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | EMCA, Interruptions, Press briefings, Courtroom Interaction |
Publisher | |
Year | 2005 |
Language | |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Social Psychology Quarterly |
Volume | 68 |
Number | 4 |
Pages | 316–337 |
URL | Link |
DOI | 10.1177/019027250506800402 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
Speaking involves “linearizing” a message into a string of words. This process leaves us vulnerable to being interrupted in such a way that the aborted turn is a misrepresentation of the intended message. Further, because we linearize our messages in standard ways, we are recurrently vulnerable to interruptions at particular turn-construction junctures, and consequently to recurrent types of self-misrepresentation. These vulnerabilities can be exploited strategically when an interrupter responds to the truncated turn in a way that might not have been possible if the turn had run to completion: I refer to interruptions of this sort as “opportunistic.” I explore the connection between linearization and opportunistic interruptions using data from two institutional settings characterized by confrontational exchanges: Supreme Court oral arguments and Pentagon press briefings. The extracts illustrate how speakers open themselves to opportunistic interruptions through projection of incipient options, actions, reasons, consequences, opinions, and restrictions.
Notes