Difference between revisions of "Selting2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Margret Selting; |Title=Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect displays |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; Comp...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Margret Selting; | + | |Author(s)=Margret Selting; |
|Title=Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect displays | |Title=Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect displays | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; Complaints; Affect; Storytelling; Complaint story; Affectivity in conversation; Conversation | + | |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; Complaints; Affect; Storytelling; Complaint story; Affectivity in conversation; Conversation Analysis; Multimodal analysis; |
|Key=Selting2012 | |Key=Selting2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=44 | |Volume=44 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=387–415 |
| + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216612000070 | ||
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.005 | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.005 | ||
| − | |Abstract=The paper investigates cases in which the recipients’ | + | |Abstract=The paper investigates cases in which the recipients’ affiliation with the speaker's affect in telling a complaint story is not (or not only) expressed through assessments or shorter comments or response cries but (also) through tellings of a complaint story of their own. After first complaint stories, next speakers may continue with similar or contrasting second or subsequent stories, in order to accomplish affiliation with the prior speaker's story and affective stance. Similar stories are contextualized as such with similar footings or similar embodiments; contrasting stories are contextualized as such with other footings and/or other embodiments. Nevertheless, not all subsequent stories are receipted as affiliative: the study of a deviant case shows how a subsequent story can be produced and treated as disaffiliative. |
| − | comments or response cries but (also) through tellings of a complaint story of their own. | ||
| − | After | ||
| − | second or subsequent stories, in order to accomplish | ||
| − | story and affective stance. Similar stories are contextualized as such with similar footings or similar embodiments; contrasting stories are contextualized as such with other | ||
| − | footings and/or other embodiments. Nevertheless, not all subsequent stories are receipted | ||
| − | as | ||
| − | and treated as | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 05:23, 30 November 2019
| Selting2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Selting2012 |
| Author(s) | Margret Selting |
| Title | Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect displays |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Interactional Linguistics, Complaints, Affect, Storytelling, Complaint story, Affectivity in conversation, Conversation Analysis, Multimodal analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 44 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 387–415 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.005 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The paper investigates cases in which the recipients’ affiliation with the speaker's affect in telling a complaint story is not (or not only) expressed through assessments or shorter comments or response cries but (also) through tellings of a complaint story of their own. After first complaint stories, next speakers may continue with similar or contrasting second or subsequent stories, in order to accomplish affiliation with the prior speaker's story and affective stance. Similar stories are contextualized as such with similar footings or similar embodiments; contrasting stories are contextualized as such with other footings and/or other embodiments. Nevertheless, not all subsequent stories are receipted as affiliative: the study of a deviant case shows how a subsequent story can be produced and treated as disaffiliative.
Notes
