Difference between revisions of "Stivers2006a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interaction; conversation analysis; sequence organization; Progressivity; Response tokens; Peference; Non-response; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interaction; conversation analysis; sequence organization; Progressivity; Response tokens; Peference; Non-response; | ||
|Key=Stivers2006a | |Key=Stivers2006a | ||
| − | |||
|Year=2006 | |Year=2006 | ||
| − | |||
|Journal=Language in Society | |Journal=Language in Society | ||
|Volume=35 | |Volume=35 | ||
| − | |Number= | + | |Number=3 |
|Pages=367–392 | |Pages=367–392 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/preference-for-progressivity-in-interaction/C177F5A5337136B02C3F17E91776952B |
| − | |DOI=10.1017/ | + | |DOI=10.1017/S0047404506060179 |
| − | |Abstract=This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: | + | |Abstract=This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party interaction, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organization is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals an observable preference for progressivity in interaction. |
| − | in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party | ||
| − | |||
| − | of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is | ||
| − | asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & | ||
| − | |||
| − | at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once | ||
| − | beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” | ||
| − | |||
| − | a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals | ||
| − | an observable preference for progressivity in interaction. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:55, 24 November 2019
| Stivers2006a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Stivers2006a |
| Author(s) | Tanya Stivers, Jeffrey D. Robinson |
| Title | A preference for progressivity in interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Interaction, conversation analysis, sequence organization, Progressivity, Response tokens, Peference, Non-response |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2006 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language in Society |
| Volume | 35 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 367–392 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0047404506060179 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party interaction, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organization is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals an observable preference for progressivity in interaction.
Notes
