Difference between revisions of "Raymond2018b"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=INCOLLECTION |Author(s)=Chase Wesley Raymond; |Title=Bueno-, pues-, and bueno-pues-prefacing in Spanish conversation |Editor(s)=John Heritage; Marja-Leena...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; particle pues; particle bueno; Spanish; answers; discourse marker; conversation analysis/CA; responses
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; particle pues; particle bueno; Spanish; answers; discourse marker; conversation analysis/CA; responses
 
|Key=Raymond2018b
 
|Key=Raymond2018b
|Publisher=John Benjamins Publishing
+
|Publisher=John Benjamins
 
|Year=2018
 
|Year=2018
 
|Language=English
 
|Language=English
 
|Chapter=3
 
|Chapter=3
 
|Address=Amsterdam / Philadelphia
 
|Address=Amsterdam / Philadelphia
|Booktitle=Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
+
|Booktitle=Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages
 
|Pages=59–96
 
|Pages=59–96
|URL=https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.03ray
+
|URL=https://benjamins.com/catalog/slsi.31.03ray
|DOI=https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.03ray
+
|DOI=10.1075/slsi.31.03ray
 
|Abstract=This chapter reports on two turn-initial particles in Spanish: bueno and pues. While previous research has equated both of these to well-prefacing in English in that they project “unexpectedness”, here the aim is to explicate the distinct interactional work that each particle performs. Focusing on responses to questions, I show that bueno-prefaced responses do not overtly problematize the prior utterance, but rather accept its terms before departing from them, and thereby acquiesce to the prior turn’s design. Pues-prefaced responses, by contrast, are directly addressed to the prior turn, but they cast that prior turn’s action or design as problematic in some way. I conclude by illustrating how these two uses are not mutually exclusive by examining the compound preface bueno-pues.
 
|Abstract=This chapter reports on two turn-initial particles in Spanish: bueno and pues. While previous research has equated both of these to well-prefacing in English in that they project “unexpectedness”, here the aim is to explicate the distinct interactional work that each particle performs. Focusing on responses to questions, I show that bueno-prefaced responses do not overtly problematize the prior utterance, but rather accept its terms before departing from them, and thereby acquiesce to the prior turn’s design. Pues-prefaced responses, by contrast, are directly addressed to the prior turn, but they cast that prior turn’s action or design as problematic in some way. I conclude by illustrating how these two uses are not mutually exclusive by examining the compound preface bueno-pues.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 01:18, 12 January 2020

Raymond2018b
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Raymond2018b
Author(s) Chase Wesley Raymond
Title Bueno-, pues-, and bueno-pues-prefacing in Spanish conversation
Editor(s) John Heritage, Marja-Leena Sorjonen
Tag(s) EMCA, particle pues, particle bueno, Spanish, answers, discourse marker, conversation analysis/CA, responses
Publisher John Benjamins
Year 2018
Language English
City Amsterdam / Philadelphia
Month
Journal
Volume
Number
Pages 59–96
URL Link
DOI 10.1075/slsi.31.03ray
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages
Chapter 3

Download BibTex

Abstract

This chapter reports on two turn-initial particles in Spanish: bueno and pues. While previous research has equated both of these to well-prefacing in English in that they project “unexpectedness”, here the aim is to explicate the distinct interactional work that each particle performs. Focusing on responses to questions, I show that bueno-prefaced responses do not overtly problematize the prior utterance, but rather accept its terms before departing from them, and thereby acquiesce to the prior turn’s design. Pues-prefaced responses, by contrast, are directly addressed to the prior turn, but they cast that prior turn’s action or design as problematic in some way. I conclude by illustrating how these two uses are not mutually exclusive by examining the compound preface bueno-pues.

Notes