Difference between revisions of "Enfield2022"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=INCOLLECTION |Author(s)=N. J. Enfield; Jack Sidnell |Title=Action and Accountability in Interaction |Editor(s)=Arnulf Deppermann; Michael Haugh |Tag(s)=EMC...")
 
 
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|Booktitle=Action Ascription in Social Interaction
 
|Booktitle=Action Ascription in Social Interaction
 
|Pages=279–296
 
|Pages=279–296
 +
|URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/action-ascription-in-interaction/action-and-accountability-in-interaction/5F008D0732151DA04201CF84FA056947
 +
|DOI=10.1017/9781108673419.015
 +
|Abstract=What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what an appropriate response would be? We argue: (1) Every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behaviour is goal-directed; (2) Responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; (3) Describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a binning procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 00:49, 6 August 2023

Enfield2022
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Enfield2022
Author(s) N. J. Enfield, Jack Sidnell
Title Action and Accountability in Interaction
Editor(s) Arnulf Deppermann, Michael Haugh
Tag(s) EMCA, Accountability
Publisher Cambridge University Press
Year 2022
Language English
City Cambridge
Month
Journal
Volume
Number
Pages 279–296
URL Link
DOI 10.1017/9781108673419.015
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title Action Ascription in Social Interaction
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what an appropriate response would be? We argue: (1) Every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behaviour is goal-directed; (2) Responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; (3) Describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a binning procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.

Notes