Difference between revisions of "Go-ahead"
ChaseRaymond (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Infobox cite | Authors = '''Nathalie Bauer''' (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8079) | To cite = Bauer, Nathalie. (2...") |
ChaseRaymond (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox cite | {{Infobox cite | ||
| Authors = '''Nathalie Bauer''' (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8079) | | Authors = '''Nathalie Bauer''' (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8079) | ||
| − | | To cite = Bauer, Nathalie. (2023). Go-ahead. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: | + | | To cite = Bauer, Nathalie. (2023). Go-ahead. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics''. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WJZ2S 10.17605/OSF.IO/WJZ2S] |
}} | }} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
04 Ch: I want a cloth to clean (the) windows | 04 Ch: I want a cloth to clean (the) windows | ||
| − | With the go-ahead in line 2, Mom invites the child to proceed with what he has been up to after securing her attention in line 1. Hence, the go-ahead sustains the sequential progression (Schegloff 2007: 30; Sorjonen 2002) and can be described as the structurally preferred second-pair part of the pre-sequence (Schegloff 2007: 59). The opposite possibility to react to a first-pair part of a pre-sequence is a '''[[Blocking|blocking]]''' response, with which a speaker inhibits the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory. | + | With the go-ahead in line 2, Mom invites the child to proceed with what he has been up to after securing her attention in line 1. Hence, the go-ahead sustains the sequential progression (Schegloff 2007: 30; Sorjonen 2002) and can be described as the structurally preferred '''[[Second-pair part|second-pair part]]''' of the pre-sequence (Schegloff 2007: 59). The opposite possibility to react to a '''[[First-pair part|first-pair part]]''' of a pre-sequence is a '''[[Blocking|blocking]]''' response, with which a speaker inhibits the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory. |
In addition to this usage of the term, Zinken and Deppermann (2017) also use the notion of 'go-ahead' to characterize imperatives that speakers use as permissions for (practical) actions by their counterpart. | In addition to this usage of the term, Zinken and Deppermann (2017) also use the notion of 'go-ahead' to characterize imperatives that speakers use as permissions for (practical) actions by their counterpart. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:31, 22 December 2023
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Go-ahead | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Nathalie Bauer (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8079) |
| To cite: | Bauer, Nathalie. (2023). Go-ahead. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WJZ2S |
A go-ahead is a type of response that occurs in pre-sequences and encourages the prior speaker to proceed with the action projected in first position (Schegloff 2007: 30; Schegloff 1980: 106). An instance of such a go-ahead in a generic pre-sequence (in this case, a summons-answer sequence) can be found in this extract from Atkinson and Drew (1979):
(Atkinson & Drew 1979: 46) 01 Ch: Mummy 02 M: -> Yes dear 03 (2.1) 04 Ch: I want a cloth to clean (the) windows
With the go-ahead in line 2, Mom invites the child to proceed with what he has been up to after securing her attention in line 1. Hence, the go-ahead sustains the sequential progression (Schegloff 2007: 30; Sorjonen 2002) and can be described as the structurally preferred second-pair part of the pre-sequence (Schegloff 2007: 59). The opposite possibility to react to a first-pair part of a pre-sequence is a blocking response, with which a speaker inhibits the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory.
In addition to this usage of the term, Zinken and Deppermann (2017) also use the notion of 'go-ahead' to characterize imperatives that speakers use as permissions for (practical) actions by their counterpart.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Macmillan.
Deppermann, A., & Zinken, J. (2017). A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. Evidence from German and Polish. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. (pp. 37–63). John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to Preliminaries: ‘Can I Ask You a Question?’. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 104–52.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Volume 1). Cambridge University Press.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2002). Recipient Activities: The Particle No as a Go-Ahead Response in Finnish Conversations. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 165–95). Oxford University Press.
Additional References:
