Difference between revisions of "Bilmes1997"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jack Bilmes; |Title=Being interrupted |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Interruptions; |Key=Bilmes1997 |Year=1997 |Journal=Language...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Jack Bilmes; | + | |Author(s)=Jack Bilmes; |
|Title=Being interrupted | |Title=Being interrupted | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Interruptions; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Interruptions; |
|Key=Bilmes1997 | |Key=Bilmes1997 | ||
|Year=1997 | |Year=1997 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=26 | |Volume=26 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=507–531 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/being-interrupted/18BAD5D0CECE687F13F8D4F665FD00FD |
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1017/S0047404500021035 |
| − | |Abstract=The first section of this article argues for an approach to interruption as a participant's, not an analyst's, phenomenon. For analysts, interruption is best treated as a topic, not a resource. The second section examines how participants go about making interruptions OBSERVABLE events in the flow of interaction - in particular, the ways in which they claim violations of speaking rights. The third section considers some of the ways in which such claims are responded to. In the final section, it is suggested that there is a general need for a more systematic approach to the methods through which acts are constituted in terms of the responses they receive. | + | |Abstract=The first section of this article argues for an approach to interruption as a participant's, not an analyst's, phenomenon. For analysts, interruption is best treated as a topic, not a resource. The second section examines how participants go about making interruptions OBSERVABLE events in the flow of interaction - in particular, the ways in which they claim violations of speaking rights. The third section considers some of the ways in which such claims are responded to. In the final section, it is suggested that there is a general need for a more systematic approach to the methods through which acts are constituted in terms of the responses they receive. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 26 October 2019
| Bilmes1997 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Bilmes1997 |
| Author(s) | Jack Bilmes |
| Title | Being interrupted |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Interruptions |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1997 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language in Society |
| Volume | 26 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 507–531 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0047404500021035 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The first section of this article argues for an approach to interruption as a participant's, not an analyst's, phenomenon. For analysts, interruption is best treated as a topic, not a resource. The second section examines how participants go about making interruptions OBSERVABLE events in the flow of interaction - in particular, the ways in which they claim violations of speaking rights. The third section considers some of the ways in which such claims are responded to. In the final section, it is suggested that there is a general need for a more systematic approach to the methods through which acts are constituted in terms of the responses they receive.
Notes
