Difference between revisions of "Nishizaka2015a"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=INCOLLECTION | |BibType=INCOLLECTION | ||
|Author(s)=Aug Nishizaka; Kaoru Hayano; | |Author(s)=Aug Nishizaka; Kaoru Hayano; | ||
| − | |Title=Conversational | + | |Title=Conversational preference |
|Editor(s)=Karen Tracy; Cornelia Ilie; Todd Sandel; | |Editor(s)=Karen Tracy; Cornelia Ilie; Todd Sandel; | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; communication theory; language and social interaction; qualitative methods |
|Key=Nishizaka2015a | |Key=Nishizaka2015a | ||
| − | |Publisher=John Wiley & Sons | + | |Publisher=John Wiley & Sons |
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Address=London | |Address=London | ||
|Booktitle=The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction | |Booktitle=The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |Volume=1 |
| + | |Pages=229–236 | ||
| + | |URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071 | ||
|DOI=10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071 | |DOI=10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071 | ||
|ISBN=9781118611463 | |ISBN=9781118611463 | ||
|Abstract=Conversation-analytic studies have noted various preferences that operate across different dimensions of interaction. These preferences operate on alternative forms or actions by favoring one over another. This article discusses preferences by focusing on two dimensions of interaction. The first is preferences in person reference, where the preference for minimization and the preference for recipient design determine the person reference form. The second is preferences in action sequence, where agreeing actions are preferred over disagreeing actions, each of which exhibits distinct formal features. Finally, this article suggests that other constraints may interfere with conversational preferences. | |Abstract=Conversation-analytic studies have noted various preferences that operate across different dimensions of interaction. These preferences operate on alternative forms or actions by favoring one over another. This article discusses preferences by focusing on two dimensions of interaction. The first is preferences in person reference, where the preference for minimization and the preference for recipient design determine the person reference form. The second is preferences in action sequence, where agreeing actions are preferred over disagreeing actions, each of which exhibits distinct formal features. Finally, this article suggests that other constraints may interfere with conversational preferences. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:34, 15 December 2019
| Nishizaka2015a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Nishizaka2015a |
| Author(s) | Aug Nishizaka, Kaoru Hayano |
| Title | Conversational preference |
| Editor(s) | Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, Todd Sandel |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, communication theory, language and social interaction, qualitative methods |
| Publisher | John Wiley & Sons |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | London |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | 1 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 229–236 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071 |
| ISBN | 9781118611463 |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Conversation-analytic studies have noted various preferences that operate across different dimensions of interaction. These preferences operate on alternative forms or actions by favoring one over another. This article discusses preferences by focusing on two dimensions of interaction. The first is preferences in person reference, where the preference for minimization and the preference for recipient design determine the person reference form. The second is preferences in action sequence, where agreeing actions are preferred over disagreeing actions, each of which exhibits distinct formal features. Finally, this article suggests that other constraints may interfere with conversational preferences.
Notes
