Difference between revisions of "Robinson2010"
(BibTeX auto import 2015-07-21 04:05:32) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| + | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| + | |Author(s)=Jeffrey D. Robinson; Heidi Kevoe-Feldman; | ||
| + | |Title=Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions | ||
| + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Repair; turn design | ||
|Key=Robinson2010 | |Key=Robinson2010 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Year=2010 | |Year=2010 | ||
| − | + | |Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | |
| − | |Journal=Research on Language | ||
|Volume=43 | |Volume=43 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| Line 14: | Line 12: | ||
|URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08351813.2010.497990 | |URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08351813.2010.497990 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2010.497990 | |DOI=10.1080/08351813.2010.497990 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This article is a conversation-analytic investigation of a previously undescribed practice of other-initiation of repair designed to locate an entire action as the repairable. This practice is implemented by a full, virtually identical, final-rising-intoned repeat of a sentential turn-constructional unit (a full repeat). This article focuses on how the full repeat is deployed to deal with one type of action, the question (i.e., a first-pair part whose primary action is one of requesting information in the vernacular sense). The full repeat delimits the nature of the trouble by working to rule out that of hearing-what-was-said and understanding-that-a-question-was-asked. The full repeat tacitly claims that a questioning action is somehow problematic. The nature of this problem can be one of either understanding the questioning action (i.e., trouble understanding the thrust of the question-as-a-whole, or what it is getting at, or what is meant by its asking), or accepting the questioning action (e.g., characterizing it as being ridiculous). Data are approximately 80 hours of audio- and videotaped mundane conversation between adult friends and family members. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:31, 24 November 2019
| Robinson2010 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Robinson2010 |
| Author(s) | Jeffrey D. Robinson, Heidi Kevoe-Feldman |
| Title | Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Repair, turn design |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2010 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 232–259 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2010.497990 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article is a conversation-analytic investigation of a previously undescribed practice of other-initiation of repair designed to locate an entire action as the repairable. This practice is implemented by a full, virtually identical, final-rising-intoned repeat of a sentential turn-constructional unit (a full repeat). This article focuses on how the full repeat is deployed to deal with one type of action, the question (i.e., a first-pair part whose primary action is one of requesting information in the vernacular sense). The full repeat delimits the nature of the trouble by working to rule out that of hearing-what-was-said and understanding-that-a-question-was-asked. The full repeat tacitly claims that a questioning action is somehow problematic. The nature of this problem can be one of either understanding the questioning action (i.e., trouble understanding the thrust of the question-as-a-whole, or what it is getting at, or what is meant by its asking), or accepting the questioning action (e.g., characterizing it as being ridiculous). Data are approximately 80 hours of audio- and videotaped mundane conversation between adult friends and family members.
Notes
