Difference between revisions of "Duncker2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Dorthe Duncker |Title=‘‘What’s it called?’’ – Conventionalization, glossing practices, and linguistic (in)determinacy |Tag(s...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Dorthe Duncker | |Author(s)=Dorthe Duncker | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=“What’s it called?”: conventionalization, glossing practices, and linguistic (in)determinacy |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Language conventions; Conventionalization; Metalanguage; Repair; Conversation | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Language conventions; Conventionalization; Metalanguage; Repair; Conversation Analysis; Integrationism; |
|Key=Duncker2012 | |Key=Duncker2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
|Journal=Language & Communication | |Journal=Language & Communication | ||
|Volume=32 | |Volume=32 | ||
| + | |Number=4 | ||
|Pages=400–419 | |Pages=400–419 | ||
| − | | | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271530912000407 |
| − | |Abstract=At first glance conventionalization may seem to have little in common with the | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.002 |
| − | + | |Abstract=At first glance conventionalization may seem to have little in common with the integrationist notion of ‘radical indeterminacy’, but on closer inspection it appears that the glossing practices that support sign-making efforts and assist communicating participants in reducing indeterminacies are in fact situated enactments of conventionalization, and that conventionalization is a dynamic process. In a corpus of Danish conversations, this article studies how participants through metalinguistic discursive examination concurrently establish linguistic facts to their own satisfaction and simultaneously make them the subject of mutual communicative responsibility and continuity. The glossing episodes discussed are well known from conversation analysis as ‘repair’ incidents, but the present study shows them to be constitutive resources for semiological validation rather than transient interactional disruptions. | |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:15, 30 November 2019
| Duncker2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Duncker2012 |
| Author(s) | Dorthe Duncker |
| Title | “What’s it called?”: conventionalization, glossing practices, and linguistic (in)determinacy |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Language conventions, Conventionalization, Metalanguage, Repair, Conversation Analysis, Integrationism |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language & Communication |
| Volume | 32 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 400–419 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.002 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
At first glance conventionalization may seem to have little in common with the integrationist notion of ‘radical indeterminacy’, but on closer inspection it appears that the glossing practices that support sign-making efforts and assist communicating participants in reducing indeterminacies are in fact situated enactments of conventionalization, and that conventionalization is a dynamic process. In a corpus of Danish conversations, this article studies how participants through metalinguistic discursive examination concurrently establish linguistic facts to their own satisfaction and simultaneously make them the subject of mutual communicative responsibility and continuity. The glossing episodes discussed are well known from conversation analysis as ‘repair’ incidents, but the present study shows them to be constitutive resources for semiological validation rather than transient interactional disruptions.
Notes
