Difference between revisions of "Kevoe-Feldman2011"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Heidi Kevoe-Feldman; Jeffrey D. Robinson; Jenny Mandelbaum; |Title=Extending the notion of pragmatic completion: The case of the respon...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Heidi Kevoe-Feldman; Jeffrey D. Robinson; Jenny Mandelbaum; | + | |Author(s)=Heidi Kevoe-Feldman; Jeffrey D. Robinson; Jenny Mandelbaum; |
|Title=Extending the notion of pragmatic completion: The case of the responsive compound action unit | |Title=Extending the notion of pragmatic completion: The case of the responsive compound action unit | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Compound Action; Customer Service; Telephone; Turn taking; Sequence; Initiating Action | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Compound Action; Customer Service; Telephone; Turn taking; Sequence; Initiating Action | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=43 | |Volume=43 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=15 |
| + | |Pages=3844–3859 | ||
|URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216611002670 | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216611002670 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2011.10.003 |
|Abstract=An important rule of turn taking is that, once a person gains the right to speak they are normally entitled to produce a single unit of talk, such as a single word, phrase, clause, or sentence. Conversation analysis has long recognized that, and attempted to describe how, this normal entitlement can be modified by pragmatic exigencies. Along these lines, this article demonstrates that a particular type of initiating action (referred to as a status inquiry) makes conditionally relevant a particular type of compound action unit (Lerner, 1991) that minimally contains two ordered pieces of information, each of which occupies at least one sentential unit. Data are audiotapes of 193 calls between one of five customer-service representatives and customers calling an electronics organization to check on the status of equipment that they have previously sent in for repair. This article contributes to our understanding of how pragmatic concerns can uniquely structure participants’ understandings of what constitutes a possibly complete ‘unit’ of talk, as well as ‘allowable’ places for speakership. | |Abstract=An important rule of turn taking is that, once a person gains the right to speak they are normally entitled to produce a single unit of talk, such as a single word, phrase, clause, or sentence. Conversation analysis has long recognized that, and attempted to describe how, this normal entitlement can be modified by pragmatic exigencies. Along these lines, this article demonstrates that a particular type of initiating action (referred to as a status inquiry) makes conditionally relevant a particular type of compound action unit (Lerner, 1991) that minimally contains two ordered pieces of information, each of which occupies at least one sentential unit. Data are audiotapes of 193 calls between one of five customer-service representatives and customers calling an electronics organization to check on the status of equipment that they have previously sent in for repair. This article contributes to our understanding of how pragmatic concerns can uniquely structure participants’ understandings of what constitutes a possibly complete ‘unit’ of talk, as well as ‘allowable’ places for speakership. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:51, 28 November 2019
| Kevoe-Feldman2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kevoe-Feldman2011 |
| Author(s) | Heidi Kevoe-Feldman, Jeffrey D. Robinson, Jenny Mandelbaum |
| Title | Extending the notion of pragmatic completion: The case of the responsive compound action unit |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Compound Action, Customer Service, Telephone, Turn taking, Sequence, Initiating Action |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 15 |
| Pages | 3844–3859 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.10.003 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
An important rule of turn taking is that, once a person gains the right to speak they are normally entitled to produce a single unit of talk, such as a single word, phrase, clause, or sentence. Conversation analysis has long recognized that, and attempted to describe how, this normal entitlement can be modified by pragmatic exigencies. Along these lines, this article demonstrates that a particular type of initiating action (referred to as a status inquiry) makes conditionally relevant a particular type of compound action unit (Lerner, 1991) that minimally contains two ordered pieces of information, each of which occupies at least one sentential unit. Data are audiotapes of 193 calls between one of five customer-service representatives and customers calling an electronics organization to check on the status of equipment that they have previously sent in for repair. This article contributes to our understanding of how pragmatic concerns can uniquely structure participants’ understandings of what constitutes a possibly complete ‘unit’ of talk, as well as ‘allowable’ places for speakership.
Notes
