Difference between revisions of "Tsui1989"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Amy B. M. Tsui |Title=Beyond the Adjacency Pair |Tag(s)=EMCA; Sociolinguistics; ethnomethodology; discourse analysis; pragmatics; three-...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Amy B. M. Tsui | |Author(s)=Amy B. M. Tsui | ||
| − | |Title=Beyond the | + | |Title=Beyond the adjacency pair |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Sociolinguistics; ethnomethodology; discourse analysis; pragmatics; three-part sequences; Adjacency Pairs; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Sociolinguistics; ethnomethodology; discourse analysis; pragmatics; three-part sequences; Adjacency Pairs; | ||
|Key=Tsui1989 | |Key=Tsui1989 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=18 | |Volume=18 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=545–564 |
| − | |Abstract= This article examines the descriptive power of the adjacency pair as a | + | |URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/beyond-the-adjacency-pair/EEFC5494E2790FDB0C9A60CB3A680ED8 |
| − | + | |DOI=10.1017/S0047404500013907 | |
| − | + | |Abstract=This article examines the descriptive power of the adjacency pair as a basic unit of conversational organization. It applies the notion to the analysis of conversational data and points out that there are utterances which are important contributions to the conversation and yet for which the notion fails to account. They are utterances which are not the component parts of an adjacency pair and yet form a bounded unit with it. This raises the question of which is more adequate as a basic unit of conversational organization: a three-part exchange or an adjacency pair? This article proposes that it is the former, based on the observation that the third part of an exchange is a very important element of conversational interaction, and that when it does not occur, it is often withheld for social or strategic reasons. The article argues for the nontrivial absence of the third part by showing its relevance of occurrence (Sacks 1972:342). An investigation is made of its functions by examining where, when, and why it does not occur, and where, when, and why it does occur in conversation. The discussion is exemplified by face-to-face and telephone conversation data. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:04, 21 October 2019
| Tsui1989 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Tsui1989 |
| Author(s) | Amy B. M. Tsui |
| Title | Beyond the adjacency pair |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Sociolinguistics, ethnomethodology, discourse analysis, pragmatics, three-part sequences, Adjacency Pairs |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1989 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language in Society |
| Volume | 18 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 545–564 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0047404500013907 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article examines the descriptive power of the adjacency pair as a basic unit of conversational organization. It applies the notion to the analysis of conversational data and points out that there are utterances which are important contributions to the conversation and yet for which the notion fails to account. They are utterances which are not the component parts of an adjacency pair and yet form a bounded unit with it. This raises the question of which is more adequate as a basic unit of conversational organization: a three-part exchange or an adjacency pair? This article proposes that it is the former, based on the observation that the third part of an exchange is a very important element of conversational interaction, and that when it does not occur, it is often withheld for social or strategic reasons. The article argues for the nontrivial absence of the third part by showing its relevance of occurrence (Sacks 1972:342). An investigation is made of its functions by examining where, when, and why it does not occur, and where, when, and why it does occur in conversation. The discussion is exemplified by face-to-face and telephone conversation data.
Notes
