Difference between revisions of "Bolden2018"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(BibTeX auto import 2018-02-02 11:20:07)
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
|Key=Bolden2018
+
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Key=Bolden2018
+
|Author(s)=Galina B Bolden;
 
|Title=Speaking ‘ out of turn ': Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair
 
|Title=Speaking ‘ out of turn ': Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair
|Author(s)=Galina B Bolden;
 
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; correction; epistemics; multiparty conversation; repair; turn-taking
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; correction; epistemics; multiparty conversation; repair; turn-taking
|BibType=ARTICLE
+
|Key=Bolden2018
 
|Year=2018
 
|Year=2018
 +
|Language=English
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Volume=20
 
|Volume=20

Revision as of 04:20, 2 February 2018

Bolden2018
BibType ARTICLE
Key Bolden2018
Author(s) Galina B Bolden
Title Speaking ‘ out of turn ': Epistemics in action in other-initiated repair
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, conversation analysis, correction, epistemics, multiparty conversation, repair, turn-taking
Publisher
Year 2018
Language English
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 20
Number 1
Pages 142–162
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1461445617734346
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article provides an empirical demonstration of the saliency of epistemics to two core conversational organizations, turn-taking and repair. To that end, I examine cases in which a participant of a multiparty conversation intervenes into a repair sequence to respond to a repair initiation addressed to the trouble-source speaker, that is, in violation of the turn-taking rules, without having an epistemically grounded entitlement to do so. I show that such interventions enact a range of corrective actions vis-a-vis the repair initiation, such as contesting and correcting assumptions or understandings conveyed by the repair initiation. In providing these corrections ‘out of turn', the intervening speakers demonstrate their own attentive recipiency or cultural expertise and, at the same time, expose the repair initiator's interactional faux pas. The analysis demonstrates the procedural consequentiality of epistemic considerations (such as who knows, should know and has the right to know what) for the interlocutors – and, thus, the necessity to incorporate them into an empirically grounded analysis of their actions.

Notes