Difference between revisions of "Stivers2010a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Tanya Stivers; |Title=An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation |Tag(s)=EMCA; Question-response sys...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=42 | |Volume=42 | ||
|Pages=2772–2781 | |Pages=2772–2781 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216610001074 | ||
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 | ||
| − | |Abstract=This article, part of a 10 language comparative project on question–response sequences, | + | |Abstract=This article, part of a 10 language comparative project on question–response sequences, discusses these sequences in American English conversation. The data are video-taped spontaneous naturally occurring conversations involving two to five adults. Relying on these data I document the basic distributional patterns of types of questions asked (polar, Q-word or alternative as well as sub-types), types of social actions implemented by these questions (e.g., repair initiations, requests for confirmation, offers or requests for information), and types of responses (e.g., repetitional answers or yes/no tokens). I show that declarative questions are used more commonly in conversation than would be suspected by traditional grammars of English and questions are used for a wider range of functions than grammars would suggest. Finally, this article offers distributional support for the idea that responses that are better “fitted” with the question are preferred. |
| − | discusses these sequences in American English conversation. The data are video-taped | ||
| − | spontaneous naturally occurring conversations involving two to | ||
| − | these data I document the basic distributional patterns of types of questions asked (polar, | ||
| − | Q-word or alternative as well as sub-types), types of social actions implemented by these | ||
| − | questions (e.g., repair initiations, requests for | ||
| − | information), and types of responses (e.g., repetitional answers or yes/no tokens). I show | ||
| − | that declarative questions are used more commonly in conversation than would be | ||
| − | suspected by traditional grammars of English and questions are used for a wider range of | ||
| − | functions than grammars would suggest. Finally, this article offers distributional support | ||
| − | for the idea that responses that are better | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 02:37, 18 October 2019
| Stivers2010a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Stivers2010a |
| Author(s) | Tanya Stivers |
| Title | An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Question-response system, American English, Questions, Polar (yes/no) questions, Content (WH) questions, Conversation |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2010 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 42 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 2772–2781 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article, part of a 10 language comparative project on question–response sequences, discusses these sequences in American English conversation. The data are video-taped spontaneous naturally occurring conversations involving two to five adults. Relying on these data I document the basic distributional patterns of types of questions asked (polar, Q-word or alternative as well as sub-types), types of social actions implemented by these questions (e.g., repair initiations, requests for confirmation, offers or requests for information), and types of responses (e.g., repetitional answers or yes/no tokens). I show that declarative questions are used more commonly in conversation than would be suspected by traditional grammars of English and questions are used for a wider range of functions than grammars would suggest. Finally, this article offers distributional support for the idea that responses that are better “fitted” with the question are preferred.
Notes
