Difference between revisions of "Takagi1999"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Tomoyo Takagi; |Title=“Questions” in Argument Sequences in Japanese |Tag(s)=EMCA; argument talk; conversation analysis; functional l...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=22 | |Volume=22 | ||
|Number=2-4 | |Number=2-4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=397–423 |
| − | |Abstract=The present study reports on the use of a linguistic category | + | |URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005419406587 |
| − | has been traditionally associated with the act of questioning, and its use in argument talk in | + | |DOI=10.1023/A:1005419406587 |
| − | Japanese. Based on the observation that interrogative utterances in argument data are regularly | + | |Abstract=The present study reports on the use of a linguistic category "interrogative," which has been traditionally associated with the act of questioning, and its use in argument talk in Japanese. Based on the observation that interrogative utterances in argument data are regularly followed by non-answers, it is argued that interrogative utterances in argument sequences may not be designed/interpreted as doing questioning. Such use of interrogatives can become an orderly practice to which participants orient themselves in social activities recognizable as arguments. However, though an answer is not expected, the recipient invariably provides some form of response, or the initial speaker seeks such a response when none is provided. Thus the nature of interrogatives as a grammatical category seems to reside in the basic structural unit of social interaction [recipient-oriented action]-[response]. In general, this study is intended to show the dynamically interlocking relationship between grammar and interaction by exploring the intricate interplay between a local action for which interrogative grammar is employed, and the sequential environment and activity framework in which the action takes place. |
| − | followed by non-answers, it is argued that interrogative utterances in argument sequences | ||
| − | may not be designed/interpreted as doing questioning. Such use of interrogatives can become | ||
| − | an orderly practice to which participants orient themselves in social activities recognizable | ||
| − | as arguments. However, though an answer is not expected, the recipient invariably provides | ||
| − | some form of response, or the initial speaker seeks such a response when none is provided. | ||
| − | Thus the nature of interrogatives as a grammatical category seems to reside in the basic structural | ||
| − | unit of social interaction [recipient-oriented action]-[response]. In general, this study is intended | ||
| − | to show the dynamically interlocking relationship between grammar and interaction by exploring | ||
| − | the intricate interplay between a local action for which interrogative grammar is employed, | ||
| − | and the sequential environment and activity framework in which the action takes place. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 05:46, 19 October 2019
| Takagi1999 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Takagi1999 |
| Author(s) | Tomoyo Takagi |
| Title | “Questions” in Argument Sequences in Japanese |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, argument talk, conversation analysis, functional linguistics, grammar and interaction, interrogatives, Japanese |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1999 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Human Studies |
| Volume | 22 |
| Number | 2-4 |
| Pages | 397–423 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1023/A:1005419406587 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The present study reports on the use of a linguistic category "interrogative," which has been traditionally associated with the act of questioning, and its use in argument talk in Japanese. Based on the observation that interrogative utterances in argument data are regularly followed by non-answers, it is argued that interrogative utterances in argument sequences may not be designed/interpreted as doing questioning. Such use of interrogatives can become an orderly practice to which participants orient themselves in social activities recognizable as arguments. However, though an answer is not expected, the recipient invariably provides some form of response, or the initial speaker seeks such a response when none is provided. Thus the nature of interrogatives as a grammatical category seems to reside in the basic structural unit of social interaction [recipient-oriented action]-[response]. In general, this study is intended to show the dynamically interlocking relationship between grammar and interaction by exploring the intricate interplay between a local action for which interrogative grammar is employed, and the sequential environment and activity framework in which the action takes place.
Notes
