Difference between revisions of "Sidnell2009c"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Jack Sidnell; | |Author(s)=Jack Sidnell; | ||
|Title=The design and positioning of questions in inquiry testimony | |Title=The design and positioning of questions in inquiry testimony | ||
| − | |Editor(s)=Alice Freed; Susan Ehrlich; | + | |Editor(s)=Alice F. Freed; Susan Ehrlich; |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Questioning | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Questioning | ||
|Key=Sidnell2009c | |Key=Sidnell2009c | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Chapter=2 | |Chapter=2 | ||
|Address=Oxford | |Address=Oxford | ||
| − | |Booktitle= | + | |Booktitle=“Why Do You Ask?”: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse |
|Pages=20–41 | |Pages=20–41 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.001.0001/acprof-9780195306897-chapter-2 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0002 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This chapter, written by Jack Sidnell, considers question‐answer sequences in public inquiries, a context in which lawyers are mandated to ask questions and witnesses to answer them. Sidnell shows that while many of the lawyers' turns‐at‐talk do not “do questioning” in any straightforward way, they are nonetheless allowed in these contexts. Conversely, some of the lawyers' turns that are designed as questions (i.e., as interrogatives) are negatively sanctioned as not being questions. Sidnell concludes that it is not question design alone that determines whether turns count as questions; the sequential positioning of turns also plays a role. In particular, Sidnell shows that the negatively sanctioned interrogatives are in fact understood as third‐position comments rather than the first‐position utterances of question‐answer adjacency pairs. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:32, 25 November 2019
| Sidnell2009c | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Sidnell2009c |
| Author(s) | Jack Sidnell |
| Title | The design and positioning of questions in inquiry testimony |
| Editor(s) | Alice F. Freed, Susan Ehrlich |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Questioning |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | English |
| City | Oxford |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 20–41 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0002 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | “Why Do You Ask?”: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse |
| Chapter | 2 |
Abstract
This chapter, written by Jack Sidnell, considers question‐answer sequences in public inquiries, a context in which lawyers are mandated to ask questions and witnesses to answer them. Sidnell shows that while many of the lawyers' turns‐at‐talk do not “do questioning” in any straightforward way, they are nonetheless allowed in these contexts. Conversely, some of the lawyers' turns that are designed as questions (i.e., as interrogatives) are negatively sanctioned as not being questions. Sidnell concludes that it is not question design alone that determines whether turns count as questions; the sequential positioning of turns also plays a role. In particular, Sidnell shows that the negatively sanctioned interrogatives are in fact understood as third‐position comments rather than the first‐position utterances of question‐answer adjacency pairs.
Notes
