Difference between revisions of "Stivers2005"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=131–158 | |Pages=131–158 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 |
|DOI=10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 | |DOI=10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 | ||
|Abstract=In this article I examine one practice speakers have for confirming when confirmation was not otherwise relevant. The practice involves a speaker repeating an assertion previously made by another speaker in modified form with stress on the copula/auxiliary. I argue that these modified repeats work to undermine the first speaker's default ownership and rights over the claim and instead assert the primacy of the second speaker's rights to make the statement. Two types of modified repeats are identified: partial and full. Although both involve competing for primacy of the claim, they occur in distinct sequential environments: The former are generally positioned after a first claim was epistemically downgraded, whereas the latter are positioned following initial claims that were offered straightforwardly, without downgrading. | |Abstract=In this article I examine one practice speakers have for confirming when confirmation was not otherwise relevant. The practice involves a speaker repeating an assertion previously made by another speaker in modified form with stress on the copula/auxiliary. I argue that these modified repeats work to undermine the first speaker's default ownership and rights over the claim and instead assert the primacy of the second speaker's rights to make the statement. Two types of modified repeats are identified: partial and full. Although both involve competing for primacy of the claim, they occur in distinct sequential environments: The former are generally positioned after a first claim was epistemically downgraded, whereas the latter are positioned following initial claims that were offered straightforwardly, without downgrading. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:53, 25 September 2024
| Stivers2005 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Stivers2005 |
| Author(s) | Tanya Stivers |
| Title | Modified repeats: one method for asserting primary rights from second position |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Repetition |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2005 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 38 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 131–158 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this article I examine one practice speakers have for confirming when confirmation was not otherwise relevant. The practice involves a speaker repeating an assertion previously made by another speaker in modified form with stress on the copula/auxiliary. I argue that these modified repeats work to undermine the first speaker's default ownership and rights over the claim and instead assert the primacy of the second speaker's rights to make the statement. Two types of modified repeats are identified: partial and full. Although both involve competing for primacy of the claim, they occur in distinct sequential environments: The former are generally positioned after a first claim was epistemically downgraded, whereas the latter are positioned following initial claims that were offered straightforwardly, without downgrading.
Notes
