Difference between revisions of "Walker2014a"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "Research on Language & Social" to "Research on Language and Social") |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| + | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| + | |Author(s)=Traci Walker; | ||
| + | |Title=Form ≠ Function: The Independence of Prosody and Action | ||
| + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; IL; Transcription; Prosody; Action; | ||
|Key=Walker2014a | |Key=Walker2014a | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Year=2014 | |Year=2014 | ||
|Month=jan | |Month=jan | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
|URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08351813.2014.871792 | |URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08351813.2014.871792 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2014.871792 | |DOI=10.1080/08351813.2014.871792 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This article argues for the importance of describing form independently of function, especially for prosodic and phonetic forms. Form and function are often conflated by language-in-interaction researchers when they give descriptive labels to the sound of talk (e.g., “upgraded” pitch, “continuing” intonation), and that tempts researchers to see a given form as having a given function or practice—often one that is influenced by the descriptive label. I argue that we should discipline ourselves to keeping to a purely technical description of any form (practice); that will then make it possible unambiguously to show how that form contributes to a particular function (action), without | ||
| + | presuming the relationship to be exclusive. Data are in American and British English. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 02:13, 17 December 2016
| Walker2014a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Walker2014a |
| Author(s) | Traci Walker |
| Title | Form ≠ Function: The Independence of Prosody and Action |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, IL, Transcription, Prosody, Action |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2014 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | jan |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 47 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 1–16 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2014.871792 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article argues for the importance of describing form independently of function, especially for prosodic and phonetic forms. Form and function are often conflated by language-in-interaction researchers when they give descriptive labels to the sound of talk (e.g., “upgraded” pitch, “continuing” intonation), and that tempts researchers to see a given form as having a given function or practice—often one that is influenced by the descriptive label. I argue that we should discipline ourselves to keeping to a purely technical description of any form (practice); that will then make it possible unambiguously to show how that form contributes to a particular function (action), without presuming the relationship to be exclusive. Data are in American and British English.
Notes
