Difference between revisions of "Nishizaka2015a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 4: Line 4:
 
|Title=Conversational Preference
 
|Title=Conversational Preference
 
|Editor(s)=Karen Tracy; Cornelia Ilie; Todd Sandel;
 
|Editor(s)=Karen Tracy; Cornelia Ilie; Todd Sandel;
|Tag(s)=EMCA; communication theory; language and social interaction; qualitative methods
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; communication theory; language and social interaction; qualitative methods
 
|Key=Nishizaka2015a
 
|Key=Nishizaka2015a
|Publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
+
|Publisher=John Wiley & Sons
 
|Year=2015
 
|Year=2015
 +
|Language=English
 
|Address=London
 
|Address=London
 
|Booktitle=The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction
 
|Booktitle=The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction
 +
|Volume=1
 +
|Pages=229–236
 
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
 
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
 
|DOI=10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
 
|DOI=10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071

Revision as of 04:30, 5 July 2018

Nishizaka2015a
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Nishizaka2015a
Author(s) Aug Nishizaka, Kaoru Hayano
Title Conversational Preference
Editor(s) Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, Todd Sandel
Tag(s) EMCA, communication theory, language and social interaction, qualitative methods
Publisher John Wiley & Sons
Year 2015
Language English
City London
Month
Journal
Volume 1
Number
Pages 229–236
URL Link
DOI 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi071
ISBN 9781118611463
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Conversation-analytic studies have noted various preferences that operate across different dimensions of interaction. These preferences operate on alternative forms or actions by favoring one over another. This article discusses preferences by focusing on two dimensions of interaction. The first is preferences in person reference, where the preference for minimization and the preference for recipient design determine the person reference form. The second is preferences in action sequence, where agreeing actions are preferred over disagreeing actions, each of which exhibits distinct formal features. Finally, this article suggests that other constraints may interfere with conversational preferences.

Notes