Difference between revisions of "Persson2005b"
(remove mistaken text in "doi" entry) |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Rasmus Persson; | |Author(s)=Rasmus Persson; | ||
|Title=Indexing one’s own previous action as inadequate: On ah-prefaced repeats as receipt tokens in French talk-in-interaction | |Title=Indexing one’s own previous action as inadequate: On ah-prefaced repeats as receipt tokens in French talk-in-interaction | ||
| − | |Tag(s)= | + | |Tag(s)=French; talk-in-interaction; repetition; receipts; particles; indexicality; intersubjectivity; |
| + | prosody; phonetics | ||
|Key=Persson2005b | |Key=Persson2005b | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
Revision as of 07:23, 4 September 2015
| Persson2005b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Persson2005b |
| Author(s) | Rasmus Persson |
| Title | Indexing one’s own previous action as inadequate: On ah-prefaced repeats as receipt tokens in French talk-in-interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | French, talk-in-interaction, repetition, receipts, particles, indexicality, intersubjectivity, prosody, phonetics |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language in Society |
| Volume | 44 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article considers a practice in French talk-in-interaction, formally characterized as other-repeats prefaced by the change-of-state particle ah. The target practice accomplishes a claim of receipt, while at the same time indexing as somehow inadequate a previous turn by the receipt speaker. Evidence drawn upon includes: (i) the sequential locations of the examined phenomenon; (ii) ensuing developments of the sequence, wherein the indexed inadequacy is more explicitly acknowledged; and (iii) the discriminability of the focal practice with respect to alternative practices. Two phonetically distinguished variants of the practice, and their respective sequential projections (‘problematizing’topicalization or‘accepting’closure), are discussed. This article contributes to the study of how intersubjectivity is managed and administered by participants, and to research on the management of accountability for producing ‘adequate’turns and actions. Finally, it addresses ongoing discussions concerning the analysis of multiple actions (first- and second-order) conveyed simultaneously in single turns.
Notes
