Difference between revisions of "Park2016a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jae-Eun Park |Title=Turn-taking in Korean conversation |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation analysis; Turn-taking; Turn constructional unit; Trans...") |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "Conversation analysis" to "Conversation Analysis") |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Jae-Eun Park | |Author(s)=Jae-Eun Park | ||
|Title=Turn-taking in Korean conversation | |Title=Turn-taking in Korean conversation | ||
− | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Turn-taking; Turn constructional unit; Transition-relevance place; Korean; |
|Key=Park2016a | |Key=Park2016a | ||
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 |
Revision as of 10:41, 15 May 2018
Park2016a | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Park2016a |
Author(s) | Jae-Eun Park |
Title | Turn-taking in Korean conversation |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Turn-taking, Turn constructional unit, Transition-relevance place, Korean |
Publisher | |
Year | 2016 |
Language | |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
Volume | 99 |
Number | |
Pages | 62-77 |
URL | |
DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.011 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
On the basis of Sacks et al.’s (1974) turn-taking model, I explore the flexibility of the Korean turn-taking system. Noting first that speakers bring a turn to a stopwithout projected final turn elements, I propose that the turn stop is a legitimate completion specifiable as a transition-relevance place (TRP). I view turn construction as a process of improvisation in which lexical chunks are accumulated one after another to deliver a recognizable action; a TRP is thus constituted at the completion of a lexical chunk loosely tied to a prior lexical chunk. In parallel, a turn stop occurs at a lexical boundary in which the lexical chunks thus far accumulated have conveyed a complete action. I argue that any lexical boundary can serve as a TRP on the condition of action completion, as negotiated and determined by the participants’ shared knowledge and experiences. This flexibility of TRP constitution is proposed as a specification of Sacks et al.’s (1974) generic model applied to Korean conversation.
Notes