Difference between revisions of "Stivers2006a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Tanya Stivers; Jeffrey D. Robinson;
 
|Author(s)=Tanya Stivers; Jeffrey D. Robinson;
 
|Title=A preference for progressivity in interaction
 
|Title=A preference for progressivity in interaction
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interaction; conversation analysis; sequence organization; Progressivity; Response tokens; Peference; Non-response;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interaction; conversation analysis; sequence organization; Progressivity; Response tokens; Peference; Non-response;
 
|Key=Stivers2006a
 
|Key=Stivers2006a
 
|Publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP)
 
|Publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
|Volume=35
 
|Volume=35
 
|Number=03
 
|Number=03
 +
|Pages=367–392
 
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
 
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
 
|DOI=10.1017/s0047404506060179
 
|DOI=10.1017/s0047404506060179

Revision as of 03:43, 28 August 2017

Stivers2006a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Stivers2006a
Author(s) Tanya Stivers, Jeffrey D. Robinson
Title A preference for progressivity in interaction
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Interaction, conversation analysis, sequence organization, Progressivity, Response tokens, Peference, Non-response
Publisher Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Year 2006
Language
City
Month may
Journal Language in Society
Volume 35
Number 03
Pages 367–392
URL Link
DOI 10.1017/s0047404506060179
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party inter- action, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jeffer- son (1974)which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organi- zation is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals an observable preference for progressivity in interaction.

Notes