Difference between revisions of "Enfield2017"
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) (BibTeX auto import 2017-09-26 06:22:44) |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 23:22, 25 September 2017
| Enfield2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Enfield2017 |
| Author(s) | N.J. Enfield, Jack Sidnell |
| Title | On the concept of action in the study of interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Basic Resources, Action Formation, Action ascription, Accountability, Action, Philosophy of language, Practice, Speech act |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 19 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 515-535 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445617730235 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what would be an appropriate response? We argue that (1) every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behavior is goal directed; (2) responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; and (3) describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a ‘binning’ procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.
Notes
