Difference between revisions of "Carranza2017"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Ariel Vázquez Carranza |Title=Some uses of ‘no’ in Spanish talk-in-interactions |Tag(s)=EMCA; Spanish; Interactional Linguistics;...") |
(published) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Ariel Vázquez Carranza | |Author(s)=Ariel Vázquez Carranza | ||
|Title=Some uses of ‘no’ in Spanish talk-in-interactions | |Title=Some uses of ‘no’ in Spanish talk-in-interactions | ||
| − | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Spanish; Interactional Linguistics; Epistemics | |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Spanish; Interactional Linguistics; Epistemics | ||
|Key=Carranza2017 | |Key=Carranza2017 | ||
|Year=2017 | |Year=2017 | ||
|Journal=International Review of Pragmatics | |Journal=International Review of Pragmatics | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |Volume=9 |
| + | |Number=2 | ||
| + | |Pages=224-247 | ||
| + | |URL=https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901009 | ||
|DOI=10.1163/18773109-00901009 | |DOI=10.1163/18773109-00901009 | ||
|Abstract=Using the methodology of Conversation Analysis, the present investigation studies the particle ‘no’ in Mexican Spanish naturally occurring interactions. ‘No’ is analysed in two sequential contexts: assessment sequences (i.e., two assessments, each produced by different speakers, one after the other) and activity transition (i.e., when speakers go from one activity/topic to another). In the first sequential context ‘no’ appears prefacing an upgraded version of the assessment produced adjacently before (i.e., in second position of the sequence). In this context, ‘no’ works to show primacy of epistemic rights, it marks the previous assessment as an understatement, ‘no’ agrees with the previous assessment’s valence but not with its strength. A multiple saying of ‘no’ prefaces an assessment and makes it more emphatic. In the second sequential context, ‘no’ appears to work as a marker of transition between conversational activities, i.e, speakers use ‘no’ to transit from one activity/topic to another. | |Abstract=Using the methodology of Conversation Analysis, the present investigation studies the particle ‘no’ in Mexican Spanish naturally occurring interactions. ‘No’ is analysed in two sequential contexts: assessment sequences (i.e., two assessments, each produced by different speakers, one after the other) and activity transition (i.e., when speakers go from one activity/topic to another). In the first sequential context ‘no’ appears prefacing an upgraded version of the assessment produced adjacently before (i.e., in second position of the sequence). In this context, ‘no’ works to show primacy of epistemic rights, it marks the previous assessment as an understatement, ‘no’ agrees with the previous assessment’s valence but not with its strength. A multiple saying of ‘no’ prefaces an assessment and makes it more emphatic. In the second sequential context, ‘no’ appears to work as a marker of transition between conversational activities, i.e, speakers use ‘no’ to transit from one activity/topic to another. | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 05:47, 27 September 2017
| Carranza2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Carranza2017 |
| Author(s) | Ariel Vázquez Carranza |
| Title | Some uses of ‘no’ in Spanish talk-in-interactions |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Spanish, Interactional Linguistics, Epistemics |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | International Review of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 9 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 224-247 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1163/18773109-00901009 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Using the methodology of Conversation Analysis, the present investigation studies the particle ‘no’ in Mexican Spanish naturally occurring interactions. ‘No’ is analysed in two sequential contexts: assessment sequences (i.e., two assessments, each produced by different speakers, one after the other) and activity transition (i.e., when speakers go from one activity/topic to another). In the first sequential context ‘no’ appears prefacing an upgraded version of the assessment produced adjacently before (i.e., in second position of the sequence). In this context, ‘no’ works to show primacy of epistemic rights, it marks the previous assessment as an understatement, ‘no’ agrees with the previous assessment’s valence but not with its strength. A multiple saying of ‘no’ prefaces an assessment and makes it more emphatic. In the second sequential context, ‘no’ appears to work as a marker of transition between conversational activities, i.e, speakers use ‘no’ to transit from one activity/topic to another.
Notes
