Difference between revisions of "Turner1976"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Roy Turner; | |Author(s)=Roy Turner; | ||
|Title=Utterance positioning as an interactional resource | |Title=Utterance positioning as an interactional resource | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis |
|Key=Turner1976 | |Key=Turner1976 | ||
|Year=1976 | |Year=1976 | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|URL=http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/semi.1976.17.issue-3/semi.1976.17.3.233/semi.1976.17.3.233.xml | |URL=http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/semi.1976.17.issue-3/semi.1976.17.3.233/semi.1976.17.3.233.xml | ||
|DOI=10.1515/semi.1976.17.3.233 | |DOI=10.1515/semi.1976.17.3.233 | ||
| + | |Abstract=The analyzability of conversation by professional students of language use | ||
| + | depends upon the analyzability of conversation in its production, and over | ||
| + | its course, by participant conversationalists. | ||
| + | 1 | ||
| + | The analysis which partici- | ||
| + | pant conversationalists perform upon their own and other's talk in the | ||
| + | course of its production, however, is not to be confused with the later com- | ||
| + | mentaries that participants or other interested parties may give, or be per- | ||
| + | suaded to give, as 'clarification' of 'what really happened' or what was | ||
| + | 'meant at the time'. Such commentaries are themselves features of the very | ||
| + | action scenes they are directed to clarifying, and are products of attention | ||
| + | to the action field's relevances. Insofar as they can be said to constitute | ||
| + | analysis of conversation at all, they constitute an essentially interested | ||
| + | analysis, responsive to the accountable features of the domain of activities | ||
| + | of which it is a part. | ||
| + | An interested analysis is to be distinguished from that attention to the | ||
| + | structural properties of on-going talk which attempts to delineate them as | ||
| + | speaker/hearer products. But the distinction is not merely one of emphasis, | ||
| + | for, as I shall attempt to demonstrate in the following pages, interested | ||
| + | analyses are essentially ad hoc (they are required to be, of course, by vir- | ||
| + | tue of their attachment to the domain of action); while the kind of analysis | ||
| + | we must pursue as students of conversational order is directed to the con- | ||
| + | struction of an apparatus which is usable on materials other than the data it | ||
| + | initially handles. I hope to clarify this distinction by presenting for exam- | ||
| + | ination an essentially interested analysis of a conversation, furnishing some | ||
| + | comments upon its ad hoc character, and in contrast, offering an analysis | ||
| + | which explicitly orients to its working apparatus as the latter is built and | ||
| + | put into service. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 04:10, 25 September 2018
| Turner1976 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Turner1976 |
| Author(s) | Roy Turner |
| Title | Utterance positioning as an interactional resource |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1976 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Semiotica |
| Volume | 17 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 233–254 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/semi.1976.17.3.233 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The analyzability of conversation by professional students of language use depends upon the analyzability of conversation in its production, and over its course, by participant conversationalists. 1
The analysis which partici-
pant conversationalists perform upon their own and other's talk in the course of its production, however, is not to be confused with the later com- mentaries that participants or other interested parties may give, or be per- suaded to give, as 'clarification' of 'what really happened' or what was 'meant at the time'. Such commentaries are themselves features of the very action scenes they are directed to clarifying, and are products of attention to the action field's relevances. Insofar as they can be said to constitute analysis of conversation at all, they constitute an essentially interested analysis, responsive to the accountable features of the domain of activities of which it is a part. An interested analysis is to be distinguished from that attention to the structural properties of on-going talk which attempts to delineate them as speaker/hearer products. But the distinction is not merely one of emphasis, for, as I shall attempt to demonstrate in the following pages, interested analyses are essentially ad hoc (they are required to be, of course, by vir- tue of their attachment to the domain of action); while the kind of analysis we must pursue as students of conversational order is directed to the con- struction of an apparatus which is usable on materials other than the data it initially handles. I hope to clarify this distinction by presenting for exam- ination an essentially interested analysis of a conversation, furnishing some comments upon its ad hoc character, and in contrast, offering an analysis which explicitly orients to its working apparatus as the latter is built and put into service.
Notes
