Difference between revisions of "Laforest2009"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Marty Laforest |Title=Complaining in front of a witness: Aspects of blaming others for their behaviour in multi-party family interaction...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Marty Laforest | |Author(s)=Marty Laforest | ||
| − | |Title=Complaining in front of a witness: | + | |Title=Complaining in front of a witness: aspects of blaming others for their behaviour in multi-party family interactions |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Family Interaction; Complaints; Blaming; Conflict; Argument; Affiliation; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Family Interaction; Complaints; Blaming; Conflict; Argument; Affiliation; |
|Key=Laforest2009 | |Key=Laforest2009 | ||
|Year=2009 | |Year=2009 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=42 | |Volume=42 | ||
|Number=12 | |Number=12 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=2452–2464 |
|URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216608002695 | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216608002695 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.043 |
|Abstract=This study is about direct complaint in the presence of a witness in family interactions involving more than two participants. The objective is to evaluate the impact of the witness's presence on the way the sequence plays out. The results of the analysis show that, of all the witness's possible reactions, affiliation with the complainant is the most frequent. The complaint is thereby “collectivized”, which makes it more forceful against the complainee. However, the witness remains cautious: if the sequence seems headed for conflict, s/he very clearly acts to prevent too great a deterioration of the interactional climate. Thus, the witness takes on two tasks simultaneously: s/he contributes both to regulating behaviours and to maintaining a manageable level of tension between the participant. | |Abstract=This study is about direct complaint in the presence of a witness in family interactions involving more than two participants. The objective is to evaluate the impact of the witness's presence on the way the sequence plays out. The results of the analysis show that, of all the witness's possible reactions, affiliation with the complainant is the most frequent. The complaint is thereby “collectivized”, which makes it more forceful against the complainee. However, the witness remains cautious: if the sequence seems headed for conflict, s/he very clearly acts to prevent too great a deterioration of the interactional climate. Thus, the witness takes on two tasks simultaneously: s/he contributes both to regulating behaviours and to maintaining a manageable level of tension between the participant. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:31, 23 November 2019
| Laforest2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Laforest2009 |
| Author(s) | Marty Laforest |
| Title | Complaining in front of a witness: aspects of blaming others for their behaviour in multi-party family interactions |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Family Interaction, Complaints, Blaming, Conflict, Argument, Affiliation |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 42 |
| Number | 12 |
| Pages | 2452–2464 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.043 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This study is about direct complaint in the presence of a witness in family interactions involving more than two participants. The objective is to evaluate the impact of the witness's presence on the way the sequence plays out. The results of the analysis show that, of all the witness's possible reactions, affiliation with the complainant is the most frequent. The complaint is thereby “collectivized”, which makes it more forceful against the complainee. However, the witness remains cautious: if the sequence seems headed for conflict, s/he very clearly acts to prevent too great a deterioration of the interactional climate. Thus, the witness takes on two tasks simultaneously: s/he contributes both to regulating behaviours and to maintaining a manageable level of tension between the participant.
Notes
