Difference between revisions of "Kushida2011"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Shuya Kushida; |Title=Confirming understanding and acknowledging assistance: Managing trouble responsibility in response to understandi...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Shuya Kushida; | + | |Author(s)=Shuya Kushida; |
|Title=Confirming understanding and acknowledging assistance: Managing trouble responsibility in response to understanding check in Japanese talk-in-interaction | |Title=Confirming understanding and acknowledging assistance: Managing trouble responsibility in response to understanding check in Japanese talk-in-interaction | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Japanese; Repair; Other-initiated repair; Responsibility; Assistance | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Japanese; Repair; Other-initiated repair; Responsibility; Assistance | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=43 | |Volume=43 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=11 |
| + | |Pages=2716–2739 | ||
|URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216611001305 | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216611001305 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.011 |
|Abstract=When a recipient of a turn-at-talk has a problem in hearing/understanding, one way for initiating repair is to offer a “candidate understanding” of that turn for confirmation/disconfirmation. This practice is, however, sometimes open to being regarded by the trouble-source speaker as providing a ‘better’ alternative for his/her formulation in the prior turn, because a candidate understanding contains different words than those used in the prior turn. Through an analysis of Japanese talk-in-interaction, this study argues that: (1) the practice of offering a candidate understanding is not only recognizable as checking understanding but can also be contingently recognizable as assisting the trouble-source speaker in formulating what s/he wanted/wants to say. (2) Among the two types of confirmation tokens in Japanese, a nn-type token is a resource for simply confirming the repair-initiating speaker's understanding, whereas a soo-type token is a resource for acknowledging his/her assistance in reformulating the trouble-source speaker's turn. (3) By responding with a soo-type token in response to an offer of a candidate understanding, the trouble-source speaker can display his/her stance to the fact that the recipient has assisted in solving a trouble in speaking and that s/he (the speaker) is responsible for the trouble. | |Abstract=When a recipient of a turn-at-talk has a problem in hearing/understanding, one way for initiating repair is to offer a “candidate understanding” of that turn for confirmation/disconfirmation. This practice is, however, sometimes open to being regarded by the trouble-source speaker as providing a ‘better’ alternative for his/her formulation in the prior turn, because a candidate understanding contains different words than those used in the prior turn. Through an analysis of Japanese talk-in-interaction, this study argues that: (1) the practice of offering a candidate understanding is not only recognizable as checking understanding but can also be contingently recognizable as assisting the trouble-source speaker in formulating what s/he wanted/wants to say. (2) Among the two types of confirmation tokens in Japanese, a nn-type token is a resource for simply confirming the repair-initiating speaker's understanding, whereas a soo-type token is a resource for acknowledging his/her assistance in reformulating the trouble-source speaker's turn. (3) By responding with a soo-type token in response to an offer of a candidate understanding, the trouble-source speaker can display his/her stance to the fact that the recipient has assisted in solving a trouble in speaking and that s/he (the speaker) is responsible for the trouble. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:37, 28 November 2019
| Kushida2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kushida2011 |
| Author(s) | Shuya Kushida |
| Title | Confirming understanding and acknowledging assistance: Managing trouble responsibility in response to understanding check in Japanese talk-in-interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Japanese, Repair, Other-initiated repair, Responsibility, Assistance |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 11 |
| Pages | 2716–2739 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.011 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
When a recipient of a turn-at-talk has a problem in hearing/understanding, one way for initiating repair is to offer a “candidate understanding” of that turn for confirmation/disconfirmation. This practice is, however, sometimes open to being regarded by the trouble-source speaker as providing a ‘better’ alternative for his/her formulation in the prior turn, because a candidate understanding contains different words than those used in the prior turn. Through an analysis of Japanese talk-in-interaction, this study argues that: (1) the practice of offering a candidate understanding is not only recognizable as checking understanding but can also be contingently recognizable as assisting the trouble-source speaker in formulating what s/he wanted/wants to say. (2) Among the two types of confirmation tokens in Japanese, a nn-type token is a resource for simply confirming the repair-initiating speaker's understanding, whereas a soo-type token is a resource for acknowledging his/her assistance in reformulating the trouble-source speaker's turn. (3) By responding with a soo-type token in response to an offer of a candidate understanding, the trouble-source speaker can display his/her stance to the fact that the recipient has assisted in solving a trouble in speaking and that s/he (the speaker) is responsible for the trouble.
Notes
