Difference between revisions of "Nguyen2015"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Key=Nguyen2015 | |Key=Nguyen2015 | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Text & Talk | |Journal=Text & Talk | ||
|Volume=35 | |Volume=35 | ||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
|URL=http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.2015.35.issue-6/text-2015-0019/text-2015-0019.xml?format=INT | |URL=http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.2015.35.issue-6/text-2015-0019/text-2015-0019.xml?format=INT | ||
|DOI=10.1515/text-2015-0019 | |DOI=10.1515/text-2015-0019 | ||
| − | |Abstract= | + | |Abstract=This paper uses conversation analysis to examine when Vietnamese speakers explicitly mark the source of represented talk or thought (RT) and when they may omit the RTs source in narratives in dyadic and multiparty family conversations. In Vietnamese, a pro-drop, non-inflectional language, RTs may be introduced by a verb of speaking and its subject, a verb of speaking without the subject, or no verb of speaking and no subject. The analysis focuses on how these three choices are employed in the sequential organization of narrative series, narrative participation frameworks, and narrative dramatization. The findings contribute to current understandings about source marking through linguistic devices as an interactional practice in conversations in addition to other resources such as voicing and embodied actions. |
| − | speakers explicitly mark the source of represented talk or thought (RT) and when | ||
| − | they may omit the RTs source in narratives in dyadic and multiparty family | ||
| − | conversations. In Vietnamese, a pro-drop, non-inflectional language, RTs may | ||
| − | be introduced by a verb of speaking and its subject, a verb of speaking without | ||
| − | the subject, or no verb of speaking and no subject. The analysis focuses on how | ||
| − | these three choices are employed in the sequential organization of narrative | ||
| − | series, narrative participation frameworks, and narrative dramatization. The | ||
| − | findings contribute to current understandings about source marking through | ||
| − | linguistic devices as an interactional practice in conversations in addition to | ||
| − | other resources such as voicing and embodied actions. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:41, 15 December 2019
| Nguyen2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Nguyen2015 |
| Author(s) | Hanh thi Nguyen |
| Title | Source marking in represented talk and thought in Vietnamese narratives |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, narrative, reported speech, Vietnamese, family, conversation analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Text & Talk |
| Volume | 35 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 731–757 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/text-2015-0019 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper uses conversation analysis to examine when Vietnamese speakers explicitly mark the source of represented talk or thought (RT) and when they may omit the RTs source in narratives in dyadic and multiparty family conversations. In Vietnamese, a pro-drop, non-inflectional language, RTs may be introduced by a verb of speaking and its subject, a verb of speaking without the subject, or no verb of speaking and no subject. The analysis focuses on how these three choices are employed in the sequential organization of narrative series, narrative participation frameworks, and narrative dramatization. The findings contribute to current understandings about source marking through linguistic devices as an interactional practice in conversations in addition to other resources such as voicing and embodied actions.
Notes
