Difference between revisions of "Stivers2016"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Tanya Stivers; Jack Sidnell; | |Author(s)=Tanya Stivers; Jack Sidnell; | ||
| − | |Title=Proposals for | + | |Title=Proposals for activity collaboration |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Proposals; Joint Activity; Activity modification; Children's play; DeviantCase Analysis; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Proposals; Joint Activity; Activity modification; Children's play; DeviantCase Analysis; | ||
|Key=Stivers2016 | |Key=Stivers2016 | ||
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | |Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | ||
|Volume=49 | |Volume=49 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=148–166 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 |
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 | |DOI=10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 | ||
|Abstract=This article examines two common ways that speakers propose a new joint activity—“Let’s X” and “How about X”—in an examination of video recordings of children playing. Whereas Let’s constructions treat the proposed activity as disjunctive with the prior, How about constructions treat the proposed activity as modifying the ongoing activity. We rely on distributional as well as turn-design evidence including phonetic and bodily resources of turn design. We also analyze deviant cases where we argue that speakers are working to either increase or decrease the distance between the new activity and the prior activity. Data are in Canadian English. | |Abstract=This article examines two common ways that speakers propose a new joint activity—“Let’s X” and “How about X”—in an examination of video recordings of children playing. Whereas Let’s constructions treat the proposed activity as disjunctive with the prior, How about constructions treat the proposed activity as modifying the ongoing activity. We rely on distributional as well as turn-design evidence including phonetic and bodily resources of turn design. We also analyze deviant cases where we argue that speakers are working to either increase or decrease the distance between the new activity and the prior activity. Data are in Canadian English. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:23, 22 December 2019
| Stivers2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Stivers2016 |
| Author(s) | Tanya Stivers, Jack Sidnell |
| Title | Proposals for activity collaboration |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Proposals, Joint Activity, Activity modification, Children's play, DeviantCase Analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 49 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 148–166 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article examines two common ways that speakers propose a new joint activity—“Let’s X” and “How about X”—in an examination of video recordings of children playing. Whereas Let’s constructions treat the proposed activity as disjunctive with the prior, How about constructions treat the proposed activity as modifying the ongoing activity. We rely on distributional as well as turn-design evidence including phonetic and bodily resources of turn design. We also analyze deviant cases where we argue that speakers are working to either increase or decrease the distance between the new activity and the prior activity. Data are in Canadian English.
Notes
