Difference between revisions of "Raymond2004"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Geoffrey Raymond; |Title=Prompting action: The stand alone "so" in ordinary conversation |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Prompting...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Geoffrey Raymond; | + | |Author(s)=Geoffrey Raymond; |
|Title=Prompting action: The stand alone "so" in ordinary conversation | |Title=Prompting action: The stand alone "so" in ordinary conversation | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Prompting; Action; So; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Prompting; Action; So; |
|Key=Raymond2004 | |Key=Raymond2004 | ||
|Year=2004 | |Year=2004 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Journal=Research on Language & Social Interaction | |Journal=Research on Language & Social Interaction | ||
|Volume=37 | |Volume=37 | ||
| + | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=185-218 | |Pages=185-218 | ||
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 |
|Abstract=Coordinating social action with others entails (and is reflected in) members' knowing where they are in a course of action, from whom an action is due, what action is due, and the like. Although methods of turn taking and sequence organization provide primary resources for establishing a joint understanding of actions and events in conversation, the use of these methods can become complicated because any turn at talk can be understood to participate in and have relevance for units of organization beyond its immediate sequential context. When coparticipants find themselves "out of sync" regarding the import of a unit of talk, and these "first line" methods reveal a problem of understanding, participants can draw on ancillary methods, such as repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks,1977; Schegloff, 1992b, 1997), and other practices for managing their difficulties. In this article, I describe one such practice-"the stand-alone 'so'"-that participants use to prompt action by a recipient. The stand-alone "so" is analyzed as a distinctive practice for interaction by examining the sequential environments in which it is produced, the range of contingencies it can be used to manage, and variations in the outcomes it aims for. I conclude the article by considering how the features of this practice are suited to the contingencies it is mobilized to manage and what this can tell us about the overlapping relevance of the organization turn taking, sequence organization, and the overall structural organization of conversation for understanding turns at talk. | |Abstract=Coordinating social action with others entails (and is reflected in) members' knowing where they are in a course of action, from whom an action is due, what action is due, and the like. Although methods of turn taking and sequence organization provide primary resources for establishing a joint understanding of actions and events in conversation, the use of these methods can become complicated because any turn at talk can be understood to participate in and have relevance for units of organization beyond its immediate sequential context. When coparticipants find themselves "out of sync" regarding the import of a unit of talk, and these "first line" methods reveal a problem of understanding, participants can draw on ancillary methods, such as repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks,1977; Schegloff, 1992b, 1997), and other practices for managing their difficulties. In this article, I describe one such practice-"the stand-alone 'so'"-that participants use to prompt action by a recipient. The stand-alone "so" is analyzed as a distinctive practice for interaction by examining the sequential environments in which it is produced, the range of contingencies it can be used to manage, and variations in the outcomes it aims for. I conclude the article by considering how the features of this practice are suited to the contingencies it is mobilized to manage and what this can tell us about the overlapping relevance of the organization turn taking, sequence organization, and the overall structural organization of conversation for understanding turns at talk. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:26, 11 July 2023
| Raymond2004 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Raymond2004 |
| Author(s) | Geoffrey Raymond |
| Title | Prompting action: The stand alone "so" in ordinary conversation |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Prompting, Action, So |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2004 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language & Social Interaction |
| Volume | 37 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 185-218 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Coordinating social action with others entails (and is reflected in) members' knowing where they are in a course of action, from whom an action is due, what action is due, and the like. Although methods of turn taking and sequence organization provide primary resources for establishing a joint understanding of actions and events in conversation, the use of these methods can become complicated because any turn at talk can be understood to participate in and have relevance for units of organization beyond its immediate sequential context. When coparticipants find themselves "out of sync" regarding the import of a unit of talk, and these "first line" methods reveal a problem of understanding, participants can draw on ancillary methods, such as repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks,1977; Schegloff, 1992b, 1997), and other practices for managing their difficulties. In this article, I describe one such practice-"the stand-alone 'so'"-that participants use to prompt action by a recipient. The stand-alone "so" is analyzed as a distinctive practice for interaction by examining the sequential environments in which it is produced, the range of contingencies it can be used to manage, and variations in the outcomes it aims for. I conclude the article by considering how the features of this practice are suited to the contingencies it is mobilized to manage and what this can tell us about the overlapping relevance of the organization turn taking, sequence organization, and the overall structural organization of conversation for understanding turns at talk.
Notes
