Difference between revisions of "SBarnes2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Scott Barnes; |Title=On that's right and its combination with other tokens |Tag(s)=EMCA; Tokens |Key=SBarnes2012 |Year=2012 |Journal=Jo...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Scott Barnes; | + | |Author(s)=Scott Barnes; |
|Title=On that's right and its combination with other tokens | |Title=On that's right and its combination with other tokens | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Tokens | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Tokens | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=44 | |Volume=44 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=243–260 |
| + | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216611003079 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.004 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This paper uses Conversation Analysis to examine how a person with aphasia employed the response that's right. It discusses four functional variants of that's right (confirming; mutual stance; restored intersubjectivity; recognition), and composite turns involving that's right. A core collection of 100 turns was assembled and analysed. It is argued that the confirming that's right and the mutual stance that's right are both involved with agreement, and work to ratify the design and action of a prior turn. The former embraces epistemic authority, and the latter claims epistemic rights. The restored intersubjectivity that's right closes a period of trouble, while the recognition that's right claims knowledge of the matters addressed by a prior turn. Subsequent analyses demonstrate that positioning response tokens before that's right can point towards the constraints imposed by prior talk. Positioning of tokens after that's right can be involved with action projection. This paper adds new information about the epistemic and actional claims that can be implemented with that's right, and argues that a clinical focus on agreement may help enhance the everyday lives of people with aphasia. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:03, 23 February 2016
| SBarnes2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | SBarnes2012 |
| Author(s) | Scott Barnes |
| Title | On that's right and its combination with other tokens |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Tokens |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 44 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 243–260 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.004 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper uses Conversation Analysis to examine how a person with aphasia employed the response that's right. It discusses four functional variants of that's right (confirming; mutual stance; restored intersubjectivity; recognition), and composite turns involving that's right. A core collection of 100 turns was assembled and analysed. It is argued that the confirming that's right and the mutual stance that's right are both involved with agreement, and work to ratify the design and action of a prior turn. The former embraces epistemic authority, and the latter claims epistemic rights. The restored intersubjectivity that's right closes a period of trouble, while the recognition that's right claims knowledge of the matters addressed by a prior turn. Subsequent analyses demonstrate that positioning response tokens before that's right can point towards the constraints imposed by prior talk. Positioning of tokens after that's right can be involved with action projection. This paper adds new information about the epistemic and actional claims that can be implemented with that's right, and argues that a clinical focus on agreement may help enhance the everyday lives of people with aphasia.
Notes
