Kangasharju1996
| Kangasharju1996 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kangasharju1996 |
| Author(s) | Helena Kangasharju |
| Title | Aligning as a team in multiparty conversation |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Alignment, Multiparty interaction, Affiliation |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1996 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 26 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 291-319 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00051-8 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In multiparty conversation, participants can make references to various multi-person social units, whose members can be co-present individuals or outsiders. The participants in a conversation can also be members of different kinds of collectivities based on external ties (e.g. a family or a negotiating team). From the point of view of interactional analysis, associations are not significant until they are made relevant in the conversation. This article focuses on the analysis of one kind of occasiondashspecific collectivity, referred to as a team, which is created inside a group. The creation of teams is favored in interactional environments where the participants are in some way divided into subgroups. One such environment is disagreement in multiparty conversation. When there is disagreement in a multiparty conversation, it is tempting for the other participants to join one of the opposing sides. Thus, conflict within a group is also often between two opposing sides. This article examines in detail the organization of a single interactional environment: the teaming up of two participants in a multiparty, institutional conversation in which a conflict has arisen. Firstly, I describe a range of practices that can be exploited in making visible the alignment of two participants in the interaction. I also analyze the practices that are simultaneously used to make visible disaffiliation with the opposing side. Secondly, I describe how the creation of a team affects the participation framework in the conversation and how the options offered by the participation framework are exploited in making the team visible. Finally, I discuss some practices for making relevant some other types of collectivity in conversation.
Notes
