Nir2014

From emcawiki
Revision as of 11:23, 7 December 2019 by AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Nir2014
BibType ARTICLE
Key Nir2014
Author(s) Bracha Nir, Gonen Dori-Hacohen, Yael Maschler
Title Formulations on Israeli political talk radio: From actions and sequences to stance via dialogic resonance
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Formulations, Stance Taking, Radio, Israel
Publisher
Year 2014
Language
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 16
Number 4
Pages 534–571
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1461445613519525
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article explores the properties of formulations in a corpus of Hebrew radio phone-ins by juxtaposing two theoretical frameworks: conversation analysis (CA) and dialogic syntax. This combination of frameworks is applied towards explaining an anomalous interaction in the collection – a caller’s marked, unexpected rejection of a formulation of gist produced by the radio phone-in’s host. Our analysis shows that whereas previous CA studies of formulations account for many instances throughout the corpus, understanding this particular formulation in CA terms does not explain its drastic rejection by the caller. We therefore turn to an in-depth examination of strategies for lexical and syntactic resonance as a stance-taking device throughout the interaction. In so doing, we not only shed light on the anomalous interaction, but also offer an answer to a provocative question previously put forward by Haddington (2004) concerning which of the two – stances or actions – have more meaningful consequences for the description of the organization of interaction. In the particular interaction analyzed here, stances play the more significant role. We propose that the intersubjective stance-taking of participants may be viewed as a meta-action employed among participants as they move across actions, sequences, and activities in talk.

Notes