Difference between revisions of "Gibson2010"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=David R. Gibson; |Title=Marking the Turn: Obligation, Engagement, and Alienation in Group Discussions |Tag(s)=EMCA; Turn-taking; Topic;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=David R. Gibson; | + | |Author(s)=David R. Gibson; |
| − | |Title=Marking the | + | |Title=Marking the turn: obligation, engagement, and alienation in group discussions |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Turn-taking; Topic; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Turn-taking; Topic; |
|Key=Gibson2010 | |Key=Gibson2010 | ||
|Year=2010 | |Year=2010 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=73 | |Volume=73 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=132–151 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0190272510371456 |
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0190272510371456 | ||
|Abstract=In group conversations, not speaking is the state of affairs experienced by most people most of the time; I refer to this as ‘‘conversational latency.’’ Hypothesizing that conversational latency affects one’s discursive options, I analyze the association between latency (operationalized as the number of turns that elapsed since the current speaker last spoke) and turn-initial words (e.g., but, oh) in twenty-nine experimental task groups, taking turn-initial words as indicators of the type of content a speaker proposes to produce. The findings suggest a model of group conversation in which conversational obligations weigh heaviest on the shoulders of the most recent contributors; those who contributed somewhat less recently remain engaged but have more latitude to take discordant positions; and those who have been quiet for longer periods are susceptible to ‘‘alienation from topic,’’ as a result of which reentry is often accompanied by an attempt to change the topic. | |Abstract=In group conversations, not speaking is the state of affairs experienced by most people most of the time; I refer to this as ‘‘conversational latency.’’ Hypothesizing that conversational latency affects one’s discursive options, I analyze the association between latency (operationalized as the number of turns that elapsed since the current speaker last spoke) and turn-initial words (e.g., but, oh) in twenty-nine experimental task groups, taking turn-initial words as indicators of the type of content a speaker proposes to produce. The findings suggest a model of group conversation in which conversational obligations weigh heaviest on the shoulders of the most recent contributors; those who contributed somewhat less recently remain engaged but have more latitude to take discordant positions; and those who have been quiet for longer periods are susceptible to ‘‘alienation from topic,’’ as a result of which reentry is often accompanied by an attempt to change the topic. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:24, 25 November 2019
| Gibson2010 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Gibson2010 |
| Author(s) | David R. Gibson |
| Title | Marking the turn: obligation, engagement, and alienation in group discussions |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Turn-taking, Topic |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2010 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Psychology Quarterly |
| Volume | 73 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 132–151 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0190272510371456 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In group conversations, not speaking is the state of affairs experienced by most people most of the time; I refer to this as ‘‘conversational latency.’’ Hypothesizing that conversational latency affects one’s discursive options, I analyze the association between latency (operationalized as the number of turns that elapsed since the current speaker last spoke) and turn-initial words (e.g., but, oh) in twenty-nine experimental task groups, taking turn-initial words as indicators of the type of content a speaker proposes to produce. The findings suggest a model of group conversation in which conversational obligations weigh heaviest on the shoulders of the most recent contributors; those who contributed somewhat less recently remain engaged but have more latitude to take discordant positions; and those who have been quiet for longer periods are susceptible to ‘‘alienation from topic,’’ as a result of which reentry is often accompanied by an attempt to change the topic.
Notes
