Difference between revisions of "Ekberg2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=44 | |Volume=44 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=374–386 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216612000082 |
| − | |Abstract=A body of research in | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.006 |
| − | structurally-provided positions in which sources of trouble in talk-in-interaction | + | |Abstract=A body of research in conversation analysis has identified a range of structurally-provided positions in which sources of trouble in talk-in-interaction can be addressed using repair. These practices are contained within what Schegloff (1992) calls the repair space. In this paper, I examine a rare instance in which a source of trouble is not resolved within the repair space and comes to be addressed outside of it. The practice by which this occurs is a post-completion account; that is, an account that is produced after the possible completion of the sequence containing a source of trouble. Unlike fourth position repair, the final repair position available within the repair space, this account is not made in preparation for a revised response to the trouble-source turn. Its more restrictive aim, rather, is to circumvent an ongoing difference between the parties involved. I argue that because the trouble is addressed in this manner, and in this particular position, the repair space can be considered as being limited to the sequence in which a source of trouble originates. |
| − | can be addressed using repair. These practices are contained | ||
| − | within what Schegloff (1992) calls the repair space. In this paper, I | ||
| − | examine a rare instance in which a source of trouble is not resolved within | ||
| − | the repair space and comes to be addressed outside of it. The practice by | ||
| − | which this occurs is a post-completion account; that is, an account that is | ||
| − | produced after the possible completion of the sequence containing a | ||
| − | source of trouble. Unlike fourth position repair, the final repair position | ||
| − | available within the repair space, this account is not made in preparation | ||
| − | for a revised response to the trouble-source turn. Its more restrictive aim, | ||
| − | rather, is to circumvent an ongoing difference between the parties | ||
| − | involved. I argue that because the trouble is addressed in this manner, and | ||
| − | in this particular position, the repair space can be considered as being | ||
| − | limited to the sequence in which a source of trouble originates. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:11, 30 November 2019
| Ekberg2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Ekberg2012 |
| Author(s) | Stuart Ekberg |
| Title | Addressing a source of trouble outside of the repair space |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Trouble Source, Repair, Conversation Analysis, Repair space, Intersubjectivity, Talk-in-interaction., Post-completion account |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 44 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 374–386 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.006 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
A body of research in conversation analysis has identified a range of structurally-provided positions in which sources of trouble in talk-in-interaction can be addressed using repair. These practices are contained within what Schegloff (1992) calls the repair space. In this paper, I examine a rare instance in which a source of trouble is not resolved within the repair space and comes to be addressed outside of it. The practice by which this occurs is a post-completion account; that is, an account that is produced after the possible completion of the sequence containing a source of trouble. Unlike fourth position repair, the final repair position available within the repair space, this account is not made in preparation for a revised response to the trouble-source turn. Its more restrictive aim, rather, is to circumvent an ongoing difference between the parties involved. I argue that because the trouble is addressed in this manner, and in this particular position, the repair space can be considered as being limited to the sequence in which a source of trouble originates.
Notes
