Difference between revisions of "Keevallik2018c"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Leelo Keevallik; |Title=Making up one’s mind in second position: Estonian no-preface in action plans |Editor(s)=John Heritage; Marja-L...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
+
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
 
|Author(s)=Leelo Keevallik;
 
|Author(s)=Leelo Keevallik;
 
|Title=Making up one’s mind in second position: Estonian no-preface in action plans
 
|Title=Making up one’s mind in second position: Estonian no-preface in action plans
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; second pair part; particle no; preference; Estonian; emergent grammar; interactional linguistics; turn-prefacing; temporality; complying; agreeing
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; second pair part; particle no; preference; Estonian; emergent grammar; interactional linguistics; turn-prefacing; temporality; complying; agreeing
 
|Key=Keevallik2018c
 
|Key=Keevallik2018c
|Publisher=John Benjamins Publishing
+
|Publisher=John Benjamins
 
|Year=2018
 
|Year=2018
 
|Language=English
 
|Language=English
 
|Chapter=11
 
|Chapter=11
 
|Address=Amsterdam / Philadelphia
 
|Address=Amsterdam / Philadelphia
|Booktitle=Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages
+
|Booktitle=Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages
 
|Pages=315–338
 
|Pages=315–338
 
|URL=https://benjamins.com/catalog/slsi.31.11kee
 
|URL=https://benjamins.com/catalog/slsi.31.11kee
|DOI=https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.11kee
+
|DOI=10.1075/slsi.31.11kee
 
|Abstract=This chapter discusses preferred responses that are delayed in their turn by the initial particle no in Estonian. It demonstrates that the turn-initial time-space may be employed for a display of “making up one’s mind”, either weighing matters outside the conversation or something already discussed in the talk. The paper argues that besides the dichotomous choice between the preferred and the dispreferred answer format, there are individual contingencies to consider in committing to future actions as made relevant in requests, proposals and suggestions. By marking a transition from prior resistance to compliance with a no-preface, the speaker indexes that the emerging response is carefully considered and therefore socially cohesive.
 
|Abstract=This chapter discusses preferred responses that are delayed in their turn by the initial particle no in Estonian. It demonstrates that the turn-initial time-space may be employed for a display of “making up one’s mind”, either weighing matters outside the conversation or something already discussed in the talk. The paper argues that besides the dichotomous choice between the preferred and the dispreferred answer format, there are individual contingencies to consider in committing to future actions as made relevant in requests, proposals and suggestions. By marking a transition from prior resistance to compliance with a no-preface, the speaker indexes that the emerging response is carefully considered and therefore socially cohesive.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 05:35, 13 January 2020

Keevallik2018c
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Keevallik2018c
Author(s) Leelo Keevallik
Title Making up one’s mind in second position: Estonian no-preface in action plans
Editor(s) John Heritage, Marja-Leena Sorjonen
Tag(s) EMCA, second pair part, particle no, preference, Estonian, emergent grammar, interactional linguistics, turn-prefacing, temporality, complying, agreeing
Publisher John Benjamins
Year 2018
Language English
City Amsterdam / Philadelphia
Month
Journal
Volume
Number
Pages 315–338
URL Link
DOI 10.1075/slsi.31.11kee
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages
Chapter 11

Download BibTex

Abstract

This chapter discusses preferred responses that are delayed in their turn by the initial particle no in Estonian. It demonstrates that the turn-initial time-space may be employed for a display of “making up one’s mind”, either weighing matters outside the conversation or something already discussed in the talk. The paper argues that besides the dichotomous choice between the preferred and the dispreferred answer format, there are individual contingencies to consider in committing to future actions as made relevant in requests, proposals and suggestions. By marking a transition from prior resistance to compliance with a no-preface, the speaker indexes that the emerging response is carefully considered and therefore socially cohesive.

Notes