Difference between revisions of "Speer2017"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; |Title=Flirting: A Designedly Ambiguous Action? |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ambiguity; Flirting; Action formation; Intimacy; |Key=Sp...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; | + | |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; |
|Title=Flirting: A Designedly Ambiguous Action? | |Title=Flirting: A Designedly Ambiguous Action? | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ambiguity; Flirting; Action formation; Intimacy; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ambiguity; Flirting; Action formation; Intimacy; |
|Key=Speer2017 | |Key=Speer2017 | ||
|Year=2017 | |Year=2017 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Research in Language and Social Interaction | |Journal=Research in Language and Social Interaction | ||
|Volume=50 | |Volume=50 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=128-150 | |Pages=128-150 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301297 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2017.1301297 | |DOI=10.1080/08351813.2017.1301297 | ||
| − | |Abstract=Flirting is typically regarded as an ambiguous social action, which, in the absence | + | |Abstract=Flirting is typically regarded as an ambiguous social action, which, in the absence of members’ orientations, is subject to multiple interpretations and hard to pin down analytically. This article demonstrates a methodological technique for identifying the interactional practices that constitute vehicles for “possible flirting” by examining instances that contain (a) “endogenous” orientations to flirting, (b) orientations to flirting that are “exogenous” and post hoc, and (c) no orientations. Analyses suggest that flirting practices are often not ambiguous to members and involve the flirting party claiming epistemic rights to greater familiarity or intimacy with the flirt recipient than the interactional context, or the status of the speakers, might otherwise make procedurally relevant. Data are in British English. |
| − | of members’ orientations, is subject to multiple interpretations and hard to pin | ||
| − | down analytically. This article demonstrates a methodological technique for | ||
| − | identifying the interactional practices that constitute vehicles for “possible | ||
| − | |||
| − | flirting, (b) orientations to flirting that are “exogenous” and post hoc, and (c) | ||
| − | no orientations. Analyses suggest that flirting practices are often not ambiguous | ||
| − | to members and involve the flirting party claiming epistemic rights to greater | ||
| − | familiarity or intimacy with the flirt recipient than the interactional context, or the | ||
| − | status of the speakers, might otherwise make procedurally relevant. Data are in | ||
| − | British English. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:07, 31 August 2023
| Speer2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Speer2017 |
| Author(s) | Susan A. Speer |
| Title | Flirting: A Designedly Ambiguous Action? |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ambiguity, Flirting, Action formation, Intimacy |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research in Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 50 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 128-150 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2017.1301297 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Flirting is typically regarded as an ambiguous social action, which, in the absence of members’ orientations, is subject to multiple interpretations and hard to pin down analytically. This article demonstrates a methodological technique for identifying the interactional practices that constitute vehicles for “possible flirting” by examining instances that contain (a) “endogenous” orientations to flirting, (b) orientations to flirting that are “exogenous” and post hoc, and (c) no orientations. Analyses suggest that flirting practices are often not ambiguous to members and involve the flirting party claiming epistemic rights to greater familiarity or intimacy with the flirt recipient than the interactional context, or the status of the speakers, might otherwise make procedurally relevant. Data are in British English.
Notes
