Difference between revisions of "Stivers2006a"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Tanya Stivers; Jeffrey D. Robinson; | |Author(s)=Tanya Stivers; Jeffrey D. Robinson; | ||
|Title=A preference for progressivity in interaction | |Title=A preference for progressivity in interaction | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Progressivity; Response tokens; Peference; Non-response; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interaction; conversation analysis; sequence organization; Progressivity; Response tokens; Peference; Non-response; |
|Key=Stivers2006a | |Key=Stivers2006a | ||
|Publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP) | |Publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 | |URL=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 | ||
|DOI=10.1017/s0047404506060179 | |DOI=10.1017/s0047404506060179 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: | ||
| + | in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party inter- | ||
| + | action, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category | ||
| + | of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is | ||
| + | asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jeffer- | ||
| + | son (1974)which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker | ||
| + | at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once | ||
| + | beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organi- | ||
| + | zation is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over | ||
| + | a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals | ||
| + | an observable preference for progressivity in interaction. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 04:41, 28 August 2017
| Stivers2006a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Stivers2006a |
| Author(s) | Tanya Stivers, Jeffrey D. Robinson |
| Title | A preference for progressivity in interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Interaction, conversation analysis, sequence organization, Progressivity, Response tokens, Peference, Non-response |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | may |
| Journal | Language in Society |
| Volume | 35 |
| Number | 03 |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0047404506060179 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party inter- action, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jeffer- son (1974)which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organi- zation is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals an observable preference for progressivity in interaction.
Notes
