Difference between revisions of "Clift2003"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Rebecca Clift; |Title=Synonyms in action |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Synonyms |Key=Clift2003 |Year=2003 |Journal=International...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Rebecca Clift; | + | |Author(s)=Rebecca Clift; |
|Title=Synonyms in action | |Title=Synonyms in action | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Synonyms | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Synonyms | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=3 | |Volume=3 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=167–187 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=http://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/48631 |
| + | |Abstract=This paper discusses what the methods of conversation analysis (CA) might have to offer the study of linguistic synonymy. It takes as a case study two items commonly held to be synonyms -'actually' and 'in fact'- and shows considerable differences between the two in their interactional implementation: they are implicated in the prosecution of differing courses of action. Such cases argue that it is analytically more profitable to consider what a lexical item does in the context of talk than what it means. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:37, 31 October 2019
| Clift2003 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Clift2003 |
| Author(s) | Rebecca Clift |
| Title | Synonyms in action |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Synonyms |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2003 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | International Journal of English Studies |
| Volume | 3 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 167–187 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper discusses what the methods of conversation analysis (CA) might have to offer the study of linguistic synonymy. It takes as a case study two items commonly held to be synonyms -'actually' and 'in fact'- and shows considerable differences between the two in their interactional implementation: they are implicated in the prosecution of differing courses of action. Such cases argue that it is analytically more profitable to consider what a lexical item does in the context of talk than what it means.
Notes
