Difference between revisions of "Blocking"
ChaseRaymond (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Infobox cite | Authors = '''Nathalie Bauer''' (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8079) | To cite = Bauer, Nathalie. (2...") |
ChaseRaymond (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | A blocking response is a type of response that occurs in pre-sequences and discourages the prior speaker to proceed with the action projected in first position (Schegloff 2007: 30). These responses are referred to as “blocking” since they inhibit the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory by foreshadowing that a dispreferred response to the main action might follow (Schegloff 2007: 30). An instance of such a blocking response can be found in the following example from Liddicoat (2007: 129): | + | A blocking response is a type of response that occurs in '''[[Pre-expansion (sequence)|pre-sequences]]''' and discourages the prior speaker to proceed with the action projected in first position (Schegloff 2007: 30). These responses are referred to as “blocking” since they inhibit the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory by foreshadowing that a dispreferred response to the main action might follow (Schegloff 2007: 30). An instance of such a blocking response can be found in the following example from Liddicoat (2007: 129): |
(Liddicoat 2007: 129) | (Liddicoat 2007: 129) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
03 Fiona: o:h that will be nice for yuh. | 03 Fiona: o:h that will be nice for yuh. | ||
| − | Jill’s response to Fiona’s turn in line 2 foreshadows that a possible invitation will not be accepted, and “thereby discourages or blocks the invitation from being tendered at all” (Schegloff 2007: 30). As Sacks (1992: 685) put it, the blocking response prevents Fiona from “wasting” an invitation. In the absence of a '''[[Post-pre|post-pre]]''', a blocking response may also result in the prior question being handled as a mere [[Request_for_information|request for information]] rather than, for example, a pre-invitation. | + | Jill’s response to Fiona’s turn in line 2 foreshadows that a possible '''[[Invitation|invitation]]''' will not be accepted, and “thereby discourages or blocks the invitation from being tendered at all” (Schegloff 2007: 30). As Sacks (1992: 685) put it, the blocking response prevents Fiona from “wasting” an invitation. In the absence of a '''[[Post-pre|post-pre]]''', a blocking response may also result in the prior question being handled as a mere '''[[Request_for_information|request for information]]''' rather than, for example, a pre-invitation. |
The opposite possibility to react to a pre-sequence is a '''[[Go-ahead|go-ahead]]''', with which a speaker facilitates the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory. | The opposite possibility to react to a pre-sequence is a '''[[Go-ahead|go-ahead]]''', with which a speaker facilitates the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory. | ||
Revision as of 19:39, 18 June 2023
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Blocking | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Nathalie Bauer (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8079) |
| To cite: | Bauer, Nathalie. (2023). Blocking. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: |
A blocking response is a type of response that occurs in pre-sequences and discourages the prior speaker to proceed with the action projected in first position (Schegloff 2007: 30). These responses are referred to as “blocking” since they inhibit the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory by foreshadowing that a dispreferred response to the main action might follow (Schegloff 2007: 30). An instance of such a blocking response can be found in the following example from Liddicoat (2007: 129):
(Liddicoat 2007: 129) 01 Fiona: have yuh got any plans for Saddurday? 02 Jill: -> my sister's coming up tuh visit. 03 Fiona: o:h that will be nice for yuh.
Jill’s response to Fiona’s turn in line 2 foreshadows that a possible invitation will not be accepted, and “thereby discourages or blocks the invitation from being tendered at all” (Schegloff 2007: 30). As Sacks (1992: 685) put it, the blocking response prevents Fiona from “wasting” an invitation. In the absence of a post-pre, a blocking response may also result in the prior question being handled as a mere request for information rather than, for example, a pre-invitation.
The opposite possibility to react to a pre-sequence is a go-ahead, with which a speaker facilitates the unfolding of the projected sequential trajectory.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. Continuum.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Volume 1). Cambridge University Press.
Additional References:
