1 / 18

Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position

Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position. Tanya Stivers Language & Cognition Group Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Conversation Analysis.

naava
Télécharger la présentation

Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position Tanya Stivers Language & Cognition Group Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics

  2. Conversation Analysis • Assumes that social interaction is governed by social norms or rules that can be observed in the ways that people use language in interaction • Mandates work on spontaneous, naturally occurring, recorded social interaction • Mandates that instances of a phenomenon be examined across a corpora of data to ensure that the phenomenon is “real” and generalizable • Mandates that “deviant” cases be accounted for

  3. Today • An example of a CA approach to interaction • Relies on the collection of instances of the phenomenon “modified repeats” as ways of confirming assertions • Describes the function of this practice in ordinary conversation

  4. Assertions Assertions are utterances that: describe, assess, or state something as fact No response is conditionally relevant, but agreements and confirmations are relatively common

  5. HS 4 T2 08: simple agreement 1 JOE: (Two) months, ((age of child)) 2 (0.2) 3 JOE: (Three) months, 4 (.) 5 TIM: Go:d they don't know [(^nothin') 6 JOE: [That's an infant. 7 TIM: Ye^a:h. TC Linda & Joan: simple agreement 1 LIN: Craig’s hair rilly wz startin’ 2 tuh look better. 3 JOA: Ye:a:h.

  6. Confirmations Most confirmations occur in contexts where confirmation is sought: e.g., Requests for confirmation Statements about the interlocutor (B-event statements, Labov & Fanshel, 1977)

  7. Modified Repeats Modified repeats confirm an assertion in an environment where confirmation was not requested. HS 4 7-9-03 T1 59:46 1 Tim: I think it was some black folks cuz you 2 see(n) ‘em on [(thuh TV) 3 Joe: [It was.

  8. Modified repeats: Form 1) Removes any epistemic downgrading from the original claim (e.g., “I think”; “It might be”, etc.) 2) Restates the prior assertion using at least enough of the same language to be heard as a “second” 3) They expand and stress the copula/auxiliary verb in the repetition

  9. Partial repetition Epistemic downgrade is dropped in the modified repeat Copula is stressed Modified Repeats HS 4 7-9-03 T1 59:46 1 Tim: I think it was some black folks cuz you 2 see(n) ‘em on [(thuh TV) 3 Joe: [It was.

  10. Modified Repeats: Function Although positioned to “second” a prior assertion, modified repeats are competitive: • They assert epistemic authority over the matter at hand • From a responsive (second) position, they work to undermine the prior speaker’s epistemic authority to make the claim

  11. Modified repeat claims: The account for the meat smelling good is not Gio’s to make Repetition and stress Downgrade dropped Housemates 2:30 1 Lan: This’ smelling goo:d_ I might start 2 eating raw meat, 3 (0.2) 4 Jud: S::ee:? 5 (1.0) 6 Lan: Yeah but I’m not [that weird.] 7 Gio: [I th(h)ink ] it’s just 8 all the spices. 9 (0.2) 10 Lan: It is.

  12. Housemates 10.27 1 Lan: Great_ 2 (0.2) 3 Lan: .h As long as you don’t have too much.= • “cuz you remember what happen’=las’= • time.” 6 Gio: h[h(h) 7 Lan: [Got (Chel)/(che) [drunk (didn’t sh-) 8 Gio: [An’ it’s uh school 9 night. 10 Jud: °Yeah.° 11 (0.2)/((Lan preparing food)) 11 Lan: It is uh school night. 12 (0.2) 13 Lan: Mister- <two jacks already,>

  13. Full modified repeat Sanction of Gio’s rights to make the claim Housemates 10.27 3 Lan: .h As long as you don’t have too much.= • “cuz you remember what happen’=las’= • time.” 6 Gio: h[h(h) 7 Lan: [Got (Chel)/(che) [drunk (didn’t sh-) 8 Gio: [An’ it’s uh school 9 night. 10 Jud: °Yeah.° 11 (0.2)/((Lan preparing food)) 11 Lan: It is uh school night. 12 (0.2) 13 Lan: Mister- <two jacks already,>

  14. Epistemic Domains • Interactants demonstrate that there is a difference between epistemic independence (knowing something independent of your interlocutor) and epistemic authority/rights (knowing something better than your interlocutor) • They use different communication practices for each: “Oh” prefaced agreements assert independent knowledge (Heritage, 2002) Modified repeats assert better knowledge

  15. Epistemic independence Full modified repeat Epistemic Independence vs Authority 1 ROB: Oh I’m such a ^so: gla:d t’have a chat 2 with you cz I ^do want t’know’n I’m 3 en^joying it ‘n the children’re love[ly 4 LES: [.tch 5 LES: ^Oh yes.=They ^are lovely::I[h if a= 6 ROB: [( ) 7 LES: =little exciteable. 8 ROB: Th[a:t’s w’t I thought. 9 LES: [Hm:.

  16. Modified Repeats: Summary • Modified repeats are one type of response to first position assertions which, although agreeing, compete over the “terms of agreement” (Heritage & Raymond, 2005) • They compete over “territories of knowledge”: who has rights to know what and with what authority • This practice specifically competes over epistemic authority

  17. The contribution of this approach • A CA approach combines a detailed qualitative approach to the study of interaction with the benefits of corpus based research: generalizability and distributional evidence for the pervasiveness of a phenomenon

  18. Thank you!

More Related