One Type of Polar, Information-Seeking Question and Its Stance of Probability: Implications for the Preference for Agreement

IF 3 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Research on Language and Social Interaction Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759
Jeffrey D. Robinson
{"title":"One Type of Polar, Information-Seeking Question and Its Stance of Probability: Implications for the Preference for Agreement","authors":"Jeffrey D. Robinson","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is little doubt that Sacks’s notion of the “preference for agreement” is generally valid. However, that it is valid does not tell us how it is valid. This article further unpacks the preference for agreement by conversation-analytically grounding one of its many underlying mechanisms. Specifically, this article examines the practice of formatting an action—in this case, a type of information seeking—as a positively formatted polar interrogative without polarity items (e.g., Did you go fishing?). This article demonstrates that doing so enacts a speaker stance that the question’s proposed state of affairs (e.g., that the recipient went fishing) is probable and thus that a response is more likely to constitute affirmation than disaffirmation. Additionally, this article describes the preference-organizational effects of such formatting on some aspects of response construction. Data are gathered from videotapes of unstructured, face-to-face conversations, included 289 interrogatives, and are in American English.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":"53 1","pages":"425 - 442"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

ABSTRACT There is little doubt that Sacks’s notion of the “preference for agreement” is generally valid. However, that it is valid does not tell us how it is valid. This article further unpacks the preference for agreement by conversation-analytically grounding one of its many underlying mechanisms. Specifically, this article examines the practice of formatting an action—in this case, a type of information seeking—as a positively formatted polar interrogative without polarity items (e.g., Did you go fishing?). This article demonstrates that doing so enacts a speaker stance that the question’s proposed state of affairs (e.g., that the recipient went fishing) is probable and thus that a response is more likely to constitute affirmation than disaffirmation. Additionally, this article describes the preference-organizational effects of such formatting on some aspects of response construction. Data are gathered from videotapes of unstructured, face-to-face conversations, included 289 interrogatives, and are in American English.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一类极性信息寻求问题及其概率立场——对协议偏好的启示
摘要毫无疑问,萨克斯的“协议优先权”概念是普遍有效的。然而,它是有效的并不能告诉我们它是如何有效的。这篇文章通过对话分析其众多潜在机制之一,进一步揭示了对协议的偏好。具体来说,这篇文章研究了将一个动作(在这种情况下,是一种信息寻求)格式化为没有极性项目的正格式极性疑问句的做法(例如,你去钓鱼了吗?)。这篇文章表明,这样做表明了发言人的立场,即问题的拟议事态(例如,接受者去钓鱼)是可能的,因此回答更有可能构成肯定而非否定。此外,本文还描述了这种格式对响应构建的某些方面的偏好组织影响。数据是从非结构化面对面对话的录像带中收集的,包括289个问句,都是美式英语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The journal publishes the highest quality empirical and theoretical research bearing on language as it is used in interaction. Researchers in communication, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, linguistic anthropology and ethnography are likely to be the most active contributors, but we welcome submission of articles from the broad range of interaction researchers. Published papers will normally involve the close analysis of naturally-occurring interaction. The journal is also open to theoretical essays, and to quantitative studies where these are tied closely to the results of naturalistic observation.
期刊最新文献
The First Step in Triadic Decision-Making Involving People with Dementia: Determining Who Talks When. The Interactional Histories of Performance Bodies: From Describing to Depicting Proposed Ideas at Opera Rehearsals A Question of Embeddedness: On Clausal and Phrasal Responses to Specifying WH-Questions in Danish Talk-in-Interaction Formulations in French Emergency Calls Transferred to Physicians Emanuel A. Schegloff 1937–2024
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1