Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864154
Barbara A. Fox, Trine Heinemann
ABSTRACT Despite extensive literature on what may be involved in making a request, there is dispute among scholars as to which linguistic formats constitute the social action of making a request proper. In this study, we examine the much-disputed declarative request format and in particular what we call “declaratives of trouble.” We present evidence that in the context of a service encounter such as the shoe repair shop, this format is unproblematically and systematically treated by both customer and service provider as performing requests. The study thus enriches our understanding of action formation and ascription by examining in detail that and how utterances that in some contexts might not serve as requests in other contexts constitute a primary resource for building requests. Data are in American English.
{"title":"Are They Requests? An Exploration of Declaratives of Trouble in Service Encounters","authors":"Barbara A. Fox, Trine Heinemann","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1864154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864154","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Despite extensive literature on what may be involved in making a request, there is dispute among scholars as to which linguistic formats constitute the social action of making a request proper. In this study, we examine the much-disputed declarative request format and in particular what we call “declaratives of trouble.” We present evidence that in the context of a service encounter such as the shoe repair shop, this format is unproblematically and systematically treated by both customer and service provider as performing requests. The study thus enriches our understanding of action formation and ascription by examining in detail that and how utterances that in some contexts might not serve as requests in other contexts constitute a primary resource for building requests. Data are in American English.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864154","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44164265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864158
Tanya Stivers
ABSTRACT Conversation is flexible enough to be conducted with varying numbers of individuals, but most conversation is dyadic. Is the prevalence of dyadic focal participation frameworks facilitated by structures of conversation? Using video recordings of spontaneous naturally occurring conversations, I explore multiperson interactions focusing on how structures of turn taking, sequence organization, storytelling, and speaker gaze facilitate or inhibit the inclusion of multiple individuals in conversation. As I show, because our system favors dyadic participation through turn allocation and sequence organization, sustaining focal triadic or multiparty participation frameworks requires more interactional work than sustaining a dyadic focal participation framework. However, serially dyadic participation, which keeps dyads shifting, and story- and joke telling facilitate the participation of multiple individuals. Although conversational structures can be adapted to partition focal participation as dyadic or multiparty on a moment-by-moment basis, the structures generally facilitate dyadic focal participation. Data are in American English.
{"title":"Is Conversation Built for Two? The Partitioning of Social Interaction","authors":"Tanya Stivers","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1864158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864158","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Conversation is flexible enough to be conducted with varying numbers of individuals, but most conversation is dyadic. Is the prevalence of dyadic focal participation frameworks facilitated by structures of conversation? Using video recordings of spontaneous naturally occurring conversations, I explore multiperson interactions focusing on how structures of turn taking, sequence organization, storytelling, and speaker gaze facilitate or inhibit the inclusion of multiple individuals in conversation. As I show, because our system favors dyadic participation through turn allocation and sequence organization, sustaining focal triadic or multiparty participation frameworks requires more interactional work than sustaining a dyadic focal participation framework. However, serially dyadic participation, which keeps dyads shifting, and story- and joke telling facilitate the participation of multiple individuals. Although conversational structures can be adapted to partition focal participation as dyadic or multiparty on a moment-by-moment basis, the structures generally facilitate dyadic focal participation. Data are in American English.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864158","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46704765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864156
C. W. Raymond, J. Heritage
ABSTRACT This study expands and refines the argument presented by Heritage and Raymond by demonstrating that the orientation to probability in question design can intersect with a second orientation toward the positive or negative desirability—or valence—of the state of affairs inquired into. In most cases, the orientations to probability and to positively valenced information can be satisfied simultaneously: In a context where negatively valenced information is generally avoided, positively polarized questions invite “good news,” and negatively polarized questions are directed to “bad news” scenarios. These congruent orientations are routinely satisfied in polar question design and in a range of interactional environments. However, as has been illustrated with various other concurrently relevant preferences in interaction, these orientations can also conflict with one another, thereby revealing a hierarchization between them. Specifically, we show that when considerations of recipient design require questions about states of affairs that are both likely and also negatively valenced, orientations to positive outcomes will be attenuated or abandoned in favor of a “realistic” stance toward the likelihood of the negative state of affairs. It is therefore concluded that probability is a more fundamental aspect of the recipient design of polar questions than is information valence. Data are drawn from corpora of British and American English conversations.
{"title":"Probability and Valence: Two Preferences in the Design of Polar Questions and Their Management","authors":"C. W. Raymond, J. Heritage","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1864156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864156","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study expands and refines the argument presented by Heritage and Raymond by demonstrating that the orientation to probability in question design can intersect with a second orientation toward the positive or negative desirability—or valence—of the state of affairs inquired into. In most cases, the orientations to probability and to positively valenced information can be satisfied simultaneously: In a context where negatively valenced information is generally avoided, positively polarized questions invite “good news,” and negatively polarized questions are directed to “bad news” scenarios. These congruent orientations are routinely satisfied in polar question design and in a range of interactional environments. However, as has been illustrated with various other concurrently relevant preferences in interaction, these orientations can also conflict with one another, thereby revealing a hierarchization between them. Specifically, we show that when considerations of recipient design require questions about states of affairs that are both likely and also negatively valenced, orientations to positive outcomes will be attenuated or abandoned in favor of a “realistic” stance toward the likelihood of the negative state of affairs. It is therefore concluded that probability is a more fundamental aspect of the recipient design of polar questions than is information valence. Data are drawn from corpora of British and American English conversations.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864156","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41290932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864159
S. S. Sørensen
ABSTRACT This article examines the use of the Danish response tokens ja (“yes”) and nej (“no”) with rising pitch in everyday interaction in Danish. Ja and nej do more than (dis)confirmation, and the analysis shows that the tokens with rising pitch achieve affiliation in second position in sequences containing displays of affective stance, which is shown to be contrastive with the tokens with level pitch that instead disaffiliate in the same sequences. Turns eliciting the tokens are also often marked with a wide pitch span, but sometimes other prosodic features than pitch are employed to perform a display of affective stance. Eliciting turns often request reconfirmation but can also implement other actions that make ja or nej a relevant response. The affiliation achieved is shown to be similar across both ja and nej when doing a range of actions, such as (dis)confirmation, acceptance, or agreement. Data are in Danish.
{"title":"Affiliating in Second Position: Response Tokens with Rising Pitch in Danish","authors":"S. S. Sørensen","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1864159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864159","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the use of the Danish response tokens ja (“yes”) and nej (“no”) with rising pitch in everyday interaction in Danish. Ja and nej do more than (dis)confirmation, and the analysis shows that the tokens with rising pitch achieve affiliation in second position in sequences containing displays of affective stance, which is shown to be contrastive with the tokens with level pitch that instead disaffiliate in the same sequences. Turns eliciting the tokens are also often marked with a wide pitch span, but sometimes other prosodic features than pitch are employed to perform a display of affective stance. Eliciting turns often request reconfirmation but can also implement other actions that make ja or nej a relevant response. The affiliation achieved is shown to be similar across both ja and nej when doing a range of actions, such as (dis)confirmation, acceptance, or agreement. Data are in Danish.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864159","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49350597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
J. Heritage, C. W. Raymond
ABSTRACT This article considers the use of negative polarization in polar (yes/no) questions. It argues that question polarity is used to take an epistemic stance toward the probability or improbability of the state of affairs referenced in the question and that taking such a stance is effectively unavoidable. Focusing on negatively polarized questions (NPQs), four main kinds of evidence are adduced that NPQs are associated with the questioner’s stance that the question’s underlying proposition is unlikely: (a) self-repair to reverse or otherwise adjust polarity; (b) evidence from the prior talk from which the question is occasioned; (c) contexts in which a particular state of affairs is relevant but has remained unstated; (d) overall structural organizational features of talk (e.g., conversational closings) that militate against the likelihood of affirmative responses. Finally, the article proposes that question design represents a distinct organizational layer vis-à-vis the preference-organizational characteristics of actions, and it appears to function in distinctive ways in relation to recruitment- and affiliation-relevant questions (e.g., requests, offers, etc.) by comparison with information-seeking questions. Data are drawn from corpora of British and American English conversations.
{"title":"Preference and Polarity: Epistemic Stance in Question Design","authors":"J. Heritage, C. W. Raymond","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article considers the use of negative polarization in polar (yes/no) questions. It argues that question polarity is used to take an epistemic stance toward the probability or improbability of the state of affairs referenced in the question and that taking such a stance is effectively unavoidable. Focusing on negatively polarized questions (NPQs), four main kinds of evidence are adduced that NPQs are associated with the questioner’s stance that the question’s underlying proposition is unlikely: (a) self-repair to reverse or otherwise adjust polarity; (b) evidence from the prior talk from which the question is occasioned; (c) contexts in which a particular state of affairs is relevant but has remained unstated; (d) overall structural organizational features of talk (e.g., conversational closings) that militate against the likelihood of affirmative responses. Finally, the article proposes that question design represents a distinct organizational layer vis-à-vis the preference-organizational characteristics of actions, and it appears to function in distinctive ways in relation to recruitment- and affiliation-relevant questions (e.g., requests, offers, etc.) by comparison with information-seeking questions. Data are drawn from corpora of British and American English conversations.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48563640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864157
S. Clayman, C. W. Raymond
ABSTRACT The English-language particle you know is frequently associated with speech production and understanding difficulties. The present study combines sequential and distributional analyses to explicate the particle’s relationship to the conversational repair system. It demonstrates that you know functions as an adjunct to repair, addressing secondary difficulties associated with implementing self-repair in practice, while also promoting the avoidance of transformative repair operations. This repair adjunct viewpoint trades off the particle’s general import as an alignment token and is supported by examining its specialized role in: (a) self-repair operations, (b) suboptimal formulations, and (c) understanding pursuits. This article elaborates our understanding of the repair system by identifying an ancillary practice that smooths over recurrent shortcomings of natural speech. Data in American English.
{"title":"An Adjunct to Repair: You Know in Speech Production and Understanding Difficulties","authors":"S. Clayman, C. W. Raymond","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1864157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864157","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The English-language particle you know is frequently associated with speech production and understanding difficulties. The present study combines sequential and distributional analyses to explicate the particle’s relationship to the conversational repair system. It demonstrates that you know functions as an adjunct to repair, addressing secondary difficulties associated with implementing self-repair in practice, while also promoting the avoidance of transformative repair operations. This repair adjunct viewpoint trades off the particle’s general import as an alignment token and is supported by examining its specialized role in: (a) self-repair operations, (b) suboptimal formulations, and (c) understanding pursuits. This article elaborates our understanding of the repair system by identifying an ancillary practice that smooths over recurrent shortcomings of natural speech. Data in American English.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864157","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44595190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-14DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1863104
Charles Antaki
(2020). Thanks to Reviewers. Research on Language and Social Interaction: Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. i-i.
(2020)。感谢评论者。《语言与社会互动研究》，第53卷，第4期，第1 - 4页。
{"title":"Thanks to Reviewers","authors":"Charles Antaki","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1863104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1863104","url":null,"abstract":"(2020). Thanks to Reviewers. Research on Language and Social Interaction: Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. i-i.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138495565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-09DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1833590
Reihaneh Afshari Saleh
ABSTRACT
One way people have of managing interpersonal conflict is what I call “mock aggression.” So far unexplored in interactional detail, mock aggression refers to the embodiments which, in one way or another, appear aggressive (punching, pinching, slapping, etc.) but are not designed to be, or oriented to as, serious physical threats. Mock aggression occurs between intimate interactants, and in this interactional situation, it sanctions transgressions and at the same time provides systematic opportunities for participants to engage in more affiliative interaction. The findings show that despite its aggressive appearance, mock aggression facilitates participants’ exit from a disaffiliative interaction, owing to its detailed design features, and thereby contributes to maintaining their social bonds. It is argued that a categorical affiliative versus disaffiliative perspective does not work for some interactional practices like mock aggression. Data are in Persian and collected in Iran.
{"title":"Mock Aggression: Navigating Affiliation and Disaffiliation in Interaction","authors":"Reihaneh Afshari Saleh","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1833590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1833590","url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p> <p>One way people have of managing interpersonal conflict is what I call “mock aggression.” So far unexplored in interactional detail, mock aggression refers to the embodiments which, in one way or another, appear aggressive (punching, pinching, slapping, etc.) but are not designed to be, or oriented to as, serious physical threats. Mock aggression occurs between intimate interactants, and in this interactional situation, it sanctions transgressions and at the same time provides systematic opportunities for participants to engage in more affiliative interaction. The findings show that despite its aggressive appearance, mock aggression facilitates participants’ exit from a disaffiliative interaction, owing to its detailed design features, and thereby contributes to maintaining their social bonds. It is argued that a categorical affiliative versus disaffiliative perspective does not work for some interactional practices like mock aggression. Data are in Persian and collected in Iran.</p>","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138517070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765
Rebecca Clift, M. Pino
ABSTRACT This article is a Conversation Analytic study of occasions where a speaker formulates what a recipient is doing as something objectionable, thereby delivering an accusation, e.g., “Why you shouting” or “I dunno why you’re being so aggressive.” We call these lexical formulations of what someone has just done conduct formulations. These are: (a) responsive to an ongoing imputation of misconduct or misdemeanor, and (b) produced in response to an upgrade on prior attempts by the recipient to engage the producer of the conduct formulation in aligning with their project. The speaker thereby “turns the tables” on the recipient, challenging the legitimacy of, and thus rendering accountable, his line of action. The response by the recipient involves a downgrade of her prior action and so proposes resetting the terms of engagement on a more conciliatory basis. Data are in English and Italian.
{"title":"Turning the Tables: Objecting to Conduct in Conflict Talk","authors":"Rebecca Clift, M. Pino","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article is a Conversation Analytic study of occasions where a speaker formulates what a recipient is doing as something objectionable, thereby delivering an accusation, e.g., “Why you shouting” or “I dunno why you’re being so aggressive.” We call these lexical formulations of what someone has just done conduct formulations. These are: (a) responsive to an ongoing imputation of misconduct or misdemeanor, and (b) produced in response to an upgrade on prior attempts by the recipient to engage the producer of the conduct formulation in aligning with their project. The speaker thereby “turns the tables” on the recipient, challenging the legitimacy of, and thus rendering accountable, his line of action. The response by the recipient involves a downgrade of her prior action and so proposes resetting the terms of engagement on a more conciliatory basis. Data are in English and Italian.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42607656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2020.1826764
J. Zinken
ABSTRACT This article makes an empirical and a methodological contribution to the comparative study of action. The empirical contribution is a comparative study of three distinct types of action regularly accomplished with the turn format du meinst x (“you mean/think x”) in German: candidate understandings, formulations of the other’s mind, and requests for a judgment. These empirical materials are the basis for a methodological exploration of different levels of researcher abstraction in the comparative study of action. Two levels are examined: the (coarser) level of conditionally relevant responses (what a response speaker must do to align with the action of the prior turn) and the (finer) level of “full alignment” (what a response speaker can do to align with the action of a prior turn). Both levels of abstraction provide empirically viable and analytically interesting descriptive concepts for the comparative study of action. Data are in German.
{"title":"The Comparative Study of Social Action: What You Must and What You Can Do to Align with a Prior Speaker","authors":"J. Zinken","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1826764","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826764","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article makes an empirical and a methodological contribution to the comparative study of action. The empirical contribution is a comparative study of three distinct types of action regularly accomplished with the turn format du meinst x (“you mean/think x”) in German: candidate understandings, formulations of the other’s mind, and requests for a judgment. These empirical materials are the basis for a methodological exploration of different levels of researcher abstraction in the comparative study of action. Two levels are examined: the (coarser) level of conditionally relevant responses (what a response speaker must do to align with the action of the prior turn) and the (finer) level of “full alignment” (what a response speaker can do to align with the action of a prior turn). Both levels of abstraction provide empirically viable and analytically interesting descriptive concepts for the comparative study of action. Data are in German.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826764","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46571384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：