将责任转嫁给共同参与者:请求序列中的不合作账户

IF 1.4 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Discourse Studies Pub Date : 2024-05-25 DOI:10.1177/14614456241252950
Andrew Chalfoun
{"title":"将责任转嫁给共同参与者:请求序列中的不合作账户","authors":"Andrew Chalfoun","doi":"10.1177/14614456241252950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accounts—verbal explanations for conduct—are normally understood to do affiliative work by mitigating or disavowing negative inferences generated by problematic or dispreferred actions. Using conversation analysis, this paper identifies an alternative accounting practice whereby speakers use accounts to actively disaffiliate from coparticipants. In such cases, the account serves as a vehicle for criticizing or challenging a coparticipant’s behavior. I find that speakers use these accounts to shift responsibility for the focal action by treating it as caused by or responsive to the targeted coparticipant’s (putative) misbehavior. This practice indicates that accounts can be used not only to expiate the speaker but also to police others’ behavior, although such moves are vulnerable to retaliation. Data are taken from video recordings of everyday interaction in American and British English.","PeriodicalId":47598,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Studies","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shifting responsibility onto coparticipants: Disaffiliative accounts in request sequences\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Chalfoun\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14614456241252950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Accounts—verbal explanations for conduct—are normally understood to do affiliative work by mitigating or disavowing negative inferences generated by problematic or dispreferred actions. Using conversation analysis, this paper identifies an alternative accounting practice whereby speakers use accounts to actively disaffiliate from coparticipants. In such cases, the account serves as a vehicle for criticizing or challenging a coparticipant’s behavior. I find that speakers use these accounts to shift responsibility for the focal action by treating it as caused by or responsive to the targeted coparticipant’s (putative) misbehavior. This practice indicates that accounts can be used not only to expiate the speaker but also to police others’ behavior, although such moves are vulnerable to retaliation. Data are taken from video recordings of everyday interaction in American and British English.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discourse Studies\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discourse Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456241252950\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456241252950","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

叙述--对行为的口头解释--通常被理解为通过减轻或否认有问题的或不受欢迎的行为所产生的负面推论来实现从属关系。通过会话分析,本文发现了另一种叙述方式,即说话者利用叙述来主动解除与共同参与者的从属关系。在这种情况下,账户成为批评或挑战共同参与者行为的工具。我发现,说话者利用这些叙述将焦点行为视为由目标共同参与者(推定的)不当行为引起或对其做出反应,从而推卸责任。这种做法表明,陈述不仅可以用来为说话者赎罪,还可以用来约束他人的行为,尽管这种做法很容易遭到报复。数据来自美式英语和英式英语的日常互动录像。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Shifting responsibility onto coparticipants: Disaffiliative accounts in request sequences
Accounts—verbal explanations for conduct—are normally understood to do affiliative work by mitigating or disavowing negative inferences generated by problematic or dispreferred actions. Using conversation analysis, this paper identifies an alternative accounting practice whereby speakers use accounts to actively disaffiliate from coparticipants. In such cases, the account serves as a vehicle for criticizing or challenging a coparticipant’s behavior. I find that speakers use these accounts to shift responsibility for the focal action by treating it as caused by or responsive to the targeted coparticipant’s (putative) misbehavior. This practice indicates that accounts can be used not only to expiate the speaker but also to police others’ behavior, although such moves are vulnerable to retaliation. Data are taken from video recordings of everyday interaction in American and British English.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Discourse Studies
Discourse Studies COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Discourse Studies is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal for the study of text and talk. Publishing outstanding work on the structures and strategies of written and spoken discourse, special attention is given to cross-disciplinary studies of text and talk in linguistics, anthropology, ethnomethodology, cognitive and social psychology, communication studies and law.
期刊最新文献
Scaling the value of multilingualism: ‘Common-sense’ narratives of growth and inequality in an expert report to the U.S. Congress Prospective expertise: The use of ‘listen’ in the discourse of television sports pundits Introduction to “scaling stories: Narratives and the dialogic regimentation of scales” Constructing cancel culture: Strategic scaling in stories of “cancellation” Bonding with followers: Chronotopes and scales in political communication on Instagram
×
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