语境中的偏好组织重访:对信息寻求反应的定性和定量考察

IF 3 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Research on Language and Social Interaction Pub Date : 2020-04-02 DOI:10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398
Jeffrey D. Robinson
{"title":"语境中的偏好组织重访:对信息寻求反应的定性和定量考察","authors":"Jeffrey D. Robinson","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Quantitative studies applying conversation analysis to the study of the timing of answers to sequence-initiating actions expose anomalies in terms of what is known about preference organization. After briefly describing preference organization, anomalies in answer-timing research, and one explanation for such anomalies, this article presents one qualitative and one quantitative study of responses to one thickly contextualized action: positively formatted polar interrogatives implementing information seeking with a relatively ‘unknowing’ stance. Data include 249 questions gathered from videotapes of unstructured conversations. Qualitative results suggest that, rather than two basic answer types (i.e., affirmation/disaffirmation), there may be three: unconditional affirmation, unconditional disaffirmation, and conditional. Quantitative analyses of time to answer, eyeball shifting, and pre-beginning behavior suggest that unconditional disaffirmation may not be dispreferred relative to unconditional affirmation. Instead, conditional answers may be dispreferred. Results begin to reconcile anomalies and expand our current understanding of preference organization. Data are in American English.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Preference Organization in Context: A Qualitative and Quantitative Examination of Responses to Information Seeking\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey D. Robinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Quantitative studies applying conversation analysis to the study of the timing of answers to sequence-initiating actions expose anomalies in terms of what is known about preference organization. After briefly describing preference organization, anomalies in answer-timing research, and one explanation for such anomalies, this article presents one qualitative and one quantitative study of responses to one thickly contextualized action: positively formatted polar interrogatives implementing information seeking with a relatively ‘unknowing’ stance. Data include 249 questions gathered from videotapes of unstructured conversations. Qualitative results suggest that, rather than two basic answer types (i.e., affirmation/disaffirmation), there may be three: unconditional affirmation, unconditional disaffirmation, and conditional. Quantitative analyses of time to answer, eyeball shifting, and pre-beginning behavior suggest that unconditional disaffirmation may not be dispreferred relative to unconditional affirmation. Instead, conditional answers may be dispreferred. Results begin to reconcile anomalies and expand our current understanding of preference organization. Data are in American English.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research on Language and Social Interaction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research on Language and Social Interaction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398","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: 18

摘要

定量研究应用对话分析来研究序列启动动作的回答时间,揭示了关于偏好组织的已知异常。在简要描述了偏好组织、回答时间研究中的异常现象以及对这种异常现象的一种解释之后,本文提出了一种定性和定量研究,研究了对一种厚情境化行为的反应:积极格式的极性疑问句,以相对“未知”的姿态实现信息搜索。数据包括从非结构化对话录像带中收集的249个问题。定性结果表明,不是两种基本的回答类型(即肯定/否定),而是可能有三种:无条件肯定、无条件否定和有条件的。对回答时间、眼球转移和开始前行为的定量分析表明,相对于无条件的肯定,无条件的否定可能并不不受欢迎。相反,有条件的回答可能不受欢迎。结果开始调和异常并扩展我们目前对偏好组织的理解。数据是美式英语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Revisiting Preference Organization in Context: A Qualitative and Quantitative Examination of Responses to Information Seeking
ABSTRACT Quantitative studies applying conversation analysis to the study of the timing of answers to sequence-initiating actions expose anomalies in terms of what is known about preference organization. After briefly describing preference organization, anomalies in answer-timing research, and one explanation for such anomalies, this article presents one qualitative and one quantitative study of responses to one thickly contextualized action: positively formatted polar interrogatives implementing information seeking with a relatively ‘unknowing’ stance. Data include 249 questions gathered from videotapes of unstructured conversations. Qualitative results suggest that, rather than two basic answer types (i.e., affirmation/disaffirmation), there may be three: unconditional affirmation, unconditional disaffirmation, and conditional. Quantitative analyses of time to answer, eyeball shifting, and pre-beginning behavior suggest that unconditional disaffirmation may not be dispreferred relative to unconditional affirmation. Instead, conditional answers may be dispreferred. Results begin to reconcile anomalies and expand our current understanding of preference organization. Data are in American 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
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 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 Making Arrangements: A Sketch of a ‘Big Package’ 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