{"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}
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.
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.