{"title":"多参与者制度互动中人名的句法韵律形式","authors":"D. Voilmy, M. Wiklund","doi":"10.4000/DISCOURS.8869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines one aspect of turn-taking organization in institutional interactions: the use of first names and their prosodic marking for next-speaker selection. Institutional interaction is characterized by asymmetrical rights to talk and pre-allocation of action. This involves the restriction of one party to asking questions and the other to responding to them. The analysis focuses on two of these multiparty formal situations: co-present classroom participants and live interactive television broadcast with remote participants. In each context, turn allocation is determined by one party: the teacher or TV host. After asking a question as a sequence-initiating action, the teacher or host designates the next speaker by name. The use of first names is situatedly examined in terms of turn-taking organization and prosodic characteristics. The study examines how the prosodic marking is context-sensitive: do the participants have visual access to each other’s actions and how is a name used to attract attention? This paper analyses the formation and maintaining of a mutual orientation towards a single conversational action: selecting and giving the floor to a co-participant of the conversation in an institutional framework. These detailed descriptions of the sequential order are based on ethnomethodologically-informed conversation analysis. The objective is to compare four “single cases”, preserving the specificities and “whatness” of each excerpt.","PeriodicalId":51977,"journal":{"name":"Discours-Revue de Linguistique Psycholinguistique et Informatique","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Syntactic and Prosodic Forms of First Names in Institutional Interaction Involving Multiple Participants\",\"authors\":\"D. Voilmy, M. Wiklund\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/DISCOURS.8869\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines one aspect of turn-taking organization in institutional interactions: the use of first names and their prosodic marking for next-speaker selection. Institutional interaction is characterized by asymmetrical rights to talk and pre-allocation of action. This involves the restriction of one party to asking questions and the other to responding to them. The analysis focuses on two of these multiparty formal situations: co-present classroom participants and live interactive television broadcast with remote participants. In each context, turn allocation is determined by one party: the teacher or TV host. After asking a question as a sequence-initiating action, the teacher or host designates the next speaker by name. The use of first names is situatedly examined in terms of turn-taking organization and prosodic characteristics. The study examines how the prosodic marking is context-sensitive: do the participants have visual access to each other’s actions and how is a name used to attract attention? This paper analyses the formation and maintaining of a mutual orientation towards a single conversational action: selecting and giving the floor to a co-participant of the conversation in an institutional framework. These detailed descriptions of the sequential order are based on ethnomethodologically-informed conversation analysis. The objective is to compare four “single cases”, preserving the specificities and “whatness” of each excerpt.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discours-Revue de Linguistique Psycholinguistique et Informatique\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discours-Revue de Linguistique Psycholinguistique et Informatique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/DISCOURS.8869\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discours-Revue de Linguistique Psycholinguistique et Informatique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/DISCOURS.8869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Syntactic and Prosodic Forms of First Names in Institutional Interaction Involving Multiple Participants
This paper examines one aspect of turn-taking organization in institutional interactions: the use of first names and their prosodic marking for next-speaker selection. Institutional interaction is characterized by asymmetrical rights to talk and pre-allocation of action. This involves the restriction of one party to asking questions and the other to responding to them. The analysis focuses on two of these multiparty formal situations: co-present classroom participants and live interactive television broadcast with remote participants. In each context, turn allocation is determined by one party: the teacher or TV host. After asking a question as a sequence-initiating action, the teacher or host designates the next speaker by name. The use of first names is situatedly examined in terms of turn-taking organization and prosodic characteristics. The study examines how the prosodic marking is context-sensitive: do the participants have visual access to each other’s actions and how is a name used to attract attention? This paper analyses the formation and maintaining of a mutual orientation towards a single conversational action: selecting and giving the floor to a co-participant of the conversation in an institutional framework. These detailed descriptions of the sequential order are based on ethnomethodologically-informed conversation analysis. The objective is to compare four “single cases”, preserving the specificities and “whatness” of each excerpt.