Text

E-book Getting Others to do Things : A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments

---

Penilaian

---

Research in the fields of conversation analysis, ethnomethodology, and inter-actional linguistics is perhaps closest to the approach taken here, for a few rea-sons. One is that the empirical source of data is recordings of informal interaction.Another is that the units of analysis are not clauses or sentences but moves in con-versational sequences (Wootton 1981;1997;Lindström 2005;Vinkhuyzen & Szy-manski 2005;Heinemann 2006;Curl & Drew 2008;Craven & Potter 2010;Zinken& Ogiermann 2013;Drew & Couper-Kuhlen 2014a, among many others). Theseinductive approaches are grounded in the sequential development of interaction.Most conversation-analytic and interactional-linguistic studies of requesting todate have concentrated on a particular language. Comparison between languageshas been only possible by drawing on results of distinct studies, each with theirown particular focus and goals. Also, most conversation-analytic research tendsnot to be transparently quantitative. But structured quantitative analysis built onthe back of a qualitative analysis has been shown to greatly enhance the analyticpossibilities of comparative conversation analysis (e.g.Fox et al. 2009;Rossanoet al. 2009;Stivers et al. 2009;Dingemanse et al. 2015).The pragmatic domain of getting others to do things has been thought of in dif-ferent ways. A first distinction is often made between getting someone to carryout a practical action and getting someone to provide information. Some work inthe philosophy of language (e.g.Searle 1969) and in psycholinguistics (e.g.Clark1979;Clark & Schunk 1980) tended to merge the two. But most work has dis-tinguished between soliciting practical action and information, and has studiedthem as separate phenomena.Another distinction has to do with the categorization of types or subtypes ofsocial action. Two main approaches can be identified here. The first is to treat thedomain of getting others to do things as a family of related but distinct speechacts or actions (e.g. directives, requests, hints) on the basis of distinct seman-tic/pragmatic features, for example those defining different degrees of forceful-ness or coerciveness (e.g.Searle 1976;Wierzbicka 1991;Craven & Potter 2010). The second approach is to treat the domain as a single, generic type of socialaction, and to treat variations in the way this is implemented as pertaining tothe level of linguistic practice (e.g.Ervin-Tripp et al. 1990;Wootton 1997;Rossi2012).Yet another distinction is drawn in terms of the temporality of the practicalaction being solicited: whether the action is carried out immediately, at the sameplace and time – such as passing a knife in a kitchen setting – or distally, at alater time and possibly different place – such as picking somebody up from work(see, e.g.,Lindström 1999). Although much research encompasses both, studiesof telephone calls obviously privilege the latter, whereas studies of face-to-faceinteraction privilege the former.

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

410 ENF g

Penerbit

Germany : Language Science Press., 2020

Deskripsi Fisik

435 hlm

Bahasa

English

ISBN/ISSN

9783961102785

Klasifikasi

410

Tipe Isi

text

Tipe Media

computer

Tipe Pembawa

online resource

Edisi

-

Subjek

Linguistics

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

-

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar