Language as social action. Grammar, prosody and interaction in Swedish conversation

Description

Frontpage......Page 1 Abstract......Page 3 Contents......Page 4 Tables and figure......Page 7 Acknowledgements......Page 8 1.1 The phenomena......Page 10 1.2 Grammar, prosody, and interaction......Page 13 1.2.1 Interactional approaches to the study of grammar......Page 14 1.2.2 Interactional approaches to the study of prosody......Page 21 1.3 Methodological orientation......Page 23 1.3.1 A sociological context......Page 24 1.3.2 Conversation analysis......Page 27 1.3.3 Conversation analysis in Scandinavia......Page 30 1.4 Preference organization......Page 33 1.4.1 Preferred and dispreferred actions......Page 34 1.4.2 Pre-sequences......Page 36 1.5 Organization of study......Page 39 2 The data......Page 41 2.1 Description of data corpus......Page 40 2.1.1 Ethnographic information......Page 42 2.1.1.1 The families that recorded telephone conversations......Page 44 2.1.2.1 Audio recordings......Page 45 2.1.3 Ethics......Page 46 2.2 Transcription......Page 47 2.2.2 Transcribing pitch rise......Page 48 2.2.3 Timing silences......Page 49 2.3 Translation......Page 51 2.4 Sampling and quantification......Page 52 3 Marking problematicity: the or-inquiry......Page 55 3.1 Introduction......Page 54 3.2.1 Differentiating the or-inquiry from similar turn-constructions that have been analyzed in other language communities......Page 56 3.2.2.1 Syntax......Page 60 3.2.2.2 Determining possible completion points......Page 61 3.2.2.3 Syntactic completion points......Page 62 3.2.2.4 Pragmatic completion points......Page 63 3.2.3.1 Overlap onset at projectable completion of or-inquiry......Page 65 3.2.3.2 The intonation contour at the turn boundary......Page 67 3.2.4 Sequential appropriateness of activity done in next turn......Page 70 3.2.5 Sequential uptake in the turn after next turn......Page 73 3.3 Swedish research on or-inquiries......Page 76 3.4.1 Marking problematicity in talk-in-interacation......Page 77 3.4.2 Or-inquiries that run counter to the preference displayed in the prior talk......Page 78 3.4.2.1 Making an offer that is unwarranted by the prior talk......Page 79 3.4.2.2 Refusing to fulfill an expectation to speak on behalf of a spouse......Page 80 3.4.2.3 Declining a request......Page 82 3.4.2.4 Pursuing a topic that has been resisted......Page 83 3.4.3.1 A pre-complaint......Page 85 3.4.3.2 Checking whether the recipient knows about an embarrassing incident......Page 87 3.4.3.3 Mis-aligning with a troubles-telling......Page 89 3.4.3.4 Disaligning with the line pursued in the previous talk......Page 91 3.4.3.5 Formulating something that was conveyed in the prior talk......Page 99 3.5 Discussion......Page 103 4 Acceptances and granting of deferred action requests, invitations, and proposals......Page 105 4.1 Introduction......Page 104 4.2 Defered actions......Page 106 4.3.1 The affirmative response token is typically produced as a turn preface......Page 109 4.3.2 When the affirmative response token is produced as its own TCU, recipients still orient to the relevance of an extended turn......Page 112 4.3.3 Summary......Page 117 4.4.1 Claiming hearing and understanding......Page 118 4.4.2 Projecting acceptance or granting......Page 120 4.5.1.1 Displaying granting or acceptance by referring to the deferred action request, invitation, or proposal with an indexical expression......Page 125 4.5.1.2 Displaying granting or acceptance by resaying action verbs from the FPP of the base sequence......Page 129 4.5.2 Initiation a new action which demonstrates that the deferred action will be satisfied......Page 132 4.6 Compound responses in other sequential environments......Page 134 4.7 Discussion......Page 138 5 Projecting a non-aligning responsive action with the curled ja......Page 141 5.1 Introduction......Page 140 5.2.1 Dispreference markers and the avoidance of disagreement......Page 145 5.2.2 Interactional significance of marked prosodic forms......Page 146 5.2.2.2 The Finnish nii......Page 147 5.2.4 Summary......Page 149 5.3.1 Hedges......Page 150 5.3.2 Pre-rejections......Page 154 5.3.3 Rejections......Page 155 5.3.4 Summary......Page 158 5.4 Projecting non-alignment with the curled ja......Page 159 5.5 Adressing the inappropriateness of the prior action......Page 164 5.6 Discussion......Page 171 6. Concluding discussion......Page 174 6.1.1 The phenomena......Page 173 6.1.2 Convergences......Page 175 6.2 Contributions of study......Page 176 6.3 Challenges for future research......Page 177 Sammanfattning......Page 180 References......Page 187 Appendix: Transcription conventions......Page 197