By Nadine Thielemann, Peter Kosta
This quantity presents an summary of present examine priorities within the research of face-to-face-interaction in Slavic talking language groups. The center of this quantity levels from discourse research within the culture of interactional linguistics and dialog research to more recent tools of politeness study. another box comprises empirical and interpretive equipment of recent sociolinguistics and statistical research of spoken language in informal and institutional talks. numerous papers specialize in a semantic or syntactic research of talk-in-interaction by means of attempting to express how interlocutors use convinced lexical, grammatical, syntactic and multimodal or prosodic capability for the administration of interplay in acting particular activities, genres and exhibiting negotiations of epistemic, evidential or evaluative stances. the amount is rounded out via contributions to the speculation of politeness the place innovations of face-work in informal in addition to institutional discourse are analyzed, or during which social initiatives entertained by means of code-switching and language alternation in the interplay of bilinguals are mentioned.
Read or Download Approaches to Slavic Interaction PDF
Best foreign languages books
Utilizing theoretical strategies of self, standpoint, and voice as an interpretive advisor, and in line with where of Negotiation conception, this quantity explores the phenomenon of linguistic creativity in eastern discourse, i. e. , using language in particular methods for foregrounding customized expressive meanings.
Extra resources for Approaches to Slavic Interaction
And when Asia brings Kilian a spoon, Gosia can address her in her locally The take-V2 double imperative in Polish established role as “spoon-bringer” by choosing the imperative format. In each of these instances, the request speaker (Ela, Tadek, Gosia) can figure from what has just happened that the requested action extends a line of action to which the request recipient (Asia) is already committed. In other words, the request, at the time it is formulated, targets an action as part of a wider activity which is already “co-owned” by Asia (Rossi 2012).
And Thompson, Sandra A. ). 1996. ” Interaction and Grammar, 461–465. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ono, Tsuyoshi and Thompson, Sandra A. 1995. ” In Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes, Philip W. ), 213– 271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ruiter, Jan P. de, Mitterer, Holger, and Enfield, Nick J. 2006. ” Language 82 (3): 515–535. Sacks, Harvey. 1992 [1967–1968]. ). Oxford: Blackwell. , and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. ” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996.
The resulting conversation can be analyzed as collaboratively built, both topically and structurally. Syntax and conversational structure share a central organizational feature, projection, a formal means to organize projection; clear cues for syntactic projection include rules of government, constituency, adjacency and serialization (Auer 2005). In conversation, there is an interactional projection based on knowledge about the sequencing of activities. e. units which are produced collaboratively by two or more interlocutors (Ford 2004; Ford and Thompson 1996; Helasvuo 2004; Lerner 1991, 1996, 2004; Selting 2000).