会话分析、对话主义和最小交际单元论证

IF 1.7 2区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Oskar Lindwall , Erik Boström
{"title":"会话分析、对话主义和最小交际单元论证","authors":"Oskar Lindwall ,&nbsp;Erik Boström","doi":"10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Severinson Eklundh and Linell (1983) asked whether a minimal form of communicative interaction exists and, if so, how many moves it would require. In conversation analysis, the response to these questions has traditionally been that such a form exists and that it takes the form of a pair of adjacent utterances consisting of a first pair part (e.g., a greeting or a question) and a second pair part (e.g., a greeting in return or an answer to the question). Severinson Eklundh and Linell acknowledged that communicative exchanges could take the form of two-part sequences, but they argued that this format is relatively limited in scope. Instead, they proposed that the basic format for most communicative interactions is a three-part sequence and that this structure should not be reduced to a base pair with a sequence closing third as an expansion of the pair. This issue has been the subject of ongoing debate over the last four decades. In this article, we discuss how conversation analysis and extended dialogism have addressed the idea of a minimal form of communicative interaction. We review different approaches and how they overlap and diverge, and we make conceptual distinctions to account for their differences.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51592,"journal":{"name":"Language Sciences","volume":"103 ","pages":"Article 101626"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conversation analysis, dialogism, and the case for a minimal communicative unit\",\"authors\":\"Oskar Lindwall ,&nbsp;Erik Boström\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Severinson Eklundh and Linell (1983) asked whether a minimal form of communicative interaction exists and, if so, how many moves it would require. In conversation analysis, the response to these questions has traditionally been that such a form exists and that it takes the form of a pair of adjacent utterances consisting of a first pair part (e.g., a greeting or a question) and a second pair part (e.g., a greeting in return or an answer to the question). Severinson Eklundh and Linell acknowledged that communicative exchanges could take the form of two-part sequences, but they argued that this format is relatively limited in scope. Instead, they proposed that the basic format for most communicative interactions is a three-part sequence and that this structure should not be reduced to a base pair with a sequence closing third as an expansion of the pair. This issue has been the subject of ongoing debate over the last four decades. In this article, we discuss how conversation analysis and extended dialogism have addressed the idea of a minimal form of communicative interaction. We review different approaches and how they overlap and diverge, and we make conceptual distinctions to account for their differences.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Sciences\",\"volume\":\"103 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101626\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000159\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000124000159","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Severinson Eklundh 和 Linell(1983 年)提出了这样一个问题:是否存在一种最基本的交际互动形式,如果存在,它需要多少个动作。在会话分析中,对这些问题的传统回答是,这种形式是存在的,它的形式是一对相邻的语篇,由第一对部分(如问候或提问)和第二对部分(如问候回礼或回答问题)组成。Severinson Eklundh 和 Linell 承认交际交流可以采取两部分序列的形式,但他们认为这种形式的范围相对有限。相反,他们提出,大多数交际互动的基本形式是由三部分组成的序列,而且这种结构不应简化为一个碱基对和作为碱基对扩展的第三个序列结尾。在过去的四十年里,这个问题一直是争论不休的主题。在本文中,我们将讨论会话分析和扩展对话主义是如何解决最小形式交际互动这一观点的。我们回顾了不同的方法,以及它们之间的重叠和分歧,并从概念上区分了它们之间的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conversation analysis, dialogism, and the case for a minimal communicative unit

Severinson Eklundh and Linell (1983) asked whether a minimal form of communicative interaction exists and, if so, how many moves it would require. In conversation analysis, the response to these questions has traditionally been that such a form exists and that it takes the form of a pair of adjacent utterances consisting of a first pair part (e.g., a greeting or a question) and a second pair part (e.g., a greeting in return or an answer to the question). Severinson Eklundh and Linell acknowledged that communicative exchanges could take the form of two-part sequences, but they argued that this format is relatively limited in scope. Instead, they proposed that the basic format for most communicative interactions is a three-part sequence and that this structure should not be reduced to a base pair with a sequence closing third as an expansion of the pair. This issue has been the subject of ongoing debate over the last four decades. In this article, we discuss how conversation analysis and extended dialogism have addressed the idea of a minimal form of communicative interaction. We review different approaches and how they overlap and diverge, and we make conceptual distinctions to account for their differences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Language Sciences
Language Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Language Sciences is a forum for debate, conducted so as to be of interest to the widest possible audience, on conceptual and theoretical issues in the various branches of general linguistics. The journal is also concerned with bringing to linguists attention current thinking about language within disciplines other than linguistics itself; relevant contributions from anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists, among others, will be warmly received. In addition, the Editor is particularly keen to encourage the submission of essays on topics in the history and philosophy of language studies, and review articles discussing the import of significant recent works on language and linguistics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信