警察谈判代表应该要求与处于危机中的人“交谈”还是“交谈”?选词与克服对对话建议的抵制

IF 3 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
R. Sikveland, E. Stokoe
{"title":"警察谈判代表应该要求与处于危机中的人“交谈”还是“交谈”?选词与克服对对话建议的抵制","authors":"R. Sikveland, E. Stokoe","doi":"10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores whether and how word selection makes some proposals easier to resist than others. Fourteen cases (31 hours) of UK-based police crisis negotiation were analyzed exploring (a) how negotiators use the verbs talk or speak when proposing “dialogue,” and (b) to what extent the strength of resistance of persons in crisis toward the proposals may be attributed to this word selection. We found that persons in crisis were more likely to overtly reject proposals formulated with talk compared to speak. And while negotiators used both talk/speak when proposing dialogue, negotiators and persons in crisis associated talk with more evaluative stances toward dialogue compared to speak. This article has implications for the study of word selection in interaction and for crisis negotiation and other professions where “talk” is promoted as the solution. Data in British English.","PeriodicalId":51484,"journal":{"name":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","volume":"53 1","pages":"324 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should Police Negotiators Ask to “Talk” or “Speak” to Persons in Crisis? Word Selection and Overcoming Resistance to Dialogue Proposals\",\"authors\":\"R. Sikveland, E. Stokoe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article explores whether and how word selection makes some proposals easier to resist than others. Fourteen cases (31 hours) of UK-based police crisis negotiation were analyzed exploring (a) how negotiators use the verbs talk or speak when proposing “dialogue,” and (b) to what extent the strength of resistance of persons in crisis toward the proposals may be attributed to this word selection. We found that persons in crisis were more likely to overtly reject proposals formulated with talk compared to speak. And while negotiators used both talk/speak when proposing dialogue, negotiators and persons in crisis associated talk with more evaluative stances toward dialogue compared to speak. This article has implications for the study of word selection in interaction and for crisis negotiation and other professions where “talk” is promoted as the solution. Data in British English.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research on Language and Social Interaction\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"324 - 340\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research on Language and Social Interaction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research on Language and Social Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

摘要本文探讨了单词选择是否以及如何使某些建议比其他建议更容易抵制。对英国警察危机谈判的14个案例(31个小时)进行了分析,探讨了(a)谈判者在提议“对话”时如何使用动词talk或speak,以及(b)危机中的人对提议的抵抗力在多大程度上可以归因于这种选词。我们发现,与口头相比,处于危机中的人更有可能公开拒绝通过口头提出的建议。虽然谈判代表在提议对话时同时使用谈话/谈话,但与谈话相比,谈判代表和处于危机中的人对对话的评价立场更高。这篇文章对研究互动中的词汇选择,以及危机谈判和其他以“谈话”为解决方案的职业都有启示。英国英语数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should Police Negotiators Ask to “Talk” or “Speak” to Persons in Crisis? Word Selection and Overcoming Resistance to Dialogue Proposals
ABSTRACT This article explores whether and how word selection makes some proposals easier to resist than others. Fourteen cases (31 hours) of UK-based police crisis negotiation were analyzed exploring (a) how negotiators use the verbs talk or speak when proposing “dialogue,” and (b) to what extent the strength of resistance of persons in crisis toward the proposals may be attributed to this word selection. We found that persons in crisis were more likely to overtly reject proposals formulated with talk compared to speak. And while negotiators used both talk/speak when proposing dialogue, negotiators and persons in crisis associated talk with more evaluative stances toward dialogue compared to speak. This article has implications for the study of word selection in interaction and for crisis negotiation and other professions where “talk” is promoted as the solution. Data in British English.
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
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The journal publishes the highest quality empirical and theoretical research bearing on language as it is used in interaction. Researchers in communication, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, linguistic anthropology and ethnography are likely to be the most active contributors, but we welcome submission of articles from the broad range of interaction researchers. Published papers will normally involve the close analysis of naturally-occurring interaction. The journal is also open to theoretical essays, and to quantitative studies where these are tied closely to the results of naturalistic observation.
×
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