2017
DOI: 10.1515/lart-2017-0005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A communicative-pragmatic analysis of interruption realisation in modern English dialogical discourse

Abstract: The paper offers a study of speech interruptions on the basis of their communicative and pragmatic peculiarities. It provides a dynamic model of interruptions, where the development of the situation of interruption is revealed thanks to the dynamic character of speech interaction. The article presents the analysis of speech acts employed in the process of interruption. It also introduces a number of tactics of the interruption in terms of the cooperative and intrusive interruption strategy.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
(6 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The outcomes of this study's data result are settled that Joe Biden interrupted as a component of his argument defense during the debate. While the interruption situation appeared only in glimpses during the entire debate, it has its own meaning within the realm of communicative interaction (Kyrychenko, 2017). In agreement with that, the function of assertive illocutionary acts aids the public in understanding what Joe Biden's interruption actually conveyed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…The outcomes of this study's data result are settled that Joe Biden interrupted as a component of his argument defense during the debate. While the interruption situation appeared only in glimpses during the entire debate, it has its own meaning within the realm of communicative interaction (Kyrychenko, 2017). In agreement with that, the function of assertive illocutionary acts aids the public in understanding what Joe Biden's interruption actually conveyed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%