2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with parallel-opposition constructions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
7
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Such acknowledgement tokens are not necessarily oriented to as “turns-at-talk”; instead, they may demonstrate recipiency and encourage further talk without attempting to take the floor for an extended turn (cf. Barth-Weingarten, 2009; Gardner, 2001; Jefferson, 1984). The current analysis therefore treats them as markers of continued recipiency, rather than as intervening turns.…”
Section: Quantitative Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Such acknowledgement tokens are not necessarily oriented to as “turns-at-talk”; instead, they may demonstrate recipiency and encourage further talk without attempting to take the floor for an extended turn (cf. Barth-Weingarten, 2009; Gardner, 2001; Jefferson, 1984). The current analysis therefore treats them as markers of continued recipiency, rather than as intervening turns.…”
Section: Quantitative Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…She shows that conversational participants often expect such an explanation or solution, and orient to its absence. Barth-Weingarten (2009) shows that contrastive structures can also have a function in ordering turn-taking in conversation; that is, they can be projected (in combination with local prosodic means) and thus used to hold a turn across a possible transition-relevance place (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). The PTI approach suggests a less fixed link between prosodic form and lexico-syntactic structures such as contrastive structures, since these two linguistic tools can be deployed to achieve different interactional goals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…B. , phraseologischen (Auer 2016;Bücker 2011;Günthner 2011b), syntaktischen (Barth-Weingarten /Couper-Kuhlen 2011 ;Birkner 2008a, b;Günthner 2006, b, 2015b) oder sequentiellen bzw. gattungsbezogenen (Barth-Weingarten 2009;Günthner , 2015b Mustern, bei denen jeweils konventionelle lexikalische Einheiten (Wörter) die Grundlage für die Bedeutungskonstitution bilden. Wenig Beachtung fanden dagegen "non-lexicalized vocalizations" (Baldauf 2016: 89; "vocalization" meint dabei etwas wie ‚Lautgebung' oder ‚Lautphänomen') wie Lachpartikeln, Seufzen, Weinen oder Stöhnen.…”
Section: Pff 1 Einleitungunclassified
“…Two particular functions that Deppermann identifies are that of correcting a prior (mis)interpretation, and that of justifying a 'deviation categorization', that is, explaining a specific local meaning for a word and presenting it as adequate in the context. Instead of employing the term 'contrast', Barth-Weingarten [2009] prefers to describe the phenomena she investigates as 'parallel-opposition constructions'. Her focus is on the form, particularly the prosodic form, of turns which project an upcoming contrast.…”
Section: Contrast In Camentioning
confidence: 99%