1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Theoretical ideals and their violation, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/prag.7.3.02kow-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.7.3.02kow
1997-01-01
2019-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bühler, K
    (1934) Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Clark, H.H
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark, H.H. , & E.V. Clark
    (1977) Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cutler, A. , & M. Pearson
    (1986) On the analysis of prosodic turn-taking cues. In C. Johns-Lewis (Ed.), Intonation in discourse. London: Croom Helm, pp.139-155.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Greatbatch, D
    (1988) A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society17: 401-430. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500012963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012963 [Google Scholar]
  6. Grice, H.P
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Seminar Press, pp.41-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hörmann, H
    (1976) Meinen und Verstehen: Grundzüge einer psychologischen Semantik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Holly, W
    (1992) Was kann Kohl, was Krenz nicht konnte? Deutsch-deutsche Unterschiede politischer Dialogrhetorik in zwei Fernsehinterviews. In J. Dyck , W. Jens , & G. Ueding (Eds.), Rhetorik 11: 33-50.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. James, D. & S. Clarke
    (1993) Women, men, and interruptions: A critical review. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.231-280.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kowal, S. , H.-C. Barth , H. Egemann , G. Galusic , C. Kögel , N. Lippold , A. Pfeil & D.C. O’Connell
    (in press) Unterbrechungen in M edieninterviews: G eschlechtstypisches Gesprächsverhalten?Germ anistisch e Linguistik.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kurzon, D
    (1996) The maxim of Quantity, hyponymy and Princess Diana. Pragmatics6: 217-227.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Levinson, S.C
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lindsay, J.S. , & D.C. O’Connell
    (1995) How do transcribers deal with audio recordings of spoken discourse?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research24: 101-115. doi: 10.1007/BF02143958
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143958 [Google Scholar]
  14. O’Connell, D. C. , & S. Kowal
    (1994) The transcriber as language user. In G. Bartelt (Ed.), The dynamics of language processes: Essays in honor of Hans W. Dechert. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp.119-142.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. O’Connell, D. C. , S. Kowal , & E. Kaltenbacher
    (1990) turns-taking: A critical analysis of the research tradition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research19: 345-373. doi: 10.1007/BF01068884
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068884 [Google Scholar]
  16. O’Donnell, K
    (1990) Difference and dominance: How labor and management talk conflict. In A. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.210-240.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Penz, H
    (1996) Language and control in American TV talk shows: An analysis of linguistic strategies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pomerantz, A. , & B.J. Fehr
    (1997) Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2. London: Sage, pp.64-91.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Rommetveit, R
    (1974) On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. London: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sacks, H. , E.A. Schegloff ., & G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language50: 696-735. doi: 10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.7.3.02kow
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error