1887
(Co-)Constructing Interpersonally Sensitive Activities Across Institutional Settings
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper studies a type of question-answer sequences which accomplish what can be considered as a delicate activity due to its projected sequential development. In contrast with other formats of question-answer sequences with different functions (i.e. eliciting information, checking the questionee’s knowledge, etc.), here the studied format seems to count on the questionee’s lack of knowledge, consequently projecting the questioner’s own answer. This hypothesis is examined through a detailed analysis of video-recorded guided tours in French and Italian. The paper describes the different sequence trajectories occurring after the guide’s question, and the difficulties both participants may find in dealing with the procedure.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.7.4.05tic
2016-12-05
2019-09-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    2002 “Projection in Conversation and Projection in Grammar.” InLiSt33, www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/33/Inlist33.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bruner, Jerome
    1983Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Clayman, Steven E
    1993 “Reformulating the Question: A Device for Answering/Not Answering Questions in News Interviews and Press Conferences.” Text13: 159–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. De Stefani, Elwys
    2010 “Reference as an Interactively and Multimodally Accomplished Practice: Organizing Spatial Reorientation in Guided Tours.” InSpoken Communication, ed. by Massimo Pettorino , Antonella Giannini , Isabella Chiari , and Francesca Dovetto , 137–170. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. De Stefani, Elwys , and Lorenza Mondada
    2007 “L’organizzazione multimodale e interazionale dell’orientamento spaziale in movimento.” Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée85: 131–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gardner, Rod
    2004 “On Delaying the Answer: Question Sequences Extended after the Question.” InSecond Language Conversations, ed. by Rod Gardner and Johannes Wagner , 246–267. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Glenn, Phillip , and Elizabeth Holt
    2014 “Introduction.” InStudies of Laughter in Interaction, ed. by Phillip Glenn and Elizabeth Holt , 1–22. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Haakana, Markku
    2001 “Laughter as a Patient’s Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of Medical Interaction.” Text21: 187–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Heritage, John
    2002 “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1427–1446. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00072‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heritage, John , and David Greatbatch
    1991 “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interview Interaction.” InTalk and Social Structure, ed. by Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman , 93–137. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke
    1995 “Meeting Both Ends: Between Standardization and Recipient Design in Telephone Survey Interviews.” InSituated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, ed. by Paul ten Have and George Psathas , 91–106. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Koshik, Irene
    2005Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 [Google Scholar]
  14. Mehan, Hugh
    1979Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  15. Mondada, Lorenza
    2005 “La constitution de l’origo déictique comme travail interactionnel des participants: une approche praxéologique de la spatialité.” Intellectica41–42 : 75–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Peräkylä, Anssi
    2007 “Conversation Analysis. ” InBlackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. by George Ritzer , 791–794. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.”Language50: 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  18. Schegloff, Emanuel
    2007Sequence Organization. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  19. Seedhouse, Paul
    2004The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sidnell, Jack , and Tanya Stivers
    (eds) 2012Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118325001
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Streeck, Jürgen
    1995 “On Projection.” InInteraction and Social Intelligence, ed. by Esther Goody , 84–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Traverso, Véronique
    2008 “Cadres, espaces, objets et multimodalité dans l’interaction en site commercial.” InLes interactions en site commercial: Invariants et variations, ed. by Cathérine Kerbrat-Orecchioni and Véronique Traverso , 45–77. Lyon: ENS Editions.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2012 “’Le salon bibliothèque’: délimitation et partage des espaces. Usage des annonces dénominatives désignatives dans la visite guidée.” InLes visites guidées. Discours, interaction, multimodalité, ed. by Jean-Paul Dufiet , 56–84. Trento: Collezione Labirinti.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2014a “Compétences montrées, compétences partagées, compétences situées: nomination et définition des objets dans les visites guidées.” InDe compétences en performances, ed. by Sandra Bornand and Cécile Leguy , 137–163. Paris: Karthala.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2014b “La construction de (l’attention visuelle sur) l’objet au cours de la visite guidée: étude d’un cas limite.” InL’objet d’art et de culture à la lumière de ses médiations, ed. by Jean-Paul Dufiet , 43–85. Trento: Collezione Labirinti.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. vom Lehn, Dirk , Christian Heath , and Jon Hindmarsh
    2001 “Exhibiting Interaction: Conduct and Collaboration in Museums and Galleries.” Symbolic Interaction24 (2): 189–216. doi: 10.1525/si.2001.24.2.189
    https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2001.24.2.189 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.7.4.05tic
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conversational analysis , epistemics , guided tours , knowledge , multimodality and question-answer sequences
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