Contingency and Units in Interaction

Datos Bibliográficos

ID5777558
AutoresCecilia E Ford (University of Wisconsin–Madison, autor de correspondencia)
Año2004
Volumen6
Número1
Páginas27-52
Fecha de publicación2004-02-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaDiscourse Studies (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1461-4456 • E-ISSN: 1461-7080
EditorialSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1461445604039438
OpenAlexW2044347089
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas43
Referencias citadas51

Starting with Houtkoop and Mazeland's (1985) study of discourse units, and touching upon recent studies aimed at detailing unit projection in interaction, this article argues that the drive toward abstract and discrete models for units and unit projection is potentially misleading. While it has been established that to engage in talk-in-interaction, as it unfolds in real time, participants rely on projectable units (Sacks et al., 1974, 1978), research aimed at defining units unintentionally backgrounds the contingency inherent in interaction. A central function of language for collaborative action is the management of simultaneously unfolding facets of action, sound production, gesture, and grammar - produced by multiple participants. This article draws upon classic and current data analyses foregrounding linguistic/interactional practices designed to manage local contingencies. It is argued that attention to participants' regular methods for managing and exploiting contingencies be incorporated from the outset in our descriptions of language and the nature of unit building in interaction

Contingency · Conversation analysis · Foregrounding · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Speech and dialogue systems