Syntactic and Prosodic Forms of First Names in Institutional Interaction Involving Multiple Participants
This paper examines one aspect of turn-taking organization in institutional interactions: the use of first names and their prosodic marking for next-speaker selection. Institutional interaction is characterized by asymmetrical rights to talk and pre-allocation of action. This involves the restrictio...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Presses universitaires de Caen
2013-12-01
|
| Series: | Discours |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.openedition.org/discours/8869 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This paper examines one aspect of turn-taking organization in institutional interactions: the use of first names and their prosodic marking for next-speaker selection. Institutional interaction is characterized by asymmetrical rights to talk and pre-allocation of action. This involves the restriction of one party to asking questions and the other to responding to them. The analysis focuses on two of these multiparty formal situations: co-present classroom participants and live interactive television broadcast with remote participants. In each context, turn allocation is determined by one party: the teacher or TV host. After asking a question as a sequence-initiating action, the teacher or host designates the next speaker by name. The use of first names is situatedly examined in terms of turn-taking organization and prosodic characteristics. The study examines how the prosodic marking is context-sensitive: do the participants have visual access to each other’s actions and how is a name used to attract attention? This paper analyses the formation and maintaining of a mutual orientation towards a single conversational action: selecting and giving the floor to a co-participant of the conversation in an institutional framework. These detailed descriptions of the sequential order are based on ethnomethodologically-informed conversation analysis. The objective is to compare four “single cases”, preserving the specificities and “whatness” of each excerpt. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1963-1723 |