Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Discourse Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SCHEGLOFF, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis

EMANUEL A. SCHEGLOFF

UCLA

In a period given to emphasizing diversity among humans, we would do well to explore diversity among forms of discourse and among forms of talk-in-interaction in particular. Among the speech-exchange systems, ordinary conversation has been claimed to be distinctive and fundamental, but questions have been raised about both claims. The resources for discriminating among speech-exchange systems are located in such generic organizations of practice as turn-taking, sequence organization, the organization of repair and the overall structural organization of episodes of interaction. I try to show that `conversation' as a distinctive speech-exchange system is real and is not only a residual category, and that it is to be understood as the `basic' speech-exchange system, in part by reference to the distinctive turn-taking organization (among others) through which it is implemented. The `motivation' for having developed a formal account of this turn-taking organization is recounted, and that formal account is defended for its usability in the analytic explication of singular, contexted episodes of talk. The remainder of the article is given over to such an exemplary account - an examination of an episode of interaction during a testing session between a man whose brain hemispheres had been surgically separated and a researcher.

Key Words: brain trauma • conversation • sequences • turn-taking

Discourse Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4, 405-435 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/1461445699001004002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Discourse StudiesHome page
Y.-F. Wang, P.-H. Tsai, and M.-Y. Ling
From informational to emotive use: meiyou (`no') as a discourse marker in Taiwan Mandarin conversation
Discourse Studies, October 1, 2007; 9(5): 677 - 701.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Discourse SocietyHome page
J. Potter
Discursive Psychology: Between Method and Paradigm
Discourse Society, November 1, 2003; 14(6): 783 - 794.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Qualitative ResearchHome page
J. Potter
Review EssayStudying the Standardized Survey as Interaction
Qualitative Research, August 1, 2003; 3(2): 269 - 278.
[PDF]

Home page
 Discourse StudiesHome page
D. Maingueneau
Analysis of an academic genre
Discourse Studies, June 1, 2002; 4(3): 319 - 341.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Discourse SocietyHome page
I. ARMINEN
On the Context Sensitivity of Institutional Interaction
Discourse Society, October 1, 2000; 11(4): 435 - 458.
[Abstract] [PDF]