On that's right and its combination with other tokens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This paper uses Conversation Analysis to examine how a person with aphasia employed the response that's right. It discusses four functional variants of that's right (confirming; mutual stance; restored intersubjectivity; recognition), and composite turns involving that's right. A core collection of 100 turns was assembled and analysed. It is argued that the confirming that's right and the mutual stance that's right are both involved with agreement, and work to ratify the design and action of a prior turn. The former embraces epistemic authority, and the latter claims epistemic rights. The restored intersubjectivity that's right closes a period of trouble, while the recognition that's right claims knowledge of the matters addressed by a prior turn. Subsequent analyses demonstrate that positioning response tokens before that's right can point towards the constraints imposed by prior talk. Positioning of tokens after that's right can be involved with action projection. This paper adds new information about the epistemic and actional claims that can be implemented with that's right, and argues that a clinical focus on agreement may help enhance the everyday lives of people with aphasia.

LanguageEnglish
Pages243-260
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Pragmatics
Volume44
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2012

Fingerprint

intersubjectivity
speech disorder
conversation analysis
Composite materials
everyday life
projection
human being
Positioning
Intersubjectivity
Stance
Aphasia
Response Tokens
Everyday Life
Ratify
Epistemic Authority
Person
New Information
Conversation Analysis

Cite this

@article{263f09f8e2a448cba49db668c3363d67,
title = "On that's right and its combination with other tokens",
abstract = "This paper uses Conversation Analysis to examine how a person with aphasia employed the response that's right. It discusses four functional variants of that's right (confirming; mutual stance; restored intersubjectivity; recognition), and composite turns involving that's right. A core collection of 100 turns was assembled and analysed. It is argued that the confirming that's right and the mutual stance that's right are both involved with agreement, and work to ratify the design and action of a prior turn. The former embraces epistemic authority, and the latter claims epistemic rights. The restored intersubjectivity that's right closes a period of trouble, while the recognition that's right claims knowledge of the matters addressed by a prior turn. Subsequent analyses demonstrate that positioning response tokens before that's right can point towards the constraints imposed by prior talk. Positioning of tokens after that's right can be involved with action projection. This paper adds new information about the epistemic and actional claims that can be implemented with that's right, and argues that a clinical focus on agreement may help enhance the everyday lives of people with aphasia.",
author = "Scott Barnes",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.004",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "243--260",
journal = "Journal of Pragmatics",
issn = "0378-2166",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

On that's right and its combination with other tokens. / Barnes, Scott.

In: Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 44, No. 3, 02.2012, p. 243-260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - On that's right and its combination with other tokens

AU - Barnes, Scott

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - This paper uses Conversation Analysis to examine how a person with aphasia employed the response that's right. It discusses four functional variants of that's right (confirming; mutual stance; restored intersubjectivity; recognition), and composite turns involving that's right. A core collection of 100 turns was assembled and analysed. It is argued that the confirming that's right and the mutual stance that's right are both involved with agreement, and work to ratify the design and action of a prior turn. The former embraces epistemic authority, and the latter claims epistemic rights. The restored intersubjectivity that's right closes a period of trouble, while the recognition that's right claims knowledge of the matters addressed by a prior turn. Subsequent analyses demonstrate that positioning response tokens before that's right can point towards the constraints imposed by prior talk. Positioning of tokens after that's right can be involved with action projection. This paper adds new information about the epistemic and actional claims that can be implemented with that's right, and argues that a clinical focus on agreement may help enhance the everyday lives of people with aphasia.

AB - This paper uses Conversation Analysis to examine how a person with aphasia employed the response that's right. It discusses four functional variants of that's right (confirming; mutual stance; restored intersubjectivity; recognition), and composite turns involving that's right. A core collection of 100 turns was assembled and analysed. It is argued that the confirming that's right and the mutual stance that's right are both involved with agreement, and work to ratify the design and action of a prior turn. The former embraces epistemic authority, and the latter claims epistemic rights. The restored intersubjectivity that's right closes a period of trouble, while the recognition that's right claims knowledge of the matters addressed by a prior turn. Subsequent analyses demonstrate that positioning response tokens before that's right can point towards the constraints imposed by prior talk. Positioning of tokens after that's right can be involved with action projection. This paper adds new information about the epistemic and actional claims that can be implemented with that's right, and argues that a clinical focus on agreement may help enhance the everyday lives of people with aphasia.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857030947&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.004

DO - 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.004

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 243

EP - 260

JO - Journal of Pragmatics

T2 - Journal of Pragmatics

JF - Journal of Pragmatics

SN - 0378-2166

IS - 3

ER -