|
|
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
Very little conversation analytic work on Russian has been done. I am looking for more publications to include in the archive. If you would like to submit your work or suggest another publication, please e-mail me at gbolden@russianca.org
Publications ArchiveYou can download these publications by clicking on the PDF links. Technical information is provided below.
Abstract: This article examines the role of medical interpreters in structuring interaction between physicians and their patients. Through a detailed analysis of interpreters’ involvement in the history-taking part of medical consultations, it is demonstrated that their participation in this activity is organized by their understanding of its goals rather than by the task of translation alone. Specifically, the different ways in which interpreters participate in history taking display their orientation to obtaining from the patient and conveying to the doctor medically relevant information about the patient’s symptoms – and doing so as effectively as possible. Medical interpreters are found to share the physicians’ normative orientation to obtaining objectively formulated information about relevant biomedical aspects of patients’ conditions. Thus, far from being passive participants in the interaction, interpreters will often pursue issues they believe to be diagnostically relevant, just as they may choose to reject patients’ information offerings if they contain subjective accounts of their socio-psychological concerns.
PDF (NOTE: Due to a technical error, the version of the article published in the CLIC journal doesn't contain endnotes. The downloadable version does.) Abstract: The paper examines interactional functions of the Russian enclitic particle -to in “howareyou” type inquiries. Drawing on a corpus of recorded telephone conversations and using the methodology of conversation analysis, this paper argues that by marking a particular "howareyou" question with -to, the speaker indicates that the inquiry is late relative to where it should have been appropriately launched. Two senses are lateness are discussed: one is “structural,” dealing with the conventional ways in which conversation is organized; the other is “normative,” which is meant to refer to the speaker’s judgment about the question’s importance relative to its placement in conversation.
Abstract: This article investigates ways in which direct reported speech is set apart from the current speaker’s own talk. Drawing on a corpus of conversational Russian materials, the article examines ways in which the onset and the offset of reported speech are marked in ordinary talk. The analysis shows that in most cases quotations are separated from other talk at their beginnings and ends through a variety of devices including grammatical framing, re-anchoring devices, and prosodic shifts for their onset and several repositioning devices and sequence organization practices for their offset. There are, however, ambiguous cases when a particular stretch of talk occurring after a quote is neither clearly separated from the quote nor clearly marked as being part of it. Such cases, referred to in this study as ‘fading out,’ appear to have specific interactional functions allowing the speaker to deal with several potential problems. The findings of this study demonstrate the importance of studying linguistic phenomena on the basis of real conversational data and suggest that the different ways in which reported speech boundaries are demarcated (or not) provide participants with a set of tools they can employ for a variety of interactional purposes.
email me at gbolden@russianca.org
to download
Abstract: This dissertation investigates ways in which two different languages, English and Russian, deal with a common interactional issue - how to show that the current utterance is occasioned by something other than the immediately preceding talk. The focus is on two discourse markers, the Russian particle '-to' and the English marker 'so,' both of which are involved, in somewhat different ways, in indicating that the action implemented by the utterance should or could have been performed earlier. Using the methodology of conversation analysis, the dissertation investigates the communicative functions of these discourse markers in contexts of their use through a close analysis of recorded, naturally occurring conversations. The first part of the dissertation examines the use of the Russian particle '-to' in turns of talk that initiate new action sequences. I argue that the particle marks the action implemented by the utterance as delayed by reference to the organization of sequences and larger activities, the overall structural organization of the conversation as a unit, and in relation to real time events. The analysis shows that speakers use the particle not only for structural reasons but also for normative ones - to display their interactional accountability for the action's late placement. The second part of the dissertation explores the English discourse marker 'so,' also focusing on its use in sequence-initial positions. The analysis demonstrates that 'so' can be characterized as a marker of emergence from incipiency, indicating that the action being launched by the turn has been on the speaker's agenda. The dissertation explores ways in which 'so' can be used to preface actions that have been projected to occur next, to introduce pending matters, and to retrojectedly mark an action as having been incipient. 'So' prefacing on new topic initiations is also contrasted with 'oh' prefacing in the same position, showing that 'so' and 'oh' can function as indexes of other- and self-regardingness, and, thereby, be involved in negotiating social relationships.
Abstract: The
study investigates actions by recipients in spontaneous Russian
conversations by focusing on DA, NU and TAK, when they are used as
responses to the main speaker's larger on-going turn. The database for
the study consists of some 7 hours of spontaneous conversations. The
participants of the conversations come from different parts of Russia.
The use of DA, NU and TAK was analyzed by applying the method of ethnomethodological conversation analysis from the point of view of the type of the context, the sequential placement of the response and its manner of production. The particles were analyzed both in contexts in which they responded to an informing and in affective contexts. The particles NU and TAK were used by the speakers almost exclusively in informing contexts, whereas DA was the central response type in affective contexts. DA was also the most common response to information with affective implications. The information, to which the particle NU provided as response, was often unspesific and projected a spesification or explanation by its speaker as the next action. DA and TAK, by contrast, treated the information as one that could be followed and was sufficient in its local context. As a response to parenthetical information NU responded to information that was only loosely connected with the mainline of talk. The particle DA, by contrast, was used as a response to such parenthetical information, which was more crucial for the larger on-going activity. Only NU was used as a response that invited the main speaker to continue a turn that she or he had offered as possibly complete. NU was also used by the recipient after her or his own contribution as a continuer. In affective contexts, DA expressed, depending on its more spesific context, not only agreement but also other functions, such as giving up arguing or prior knowledge on the topic being discussed. In addition DA responses were used to display empathy and identification with the state of affairs expressed by the co-participant. NU, by contrast, was seldom used as a response to a turn that expressed affect. When it was used in affective contexts, it displayed agreement with the co-participant or just registered an assessment by her or him.
Abstract: The article examines how the goals of maintaining and reaffirming interpersonal relationships are accomplished through the details of talk during closing sections of social encounters. On the basis of Russian language telephone conversations between close familiars, the article explicates ways in which interactions may be reopened and, more specifically, the role of the Russian discourse particle -to on utterances that raise new issues in closing environments. The analysis shows that while many kinds of new matters are commonly raised in conversation closings, only those that deal with the addressee – and only those raised by the person who initiated the closing - are marked so that to indicate the speaker’s accountability for raising the matter late. This suggests that ways in which new topics are introduced in conversation closings reflect the speaker’s orientation to displaying concern for and interest in the addressee.
Abstract: The
article presents a conversation analytic investigation of one technique
for responding to questions in naturally occurring social interactions:
repeating the question verbatim in part or as a whole before providing
a required response. A close examination of production features of
repeat prefacing in Russian demonstrates that it is used by
conversationalists to resist agendas and presuppositions generated by
questions and other sequence initiating actions. The study shows that
some repeat prefaces characterize questions as problematic by
contesting or outright rejecting its presuppositions or implications.
Depending on how precisely repeat prefaces are articulated, they may
also display the speaker's difficulty in retrieving requested
information. The study extends our understanding of devices
conversationalists can deploy to resist, sidestep, or curtail the
constraints imposed by questioners' interactional agendas, thereby
providing an insight into how communicative goals are discerned,
responded to, and negotiated in social interaction.
|
The software required to read and print PDF documents is available free from the Adobe website; follow this link to download Acrobat Reader. 
You need a free Real One Player (PC or Mac OS X) or Real Player 8 (Mac OS 9 and older) to play sound clips. Be sure to choose the free Basic Player, not Player Plus (which costs money).  |