04413nam 2200661 a 450 991078154420332120230413231252.01-283-35934-0978661335934690-272-8001-0(CKB)2550000000073840(EBL)805762(OCoLC)769342175(SSID)ssj0000642801(PQKBManifestationID)11386801(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000642801(PQKBWorkID)10652706(PQKB)11577149(MiAaPQ)EBC805762(Au-PeEL)EBL805762(CaPaEBR)ebr10517156(EXLCZ)99255000000007384019850226d1984 uy 0engur|n|---|||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrier"Well" in dialogue games a discourse analysis of the interjection "well" in idealized conversation /Lauri CarlsonAmsterdam ;Philadelphia :J. Benjamins Pub. Co.,1984.1 online resource (113 pages)Pragmatics & beyond : an interdisciplinary series of language studies,0166-6258 ;5:5Description based upon print version of record.90-272-2539-7 Includes bibliographical references.WELL IN DIALOGUE GAMES A Discourse Analysis of the Interjection well in Idealized Conversation; Editorial page; Title page; Copyright page; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; 1.INTRODUCTION; 1.1. Aims; 1.2. Idealizations; 1.3. Chapter outlines; 2. THEORY; 2.1. Dialogue games; 2.2. Conversational analysis; 2.3. Computational models of dialogue; 2.3.1. Goal-directedness; 2.3.2. Modeling beliefs; 2.3.3. Current focus of dialogue; 2.3.4. Rules of dialogue shared by participants; 3. EARLIER TREATMENTS OF WELL; 3.1. Lakoff (1973a); 3.2. Murray (1979); 3.3. Svartvik (1980); 3.4. Owen (1981)4. THE PRESENT TREATMENT; 4.1. The hypothesis; 4.2. Development of the hypothesis; 4.3. Data and classification; 4.3.1. Criteria pertaining to dialogue structure; 4.3.2. Utility related criteria; 4.3.3. How many meanings?; 5. WELL AS A QUALIFIER; 5.1. Question-answer exchanges; 5.1.1. Dialogue internal qualifications; 5.1.1.1. Defective questions; 5.1.1.2. Defective answers; 5.1.1.3. Demanded explanations; 5.1.2. Dialogue external qualifications; 5.1.2.1. Conversational maxims compromised; 5.1.2.2. Other interests compromised; 5.2. Other exchanges; 5.2.1. Replies; 5.2.2. Arguments5.2.3. Corrections; 5.2.4. Comments; 5.2.5. Exclamations; 5.2.6. Topic suggestions; 6. WELL AS A FRAME; 6.1. Opening a dialogue; 6.2. Transition situations; 6.2.1. Preparatory moves; 6.2.2. Topic shift; 6.2.3. Turn taking; 6.3. Closing; 6.4. Turn internal cases; 7. CONTRASTIVE STUDIES; 7.1. Well vs. oh; 7.1.1. (?.oh); 7.1.2. Exclamation; 7.1.3. Replies; 7.1.4. Unexpected topic; 7.1.5. Disappointment; 7.1.6. Topic shift; 7.2. Well and Finnish no; 7.3. Schourup (1983); 7.3.1. Theory and methodology; 7.3.2. Hypothesis; 7.3.3. Exclamations; 7.3.4. Topic shifting; 7.3.5. Answers7.3.6. Before questions; 7.3.7. Corrections; 8. EXTENSIONS; 8.1. Politeness; 8.2. Emotions; 8.3. Well in writing; FOOTNOTES; SOURCES OF EXAMPLES; REFERENCESThis dialogue game approach to the discourse analysis of the English interjection well aims at the formulation of rules which would be informative (marking some contexts of use as more natural than others), systematic (applicable in a mechanical or at least in a non-ad hoc way), and adequate (showing putative competitors to be either false to fact, too narrow or too wide, or demonstrably equivalent).Pragmatics & beyond ;5:5.Well (The English word)English languageInterjectionsEnglish languageDiscourse analysisEnglish languageSpoken EnglishWell (The English word)English languageInterjections.English languageDiscourse analysis.English languageSpoken English.401/.41Carlson Lauri1952-1478295MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910781544203321"Well" in dialogue games3693950UNINA