LEADER 04413nam  2200661 a 450 
001 9910781544203321
005 20230413231252.0
010   $a1-283-35934-0
010   $a9786613359346
010   $a90-272-8001-0
035   $a(CKB)2550000000073840
035   $a(EBL)805762
035   $a(OCoLC)769342175
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000642801
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)11386801
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000642801
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10652706
035   $a(PQKB)11577149
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC805762
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL805762
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10517156
035   $a(EXLCZ)992550000000073840
100   $a19850226d1984      uy             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aur|n|---|||||
181   $ctxt$2rdacontent
182   $cc$2rdamedia
183   $acr$2rdacarrier
200 10$a"Well" in dialogue games $ea discourse analysis of the interjection "well" in idealized conversation /$fLauri Carlson
210  1$aAmsterdam ;$aPhiladelphia :$cJ. Benjamins Pub. Co.,$d1984.
215   $a1 online resource (113 pages)
225 1 $aPragmatics & beyond : an interdisciplinary series of language studies,$x0166-6258 ;$v5:5
300   $aDescription based upon print version of record.
311 0 $a90-272-2539-7 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references.
327   $aWELL 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)
327   $a4. 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. Arguments
327   $a5.2.3. 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. Answers
327   $a7.3.6. Before questions; 7.3.7. Corrections; 8. EXTENSIONS; 8.1. Politeness; 8.2. Emotions; 8.3. Well in writing; FOOTNOTES; SOURCES OF EXAMPLES; REFERENCES
330   $aThis dialogue game approach to the discourse analysis of the English interjection well aims at the formulation of rules which would be informative (marking some contexts of use as more natural than others), systematic (applicable in a mechanical or at least in a non-ad hoc way), and adequate (showing putative competitors to be either false to fact, too narrow or too wide, or demonstrably equivalent).
410  0$aPragmatics & beyond ;$v5:5.
606   $aWell (The English word)
606   $aEnglish language$xInterjections
606   $aEnglish language$xDiscourse analysis
606   $aEnglish language$xSpoken English
615  0$aWell (The English word)
615  0$aEnglish language$xInterjections.
615  0$aEnglish language$xDiscourse analysis.
615  0$aEnglish language$xSpoken English.
676   $a401/.41
700   $aCarlson$b Lauri$f1952-$01478295
801  0$bMiAaPQ
801  1$bMiAaPQ
801  2$bMiAaPQ
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910781544203321
996   $a"Well" in dialogue games$93693950
997   $aUNINA