Martin (1992: 156):
In addition, dependency structures were introduced to account for tracking and challenging moves which are not strongly predicted by initiations; indeed, interlocutors may formulate interacts so as to avoid them. So while the tracking move in [3:101] depends on the interact it tracks, it is not expected by it.
[3:101]
K1 Ben won.
cf — Who?
rcf — Ben Johnson
K1f — Wow!
Old Blogger Comments:
[1] As previously explained, the use of dependency (logical metafunction) for NEGOTIATION (interpersonal metafunction) creates a theoretical inconsistency. It misconstrues interpersonal meaning as ideational meaning.
[2] As previously explained, such dependency relations do not form structures; they merely obtain between units.
[3] To be clear, tracking and challenging moves are classified as interruptions to adjacency pairs (Martin 1992: 67). Thus, Martin's claims here are simply that:
[3] To be clear, tracking and challenging moves are classified as interruptions to adjacency pairs (Martin 1992: 67). Thus, Martin's claims here are simply that:
- initiating moves don't "strongly predict" or "expect" interruptions, and
- interruptions "depend" on there being something to interrupt.
No comments:
Post a Comment