“What’s it called?”: Conventionalization, glossing practices, and linguistic (in)determinacy

TY - JOUR

T1 - “What’s it called?”

T2 - Conventionalization, glossing practices, and linguistic (in)determinacy

AU - Duncker, Dorthe

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - At first glance conventionalization may seem to have little in common with the integrationist notion of 'radical indeterminacy', but on closer inspection it appears that the glossing practices that support sign-making efforts and assist communicating participants in reducing indeterminacies are in fact situated enactments of conventionalization, and that conventionalization is a dynamic process. In a corpus of Danish conversations, this article studies how participants through metalinguistic discursive examination concurrently establish linguistic facts to their own satisfaction and simultaneously make them the subject of mutual communicative responsibility and continuity. The glossing episodes discussed are well known from conversation analysis as 'repair' incidents, but the present study shows them to be constitutive resources for semiological validation rather than transient interactional disruptions.

AB - At first glance conventionalization may seem to have little in common with the integrationist notion of 'radical indeterminacy', but on closer inspection it appears that the glossing practices that support sign-making efforts and assist communicating participants in reducing indeterminacies are in fact situated enactments of conventionalization, and that conventionalization is a dynamic process. In a corpus of Danish conversations, this article studies how participants through metalinguistic discursive examination concurrently establish linguistic facts to their own satisfaction and simultaneously make them the subject of mutual communicative responsibility and continuity. The glossing episodes discussed are well known from conversation analysis as 'repair' incidents, but the present study shows them to be constitutive resources for semiological validation rather than transient interactional disruptions.

U2 - 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.002

DO - 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.002

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0271-5309

VL - 32

SP - 400

EP - 419

JO - Language and Communication

JF - Language and Communication

IS - 4

ER -