In this article I challenge the notion that interviews are artificial speech events, by comparing how one participant told stories in a sociolinguistic interview and again in a subsequent spontaneous conversation. As shown by qualitative and quantitative comparison of speaker-role inhabitance (Koven 2002, 2007), I show that the interview stories are no less involved (Tannen 1989), and are actually more interlocutory than the conversational stories. With these comparative materials, I demonstrate how interviews may be contexts in which people (re)tell experiences that they may also tell in “naturally occurring” contexts. (Narrative, interviews, footing, retellings)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michèle Koven (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: