Bilmes2009
Revision as of 08:04, 17 March 2015 by DarceySearles (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jack Bilmes; |Title=Taxonomies are for talking: Reanalyzing a Sacks classic |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Membership Categorizat...")
| Bilmes2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Bilmes2009 |
| Author(s) | Jack Bilmes |
| Title | Taxonomies are for talking: Reanalyzing a Sacks classic |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Membership Categorization Analysis, Formulations |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 41 |
| Number | 8 |
| Pages | 1600-1610 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.008 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Conversational exchanges establish a field of meaning, which may be analyzable in terms of taxonomical relationships among concepts. These semantic fields are created on the spot for current conversational purposes and may or may not have conventional counterparts “in the language.” This paper proposes a technique, drawing on ethnosemantic, conversation analytic, and membership categorization analytic sources, for studying participant formulations. The technique is illustrated by reconsidering an exchange analyzed by Sacks and, subsequently, by Edwards.
Notes
