Difference between revisions of "Hutchby1992a"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Ian Hutchby; |Title=The pursuit of controversy: Routine skepticism in talk on talk radio |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Talk Radi...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Ian Hutchby; | + | |Author(s)=Ian Hutchby; |
|Title=The pursuit of controversy: Routine skepticism in talk on talk radio | |Title=The pursuit of controversy: Routine skepticism in talk on talk radio | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Talk Radio; Skepticism; Controversy; Argument; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Talk Radio; Skepticism; Controversy; Argument; |
|Key=Hutchby1992a | |Key=Hutchby1992a | ||
|Year=1992 | |Year=1992 | ||
|Journal=Sociology | |Journal=Sociology | ||
|Volume=26 | |Volume=26 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=4 |
| − | |URL= | + | |Pages=673–694 |
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038038592026004008 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/0038038592026004008 | |DOI=10.1177/0038038592026004008 | ||
| − | |Abstract=Resources for arguing are examined in talk on | + | |Abstract=Resources for arguing are examined in talk on 'talk radio', a cultural setting for which disputation is a routine activity. A contrastive device built to the format you say X, but what about Y is shown to be an important, recursively deployed linguistic resource for the accomplishment of such routine disputation. Aspects of the interactional work achieved with this device are discussed in relation to the setting-specific activity of 'arguing for arguing's sake', which is referred to as the pursuit of controversy. The device facilitates the construction by a contentious party of an argument out of the minor details of an opponent's account. It is seen that both hosts and callers in this setting orient to the efficaciousness of the format as a resource for doing argument. Episodes are also examined in which callers try to restrict the damage which hosts routinely seek to inflict on their claims through the use of the device. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:57, 23 October 2019
| Hutchby1992a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hutchby1992a |
| Author(s) | Ian Hutchby |
| Title | The pursuit of controversy: Routine skepticism in talk on talk radio |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Talk Radio, Skepticism, Controversy, Argument |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1992 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Sociology |
| Volume | 26 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 673–694 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0038038592026004008 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Resources for arguing are examined in talk on 'talk radio', a cultural setting for which disputation is a routine activity. A contrastive device built to the format you say X, but what about Y is shown to be an important, recursively deployed linguistic resource for the accomplishment of such routine disputation. Aspects of the interactional work achieved with this device are discussed in relation to the setting-specific activity of 'arguing for arguing's sake', which is referred to as the pursuit of controversy. The device facilitates the construction by a contentious party of an argument out of the minor details of an opponent's account. It is seen that both hosts and callers in this setting orient to the efficaciousness of the format as a resource for doing argument. Episodes are also examined in which callers try to restrict the damage which hosts routinely seek to inflict on their claims through the use of the device.
Notes
