Raymond2024a

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Raymond2024a
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Raymond2024a
Author(s) Chase Wesley Raymond, Jeffrey D. Robinson
Title Evidencing Conversation-Analytic Claims: How Participants Orient to Social Action
Editor(s) Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, Chase Wesley Raymond
Tag(s) EMCA, Evidence, Next-turn proof procedure, Epistemology, Orientation, Understanding, Misunderstanding, Action formation, Action ascription, Relevance
Publisher Cambridge University Press
Year 2024
Language English
City Cambridge
Month
Journal
Volume
Number
Pages 315-355
URL Link
DOI 10.1017/9781108936583.013
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis
Chapter 13

Download BibTex

Abstract

This chapter discusses different types of evidence that conversation analysts use to ground their claims about social action. We begin by reviewing the epistemological perspective of CA, which demands that evidence reflect participants’ orientations; as a critical part of understanding the terms ‘participant orientation’ and ‘relevance,’ here we also discuss two ways in which CA’s position and emphasis on them are commonly misunderstood. The bulk of this chapter then reviews and illustrates a range of types of participant-orientation evidence. We organize our presentation of types of evidence roughly by sequential position vis-à-vis the focal action about which the analyst is making claims, including evidence to be found in: (i) next-turn, (ii) same-turn (e.g., same-TCU self-repair, accounts), (iii) prior turn or sequence, (iv) third turn/position (e.g., repair after next turn, courses of action/activity), (v) fourth turn/position, and (vi) more distal positions. We also discuss other forms of evidence that are not necessarily defined by sequential position, including: (i) third-party conduct, (ii) reported conduct, (iii) deviant cases, and (iv) distributional evidence. We conclude by offering some brief reflections on bringing different types and positions of evidence together toward the construction of an argument.

Notes