Difference between revisions of "Seedhouse1998"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Paul Seedhouse; |Title=CA and the Analysis of Foreign Language Interaction: A Reply to Wagner |Tag(s)=EMCA; Applied Conversation Analysi...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Paul Seedhouse; | |Author(s)=Paul Seedhouse; | ||
| − | |Title=CA and the | + | |Title=CA and the analysis of foreign language interaction: a reply to Wagner |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Applied Conversation Analysis; CA-methodology; Wagner | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Applied Conversation Analysis; CA-methodology; Wagner | ||
|Key=Seedhouse1998 | |Key=Seedhouse1998 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=30 | |Volume=30 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=85–102 |
| − | |Abstract=In Journal of Pragmatics | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216697000611 |
| − | + | |DOI=10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00061-1 | |
| + | |Abstract=In Journal of Pragmatics 26, Wagner suggests that CA methodology is challenged by foreign language interaction (FLI) and presents a number of reasons why this would appear to be the case. This reply asserts that CA is in fact quite capable of handling FLI data and supports this assertion by analysing three extracts of FLI data. The reply concludes that, whilst FLI does have certain characteristics which raise interesting questions and which make it difficult to analyse, this constitutes primarily a challenge to analysis rather than to the fundamental methodological principles of CA. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:24, 20 October 2019
| Seedhouse1998 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Seedhouse1998 |
| Author(s) | Paul Seedhouse |
| Title | CA and the analysis of foreign language interaction: a reply to Wagner |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Applied Conversation Analysis, CA-methodology, Wagner |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1998 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 30 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 85–102 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00061-1 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In Journal of Pragmatics 26, Wagner suggests that CA methodology is challenged by foreign language interaction (FLI) and presents a number of reasons why this would appear to be the case. This reply asserts that CA is in fact quite capable of handling FLI data and supports this assertion by analysing three extracts of FLI data. The reply concludes that, whilst FLI does have certain characteristics which raise interesting questions and which make it difficult to analyse, this constitutes primarily a challenge to analysis rather than to the fundamental methodological principles of CA.
Notes
