Difference between revisions of "Hartland1989"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Nick Hartland |Title=Texts and Social Organization: An Ethnomethodology of State Documents |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Textua...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Nick Hartland | |Author(s)=Nick Hartland | ||
| − | |Title=Texts and | + | |Title=Texts and social organization: an ethnomethodology of state documents |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Textual analysis; Documents; Police; Trials; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Textual analysis; Documents; Police; Trials; |
|Key=Hartland1989 | |Key=Hartland1989 | ||
|Year=1989 | |Year=1989 | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=13 | |Volume=13 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=3 |
| + | |Pages=395–405 | ||
| + | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378216689900623 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1016/0378-2166(89)90062-3 | ||
| + | |Abstract=An abiding concern for critics of the ethnomethodological approach to discourse analysis has been that it has failed to acknowledge macro-social and political functions of discourse. In this paper, Hartland begins to ask whether indeed a piecemeal ethnomethodological analysis can take such matters into account, by examining trial transcripts as instances of documents produced by and for State procedures without, at the same time, lapsing into ungrounded speculations. He reaches a forceful conclusion about the nexus between conversational transcripts and the very production of the State itself. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:31, 21 October 2019
| Hartland1989 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hartland1989 |
| Author(s) | Nick Hartland |
| Title | Texts and social organization: an ethnomethodology of state documents |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Textual analysis, Documents, Police, Trials |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1989 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 395–405 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/0378-2166(89)90062-3 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
An abiding concern for critics of the ethnomethodological approach to discourse analysis has been that it has failed to acknowledge macro-social and political functions of discourse. In this paper, Hartland begins to ask whether indeed a piecemeal ethnomethodological analysis can take such matters into account, by examining trial transcripts as instances of documents produced by and for State procedures without, at the same time, lapsing into ungrounded speculations. He reaches a forceful conclusion about the nexus between conversational transcripts and the very production of the State itself.
Notes
