Difference between revisions of "Kitzinger2000a"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; |Title=How to resist an idiom |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Idioms; Resistance; |Key=Kitzinger2000a |Year=2000...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; | + | |Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; |
|Title=How to resist an idiom | |Title=How to resist an idiom | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Idioms; Resistance; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Idioms; Resistance; |
|Key=Kitzinger2000a | |Key=Kitzinger2000a | ||
|Year=2000 | |Year=2000 | ||
| − | |Journal=Research on Language | + | |Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction |
|Volume=33 | |Volume=33 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=2 |
| + | |Pages=121–154 | ||
|URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3302_1 | |URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3302_1 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1207/S15327973RLSI3302_1 |
|Abstract=Idiomatic formulations are often successful in achieving affiliative responses: They are hard to challenge both because their generality makes them independent of the specific details of any particular person or situation, and because they invoke and constitute the taken-for-granted knowledge shared by all competent members of the culture (Drew & Holt, 1988). Drawing on data in which women with breast cancer talk in groups about their experiences, in this article we explore how they resist the rhetorical power of the idiom "think positive." Three resistance strategies are described and illustrated: (a) pauses and token agreements, (b) the production of competing idioms, and (c) particularization. The article ends with a brief discussion of the implications of these findings for conversation analysis and for current debates about the value of fine-grained conversation-analytic approaches within discourse analysis. | |Abstract=Idiomatic formulations are often successful in achieving affiliative responses: They are hard to challenge both because their generality makes them independent of the specific details of any particular person or situation, and because they invoke and constitute the taken-for-granted knowledge shared by all competent members of the culture (Drew & Holt, 1988). Drawing on data in which women with breast cancer talk in groups about their experiences, in this article we explore how they resist the rhetorical power of the idiom "think positive." Three resistance strategies are described and illustrated: (a) pauses and token agreements, (b) the production of competing idioms, and (c) particularization. The article ends with a brief discussion of the implications of these findings for conversation analysis and for current debates about the value of fine-grained conversation-analytic approaches within discourse analysis. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:48, 27 October 2019
| Kitzinger2000a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kitzinger2000a |
| Author(s) | Celia Kitzinger |
| Title | How to resist an idiom |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Idioms, Resistance |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2000 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 33 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 121–154 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3302_1 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Idiomatic formulations are often successful in achieving affiliative responses: They are hard to challenge both because their generality makes them independent of the specific details of any particular person or situation, and because they invoke and constitute the taken-for-granted knowledge shared by all competent members of the culture (Drew & Holt, 1988). Drawing on data in which women with breast cancer talk in groups about their experiences, in this article we explore how they resist the rhetorical power of the idiom "think positive." Three resistance strategies are described and illustrated: (a) pauses and token agreements, (b) the production of competing idioms, and (c) particularization. The article ends with a brief discussion of the implications of these findings for conversation analysis and for current debates about the value of fine-grained conversation-analytic approaches within discourse analysis.
Notes
