Difference between revisions of "Anderson1978"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Journal=Philosophy of the Social Sciences | |Journal=Philosophy of the Social Sciences | ||
|Volume=8 | |Volume=8 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=2 |
| + | |Pages=113–135 | ||
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004839317800800201 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/004839317800800201 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Given that written texts are characterized by indexicality and incompleteness; how is it that they are read and followed then judged adequate? In particular how are social scientific arguments read as plausible under such conditions? It is suggested that the very natural language that renders such arguments in principle problematic, provides a resource in its textual particulars for the repair of indexicality. The article analyzes some local textual features with methods borrowed from conversational analysis to demonstrate three reader/writer strategies 'age orientation', the categorization of a population as more than incidentally juvenile; establishing 'author authority' ; and 'investing' (apparently senseless actors with 'purpose'. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:33, 28 October 2019
| Anderson1978 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Anderson1978 |
| Author(s) | Digby C. Anderson |
| Title | Some organizational features in the local production of a plausible text |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Text |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1978 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Philosophy of the Social Sciences |
| Volume | 8 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 113–135 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/004839317800800201 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Given that written texts are characterized by indexicality and incompleteness; how is it that they are read and followed then judged adequate? In particular how are social scientific arguments read as plausible under such conditions? It is suggested that the very natural language that renders such arguments in principle problematic, provides a resource in its textual particulars for the repair of indexicality. The article analyzes some local textual features with methods borrowed from conversational analysis to demonstrate three reader/writer strategies 'age orientation', the categorization of a population as more than incidentally juvenile; establishing 'author authority' ; and 'investing' (apparently senseless actors with 'purpose'.
Notes
