Difference between revisions of "Schegloff2004a"
(BibTeX auto import 2014-10-01 10:14:00) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| + | |BibType=INPROCEEDINGS | ||
| + | |Author(s)=Emanuel A. Schegloff; | ||
| + | |Title=Whistling in the dark: notes from the other side of liminality | ||
| + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; | ||
|Key=Schegloff2004a | |Key=Schegloff2004a | ||
| − | | | + | |Publisher=University of Texas |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Year=2004 | |Year=2004 | ||
| − | |URL=http:// | + | |Address=Austin |
| − | |Abstract=Although it is no news that humans are members of many categories the consequences of this fact for social scientists have not been adequately addressed. One of the consequence appears to be this: that some person is in fact a member of some category (such as male or elderly) is by itself not an adequate warrant for so referring to them, for they are always also in fact a member of some other category as well. Something else has made the particular formulation that is employed relevant. This is so both for parties to ordinary interaction and for the investigators who study it. Some investigators have resisted the challenge by claiming that it virtually requires that interactional participants enunciate the categories to which they are oriented in their speaking. But no such insistence is in fact entailed by the stance sketched above. In this talk I will describe a number of ways in which analysts can warrant their use of categorical terminology in analyzing talk-in-interaction by grounding it in the demonstrable indigenous orientations of the participants in the interaction being analyzed. Not only will the equivocality of the current analytic practice of formulating the participants be circumvented; the analysis itself can be enriched. | + | |Booktitle=Texas Linguistics Forum, Vol. 48: SALSA XII Proceedings |
| + | |Pages=17–30 | ||
| + | |URL=http://salsa.ling.utexas.edu/proceedings/2004/Schegloff.pdf | ||
| + | |Abstract=Although it is no news that humans are members of many categories, the consequences of this fact for social scientists have not been adequately addressed. One of the consequence appears to be this: that some person is in fact a member of some category (such as male or elderly) is by itself not an adequate warrant for so referring to them, for they are always also in fact a member of some other category as well. Something else has made the particular formulation that is employed relevant. This is so both for parties to ordinary interaction and for the investigators who study it. Some investigators have resisted the challenge by claiming that it virtually requires that interactional participants enunciate the categories to which they are oriented in their speaking. But no such insistence is in fact entailed by the stance sketched above. In this talk I will describe a number of ways in which analysts can warrant their use of categorical terminology in analyzing talk-in-interaction by grounding it in the demonstrable indigenous orientations of the participants in the interaction being analyzed. Not only will the equivocality of the current analytic practice of formulating the participants be circumvented; the analysis itself can be enriched. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:58, 31 October 2019
| Schegloff2004a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INPROCEEDINGS |
| Key | Schegloff2004a |
| Author(s) | Emanuel A. Schegloff |
| Title | Whistling in the dark: notes from the other side of liminality |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA |
| Publisher | University of Texas |
| Year | 2004 |
| Language | |
| City | Austin |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 17–30 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Texas Linguistics Forum, Vol. 48: SALSA XII Proceedings |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Although it is no news that humans are members of many categories, the consequences of this fact for social scientists have not been adequately addressed. One of the consequence appears to be this: that some person is in fact a member of some category (such as male or elderly) is by itself not an adequate warrant for so referring to them, for they are always also in fact a member of some other category as well. Something else has made the particular formulation that is employed relevant. This is so both for parties to ordinary interaction and for the investigators who study it. Some investigators have resisted the challenge by claiming that it virtually requires that interactional participants enunciate the categories to which they are oriented in their speaking. But no such insistence is in fact entailed by the stance sketched above. In this talk I will describe a number of ways in which analysts can warrant their use of categorical terminology in analyzing talk-in-interaction by grounding it in the demonstrable indigenous orientations of the participants in the interaction being analyzed. Not only will the equivocality of the current analytic practice of formulating the participants be circumvented; the analysis itself can be enriched.
Notes
