Difference between revisions of "Schegloff2006a"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Emanuel A. Schegloff; | |Author(s)=Emanuel A. Schegloff; | ||
| − | |Title=On | + | |Title=On possibles |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; : action; conversation; interaction; reference; repair; |
|Key=Schegloff2006a | |Key=Schegloff2006a | ||
|Year=2006 | |Year=2006 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
|Pages=141–157 | |Pages=141–157 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445606059563 |
|DOI=10.1177/1461445606059563 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445606059563 | ||
|Abstract=Although there is no lack of reasons for conversation analysis to be reluctant to adopt a cognitivist idiom and paradigm in studying talk and other conduct in interaction, examination of the literature with an open mind will disclose attentiveness to such themes in the conversation-analytic literature nonetheless. The pursuit of such themes however, cannot be appropriately and successfully conducted under the aegis of currently dominant cognitivist paradigms. One central analytic resource in CA work is the notion of a ‘possible X’, a resource which is here described and exemplified for three discrete ‘values’ of ‘X’. The understanding of how such ‘possible Xs’ could work for participants in interaction invites understanding by analysts by reference to a ‘multiple passes’ model of uptake, a characterization which for now can be no more than metaphoric. Here is a venue at which conversation-analysts and neuro/cognitive analysts might usefully try to work together. | |Abstract=Although there is no lack of reasons for conversation analysis to be reluctant to adopt a cognitivist idiom and paradigm in studying talk and other conduct in interaction, examination of the literature with an open mind will disclose attentiveness to such themes in the conversation-analytic literature nonetheless. The pursuit of such themes however, cannot be appropriately and successfully conducted under the aegis of currently dominant cognitivist paradigms. One central analytic resource in CA work is the notion of a ‘possible X’, a resource which is here described and exemplified for three discrete ‘values’ of ‘X’. The understanding of how such ‘possible Xs’ could work for participants in interaction invites understanding by analysts by reference to a ‘multiple passes’ model of uptake, a characterization which for now can be no more than metaphoric. Here is a venue at which conversation-analysts and neuro/cognitive analysts might usefully try to work together. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:04, 13 November 2019
| Schegloff2006a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Schegloff2006a |
| Author(s) | Emanuel A. Schegloff |
| Title | On possibles |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, action, conversation, interaction, reference, repair |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2006 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 8 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 141–157 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445606059563 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Although there is no lack of reasons for conversation analysis to be reluctant to adopt a cognitivist idiom and paradigm in studying talk and other conduct in interaction, examination of the literature with an open mind will disclose attentiveness to such themes in the conversation-analytic literature nonetheless. The pursuit of such themes however, cannot be appropriately and successfully conducted under the aegis of currently dominant cognitivist paradigms. One central analytic resource in CA work is the notion of a ‘possible X’, a resource which is here described and exemplified for three discrete ‘values’ of ‘X’. The understanding of how such ‘possible Xs’ could work for participants in interaction invites understanding by analysts by reference to a ‘multiple passes’ model of uptake, a characterization which for now can be no more than metaphoric. Here is a venue at which conversation-analysts and neuro/cognitive analysts might usefully try to work together.
Notes
