Difference between revisions of "Ford2012"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
|Pages=507–513 | |Pages=507–513 | ||
− | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445612450375 |
|DOI=10.1177/1461445612450375 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612450375 | ||
− | |Note= | + | |Note=Comment on Hansung et al, 2012 |
+ | |Abstract=Acknowledging the perils of interdisciplinary and applied conversation analysis, this essay argues for clarity in articulating relationships between methods, addressing, in particular, the language used to formulate claims regarding how participants’ post hoc reflections relate to findings from CA analyses. | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 12:06, 30 November 2019
Ford2012 | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Ford2012 |
Author(s) | Cecilia E. Ford |
Title | Clarity in applied and interdisciplinary conversation analysis |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | EMCA, Applied, Conversation Analysis |
Publisher | |
Year | 2012 |
Language | |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Discourse Studies |
Volume | 14 |
Number | 4 |
Pages | 507–513 |
URL | Link |
DOI | 10.1177/1461445612450375 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
Acknowledging the perils of interdisciplinary and applied conversation analysis, this essay argues for clarity in articulating relationships between methods, addressing, in particular, the language used to formulate claims regarding how participants’ post hoc reflections relate to findings from CA analyses.
Notes
Comment on Hansung et al, 2012