Difference between revisions of "RJSmith2017"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Robin James Smith |Title=Membership categorisation, category-relevant spaces, and perception-in-action: The case of disputes b...")
 
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|Author(s)=Robin  James  Smith
 
|Author(s)=Robin  James  Smith
|Title=Membership categorisation, category-relevant spaces, and perception-in-action: The case of disputes between cyclists and drivers
+
|Title=Membership categorisation, category-relevant spaces, and perception-in-action: The case of disputes between cyclists and drivers
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Categorisation;  Context;  Perception;  Membership  categorisation  analysis;  Cycling;  Traffic  system
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Categorisation;  Context;  Perception;  Membership  categorisation  analysis;  Cycling;  Traffic  system
 
|Key=RJSmith2017
 
|Key=RJSmith2017
 
|Year=2017
 
|Year=2017
 +
|Language=English
 
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics
 
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics
 
|Volume=118
 
|Volume=118
 
|Pages=120-133
 
|Pages=120-133
|DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.007
+
|URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216616304945
|Abstract=This article is concerned with disputes between cyclists and drivers. The analysis describes members' categorisational practices that provide for the seeing of an ‘incorrect’ use of the road and for the production and relevancy of the context of the disputes (the traffic system). The analysis describes members' in situ and in vivo accomplishments of (spatial) rights and obligations in and through relational categorisations of road users and objects, their actions, and visually available resources, in relation to the ‘proper
+
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.007
use of the road’ and the gestalt contexture of the common place traffic scene. The article revisits the suggestion of Hester and Francis that the organisation of categorisations in talk may provide technical access to the ways in which members organize the visual perception of the commonplace scene. The article closes by proposing a revised ‘‘observers' maxim’’  that takes in to account the highly indexical nature of observation and categorisation in and as the context in which observations are made.
+
|Abstract=This article is concerned with disputes between cyclists and drivers. The analysis describes members' categorisational practices that provide for the seeing of an ‘incorrect’ use of the road and for the production and relevancy of the context of the disputes (the traffic system). The analysis describes members' in situ and in vivo accomplishments of (spatial) rights and obligations in and through relational categorisations of road users and objects, their actions, and visually available resources, in relation to the ‘proper use of the road’ and the gestalt contexture of the common place traffic scene. The article revisits the suggestion of Hester and Francis that the organisation of categorisations in talk may provide technical access to the ways in which members organize the visual perception of the commonplace scene. The article closes by proposing a revised “observers' maxim” that takes in to account the highly indexical nature of observation and categorisation in and as the context in which observations are made.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 02:58, 4 September 2023

RJSmith2017
BibType ARTICLE
Key RJSmith2017
Author(s) Robin James Smith
Title Membership categorisation, category-relevant spaces, and perception-in-action: The case of disputes between cyclists and drivers
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Categorisation, Context, Perception, Membership categorisation analysis, Cycling, Traffic system
Publisher
Year 2017
Language English
City
Month
Journal Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 118
Number
Pages 120-133
URL Link
DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.007
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article is concerned with disputes between cyclists and drivers. The analysis describes members' categorisational practices that provide for the seeing of an ‘incorrect’ use of the road and for the production and relevancy of the context of the disputes (the traffic system). The analysis describes members' in situ and in vivo accomplishments of (spatial) rights and obligations in and through relational categorisations of road users and objects, their actions, and visually available resources, in relation to the ‘proper use of the road’ and the gestalt contexture of the common place traffic scene. The article revisits the suggestion of Hester and Francis that the organisation of categorisations in talk may provide technical access to the ways in which members organize the visual perception of the commonplace scene. The article closes by proposing a revised “observers' maxim” that takes in to account the highly indexical nature of observation and categorisation in and as the context in which observations are made.

Notes