Difference between revisions of "Stokoe2012b"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Elizabeth Stokoe; |Title=Categorial systematics |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; |Key=Stokoe2012b |Year=2012 |Journal=Discourse Studies |Volume=14 |...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Elizabeth Stokoe; | + | |Author(s)=Elizabeth Stokoe; |
|Title=Categorial systematics | |Title=Categorial systematics | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; |
|Key=Stokoe2012b | |Key=Stokoe2012b | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=14 | |Volume=14 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages=345 | + | |Pages=345–354 |
| + | |URL=http://dis.sagepub.com/content/14/3/345 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612441543 | ||
| + | |Abstract=In this response article, I focus on two issues. First, I discuss the problem, raised by the commentators, of ‘categorial ambiguity’ in membership categorization analysis, and make suggestions about how to approach it. Second, I argue that, as conversation analysts have demonstrated the ‘systematics’ of interactional practices, membership categorization analysis should also begin to build a robust corpus of studies of ‘categorial systematics’. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 03:46, 22 January 2016
| Stokoe2012b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Stokoe2012b |
| Author(s) | Elizabeth Stokoe |
| Title | Categorial systematics |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, MCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 345–354 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445612441543 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this response article, I focus on two issues. First, I discuss the problem, raised by the commentators, of ‘categorial ambiguity’ in membership categorization analysis, and make suggestions about how to approach it. Second, I argue that, as conversation analysts have demonstrated the ‘systematics’ of interactional practices, membership categorization analysis should also begin to build a robust corpus of studies of ‘categorial systematics’.
Notes
