Difference between revisions of "Emisson1989"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Mike Emisson |Title=A Conversation On Trial? : The Case of the Ananda Marga Conspiracy Tapes |Tag(s)=EMCA; Tapes; Trials; Auth...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Mike Emisson | |Author(s)=Mike Emisson | ||
| − | |Title=A | + | |Title=A conversation on trial?: The case of the Ananda Marga conspiracy tapes |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Tapes; Trials; Authenticity; Naturalness; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Tapes; Trials; Authenticity; Naturalness; | ||
|Key=Emisson1989 | |Key=Emisson1989 | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=13 | |Volume=13 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=3 |
| + | |Pages=363–380 | ||
| + | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037821668990060X | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1016/0378-2166(89)90060-X | ||
| + | |Abstract=Game's paper raised doubts about the concepts of experience and authenticity in discourse analysis. So can analysis ever shed light on the disputed ‘authenticity’ of conversations? This question can become crucial when legal proceedings rely on conversational tapes which sound scripted or contrived. Such was the case in Australia's Ananda Marga bombing trials when a radio journalist played the tapes to air and offered a ‘lay’ analysis of what he thought were their dubious claims to authenticity. Emmison's paper critically examines matters such as ‘naturalness’ ‘authenticity’ and ‘originality’ of conversational data, around which some ethnomethodological claims are based. He also questions the possible use of conversation analysis in quite practical settings of legal, commonsense and media judgements. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:46, 14 February 2016
| Emisson1989 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Emisson1989 |
| Author(s) | Mike Emisson |
| Title | A conversation on trial?: The case of the Ananda Marga conspiracy tapes |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Tapes, Trials, Authenticity, Naturalness |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1989 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 363–380 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/0378-2166(89)90060-X |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Game's paper raised doubts about the concepts of experience and authenticity in discourse analysis. So can analysis ever shed light on the disputed ‘authenticity’ of conversations? This question can become crucial when legal proceedings rely on conversational tapes which sound scripted or contrived. Such was the case in Australia's Ananda Marga bombing trials when a radio journalist played the tapes to air and offered a ‘lay’ analysis of what he thought were their dubious claims to authenticity. Emmison's paper critically examines matters such as ‘naturalness’ ‘authenticity’ and ‘originality’ of conversational data, around which some ethnomethodological claims are based. He also questions the possible use of conversation analysis in quite practical settings of legal, commonsense and media judgements.
Notes
