Difference between revisions of "Antaki2012"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Key=Antaki2012 | |Key=Antaki2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
| − | |||
|Journal=Discourse Studies | |Journal=Discourse Studies | ||
|Volume=14 | |Volume=14 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
|Pages=493–498 | |Pages=493–498 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461445611433959 |
|DOI=10.1177/1461445611433959 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445611433959 | ||
|Note=WOS:000308028900006 | |Note=WOS:000308028900006 | ||
|Abstract=In a critique of Conversation Analysis' treatment of context, Waring, Creider, Tarpey and Black invite us to see that, when understanding some stretch of interaction, speakers' retrospective reports might be helpful. Two standard responses to Waring et al.'s argument are that 1) people's personal accounts of contingent and fleeting moments of interaction are of a different order of event from the actions they produce in situ, and are matters of analysis in their own right; and that 2) CA does use context, insofar as any analyst works with scenes in a culturally familiar landscape, bolstered (sometimes) by ethnographic accounts for help with local terminology or institutional agendas. | |Abstract=In a critique of Conversation Analysis' treatment of context, Waring, Creider, Tarpey and Black invite us to see that, when understanding some stretch of interaction, speakers' retrospective reports might be helpful. Two standard responses to Waring et al.'s argument are that 1) people's personal accounts of contingent and fleeting moments of interaction are of a different order of event from the actions they produce in situ, and are matters of analysis in their own right; and that 2) CA does use context, insofar as any analyst works with scenes in a culturally familiar landscape, bolstered (sometimes) by ethnographic accounts for help with local terminology or institutional agendas. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:43, 29 November 2019
| Antaki2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Antaki2012 |
| Author(s) | Charles Antaki |
| Title | What actions mean, to whom, and when |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Conversation Analysis, interviews, methodology, retrospection |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 493–498 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445611433959 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In a critique of Conversation Analysis' treatment of context, Waring, Creider, Tarpey and Black invite us to see that, when understanding some stretch of interaction, speakers' retrospective reports might be helpful. Two standard responses to Waring et al.'s argument are that 1) people's personal accounts of contingent and fleeting moments of interaction are of a different order of event from the actions they produce in situ, and are matters of analysis in their own right; and that 2) CA does use context, insofar as any analyst works with scenes in a culturally familiar landscape, bolstered (sometimes) by ethnographic accounts for help with local terminology or institutional agendas.
Notes
WOS:000308028900006
