Difference between revisions of "Lynch2016a"
(BibTeX auto import 2016-09-28 04:41:31) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| − | | | + | |BibType=ARTICLE |
| − | | | + | |Author(s)=Michael Lynch; Jean Wong; |
|Title=Reverting to a hidden interactional order: Epistemics, informationism, and conversation analysis | |Title=Reverting to a hidden interactional order: Epistemics, informationism, and conversation analysis | ||
| − | |||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; cognitivism; conversation analysis; corresponding author; distribution of knowledge; epistemics; information exchange; propositional content | |Tag(s)=EMCA; cognitivism; conversation analysis; corresponding author; distribution of knowledge; epistemics; information exchange; propositional content | ||
| − | | | + | |Key=Lynch2016a |
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
| − | | | + | |Language=English |
|Journal=Discourse Studies | |Journal=Discourse Studies | ||
|Volume=18 | |Volume=18 | ||
|Number=5 | |Number=5 | ||
|Pages=526–549 | |Pages=526–549 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445616658199 |
|DOI=10.1177/1461445616658199 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445616658199 | ||
|Abstract=Although the production and recognition of social actions have been central concerns for conversation analysis (CA) from the outset, it has recently been argued that CA is yet to develop a systematic analysis of ‘action formation'. As a partial remedy to this situation, John Heritage introduces ‘epistemic status', which he claims is an unavoidable component of the production and recognition of social action. His proposal addresses the question how is social action produced and recognized? by reference to another question how is relative knowledge recognized? Despite the importance placed on the latter question, it is not clear how it is to be answered in particular cases. We argue that the introduction of epistemic status builds on a reformulation of the action formation problem that unnecessarily de-emphasizes the importance of the sequential environment. Our re-analyses of key sequences cast doubts on the empirical grounding of the epistemic program, and question whether the fundamental role of epistemic status has been convincingly demonstrated. | |Abstract=Although the production and recognition of social actions have been central concerns for conversation analysis (CA) from the outset, it has recently been argued that CA is yet to develop a systematic analysis of ‘action formation'. As a partial remedy to this situation, John Heritage introduces ‘epistemic status', which he claims is an unavoidable component of the production and recognition of social action. His proposal addresses the question how is social action produced and recognized? by reference to another question how is relative knowledge recognized? Despite the importance placed on the latter question, it is not clear how it is to be answered in particular cases. We argue that the introduction of epistemic status builds on a reformulation of the action formation problem that unnecessarily de-emphasizes the importance of the sequential environment. Our re-analyses of key sequences cast doubts on the empirical grounding of the epistemic program, and question whether the fundamental role of epistemic status has been convincingly demonstrated. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:13, 17 December 2019
| Lynch2016a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lynch2016a |
| Author(s) | Michael Lynch, Jean Wong |
| Title | Reverting to a hidden interactional order: Epistemics, informationism, and conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, cognitivism, conversation analysis, corresponding author, distribution of knowledge, epistemics, information exchange, propositional content |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 18 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 526–549 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445616658199 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Although the production and recognition of social actions have been central concerns for conversation analysis (CA) from the outset, it has recently been argued that CA is yet to develop a systematic analysis of ‘action formation'. As a partial remedy to this situation, John Heritage introduces ‘epistemic status', which he claims is an unavoidable component of the production and recognition of social action. His proposal addresses the question how is social action produced and recognized? by reference to another question how is relative knowledge recognized? Despite the importance placed on the latter question, it is not clear how it is to be answered in particular cases. We argue that the introduction of epistemic status builds on a reformulation of the action formation problem that unnecessarily de-emphasizes the importance of the sequential environment. Our re-analyses of key sequences cast doubts on the empirical grounding of the epistemic program, and question whether the fundamental role of epistemic status has been convincingly demonstrated.
Notes
