Difference between revisions of "McHoul2008"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Alec McHoul; |Title=Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction: Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis |Tag(s)=EMCA; E...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Alec McHoul; | + | |Author(s)=Alec McHoul; |
| − | |Title=Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction: | + | |Title=Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction: ethnomethodology and conversation analysis |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Conversation Analysis; Context; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Conversation Analysis; Context; |
|Key=McHoul2008 | |Key=McHoul2008 | ||
|Year=2008 | |Year=2008 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=40 | |Volume=40 | ||
|Number=5 | |Number=5 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=823–826 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216608000027 |
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.009 |
|Abstract=The questions dealt with in this special issue of Journal of Pragmatics are doubly vexed. The first matter at issue is that the papers I have solicited take on some aspects of the debate within, and between, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA) – and, by extension, wider approaches to discourse analysis and perhaps even pragmatics as a whole – as to whether and, if so to what extent, contextual particulars are relevant to the analyst’s task in hand; therefore specifying, to some degree, what that task actually is. | |Abstract=The questions dealt with in this special issue of Journal of Pragmatics are doubly vexed. The first matter at issue is that the papers I have solicited take on some aspects of the debate within, and between, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA) – and, by extension, wider approaches to discourse analysis and perhaps even pragmatics as a whole – as to whether and, if so to what extent, contextual particulars are relevant to the analyst’s task in hand; therefore specifying, to some degree, what that task actually is. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:56, 20 November 2019
| McHoul2008 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | McHoul2008 |
| Author(s) | Alec McHoul |
| Title | Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction: ethnomethodology and conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis, Context |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 40 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 823–826 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.009 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The questions dealt with in this special issue of Journal of Pragmatics are doubly vexed. The first matter at issue is that the papers I have solicited take on some aspects of the debate within, and between, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA) – and, by extension, wider approaches to discourse analysis and perhaps even pragmatics as a whole – as to whether and, if so to what extent, contextual particulars are relevant to the analyst’s task in hand; therefore specifying, to some degree, what that task actually is.
Notes
