Difference between revisions of "EdwardsPotter1999"
MeaPopoviciu (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Derek Edwards; Jonathan Potter; |Title=Language and Causal Attribution. A Rejoinder to Schmid and Fiedler |Tag(s)=Discursive Psychology...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Derek Edwards; Jonathan Potter; | + | |Author(s)=Derek Edwards; Jonathan Potter; |
| − | |Title=Language and | + | |Title=Language and causal attribution: a rejoinder to Schmid and Fiedler |
| − | |Tag(s)=Discursive Psychology; | + | |Tag(s)=Discursive Psychology; |
|Key=EdwardsPotter1999 | |Key=EdwardsPotter1999 | ||
|Year=1999 | |Year=1999 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=9 | |Volume=9 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=849–863 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354399096006 |
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0959354399096006 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This rejoinder identifies a range of flaws in Schmid and Fiedler's (1999) analysis and critique of Edwards and Potter (1993), and highlights a range of unresolved problems with the `Linguistic Category Model' of attribution. Schmid and Fiedler apply parsimony in an inappropriate manner; they confuse linguistic analysis and argumentative critique. Two illustrative analyses highlight the distinction between grammatical and attributional agency, and thereby the Linguistic Category Model's insufficiency as an account of attribution when compared to the discursive approach. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:24, 27 October 2019
| EdwardsPotter1999 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | EdwardsPotter1999 |
| Author(s) | Derek Edwards, Jonathan Potter |
| Title | Language and causal attribution: a rejoinder to Schmid and Fiedler |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Discursive Psychology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1999 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Theory & Psychology |
| Volume | 9 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 849–863 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0959354399096006 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This rejoinder identifies a range of flaws in Schmid and Fiedler's (1999) analysis and critique of Edwards and Potter (1993), and highlights a range of unresolved problems with the `Linguistic Category Model' of attribution. Schmid and Fiedler apply parsimony in an inappropriate manner; they confuse linguistic analysis and argumentative critique. Two illustrative analyses highlight the distinction between grammatical and attributional agency, and thereby the Linguistic Category Model's insufficiency as an account of attribution when compared to the discursive approach.
Notes
