Difference between revisions of "VazquezCarranza2023"
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Ariel Vázquez Carranza; |Title=Conversation analysis and Wittgenstein |Tag(s)=EMCA; In press; context; conversation analysis; meaning;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Ariel Vázquez Carranza; | |Author(s)=Ariel Vázquez Carranza; | ||
|Title=Conversation analysis and Wittgenstein | |Title=Conversation analysis and Wittgenstein | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; context; conversation analysis; meaning; understanding; Wittgenstein |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=VazquezCarranza2023 |
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2023 |
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Text & Talk | |Journal=Text & Talk | ||
| + | |Volume=43 | ||
| + | |Number=4 | ||
| + | |Pages=523–542 | ||
|URL=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2021-0017/html | |URL=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2021-0017/html | ||
|DOI=10.1515/text-2021-0017 | |DOI=10.1515/text-2021-0017 | ||
|Abstract=In the present paper I discuss the affinities between conversation analysis and Wittgenstein’s later ordinary language philosophy. Although both paradigms differ in purpose, they share some similarities: they both conceive language as an instrument for action, understanding as a manifestation of behaviour, and meaning as something generated in situ. I suggest that the concepts of adjacency pair, positionally sensitive grammar, and action ascription particularise, in some ways, Wittgenstein’s notion of context. Both paradigms share similarities and differences in terms of method and in terms of their conception of rules; for example, both are inductive approaches but for Wittgenstein rules are normative in principle whereas for conversation analysts like Sacks they are primarily practical. | |Abstract=In the present paper I discuss the affinities between conversation analysis and Wittgenstein’s later ordinary language philosophy. Although both paradigms differ in purpose, they share some similarities: they both conceive language as an instrument for action, understanding as a manifestation of behaviour, and meaning as something generated in situ. I suggest that the concepts of adjacency pair, positionally sensitive grammar, and action ascription particularise, in some ways, Wittgenstein’s notion of context. Both paradigms share similarities and differences in terms of method and in terms of their conception of rules; for example, both are inductive approaches but for Wittgenstein rules are normative in principle whereas for conversation analysts like Sacks they are primarily practical. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 11:19, 11 July 2023
| VazquezCarranza2023 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | VazquezCarranza2023 |
| Author(s) | Ariel Vázquez Carranza |
| Title | Conversation analysis and Wittgenstein |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, context, conversation analysis, meaning, understanding, Wittgenstein |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2023 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Text & Talk |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 523–542 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/text-2021-0017 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In the present paper I discuss the affinities between conversation analysis and Wittgenstein’s later ordinary language philosophy. Although both paradigms differ in purpose, they share some similarities: they both conceive language as an instrument for action, understanding as a manifestation of behaviour, and meaning as something generated in situ. I suggest that the concepts of adjacency pair, positionally sensitive grammar, and action ascription particularise, in some ways, Wittgenstein’s notion of context. Both paradigms share similarities and differences in terms of method and in terms of their conception of rules; for example, both are inductive approaches but for Wittgenstein rules are normative in principle whereas for conversation analysts like Sacks they are primarily practical.
Notes
