Difference between revisions of "Gardner2012a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Rod Gardner; |Title=Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; |Key=Gardner2012a |Year=2012 |Journal=Discourse S...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Rod Gardner; | + | |Author(s)=Rod Gardner; |
|Title=Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys | |Title=Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; |
|Key=Gardner2012a | |Key=Gardner2012a | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
|Journal=Discourse Studies | |Journal=Discourse Studies | ||
|Volume=14 | |Volume=14 | ||
| − | |Pages=313- | + | |Number=3 |
| + | |Pages=313–319 | ||
| + | |URL=http://dis.sagepub.com/content/14/3/313 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612440772 | ||
| + | |Abstract=In this commentary on Stokoe’s article, ‘Moving forward with membership categorization analysis’, I take up the challenge to apply her keys for MCA to an extract of conversation recorded in a restaurant. The strengths of conversation analysis have not included – and indeed have not attempted to achieve – successful engagement with beyond-the-immediate-talk aspects of culture and the commonsense workings of society. The aim of the article is to explore what MCA might add to an analysis of a stretch of talk using conversation analytic tools. It was found that a systematic application of the keys did indeed provide a richer account of what was going on. Whereas categories alone did not appear to provide more insights than commonsense can tell us, when the broader array of MCA tools and keys were applied, an enhanced analysis of the passage of talk emerged. An exploration of whether this can be extended as a method for a rigorous investigation of culture and society while still being grounded in participants’ mutual, moment-by-moment orientations to categories seems at the very least worth the serious attention of scholars interested in interaction. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 04:02, 26 February 2016
| Gardner2012a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Gardner2012a |
| Author(s) | Rod Gardner |
| Title | Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, MCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 313–319 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445612440772 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this commentary on Stokoe’s article, ‘Moving forward with membership categorization analysis’, I take up the challenge to apply her keys for MCA to an extract of conversation recorded in a restaurant. The strengths of conversation analysis have not included – and indeed have not attempted to achieve – successful engagement with beyond-the-immediate-talk aspects of culture and the commonsense workings of society. The aim of the article is to explore what MCA might add to an analysis of a stretch of talk using conversation analytic tools. It was found that a systematic application of the keys did indeed provide a richer account of what was going on. Whereas categories alone did not appear to provide more insights than commonsense can tell us, when the broader array of MCA tools and keys were applied, an enhanced analysis of the passage of talk emerged. An exploration of whether this can be extended as a method for a rigorous investigation of culture and society while still being grounded in participants’ mutual, moment-by-moment orientations to categories seems at the very least worth the serious attention of scholars interested in interaction.
Notes
