Difference between revisions of "Francis2017"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=David Francis; Sally Hester; |Title=Stephen Hester on the problem of culturalism |Tag(s)=EMCA; Membership Categorization Analysis; |Ke...")
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=David Francis; Sally Hester;  
+
|Author(s)=David Francis; Sally Hester;
 
|Title=Stephen Hester on the problem of culturalism
 
|Title=Stephen Hester on the problem of culturalism
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Membership Categorization Analysis;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Membership Categorization Analysis; Stephen  Hester;  Culturalism;  
 
|Key=Francis2017
 
|Key=Francis2017
 
|Year=2017
 
|Year=2017

Revision as of 03:11, 1 September 2017

Francis2017
BibType ARTICLE
Key Francis2017
Author(s) David Francis, Sally Hester
Title Stephen Hester on the problem of culturalism
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Membership Categorization Analysis, Stephen Hester, Culturalism
Publisher
Year 2017
Language
City
Month September
Journal Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 118
Number
Pages 56-63
URL
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.005
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

At his death in April 2014, Stephen Hester left behind an unfinished manuscript of a book, entitled ‘Descriptions of Deviance’. In this book he takes an MCA approach to examining how categorial formulations of deviance are interactionally constructed and negotiated in talk in educational settings. The data comprise transcriptions of pupil review meetings involving teachers and educational psychologists in an education authority in Northern England. In analysing this data, and consistent with the approach he had championed throughout his career, Hester emphasises the occasionality of categorial formulations. Recognising that this emphasis is not unproblematic and requires careful consideration, before turning to the data he discusses the problem of ‘culturalism’. He argues that Sacks’ distinction between ‘occasioned’ and ‘natural’ category devices does not lend support to the culturalist view of category use. Furthermore, while Schegloff's cautions concerning the methodological pitfalls of MCA are serious and well made, the analysis of categorial data, especially texts, need not fall into the trap of ‘culturalism’.

Notes