Difference between revisions of "Boyle2000"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Ronald Boyle |Title=Whatever happened to preference organisation? |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Preference organization; Ethnomet...")
 
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Ronald Boyle
 
|Author(s)=Ronald Boyle
 
|Title=Whatever happened to preference organisation?
 
|Title=Whatever happened to preference organisation?
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Preference organization; Ethnomethodology; Discourse;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Preference organization; Ethnomethodology; Discourse;
 
|Key=Boyle2000
 
|Key=Boyle2000
 
|Year=2000
 
|Year=2000
Line 9: Line 9:
 
|Volume=32
 
|Volume=32
 
|Number=5
 
|Number=5
|Pages=583-604
+
|Pages=583–604
 
|URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216699000600
 
|URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216699000600
 +
|DOI=10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00060-0
 
|Abstract=Preference organisation was once a prominent concept in conversation analysis, but it has been construed in a number of mutually incompatible ways and it is now used in a very restricted manner. With the publication of Harvey Sacks' collected lectures, however, it has been possible to take a fresh look at the concept and to provide a criterion of preference. This paper shows that preference can be explained in terms of noticeable absence and accountability. The preferred action is the “seen but unnoticed” action (Garfinkel, 1967), whereas the dispreferred action is of two types. The first is noticeable and accountable, but not sanctionable, while the second is noticeable, accountable and sanctionable. The paper shows how this concept operates in three key lectures by Sacks and in data extracts.
 
|Abstract=Preference organisation was once a prominent concept in conversation analysis, but it has been construed in a number of mutually incompatible ways and it is now used in a very restricted manner. With the publication of Harvey Sacks' collected lectures, however, it has been possible to take a fresh look at the concept and to provide a criterion of preference. This paper shows that preference can be explained in terms of noticeable absence and accountability. The preferred action is the “seen but unnoticed” action (Garfinkel, 1967), whereas the dispreferred action is of two types. The first is noticeable and accountable, but not sanctionable, while the second is noticeable, accountable and sanctionable. The paper shows how this concept operates in three key lectures by Sacks and in data extracts.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 11:09, 27 October 2019

Boyle2000
BibType ARTICLE
Key Boyle2000
Author(s) Ronald Boyle
Title Whatever happened to preference organisation?
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Preference organization, Ethnomethodology, Discourse
Publisher
Year 2000
Language
City
Month
Journal Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 32
Number 5
Pages 583–604
URL Link
DOI 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00060-0
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Preference organisation was once a prominent concept in conversation analysis, but it has been construed in a number of mutually incompatible ways and it is now used in a very restricted manner. With the publication of Harvey Sacks' collected lectures, however, it has been possible to take a fresh look at the concept and to provide a criterion of preference. This paper shows that preference can be explained in terms of noticeable absence and accountability. The preferred action is the “seen but unnoticed” action (Garfinkel, 1967), whereas the dispreferred action is of two types. The first is noticeable and accountable, but not sanctionable, while the second is noticeable, accountable and sanctionable. The paper shows how this concept operates in three key lectures by Sacks and in data extracts.

Notes