Difference between revisions of "Makitalo2002"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Asa Mäkitalo; Roger Säljö |Title=Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: Categories as situated practices |T...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Asa Mäkitalo; Roger Säljö | |Author(s)=Asa Mäkitalo; Roger Säljö | ||
|Title=Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: Categories as situated practices | |Title=Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: Categories as situated practices | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Institutional discourse; Context; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Institutional discourse; Context; |
|Key=Mäkitalo2002 | |Key=Mäkitalo2002 | ||
|Year=2002 | |Year=2002 | ||
|Journal=Text | |Journal=Text | ||
|Volume=22 | |Volume=22 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=1 |
| + | |Pages=57–82 | ||
|URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.1.2002.22.issue-1/text.2002.005/text.2002.005.xml | |URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.1.2002.22.issue-1/text.2002.005/text.2002.005.xml | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1515/text.2002.005 |
| + | |Abstract=The conception of the relationship between social context and communicative practices is a critical element of social science theorizing. What is at stake is, amongst other things, the balance between accounting for stable institutional practices, on the one hand, and the occasioned nature of interactional accomplishments, on the other. This analytical issue is discussed in the context of talk in a particular institutional setting, an employment office, with particular reference to the use of categories, a rather neglected topic in discourse analysis. In this setting, participants invoke specific traditions of argumentation and ways of reasoning through their use of categories (and categorical knowledge), and such resources are essential for the accomplishment of interaction. This implies, amongst other things, that for the analyst to be able to account for the accomplishment of in situ talk, familiarity with traditions of argumentation and their constituting possibilities within institutional practices is essential. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 01:07, 30 October 2019
| Makitalo2002 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Mäkitalo2002 |
| Author(s) | Asa Mäkitalo, Roger Säljö |
| Title | Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: Categories as situated practices |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Institutional discourse, Context |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2002 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Text |
| Volume | 22 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 57–82 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/text.2002.005 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The conception of the relationship between social context and communicative practices is a critical element of social science theorizing. What is at stake is, amongst other things, the balance between accounting for stable institutional practices, on the one hand, and the occasioned nature of interactional accomplishments, on the other. This analytical issue is discussed in the context of talk in a particular institutional setting, an employment office, with particular reference to the use of categories, a rather neglected topic in discourse analysis. In this setting, participants invoke specific traditions of argumentation and ways of reasoning through their use of categories (and categorical knowledge), and such resources are essential for the accomplishment of interaction. This implies, amongst other things, that for the analyst to be able to account for the accomplishment of in situ talk, familiarity with traditions of argumentation and their constituting possibilities within institutional practices is essential.
Notes
