Difference between revisions of "Nishizaka2015"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Aug Nishizaka; | |Author(s)=Aug Nishizaka; | ||
| − | |Title=Facts and | + | |Title=Facts and normative connections: two different worldviews |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Coding; Methodology; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Coding; Methodology; |
|Key=Nishizaka2015 | |Key=Nishizaka2015 | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | |Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | ||
|Volume=48 | |Volume=48 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
|Pages=26–31 | |Pages=26–31 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08351813.2015.993840 |
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2015.993840 | |DOI=10.1080/08351813.2015.993840 | ||
|Abstract=Stivers (2015/this issue) convincingly documents one systematic way in which Conversation Analysis (CA) can provide CA-grounded categories for formal coding. However, formal coding belongs to the view of the world as an aggregate of facts, while CA is involved in the view of the world as normative connections. These worldviews are entirely different and therefore nonrival, and they may be able to provide each other with well-grounded resources. Although CA-grounded formal coding has its place, so too does trying to respecify, and make directly accessible, all facts as normative accomplishments. | |Abstract=Stivers (2015/this issue) convincingly documents one systematic way in which Conversation Analysis (CA) can provide CA-grounded categories for formal coding. However, formal coding belongs to the view of the world as an aggregate of facts, while CA is involved in the view of the world as normative connections. These worldviews are entirely different and therefore nonrival, and they may be able to provide each other with well-grounded resources. Although CA-grounded formal coding has its place, so too does trying to respecify, and make directly accessible, all facts as normative accomplishments. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:42, 15 December 2019
| Nishizaka2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Nishizaka2015 |
| Author(s) | Aug Nishizaka |
| Title | Facts and normative connections: two different worldviews |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Coding, Methodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 48 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 26–31 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2015.993840 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Stivers (2015/this issue) convincingly documents one systematic way in which Conversation Analysis (CA) can provide CA-grounded categories for formal coding. However, formal coding belongs to the view of the world as an aggregate of facts, while CA is involved in the view of the world as normative connections. These worldviews are entirely different and therefore nonrival, and they may be able to provide each other with well-grounded resources. Although CA-grounded formal coding has its place, so too does trying to respecify, and make directly accessible, all facts as normative accomplishments.
Notes
