Difference between revisions of "Rapley2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Tim Rapley |Title=Order, order: A ‘modest’ response to Stokoe |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; |Key=Rapley2012 |Year=2012 |Journal=Discourse Stud...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Tim Rapley | |Author(s)=Tim Rapley | ||
|Title=Order, order: A ‘modest’ response to Stokoe | |Title=Order, order: A ‘modest’ response to Stokoe | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; |
|Key=Rapley2012 | |Key=Rapley2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=14 | |Volume=14 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages=321 | + | |Pages=321–328 |
| + | |URL=http://dis.sagepub.com/content/14/3/321 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612440775 | ||
| + | |Abstract=In this commentary, initially I return to Schegloff’s ideas about the potential promiscuity of the analyst who works with categories. I then note how Stokoe’s article is centred on working with fragments where speakers explicitly mark themselves or another speaker as a member of a specific category. I close the commentary by arguing for, at times, the inclusion of a more modest and contingent analysis that works to explore both the moments when speakers ‘go categorical’ alongside those when such category work is less explicit. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 13:08, 24 February 2016
| Rapley2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Rapley2012 |
| Author(s) | Tim Rapley |
| Title | Order, order: A ‘modest’ response to Stokoe |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, MCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 321–328 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445612440775 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this commentary, initially I return to Schegloff’s ideas about the potential promiscuity of the analyst who works with categories. I then note how Stokoe’s article is centred on working with fragments where speakers explicitly mark themselves or another speaker as a member of a specific category. I close the commentary by arguing for, at times, the inclusion of a more modest and contingent analysis that works to explore both the moments when speakers ‘go categorical’ alongside those when such category work is less explicit.
Notes
