Bilmes2008
| Bilmes2008 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Bilmes2008 |
| Author(s) | Jack Bilmes |
| Title | Generally speaking: Formulating an argument in the US Federal Trade Commission |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Reformulation, Argument |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Text & Talk |
| Volume | 28 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 193-217 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/TEXT.2008.009 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article examines a discussion among US Federal Trade Commission attorneys concerning a passage in a draft memo. The focus is primarily on the expression ‘we think it's bad public policy’, which is a reformulation, and a generalization, of what is said in the draft. I propose certain techniques of studying generalization, based in earlier work by Charles Frake and by Harvey Sacks. A close analysis of transcribed talk is combined with semantic/taxonomic considerations and related to ethnographic setting. A central finding is that generalization must be understood not only within its local context of talk but also within wider discursive contexts. The formulation is fitted to an argument, which is in turn fitted to a broader controversy in the agency. The analytic techniques employed in this essay should have broad applicability in studies of how participants formulate their utterances.
Notes
