Difference between revisions of "Silverman2012"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Pages=329–336 | |Pages=329–336 | ||
|URL=http://dis.sagepub.com/content/14/3/329 | |URL=http://dis.sagepub.com/content/14/3/329 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612440769 | ||
|Abstract=In this response, I examine the ambiguity about the status of Membership Categorization Device Analysis (MCDA) in the work of Harvey Sacks. The ‘five guiding principles’ of MCDA that Stokoe enunciates serve as a crucial guide to future research. In what follows, I give some further examples of data analysis which, I believe, supports both her strong and weaker claims. | |Abstract=In this response, I examine the ambiguity about the status of Membership Categorization Device Analysis (MCDA) in the work of Harvey Sacks. The ‘five guiding principles’ of MCDA that Stokoe enunciates serve as a crucial guide to future research. In what follows, I give some further examples of data analysis which, I believe, supports both her strong and weaker claims. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:58, 23 February 2016
| Silverman2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Silverman2012 |
| Author(s) | David Silverman |
| Title | Beyond armed camps: A response to Stokoe |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, MCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 329–336 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445612440769 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this response, I examine the ambiguity about the status of Membership Categorization Device Analysis (MCDA) in the work of Harvey Sacks. The ‘five guiding principles’ of MCDA that Stokoe enunciates serve as a crucial guide to future research. In what follows, I give some further examples of data analysis which, I believe, supports both her strong and weaker claims.
Notes
