Hutchby2005a
Revision as of 16:05, 9 December 2016 by DarceySearles (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Ian Hutchby; |Title="Incommensurable" studies of mobile phone conversation: A reply to Ilkka Arminen |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysi...")
| Hutchby2005a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hutchby2005a |
| Author(s) | Ian Hutchby |
| Title | "Incommensurable" studies of mobile phone conversation: A reply to Ilkka Arminen |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Affordances, Mobile phone, Telephone |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2005 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 7 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 663-670 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445605057863 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Arminen(2005) claimsthattworecentstudiesof mobilephone conversation (Hutchby and Barnett, 2005 and Arminen and Leinonen, forthcoming) come up with incommensurate findings. He relates this to two distinct approaches to the methodology of conversation analysis. In this reply I show that the two studies in question are not incommensurate and argue that Arminen's account is based on a partial description of the findings in Hutchby and Barnett (2005). I go on to show how the latter study presents an approach to the problematic relationship in CA between talk and extraneous contingencies that goes further than Arminen's own proposals.
Notes
