Talk:Conversation analysis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:48, 9 February 2006

Comment by 128.111.131.135

In the edit [1], a comment was inserted, forming the following paragraph.

Unlike other methods of discourse analysis, conversation analysis attempts to include only information present in a conversation itself, ignoring social elements such as the relationship between participants or the setting. Rather than deleting this last sentence, I would want to say that it is a very common misconception about conversation analytic research. It might be more accurate to say that CA requires the relevance for the participants or the consequentiallity for the interaction be demonstrated before invoking one or another correct formulations of relationship or setting.

Any comments? jnothman ^talk 10:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subject index addition

I added the section headed "Subject Index of the Conversation Analytic Literature" in order to initiate creation of a valuable tool for conversation analysts, and discourse analysts in general. Conversation analysts have identified many, many specific interactional phenomena--so many that it is difficult for even veteran readers of the literature to keep track of all of the phenomena, much less where they have been referenced. This section will also act as a kind of extended glossary--anyone who wants to understand a phenomena need only look up the literature on that phenomena. It is hoped that many in the conversation analytic community--particularly including authors of research articles--will continually contribute to this page to create an up-to-date, comprehensive, and powerful resource. Xianknelson 19:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)xianknelson[reply]

We might want to place criteria of entry on this list. I would rather only formative works on each subject, and generally not new and unsupported research. jnothman ^talk 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the intro. to this list not only to help readers filter the citations but also indicate criteria for listing citations. In addition, I've reinstituted the use of a definition list, not only because I think definitions should be listed after each subject, but also because listing each citation on a separate line could make for a very long and unnecessarily unwieldly list.Xianknelson 01:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)xianknelson[reply]

Revision as of 23:19, 8 February 2006 edit Jnothman (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 4,915 edits →subject index addition: reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:48, 9 February 2006 edit undo Xianknelson (talk \| contribs) 51 edits →subject index addition Next edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:

	:We might want to place criteria of entry on this list. I would rather only formative works on each subject, and generally not new and unsupported research. [[user:jnothman\|jnothman]] [[User_talk:jnothman\|<sup>talk</sup>]] 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)		:We might want to place criteria of entry on this list. I would rather only formative works on each subject, and generally not new and unsupported research. [[user:jnothman\|jnothman]] [[User_talk:jnothman\|<sup>talk</sup>]] 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

			::I've altered the intro. to this list not only to help readers filter the citations but also indicate criteria for listing citations. In addition, I've reinstituted the use of a definition list, not only because I think definitions should be listed after each subject, but also because listing each citation on a separate line could make for a very long and unnecessarily unwieldly list.[[User:Xianknelson\|Xianknelson]] 01:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)xianknelson