PropertyValue
?:abstract
  • A number of ways of treating talk and textual data are identified which fall short of discourse analysis. They are: (1) under-analysis through summary; (2) underanalysis through taking sides; (3) under-analysis through over-quotation or through isolated quotation; (4) the circular identification of discourses & mental constructs; (5) false survey; (6) analysis that consists in simply spotting features. We show, by applying each of these to an extract from a recorded interview, that none of them actually analyze the data. We hope that illustrating shortcomings in this way will encourage further development of rigorous discourse analysis in social psychology. (xsd:string)
?:contributor
?:dateModified
  • 2003 (xsd:gyear)
?:datePublished
  • 2003 (xsd:gyear)
?:duplicate
?:hasFulltext
  • true (xsd:boolean)
is ?:hasPart of
?:inLanguage
  • es (xsd:string)
?:isPartOf
?:issueNumber
  • 3 (xsd:string)
?:linksURN
is ?:mainEntity of
?:name
  • El análisis del discurso implica analizar: crítica de seis atajos analíticos (xsd:string)
?:provider
?:publicationType
  • Zeitschriftenartikel (xsd:string)
  • journal_article (en)
?:sourceInfo
  • GESIS-SSOAR (xsd:string)
  • In: Athenea Digital: Revista de Pensamiento e Investigacion Social, 2003, 3, 14-35 (xsd:string)
rdf:type
?:url
?:urn
  • urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-64766 ()