Categories in Text and Talk

Lepper, Georgia

doi:10.4135/9781849208727

Cited by 183 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To the best of my knowledge, only one textbook exists (Lepper, 2000); although a small number of other books, articles and chapters include descriptions of categorization methodology (e.g., Hester & Eglin, 1997;Silverman, 1998;2001). Key MCA publications make visible aspects of the method-in-use (e.g., Hester & Eglin, 1997;Jayyusi, 1991;Lee, 1984;Wowk, 1984;Watson, 1978).…”

Section: Doing Membership Categorization Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article has four aims. First, it will consider explicitly, and polemically, the hierarchical relationship between conversation analysis (CA) and membership categorization analysis (MCA). Whilst the CA ‘juggernaut’ flourishes, the MCA ‘milk float’ is in danger of being run off the road. For MCA to survive either as a separate discipline, or within CA as a focus equivalent to other ‘generic orders of conversation’, I suggest it must generate new types of systematic studies and reveal fundamental categorial practices. With such a goal in mind, the second aim of the article is to provide a set of clear analytic steps and procedures for conducting MCA, which are grounded in basic categorial and sequential concerns. Third, the article aims to demonstrate how order can be found in the intuitively ‘messy’ discourse phenomenon of membership categories, and how to approach their analysis systematically as a robust feature of particular action-oriented environments. Through the exemplar analyses, the final aim of the article is to promote MCA as a method for interrogating culture, reality and society, without recourse to its reputed ‘wild and promiscuous’ analytic approach.

show abstract

Section: Doing Membership Categorization Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sacks, 1986; see also e.g. Lepper, 2000;Silverman, 1998). As a form of ethnomethodological inquiry, MCA is dedicated to explicating the ordinary, practical and commonsensical reasoning that people apply as they categorise themselves and others as different kinds of members of society, and how they use this categorisation in mutually recognisable ways as an interactional resource.…”

Section: Ethnomethodological Perspective On Sharing Cultural Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…She then provides another cultural interpretation on the subject matter by presenting a comment about people in Finland ridiculing the constraints introduced by the digitalisation of doctors' work. References to popular sayings and jokes serve as 'factual' evidence that authorises speakers' knowledge claims (Lepper, 2000). Elina shares insider knowledge about the general experience of being a patient in Finland.…”

Section: 'Interpretation Giver -Recipient'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is evident in Elina's turn as she uses the pronouns 'we' and 'here'. Pronouns are indexicals or expressions whose meaning is in part dependent upon the features of the context of utterance (Lepper, 2000). Indexicals implicate categorisation work.…”

Section: 'Interpretation Giver -Recipient'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Utilising the ethnomethodological framework of membership categorisation analysis (MCA) (e.g. Lepper, 2000;Sacks, 1986), this study seeks to identify and describe the systematic and commonsensical ways in which the participants share cultural knowledge in interaction through mobilising categorisation as 'cultural knower' and 'not knower' for oneself and the other(s).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations