Journal of Language and Social Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Learn about Basics of Communication

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Potter, J.
Right arrow Articles by Wetherell, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1-2, 216-222 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X95141012

Natural Order

Why Social Psychologists should Study (a Constructed Version of) Natural Language, and Why they Have Not Done So

Jonathan Potter

Loughborough University

Margaret Wetherell

The Open University

This article argues that the notion of natural language should be treated with caution, for natural language is not an empirical object so much as the product of a particular analytic stance that is sensitive to the action orientation and sequential embeddedness of discourse. The virtue of studying materials that are generated without the influence of researchers (e.g., records of talk in home and work situations) is pressed. However, it is suggested that social psychologists are impeded in pursuing such a course by their adherence to hypothetico deductivist methods, tocognitivist metatheory, and toetic rather than emic styles of analysis.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 New Media SocietyHome page
J. Lamerichs and H. F.M. T. Molder
Computer-Mediated Communication: From a Cognitive to a Discursive Model
New Media Society, December 1, 2003; 5(4): 451 - 473.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Feminism PsychologyHome page
S. A. Speer
Reconsidering the Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: Discursive Psychology, Conversation Analysis and Participants' Orientations
Feminism Psychology, February 1, 2001; 11(1): 107 - 135.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Feminism PsychologyHome page
S. A. Speer
Let's Get Real? Feminism, Constructionism and the Realism/Relativism Debate
Feminism Psychology, November 1, 2000; 10(4): 519 - 530.
[PDF]

Home page
 Discourse SocietyHome page
S. A. SPEER and J. POTTER
The Management of Heterosexist Talk: Conversational Resources and Prejudiced Claims
Discourse Society, October 1, 2000; 11(4): 543 - 572.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
J. Schmid and K. Fiedler
A Parsimonious Theory Can Account for Complex Phenomena: A Discursive Analysis of Edwards and Potter's Critique of Non-Discursive Language Research
Theory Psychology, December 1, 1999; 9(6): 807 - 822.
[Abstract] [PDF]