Book review: Aurora Donzelli, One or Two Words: Language and Politics in the Toraja Highlands of Indonesia

IF 2.4 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Nicco A. La Mattina
{"title":"Book review: Aurora Donzelli, One or Two Words: Language and Politics in the Toraja Highlands of Indonesia","authors":"Nicco A. La Mattina","doi":"10.1177/09579265211048563b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"officer’s non-reciprocal response to it as illustrative of an interprofessional competition between police and academic researchers (p. 87). The assumption behind the research is that bodily conduct does not merely serve as an additional feature to verbal conduct but in fact imposes particular meaning and significance to selective descriptions. Although this is certainly visible in other contexts (such as episodes of police violence, which can later be assessed in court), it does not strike me as an entirely convincing reading of some extracts presented throughout the book. Notable exceptions are the ones presented in chapter 6 and 7, which are powerful examples of how the use of multimodal resources change the perception of participants about the actions being accomplished. One of the limitations of the book is that no matter of how precise the authors’ descriptions are, the absence of video clips hampered this reader’s understanding of some of the analytical points involving the combination of the different modalities (see for example their analysis on gesture and lexical choice, which involves movement pace, p. 76). Some multimodal studies journals have been recently encouraging authors to include video clips or animations of the extracts in their papers. Although the difficulty or impossibility of including these resources in a written analysis is certainly not the authors’ fault, I believe it is important to recognize that readers, especially those not yet familiar with multimodal analysis, would benefit tremendously from the addition of such extra material. Multimodal Performance and Interaction in Focus Group is an insightful reading and offers an original take on how to analyse focus groups, considering them as deeply moral events that have practical implications to participants. In the context of community policing, it helps us to take a step back; before evaluating policing training, we should understand participants’ sense of community and how they achieve this by bringing different kinds of meaning-making resources together. Even though the authors do not explicitly mention a particular audience, the book will certainly benefit discourse scholars in a broader sense as well as those interested in conducting focus groups as part of their research. Additionally, the discussions generated about community and tensions involving police expertise and jurisdiction may appeal to researchers studying police settings and practices, particularly those working closely with law enforcement.","PeriodicalId":47965,"journal":{"name":"Discourse & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse & Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265211048563b","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

officer’s non-reciprocal response to it as illustrative of an interprofessional competition between police and academic researchers (p. 87). The assumption behind the research is that bodily conduct does not merely serve as an additional feature to verbal conduct but in fact imposes particular meaning and significance to selective descriptions. Although this is certainly visible in other contexts (such as episodes of police violence, which can later be assessed in court), it does not strike me as an entirely convincing reading of some extracts presented throughout the book. Notable exceptions are the ones presented in chapter 6 and 7, which are powerful examples of how the use of multimodal resources change the perception of participants about the actions being accomplished. One of the limitations of the book is that no matter of how precise the authors’ descriptions are, the absence of video clips hampered this reader’s understanding of some of the analytical points involving the combination of the different modalities (see for example their analysis on gesture and lexical choice, which involves movement pace, p. 76). Some multimodal studies journals have been recently encouraging authors to include video clips or animations of the extracts in their papers. Although the difficulty or impossibility of including these resources in a written analysis is certainly not the authors’ fault, I believe it is important to recognize that readers, especially those not yet familiar with multimodal analysis, would benefit tremendously from the addition of such extra material. Multimodal Performance and Interaction in Focus Group is an insightful reading and offers an original take on how to analyse focus groups, considering them as deeply moral events that have practical implications to participants. In the context of community policing, it helps us to take a step back; before evaluating policing training, we should understand participants’ sense of community and how they achieve this by bringing different kinds of meaning-making resources together. Even though the authors do not explicitly mention a particular audience, the book will certainly benefit discourse scholars in a broader sense as well as those interested in conducting focus groups as part of their research. Additionally, the discussions generated about community and tensions involving police expertise and jurisdiction may appeal to researchers studying police settings and practices, particularly those working closely with law enforcement.
书评:Aurora Donzelli,《一两个词:印度尼西亚托拉贾高地的语言与政治》
警察对此的非对等回应说明了警察和学术研究人员之间的跨专业竞争(第87页)。这项研究背后的假设是,身体行为不仅是言语行为的一个附加特征,而且实际上赋予了选择性描述特定的意义和意义。尽管这在其他情况下肯定是显而易见的(比如警察暴力事件,稍后可以在法庭上进行评估),但我对整本书中的一些摘录并没有完全信服。值得注意的例外情况是第6章和第7章中介绍的例外情况,它们有力地说明了多模式资源的使用如何改变参与者对正在完成的行动的看法。这本书的局限性之一是,无论作者的描述多么精确,视频剪辑的缺乏都阻碍了读者对涉及不同模态组合的一些分析点的理解(例如,参见他们对手势和词汇选择的分析,其中涉及运动节奏,第76页)。一些多模态研究期刊最近鼓励作者在论文中加入摘录的视频剪辑或动画。尽管在书面分析中包含这些资源的困难或不可能肯定不是作者的错,但我认为重要的是要认识到,读者,尤其是那些还不熟悉多模态分析的读者,将从添加这些额外的材料中受益匪浅。《焦点小组中的多模式表现与互动》是一本富有洞察力的读物,它对如何分析焦点小组提供了独创性的见解,将其视为对参与者具有实际意义的深刻道德事件。在社区治安方面,它有助于我们后退一步;在评估警务培训之前,我们应该了解参与者的社区意识,以及他们如何通过将不同类型的意义制造资源整合在一起来实现这一点。尽管作者没有明确提到特定的受众,但这本书肯定会使更广泛意义上的话语学者以及那些有兴趣将焦点小组作为研究的一部分的人受益。此外,关于社区和涉及警察专业知识和管辖权的紧张局势的讨论可能会吸引研究警察环境和做法的研究人员,特别是那些与执法部门密切合作的研究人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Discourse & Society is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal whose major aim is to publish outstanding research at the boundaries of discourse analysis and the social sciences. It focuses on explicit theory formation and analysis of the relationships between the structures of text, talk, language use, verbal interaction or communication, on the one hand, and societal, political or cultural micro- and macrostructures and cognitive social representations, on the other hand. That is, D&S studies society through discourse and discourse through an analysis of its socio-political and cultural functions or implications. Its contributions are based on advanced theory formation and methodologies of several disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信