This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schmid, J. Articles by Fiedler, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

A Parsimonious Theory Can Account for Complex Phenomena

A Discursive Analysis of Edwards and Potter's Critique of Non-Discursive Language Research

University of Heidelberg, jeanschmid{at}gmx.de

Klaus Fiedler

University of Heidelberg, kf{at}psi-sv2.psi.uniheidelberg.de

A strong case was made by Edwards and Potter (1993) that discourse analysis is superior to alternative approaches to language analysis. In the present article we apply four models of language analysis to Edwards and Potter's paper, including our Linguistic Category Model (LCM) and their Discursive Action Model (DAM), with converging results. It is concluded that a complex phenomenon like real language in social context does not necessarily need models and methods approaching the same level of complexity. A more parsimonious model can be even better suited to the task.

Key Words: attribution • discourse • language • linguistic categories

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Edwards and J. Potter Language and Causal Attribution: A Rejoinder to Schmid and Fiedler Theory Psychology, December 1, 1999; 9(6): 823 - 836. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Fiedler and J. Schmid Implicit Attributions and Biases: An Answer to Edwards and Potter's Rejoinder Theory Psychology, December 1, 1999; 9(6): 837 - 845. [Abstract] [PDF]