DOCSLIB.ORG

Conversation Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conversation Analysis Conversation Analysis 153 Conversation Analysis H Mazeland, University of Groningen, Groningen, with the original recording, the transcription enables The Netherlands researchers to examine the forms of language use that ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. were available to the participants in the recorded interaction itself. A CA transcription is still readable without consid- Introduction erable expert knowledge. The transcript does not What kinds of social organizations are used as represent speech production at the level of its me- resources when people communicate through talk in chanical reproducibility (the etic approach that is interaction? It is this question that conversation anal- typical of phonetics). Rather, the transcription pro- ysis attempts to answer. Conversation analysis (CA) vides an empirically reliable approximation of the studies the methods participants orient to when they interpretative assemblies that participants in talk are organize social action through talk. It investigates working with (the emic approach). A transcription is rules and practices from an interactional perspective the combined result of carefully listening to how and and studies them by examining recordings of real-life where utterances are produced and the interpretative interactions. work of the transcriber as a competent member of the Although conversation analytic research may be culture under investigation. subsumed in typically linguistic disciplines such as Extract (1) exemplifies this way of transcribing pragmatics, discourse analysis, or (interactional) so- talk. It documents a short episode – just 7 seconds – ciolinguistics, it started in American sociology. In from a Dutch telephone conversation (the original particular, the sociologists Erving Goffman (see text is followed by an English translation in italics): Goffman, Erving (1922–1982)) and Harold Garfinkel prepared the ground in which CA arose – Goffman Extract (1). Telephone call between brothers. Back- with his study of cultural rules and rituals in face-to- ground information: Jan is calling his brother Ton face interaction (Drew and Wootton, 1988), and Gar- from their Rhine barge. Their parents sail a barge as finkel with his investigations into the situated and well. Ton is in the office of the shipping exchange. normative character of shared understanding in ev- Caller Jan is inquiring whether their mother is also at eryday courses of action (Heritage, 1984). Enabled by the shipping exchange. the spread of recording techniques that opened new 54 Jan: mamah, (0.2) is die d’r ook? ways of inspecting interactional data, Harvey Sacks mama (.) is she there too? (y1975) and Emanuel Schegloff established a novel 55 0.4 paradigm for researching the organization of human 56 Ton: HE` ":h? action in and through talk in interaction (Schegloff, huh? 1968; Schegloff and Sacks, 1973; Sacks, 1992) (see 57 (.) Telephone Talk; Sacks, Harvey (1935–1975)). Al- 58 Jan: mama:h though the foundational work in CA focuses on talk mama in conversations, the framework has gradually been 59 0.6 extended to research of other types of talk such as 60 Ton: waa:r medical and clinical interaction, lessons, or news where 61 0.3 interviews. This is why the more general characteri- 62 Jan: is die daa:r? zation ‘talk in interaction’ nowadays is often pre- is she there? ferred over ‘conversation.’ 63 0.3 64 Ton: "hie":r? Studying Transcriptions of Recorded Talk here? 65 (.) In conversation analysis, the investigation begins 66 Jan: j [ah with making an audio and/or video recording of nat- yes urally occurring talk. These recordings are carefully 67 Ton: [nEEj! transcribed according to specific conventions first de- nO! veloped by Gail Jefferson (see Jefferson, 2004). The 68 (.) CA transcription notation is designed for rendering 69 Jan: oh:. 70 0.6 details that contribute to the organization and intelli- gibility of talk. It helps to retain features of prosody In order to be able to read a transcription like this and turn positioning in the transcription. Together one, the reader has to know the conventions. Notice 154 Conversation Analysis first that each speaker contribution – or turn – has a organization of turn taking. Second, the talk in this separate line. This indicates the turn’s chronological fragment is an interactionally coherent exchange of position relative to its predecessor and its successor. communicative actions. The episode starts with a Other notation conventions include: question and it ends with the answer to that question (see lines 54 and 67, respectively). How are we able to . 0.6 The length of silences between and recognize this kind of interactional order in a series of within turns is measured in tenths of utterances? How is it achieved? This question is an- seconds. swered at the level of sequence organization, that is, . (.) A dot between brackets (.) indicates a the way in which participants coordinate actions in short silence of less than 0.2 seconds. series of turns in order to effectuate interactional . [ In the case of simultaneous talk, the projects. onset of the overlapping turn is located by a left square bracket in the over- lapped turn. Turn Design and the Organization of . .,? Aperiod indicates a falling final pitch Turn Taking contour, a comma a slightly rising A remarkable feature of the interaction in extract (1) pitch contour, and a question mark a is that speaker change is coordinated smoothly. Both strongly rising one. interruptions (or other kinds of simultaneous talk) . #" Vertical arrows provide information and gaps are relatively rare. In a seminal paper first about local pitch movements within published in 1974, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson syllables or at the level of a single syl- formulate these observations in more technical, orga- lable. A downward arrow signals a nizational terms; the participants display an orienta- falling tone movement, an upward tion to minimization of overlap, while at the same arrow a rising one. time, they also orient to minimization of gap. Sacks . word Underlining signals salient stress. and his colleagues account for this fine organizational . wor:d A colon renders a noticeable sound balance by a description of the systematics that stretch. conversationalists orient to when they coordinate . sto- The hyphen is used as a cut-off marker. the organization of turn taking. >faster< This utterance part is produced with The basic organizational problem that participants higher pace than the talk surrounding have to solve each turn anew is to determine when the it. speaker will complete the current turn. The recipient . <slower> The pace is relatively slower. is not only figuring out what the turn is about and . LOud Capitals indicate relative loudness. what the speaker is doing with it, he also has to be . soft The degree sign signals that an utter- alert for the moment it might become his turn to ance part is produced more softly than speak. Recipients anticipate such organizationally re- the surrounding talk. levant moments by building expectations as to what . Áh Hearable inbreath. the utterance underway is going to look like. Turns . hh Hearable aspiration. are produced linearly in real time, but in the course . (guess) The transcriber is uncertain about the of a turn’s production, a recipient can make an in- utterance part between parentheses. formed guess about the structure of the whole unit by Even the transcription of a brief episode such as inspecting – in its environment of use – the part that is the one documented in extract (1) already displays already there. The turn so far provides cues as to how very basic features of talk in interaction. Note, for a the unit underway is constructed and when it will start, how short turns may be. If the reader was possibly be complete. expecting utterances in turns at talk to consist of The building stones of turns are turn constructional complete, well-structured sentences, he will be sur- units (TCUs). Each turn is built with at least one turn prised to find out how little the participants need to constructional unit. The design of a TCU may vary. achieve meaningful verbal interaction. How do they A TCU can be built as a one-word unit, such as the do this? This question will be answered by looking at turns with no more than the words here, yes, or no in two levels of the organization of talk that are central extract (1). Other TCUs have a syntactically more in conversation analytic research: turn taking and elaborate design, such as the interrogative clause ‘is sequence organization. The interaction in extract (1) she there too.’ Depending on the unit type the speaker shows that the participants know where and how to is recognizably using for the construction of a TCU, change the roles of speaker and listener. How they the recipient will make different predictions as to manage this is the subject of the section about the when the ongoing turn may be complete. Conversation Analysis 155 Figure 1 Prosodic analysis of the TCU in lines 321–322 of extract (2). The more complex the unit type is, the more facet- information. Whereas the TCU’s construction type ed the projection of completeness. Compare the ex- ‘nominates’ a place in an ongoing TCU as a syntacti- tract below. Angela begins a TCU with a particular cally plausible point of completeness, prosody can type of subordinate clause ((but) if you get them back, ‘second’ the nomination (Schegloff, 1998). For exam- line 321). This makes the unit underway analyzable ple, a speaker can stretch or reduce the vocalization of as the first part of a compound TCU with an [if ..., the intended last syllable of the turn, or mark it with a then ...] structure. The turn will not be complete until noticeable tone movement such as the falling pitch the speaker has finished the then-part that is projected movement in the last word of Angela’s turn in extract by the if-part: (2).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments CHARLES
    Concurrent Operationson Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments CHARLES GOODWIN MARJORIE HARNESS GOODWIN* The analysis of conversation has a strong relevance to the study of pragmatics.Thus in introducing the scope of pragmatics Levinson(1983: 284) notes that It is not hard to see why one should look to conversationfor insight into pragmatic phenomena, for conversation is clearly the prototypical kind of languageusage, the form in which we are all first exposed to language the matrix for language acquisition. The field of study that has provided the most extensive analysis of the pragmatic organization of conversation is the line of inquiry initiated by the late Harvey Sacks and his colleagues.l Indeed * We are very deeply indebted to Alessandro Duranti, William Hanks, Gail Jefferson and Emanuel Schegloff for insightful commentsand suggestionson an earlier version of this analysis. This paper was initially presented at the Annual Meeting of the American SociologicalAssociation, San Francisco, September 9, 1982. l. For a detailed study of both work in conversation analysis, and how that work is relevant to pragmatics in general, see Levinson (1983). See Heritage (l98 a) for more extensive treatmentof the relationship between conversation analysis and the ethnomethodologicaltradition it emerged from within sociology,and Heritage (1985) for a detailed summary of work within the field. For collections of specific analysis see for example Atkinson and Heritage (1984), Button and Lee (in press),Schenkein (1978), and Zimmerman and West (1980). C. Goodwin (1981) and Heath (1986) examine in detail the IPRAPapers in Pragntaticsl, No.l (1987), l-54 2 Levinson(1983: 285) observesthat insl if, as we shall argue, the proper way to study the conversational organization is through empirical bet techniques, this suggests that the largely pro philosophical traditions that have given rise to abo pragmatics may have to yield in the future to more inv empirical kinds of investigationof languageuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Distinctive Turn-Taking Systems
    Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Distinctive Turn-Taking Systems John Heritage, UCLA In: S.Cmejrková, J.Hoffmannová, O.Müllerová and J.Svetlá (1998) (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Congresss of IADA (International Association for Dialog Analysis), Tubingen: Niemeyer, pp.3-17. 2 Introduction In the thirty years since its inception, conversation analysis has emerged as a major, and distinctively sociological, contribution to the analysis of discourse. During this time, discourse analysis has acquired considerable prominence as a field of inquiry. Correspondingly, conversation analysis has grown and diversified in many different directions. The sociological origins of conversation analysis are to be found in the work of two great American originators: Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel. With Goffman (1955; 1983), conversation analysts begin with the notion that conversational interaction represents an institutional order sui generis in which interactional rights and obligations are linked not only to personal face and identity, but also to macro-social institutions. With Garfinkel (1967), conversation analysts recognize that analyzing the institution of conversation in terms of rules and practices that impose moral obligations, in the way that Goffman stressed, needs to be supplemented by recognizing the importance of intersubjectivity. In particular, this means focusing on how interactional rules and practices are ceaselessly drawn upon by the participants in constructing shared and specific understandings of 'where they are' within a social interaction. Central to this process is a 'reflexive' dimension in social action: by their actions participants exhibit an analysis or an understanding of the event in which they are engaged, but by acting they also make an interactional contribution that moves the event itself forward on the basis of that analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • "Context" Within Conversation Analysis
    Raclaw: Approaches to "Context" within Conversation Analysis Approaches to "Context" within Conversation Analysis Joshua Raclaw University of Colorado This paper examines the use of "context" as both a participant’s and an analyst’s resource with conversation analytic (CA) research. The discussion focuses on the production and definition of context within two branches of CA, "traditional CA" and "institutional CA". The discussion argues against a single, monolithic understanding of "context" as the term is often used within the CA literature, instead highlighting the various ways that the term is used and understood by analysts working across the different branches of CA. The paper ultimately calls for further reflexive discussions of analytic practice among analysts, similar to those seen in other areas of sociocultural linguistic research. 1. Introduction The concept of context has been a critical one within sociocultural linguistics. The varied approaches to the study of language and social interaction – linguistic, anthropological, sociological, and otherwise – each entail the particulars for how the analyst defines the context in which language is produced. Goodwin and Duranti (1992) note the import of the term within the field of pragmatics (citing Morris 1938; Carnap 1942; Bar-Hillel 1954; Gazdar 1979; Ochs 1979; Levinson 1983; and Leech 1983), anthropological and ethnographic studies of language use (citing Malinowski 1923, 1934; Jakobson 1960; Gumperz and Hymes 1972; Hymes 1972, 1974; and Bauman and Sherzer 1974), and quantitative and variationist sociolinguistics (citing Labov 1966, 1972a, and 1972b).1 To this list we can add a number of frameworks for doing socially-oriented discourse analysis, including conversation analysis (CA), critical discourse analysis (CDA), and discursive psychology (DP).
    [Show full text]
  • PDF of Chapter
    Ten-Have-01.qxd 6/6/2007 6:55 PM Page 1 Part 1 Considering CA Ten-Have-01.qxd 6/6/2007 6:55 PM Page 2 Ten-Have-01.qxd 6/6/2007 6:55 PM Page 3 1 Introducing the CA Paradigm Contents What is ‘conversation analysis’? 3 The emergence of CA 5 The development of CA 7 Why do CA? 9 Contrastive properties 9 Requirements 10 Rewards 10 Purpose and plan of the book 11 Exercise 13 Recommended reading 13 Notes 13 Conversation analysis1 (or CA) is a rather specific analytic endeavour. This chapter provides a basic characterization of CA as an explication of the ways in which conversationalists maintain an interactional social order. I describe its emergence as a discipline of its own, confronting recordings of telephone calls with notions derived from Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology and Erving Goffman’s conceptual studies of an interaction order. Later developments in CA are covered in broad terms. Finally, the general outline and purpose of the book is explained. What is ‘conversation analysis’? People talking together,‘conversation’, is one of the most mundane of all topics. It has been available for study for ages, but only quite recently,in the early 1960s, has it gained the serious and sustained attention of scientific investigation. Before then, what was written on the subject was mainly normative: how one should speak, rather than how people actually speak. The general impression was that ordinary conversation is chaotic and disorderly. It was only with the advent of recording devices, and the willingness and ability to study such a mundane phenomenon in depth, that ‘the order of conversation’ – or rather, as we shall see, a multiplicity of ‘orders’ – was discovered.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation Analysis for Educational Technologists: Theoretical and Methodological Issues for Researching the Structures, Processes, and Meaning of On-Line Talk
    P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-40 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:15 Char Count= 0 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGISTS: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR RESEARCHING THE STRUCTURES, PROCESSES, AND MEANING OF ON-LINE TALK Joan M. Mazur University of Kentucky processes and outcomes. As ever-increasing numbers of people 40.1 INTRODUCTION use on-line chats, listservs, threaded discussions, and video and audio conferencing for educational purposes, questions about Research in education technology encompasses a wide range these on-line conversations arise: of quantitative and qualitative methods (Savenye & Robinson 1996). Methods and approaches formerly applied in the broader r realm of qualitative educational research have become impor- What are characteristics of on-line conversations, and how tant to researchers in educational technology. Conversation does virtual talk-in-interaction relate to instruction, learning, analysis (CA) is one such qualitative approach that has recently and communication? r become highly relevant for examining educational phenonmena What relationships exist between conversation and cognition related to discourse supported by the plethora of tools and re- or the social, distributed construction of knowledge? sources for computer-mediated communication. In this chapter, r To what extent does the type of technology limit or support which focuses on CA situated within the tradition of discourse the discourse required for various modes of instruction? analysis, I make several assumptions. I assume that the reader is r What are these discourses of on-line instruction? acquainted with qualitative inquiry and such terms as grounded r theory, intersubjectivity, participant and nonparticipant obser- How can structures and processes inherent in conversation vation, sampling, and recursion in the analytic phases of inquiry assist in the development of instructional contexts that sup- are familiar.
    [Show full text]
  • 34 Conversation Analysis and Anthropology
    34 Conversation Analysis and Anthropology IGNASI CLEMENTE Hunter College, CUNY 1 Introduction In this chapter, I discuss the relationship between Anthropology and Conversation Analysis (CA). After briefl y describing what Anthropology is and the intellectual history of the relationship between Anthropology and CA, I focus on the ways in which each fi eld has infl uenced the other. Anthropology is the study of the human species in its present and past diversity from a holistic and empirical perspective. With this wide - ranging and inclusive approach to the study of the human experience, North American Anthropology is made up of four subfi elds: sociocultural anthropology, physical anthropology, archeology, and linguistic anthropology. Culture is considered a central aspect of what makes us human, but anthropologists do not share a single defi nition of culture. In fact, defi nitions of and disagreements about culture abound across anthropological subfi elds and theoretical approaches. Duranti (1997a) devotes an entire chapter of his linguistic anthropology textbook to present six defi nitions of culture: culture as (i) distinct from nature, (ii) knowledge, (iii) communication, (iv) a system of mediation, (v) a system of practices, and (vi) systems of participation. Despite the differences, a general understanding exists around a defi nition of culture as the component of human experience that is not biologically transmitted, but rather learned and passed among and between populations across time and space. To study culture, anthropologists often conduct in situ observation and data collection to create an ethnography (Malinowski, 1967 [1922]). Ethnography is “ thick ” description (Geertz, 1973 ) of human social phenomena in the natural and local settings within which they emerge and acquire meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis Organizer & Leader: Virginia Teas Gill, Illinois State University Panelists: Douglas W
    E The Official Newsletter of the American Sociological Association Section on M Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis C Summer 2015 Volume 8, Issue 2, p.1 2014-2015 EMCA Section Officers Dear EMCA Community, A The reviews have been completed, papers Chairs scheduled, and award recipients chosen. Robert Dingwall (Dingwall Enterprises) We are ready for ASA 2015 in Chicago [email protected] next month! Mardi Kidwell (University of New In this issue, you will find a schedule of Hampshire) EMCA sessions, events, and news, along [email protected] with the regular coverage of upcoming conferences, calls for papers, new book announcements, and spotlights on emerging Outgoing Treasurer scholars. Ruth Parry (University of Nottingham) [email protected] This year we have a total of 7 EMCA paper sessions, one conference wide session, and a teaching workshop. ... Outgoing Council Douglas Maynard (University of Wisconsin) [email protected] ASA EMCA Spring Elections New Secretary Treasurer: Tim Berard (Kent State) Bob Moore, IBM, [email protected] [email protected] New Council Members: Waverly Duck, Wayne State University, [email protected] Patrick Watson (University of Waterloo) Morana Alac UC San Diego, [email protected] [email protected] Aug Nishizaka (Chiba University) In This Issue: [email protected] ASA 2015 EMCA Session Info. p.3-5 EMCA Awards 2015 p.6 Former Chairs Dirk vom Lehn (King's College London) Calls for Papers p.7 [email protected] Recent Books p.7, 8, 10 Upcoming Events p.8, 10 Erik Vinkhuyzen (Palo Alto Research Centre) Report on CACE p.9 [email protected] Graduate student biographies p.11-13 E Summer 2015 Volume 8, Issue 2, p.2 M ..
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation Analysis
    Hoey, E. M. & Kendrick, K. H. (in press). Conversation Analysis. In A. M. B. de Groot & P. Hagoort (eds.), Research Methods in Psycholinguistics: A Practical Guide. Wiley Blackwell. Conversation Analysis Elliott M. Hoey Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Kobin H. Kendrick Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Abstract Conversation Analysis (CA) is an inductive, micro-analytic, and predominantly qualitative method for studying human social interactions. This chapter describes and illustrates the basic methods of CA. We first situate the method by describing its sociological foundations, key areas of analysis, and particular approach in using naturally occurring data. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to practical explanations of the typical conversation analytic process for collecting data and producing an analysis. We analyze a candidate interactional practice – the assessment- implicative interrogative – using real data extracts as a demonstration of the method, explicitly laying out the relevant questions and considerations for every stage of an analysis. The chapter concludes with some discussion of quantitative approaches to conversational interaction, and links between CA and psycholinguistic concerns. Keywords: conversation analysis, social interaction, qualitative research methods, naturalistic observation, sequence organization, turn taking, repair, social action, assessments Acknowledgments We thank Gene Lerner for granting us access and permission to some of the data used in this chapter. We also thank Will Schuerman
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation Analysis, Cyberpsychology and Online Interaction
    Conversation analysis, cyberpsychology and online interaction Abstract In this paper, I explore how conversation analysis can be used as a method for analysing online interaction. As the number and quantity of online communication platforms have proliferated, there has been a growing interest in social psychology about the impact and effectiveness of online, text-based communication. A number of theories have been used and developed to explain how online communication might impact upon relationships and effective communication. However, this paper argues that in order to explore the differences between online and offline interaction an analysis of online behaviour is needed. Conversation analysis allows for an in-depth, sequential and discursive analysis of real-life online interactions. It can explore the ways in which the affordances of the interactional platforms are oriented to or made relevant in the interaction. The utility of conversation analysis is demonstrated through a number of examples, highlighting how this method can be used to broaden our understanding of how online communication works in practice. For social psychologists, there has been an interest in the role that the internet has played in changing our behaviours. The internet has potentially impacted upon many aspects of our lives, such as the way in which we conduct our relationships (Myddleton & Attrill, 2015), the construction and presentation of stereotypes (Bailey, Steeves, Burkell & Raven, 2013), the ways in which we behave in groups (Postmes, Spears & Lee, 2000), and our pro-social behaviour (Cox, Nguyen, Thorpe, Ishizaka, Chakhar, & Meech, 2018) amongst many other things. There is also an implicit (and often explicit) interest in the ways in which communication and interaction impact upon our behaviours; for example, how we communicate when developing relationships (Speer, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Discourse Analysis…
    Social Science Qualitative Research Chapter 15 Qualitative Research How Your Objective, Research Question, and/or Hypothesis Relates to Your Methodology If your RQ or H is: Then your chosen method should be: To describe or understand Qualitative communication. If your RQ or H is: Then your chosen method should be: To understand, describe, explain communication Ethnography (Chapters 14 and 15) in a culture or cultural group To describe and understand group Focus groups (Chapters 14 and 15) discourse/conversation in action To describe or understand communication as it Grounded theory (Chapters 14 and 15) relates to behavior within social situations and multiple realities To understand, describe, explain meaning within Phenomenology (Chapters 14 and 15) lived experience To describe or understand communication as it Case study (Chapters 14 and 15) relates to illustrative case(s) If your RQ or H is: Then your chosen method should be: To study spoken or written discourse—speech Discourse analysis (Chapters 14 and 15) acts—from the content of the discourse, to its delivery (paralanguage, speech, grammar), to its context, and the meaning deriving from each of these, to understand how people use language to construct ideas, meanings, and identities To describe and understand interpersonal social Conversation analysis (Chapters 14 and 15) action in sequences of utterances and interaction as agents of action and activity To analyze (in a descriptive way) the content of Qualitative content analysis (Chapters 14 messages such as media messages and
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Ethnographic Analysis of Classroom Dialogue
    This is a repository copy of Linguistic ethnographic analysis of classroom dialogue. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/146593/ Version: Accepted Version Book Section: Lefstein, A and Snell, J orcid.org/0000-0002-0337-7212 (2019) Linguistic ethnographic analysis of classroom dialogue. In: Mercer, N, Wegerif, R and Major, L, (eds.) The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education. The Routledge International Handbook Series . Routledge , Abingdon, UK , pp. 63-75. ISBN 978-1-138- 33851-7 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677-7 © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Neil Mercer, Rupert Wegerif and Louis Major; individual chapters, the contributors. This is an author produced version of a chapter published in The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Linguistic Ethnographic Analysis of Classroom Dialogue Adam Lefstein (ORCiD: 0000-0002-9686-2662) Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Julia Snell (ORCiD: 0000-0002-0337-7212) University of Leeds Authors’ note: Adam Lefstein is in the Department of Education at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B.
    [Show full text]
  • EMCA News , Our Final Issue As Co-Chairs
    Summer 2008 Vol 2, Issue 2 EMCA THE OFFICAL NEWSLETTER OF THE AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION SECTION ON ETHNOMETHODOLOGY AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS news 2006-2008 S ECTION OFFICERS MESSAGE FROM THE SECTION CO-CHAIRS Co-Chairs Gary David Bentley College Welcome to the Summer 2008 issue of EMCA News , our final issue as co-chairs. [email protected] There are good reasons to page ahead at this point. In the following pages we Virginia Teas Gill announce the winners of the 2008 EMCA section awards and the results of the Illinois State University recent election for new section officers. You will also find the schedule of EM [email protected] and CA sessions to be held at ASA, announcements about new books, upcoming conferences, calls for papers, new Ph.D.s, and more. This is all evidence of a Co-Secretary/Treasurers Steven Clayman thriving discipline - not without its challenges, but that's to be expected. We University of California-Los Angeles hope you'll page back so we can share with you some reflections on the section's [email protected] achievements over the last two years, as well as some of the challenges we face. John Heritage University of California-Los Angeles We have been proud to lead the EMCA section at an early phase in its [email protected] development. Because of the work Doug Maynard, Anne Rawls, and others did to form the section, we were able to hit the ground running in 2006. We have Council Members tried to build a strong foundation upon which it can continue to grow.
    [Show full text]