Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-gsnzm Total loading time: 0.46 Render date: 2022-10-03T00:03:34.299Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

USING ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING AS A RESOURCE FOR INCREASING EMPIRICAL AND INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

Abstract

Conversation analysis (CA) emerged as a form of microsociology in the 1960s at the same time that audio (and later, video) recording technologies became widely available to consumers. The development of these technologies made it relatively easy for analysts to record, transcribe, and analyze how members collaboratively coconstruct social order in naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. A key feature of the intellectual discourse of CA work has always been that analysts make their data available for public inspection. In this way, readers of this research may judge for themselves whether the original analyses are well-founded. This methodological practice also allows readers to propose alternative interpretations of the data if they disagree with the original writer's analyses. Now, recordings of the talk-in-interaction that is being studied have always been considered to be the primary data in CA. However, in practice, written transcripts have until recently been the most widely available sources of information in conventional, paper-based publishing. With the development and rapid diffusion of computers from the 1980s onward, it is now possible to integrate video and audio recordings with text and graphics in a single electronic environment. In this article, we argue that for CA the advent of the digital publishing era is not an intellectual luxury—it is a necessity. More specifically, digital publishing using Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 technologies enables CA researchers to develop standards of intellectual accountability that are even more rigorous than those that are currently possible in the realm of conventional paper-based publishing. Readers of CA research may now expect to have access to primary as well as secondary data. That is, as electronic journals become the norm in academic publishing, readers will be able to view or listen to the original recordings as well as read the transcripts that are developed from primary sources. This ability to view original recordings is particularly important when behaviors that are difficult to transcribe transparently—such as eye gaze, gesture, and embodied actions—are incorporated into an analysis. We also suggest that readers will be able to engage in electronic data sessions that complement, and possibly transcend, what can be achieved by their older, face-to-face siblings as a means of building electronic communities of scholars. This article illustrates how these trends are likely to play out in practice by developing a conversation analysis of exophoric deictic reference that is based on data that are organized and presented in a native electronic format. A companion Web site at https://segue.atlas.uiuc.edu/index.php?&action=site&site=virtualdata also demonstrates how electronic data sessions might be conducted.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action, 299345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, and Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53 (2), 361382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (in press, this volume). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. ARAL, 27.Google Scholar

WEB SITES

OTHER REFERENCES

Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional achievements? In Gardner, R. & Wagner, J. (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 201220). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (in press, this volume). Technology and second language acquisition. ARAL, 27.Google Scholar
Douglas, D., & Hegelheimer, V. (in press, this volume). Assessing language using computer technology. ARAL, 27.Google Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/Foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a “reconceptualized” SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91, 800819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 370404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In Kita, S. (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In Sudnow, D. (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294338). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 4796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. ixxvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, and Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19, 8399.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2007, October 1). Locating cognition in second language interaction: Inside the skull or in public view? Plenary talk, SLRF, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2008). Discourse and socially shared cognition. In Cenoz, J. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 6. Knowledge about language (2nd ed., pp. 119). Cambridge, MA: Springer Science + Media.Google Scholar
Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second language acquisition studies. In Tarone, E., Gass, S. M., & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 89116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Markee, N. (2004). Zones of interactional transition. Modern Language Journal, 88, 583596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markee, N. (in press). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Olsher, D. (2004). Talk and gesture: The embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken interaction. In Gardner, R. & Wagner, J. (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 221245). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.htmlGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70 (6), 10751095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8 (4), 289327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Olsher, D., & Jacoby, S. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. ARAL, 22, 331.Google Scholar

Markee and Stansell

fragment 1

Download Markee and Stansell(Audio)
Audio 3 MB

Markee and Stansell

Confused now - Markee and Stansell

Download Markee and Stansell(Audio)
Audio 991 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em covers her face with hand

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 19 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em hunches shoulders

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 18 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

J smiles slightly

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 18 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em waves her hand over text

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 18 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em points at the divisions of text

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 18 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em touches her hand on stack

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 18 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em smacks her hand on stackB

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 19 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em touches her forehead

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 19 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em lays her hand on text1

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 20 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em lays her hand on stackA

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 20 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em puts hand on chest..

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 19 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em touches stack A

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 19 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em circles hand slightly over stack

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 19 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Markee and Stansell

Em flips her hand palm up

Download Markee and Stansell(Image)
Image 20 KB
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

USING ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING AS A RESOURCE FOR INCREASING EMPIRICAL AND INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

USING ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING AS A RESOURCE FOR INCREASING EMPIRICAL AND INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

USING ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING AS A RESOURCE FOR INCREASING EMPIRICAL AND INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *