Assessment is one type of action in interaction. It is very common, as it can appear in any conversation and context. The term assessment broadly covers any evaluative action in interaction. The simplest form of assessment contains an assessable (entity or reference being evaluated) and an assessment (the evaluation towards the assessable). The current study is a preliminary study which explores the multimodal structure of assessment in Indonesian conversation. The method employed is ConversationAnalysis. The data is taken from 6 hours of video recorded naturally occurring Indonesian conversation, involving a different number of participants. The current analysis suggests that assessment is a two-steps action which involves firstly the orientation to a focal point, and subsequently the production or display of evaluation towards that focal point. Evaluation can be produced verbally, displayed through non-verbal means, or a combination of the two. The non-verbal evaluation may be produced early in the turn, almost concurrent with the production of the assessable, which is earlier than its verbal counterpart. The current study adds to our understanding of the multimodal structure of conversational interaction, especially on conversational Indonesian, a language variety widely used in Indonesian society, yet receives very limited research attention.
Methods: Conversationanalysis is a useful method to explore the interactional details of interaction by hospice care providers and terminally ill patients. Using the method of ConversationAnalysis (CA), this study aims to demonstrate how the hospice care provider employs different types of interactional practices to address the patient ’ s pain concerns. The data showed in this study are collected from the Alexander St website http://ctiv. alexanderstreet.com, an educational resource presenting a large collection of psycho-therapeutic videos. Results: In this study, an illustrative analysis is demonstrated to show the potential of conversationanalysis for research on pain talk in palliative care. It has been shown that conversationanalysis could contribute to unfolding the interactional details regarding “ pain talk ” in hospice care settings. Specifically, conversationanalysis could provide a detailed description and interpretation of the conversational practices, which are used to construct hospice care provider participation in delivering pain talk. In addition, conversationanalysis could also demonstrate the interactional resources by which patients disclose their experiences of physical or spiritual pain to the hospice care provider and the way how the hospice care provider responds to the patient ’ s troubles talk or feelings talk. Conclusions: This study identifies five types of interactional resources which are used to deal with the patient ’ s pain concerns in hospice care setting. A conversation analytical study of pain talk in hospice care could provide a turn-by-turn description of how the hospice care provider communicates with the terminally ill patient in terms of the patient ’ s pain concerns. The findings in this study could inform how the hospice care provider initiates, delivers and develops a pain talk with the terminally ill patient effectively.
According to Heritage, “the basic outlook of conversationanalysis can be briefly summarized in terms of three fundamental assumptions: (1) interaction is structurally organized; (2) contributions to interaction are contextually oriented; and (3) these two properties in here in the details of interaction so that no order of detail can be dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant”. Based on these basic assumptions, conversation analysts draw naturally occurring everyday mundane conversation as their data and object to the use of corpus produced by any artificial control, including those obtained by means of interview, observation, introspection, and experiment, because these corpora cannot reflect the true nature and all details of human verbal interaction. In addition, conversation analysts establish a detailed data transcription system, which includes a minute description of the speaker’s inhalation, exhalation, pause, emphasis, pitch, volume, etc. As an integral part of conversation, these phenomena exert different effects on verbal communication, and conversation analysts keep a strict record of what they hear, without making any corrections or changes .
The current study demonstrates the contribution of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and conversationanalysis. Sociocultural theory is noteworthy for the kind of insights it offers us about the learning process, including how learners respond to and use the feedback they are given. According to Bitchener and Ferris (2012), all cognitive developments (including language development) are results of ‘social interactions’, especially when learners are provided with opportunities to collaborate and interact with speakers who are more knowledgeable than they are. Fine-tuned to the context of writing conferences is the view of learning presented in Young and Miller (2004) in which L2 acquisition is suggested “as a situated, co-constructed process, distributed among participants” and which takes “social and ecological interaction as its starting point” (p. 519). As a situated, co-constructed process, writing conferences demonstrate the participation of two parties: teacher and learner. Thus, learning, from this perspective, can be defined as the changes found in the learner’s participation during the writing conferences (ibid.). Consequently, the teacher’s role in this co-constructed process, that is the provision of opportunities for the learners for more participation, is highly significant.
2 Qualitative research focused on Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) is important, as it can refine understandings of particular issues related to ASD and be practically relevant provided that quality criteria are applied (Bӧlte, 2014). Employing qualitative methods for the study of ASD is an important way of giving a ‘voice’ to participants and can be particularly useful for empowering vulnerable or disadvantaged people groups (Peters, 2010). The field of mental health and disability generally is one that is mediated through language (Brown et al., 1996) and qualitative methods tend to focus on language use, specifically those using discourse or conversationanalysis approaches. Quantitative evidence, whatever its form, provides important and valuable evidence about ASD. However, it is crucial that the field does not solely rely on a relatively narrow range of methodologies and forms of knowledge to inform us about such a complex and diverse condition. Qualitative methods are able to go beyond establishing the likelihood of associations between variables, towards understanding the nature of such associations and the complex processes that they may be interpreted to represent. More specifically, qualitative methods are able to go beyond what works to show how and why a particular practice may be is effective (Rhodes, 2011), particularly when taking into account established quality criteria.
cognition). At the same time, we can discern a number of common features. First, there is a common interest in focusing on actual play, such as examining players’ material engagements with a game’s “mechanics,” which is reflected, for example, in Kirsh’s (1995, p. 62) work on the “interactional computation” of players in the manipulation of Tetris puzzle pieces. Furthermore, approaches such as distributed cog- nition focus on social processes and methods of action by “agents,” and draw upon similar ethnographic techniques to those of ethnomethodology, to collect data and drive analysis of how features like “offloading” operate (e.g., Hutchins, 1995; Stevens, Satwicz, & McCarthy, 2008). Second, EMCA’s praxiological perspective also has sur- face resonances with elements of cognitive science and allied work. For instance, notions such as “distributed cognition” (Hutchins, 1995; Stevens et al., 2008) and “joint action” (Clark, 1996) emphasize the sociality of interaction, albeit as cognitive processes, pointing toward the social and environmental “offloading” of cognitive rep- resentation and computation. Indeed, theories of joint action and common ground have been informed by some key findings from conversationanalysis. For example, Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs (1986) heavily draw on Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974), but they use formal experimentation based on cognitive theories thought to underpin the interactional phenomena documented by Sacks et al. to build upon the “suggestive” (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986, p. 10) findings of conversationanalysis. At the same time there are key differences particularly in the kind of data employed as well as its treatment.
In this regards, the expression of conversationanalysis can be used both in a wide and in a more restrictive sense (Ten, 2001). In a restrictive sense, this includes any study of people talking together, oral communication, or language use, whereas in the restrictive sense, it refers to one particular tradition of analytic work. Likewise, CA analyzes the actual instances of talk, ranging from casual conversation between friends, acquaintances, co-workers or strangers to talk in more formal setting such as classrooms, doctor-patient consultations, courtroom proceedings, radio talk programs, interview, and so on. The latter falls within the domain of institutional talk (Heritage, 2005).
The use of conversationanalysis (CA) as a method for analysing the interactional practices of online communication has been growing in recent years (Giles, Stommel, Paulus, Lester & Reed, 2015). A key challenge for analysing online communication is the varied platforms through which interaction can occur. This paper demonstrates how using CA and the concept of affordances (Hutchby, 2001) can provide a lens through which to analyse not only the interaction, but also the technological context of that interaction. A corpus of instant messaging chats, captured from Facebook chat using screen-capture software, is used as a case study to demonstrate how the concept of affordances can be used alongside CA analysis to address the role of technology in the interaction. Two key interactional practices - turn adjacency and openings - are analysed to show the insights that CA can offer for providing an in-depth analysis of online interaction. By using affordances as a lens through which CA analysis can be refracted, scholars using ‘digital CA’ can better develop an understanding of patterns of interaction across different interactional platforms.
intersubjective learning in everyday communication. Health consultation videos provide an opportunity for a wide audience to experience the many kinds of conversations and dynamics that take place in consultations. A visual socio phenomenological approach used in this article provides a method to organise audiovisual emotional, knowledge and action conversations as well as dynamic typical consultation situations. These interactions are experienced through the video materials themselves unlike conversationanalysis where video materials are first transcribed and then analysed. Both approaches have the potential to support intersubjective learning but this article argues that a video lifeworld schema is more accessible to health professionals and the general public. This method of analysis focuses on the everyday lifeworld informing face to face person centred healthcare and supports
Since the advent of the internet and CMC, a new domain of research has been opened to the linguists. Some of the above-mentioned studies have emphasized ConversationAnalysis (CA) of the web-based communications in order to study the interactional situation and compare it with face-to-face conversational settings. CA is based on the assumption that all the social actions are meaningful for those who produce them and they have a natural organization that CA intends to uncover (Psathas, 1995, p. 23). In other words, CA aims to ‘discover the methods speakers use to produce a sense of social order’ (Shokouhi and Kamyab, 2004, p. 87). It includes verbal and paralinguistic features of communication which play a significant role in webchat. Additionally, through a CA perspective language can be used to engage people in social actions. This implies a concern not only for the talk itself but also for the context in which it takes place. In the case of webchat, where the context is almost entirely new and unknown to the participants, a CA approach could be helpful in analyzing different ways in which interlocutors conduct social actions and create meaning through talk (Negretti, 1999, p. 77). However, many aspects of such a synchronous CMC have still remained untouched
A more careful analysis of the way that the talk is used here, however, reveals something rather more productive at work. UK National Health Service (henceforth NHS) primary care guidelines clearly stipulate that a general practitioner (henceforth GP) should explore the danger that any patient with suspected depression represents to themselves at the first available opportunity: “Always ask people… directly about suicidal ideation and intent.” (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2009, p. 120). One of the key problems that faces a GP when asking a question about suicidal ideation at a point like this (where depression is clearly suspected) is that it may ‘surprise’ the patient, seeming out-of place in the consultation, and induce a strong negative reaction. So this presents a very real practical problem for a GP. How does one directly broach the matter of suicidal ideation when the patient may not be expecting it?
This paper analyses the condition of teaching and learning Chinese in Ban- gladeshi university classroom. Analysis of classroom conversation and inte- ractions between teacher and student has been done to demonstrate the na- ture of interactions. The different subjects of interactive discussion were coded in order to determine how the approach of teaching impacted upon discourse. For this analysis, author used both qualitative and quantitative model to analyze the data and tried to figure out the nature of classroom in- teraction and compare between native and nonnative teacher’s classroom in- teraction. From this research, we have found that the nature and amount of classroom interaction between native and non-native teachers with their stu- dents is not the same. Our result will help the organization to make a decision whether a native or a non-native teacher will be more appropriate for Chinese language teaching in Bangladesh.
3. Questions of ecological validity, where relevant, can be addressed. The primary objection to studies that displace the context of action from its natural environment to a research lab is that the results, lacking ecological validity, will have an “equivocal status” (Schegloff, 1991, p. 55). This is a legitimate concern that experimental and laboratory studies can and should address (see also De Ruiter, 2013). But note that the question of ecological validity does not apply invariably to all such studies: those whose results corroborate previous conversation analytic findings can quite reasonably claim to generalize beyond the confines of the lab. In an experimental study of the timing of preferred and dispreferred responses, for example, Bögels et al. (2015) found evidence in the brain activation of participants that dispreferred responses were less expected after short gaps than long ones (see Bögels & Levinson, 2017/this issue). Because this result converges with results from studies of naturally occurring interaction (e.g., Pomerantz, 1984; Kendrick & Torreira, 2015), the question of ecological validity simply does not arise. However, for those experimental and laboratory studies that discover new phenomena or new relationships between known phenomena, it does. The researcher must then consider whether and how the context in which the conduct was produced may have been procedurally consequential for its production. Schegloff (1991) proposes one possible solution, namely to “[do] a parallel analysis on talk from ordinary interaction” and “[see] whether the findings … come out the same way or not” (p. 56). If indeed laboratory research finds a place within CA, Schegloff’s call for convergent evidence should be held as the gold standard. Kendrick and Holler (2017/this issue) take an initial step in this direction, reporting a parallel analysis of gaze direction in ordinary
The data for our experiments consists of fan- sourced transcripts of the episodes of the sitcom F.R.I.E.N.D.S. The structure of the data is as fol- lows: we have a set of conversations as training data. Each conversation contains a sequence of turns, with each turn annotated with its speaker. We do not have any information about the addressee from the dataset. We do, however, have implicit informa- tion of the set of speakers within a conversation seg- ment (we make the assumption here that if a char- acter doesn’t speak in a segment, he is not present). Annotator notes appear periodically to indicate that the scene changed or that new characters entered the scene or that some characters left the scene. We treat these annotator notes as conversation bound- aries and the segment of turns between two such boundaries constitutes one conversation instance.
Rosenzweig and Kracauer’s forgotten conversation on intellectual eth- ics both engaged the legacy of German philosophy since the Enlighten- ment and released long lasting aftershocks in the Weimar Republic and in the intellectual history represented by thinkers like Adorno, Löwenthal, Benjamin and Buber. But perhaps the most noteworthy consequence of their discussion is Rosenzweig and Buber’s Bible translation and Kracau- er’s critical essay »Die Bibel auf Deutsch«. In 1921, the irresponsibility of Kracauer’s concept of »waiting« galvanized Rosenzweig’s resolve in personal initiative in dealing with the condition of German-Jewish mo- dernity that later underlies the translation project with Buber. In 1923, despite a brief glimpse of agreement, Rosenzweig and Kracauer’s corre- spondence leads Kracauer to re-read and conclusively reject Rosen- zweig’s philosophy. Whereas modernity offers Rosenzweig the chance for the rehabilitation of real religious and, in particular, Jewish expe- rience, the turn away from such belief indicates for Kracauer the need to develop his own intellectual ethos for dealing with modernity: the exami- nation of the profane. 47 »Die Bibel auf Deutsch« thus appears as an after- shock of Rosenzweig and Kracauer’s earlier engagement with one an- other, as the lacking call to action for which Rosenzweig had faulted Kracauer in 1921. In the intellectual fragmentation it trigged, Kracauer’s essay can be seen not only as a radical enactment of, to borrow Rosenzweig’s words, life »in einer zerborstenen zerbrochenen zersplitter- ten und chaotischen ›Zeit‹« 48 that was the reality of the Weimar Republic itself. But it is also, and perhaps more significantly, a pronouncement of the correct way to behave, to write, and to think therein.
First, do, or should, transcriptions aim to capture all phonetic features of potential interactional relevance? Transcriptions employing the JeffersonÕs system of notation usually seem to be prepared in line with the mandate Òput down in the transcription what you hearÓ. It is beyond question that following this mandate has led to new findings concerning the organisation of interaction. Following this mandate also usefully places the emphasis on auditory analysis, and guards against an analyst only making reference to acoustic measures which may not be auditorily available. However, claiming to follow this mandate does raise the issue of whether everything that is auditorily available Ñ and therefore, presumably, potentially interactionally relevant Ñ is being captured. That does not seem to be the case. For instance, in a pair of companion articles John Kelly and John Local show that Jefferson's transcriptions do not capture all of the cases they identify of articulatory assimilation (the production of a sound at once place in the mouth in anticipation of a following sound), one interactive function of which is the local projection of more talk (Local & Kelly, 1986; Kelly & Local, 1989b). They also show that glottal closures made at the end of conjunctions and held through a silence until the start of a next word are not captured systematically (and despite the presence of a symbol for such a Ôcut-offÕ in JeffersonÕs notation).
In April 2011, Valentina Desideri and Stefano Harney met at the Spring Seminars of the Performance Art Forum (PAF) in St Erme, France. Desideri, a dancer and performance artist, and Harney a university professor in strategy, shared an interest in the work of Suely Rolnick and Lygia Clark. Desideri and Harney began a collaboration at PAF that would see them present new material at the ephemera Conference in Berlin on Free Work in May, 2011, and that would continue with an intense collaborative conversation over the next few months, some of which is presented here. Both Desideri and Harney felt that the techniques and strategies in their respective fields now stood before a high wall, and it was necessary to shift attention to new forms of life altogether if performance and teaching were to float beyond this wall. In particular, they suggest it is not sufficient just to register the way work dominates both daily life and art making. Rather, it is possible to experiment with new practices that embraced the forces of fate and complicity around us. The conversation on ‘fate work’ that follows is part of an exploration into this complicit fate and the way it opens up a new form of life.