Difference between revisions of "Lee2013"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Yo-An Lee; |Title=Descriptions of L2 interaction: Toward descriptive adequacy |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; |Key=Lee2013 |Year=20...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Yo-An Lee; | + | |Author(s)=Yo-An Lee; |
|Title=Descriptions of L2 interaction: Toward descriptive adequacy | |Title=Descriptions of L2 interaction: Toward descriptive adequacy | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; | + | |Tag(s)=Interactional Linguistics; |
|Key=Lee2013 | |Key=Lee2013 | ||
|Year=2013 | |Year=2013 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=97 | |Volume=97 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=853–868 |
| + | |URL=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12041.x/abstract | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12041.x | ||
| + | |Abstract=The distinction between language acquisition and language use has been a source of contention among those who study L2 interaction. However, as featured in The Modern Language Journal (in 1997–1998, 2004, and 2007), debates have essentially been limited to confirming the presence of discrepancies among different paradigms regarding theoretical content. As a result, where methodological practices are at all discussed they are judged only by the extent to which they realize underlying theoretical positions. By contrast, this article argues that there is a need to evaluate methodological practices on their own terms and to specify what is gained and lost in the respective approaches. It does so by examining and comparing descriptive analyses of L2 conversational interactions in the interactionist paradigm and in conversation analysis (CA). The article concludes that, if both approaches were held to a minimum level of descriptive adequacy regarding the respective parties' L2 use, analysts could gain a workable space regarding what can be said and what should be said about actual L2 interactions, including where to end description, that is created independent of theoretical positions. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:26, 1 March 2016
| Lee2013 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lee2013 |
| Author(s) | Yo-An Lee |
| Title | Descriptions of L2 interaction: Toward descriptive adequacy |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Interactional Linguistics |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2013 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Modern Language Journal |
| Volume | 97 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 853–868 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12041.x |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The distinction between language acquisition and language use has been a source of contention among those who study L2 interaction. However, as featured in The Modern Language Journal (in 1997–1998, 2004, and 2007), debates have essentially been limited to confirming the presence of discrepancies among different paradigms regarding theoretical content. As a result, where methodological practices are at all discussed they are judged only by the extent to which they realize underlying theoretical positions. By contrast, this article argues that there is a need to evaluate methodological practices on their own terms and to specify what is gained and lost in the respective approaches. It does so by examining and comparing descriptive analyses of L2 conversational interactions in the interactionist paradigm and in conversation analysis (CA). The article concludes that, if both approaches were held to a minimum level of descriptive adequacy regarding the respective parties' L2 use, analysts could gain a workable space regarding what can be said and what should be said about actual L2 interactions, including where to end description, that is created independent of theoretical positions.
Notes
