Difference between revisions of "Koole2015"
m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Tom Koole; | + | |Author(s)=Tom Koole; |
|Title=The interaction tool | |Title=The interaction tool | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; interaction tool |
|Key=Koole2015 | |Key=Koole2015 | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| − | | | + | |Language=English |
|Journal=Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics | |Journal=Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics | ||
|Volume=4 | |Volume=4 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=86–100 |
| + | |URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.4.1.08koo | ||
|DOI=10.1075/dujal.4.1.08koo | |DOI=10.1075/dujal.4.1.08koo | ||
| − | |Abstract=For professionals such as doctors, teachers, or different kinds of counsellors, talking with their clients is a major part of their profession. Professionals and clients give and ask information until they reach a state of mutual knowledge or understanding. This paper argues that for this talk they use a tool, the machinery of social interaction, with characteristics that influence the outcomes of their talk. One characteristic is the normative organization of interaction through which the contribution of one participant puts restrictions on the range of possible follow-up contributions of another participant. This may cause client behavior that does not align with the institutional aims of the professional. A second trait is that interactants have no access to each other’s cognitions such as intentions, interpretations, knowing, and understanding. Professionals should thus be aware that what clients say has a relatively loose relation with what they know and understand. | + | |Abstract=For professionals such as doctors, teachers, or different kinds of counsellors, talking with their clients is a major part of their profession. Professionals and clients give and ask information until they reach a state of mutual knowledge or understanding. This paper argues that for this talk they use a tool, the machinery of social interaction, with characteristics that influence the outcomes of their talk. One characteristic is the normative organization of interaction through which the contribution of one participant puts restrictions on the range of possible follow-up contributions of another participant. This may cause client behavior that does not align with the institutional aims of the professional. A second trait is that interactants have no access to each other’s cognitions such as intentions, interpretations, knowing, and understanding. Professionals should thus be aware that what clients say has a relatively loose relation with what they know and understand. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:28, 12 December 2019
| Koole2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Koole2015 |
| Author(s) | Tom Koole |
| Title | The interaction tool |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, interaction tool |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics |
| Volume | 4 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 86–100 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/dujal.4.1.08koo |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
For professionals such as doctors, teachers, or different kinds of counsellors, talking with their clients is a major part of their profession. Professionals and clients give and ask information until they reach a state of mutual knowledge or understanding. This paper argues that for this talk they use a tool, the machinery of social interaction, with characteristics that influence the outcomes of their talk. One characteristic is the normative organization of interaction through which the contribution of one participant puts restrictions on the range of possible follow-up contributions of another participant. This may cause client behavior that does not align with the institutional aims of the professional. A second trait is that interactants have no access to each other’s cognitions such as intentions, interpretations, knowing, and understanding. Professionals should thus be aware that what clients say has a relatively loose relation with what they know and understand.
Notes
