Difference between revisions of "Markee2011"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Numa Markee; |Title=Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Conversation analysis; Discursive psychology;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=43 | |Volume=43 | ||
| + | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=602–615 | |Pages=602–615 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216610002924 | ||
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.012 | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.012 | ||
| − | |Abstract=In this paper, I treat avoidance as a locally contingent practice that is collaboratively co- | + | |Abstract=In this paper, I treat avoidance as a locally contingent practice that is collaboratively co-constructed by participants in real time as a topic of interaction during the course of naturally occurring institutional talk. In order to develop this post-cognitive account of how participants do, and justify doing, avoidance-as-behavior, I draw on ethnomethodological conversation analysis and discursive psychology to frame and explicate a number of emerging issues in the conversation analysis-for-second language acquisition literature. These issues include: (1) How can we respecify individual notions of cognition as socially situated activity? (2) How can we use longitudinal talk to show how participants demonstrably orient in speech event 2 (SE2) to a course of action that first occurred in speech event 1 (SE1)? And (3) how can we legitimately use exogenous (that is, talk-external) cultural artifacts (here, a Power Point presentation and a self-evaluation form) as resources for analyzing language learning behavior? |
| − | constructed by participants | ||
| − | occurring institutional talk. In order to develop this post-cognitive account of how | ||
| − | participants do, and justify doing, avoidance-as-behavior, I draw on ethnomethodological | ||
| − | conversation analysis and discursive psychology to frame and explicate a number of | ||
| − | emerging issues in the conversation analysis-for-second language acquisition literature. | ||
| − | These issues include: (1) How can we respecify individual notions of cognition as socially | ||
| − | situated activity? (2) How can we use longitudinal talk to show how participants | ||
| − | demonstrably orient in speech event 2 (SE2) to a course of action that | ||
| − | speech event 1 (SE1)? And (3) | ||
| − | cultural artifacts (here, a Power Point presentation and a self-evaluation form) as resources | ||
| − | for analyzing language learning behavior? | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:00, 28 November 2019
| Markee2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Markee2011 |
| Author(s) | Numa Markee |
| Title | Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Conversation analysis, Discursive psychology, Second language acquisition |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 602–615 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.012 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this paper, I treat avoidance as a locally contingent practice that is collaboratively co-constructed by participants in real time as a topic of interaction during the course of naturally occurring institutional talk. In order to develop this post-cognitive account of how participants do, and justify doing, avoidance-as-behavior, I draw on ethnomethodological conversation analysis and discursive psychology to frame and explicate a number of emerging issues in the conversation analysis-for-second language acquisition literature. These issues include: (1) How can we respecify individual notions of cognition as socially situated activity? (2) How can we use longitudinal talk to show how participants demonstrably orient in speech event 2 (SE2) to a course of action that first occurred in speech event 1 (SE1)? And (3) how can we legitimately use exogenous (that is, talk-external) cultural artifacts (here, a Power Point presentation and a self-evaluation form) as resources for analyzing language learning behavior?
Notes
