Managing Educational Interactions: A Case Study of Bilingual Supervision Meetings

  • Beatrice Szczepek Reed


Conversation analysis (commonly abbreviated as CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction, embracing both verbal and nonverbal conduct, in situations of everyday life. It is used in this case to evoke a basic question: Is it accurate to describe a conversation as cross/intercultural when participants conform to the same verbal and nonverbal conventions even though they come from different cultural backgrounds?


Conversation Analysis Academic Progress Intercultural Communication Linguistic Difference Global Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Richmond, 1998, “The two cultures problem,” Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Boston, Massachusetts, 10–15 August, Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Popper, 2014, Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge (Routledge).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Polanyi and H. Prosch, 2008, Meaning (Google eBook and University of Chicago Press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Christopher, 2010, “The management of uncertainty and culture shock by graduate overseas students in Australia,” International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(11), 35–53.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. L Berger, 1997, “Four faces of global culture,” National Interest, Fall 97(49), 23, 7p.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P.L. Berger and S.P. Huntington, 2003, Many globalizations: cultural diversity in the contemporary world (Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Sacks, 1992, Lectures on conversation (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  8. E. Schegloff, 2007, Sequence organisation in interaction: a primer in conversation analysis (Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    A. Nishizaka, 1995, “The interactive constitution of interculturality: how to be a Japanese with words,” Human Studies, 18, 301–326;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Mori, 2003, “The construction of interculturality: a study of initial encounters between Japanese and American students,” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(2), 143–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Mori, 2007, “Reconstructing the participants’ treatments of ‘inter-culturality’: variations in data methodologies,” Pragmatics, 17(1), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Nishizaka, 1999, “Doing interpreting within interaction: the interactive accomplishment of a ‘henna gaijin’ or ‘strange foreigner,’” Human Studies, 22, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. E. Zimmerman, 2007, “Constructing Korean and Japanese intercul-turality in talk: ethnic membership categorization among users of Japanese,” Pragmatics, 17(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 9.
    J. Sidnell, 2001, “Conversational turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole,” Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1263–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Sidnell (ed.), 2009, Conversation analysis: comparative perspectives (Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  16. T. Stivers, N.J. Enfield, P. Brown, C. Englert, M. Hayashi, T. Heinemann, G. Hoymann, F. Rossano, J.P. de Ruiter, K.-E. Yoon and S.C. Levinson, 2009, “Universals and cultural variation in turntaking in conversation,” PNAS ( Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ), 106(26), 10587–10592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. B.A. Fox, Y. Maschler and S. Uhmann, 2010, “A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew,” Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2487–2505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 10.
    P. Clancy, S.A. Thompson, R. Suzuki and H. Tao, 1996, “The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin,” Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 12.
    For the role of matching prosody, see B. Szczepek, 2006, Prosodic orientation in English conversation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. B. Szczepek Reed, 2009, “Prosodic orientation: a practice for sequence organization in broadcast telephone openings,” Journal of Pragmatics, 41(6), 1223–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 14.
    H. Mehan, 1979, Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom (Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. C.B. Cazden, 1988, Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning (Heinemann).Google Scholar
  23. 15.
    Adapted from: M. Selting, P. Auer, D. Barth-Weingarten, J. Bergmann, P. Bergmann, K. Birkner, E. Couper-Kuhlen, A. Deppermann, P. Gilles, S. Günthner, M. Hartung, F. Kern, C. Mertzlufft, C. Meyer, M. Morek, F. Oberzaucher, J. Peters, U. Quasthoff, W. Schütte, A. Stukenbrock and S. Uhmann, 2011, “A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2” (translated and adapted for English by E. Couper-Kuhlen and D. Barth-Weingarten), Gesprächsforschung, 12, 1–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Beatrice Szczepek Reed 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatrice Szczepek Reed

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations