Advertisement

Longitudinal Research on the Organization of Social Interaction: Current Developments and Methodological Challenges

  • Johannes Wagner
  • Simona Pekarek Doehler
  • Esther González-Martínez
Chapter

Abstract

Adapting practices to local circumstances based on earlier interactions is mundane conduct for human beings. It becomes available for description only when conduct is analyzed as ordered in time, both sequentially and historically. In this introduction to the volume, we first situate the studies presented here with regard to the research agenda of classical Conversation Analysis (CA) and discuss earlier longitudinal research in the field. We then scrutinize a range of methodological challenges that arise at the current state of research for “vertical” (Zimmerman 1999) comparison in CA, related to such issues as warranting comparability and building collections over (extended) periods or time, as well as demonstrating the locally accountable character of longitudinal change. We close the chapter by briefly discussing perspectives for future research.

References

  1. Bercelli, F., Rossano, F., & Viaro, M. (2008). Clients’ responses to therapists’ re-interpretations. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 43–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bercelli, F., Rossano, F., & Viaro, M. (2013). Supra-session courses of action in psychotherapy. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). Questioning Presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 749–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clayman, S. E., Elliott, M. N., Heritage, J., & McDonald, L. L. (2006). Historical trends in questioning Presidents 1953–2000. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(4), 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clayman, S., Heritage, J., Elliott, M. N., & McDonald, L. L. (2007). When does the watchdog bark? Conditions of aggressive questioning in Presidential news conferences. American Sociological Review, 72(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deppermann, A., & Günthner, S. (Eds.). (2015). Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In P. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 293–308). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2013). Recurring and shared gestures in the L2 class- room: Resources for teaching and learning. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65(2), 419–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Filipi, A. (2009). Parent and toddler interaction: The development of interactional competence through pointing, gaze and vocalisations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 800–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forrester, M. A. (2008). The emergence of self-repair: A case study of one child during the early preschool years. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, B., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of the syntactic organization of repair. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 185–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Garfinkel, H. (1988). Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential quiddity of immortal ordinary society (I of IV): An announcement of studies. Sociological Theory, 6(1), 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. D. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
  22. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haakana, M., Laakso, M., & Lindström, J. (Eds.). (2009). Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
  27. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  28. Hellermann, J. (2011). Members’ methods, members competencies: Looking for evidence of language learning in longitudinal investigation of other-initiated repair. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 147–172). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  29. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heritage, J. (1999). Conversation analysis at century’s end. Practices of talk-in-interaction, their distribution, and their outcomes. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1–2), 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heritage, J. (2009). Conversation analysis as social theory. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 300–320). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2013). The changing tenor of questioning over time: Tracking a question form across US presidential news conferences, 1953–2000. Journalism Practice, 7(4), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hosoda, Y., & Aline, D. (2010). Learning to be a teacher: Development of EFL teacher trainee interactional practices. JALT Journal, 32(2), 119–147.Google Scholar
  35. Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ‘ne’ in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. T Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–385). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  36. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  37. Kidwell, M. (2005). Gaze as social control: How very young children differentiate “the look” from a “mere look” by the adult caregivers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4), 417–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kidwell, M., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2006). “Observability” in the interactions of very young children. Communication Monographs, 73(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim, Y. (2009). The Korean discourse markers -nuntey and kuntey in native-nonnative conversation. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  40. Koschmann, T. (2013). Conversation analysis and learning in interaction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1038–1043). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2013, August 6). Learning in interactional terms. Paper presented at the IIEMCA conference, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, Y. (2010). Learning in the contingency of talk-in-interaction. Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 30(4), 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li, W. (2002). “What do you want me to say?” On the conversation analysis approach to bilingual interaction. Language in Society, 31(2), 159–180.Google Scholar
  44. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing systems design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Macbeth, D. H. (1990). Classroom order as practical action. The making and un-making of a quiet reproach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin, C., & Sahlström, F. (2010). Learning as longitudinal interactional change: From other-repair to self-repair in physiotherapy treatment. Discourse Processes, 47(8), 668–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mori, J., & Koschmann, T. (2012). Good reasons for seemingly bad performance: Competences at the blackboard and the accountability of a lesson. In G. Rasmussen, C. E. Brouwer, & D. Day (Eds.), Evaluating cognitive competences in interaction (pp. 89–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nguyen, H. thi (2011). Achieving recipient design longitudinally: Evidence from a pharmacy intern in patient consultations. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 173–205). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  50. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In C. Jenks & S. Walsh (Eds.), Conceptualizing learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2016). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021.
  52. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing “methods” for interaction: Disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206–243). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  53. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–267). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  54. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rawls, A. (2002). Editor’s introduction. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism (pp. 1–76). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  56. Rine, E. F., & Hall, J. K. (2011). Becoming the teacher: Changing participant frameworks in international teaching assistant discourse. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 244–274). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  57. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and continguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  58. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University press.Google Scholar
  60. Schegloff, E. A. (1989). Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. In M. H. Bornstein & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 139–153). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191–227). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In E. H. Hovy & D. Scott (Eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues. An interdisciplinary account (pp. 3–38). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(4), 405–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schegloff, E. A. (2009). One perspective on conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 357–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sidnell, J. (Ed.). (2009). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., De Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10587–10592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Voutilainen, L., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2011). Therapeutic change in interaction: Conversation analysis of a transforming sequence. Psychotherapy Research, 21(3), 348–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wagner, J., & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 1–17). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  73. Wilkinson, R. (2010). Interaction-focused intervention: A conversation analytic approach to aphasia therapy. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 1(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilkinson, R., Bryan, K., Lock, S., Bayley, K., Maxim, J., Bruce, C., Edmundson, A., & Moir, D. (1998). Therapy using conversation analysis: Helping couples adapt to aphasia in conversation. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 33(s1), 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wilkinson, R., Gower, M., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2007). Adapting to conversation as a language-impaired speaker: Changes in aphasic turn construction over time. Communication and Medicine, 4(1), 79–97.Google Scholar
  76. Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2010). Formulating actions and events with limited linguistic resources: Enactment and iconicity in agrammatic aphasic talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wootton, A. J. (1994). Object transfer, intersubjectivity and third position repair: Early developmental observations of one child. Journal of Child Language, 21(3), 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wootton, A. J. (1997). Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zimmerman, D. H. (1999). Horizontal and vertical comparative research in language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1–2), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Wagner
    • 1
  • Simona Pekarek Doehler
    • 2
  • Esther González-Martínez
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Design and CommunicationUniversity of Southern DenmarkKoldingDenmark
  2. 2.Centre for Applied LinguisticsUniversity of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Social SciencesUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations