Advertisement

Understanding the Fuzzy Borders of Context in Conversation Analysis and Ethnography

  • Silvia KunitzEmail author
  • Numa MarkeeEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the Encyclopedia of Language and Education book series (ELE)

Abstract

Context is one of the most difficult and contentious issues in the disciplines that study language and social interaction. While, from a historical point of view, it is possible to situate ethnographic and conversation analytic ideas about context in the different intellectual traditions of anthropology and ethnomethodological sociology, the originally sharp contrasts between these disciplines’ analytic treatments of context have become increasingly more nuanced. Furthermore, a compelling argument can be made within conversation analysis that the traditionally rather narrow conceptualization of context that is often used in analyses of ordinary conversation often needs to be expanded in institutional contexts of talk. In this chapter, we trace early developments in work on context and review major contributions to this important topic within the study of language and social interaction. Next we sketch out current work in progress, identify key problems and difficulties, and finally identify future directions for language educators and applied linguists to explore as we seek to understand this singularly difficult construct that underlies so many of our disciplinary endeavors.

Keywords

Context Conversation analysis Ethnography Multimodality 

References

  1. Arminen, I. (2000). On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction. Discourse and Society, 11(4), 435–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clemente, I. (2013). Conversation analysis and anthropology. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 688–700). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  8. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Media space and communicative asymmetries. Preliminary observations of video mediated interactions. Human Computer Interaction, 7, 315–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heritage, J., & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice between health visitors and first time mothers. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 359–417). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 11, pp. 281–314). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
  12. Kasper, G. (2013). Conversation analysis and interview studies. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1022–1027). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Lantolf, J. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural theory, second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 24–47). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2012). Video-in-interaction: “Talking heads” and the multimodal organization of mobile and Skype video calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 399–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Markee, N. (2011). Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 602–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Markee, N. (2015). Introduction: Classroom discourse and interaction research. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maynard, D. (2003). Bad news, good news. Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. McHoul, A., Rapley, M., & Antaki, C. (2008). You gotta light? On the luxury of context for understanding talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moerman, M. (1977). The preference for self-correction in a Tai conversational corpus. Language, 53(4), 872–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture. Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mondada, L. (2013). Conversation analysis and institutional interaction. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1005–1011). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Schegloff, E. (1987). Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch, & N. Smelser (Eds.), The micro–macro link (pp. 207–234). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schegloff, E. (1991). Reflections on talk and social culture. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schegloff, E. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sidnell, J. (Ed.). (2009). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching (Vol. Language learning monograph series). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Young, R. F. (2014). “Don’t know much about history” and it’s NOT a wonderful world. In Plenary talk given at the conference on interactional competences and institutional practices, Neuchâtel, 21–22 Nov.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations