Minimal and non-minimal answers to yes-no questions

Sociologists have frequently sought to explain people's beliefs and claims to knowledge in terms of those people's interests. Yet in every case the knowledge/interest connection is an interpretative and revisable one and, moreover, people may have many possibly-ascribable interests. Accordingly the ascription of interests in any particular case is fraught with difficulty. However, actors themselves appear regularly to engage in this kind of interpretative work. Using concepts from sociolinguistics and conversation analysis, this study illustrates through the example of one famous scientific paper how written scientific arguments can be seen to depend on this kind of work also. The study proposes that scientific arguments have a specific interactive orientation, and that technical texts can be seen to operate as a nexus of persuasion, action and belief.

ded by Editor Sally Magnan to continue this discussion on repair and correction with a short reply to Seedhouse (this issue). Given the increased interest in conversation analysis (CA) among applied linguists and, in particular, among scholars with interests in language learning, having a public forum to address such important topics is most welcome. I certainly appreciate Seedhouse's position on these issues. However, his comments display a misreading not just of my argument, but, more generally, of the literature on the nature of and on repair as a fundamental organization of interaction. Space and time constraints prohibit a complete redressing of his argument, so I will direct my comments to three issues whose particulars appear to have generated the most confusion. I hope that our collective work, taken together, will contribute to a better understanding of and the perspective it brings to the study of classroom interaction and language learning. The first issue is with the research purpose and methodological interests of CA. Seedhouse is right to point to the nature of CA, but his characterization of ethnomethodological CA and linguistic CA confuses, rather than clarifies, the kinds of work that ethnomethodology (EM) and do. As domains of sociology, EM and share theoretical perspectives on the nature and source of social order that are radically empirical, grounded in realworld activity. Their analytic and methodological interests, however, have followed different trajectories. EM's concern has principally been with uncovering the diverse common-sense reasoning paths taken by members of social worlds in making sense of these worlds, with particular interest paid to those paths found in various work settings.' Common research methods for collecting data to uncover these understandings include the breaching experiment, in which accepted social norms are intentionally broken so that people's reactions to the breaches can be examined to elucidate their

The work of examples in classroom instruction

In order to focus as clearly as possible on some of the issues involved in the analysis of cognition in the workplace, this chapter will investigate a single, very simple, but very pervasive, activity performed by different kinds of workers in a medium-sized airport: looking at airplanes. Despite the brevity of individual glances, they are in no way haphazard. Workers look at planes in order to see something that will help them accomplish the work they are engaged in. Understanding that looking, therefore, requires analysis of the work activities within which it is embedded. Powerful resources for the detailed analysis of mundane activities have been provided by the approach to the analysis of human interaction that encompasses Goffman (1963, 1971, 1974), Garfinkel (1967), Kendon (1990), and, most relevant to the work in the present paper, conversation analysis (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Drew & Heritage, 1992; C. Goodwin, 1981; M. H. Goodwin, in press; Goodwin & Heritage, 1990; Jefferson, 1973, 1984; Sacks, 1992; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 1968). Moreover, in order to see the airplane in an appropriate, task-relevant way, workers use a range of different kinds of tools. A primary perspective for analysis of how human beings interact, not only with other human beings, but also with a material world shaped by the historical activities of others, can be found in activity theory (Cole, 1985, 1990; Engestrom, 1987, 1990; Leont'ev, 1981; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978; Wertsch, 1985) and the work on distributed cognition that grows from it (Hutchins, 1990, 1995; Middleton & Edwards, 1990; Siefert & Hutchins, 1989).

Facts, I am pleased to observe, are back in fashion. For some time now they have had staunch friends in the American Midwest,1 and these days they are embraced as far afield as Sydney2 and San Francisco.3 But what are facts, and what facts are there? My answer to the first part of this question, which I shall not pursue further, is the same as Russell's and the early Wittgenstein's4: Facts are what constitute the objective world, and what make true sentences and thoughts true and false sentences and thoughts false. (This is largely what is meant, I think, when it is said that you cannot argue with them.) But what is the nature of the relation between facts and truths whereby the former make the latter true?5 This is the central question of my paper. I naturally do not claim to give a full and adequate answer to it, but only to present some considerations which tend to favour one type of answer over another. The main burden of the paper is to show that it is in principle neither necessary nor desirable to admit negative, molecular, and general facts in order to allow for an adequate account of making true. The naive view of the making true relation is, firstly, that it must be 1-1?or at any rate would be were it not for unthought and unrecorded facts, and for equivalent and equivocal thoughts and sentences?and, secondly, that this 1-1 correspondence arises from more basic cor respondences between the components of the fact and matching com ponents of the thought or sentence. Thus the naive fact ontologist is com mitted to a thoroughgoing isomorphism between the structure of the world and the structure of our thought and talk about it. But for those of us who do not regard facts as artefacts of thought and language, this is surely, on reflection, incredible. I find it far more plausible to assume that a relatively simple thought or sentence may be made true by a relatively complex set of facts, and vice versa. The set of facts that makes it true that Smith is a bachelor is clearly far more complex than the thought that he is. On the other hand, an enormously complex disjunction may be made true by a very simple fact. The 1-1 theory cannot account for such intuitions. Nor can it account for the circumstance that everyday thoughts and sentences are fre quently vague. For to do so it would have to assume that there are vague facts. But it is surely our thought and talk that is vague, not the world itself.6

Este artigo apresenta as representações sobre o tipo de trabalho que docentes universitários de Língua Inglesa consideram realizar com as Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação (TIC) em sala de aula. Os aportes teórico-metodológicos estão embasados no Interacionismo Sociodiscursivo de Bronckart (2007; 2008), nas concepções de trabalho desenvolvidas pela Clínica da Atividade e Ergonomia e nas características de trabalho de Machado (2010). Participaram do estudo seis docentes universitários de Língua Inglesa que utilizam as TIC no trabalho. Os dados foram gerados via internet, via e-mails e Moodle. Cada participante produziu um texto em que relatou os usos que faria dessas ferramentas. Os resultados indicam que os docentes fazem usos semelhantes das ferramentas e que há impedimentos no uso das TIC para os docentes da universidade pública.

Conversation analysis offers valuable insight into how particular goals are achieved in conversation and is therefore a useful methodology to employ in psychological research. The aim of this article is to introduce the theoretical background and practice of conversation analysis. A review of some of the important literature in the area is introduced, after which the authors give some examples of psychological research which has combined conversation analysis with what is introduced broadly as ‘discourse-analytic research’. The authors' aim is to demonstrate that conversation analysis can and does make a significant contribution to psychological research. This is particularly important in South Africa (and elsewhere) where language is often used to obscure racist discourses and to hide different layers of meaning about conflicting interests. These strategic processes need to be explored, analysed, and published.

Nursing communication has become more important than ever before because quality of nursing services largely depends on the quality of communication in a very competitive health care environment. This article was to introduce ways to improve nursing communication using conversation analysis. This was a review study on conversation analysis, critically examining previous studies in nursing communication and interpersonal relationships. This study provided theoretical backgrounds and basic assumptions of conversation analysis which was influenced by ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and sociolinguistic. In addition, the characteristics and analysis methods of conversation analysis were illustrated in detail. Lastly, how conversation analysis could help improve communication was shown, by examining researches using conversation analysis not only for ordinary conversations but also for extraordinary or difficult conversations such as conversations between patients with dementia and their professional nurses. Conversation analysis can help in improving nursing communication by providing various structures and patterns as well as prototypes of conversation, and by suggesting specific problems and problem-solving strategies in communication.

Even very short answers to yes–no questions like ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are full sentences, derived by ellipsis. They are a species of fragment answers. There are basically two types of answers, yes–no answers and verb-echo answers. The issue of how to answer negative questions is introduced. There are two different systems found among the languages of the world, which are illustrated. Some terminological issues are discussed, including the notion of grammaticality. The sources of the data are presented and discussed. The SSWL database is introduced.

How many people do homework, what kind of work they do and whether it is increasing are the first questions people ask about homeworking in Britain. They also want to know who supplies homework, and how many suppliers there are. None of these questions have a simple answer, for each gives rise to yet another: how would we know? Comparatively little is known about these aspects of homeworking in quantitative terms, and this makes it all the more necessary to examine how existing estimates of the extent of homeworking have been calculated. Otherwise there is, in our experience, a marked tendency to assume certain kinds of answers to these questions, and to rely on them in making arguments about the scale and nature of homeworking in Britain.

Background: Although research into agrammatism has done much to characterise the nature of the underlying disorder, most studies have analysed elicited, task‐based data. As a result, little is known about the grammar that people with agrammatism use in everyday talk with habitual conversational partners. There is evidence in the Conversation Analysis (CA) literature to suggest that conversational grammar may not mirror the grammar of elicited language samples. The data presented in this paper were collected as part of a larger study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), entitled “An investigation of aphasic syntax‐for‐conversation” (ESRC R000222754, Wilkinson, Maxim, & Beeke, 2001). Aims: To explore the notion that conversation and task‐based data do not necessarily reveal the same grammatical phenomena, addressing the following questions: (1) What resources does a speaker with agrammatism make use of in order to construct a turn at talk? (2) Is the conversational grammar of a speaker with agrammatism organised in a systematic way? (3) What is the relationship between patterns of turn construction in conversation and the grammatical characteristics of output elicited by decontextualised language tests? Methods & Procedures: A videotaped conversation between an agrammatic speaker and his adult daughter is analysed using CA. Four recurring turn construction formats are described and illustrated with extracts. Background information on the client presents the results of picture‐naming and sentence production tests. Outcomes & Results: There is great variation between the grammar of conversation and test data. Test results reveal a severe problem with verb access and sentence construction, with ability declining sharply as the number of verb arguments increases. However, the speaker deploys interactional alternatives to standard grammatical structures, and it is possible for him to recount events without explicit articulation of verbs and argument structures, using a combination of talk and mime. Only a minority of his conversational utterances are concerned with recounting events—commenting, assessing, and reasoning are highly prevalent. Conclusions: Conversation and sentence‐level tests provide complementary but essentially different information about grammatical ability. This implies that assessment of conversational grammar should become a routine part of any investigation of agrammatism in order to gain a more complete picture of an individual's ability to impose structural order on their talk, and to explore implications for successful interaction with others. Currently, approaches to assessment and intervention over‐emphasise events. In conversation, other actions such as giving an opinion are just as prevalent. Findings suggest a mismatch between what appears problematic on testing and what is treated as problematic by the interactants in conversation, and that intervention might profitably seek to address grammatical difficulties that have a basis in interaction.

From narrative research, we know how the past is reconstructed in narratives. But we also have consolidated forms of communication to talk about the future . These forms are discussed in this article as “projective genres.” First, the concept of communicative genres is presented, and its theoretical background and central concepts are explained. The empirical analysis shows which communicative means the anticipation of the future uses: tasks are distributed, action steps are defined, and responsibilities are assigned. Actors use modals verbs and when-then constructions to accomplish this. After the empirical analysis, the question is discussed of which specific communicative problems this way of speaking about the future solves: on the one hand, projective genres gradually reduce uncertainty; they anticipate and structure a future event. On the other hand, they provide certainty of action. Because projective genres typically appear as a series – the future plan of action is repeatedly addressed and thus kept relevant and current. The analysis is based on empirical data (audio and video recordings from everyday contexts); genre analysis and conversation analysis are used as a method.

Diskursne oznake, multifunkcionalne jezične jedinice čija je glavna uloga uspostavljanje kohezivnih i koherencijskih veza u diskursu te stvaranje interaktivnih veza među govornicima, igraju iznimno važnu ulogu u pragmatičkoj i diskursnoj kompetenciji govornika. Njihova velika važnost za prirodnu komunikaciju primjerenu kontekstu ukazuje nam na njihov značaj za nastavnike i učenike stranih jezika. Istraživanje opisano u ovomu radu provedeno je radi pružanja uvida u uporabu diskursnih oznaka hrvatskih nastavnika engleskoga kao stranoga jezika u nastavi s učenicima na dvjema razinama ovladanosti jezikom. Korpus govora osam nastavnica analiziran je kvantitativnim i kvalitativnim pristupom pružajući sveobuhvatan uvid u njihovu uporabu diskursnih oznaka, stavove prema ovim jedinicama i udžbenike kojima se koriste u nastavi. Rezultati istraživanja pokazali su da nastavnice rabe širok raspon diskursnih oznaka u nastavi, ali ih u manjemu broju rabe učestalo. Učestale diskursne oznake u njihovu govoru imaju uloge koje se prvenstveno odnose na organizaciju i upravljanje interakcijom u učionici. Analiza pet najčešćih diskursnih oznaka kroz primjere njihove uporabe iz korpusa pruža iznimno detaljan uvid u način na koji ih nastavnice rabe, među ostalim kako bi ostvarile osnovne uloge govora nastavnika. Osvrt na stavove nastavnica i na način obrade diskursnih oznaka u udžbenicima engleskoga jezika upotpunjuju sliku iz koje se može zaključiti da je u hrvatskomu obrazovnomu kontekstu prijeko potrebno sustavno uključiti diskursne oznake u obrazovanje sadašnjih i budućih nastavnika kako bi znali na koji način i u kojoj mjeri svojim učenicima olakšati usvajanje ovih iznimno važnih oblika, što je važna pedagoška implikacija ovoga istraživanja. Budući da kod nas dosad nisu dokumentirana znanstvena istraživanja o uporabi diskursnih oznaka kod hrvatskih nastavnika engleskoga jezika, riječ je o sasvim novim uvidima u ovu temu. Spoznaje proizašle iz ovoga istraživanja mogu pridonijeti razvoju saznanja o govoru nastavnika stranih jezika i postupcima koje nastavnici rabe u nastavi kako bi učenicima olakšali usvajanje jezika. Rezultati istraživanja doprinijet će općenitomu razvoju metodologije poučavanja engleskomu jeziku i oblikovanju smjernica u stručnomu usavršavanju nastavnika u području diskursne kompetencije

This monograph is part of a series on second language research methodology edited by Gass and Schachter. Their introduction to the text highlights the interdisciplinary nature of SLA research and the necessity for a fuller understanding of the wide variety of research methodologies in current use. Each monograph is devoted to a particular data collection method or instrument and provides an overview of (a) the theoretical and research background, (b) the current uses of the instrument or method, (c) appropriate research questions, (d) underlying assumptions, and (e) any problems associated with practical use. Forthcoming texts will cover case studies, conversation analysis, elicited imitation, data-driven modeling, and speech acts.

Bioethics has never been far removed from politics or political agendas. For instance, many of the early contributors argued fiercely for the rights of women, or the rights of unborn babies, depending on which side of the political debate their thinking fell. The empowerment of patients against the prevailing medical paternalism was similarly politically motivated. What separated the early bioethical contributions from the purely political ones was that they were using established theories and methodologies of their own disciplines to argue for their case. The scientific validity of these claims was something that could be assessed against the theoretical background of the respective disciplines. Bioethics has always been an inter- and multidisciplinary enterprise and this tendency has become more and more prevalent. The ever-changing realities of medicine and biomedical sciences, available resources and the views, values and beliefs of the various stakeholders are playing an increasingly important role in bioethical deliberations. Widening and deepening the understanding of the complex issues by utilizing a wide variety of approaches is, of course, laudable. However, when the aim is not only to describe, but to prescribe, the multidisciplinarity becomes a methodological problem. Politics can be defined as the practice and theory of influencing people and that is, I would argue, what most bioethicists are trying to do. They have a moral stance and related policy recommendations that they are trying to convince people to accept. This tendency is further strengthened by the expectation from the funding bodies for research to yield practically relevant results. The chapter substantiates the claim that (much of) bioethics is politics by looking at the kind of work that is being carried out in bioethics, the speculative nature of the cost-benefit analyses at the heart of bioethics debates and the problems caused by inter- and multidisciplinary approaches with an emphasis on new technologies.