Nurses' views of the coping of patients

Assessing and categorizing have been shown to be different types of descriptions, however, the different ways of talking involved in each have not been analyzed. Drawing on ethnomethodology, this article argues that assessing and categorizing are distinct and empirically identifiable ways of producing descriptions. These different ways of talking have practical implications for actors making descriptions. To analyze how these methods of describing work, the different manner in which they produce complex descriptions is analyzed.

The aim of this article is to give a modest contribution in the description of the structure and the means of expression of the feminine speech in the Southern region of Albania. Communication between the sexes has been an area of interest of sociolinguists that have suggested that we come from different planets, that we have different ways of talking, thinking, different brain organizations, etc. Research on language and gender has increasingly become research on gender and discourse. A movement toward the study of language within specific situated activities reflects the importance of culturally defined meanings both of linguistic strategies and of gender. The study of gender and discourse not only provides a descriptive account of male/female discourse but also reveals how language functions as a symbolic resource to create and manage personal, social, and cultural meanings and identities. We have analyzed the everyday language of men and women, in everyday situations as well as in the public communications, in the cities and in the small villages. We have used some examples from the artistic literature of feminine writers of this region. The present paper tries to point out some of the male/female differences in communication and to find the answer to the question: in which way men and women in this region speak differently? DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n1p167

This thesis is a study of students’ experiences as learners of Standard Australian English (SAE) as an additional language or dialect in early years classrooms in an Australian Aboriginal community. It takes as its starting point reports that English‐lexified varieties spoken in many Aboriginal communities are not explicitly recognised as systematically different from SAE within the formal education system. That is, that the status and needs of Aboriginal students as learners of SAE may be ‘invisible’ in classroom interactions which make up a large part of these children’s educational experiences (Angelo & Hudson 2018; Dixon & Angelo 2014; McIntosh, O’Hanlon & Angelo 2012; Sellwood & Angelo 2013). These issues were explored through two research questions and five sub‐questions: 1) How are students choosing between variants in their linguistic repertoires as they talk during class time at school, a. Do students choose variants associated with SAE or the community variety according to interlocutor, topic of talk or the type of activity they are engaged in?; b. Are there changes in students’ rate of use of SAE and non‐SAE variants in their speech in the classroom over three years? 2) To what extent, and how, do teachers present SAE (as an additional language/dialect) as a learning focus for students in lessons, a. What are the norms and expectations for students’ ways of speaking in the classroom, as revealed through teachers, teacher aides and students’ practices?; b. Is SAE (AL/D) presented as a learning focus in literacy lessons, and how?; c. Is SAE (AL/D) presented as the main content to be learned in any lessons, and how? Data for the study was collected over three years, following two cohorts of students in the first four years of school, in an Aboriginal community in Queensland. Usual classroom lessons were audio and video recorded with the aim of capturing as closely as possible what would have been happening if researchers had not been present. Research Question 1 was investigated through two complementary approaches, providing qualitative and quantitative analysis. Variationist sociolinguistic methods were used to consider how linguistic and social factors influenced students’ choices between linguistic variants associated with the community variety and SAE, and the effect of change over time. Variation in absence and presence of the verb ‘be’ in the children’s classroom talk was taken as a case study for the focus of this analysis. Results showed that literacy task related topics of talk strongly favoured presence of the verb ‘be’. However, contrary to expectation, ‘be’ presence in the children’s classroom talk was not favoured with SAE‐speaking teacher addressees. The analysis did not show the expected increase in rate of ‘be’ presence with an increased length of time at school. Research Question 1 was additionally explored using a Conversation Analysis (CA) approach. CA analysis of classroom interactions showed ways in which students oriented to the social meanings of different ways of talking. In literacy tasks, children’s self‐talk showed how they navigated between variants in their linguistic repertoires, and children demonstrated in their interactions with peers and teachers that they associated certain words with particular ways of talking in the community. Research Question 2 was explored through analysis of classroom interactions from a CA perspective. Analysis revealed little explicit orientation from teachers to students being speakers of the community variety, or learners of SAE, with students being instead treated to a considerable extent as already speakers of SAE. Lessons ostensibly targeted at explicitly teaching linguistic forms were found to focus on topic‐specific applications of SAE words to academic tasks. The context where teachers attended most to non‐SAE aspects of students’ speech was in interactions centred on reading and writing tasks. However, in these interactions, there was evidence that students were treated primarily as learners of literacy, rather than learners of SAE. Both of the methodological approaches, CA and variationist sociolinguistics, drew on naturally occurring classroom data to provide insight into young Aboriginal students’ linguistic experiences encountering SAE as the medium of instruction at school. These analyses contribute new material to previous observations regarding the level of acknowledgement of Aboriginal SAE as an additional language or dialect learners at school (Dixon & Angelo 2014; McIntosh, O’Hanlon & Angelo 2012; Sellwood & Angelo 2013), providing insight into the visibility of these students’ existing linguistic knowledge and SAE learning needs in everyday classroom interactions central to their education.

Throughout the book of Job there is a rivalry between different ways of talking. As important as it is to pay attention to what everybody is talking about, there are also important issues to be uncovered in attending to how these ways of using language differ and what is at stake in setting them over against one another. Since every way of talking implies a moral and social world, the book of Job presents readers with alternative models of character and community. The rival discourses within the book can be compared with contemporary discourses of neo-traditionalism, critical modernism, and post-modernism. Although arguments can be made for a neo-traditionalist and a post-modernist reading of the book as a whole, neither argument decisively triumphs over the other. The book may be likened to a Gestalt drawing that can be seen in two irreconcilable ways.

Patients, consumers and survivors: A case study of mental health service user discourses

My commentary draws on the six studies contained in this special issue to argue that talk about risk poses special problems for interaction, and that the participants in this talk have devices for dealing with these problems. I draw on Erving Goffman's concept of 'face' and show how the discussion of risk issues can threaten the face of doctors and patients, counsellors and clients, or writers and readers of diary accounts and newsgroup postings. The participants are not just presenting an evaluation of probabilities and dangers, they are representing and defending versions of themselves. Another of Goffman's concepts, 'frames', can help us see how each of these discussions can be seen in terms of several different ways of talking, not just calculation of risks and decision-making. The implication is that professionals engaging in risk talk cannot just convey relevant information, but must consider how the participants present themselves, and what different frames might emerge in the course of interaction.

When political psychologists turn to the study of intolerance, they seem to be mostly preoccupied with what Allport has called ‘the horizontal dimensions that run through all individuals’ (1962, p. 409). Allport was writing about what psychologists routinely refer to as traits, predispositions, cognitions and motives that describe the ‘personality’ of individuals. What Allport described using a spatial metaphor is described by contemporary political psychology in not so different terms, as a ‘multifaceted and enduring internal, or psychological, structure’ (Mondak, 2010, p. 6). This chapter argues that although the influences of Allport’s ‘horizontal dimensions’ are some of the most discernible and significant, they are not the sole determinant of intolerance. This chapter contends that the nature of intolerance (and associated phenomena such as racism and moral exclusion) cannot be reduced to relatively stable inner predispositions or basic personality dispositions, and that the leaning of political psychologists to elucidate the general regularities of political behaviour can be profitably balanced, complemented by attention to culture, language, social interaction and the actual ways in which intolerance is enacted and accomplished by different ways of talking and behaving towards others.

Artykuł jest próbą opisu współczesnych radiowych reportaży o tematyce podróżniczej. Wskazujemy na różne ujęcia podróży we wspomnianym gatunku oraz – analizując i interpretując wybrane audycje – staramy się zauważać, w jaki sposób i za pomocą jakich środków można w medium pozbawionym obrazu opowiadać o światach bliskich i dalekich. Swoje obserwacje oparłyśmy na wysłuchaniu kilkudziesięciu reportaży powstałych na przestrzeni ostatnich lat. Zaproponowałyśmy tematyczne kategorie podziału audycji, bowiem motyw podróży bywa podejmowany przez autorów w różny sposób. W jednym przypadku dziennikarze skupiają się na postaci podróżnika, w innym na samej podróży. Bywają również audycje przedstawiające podróż jako swoistą ucieczkę przed wojną czy terrorem. Wspomniana różnorodność dotyczy także formalnych rozwiązań. Radiowe reportaże podróżnicze cechuje duża różnorodność stylistyczna, kompozycyjna i estetyczna. Uprawnione jest także mówienie o osobliwości warsztatowej danego twórcy, którego talent, wrażliwość, pomysłowość i poczucie estetyki wpływają na styl konkretnej audycji podróżniczej.

Do English and Mandarin Speakers Think Differently About Time?

Reviewed by: Twenty-First-Century Feminisms in Children's and Adolescent Literature by Roberta Seelinger Trites Adrienne Kertzer (bio) Twenty-First-Century Feminisms in Children's and Adolescent Literature. By Roberta Seelinger Trites. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2018. Roberta Seelinger Trites begins this volume with a definition of feminism that has much in common with the one that she used in Waking Sleeping Beauty: Feminist Voices in Children's Novels (1997). She also admits that she continues to "believe that most aspects of life are mediated by language and discourse" (xvi). Despite these links to her earlier work, however, Twenty-First-Century Feminisms offers a strikingly different theoretical perspective on children's and adolescent literature. It has much to offer anyone interested in how the principles of material feminism inform various contemporary feminisms and how reading literature for young people through the lens of material feminism can bring into focus similarities between apparently different theoretical approaches. In her introduction, Trites identifies three objectives: "to show how authors . . . are employing various forms of feminism to break down binaries in complex and creative ways" (xii); "to interrogate the ways that material feminism can expand our understanding of materiality, maturation, and gender—especially girlhood—in preadolescent and adolescent narratives" (xxiv); and "to explore how representations of materiality affect the relationship between gender and empowerment in literature for youth" (xxv). In insisting that these objectives should not be regarded as a dismissal of her earlier work, she follows the example of Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman, who suggest that material feminists share a desire "to build on rather than abandon the lessons learned in the linguistic turn" (Alaimo and Hekman, "Introduction" 6). Claiming that "feminist theory is at an impasse" because of the mistaken belief "that the real/material is entirely constituted by language" (1, 2), Alaimo and Hekman write that "we need a way to talk about the materiality of the body as itself an active, sometimes recalcitrant, force. Women have bodies. . . . We need a way to talk about these bodies and the materiality they inhabit" (4; orig. emphasis). In the six chapters of Twenty-First-Century Feminisms, Trites responds to this invitation by examining how more than thirty texts offer different ways of talking about bodies and materiality. Trites suggests that while her earlier work "focused on how authors construct gender discursively," she now wants to ask, "Why do they do so?" (xxv; orig. emphasis). However, precisely because literary texts "are always and only discursive," her question—"What pertinence, then, does [End Page 476] material feminism have to the study of children's literature?" (xviii)—is not strictly a "why" question. Rather, it asks how we might understand material feminism as informing the practices of the writers, readers, and scholars who deal with texts. Trites's answer is that whereas the linguistic turn directed attention to epistemology—"how we know what we know" (xvii)—material feminism raises "metaphysical questions of ontology, that is, questions of being and evaluations of what constitutes reality" (xvii–xviii). Acknowledging that her earlier work emphasized "the epistemological at the expense of the ontological," she sees the principles of material feminism as permitting her to explore how texts "engage . . . child readers in ontological questions about how gender intersects with the material world" (xviii). Trites's acknowledgment that "literature is representational" (xviii) exists in productive tension with the perspective of philosopher Karen Barad. Her first chapter, "Becoming, Mattering, and 'Knowing in Being' in Feminist Novels for the Young," provides a detailed introduction to Barad's theories and terminology (and use of italics). Challenging the belief in "the ontological distinction between representations and that which they purport to represent," Barad objects to "Thingification" (Barad 123, 130). To convey that matter is "not a thing, but a doing" (139), she coins the neologism "intra-activity," which "signifies the mutual constitution of entangled agencies" (qtd. in Trites 11). Barad prefers "intra-action" to "interaction" because the latter "presumes the prior existence of independent entities" (Barad 133). When Trites proposes that "children's and adolescent literature offers material feminism . . . the opportunity . . . to concentrate on a stage of life that is largely implicated in processes of becoming" (30), she is clearly invoking Barad...

Clean, green, creative, and now smart cities have all been separately identified, measured, ranked, and evaluated. Are they really all just different ways of talking about the same things? Cities that rank well in one category always seem to do well on the others. This research identifies and compares creative, green, and smart cities and looks for correlations. This research will proceed along two lines. First, new measures for identifying smart cities and sustainable cities are developed. These are then combined with existing measures for green and creative cities. Which cities are creative but not smart? Green but not creative? Second, what are the relationships among cities for being creative, green, and smart? This research will help cities, regions, and policy makers, many of whom are pursuing growth strategies based around one or more of these concepts. By discussing the relationships among these strategies, a more nuanced approach may be developed.

How Do I Foster Different Ways of Talking and Writing about Literature?

Human Olfaction at the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Biology

This article discusses conjoint interviews and takes its starting point from a study with nine older couples who have been living with disabilities for a long period of time. Conjoint interviewing where dyads are interviewed together produces a different kind of data from individual interviews – specifically data that conduce different ways of talking about “we-ness” and produce interaction between the participants. This article discusses how this appeared in a study that was interested in the understandings and actualizations of spousal care when both have a disability or illness. The method leads to an analysis centered on mutuality and has potential to problematize traditional caring tasks and caring roles in the context of living with disability or chronic illness. Potentials and limitations of the method are discussed.

The subject of this paper is loss and grief described by different people from two language groups: Americans and Poles. The analyzed data comes from the responses to two online questionnaires, and belongs to a larger PhD research project. In looking for examples of conceptual metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Kövecses 2005) and conceptual blends (Fauconnier and Turner 1996, Dancygier and Sweetser 2014), we present various cases of conceptualization of loss and grief. Given the limited size of this paper, we selected examples referring to loss of a father. The aim is to compare different ways of talking about apparently the same type of loss, highlighting the fact that grief is very subjective and personal. It is also a way to present differences and a variety in viewpoint when talking about this type of loss.