Difference between revisions of "Bushnell2015"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Cade Bushnell; |Title=Lost in translation? On using conversation analysis to examine cross-linguistic data |Tag(s)=EMCA; Second Languag...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Cade Bushnell; | + | |Author(s)=Cade Bushnell; |
|Title=Lost in translation? On using conversation analysis to examine cross-linguistic data | |Title=Lost in translation? On using conversation analysis to examine cross-linguistic data | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Second Language; Cross-linguistic; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Second Language; Cross-linguistic; |
|Key=Bushnell2015 | |Key=Bushnell2015 | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Area Studies Tsukuba | |Journal=Area Studies Tsukuba | ||
|Volume=36 | |Volume=36 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=107–126 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://tsukuba.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=34772&item_no=1&attribute_id=17&file_no=2 |
| − | |Abstract= | + | |Abstract=An increasing number of conversation analytic studies since the mid nineteen-nineties examine interactions involving what may be termed “cross-linguistic data,” or data featuring interactions between first and second language speakers of a common language(s), or between second language speakers of a lingua franca. To complicate matters, the language(s) of the interaction may or may not be native to the researcher. In this essay, I discuss some of the issues surrounding the use of conversation analysis to examine both foreign language data (i.e., data where the researcher is not a first language speaker of the language(s) used in the interaction), and second language data (i.e. data where one or more of the participants is not a first language speaker of the language(s) of the interaction). In particular, I consider issues specific to cross-linguistic data that are potentially problematic for conversation analysis. In discussing these issues, I give consideration to both potential problems and corresponding counter arguments, and proposed solutions. Then, I expand upon some of the counter arguments and solutions mentioned in a discussion of the (new) analytic requirements for approaching cross-linguistic data. I also comment on possible analytic gains offered in and through examining cross-linguistic data. |
| − | interactions involving what may be termed “cross-linguistic data,” or data featuring interactions | ||
| − | between first and second language speakers of a common language(s), or between second language | ||
| − | speakers of a lingua franca. To complicate matters, the language(s) of the interaction may or may not | ||
| − | be native to the researcher. In this essay, I discuss some of the issues surrounding the use of | ||
| − | conversation analysis to examine both foreign language data (i.e., data where the researcher is not a | ||
| − | first language speaker of the language(s) used in the interaction), and second language data (i.e. data | ||
| − | where one or more of the participants is not a first language speaker of the language(s) of the | ||
| − | interaction). In particular, I consider issues specific to cross-linguistic data that are potentially | ||
| − | problematic for conversation analysis. In discussing these issues, I give consideration to both | ||
| − | potential problems and corresponding counter arguments, and proposed solutions. Then, I expand | ||
| − | upon some of the counter arguments and solutions mentioned in a discussion of the (new) analytic | ||
| − | requirements for approaching cross-linguistic data. I also comment on possible analytic gains offered | ||
| − | in and through examining cross-linguistic data. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:48, 16 December 2019
| Bushnell2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Bushnell2015 |
| Author(s) | Cade Bushnell |
| Title | Lost in translation? On using conversation analysis to examine cross-linguistic data |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Second Language, Cross-linguistic |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Area Studies Tsukuba |
| Volume | 36 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 107–126 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
An increasing number of conversation analytic studies since the mid nineteen-nineties examine interactions involving what may be termed “cross-linguistic data,” or data featuring interactions between first and second language speakers of a common language(s), or between second language speakers of a lingua franca. To complicate matters, the language(s) of the interaction may or may not be native to the researcher. In this essay, I discuss some of the issues surrounding the use of conversation analysis to examine both foreign language data (i.e., data where the researcher is not a first language speaker of the language(s) used in the interaction), and second language data (i.e. data where one or more of the participants is not a first language speaker of the language(s) of the interaction). In particular, I consider issues specific to cross-linguistic data that are potentially problematic for conversation analysis. In discussing these issues, I give consideration to both potential problems and corresponding counter arguments, and proposed solutions. Then, I expand upon some of the counter arguments and solutions mentioned in a discussion of the (new) analytic requirements for approaching cross-linguistic data. I also comment on possible analytic gains offered in and through examining cross-linguistic data.
Notes
