Same and Different: Epistemic Topicalizations as Resources for Cohesion and Change in Classroom Learning Trajectories

References

• Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within sustained human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18, 53–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Gynne, A., & Bagga-Gupta, S. (2013). Young people’s languaging and social positioning. Chaining in “bilingual” educational settings in Sweden. Linguistics and Education, 24, 479–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Revised by C. Matthiessen. Fourth edition. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T., Lindström, A., & Steensig, J. (2011). Addressing epistemic incongruence. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 107–130). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hellermann, J. (2009). Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self-initiated self-repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 113–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). On the contingent nature of language-learning tasks. Classroom Discourse, 1, 25–45.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1–29. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45, 30–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2013a). Action formation and its epistemic and other backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15, 551–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2013b). Epistemics in interaction. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984). Laughter organization in talk about troubles. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 346–369). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kärkkäinen, E. (2006). Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk, 26, 699–731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. (2010). Learning in the contingency of talk-in-interaction. Text & Talk, 30, 403–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liber kartor. (2002). Almqvist & Wiksells atlas. (6th ed.). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
   Google Scholar
• Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2008). The dark matter of lab work: Illuminating the negotiation of disciplined perception in mechanics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 180–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margutti, P., & Drew, P. (2014). Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction. Language and Education, 28, 436–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markee, N. (2011). Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 602–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, C. (2004). From other to self: Learning as interactional change. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Universitetsbiblioteket.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, C. (2009). Relevance of situational context in studying learning as changing participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 133–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, C., & Sahlström, F. (2010). Learning as longitudinal interactional change: From other-repair to self-repair in physiotherapy treatment. Discourse Processes, 47, 668–697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, J. R. (2001). Cohesion and texture. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 35–53). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Melander, H. (2009). Trajectories of learning: Embodied interaction in change. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala University Library.
   Google Scholar
• Melander, H. (2012). Transformations of knowledge within a peer group. Knowing and learning in interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 232–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melander, H., & Sahlström, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale: Learning as interactional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1519–1537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishizaka, A. (2006). What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 119–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualizing “learning” in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Piirainen-Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2009). Collaborative game-play as a site for participation and situated learning of a second language. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 167–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risberg J. (2014). Kunskap i interaktion på en nyhetsredaktion: Om kollegiala möten i den redaktionella vardagen. [Knowledge in interaction in a newsroom: Collegial encounters in the everyday editorial work.]. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala University Library.
   Google Scholar
• Rusk, F., Pörn, M., & Sahlström, F. (2016). The management of dynamic epistemic relationships regarding second language knowledge in second language education: Epistemic discrepancies and epistemic (im)balance. Classroom Discourse, 7, 184–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rusk, F., Sahlström, F., & Pörn, M. (2017). Initiating and carrying out L2 instruction by asking known–answer questions: Incongruent interrogatives in peer interaction as a social practice to perform L2 learning as social action. Linguistics and Education, 38, 55–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahlström, F. (2011). Learning as social action. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 45–65). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slotte-Lüttge, A., Pörn, M., & Sahlström, F. (2012). Learning how to be a tähti: A case study of language development in everyday situations of a 7-year-old multilingual Finnish child. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 153–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 297–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107–149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, M. (2014). Lärarens väg genom klassrummet. Lärande och skriftspråkande i bänkinteraktioner på mellanstadiet. [Classroom trajectories of teaching, literacy and learning. Teacher-student desk interaction in the middle years.] Karlstad, Sweden: Karlstad University Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Vettin, J., & Todt, D. (2004). Laughter in conversation: Features of occurrence and acoustic structure. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 93–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, R., & Miller, E. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88, 519–535.
   Google Scholar
• Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2014). ’Put your fingers right in here’: Learnability and instructed experience. Discourse Studies, 16, 163–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar