The emergence of learnables in music masterclasses

References

• Ashmore, M., and D. Reed. 2000. “Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis: The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1020/2199.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, D. 1988. “‘So’ as a Constraint on Relevance.” In Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, edited by R. Kempson, 183–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. 2009. “Implementing Incipient Actions: The Discourse Marker ‘so’ in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 974–998. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buttny, R. 1998. “Putting Prior Talk into Context: Reported Speech and the Reporting Context.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 45–58. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clift, R. 2006. “Indexing Stance: Reported Speech as an Interactional Evidential.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10: 569–595. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Stefani, E., and A.-D. Gazin. 2014. “Instructional Sequences in Driving Lessons. Mobile Participants and the Temporal and Sequential Organization of Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 63–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. 1979. “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, edited By G. Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haviland, J. B. 2011. “Musical Spaces.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, edited by J. Streeck, C. Goodwin and C. Le Baron, 289–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., J. Hindmarsh, and P. Luff. 2010. Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh, J., P. Reynolds, and S. Dunne. 2011. “Exhibiting Understanding: The Body in Apprenticeship.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 489–503. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt, E. 1996. “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 219–245. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt, E., and R. Clift. 2006. Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. 2010. “Bodily Quoting in Dance Correction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 401–426. doi:10.1080/08351813.2010.518065.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klewitz, G., and E. Couper-Kuhlen. 1999. “Quote-Unquote. The Role of Prosody in the Contextualization of Reported Speech Sequences.” Pragmatics 9: 459–485.
   Google Scholar
• Koole, T. 2010. “Displays of Epistemic Access: Student Responses to Teacher Explanations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 183–209. doi:10.1080/08351811003737846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koschmann, T., and C. Le Baron. 2002. “Learner Articulation as Interactional Achievement: Studying the Conversation of Gesture.” Cognition and Instruction 20: 249–282. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2002_4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koschmann, T., and A. Zemel. 2011. “Discovering the Learnable.” Paper presented at IIEMCA 2011, Fribourg, Switzerland, July 10–14.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. 1995. “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. doi:10.1080/01638539109544907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macbeth, D. 2004. “The Relevance of Repair for Classroom Correction.” Language in Society 33: 703–736. doi:10.1017/S0047404504045038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macbeth, D. 2011. “Understanding Understanding as an Instructional Matter.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 438–451. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. 1997. “The News Delivery Sequence: Bad News and Good News in Conversational Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (2): 93–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHoul, A. 1978. “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7: 183–213. doi:10.1017/S0047404500005522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHoul, A. W. 1990. “The Organization of Repair in Classroom Talk.” Language in Society 19: 349–377. doi:10.1017/S004740450001455X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2009. “The Embodied and Negotiated Production of Assessments in Instructed Actions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42: 329–361. doi:10.1080/08351810903296473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2011. “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019.
   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. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3902_1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action, edited by J. Atkinson and J. M. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. 1973. “On Some Puns: With Some Intimations.” In Report of the 23rd Annual Roundtable Meeting of Linguistics and Language Studies, edited by R. W. Shuy, 135–144. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. 1988. “On an Actual Virtual Servo-mechanism for Guessing Bad News: A Single Case Conjecture.” Social Problems 35: 442–457. doi:10.2307/800596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511791208.
   Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611841.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M., P. Auer, B. Barden, J. Bergmann, E. Couper-Kuhlen, S. Günthner, U. Quasthoff, C. Meier, P. Schlobinski, and S. Uhmann. 1998. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT).” Linguistische Berichte 173: 91–122.
   Google Scholar
• Streeck, J. 2011. “The Changing Meanings of Things: Found Objects and Inscriptions in Social Interaction.” In Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material World, edited by J. Streeck, C. Goodwin and C. Le Baron, 67–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B., D. Reed, and E. Haddon. 2013. “NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating Restarts in the Pursuit of Learnables in Vocal Master Classes.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46: 22–46. doi:10.1080/08351813.2013.753714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolins, J. 2013. “Assessment and Direction through Nonlexical Vocalizations in Music Instruction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46: 47–64. doi:10.1080/08351813.2013.753721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, P. A. D. 1985. “Error-Correction Techniques and Sequences in Instructional Settings: Toward a Comparative Framework.” Human Studies 8: 195–233. doi:10.1007/BF00142993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, P. 1996. “A Rehearsal of a Beethoven Passage: An Analysis of Correction Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 247–290. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zemel, A., and T. Koschmann. 2011. “Pursuing a Question: Reinitiating IRE Sequences as a Method of Instruction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 475–488. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar