Coordinated action, communication, and creativity in basketball in superdiversity

References

• Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of conference. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Mantague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 415–431). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304. doi: 10.2307/2786027
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baynham, M., Bradley, J., Callaghan, J., Hanusova, J., & Simpson, J. (2015). Language, business and superdiversity in Leeds (Working Papers in Translanguaging and Translation, 4). Retrieved from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tlang/index.aspx
   Google Scholar
• BBC Leeds. (2014, September 24). Living in Chapeltown. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/altogether/sixty_second_street/gq_movingstories.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. (2008, July). Genre. Paper presented at ESRC Researcher Development Initiative: Key Concepts and Methods in Ethnography, Language & Communication, St. Anne’s College, Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Blommaert, J. (2015). Commentary: Superdiversity old and new. Language and Communication, 44(1), 82–89. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.01.003
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Celzik, M. (2012). Race has nothing to do with NBA’s success. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball#cite_ref-51
   Google Scholar
• Eagleman, D. (2015). The brain. Edinburgh: Canongate.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, B., & Fitzgerald, R. (2016). ‘It’s training man’! Membership categorization and the institutional moral order of basketball training. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 36(2), 205–223. doi: 10.1080/07268602.2015.1121531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Exline, R., & Fehr, B. J. (1982). The assessment of gaze and mutual gaze. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbook of methods in nonverbal behaviour research (pp. 91–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farrar, M. (a.k.a. Holt, P.) (1981). Riot and revolution: The politics of an inner city. Revolutionary Socialism, the Journal of Big Flame, (Winter 2), 6–10.
   Google Scholar
• Farrar, M. (2002). The struggle for ‘community’ in a British multi-ethnic inner-city area. Lewiston, ME: The Edwin Mellon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flores, N., & Lewis, M. (2016). From truncated to socio-political emergence: A critique of superdiversity in sociolinguistics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 241, 97–124.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies in the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11(3), 225–250. doi: 10.2307/798722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2008). Diverse economies: Performative practices for ‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5), 613–632. doi: 10.1177/0309132508090821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974/1997). Frame analysis. In C. Lemert & A. Branaman (Eds.), The Goffman reader (pp. 149–166). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, S. (1994). The basketball coach’s Bible. Philadelphia, PA: Golden Aura.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Enquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 603–633. doi: 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Study of Sciences, 25, 237–274. doi: 10.1177/030631295025002002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–243). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Haddington, P., Mondada, L., & Neville, M. (2013). Being mobile: Interaction on the move. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Neville (Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 3–64). Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237–264. doi: 10.1093/applin/20.2.237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29–57. doi: 10.1177/1470357203002001751
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. ix–xvi). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jessop, A. (2012, June 14). The surge of the NBA’s international viewership and popularity. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2012/06/14/the-surge-of-the-nbas-international-viewership-and-popularity/#37cef2df7369
   Google Scholar
• Jewitt, C. (2009a). Different approaches to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 28–39). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jewitt, C. (2009b). An introduction to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 14–27). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1978). Looking in conversation and the regulation of turns at talk: A comment on the papers of G. Beattie & D. R. Rutter et al. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 23–24. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00891.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Lapchick, R., & Guiao, A. (2015). The racial and gender report card: National Basketball Association. Retrieved from http://nebula.wsimg.com/6e1489cc3560e1e1a2fa88e3030f5149?AccessKeyId=DAC3A56D8FB782449D2A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290. doi: 10.1207/S15327884MCA0704_03
   Google Scholar
• Madsen, L. (2008). Un deux trois – speak English! Young taekwondo-fighters’ identity constrcuction through linguistic competition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 197–216. doi: 10.1080/14790710802390160
   Google Scholar
• Madsen, L. (2015). Fighters, girls and other identities : Sociolinguistics in a martial arts club. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2008). Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/1161/2566
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. (2003). Multimodal discourse analysis: A conceptual framework. In P. Levine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 101–115). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. (2009). Modal density and modal configurations: Multimodal actions. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 78–90). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1923). Language et Pensée Chez Enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. [English translation: 1959 (3rd edition)]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Piller, I. (2015). Monolingual ways of seeing multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual Discourses, 11(1), 25–33. doi: 10.1080/17447143.2015.1102921
   Google Scholar
• Russell, B. (1912/1967). The problems of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scollon, R. (2005). The rhythmic integration of action and discourse: Work, the body and the earth. In S. Norris & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Discourse in action (pp. 20–31). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608–625. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00342.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vertovec, S. (2006). The emergence of super-diversity in Britain (Centre on Migration, Policy and Society Working Paper No. 25, University of Oxford).
   Google Scholar
• Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. doi: 10.1080/01419870701599465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar