‘Well let me put it uhm the other way around maybe’: Managing students’ trouble displays in the CLIL classroom

References

• Couper-Kuhlen, E., and D. Barth-Weingarten. 2011. “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2. Translated and Adapted for English.” Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer, C. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Language Learning & Language Teaching 20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. 2008. “Verstehen Im Gespräch.” In Sprache - Kognition - Kultur: Sprache zwischen mentaler Struktur und kultureller Prägung, edited by H. Kämper and L. Eichinger, 225–261. Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2007. Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Dingemanse, M., J. Blythe, and T. Dirksmeyer. 2014. “Formats for Other-Initiation of Repair across Languages: An Exercise in Pragmatic Typology.” Studies in Language 38 (1): 5–43. doi:10.1075/sl.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evnitskaya, N., and T. Jakonen. 2017. “Multimodal Conversation Analysis and CLIL Classroom Practices.” In Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL, edited by A. Llinares and T. Morton, 201–220. Language Learning & Language Teaching 47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. 2013. “Conversation Analysis in the Classroom.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, 593–611. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. 1997. “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data.” In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, edited by D. Silverman, 161–182. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. 2005. “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk.” In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, edited by K. L. Fitch and R. E. Sanders, 103–147. LEA’s Communication Series. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Jung, E. H. S. 1999. “The Organization of Second Language Classroom Repair.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 10 (2): 153–171.
   Google Scholar
• Kääntä, L. 2010. Teacher Turn Allocation and Repair Practices in Classroom Interaction: A Multisemiotic Approach. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 137. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Kääntä, L. 2014. “From Noticing to Initiating Correction: Students’ Epistemic Displays in Instructional Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 66: 86–105. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kääntä, L., and G. Kasper. 2018. “Clarification Requests as a Method of Pursuing Understanding in CLIL Physics Lectures.” Classroom Discourse 9 (3): 205–226. doi:10.1080/19463014.2018.1477608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasper, G. 1985. “Repair in Foreign Language Teaching.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7 (2): 200–215. doi:10.1017/S0272263100005374.
   Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H. 2015. “Other-Initiated Repair in English.” Open Linguistics 1 (1): 164–190. doi:10.2478/opli-2014-0009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, C. 2013. “Repair.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, 229–256. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Koole, T. 2010. “Displays of Epistemic Access: Student Responses to Teacher Explanations.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 43 (2): 183–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupetz, M. 2011. “Multimodal Resources in Students’ Explanations in CLIL Interaction.” Novitas-ROYAL 5 (1): 121–142. Special Issue: Conversation Analysis in Applied Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-A. 2006. “Respecifying Display Questions: Interactional Resources for Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 40 (4): 691–713. doi:10.2307/40264304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-A. 2007. “Third Turn Position in Teacher Talk: Contingency and the Work of Teaching.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (6): 1204–1230. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebscher, G., and J. Dailey-O’Cain. 2003. “Conversational Repair as a Role-Defining Mechanism in Classroom Interaction.” The Modern Language Journal 87 (3): 375–390. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindström, J., Y. Maschler, and S. Pekarek Doehler. 2016. “A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Grammar and Negative Epistemics in Talk-In-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 106: 72–79. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHoul, A. W. 1990. “The Organization of Repair in Classroom Talk.” Language in Society 19 (3): 349–378. doi:10.1017/S004740450001455X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2011. “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2): 542–552. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2013. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Data Collection.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, 32–56. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2015. “Multimodal Completions.” In Temporality in Interaction, edited by A. Deppermann and S. Günthner, 267–308. Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Mortensen, K. 2012. “Visual Initiations of Repair – Some Preliminary Observations.” In Proceedings of the Symposium “Challenges and New Directions in the Micro-Analysis of Social Interaction,” edited by K. Lkeda and A. Brandt, 45–50. Osaka: Kansai University.
   Google Scholar
• Nikula, T., C. Dalton-Puffer, and A. L. García. 2013. “CLIL Classroom Discourse: Research from Europe.” Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1 (1): 70–100. doi:10.1075/jicb.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. 2004. “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 37 (2): 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. 1984. “Notes on Methodology.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 21–27. Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. 1992. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345. doi:10.1086/229903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., G. Jefferson, and H. Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., and H. Sacks. 1973. “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8 (4): 289–327. doi:10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, G. 2011. “From Dialogue to Multilogue: A Different View on Participation in the English Foreign‐Language Classroom.” Classroom Discourse 2 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1080/19463014.2011.562654.
   Google Scholar
• Seedhouse, P. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Language Learning Monograph Series. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M., P. Auer, B. Barden, J. Bergmann, E. Couper-Kuhlen, S. Günthner, C. Meier, U. Quasthoff, P. Schlobinski, and S. Uhmann. 1998. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT).” Linguistische Berichte 173: 91–122.
   Google Scholar
• Seo, M.-S., and I. Koshik. 2010. “A Conversation Analytic Study of Gestures that Engender Repair in ESL Conversational Tutoring.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2219–2239. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sert, O. 2013. ““Epistemic Status Check” as an Interactional Phenomenon in Instructed Learning Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 45 (1): 13–28. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sert, O. 2015. Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Studies in Social Interaction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. 2013. “Basic Conversation Analytic Methods.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, 77–99. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., and T. Stivers, eds. 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. M., and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Lier, L. 1988. The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and Second-Language Classroom Research. Applied Linguistics and Language Study. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Waring, H. Z. 2012. ““Any Questions?”: Investigating the Nature of Understanding-Checks in the Language Classroom.” TESOL Quarterly 46 (4): 722–752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, D., J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17 (2): 89–100. doi:10.1111/jcpp.1976.17.issue-2.
   PubMed 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 (2): 475–488. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar