“Increasing funding for CA research is key for growing the field to expand our knowledge about how interaction works. For…
Sponsored by the Applied Linguistics and TESOL program and a number of other generous entities at Teachers College, Columbia University,…
Hanna-Ilona Härmävaara Anna-Kaisa Jokipohja Nathalie Schümchen Tampere University, Finland ICOP-L2 stands for “interactional competences and practices in a second language”,…
by Ariel Vázquez Carranza “The world is not a nice place for everyone, and sociolinguistics has the capacity to show,…
By Federica D’Antoni, Sofian A. Bouaouina, Laurent Camus, Thomas Debois, Guillaume Gauthier, Philipp Hänggi, Mizuki Koda, Yeji Lee, Lorenza Mondada, Julia Schneerson, Hanna Svensson Hosted by the…
by Virginia Calabria “How and to what extent can a ‘grammar’ take important interactional features into consideration?” “How is syntax…
Introduction and transcription by Enhua Guo, edited by Anita Pomerantz
The Rutgers University Conversation Analysis Lab has launched a series of online discussions with key figures in CA. On December 16, 2021, they interviewed Anita Pomerantz, Professor Emerita in the Department of Communication at the State University of New York at Albany. Anita’s talk, which is insightful and interesting as always, consists of two parts: (1) biography/history of her CA journey, and (2) art and science of CA. Below is only a transcription of the second part.
By Luis Manuel Olguín, Department of Sociology at UCLA
Since its inception in American sociology over half a century ago, Conversation Analysis (CA) has consolidated as a robust interdisciplinary field and research method in the humanities and social sciences. CA research has expanded across the globe, showcasing work on a wide variety of languages and social settings as well as exciting methodological innovations and applications. With practitioners on virtually every continent, CA hubs and networks continue to emerge at institutional, regional and national levels, broadening and strengthening the CA global community.
By Julia Katila, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Tampere University
Human beings are prone to showing affection through touch. For instance, caregivers gently touching their offspring is perhaps the most primordial way, among the human species, to express and experience love and affection. Something similar takes place in adulthood between romantic partners: when close to one another, “lovers cannot help themselves from weaving their bodies together in various forms of intertwinement and embrace”, to use Maclaren’s (2014: 96) words.
By Reihaneh Afshari, PhD student at University of York
In social interaction, the address form has a lot to say about the speaker’s stance or the social action performed through a turn at talk (e.g., Butler, Danby, & Emmison, 2011; Clayman, 2010; Lerner, 2003; Rendle-Short, 2010). Jefferson (1973, p. 48) describes address forms as ‘relation-formulating’. In languages with a pronominal T-V (after tu and vos in Latin) distinction, this relation-building property is treated as so conventionalized that many sociolinguists dichotomize pronouns into “less formal T pronouns versus more formal V pronouns”, as Clyne et al. (2006, p. 284) report. Power, solidarity, and politeness are among factors reported to determine speaker’s selection of T versus V pronouns (Brown & Gilman, 1968; Brown & Levinson, 1987). Some recent studies question the theoretical assumptions underlying such dichotomies (see e.g., Clyne et al, 2006); nevertheless, to fill the gap, many of them still rely on similar macro-social constructs. For example, in her investigation of Persian, Nanbakhsh (2012) acknowledges that, contrary to the long-established belief, shomâ (second-person plural pronoun – V pronoun – in Persian) can be used to address an intimate coparticipant, but her findings are still based on macro constructs such as ‘power’ and ‘formality’.