Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 28:1 (2015) ► pp.319–340
Emic approach to research on conversational gap in the foreign language classroom
Published online: 10 September 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.28.1.15wan
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.28.1.15wan
An emic perspective, or insiders’ perspective, has been widely employed in social interactionism-inspired qualitative studies. This view claims that any interactional behavior can be examined from within the system. Applied to research in which talk is central, this view requires data to come from the participants who are involved in the talk because they document their social actions to each other within the details of their interaction. Researchers can access the perspective by adopting the same perspective as the participants. As a result, the findings yield high internal and ecological validity. Following this perspective, this study, which explores silence, or, to be more specific, gap, in institutionalized talk, demonstrates how interactional data is produced and analyzed by the participants as the talk emerges. This study shows that an emic view allows researchers to indirectly involve participants in the analysis and can be an alternative potential tool in descriptive communication research.
Keywords: gap, silence, lapse, interactional data, emic perspective
References (26)
Atkinson, J.M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1979). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structure of social action (pp. 167–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edlund, J., Heldner, M., & Hirschberg, J. (2009). Pause and gap length in face-to-face interaction.
Proceedings of Interspeech
, Brighton, UK (pp. 2779–2782).
Goldman–Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Hao, R. (2010). Silence as cultural pedagogical performance: Possibilities in silence research. Review of Communication, 10(4), 290–305.
Heldner, M., & Edlund, J. (2010). Pauses, gaps, and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, 38(4), 555–568.
Jaworski, A., & Stephens, D. (1998). Self-reports on silence as a face-saving strategy by people with hearing impairment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 61–80.
Kendall, T. (2013). Speech rate, pause and sociolinguistic variation: Studies in corpus sociophonetics. New York: Palgrave.
Kurzon, D. (1997). Discourse of silence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lett, J. (1990). Emics and etics: Notes on the epistemology of anthropology. In T. Headland, K. Pike, & M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate (pp. 127–142). London: Sage.
Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in intercultural communication: Perceptions and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
O’Connell, D., & Kowal, S. (1980). Prospectus of a science of pausology. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honor of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 3–12). The Hague: Mouton.
Pike, K. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior (2nd ed.). The Hague: Mouton.
Robb, M., Maclagan, M., & Chen, Y. (2004). Speaking rates of American and New Zealand varieties of English. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 18(1), 1–15.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Saville-Troike, M. (1985). The place of silence in an integrated theory of communication. In D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 3–18). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Schegloff, E. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1245–1295.