Book contents
- Talking with Children
- Talking with Children
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Notes on Transcription Conventions
- Introduction
- Part I Talk as Social Action
- 1 Conversation Analysis for Early Childhood Teachers
- 2 Sequences
- 3 Participation
- 4 Embodiment
- 5 Emotion
- 6 Socialization
- 7 Epistemics
- Part II Pedagogy in Interaction
- Part III Interaction and Inclusion
- Index
- References
7 - Epistemics
from Part I - Talk as Social Action
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 June 2022
Book contents
- Talking with Children
- Talking with Children
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Notes on Transcription Conventions
- Introduction
- Part I Talk as Social Action
- 1 Conversation Analysis for Early Childhood Teachers
- 2 Sequences
- 3 Participation
- 4 Embodiment
- 5 Emotion
- 6 Socialization
- 7 Epistemics
- Part II Pedagogy in Interaction
- Part III Interaction and Inclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Epistemics in EMCA involves the examination of what people know, how they demonstrate their knowledge, and how they design their contributions to take into account asymmetries of knowledge. In this chapter, we investigate epistemic practices in a classroom in the children’s first year of schooling to illustrate the ways in which an EMCA approach can unpack real time trajectories of knowledge management, even in very busy classrooms.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Talking with ChildrenA Handbook of Interaction in Early Childhood Education, pp. 142 - 162Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Bateman, A. (2015). Conversation Analysis and Early Childhood Education: The Co-production of Knowledge and Relationships. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bateman, A., and Carr, M. (2017). Pursuing a telling: managing a multi-unit turn in children’s storytelling. In Bateman, A. and Church, A. (eds.), Children’s Knowledge-in-Interaction (pp. 91–109). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1703-2_6Google Scholar
Bateman, A., and Church, A. (eds.) (2017). Children’s Knowledge-in-Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (ed.) (2003). Class, Codes and Control. Volume 4: Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S., and Majlesi, A. (2018). Learnables and teachables in second language talk. The Modern Language Journal, 102(S1), 3–10.Google Scholar
Filipi, A. (2009). Toddler and Parent Interaction: The Organisation of Gaze, Pointing and Vocalisation (vol. 192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.192Google Scholar
Filipi, A. (2018). Making knowing visible: tracking the development of the response token yes in second turn position. In Pekarek Doehler, S., Wagner, J., and González-Martínez, E. (eds.), Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction (pp. 39–66). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57007-9_2J.MGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. (2007). The right connections: acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070169Google Scholar
Gardner, R., and Mushin, I. (2013). Teachers telling: informings in an early years classroom. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(2), 63–81.Google Scholar
Gardner, R., and Mushin, I. (2017). Epistemic trajectories in the classroom: how children respond in informing sequences. In Bateman, A. and Church, A. (eds.), Children’s Knowledge-in-Interaction (pp. 13–36). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–981-10–1703-2_2Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Heller, V. (2017). Managing knowledge claims in classroom discourse: the public construction of a homogeneous epistemic status. Classroom Discourse, 8(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2017.1328699Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012c). Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 370–394). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch18Google Scholar
Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakonen, T., and Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt031Google Scholar
Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of Information (vol. 48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kern, F., and Ohlhus, S. (2017). Editorial to special issue ‘The social organisation of learning in classroom interaction and beyond.’ Classroom Discourse, 8(2), 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2017.1328702Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2011). Epistemics and embodiment in the interactions of very young children. In Stivers, T., Steensig, J., & Mondada, L. (eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 257–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M., and Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.012Google Scholar
Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access: student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209.Google Scholar
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: a pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2Google Scholar
Kunitz, S. (2018). Collaborative attention work on gender agreement in Italian as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 102 , 64–81.Google Scholar
Labov, W., and Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Margutti, P. (2010). On designedly incomplete utterances: what counts as learning for teachers and students in primary classroom interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(4), 315–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.497629Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalovich, A., and Netz, H. (2018). Tag-naxon? (Tag-Right?) in instructional talk: opening or blocking learning opportunities. Journal of Pragmatics, 137, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.006Google Scholar
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. (2013). Making knowledge visible in discourse: implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 627–645.Google Scholar
Mushin, I., Gardner, R., & Gourlay, C. (2022). Effective Task Instruction in the First Year of School: What Teachers and Children Do. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Raymond, G., and Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325Google Scholar
Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.005Google Scholar
Sert, O., and Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6), 542–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.739174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St. John, O., and Cromdal, J. (2016). Crafting instructions collaboratively: student questions and dual addressivity in classroom task instructions. Discourse Processes, 53(4), 252–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1038128Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J. (eds.). (2011). The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Sidnell, J., and Bergen, C. (2018). Children’s responses to questions in peer interaction: a window into the ontogenesis of interactional competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.013Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, A. J. (2005). Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar