Relaciones de precedencia

63

Historically, CA was originated from ethnomethodology led by the key figure Harold Garfinkel in the 1960s. CA then was well developed as a systematic study in late 1960s and early 1970s with the principle originator Harvey Sacks and the influential followers Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson.

“Ethnomethodology”, primarily developed as a “research policy” by Garfinkel, targets the study on “common-sense reasoning and practical theorizing in everyday activities” (ten Have, 2007, p. 6). Ethnomethodology is defined as the

approach to replace the pre-dominantly deductive and quantitative techniques of previous sociological research, with its emphasis on general questions of social structure, by the study of the techniques (= ‘methods’) which are used by people themselves (curiously referred to as ‘ethnic’ when they are actually engaged in social (and thus linguistic) interaction (Crystal, 2011, p. 167).

Ethno methods, methodologically, are interpretative in situ (Seedhouse, 2004), and interested in understanding the procedures and principles underlying the social actors’ recognition and actions that can be made sense of by themselves in the circumstances (Heritage, 1984; Seedhouse, 2004).

CA, arguing that conversation is ordered and structurally organised, just specifically narrows the interest in the rules and principles that people use to socialise with each other largely through language (Seedhouse, 2004; Drew, 2005). In this sense, CA has been defined to study “the social organization of ‘conversation’, or ‘talk-in-interaction’, by a detailed inspection of tape recordings and transcriptions” (ten Have, 1990, p. 23). ‘Talk-in-interaction’ is also the widely accepted superordinate term (e.g.,Drew and Heritage, 1992; Seedhouse, 2004), thus the more brief definition of CA is “the study of recorded naturally occurring talk-in-interaction” (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2002, p. 12).

(2) Relationship between CA and ethnomethodology

There are three main principles informed by ethnomethodology for both the

methodological and analytical foundations of CA analysis, namely, indexicality and reflexivity and accountability.

64

First, indexicality refers to participants’ knowledge of social context is talked into being rather than just something in the environment. Therefore, the context features cannot be invoked and analysed unless the participants are orienting to such features

(Seedhouse, 2004). Some context-bound or embedded indexical or deictic expressions (e.g., this, now, here) can show the indexicality.

Second, accountability indicates that “everyday activities as members’ methods for making those same activities visibly-rationale-and-for-all-practical-purposes, i.e., ‘accountable’ as organizations of commonplace everyday actions”(Garfinkel, 1967, p. VII). ten Have (2004) notes its associations with liability in the sense that interactants design their actions in an understandable and explicable sense. This principle is

understood to “provide a basis for interpretation and social actions” (Seedhouse, 2004, p. 11)

Third, reflexivity refers to “the self-explicating property of ordinary actions” (ten Have, 2004, p. 20). Reflexivity underlies the adjacency pair. That means, a performed action also creates a context for interpreting that action, and this also requires another

interactant to display the oriented interpreting and respond with the preferred action. This principle underscores the analyst’s access to interaction from the emic/participants’ perspective.

The current study is to investigate the CS use across different micro-contexts rather than take the lesson as a whole. However, based on these main principles informing CA, any detailed context features are not considered to interpret the patterns and interactional features of CS, unless the features are talked into being. Moreover, the study is interested in looking at how the teacher and students display their

intersubjectivity or mutual understanding when teacher’s CS occurs, and how such occurrence of CS is related to the pedagogical focus across the different L2 classroom modes.

CA is described as being subsumed but independent of ethnomethodology (Seedhouse, 2004; Cancino, 2015b). It is of little relevance to discuss CA’s subsumed position in details here, however, it is important to be aware that CA is strongly informed by ethnomethodology(i.e., being subsumed), in that Garfinkel’s construct of

65

social analysis” (ten Have, 2007, p. 6). Hence, CA is still grounded on the fundamental principles and shares the essential features of ethnomethodology(Clayman and

Maynard, 1995).

CA’s independence lies in that it has been developed as the systemically analytical approach with the clear aims on its own, “some unique methodological features” (ten Have, 1990, p. 23), and “its own subset of principles and procedures” (Seedhouse, 2004, p. 13). According to Seedhouse (2004), CA aims to uncover “the development of intersubjectivity in an action sequence” with the focus on talk and actions in the

progress of the interaction, and to reveal the interactional organization as well as its underlying “emic logic” (p. 13). The key principles underlying CA can be summarised below:

• Originated from Sack’s idea of order at all points, “talk in interaction is

systematically organised, deeply ordered, and methodic” (Seedhouse, 2004, p. 14);

• Contributions are context-free, context-sensitive and context-renewing (ten Have, 1990; Seedhouse, 2004);

• CA’s researchers rely on the recorded natural data and the associated highly detailed transcriptions (ten Have, 1990; Seedhouse, 2004; Crystal, 2011); • Basically, CA is an empirical and inductive study, following the bottom-up and

data-driven route of analysis without the constraints of any prior theoretical assumptions (Seedhouse, 2004; Crystal, 2011);

• The essential question going through all the stages of CA data is: Why that (interaction as socially oriented action), in that way (the employed linguistic forms), right now (a developing sequence) (Seedhouse, 2004)?

To summarise, CA works as a powerful tool lies on its uniqueness. That is, “CA focuses on how, in real time and for one another, humans jointly construct the local social orders that make up their daily lives”(Ford, 2012, p. 512). The jointly construction of meaning can be publicly transacted to each other by a series of interactional organizational mechanisms, which will be reviewed in the following section.