Okay...so we're starting out with some unmotivated looking and we're building accounts that can be "particularized and generalized". We're looking for patterns and deviant cases. So this doesn't seem so different than what we're always doing in qualitative research. The guiding questions on p. 93 are helpful in understanding what we're looking for in all this unmotivated looking. And the 3-stage model for building analytic accounts on p. 104. (Dangit...I can't help it...I really like directions.) I, of course, liked that they brought up the relevance of culture in this chapter. I've been saying all along that I really wanted to know if these "rules" were generalizable to all cultures. One of the things they mention is that Anglo-Americans use as few descriptive terms as possible. Quite the opposite in Deaf culture. When you refer to another person in ASL you typically give the most detailed description possible--typically a very blunt and often not at all flattering description of the person. Saying the same things in English would definitely be considered rude, but it just part of deaf culture. They're always descriptive, referring to people is definitely not an exception.
A comic that illustrates the descriptive nature of Deaf conversation. Saw this a few weeks ago and had to laugh. It's so true!
Extending Sequences and Single Cases.
As a writing teacher, I liked the discussion of storytelling sequences. I often get annoyed with the five paragraph essay and the constrictive formulaic writing that we teach in schools. But I'm also torn because I teach students language delayed students, which means that most of them haven't picked up on these sequences of through the air storytelling. And the truth is that as much as I loathe the five paragraph essay it is actually rooted in conversation. (It's just been terrible distorted and deduced, but...) I often say that my goal is to teach my students how to have a conversation by the end of the year. How to tell a story and ask and answer what Lucy Calkins' calls "genuine questions." When I was reading about storytelling sequences and thinking about this, I was thinking about how important it is for me to know how conversation works if I'm going to guiding them in this practice. I mean clearly I know how to have a conversation. But I don't have the meta-awareness of why I do what I do. I just do it because I've figured out the rules along the way. I think that just like it was important for me to build meta-linguistic awareness of both ASL and English to effectively teach students to read and write English text, it's probably also important for me to know how conversation works. I was intentional with learning the "rules" so that I could teach them. Kind of an interesting thought...learning about these moves, resources, and procedures that have been identified through conversation analysis could definitely allow me to be more intentional in my approach to teaching language delayed students. But that also brings me back to the culture thing. I think it's important that we know which of those moves and procedures differ or do not apply in Deaf culture. I commented on Emily's blog one week about how in Haiti the deaf sign "Fine Fine Fine" to ask "How are you?" That would definitely differ from hearing culture, but it also differs from Deaf culture here in the States. But in American Deaf culture when someone says "Thank you", instead of replying with "You're welcome" you say "Thank you" back to them. I've often seen hearing teachers correct Deaf conversations similar to this, because they have not picked up on procedures that differ. I wonder how many of these there are that I have never noticed. I think that's one good thing about using Conversation Analysis to look at classroom language. I could see it being helpful to determine (especially in deaf ed) which resources are used and how procedures are established.
Talk in Institutional Settings.
So...context finally matters? Only...oh wait it kinda doesn't? I feel like they are saying that it only matters if the participants moves diverge from what might be expected in other contexts. I don't disagree that we influence our context, but I do think that it also influences us...so I'm still not so sure I can jump on the CA train. As I was reading this chapter, I was thinking about how many of the moves they mentioned are often part of classroom interaction. Asking "exam" questions instead of "real" questions. Redistributing authorship to avoid stating views or opinions. Summarizing or glossing Witholding. I think there are similar procedures in classroom interaction that lead to asymmetric interaction...which I sort of just realized is what I'm interested in. I just wasn't able to articulate it. Oh asymmetry. So there ya go.
No comments:
Post a Comment