Home Linguistics & Semiotics Achieving epistemic alignment in a psycholinguistic experiment
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Achieving epistemic alignment in a psycholinguistic experiment

  • Kyoko Kobayashi Hillman , Steven J. Ross and Gabriele Kasper EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: May 18, 2017

Abstract

A critical condition for obtaining valid data in a psycholinguistic experiment is that the participants understand how to perform the experimental tasks. Participants usually are not familiar with the organization and requirements of the experiment and are therefore given instruction and often practice opportunities prior to the actual test trials. Pre-experimental instruction is a regular component of the experimental set-up, yet no research exists on how the activity is organized with a view to its purpose in the research context and as the experimenter’s and participant’s joint interactional project. This case study is the first to begin to fill the gap. The instruction in focus aimed at preparing the participant to take part in a reaction time experiment designed to measure the implicit grammatical knowledge of L2 speakers of English. Building on ethnomethodological and conversation-analytic research on instruction delivery and understanding displays in different settings, the analysis reveals how in the course of the instruction the asymmetric epistemic statuses (Heritage 2012) of researcher and participant were incrementally aligned as they collaboratively accomplished explanation sequences and worked through practice items. It also shows how both participants selectively referenced the onscreen written instructions and how these became resources for the experimenter’s explanations and the participant’s evolving understanding of the experimental requirements. The main goal of this paper is to bring an unexamined but indispensable component of the experimental research process to applied linguists’ attention and encourage further studies in this area. A further intention is to explore pre-experimental instruction practices in a larger archive of task instructions and eventually empirically test whether the interaction during instruction delivery is at all related to variation in the reaction times as measures to operationalize cognitive processes.

References

Amerine, Ronald & Jack Bilmes. 1988. Following instructions. Human Studies 11. 327–339.10.1007/BF00177308Search in Google Scholar

Beach. 1993. Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19. 325–352.10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2012. Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In Anssi Peräkulä & Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.), Emotion in interaction, 113–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In Catherine Doughty & Mike Long (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 313–348. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch11Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Holt. 2005. Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38. 35–61.10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2Search in Google Scholar

Fernández, Eva M. & Helen S. Cairns. 2010. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Forster, Kenneth & Jonathan Forster. 2003. DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35. 116–124.10.3758/BF03195503Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, Rod. 2007. The Right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society 36. 319–341.10.1017/S0047404507070169Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 2006. Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk 26. 515–544.10.1515/TEXT.2006.021Search in Google Scholar

Hauser, Eric. 2009. Turn-taking and primary speakership during a student discussion. In Hanh thi Nguyen & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives, 215–244. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and social interaction 45(1). 1–29.10.1080/08351813.2012.646684Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15. 551–578.10.1177/1461445613501449Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2015. Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 88–104.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2011. ‘Some’ versus ‘any’ medical issues: Encouraging patients to reveal their unmet concerns. In Charles Antaki (ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change institutional talk, 15–31. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230316874_2Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Rod Watson. 1979. Formulations as conversational objects. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Ethnomethodological approaches, 123–162. New York, London: Irvington Publishers (Wiley/Halstead).Search in Google Scholar

Hindmarsh, Jon, Patricia Reynolds & Stephen Dunne. 2011. Exhibiting understanding The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 489–503.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.008Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.014Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1986. Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies 9, 153–183.10.1007/BF00148125Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1990. List-construction as a task and resource. In George Psathas (ed.), Interaction competence, 63–92. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar

Jiang, Nan. 2012. Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203146255Search in Google Scholar

Koole, Tom. 2010. Displays of epistemic access: Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2). 183–209.10.1080/08351811003737846Search in Google Scholar

Koole, Tom & Ed Elbers (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education 26. 57–69.10.1016/j.linged.2014.02.001Search in Google Scholar

Koschmann, Timothy. 2011. Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 435–437.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.016Search in Google Scholar

Koshik, Irene. 2002. Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 35(3). 277–309.10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2Search in Google Scholar

Lindwall, Oskar & Gustav Lymer. 2011. Uses of “understand” in science education. Journal of Pragmatics 43(2). 452–474.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.021Search in Google Scholar

Lindwell, Oskar, Gustav Lymer & Christian Greiffenhagen. 2015. The sequential analysis of instruction. In Numa Markee (ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction, 375–411. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118531242.ch9Search in Google Scholar

Macbeth, Douglas. 2011. Understanding understanding as an instructional matter. Journal of Pragmatics 43(2). 438–451.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.006Search in Google Scholar

Mandelbaum, Jenny. 2014. How to do things with requests: Request sequences at the family dinner table. In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 215–241. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.26.09manSearch in Google Scholar

Margutti, Piera. 2006. “Are you human beings?” Order and knowledge construction through questioning in primary classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education 17. 313–346.10.1016/j.linged.2006.12.002Search in Google Scholar

Mehan, Hughes. 1979. Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674420106Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4). 329–361.10.1080/08351810903296473Search in Google Scholar

Nishizaka, Aug. 2011. Touch without vision: Referential practice in a non-technological environment. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 504–520.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.015Search in Google Scholar

Potter, Jonathan & Derek Edwards. 2013. Conversation analysis and psychology. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 701–725. Malden, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch35Search in Google Scholar

Rákosi, Csilla. 2014. On the rhetoricity of psycholinguistic experiments. Argumentum 10, 533–547. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó [Debrecen University Press].Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68. 939–967.10.2307/1519752Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sadock, Jerry. 2012. Formal features of questions. In Jan P. De Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 103–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139045414.008Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23. 499–545.10.1080/01638539709545001Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Gene Lerner. 2009. Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2). 91–115.10.1080/08351810902864511Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7. 289–327.10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_004Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John & Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanja, Lorenza Mondada & Jacob Steensig (eds.). 2011. The morality of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674Search in Google Scholar

Suchman, Lucy A. 2007. Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808418Search in Google Scholar

Waring, Hansun Zhang. 2005. Peer tutoring in a graduate writing centre: Identity, expertise, and advice resisting. Applied Linguistics 26. 141–168.10.1093/applin/amh041Search in Google Scholar

Wilkinson, Sue & Celia Kitzinger. 2006. Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly. 69(2). 150–182.10.1177/019027250606900203Search in Google Scholar

Zemel, Alan & Timothy Koschmann. 2014. ‘Put your fingers right in here’: Learnability and instructed experience. Discourse Studies 16(2). 163–183.10.1177/1461445613515359Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-05-18
Published in Print: 2018-10-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 31.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/applirev-2017-0021/html
Scroll to top button