Searching for the unit of meaning: Knowledge construction in university small group talk

References

Allwood, Jens. 2003. Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, Rene Dirven & John R. Taylor (eds.). Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 29–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219074.29Search in Google Scholar

Amato, Christie H. & Louis H. Amato. 2005. Enhancing student team effectiveness: application of Myers-Briggs personality assessment in business courses. Journal of Marketing Education 27 (1). 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304273350.Search in Google Scholar

Arvaja, Maarit, Hanna Salovaara, Päivi Häkkinen & Sanna Järvelä. 2007. Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction 17. 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.003.Search in Google Scholar

Asmuth, Jennifer A. & Dedre Gentner. 2005. Context sensitivity of relational nouns. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, 163–168.Search in Google Scholar

Atwood, Sherrie, William Turnbull & Jeremy I. M. Carpendale. 2010. The construction of knowledge in classroom talk. The Journal of the Learning Science 19(3). 358–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.481013.Search in Google Scholar

Barron, Brigid. 2003. When smart groups fail. The Journal of Learning Science 12 (3). 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1203_1.Search in Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Frames, concepts and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organizations, 21–74.Search in Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1989. lntra-concept similarity and its implications for inter-concept similarity. In Stella Vosniadou & Andre Ortony (eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning, 76–121 New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511529863.006Search in Google Scholar

Basturkman, Helen. 2002. Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussion and EAP. English for Specific Purposes 21. 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(01)00024-2.Search in Google Scholar

Bednarek, Monika. 2008. Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory 4 (2). 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2008.006.Search in Google Scholar

Behfar, Kristin, Mary C. Kern & Jeanne Brett. 2006. Managing challenges in multicultural teams. In Ya-Ru Chen (ed.), Research on managing groups and teams: National culture and groups. 239–269.10.1016/S1534-0856(06)09010-4Search in Google Scholar

Berrill, Deborah P. 1991. Exploring underlying assumptions: Small group work of university undergraduates. Educational Review 43 (2). 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191910430204.Search in Google Scholar

Benwell, Bethan & Elizabeth H. Stokoe. 2002. Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies 4. 429–453.10.1177/14614456020040040201Search in Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32 (2). 325–347.10.1017/S0022226700015917Search in Google Scholar

Boekaerts, Monique & Alexander Minnaert. 2006. Affective and motivational outcomes of working in collaborative groups. Educational Psychology 26 (2). 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500344217.Search in Google Scholar

Bransford, John D., Ann Brown & Rodney R. Cocking. 2000. How people learn. Brain, mind experience and school. Washington, DC: Academic.Search in Google Scholar

Bublitz, Wolfram. 1995. Semantic prosody and cohesive company: Somewhat predictableGeneral and Theoretical Papers 347, 123DuisburgL.A.U.D. (Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg).Search in Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13 (3). 391–419.Search in Google Scholar

Button, Graham & Neil Casey. 1988. Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22. 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818809389298.Search in Google Scholar

Cantwell, Robert H. & Beverley Andrews. 2002. Cognitive and psychological factors underlying secondary students’ feelings towards group work. Educational Psychology 22 (1). 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410120101260.Search in Google Scholar

Cheung, Mei Ling Lisa. 2009. Merging Corpus Linguistics and collaborative knowledge construction. UK: The University of BirminghamUnpublished Ph.D. thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 2012. Frames, idealized cognitive modes and domains. In Dirk Geeraerts, Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The oxford handbook of cognitive linguisticsonline version.Search in Google Scholar

Clarks, Herbert H. 1983. Making sense of nonce sense. In Willem J. M. Levelt and Robert J. Jarvella (eds.), The process of language understanding, 297–331. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Coulson, Seana. 1997. Semantic leaps: The rule of frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. San DiegoUniversity of CaliforniaUnpublished Ph.D. thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Coulson, Seana. 2001. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551352Search in Google Scholar

Coulson, Seana. 2006. Constructing meaning. Metaphor and Symbol 21 (4). 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2104_3.Search in Google Scholar

Coultard, Malcolm. 1992. Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 335–370. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

de Bruin, Jos & Scha, Remko. 1988. The interpretation of relational nouns. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 25–32. Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/982023.982027Search in Google Scholar

Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4). 491–534. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2006.016.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Behfar, Gilles. 1997a. Mappings. In Gilles Fauconnier. Mappings in thought and language, 1–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174220.001Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174220Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2006. Mental spaces. In Dirk Geeraerts, René Dirren & John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 303–371. Berlin; New York: Monton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199901.303Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1961. Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations. Mouton: The Hauge.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. In Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terrence Langendoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 272–289. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.10.1080/08351816909389109Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Cathy Cogen et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–131. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1978. On the organization of semantic information in the lexicon. In Papers from the Para-session on the Lexicon, 111. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982a. Frame Semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts, René Dirren & John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 373400. Berlin; New York: Monton de Gruyter.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00424-7Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982b. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea, Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Soeul: Hanshin.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00424-7Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1985a. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6 (2). 222–254.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1985b. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Mary Niepokuj, et al.Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 73–86. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v11i0.1913Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. U-semantics, second round. Quaderni di Semantica 7 (1). 49–58.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1987. A private history of the concept ‘Frame’. In Rene Dirven & Gunter Radden (eds.), Concepts of case, 28–36Tubingen: Gunter Narr Nverlag.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer & Abby Wright. 2003. FrameNet in action: The case of attaching. International Journal of Lexicography 16 (3). 297–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.297.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin F. Baker. 2001. Frame semantics for text understanding. In Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop, NAACL.Search in Google Scholar

Firth, Alan & Johannes Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81. 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x.Search in Google Scholar

Gash, Hugh. 2015. Knowledge construction: A paradigm shift. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2015 (143). 5–23.10.1002/tl.20133Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan M. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.Search in Google Scholar

Gatfield, Terry. 1999. Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 24 (4). 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240401.Search in Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre & Kenneth J. Kurtz. 2005. Relational categories. In Woo-kyoung Ahn, Robert L. Goldstone, Bradley C. Love, Arthur B. Markman & Phillip Wolff (eds.), Categorization inside and outside the lab, 151–175. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.10.1037/11156-009Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, Will, Andy Hall & Peter Callery. 2006. Topicality and the structure of interactive talk in face-to-face seminar discussions: Implications for research in distributed learning media. British Educational Research Journal 32 (1). 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500402029.Search in Google Scholar

Gillies, Robyn M. 2003. Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research 39 (1). 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00072-7.Search in Google Scholar

Halverson, Claire B. & Aqeel Tirmizi. 2008. Effective multicultural teams: Theory and practice. Springer Science, Business Media B.V.10.1007/978-1-4020-6957-4Search in Google Scholar

Hamawand, Zeki. 2016. Semantics: A cognitive account of linguistic meaning. United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Hardie, Andrew. 2014. ‘Log Ratio: An informal introduction’. Online blog of ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science (CASS). UKLancaster University. Available at https://cass.lancs.ac.uk/?p=1133.Search in Google Scholar

Hellermann, John. 2008. Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847690272Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45 (1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15 (5). 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449.Search in Google Scholar

Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan. 1995. A corpus study of some English verbs of attribution. Functions of Language 2. 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.2.02hun.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524773Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, David W. & Roger T. Johnson. 1999. Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice 38 (2). 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson & Karl A. Smith. 1998. Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?. Change 30 (4). 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629.Search in Google Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele. 2006. Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review 19 (1). 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.07kas.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Usage-based models of language, 1–64. Stanford CA: CSLI. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524.91.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1997. Introducing corpus annotation. In Roger Garside, Geoffrey Leech & Anthony M. McEnery (eds.), Corpus annotation: Linguistic information from computer text corpora, 1–18. Longman, London.Search in Google Scholar

Loock, Rudy & Kathleen M. O'Connor. 2013. The discourse functions of nonverbal appositives. Journal of English Linguistics 41 (4). 332–358.10.1177/0075424213502236Search in Google Scholar

Louw, Bill. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? — The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology: in Honor of John Sinclair, 157–176. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.64.11louSearch in Google Scholar

Markee, Numa. 1995. Teachers’ answers to students’ questions: problematizing the issue of making meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6 (2). 63–92.10.5070/L462005218Search in Google Scholar

Mercer, Neil. 1995. The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, Avon, England; Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781800418288Search in Google Scholar

Minsky, Minsky. 1974. A framework for representing knowledge. Artificial Intelligence 306. 1–82.10.1515/9783110858778-003Search in Google Scholar

Minsky, Minsky. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In Patrick H. Winston (ed.), The psychology of computer vision, 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Mori, Junko. 2004. Pursuit of understanding: conversation analytic account of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. In Rod Gardner and Johannes Wagner (eds.), Second language conversations, 157–77. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Nunan, David. 1988. The learner centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524506Search in Google Scholar

Partington, Alan. 1998. Patterns and meaning. Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/scl.2Search in Google Scholar

Partington, Alan. 2004. “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1). 131–156.10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07parSearch in Google Scholar

Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. Frame semantics and the lexicon: Nouns and verbs in the body frame. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Essays in semantics and pragmatics: In honor of Charles J. Fillmore, 279–297. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.32.14petSearch in Google Scholar

Pica, Teresa. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning 44 (3). 493–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x.Search in Google Scholar

Popov, Vitaliy, Dine Brinkman, Harm J. A. Biemans, Martin Mulder, Andrei Kuznetsov & Omid Noroozi. 2012. Multicultural student group work in higher education: An explorative case study on challenges as perceived by students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2). 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.09.004.Search in Google Scholar

Prentice, Sheryl. 2010. Using automated semantic tagging in critical discourse analysis: A case study on Scottish independence from a Scottish nationalist perspective. Discourse & Society 21 (4). 405–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510366198.Search in Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. 1975a. Is semantics possible?. In Hilary Putnam (ed.), Philosophical papers: Mind, language and reality, 2, 139–152. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.010Search in Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. 1975b. The meaning of "meaning”. In Hilary Putnam (ed.), Philosophical papers: Mind, language and reality, 2, 215–271. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014Search in Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul. 2002. Matrix: A statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis through corpus comparison. UK: Lancaster University. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13 (4). 519–549. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray.Search in Google Scholar

Rey, Georges. 1983. Concepts and stereotypes. Cognition 15 (1). 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90044-6.Search in Google Scholar

Roehr, Karen. 2010. Explicit knowledge and learning in SLA: A cognitive linguistics perspective. AILA Review 23. 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.02roe.Search in Google Scholar

Rommetveit, Ragnar. 1992. Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In Astri H. Wold (ed), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind, 19–44. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Roschelle, Jeremy & Stephanie D. Teasley. 2012. The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Claire O’Malley (ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning, 69–97. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5Search in Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, Barry & Steven D. Penrod. 2011. Research methods in forensic psychology. John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

Scardamalia, Marlene & Cari Bereiter. 2006. Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In Keith Sawyer (ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 97–118. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816833.008Search in Google Scholar

Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. Conversation analysis methodology. Language Learning, 54 (S1). 1–54.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00268.xSearch in Google Scholar

Sert, Olcay & Steve Walsh. 2013. The interactional management of claims of insufficient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27 (6). 542–565.10.1080/09500782.2012.739174Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 1996. The search for units of meaning. Textus, 9 (1). 25–49.10.4324/9780203594070-6Search in Google Scholar

Singer, Melissa A., Joshua Radinsky, & Susan R. Goldman. 2008. The role of gesture in meaning construction. Discourse Processes 45. 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145601.Search in Google Scholar

Spuzic, Sead & Fons Nouwens. 2004. A Contribution to defining the term ‘Definition’. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology-InSITE2004.10.28945/2747Search in Google Scholar

Stahl, Gerry. 2006. Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3372.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Stokoe, Elizabeth H. 2000. Constructing topicality in university students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. Language and Education 14 (3). 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780008666789.Search in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles. Functions of Language 2 (1). 23–55.10.1075/fol.2.1.03stuSearch in Google Scholar

Sweetser, Eve. 1999. Compositionality and blending: semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In Gisela Redeker & Theo Janssen (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology, 129–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110803464.129Search in Google Scholar

Sweetser, Eve & Gilles Fauconnier. 1996. Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In Gilles Fauconnier & Eve Sweetser (eds.) Spaces, worlds and grammars, 1–28. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Telles-Ribeiro, Branca & Susan M. Hoyle. 2009. Frame analysis. In Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Ostman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics, 74–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hoph.5.05ribSearch in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486517Search in Google Scholar

van Boxtel, Carla, Jos van der Linden & Gellof Kanselaar. 2000. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction 10. 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(00)00002-5.Search in Google Scholar

Van Lier, Leo. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/1-4020-7912-5Search in Google Scholar

Verhoeven, Ludo & Arthur Graesser. 2008. Cognitive and linguistic factors in interactive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes 45. 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145353.Search in Google Scholar

Viechnicki, Gail Brendel. 1997. An empirical analysis of participant intentions: Discourse in a graduate seminar. Language & Communication 17 (2). 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0271-5309(97)00004-9.Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, Steve. 2002. Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research 6 (1). 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr095oa.Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, Steve & Li Li. 2013. Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 23 (2). 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12005.Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, Steve. 2014. Newcastle University Corpus of Academic Spoken English.Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, Steve & Li Li. 2016. Classroom talk, interaction and collaboration. In Graham Hall (ed.), Routledge handbook of English language teaching. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315676203-41Search in Google Scholar

Wooten, David B. & Americus Reed. 2000. A conceptual overview of the self-presentational concern and response tendencies of focus group participants. Journal of Consumer Psychology 9. 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0903_2.Search in Google Scholar

Xiao, Richard & Tony McEnery. 2006. Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A corpus-linguistic perspective. Applied linguistics 27 (1). 103–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami045.Search in Google Scholar