Evaluating cognitive competences in interaction / / edited by Gitte Rasmussen, C.E. Brouwer, Dennis Day

• Record Nr.: UNINA9910958958603321
• Pubbl/distr/stampa: Amsterdam ; ; Philadelphia, : John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2012
• ISBN: 9781283895163; 1283895161; 9789027273338; 9027273332
• Edizione: [1st ed.]
• Descrizione fisica: 1 online resource (244 p.)
• Collana: Pragmatics & beyond new series; v. 225
• Classificazione: ER 990
• Altri autori (Persone): RasmussenGitte; BrouwerC. E; DayDennis
• Disciplina: 401.4
• Soggetti: Communicative competence; Competence and performance (Linguistics); Conversation analysis; Psycholinguistics
• Lingua di pubblicazione: Inglese
• Formato: Materiale a stampa
• Livello bibliografico: Monografia
• Note generali: Description based upon print version of record.
• Nota di bibliografia: Includes bibliographical references and index.
• Nota di contenuto: Evaluating Cognitive Competences in Interaction; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Introduction; 1. A short presentation of the papers in this volume; 1.1 Papers on interaction in classroom or practice-based training settings; 1.2 Papers on interaction in institutional settings occasioned by 'social problems'; 1.2.1 Papers on interaction in institutional (re)habilitation settings; 2. Concluding remarks; References; Transcript notations; The embedded evaluations in air traffic control training; 1. Introduction; 2. Evaluating learner performance and understanding in educational contexts 3. Characteristics of the air traffic control work and training; 4. Data and methods; 5. Evaluation as embedded activity in I-R sequences; 5.1 Embedding evaluation in the extension of the base sequence; 5.2 Embedding evaluation in the repair sequence; 5.3 Occasioned instruction; 6. Conclusion; References; Teacher evaluations; 1. Introduction; 2. Data; 3. Dimensions of evaluations; 3.1 Positive-; negative dimension; 3.2 The value dimension; 3.3 The object dimension; 4. Analysis; 4.1 Sequential and design features of teacher evaluations 4.2 The object of evaluation; 4.3 Evaluations of knowing; 4.4 Evaluations of doing; 4.5 Evaluations of understanding; 4.6 Teacher evaluations: Sequence, design and object; 5. Conclusion; References; Treating student contributions as displays of understanding in group supervision; 1. Introduction; 2. Analyses; 2.1 Example 1; 2.2 Example 2; 2.3 Example 3; 2.4 Example 4; 2.5 Example 5; 3. Conclusion; References; Good reasons for seemingly bad performance; 1. Competences in the classroom; 2. A geometry lesson; 2.1 Preliminaries; 2.2 Mr. Manabe's presentation 2.3 Ikeda's presentation; 2.4 The teacher's summary; 3. Good reasons for seemingly bad performances; Appendix: Abbreviations used for gloss; References; Mutual negotiation of the interviewee's competence in interview interaction; 1. Introduction; 2. Competence and EM; 3. Competence in the person-environment fit models; 4. Competence and CA; 5. Intertwined hypothesis; 6. Data and setting; 7. Analysis; 7.1 Upgrading respondents' tentatively positive responses; 7.2 Disagreeing with respondents' negative or reserved responses; 7.3 Apologizing for questioning competent respondents 7.4 Incompetence in interaction; 7.5 Summary; 8. Discussion; References; Evaluating by feeling; 1. Introduction; 2. Structure and main points; 3. Data and interactional phenomenon; 4. Emotions as causations; 5. Emotions as adaptations; 6. Discussion: Action v. emotion; 7. Concluding remarks; References; Interactive evaluation of cognitive functioning; 1. Introduction; 2. CA studies of aphasia; 3. Data and transcription; 4. The sequential organization of different prompting methods; 4.1 Excerpt 1: Nyckel (key); 4.1.1 Pause sequence; 4.1.2 Side sequence: Request for help
• Sommario/riassunto: This paper presents a study of how teenage boys with learning disabilities evaluate co-participants' 'cognitive' or 'mental' state competences in interaction ("you are sick in the head"). The evaluations emerge out of disputes and disagreements about social experiences and end these disputes by excluding the co-participant from further talk on current topics. The study shows thus how 'mental' state evaluations become insults: In and through the use of 'mental' state evaluations in actions in which the boys triumph over, or 'win' the dispute as they exclude others from participation in on-going