Chubak (2013) i feel like a bag lady and other business conversations.tesl

Let’s keep it real

and other business conversations

Lynda Chubak | TESL Toronto | May 25, 2013 Instructor: Toronto District School Board | University of Toronto | Fair Tide Communications

1 © Lynda Chubak, May, 2013

What’s coming up

• Examine an overview of social talk at work

• Look at new Canadian research

• Discuss applications to teaching and learning


“I feel like a bag lady”: Personal interstices, self-disclosures and empathetic affiliation during workplace meetings.

University of Toronto, November, 2012

MA Thesis, SLA


Un/under-employment factors • Foreign credentials not recognized • Limited or no Canadian experience • Insufficient language skills (Gilmore, 2009, Statistics Canada, 2009, Galarneau & Morisette, 2004, 2008


Understanding interaction

“In order to understand the relationship between interaction and the process of language learning, it is vital to understand how the interaction is organized.”

Seedhouse, 2005 (p.172)


Social talk Institutional talk

a.k.a. off-task

relational

minimally informative

mundane/ordinary

everyday

non-restricted

small talk

gossip

humour

greetings/closings

a.k.a. on-task

transactional

maximally informative

business

work-oriented

restricted


Early days of ‘small’ talk

1923 Malinowski phatic communion

1960 Jakobson worthy of study

1975 Laver

indexical of social roles and attitudes

1984 Sacks

everyday conversation

becomes a focus

7

Phatic Communion Phaticity

© Lynda Chubak, May, 2013

On closer examination… • Creates co-membership (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005)

• Builds interpersonal equity (Mirivel & Tracy, 2005)

• Employed as a people management tool (Tracy & Naughton, 2000)

• Used strategically (Boyle, 2000)

• Self-perception of abilities mixed (Cunningham, 2006)

• Develops cohesiveness (Coupland, 2000)

• Fundamental to on-the-job integration (Holmes, 2005a)


From idealized to authentic


social talk institutional talk

a.k.a. off-task

relational

minimally informative

mundane/ordinary

everyday

non-restricted

small talk

gossip

humour

greetings/closings

a.k.a. on-task

transactional

maximally informative

business

work-oriented

restricted


Blurring the boundaries • Introduced fluidly during driving lessons and at

the hair salon (McCarthy, 2000).

• Used to offset uncomfortable intrusions during doctor-patient encounters (Maynard & Hudak, 2008, Walsh, 2007).

• Pursued concurrently, with rules of engagement (Koester, 2004).

• Categorized by whether institutional or personal roles are foregrounded (Jaworski, 2000, Holmes, 2000b).

• Applied as a linguistic tool, not necessarily determined by topic (Coupland & Ylanne-McEwen, 2000).


In art

Laurie Anderson

In science

Interstices

12

On the web

In architecture

Defining a new term


Interstices in architecture

Campanile di Giotto, Florence, Italy

“interstices where human feelings may cling and overgrow it like ivy”

Nathanial Hawthorne, 1876 13 © Lynda Chubak, May, 2013

Personal Interstice*

These two new terms… • underscore the emergence

of ordinary conversation within ongoing institutional talk.

• highlight placement as an interactional feature.

14

a.k.a social talk

pop up*

*coined by Lynda Chubak © Lynda Chubak, May, 2013

Social talk and institutional culture • Local conventions are expected (Tarone, 2005).

• Topics are highly context-specific (Subramanian, 2007; Coupland, 2003).

• Organizational culture becomes apparent. Off-task anecdotes foster team identity (Holmes, 2006, Mirivel & Tracy, 2005).

• Social distance is negotiated (Coupland, 2000).

• Subterranean power and institutional authority is constructed (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Holmes, 2006).


Social talk and institutional culture Excerpt 1

Context: Tom enters Greg’s (his boss) office to make a

request for a day off.

1 Tom: can I just have a quick word

2 Greg: yeah sure have a seat

3 Tom: [sitting down] great weather eh

4 Greg: mm

5 Tom: yeah been a good week did you get away skiing at

the weekend

6 Greg: yeah we did, now how can I help you

7 Tom: I was just wondering if I could take Friday off and

make it a long weekend.

Excerpt from: Language in the Workplace, Holmes, 2006, Holmes & Stubbe, 2003

Power construction


Difficulties and variations • Transitioning from brief to extended exchanges

found to be difficult (Holmes, 2005a).

• Gender variations arise (Eggins and Slade,1997).

• Lack of variation in overlap and formulaic speech acts present, both features common to native speakers (Meierford, 2000).

• Variations between genres in use of modals, hedges, intensifiers appear (Koester, 2005).

• Variation in communication skills is connected to task type (Walsh, 2007).


Self-disclosure

“I look like a bag lady.”

“I ate way too much sugar.”

“I had a bunch of health issues.”


19

Self-disclosure

“the process of making the self known to other persons”

– (Jourard & Lasakow, 1958, p. 91)

Canadian psychologist Sidney Jourard (1926-1974) © Lynda Chubak, May, 2013

20

Self-disclosure features • Hargie and Dickson (2004)

– Use of a self-referent (I, my, mine) – Content dealing with facts or feelings – Expression of one’s own experience or a reaction to

another’s – Past, present or future being represented – A number of possible functions

• Stokoe (2009), Antaki Barnes and Leudar (2005) – “a social performance which must be brought off in

interaction” (p. 181).


21

Self-disclosure: situated • Antaki et al (2005)

– something said “on one’s own behalf”, something above and beyond what is readily knowable

– presented as newsworthy

– understood as volunteered

• Stokoe (2009) – position of response central to understanding action


Norm of reciprocity

A common social phenomenon of giving or feeling something that corresponds to something previously received. Reciprocal sequence: Anne: Hi Bob, how are you doing? Bob: I’m fine thanks, Bob: How are you? Anne: Great thanks.


Stories are multifunctional • Entertaining • Informative • Sites of identity (re)construction (Holmes, 2005b)


Second stories

A form of reciprocity – a second story that resembles the first.

Sacks observed “how finely the second story picked up at least one sense of the point of the first” (1992, p. 765).


Conversation Analysis

25

“there is order at all points” American sociologist

Harvey Sacks, 1935-1976

Conversation Analysis is the study of recorded, naturally occurring conversation or talk-in-interaction.



26

John Heritage:

• The “dominant method for the sociological study of interaction” (2009, p. 300).

• Used in anthropology, engineering, palliative care, communications, linguistics, politics and law (2010).

• Practiced in an estimated half of the world’s countries (2010).



27

• A conversation model hypothesis: – A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for

conversation (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974).

• The order of our everyday social interactions are what conversation analysts seek to locate.

• Talk as action, not talk as language (Kitzinger, 2000).


Talk as Action We are always “doing”.

• Doing being ordinary (Sacks, 1970/1984)

• Doing influence (Clifton, 2009)

• Doing avoidance (Markee, 2011)

• Doing gender (Kitzinger, 2009)

• Doing power (Ladegaard, 2011)

• Doing collegiality (Holmes, 2000b)

• Doing self-disclosure (Chubak, 2012)


Why that now?*

29 *Schegloff & Sacks, 1973


Ordinary Institutional

30

Forms of institutional talk are measured and examined against the primordial form of ordinary conversation (Drew, 2005).


Canadian Workplace Research Data collection summer and fall of 2011

– Marketing firm ~100 employees

– Institutional catering company ~60 employees

– Engineering firm ~30 employees

– 34 hours of audio | 69 individuals | 165 conversations from 1 to 107 minutes

– 17 hours pre/post interviews | on-site observations | publically available information


Unmotivated listening

Through unmotivated listening orderliness emerges.

32

“[T]he aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity”.

Wittgenstein (1953/2009)


Developing a collection Moving from one interactional practice to a collection, “talk” must:

1. be recurrent

2. be specifically positioned within a turn or sequence (or both), and

3. have some specific interpretation, consequence, or set of consequences.

Heritage & Clayman, 2010


A potential collection… Self-reference, self-disclosure personal interstices

87 turns-at-talk included these 3 features: • the first person pronoun “I” (self-reference); • personal information about self to another (self-disclosure); • insertion into institutional talk (personal interstice).

21 were part one/part two of a reciprocal self-disclosure a.k.a. second story sequence


Self-disclosure sampling 1st: “I don’t want to do this [have a baby] again.” Dianne

2nd:“I don’t want a newborn. I don’t want a teenager.” Rachel

1st: “I had a bunch of chocolate and I felt like shit.” Dianne

2nd: “I ate way too much sugar…I was so sick.” Jake

1st: “I got pretty sick when I came to Toronto.” Jake

2nd: “I mean I had a bunch of health issues.” Denise

Features: personal interstice, self-reference, self-disclosure, voluntarily offered, news component, second incorporates features and forms of first.


36

Participants: Penny, Bookkeeper Rachel, Director, School Programs Context: Food Co. 20 minute meeting to review accounting issues.

Example 3a/b 1 Pen [O↑kay, well that’s good to know.

2 (1.1) ((paper rustling))

3 Pen (Thanks very [much.)

4 Rac [(But it’s still) screwing up elsewhere¿

5 (.)

6 Pen (°°I kno:w°°)=

7 Rac =I have a feeling that the report is right,

8 but where: we’re communicating is probably

9 where thuh (1.5) breakdown is. You look frozen.

10 (2.1)

11 Pen a Well I’m not bad except I look like a bag lady

12 cuz I’m [wearing ]hh=

13 Rac [↑No: you do:n’t.]

14 Pen =[s(h)o ]ma(hhh)ny la(hh)yers •hh haha •hh haha

15 Rac [hehaha ha]

16 Pen [ he ha ] he•hhe thank yo(hh)u but.

17 Rac [You look good:]

18 (0.3)

19 Rac I like it.

20 Pen •h I feel kinda crazy [but hhe]hehhe but=

21 Rac [hmhhm ]

22 Pen =[I’m ]warm actually.

23 Rac [(xxx)]

24 Pen •hh usually- usually I feel- I-I am freezing

25 usually [•hheh h heh he ]

26 Rac b [yeah >I know. People] are always>when

27 I dress like that<People are always like

28 are you freezing¿ I’m like<not anymore.

29 [(Like I)]

30 Pen [hehe ha ]I was before when I was dress like a

31 nor(h)mal [per(h)son(h])hehe ha

32 Rac [exactly. ]

Food Co. Penny and Rachel


37

Example 9a/b 19 Fra Y’ever feel¿

20 San Oh: yah

21 San oh [yah.

22 Fra [yah:: (x) Y-yu are what five six five seven?

23 San a Y’ah: (.) I’m- five uh: five s:::even

24 Fra Five seven,

25 San Five seven.

26 (.)

27 San °Yah.

28 (1.5)

29 Fra Wow.

30 (1.5)

31 San ‘n he’s what six f:↑our?

32 Fra Six ↑six

33 San Oh: man.

34 Fra Six six.

35 San It’s a foot(uh hu hu

36 (.)

37 Fra b (I’m a)five eleven in a good day.

38 (.)((papers shuffling))

39 >I’m lucky(if I’ve a xx that’s six eight).

40 [>(I’ve]looked for)] a good excuse.=

41 San [huhu h]

42 Fra =>Ever since I’ve started shavin my head I’m five

43 ten.< •h: Anyway. uhm: (0.3) So that’s pretty

44 well it for room D.

Engineering Co. Frank and Sanjaya Participants: Frank, President Sanjaya, Engineering Intern Context: Engineering Co. 20 minute meeting to review site modifications.


Discussion: Personal Interstices revisited

• Personal interstices are architecturally embedded

into institutional goal-oriented interactions.

• Hierarchical roles do not systematically influence how these reciprocal sequences are either initiated or closed.

• Returning to business talk is sometimes achieved as a multi-step, co-constructed endeavour.

• Personal interstices do not necessarily have to be relevant to on-going task performance.


Discussion: Norm of reciprocity and second stories revisited

• Key descriptors/features are retained, mirroring another’s self and displaying empathetic affiliation.

• “my mind is with you” (Sacks, 1992b, p.257) • Second parts display agreement, display

understanding because: I also don’t want a newborn | I also ate too much sugar I also like the salt | I’m also not as tall as I say I’ve also had health issues | I’m also cook from scratch I also never click those things | I also dress in layers.

• Workplace camaraderie is possibly achieved through these exchanges.


Discussion • Careful examination of personal interstices reveals how collegial

relationships are shaped by talk, and make the “seen but unnoticed” (Clifton 2006, p. 206) visible.

• “These little exchanges are, then, the mundane sites in which the grand, macrotheoretical themes about norms and values and cultural capital are played out” (Schegloff, 1996b, p. 171).

• Language proficiency may require having equal access to participating in these personal interstices, and access begins by becoming aware that they exist.


Research applications This and other conversation analysis-based research can: 1. Better inform instruction.

2. Provide access to authentic conversation models.

3. Heighten awareness of workplace social talk’s pervasiveness and functions.

4. Demonstrate one way to show empathy and build workplace affiliation.


Over to you… How can you see turning the findings from these studies into teachables?


43

Thank you!

Contact information: Email: [email protected] Twitter: @lyndachubak LinkedIn: ca.linkedin.com/in/lyndachubak/ © Lynda Chubak, May, 2013

mailto:[email protected]

http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lyndachubak/



References Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Self-disclosure as a situated interactional practice. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 44, 181-199.

Arminen, I. (2004). Second stories: The salience of interpersonal communication for mutual help in Alcoholics Anonymous. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 319-347.

Atkinson, J.M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Part II. Preference organization. In J.M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 53-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (2005). Institutional discourse and interlanguage pragmatics research. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B.S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 7-36). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clifton, J. (2006). A conversation analytical approach to business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 202-219.

Clifton, J. (2009). Beyond taxonomies of influence. “Doing” influence and making decisions in management team meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 57-79.

Coupland, J. (2000). Introduction: Sociolinguistic perspectives on small talk. In. J. Coupland (Ed.), Small Talk (pp.1-31). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Coupland, J. (2003). Small talk: Social functions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36, 1-6.

Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., Henwood, K., & Wiemann, J. (1988). Elderly self-disclosure: Interactional and intergroup issue. Language & Communication, 8, 109-133.

Coupland, N. & Ylänne-McEwen, V. (2000). Talk about the weather: small talk, leisure talk and the travel industry. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 163-182). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Cozby, P.C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological bulletin, 79, 73-91.

Derlega, V.J, Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S.T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Downes, M., Hemmasi, M., Graf, L., Lane, K., & Huff, L. (2002). The propensity to trust: A comparative study of United States and Japanese managers. International Journal of Management, 19, 614-621.

Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In K.L. Fitch, & R.E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 71-102). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.

Farber, B.A. (2006). Self-disclosure in psychotherapy. New York: Guildford Press.

Farber, B.A., Berano, K.C., & Capobiano, J.A. (2004). Clients’ perceptions of the process and consequences of self-disclosure in psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 340-346.

Galarneau, D., & Morissette, R. (2004). Immigrants settling for less? Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 75-001-XIE. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/10604/6921-eng.pdf

Galarneau, D., & Morissette, R. (2008). Immigrants’ education and required job skills. Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 75-001-X. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008112/pdf/10766-eng.pdf

Gilmore, J. (2009). The 2008 Canadian immigrant labour market: Analysis of quality of employment. Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 71-606-X, no.5. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-606-x/71-606-x2009001-eng.pdf

Gunnarsson, B-L. (2009). Professional discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication research, theory and practice (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled interpersonal communication research, theory and practice (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hawthorne, N. (1876). Passages from the French and Italian note-books of Nathanial Hawthorne. Boston: J. R. Osgood and Company. Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://go.utlib.ca/cat/4813969

Heritage, J. (1998). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing distinctive turn-taking systems. In S. Cmerjrková, J. Hoffmannová, O. Müllerová, & J. Svetlá (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of IADA (International Association for Dialog Analysis) (pp. 3-17). Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Heritage, J. (2001). Goffman, Garfinkel and conversation analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S.J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp.47-56). London: Sage Publications.

Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K.L Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp.103-147). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heritage, J. (2009). Conversation analysis as social theory. In B. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 300-320). Oxford: Blackwell.

Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Issues of theory, method and practice (pp. 208-230). London: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/heritage/Site/Publications_files/CA_PRACTICES_AND_METHODS.pdf

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interaction, identities, and institutions. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Hill, C.E., & Knox, S. (2001). Self-disclosure. Psychotherapy, 38, 413-417.

Holmes, J. (2000a). Talking English from 9 to 5: challenges for ESL learners at work. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 125-140.

Holmes, J. (2000b). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 32-61). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Holmes, J. (2000c). Victoria University of Wellington’s Language in Workplace Project: an overview. Language in the Workplace Occasional Papers, 1. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/docs/ops/op1.pdf.

Holmes, J. (2005). When small talk is a big deal: Sociolinguistic challenges in the workplace. In M. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 344-372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holmes, J. (2005). Why tell stories? Contrasting themes and identities in the narratives of Maori and Pakeha women and men. In S. F. Kiesling & C. B. Paulston (Eds.), Intercultural discourse and communication. The essential readings (pp. 110-134). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Holmes, J. (2006). Workplace narratives, professional identity and relational practice. In A. de Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and identity (pp. 166-187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holmes J., & Riddiford, N. (2011). Professional and personal identity at work: achieving a synthesis through intercultural workplace talk. Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr22/holmes.htm

Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 121-149.

Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. London: Longman.

Holtgraves, T. (1990). The language of self-disclosure. In H. Giles, & W.P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 190-207). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Innes, B. (2010). “Well, that’s why I asked the question sir”: Well as a discourse marker in court. Language in Society, 39, 95-117.

Jamandre, N.K.F., & Arce, R.T. (2011). Self-disclosure and work relationships of call center agents with their co-employees. Journal of US-China public administration, 8, 990-1003.

Jaworski, A. (2000). Silence and small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 110-132). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219-248). New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Jefferson, C. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197-216.

Joseph, B.D. (2003). The Editor’s Department: Reviewing our contents. Language, 79, 461-463.

Jourard, S.M. (1964). The transparent self: self-disclosure and well-being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Jourard, S.M. (1971). Self-disclosure. An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley.

Jourard, S.M., & Jaffe, P.E. (1970). Influence of an interviewer’s disclosure on the self-disclosing behavior of interviewees. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 17, 252-257.

Jourard, S.M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 91-98.

Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 163-193.

Kitzinger, C. (2009). Doing gender. A conversation analytic perspective. Gender & Society, 23, 94-98.

Koester, A. (2004). Relational sequences in workplace genres. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1405-1428.

Koester, A. (2005). A corpus-based study of politeness and solidarity in workplace conversations. Tesol Forum: 25, Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/article.asp?SID=1&NID=2857&DID=3601&VID=142&CIDQS=&Taxonomy=False&specialSearch=False

Kuiper, K., & Flindall, M. (2000). Social rituals, formulaic speech and small talk at the supermarket checkout. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 183-207). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1, 97-120.

Ladegaard, Hans J. (2011). ‘Doing power’ at work: Responding to male and female management styles in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 4-19.

Language in the Workplace Project (2010). Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laver, J. (1975). Communicative functions of phatic communion. In A. Kendon, R. Harris, & M. Ritchie Key (Eds.), Organization of behaviour in face-to-face interaction (pp. 215-238). The Hague: Mouton & Co.

Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C.K. Ogden & I.A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 296-336). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.

Markee, N. (2011). Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 602-615.

Maynard, D.W., & Hudak, P.L. (2008). Small talk, high stakes: Interactional disattentiveness in the context of prosocial doctor-patient interaction. Language in Society, 37, 661-688.

McCarthy, M. (2000). Mutually captive audiences: small talk and the genre of close-contact service encounters. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk. (pp. 84-109). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Meierford, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: An analysis of non-native-/non-native small talk conversations in English. Retrieved from Linguistik online 5, 1/00. http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM

Mirivel, J.C., & Tracy, K. (2005). Premeeting talk: An organizationally crucial form of talk. Research of Language and Social Interaction, 38, 1-34.

Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 501-518.

Mori, J. (2007). Border crossings? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition, conversation analysis and foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 849-862.

OED (2012a). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/98353?redirectedFrom=interstice#eid

OED (2012b). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/142290?rskey=YeBSpr&result=5&isAdvanced=false#

Padilla Cruz, M. (2007). Phatic utterances and the communication of social information: A relevance-theoretic approach. In P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, M. Padilla Cruz, R. Gómez Morón, & L. Fernández Amaya (Eds.), Studies in intercultural, cognitive and social pragmatics (pp 112-129). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy dialectics of disclosure. Albany, New York: State of University of New York Press.

Polletta, F., Chen, P.C.B., Gardner, B.G., & Motes, A. (2011). The sociology of storytelling. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 109-130.

Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access: as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186-198.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Power, J.L. et al. (2011). Acceptability of workplace bullying: A comparative study on six continents. Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.018.

Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: the study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pudlinski, C. (2005). Doing empathy and sympathy: caring responses to troubles telling on a peer support line. Discourse studies, 7, 267-288.

Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). (Eds.) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited.

Richards, K. (2006). ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied Linguistics, 27, 51-77.

Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-353). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1984a). Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures in social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1984b). On doing “being ordinary”. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures in social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413-429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1992a). April 24: Second stories. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation (Vol. I & II) (pp. 764-772). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Sacks, H. (1992b). Lecture 5: ‘First’ and ‘second’ stories; Topical coherence; Storing and recalling experiences. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation (Vol. I & II) (pp. 249-268). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversations. Language, 50, 696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075-1095.

Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.) Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89-135). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295-1345.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Turn Organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction: In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161-216

Schegloff, E.A. (1997c). “Narrative analysis”: Thirty years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 97-106.

Schegloff, E.A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.) Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70-96). London: Berg.

Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequential organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E.A. (2009). A practice for (re-)exiting a sequence: And/but/so + uh(m) + silence. In B. Fraser, & K. Turner (Eds.), Language in life and a life in language: Jacob Mey – A Festschrift (pp. 365-374).

Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H., (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.

Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, VIII, 289-327.

Schegloff, E.A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3-31.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, K.P. (1988). Small talk: Analysing phatic discourse. Marburg/Lahn: Hitzeroth.

Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38, 165-187.

Sidnell, J. (2010) Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.

Smith, V., Collard, P., Nicolson, P., & Bayne, R. (2012). Key concepts in counseling and psychotherapy: A critical A-Z guide to theory. New York: McGraw-Hill International.

Statistics Canada. (2009). College and university graduates with low earnings in Canada – Demographic and labour market characteristics. In Education matters: Insights on education, learning and training in Canada. Vol. 6, No. 2. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2009002/article/10897-eng.htm

Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 31-57.

Stokoe, E. (2009). “I've got a girlfriend”: Police officers doing self-disclosure in their interrogations of suspects . Narrative Inquiry, 19, 154-182.

Stricker, G. & Fisher, M. (1990). Self-disclosure in the therapeutic relationship. New York: Plenum Publishing.

Stubbe, M. (2001). From office to production line: Collecting data for the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project. Language in the Workplace Occasional Papers, Number 2. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/docs/ops/op2.pdf

Subramanian, G. (2007). The final word on small talk. Negotiation, November, 8. Retrieved from http://www.pon.harvard.edu/?p=10493

Tardy, C., & Dindia, K. (1997) Self-disclosure. In O. Hargie (Ed.), The handbook of communication skills (pp. 213-235) (2nd ed.), London: Routledge.

Tarone, E. (2005). English for specific purposes and interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B.S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk (pp. 157-173). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Tracy, K., & Naughton, J.M. (2000). Institutional identity-work: a better lens. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 62-83). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Walsh, I.P. (2007). Small talk is ‘Big Talk’ in clinical discourse: Appreciating the value of conversation in SLP clinical interactions. Topics in Language Disorders, 27, 24-36.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.

Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9, 45-58.

Wittgenstein, L., (1953/2009). Philosophical Investigations. (G.E.M. Anscombe, P.E.M. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). (4th ed.) P.M.S. Hacker & J. Schulte (Eds.).West Sussex, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Wong, J., (2002). “Applying” conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 37-60.

Wynn, R., & Wynn, W. (2006). Empathy as an interactionally achieved phenomenon in psychotherapy. Characteristics of some conversational resources. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1385-1398.

Žegarac, V., & Clark, B. (1999). Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics, 35, 321-346.

Technology

Chubak (2013) i feel like a bag lady and other business conversations.tesl