To ensure smooth communication and collaboration, here are some troubleshooting tips to address common issues:
Check Internet Connection: Verify that you have a stable and reliable internet connection. Use a wired connection when possible, as it tends to be more stable than Wi-Fi. If using Wi-Fi, make sure you have a strong signal.
Update the Browser or App: Ensure that you are using the latest version of the web browser. Developers frequently release updates to address bugs and improve performance.
Clear Browser Cache: Sometimes, cached data can cause conflicts or issues. Clear the browser cache and cookies before joining the meeting.
Test Audio and Video: Before the meeting, check your microphone and camera to ensure they are working correctly. If you are a speaker, you can click on "Start Practice Session" button test to ensure audio and video devices are functioning.
Close Other Applications: Running multiple applications in the background can consume system resources and lead to performance issues. Close unnecessary apps to free up resources for the Dryfta meeting platform.
Restart Your Device: If you encounter persistent issues, try restarting your computer or mobile device. This can help resolve various software-related problems.
Use Supported Browsers: Ensure you are using a browser supported by the meeting platform. Recommended browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Brave.
Allow Necessary Permissions: Make sure the Dryfta meeting platform has the required permissions to access your microphone, camera, and other necessary features.
Disable VPN or Firewall: Sometimes, VPNs or firewalls can interfere with the connection to the meeting platform. Temporarily disable them and see if the issue persists.
Switch Devices: If possible, try joining the meeting from a different device to see if the problem is specific to one device.
Reduce Bandwidth Usage: In cases of slow or unstable internet connections, ask participants to disable video or share video selectively to reduce bandwidth consumption.
Update Drivers and Software: Ensure your operating system, audio drivers, and video drivers are up to date. Outdated drivers can cause compatibility issues with the Dryfta meeting platform.
Contact Support: If none of the above steps resolve the issue, reach out to the platform's support team. They can provide personalized assistance and troubleshoot specific problems.
By following these troubleshooting tips, you can tackle many common problems encountered on Dryfta meeting platform and have a more productive and seamless meeting experience.
20230718T083020230718T1130Europe/Amsterdam[SYMP64] Reporting interviews: what happens when a turn at talk is written down?Hybrid Session (onsite/online)AILA 2023 - 20th Anniversary Congress Lyon Editioncellule.congres@ens-lyon.fr
Learning how to interview: Ritual, routine, and role when “speaking for another”
Oral Presentation[SYMP64] Reporting interviews: what happens when a turn at talk is written down?08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 09:30:00 UTC
In this paper, I look at the interview as a tool for eliciting information across communicative contexts and professions, an interactional format with an identifiable structure that can be learned, a cultural form that encodes meaning, and an opportunity for exploring and unpacking a genre form that is commonplace in Western society – with a comparative focus on its role in journalism and academia.
To this end, I point to Charles Briggs' slim 1986 volume – Learning How to Ask – which for more than 30 years has characterized the pitfalls of misunderstanding the social science interview as both a social and structural entity, and has encouraged generations of scholars to rethink their assumptions about interactions in field interviews and the role they play as interviewers. Alongside Briggs, Schiffrin's (1984) paper on voice and alignment in sociolinguistic interviews, highlighting the coordinated role of the interviewer and interview, Cotter's (2010, 2015) work on media genre and interview practice, and Haapanen's (2017) and Merminod's (2020) research on quotation and its refraction, demonstrate how the 'writing down' of interview content can be analyzed in terms of practices and norms and what that can reveal across contexts.
I look at interview data from three vantage points: theoretically, metacommunicatively (cf. Briggs) and interactionally (cf. Schiffrin). While the fieldsite and newsroom domains are different in terms of what each profession expects, the participation, interaction, mediation, stance, and collective memory that accrue in both cases are shared elements. I use examples collected from my own and others' sociolinguistic and ethnographic interviews (showing the 'learning how to ask' metacommunitive awareness that students and practitioners acquire through reflective practice) and journalism classes (in which issues of face and role identity are learned alongside the rhetorical and interactional values of reporting).
I argue that the interview as a 'known' structure and with an identifiable function creates 'interpretive stability' (Cotter 2010) and becomes embedded and ritualized (Goffman 1981) in a range of professional and interactional contexts – until it doesn't any longer, as other papers in this symposium demonstrate.
Briggs, Charles. 1986. Learning How to Ask : A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Science Research. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Cotter, Colleen. 2010. News Talk : Investigating the Language of Journalism. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, Ervin. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.
Haapanen, Lauri. 2017. Monologisation as a quoting practice. Obscuring the journalist's involvement in written journalism. Journalism Practice 11:7, 820−839. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1208057
Merminod, Gilles. 2020. Narrative analysis applied to text production. Investigating the processes of quoting in the making of a broadcast news story. AILA Review 33, 103−118. https://benjamins.com/catalog/aila.00032.mer
Schiffrin, Deborah (1984). "Speaking for another" in sociolinguistic interviews: Alignments, identities, and frames. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Framing in discourse, 231–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Entextualization and categorization in corporate performance appraisal interviews
Oral Presentation[SYMP64] Reporting interviews: what happens when a turn at talk is written down?08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 09:30:00 UTC
/
In this paper, we examine spoken and written language use at a Belgian company, focusing on the ways in which information is de/recontextualized (Park & Bucholtz, 2009) throughout the company's performance appraisal process as information travels discursively from text to talk and back to text. The interview is a key interaction in the appraisal process, where the topics of discussion are based on a preparatory document and the discussion itself is noted down in the form of a report. As such, the full process can be considered a 'discursive pathway of linked speech events' (Wortham & Reyes, 2015) structured around the interview. Previous research on this type of encounter has shown that written texts permeate and shape the spoken interaction in significant ways (Van De Mieroop & Carranza, 2018; Van De Mieroop & Vrolix, 2014). However, little is known about the specific processes of discursive change that occur from text to talk and talk to text throughout the performance appraisal process. The dataset consists of (i) 16 video-recorded performance appraisal interviews between managers and sales agents, (ii) two versions of the evaluation form for each interview: the filled out version that is used as preparation for the interview, and the finalized version which is completed after the interview, and (iii) two follow-up research interviews with the managers about the performance appraisal interviews and process to contextualize the dataset with their emic perspective. Our analysis focuses on two things: the transformation of information as it moves from written to spoken mode and spoken to written mode and the discursive changes (e.g. selection, deletion, summary, addition, substitution) this involves, i.e. the practices of reporting, and the reasons why the discursive transformations occur, i.e. the norms of reporting. In latter case, our analysis topicalizes the (institutional) power and authority of the different interlocutors involved in the appraisal process as differentiated between the spoken and written discursive events, as well as the ways in which the identity of the 'model employee' (Van De Mieroop & Schnurr, 2017) is interactionally (co-)constructed and subsequently codified in written form. As such, our paper aims to shed light on the complex discursive mechanisms at play in the corporate categorization of employee assessment throughout the performance appraisal process.
Park, J.S.Y., & Bucholtz, M. (2009). Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk, 29(5), 485-502. Van De Mieroop, D., & Vrolix, E. (2014). A discourse analytical perspective on the professionalization of the performance appraisal interview. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(2), 159-182. Van De Mieroop, D., & Carranza, I.E. (2018). The interactional ventriloquization of written records in the service of authority. International Review of Pragmatics, 10, 1-28. Van De Mieroop, D., & Schnurr, S. (2017). 'Doing evaluation' in the modern workplace: Negotiating the identity of 'model employee' in performance appraisal interviews. In J. Angouri, M. Marra & J. Holmes (Eds.), Negotiating Boundaries at Work (pp. 87-109). Edinburgh University Press. Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. Routledge.
Presenters Fien De Malsche PhD Candidate, University Of Antwerp Co-authors Mieke Vandenbroucke Tenure Track Research Professor, University Of Antwerp
Transformation, exploitation, and complication of transcribed calls in the financial domain: the case of Earnings Conference Calls examined in the argumentative perspective.
Oral Presentation[SYMP64] Reporting interviews: what happens when a turn at talk is written down?08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 09:30:00 UTC
Contrarily to what one might think, finance isn't just about numbers but also relies on communicative exchanges between parts, in both oral and written form. Within the field of financial communication, periodical voluntary disclosures known as Earning Conference Calls (ECCs) are particularly noteworthy [1]. Their Q&A sessions, the real core of the activity, could to some extent be associated to journalistic interviews [2] performed by analysts towards the managerial board of a company; though sharing a certain number of features with those, they also display originality and domain-specific characteristics. Being a situation where all participants are virtually already in possession of all the facts the call will be about, it is apparently useless; however, significance lies in the ways the two sides perform contextually constrained dialectical exchanges embellishing mere data, among which we focus on recurrent argumentative patterns [3], later showing their extra-communicative relevance by scaling up the number of occurrences under scrutiny. In the context of such disclosures, we can trace a chain of information conversion from oral to written form and vice-versa, ultimately resulting in written recommendations to investors [4] with practical consequences in the financial market. Still, one of these passages is particularly delicate: the transcription of ECCs, performed by several independent services, the product of which is made available across different platforms. Not denying the results those services achieve in contributing to the spread of financial information among people who did not attend the call, it must be noted that they primarily focus on the content of ECCs, thus adopting a standard of transcription that neglects some linguistic aspects of central importance for studies not (entirely) devoted to financial aspects. With respect to our specific field of application, moreover, the adopted criteria of sentence segmentation and punctuation insertion often add opaqueness in the recognition of argumentative units of analysis. Having had to personally face and overcome challenges related to the written rendition of such complex oral exchanges, we provide a description of how we dealt with them – successfully leading to a first round of qualitative research results – but also ultimately share a practical toolkit of common issues and quick fixes for general purpose transcriptions that researchers might be willing to convert into a scientific-grade corpus for research. [1] B. Crawford Camiciottoli, "Earnings calls: Exploring an emerging financial reporting genre," Discourse & Communication, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 343–359, 2010. [2] S. Clayman and J. Heritage, The news interview: journalists and public figures on the air, vol. 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. [3] R. Palmieri, A. Rocci, and N. Kudrautsava, "Argumentation in earnings conference calls. Corporate standpoints and analysts' challenges," Studies in Communication Sciences, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 120–132, 2015. [4] R. Palmieri and J. Miecznikowski, "Predictions in economic-financial news: Author's stance and argumentative loci," Journal of Argumentation in Context, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 48–73, 2016.
"It's not so good now because I made it up". Journalistic self-criticism in media production
Oral Presentation[SYMP64] Reporting interviews: what happens when a turn at talk is written down?08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 09:30:00 UTC
Media criticism starts from self-criticism, i.e., the ability and willingness to critically question and further develop one's own practices and products of media production (Perrin, 2020). This presentation shows how such self-criticism in media editorial offices can be fostered by transdisciplinary research. In this context, transdisciplinarity means: doing research on, for, and with practitioners to sustainably solve societal problems in which language plays a key role (Perrin & Kramsch, 2018). Empirically, the article draws on large data corpora from over two decades of text production research in media workplaces, focusing on problems of linguistic recycling while transforming sources' spoken language into media language (Haapanen & Perrin, 2020).
Media criticism starts from self-criticism, i.e., the ability and willingness to critically question and further develop one's own practices and products of media production (Perrin, 2020). This presentation shows how such self-criticism in media editorial offices can be fostered by transdisciplinary research. In this context, transdisciplinarity means: doing research on, for, and with practitioners to sustainably solve societal problems in which language plays a key role (Perrin & Kramsch, 2018). Empirically, the article draws on large data corpora from over two decades of text production research in media workplaces, focusing on problems of linguistic recycling while transforming sources' spoken language into media language (Haapanen & Perrin, 2020). Findings show that with increasing globalization, localization, and digital networking of the news business, translating has become more and more important, and that with social media, the recycling of others' statements accelerates. So there are good reasons to encourage journalists' ability to self-critique their linguistic recycling practices. This is exactly what can be achieved by choosing and implementing a transdisciplinary research framework. It includes recognizing the subject matter in its theoretical and practical significance, building mutual trust across stakeholder groups, and contributing to the further development of all the fields involved.
Haapanen, L., & Perrin, D. (2020). Linguistic recycling. The process of quoting in increasingly mediatized settings. Introduction. AILA Review, 2020(33), 1–20. Perrin, D. (2020). "Das ist jetzt nicht mehr so gut, weil ich habe es erfunden". Journalistische Selbstkritik in der Medienproduktion. In H.-J. r. Bucher (Ed.), Medienkritik. Zwischen ideologischer Instrumentalisierung und kritischer Aufklärung. Grundlagen, Fallanalysen, Problemfelder(pp. 107–130). Köln: Halem. Perrin, D., & Kramsch, C. (2018). Transdisciplinarity in applied linguistics. Introduction to the special issue. AILA Review, 31, 1–13.
From Talk to Text: Ethical representation of participant voice
Oral Presentation[SYMP64] Reporting interviews: what happens when a turn at talk is written down?08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 09:30:00 UTC
The choice of interview as a research tool is usually made because of the particular affordances of an in-person conversation, in contrast to a questionnaire or written documentation. Each interview is a unique social interaction, and the goal of interview research tends to be particularity, contextualisation and nuance, rather than simplistic generalisations. Research interviews, therefore, allow for an in-depth exploration of participants' perspectives on the research issue, offering of 'an understanding of the world from the subjects' points of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples' experiences' (Kvale,1996, p. 1). The direct interaction between interviewer and interviewee, occurring in real time, generates flexibility, allowing the interviewer to 'press not only for complete answers but for responses about complex and deep issues' (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 506). Crucially, interviews give voice to the participants: rather than being obliged to use closed responses, such as a scale or multiple-choice questions, participants respond 'using their own words' (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 78). So, for researchers keen to understand human situations, contexts and phenomena, interviews seem to be a wholly appropriate choice to fully represent the complexity of human thinking, behaviours and actions. However, it is important to think critically about the ethics of representation when presenting data from interviews. Many articles make claims about their interview data: for example, that they 'offer a more accurate assessment of the impact of life events on any individual' (Fallon, 2008, p .387). Whilst this may be true, there is an ethical responsibility on the researcher to ensure that participant voices are represented as accurately as possible, avoiding bias, partial representation or cherry-picking of the data. Drawing on interview data from an international comparative study funded by the Norwegian Research Council, which is comparing language use and instruction across contexts ('LANGUAGES'), this presentation will examine the ethics of representation when using interview data among teachers and students in secondary school in three different countries: Norway, England and France. It will do this in two ways. Firstly, we will consider how the design of the interview schedule and the data collection process is intrinsically linked to ensuring the integrity of representation – particularly in relation to interviewing technique, transcription decisions, and methods of data analysis. Secondly, we will address how participants' voices should be represented in publications, notably the clarity of the link between data analysis processes and form of data presentation; how quotations will be used and the contextualisation of quotations; and direct attention to contradictions in individual participants' data, plural and sometimes contrasting voices, and alternative perspectives between participants (e.g. teachers and students in the same class). References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge. Fallon, P. (2008). Life events; Their role in onset and relapse in psychosis, research utilizing semi-structured interview methods. Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health, 15, 386-392. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2850.2007.01244.x Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. SAGE.
Presenters Debra Myhill Professor Of Education, University Of Exeter
Nicole Dingwall Departmental Lecturer, Oxford UniversityAnna Ghimenton Associate Professor, Université Lumière Lyon 2 Co-authors Lisbeth M Brevik Professor, University Of Oslo, Norway
Modeling the recontextualization of talk in professional writing
Oral Presentation[SYMP64] Reporting interviews: what happens when a turn at talk is written down?08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 09:30:00 UTC
Interviewing is a key method of acquiring and producing information in many professions. Usually, talk is transformed into text, and turns at talk are lifted out of their interactional contexts to be written down for one purpose or another. Depending on the domain, the way turns at talk are used in written genres can vary significantly. In our presentation, we are going to propose a systematic and practice-oriented model that describes the recontextualization of interview-produced talk in professional writing. Professional writing encompasses the verbal work of professional writers (e.g., journalists, researchers, book authors) as well as that of people using writing in their profession (e.g. nurses, doctors, police officers, job recruiters, asylum officers). The model addresses the complex relationship between what is produced during an interactional event and what remains once reported in a written text. It aims to give keys to understand how material coming from interviews is reported in written texts (forms and practices of reporting) and why it is used that way (norms and ideals of reporting). Importantly, modeling the recontextualization of talk in professional writing should not only help practitioners in their everyday work but should reveal issues that might be unnoticed by scholars.
Oral Presentation[SYMP64] Reporting interviews: what happens when a turn at talk is written down?08:30 AM - 11:30 AM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 09:30:00 UTC
Interviewing is a common method of producing data sets in many academic disciplines. The subsequent conversion into writing of the spoken discourse thus produced is an essential process, but it is neither simple nor straightforward. In our presentation, we will identify various critical phases in this process and relate them to the first author's own social-linguistic research, which uses interview data to examine the discourses of school teachers' professional identities. First, the spoken discourse produced by the informant in the interview – and, more broadly, the discussion between the researcher and the informant – must be transformed into analyzable form. The research tradition in general and the research questions in particular define the accuracy with which the linguistic and non-linguistic elements should be transcribed. Second comes the reporting of the research, insofar as it is supported and illustrated by excerpts from the data. On the one hand, these excerpts should be sufficiently detailed to provide the necessary information about the course of the analysis, but on the other hand, readability and conciseness are also important here. In today's international and widely English-speaking academia, it is worth noting that the process becomes more complex if the data is produced in a different language than the one in which the study is reported. In addition, a third stage can be identified in our research design. An individual's identity can be perceived as a tangle of non-verbalized and vague perceptions and feelings, so in talking about identity, the informant in a way transforms his or her non-verbal understanding into a linguistic form. The questions asked in a research interview affect what kind of information and results are obtained. In terms of the quality of the research results, we argue that it is also – and equally – important to focus on how the discussion between the informant and the researcher in the interview is transcribed into analyzable written text and how the extracts taken from this transcription are reported to readers.
Fien De Malsche
Mieke Vandenbroucke
Debra Myhill
Anna Ghimenton
Lisbeth M Brevik
Gilles Merminod
Lauri Haapanen