Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) interaction (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: interaction


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines121 - : Young University Students' Verbal Interaction: Turn Structure and Sequence in the Spanish Spoken in Chile and Argentina

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines187 - : Se plantea, pues, la hipótesis que las relaciones con las ciencias y la sociedad de los actores convocados para hablar en el momento de surgimiento de un hecho científico o tecnológico de carácter político, se graban en ‘el sentido’ de las palabras, de las formulaciones y de los enunciados. Por ello, los aspectos observables de las finalidades expuestas por las diferentes comunidades discursivas, permiten, igualmente, establecer lazos entre ‘el sentido lingüístico’ y ‘el sentido social’ que el discurso da a estos acontecimientos, porque, como lo dice Bajtín, todo miembro de una colectividad no encuentra palabras neutras, sino palabras “habitadas” por las voces de los otros, porque “le discours rencontre le discours d’autrui sur tous les chemins qui mènent vers son objet, et il ne peut pas ne pas entrer avec lui en interaction vive et intense” (Bajtín, traducido por Todorov, 1981: 98 ) y que “toute énonciation, quelque signifiante et complète qu’elle soit par elle-même, ne constitue q

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines209 - : “There is a constant interplay between these two overarching characteristics of academic speech, which is by nature an information-rich genre, but in which interaction between the participants is also of paramount importance, and the formulaic expression identified here serve to highlight these dual pragmatic features” (Simpson, 2004: 60 ).

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : This article analyzes and compares the use and distribution of repairs employed by a five- year-old child and two adults in two different communicative interactions: an interview and in a kindergarten event named 'circle' . The results indicate that, although adults are different individuals, both of them share some certain characteristics of repair moves usage. In contrast, child repair usages exhibit important differences according to each type text. Considering theoretical assumptions (Cole, 1999; Gülich & Kotschi, 1997; Jefferson, 1983; Silva, 2007), these variations can be attributed to the opportunities that each type of interaction poses for participants in order to monitor the text production process on line.

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines285 - : This article analyzes and compares the use and distribution of repairs employed by a five- year-old child and two adults in two different communicative interactions: an interview and in a kindergarten event named 'circle' . The results indicate that, although adults are different individuals, both of them share some certain characteristics of repair moves usage. In contrast, child repair usages exhibit important differences according to each type text. Considering theoretical assumptions (Cole, 1999; Gülich & Kotschi, 1997; Jefferson, 1983; Silva, 2007), these variations can be attributed to the opportunities that each type of interaction poses for participants in order to monitor the text production process on line.

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines295 - : Applying the functional notion of cultural context to genre theories, we could say that Halliday's (1978) concept of context of culture is similar to Swales (1990) concept of 'discourse community', according to which discourse operates within conventions defined by communities, be they academic disciplines or social groups. To operate as orderly sites of linguistic and social interaction, discourse communities are characterized by certain traits that also apertain to what Halliday calls different 'social cultures':

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines295 - : From this perspective, genre is seen as one of the levels of context, and the context of culture as the backdrop to the interaction, "constituting a semiotic potential [for social interactions]" (Vian Jr & Lima-Lopes, 2005: 35 ). The organization of semiotic plans proposed by Martin, based on a similar model presented by Halliday, is reflected in the choices made at the level of the context of situation (register) and materialized in language, since genre and register are abstract notions. This way:

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines300 - : This provides a refinement of the theories that offers us a way to examine closely the motives and values activity systems participants place with certain genres, as well as the role genres play in mediating the activity within and between activity systems. Russell (1997: 504) suggests the synthesized theories can serve as a heuristic for analyzing the "intertextual relations among disciplinary and educational genre systems" and illustrates this tool by analyzing the interaction of the activity systems of the research university and the profession of cell biology through a boundary course: intermediate cell biology . Again, multi-modality is crucial genre systems or ecologies are multi-modal (Spinuzzi, 2003).

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines363 - : "Formal systems are those in cabestrante ‘the institutional’ character of the interaction is embodied first and foremost in its form –most notably in turn–taking systems which depart substantially from the way in which turn-taking is managed in conversation" (Hutchby, 2006: 26 ).

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Interaction within the Romanian Parliament is conventional and regulated by a set of rules contained in various official documents. When it comes to the interaction frame, Ilie (2010a: 202) identifies and discusses two concurrent practices: "the use of an institutionally ritualised discourse and the use of an individually tailored discourse" . In the Romanian parliamentarian community of practice this is often translated as a desire to follow the procedures when delivering a speech (i.e. the MP puts his/ her name on the list and waits for his/her turn, speaks to the point, does not reply to the comments from the audience), which is mixed with a desire to add a personal note in his/ her speech (i.e. the MP makes remarks, uses quotations, references to previous speeches of other MPs, makes digressions, starts verbal exchanges with the audience while at the rostrum).

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Drawing on these distinctions, we can say that political discourse is enacted, among other discourses, by parliamentary discourse, that "displays particular institutionalised discursive features and ritualised interaction strategies" (Ilie, 2010c: 62 ). Parliamentary discourse is therefore a particular genre of political discourse, which in its turn displays several subgenres (Ilie, 2010a: 8-9), the debate being one of them. A debate is "a formal discussion on a particular topic and which is strictly controlled by an institutional set of rules and a moderator, who in Parliament is the Speaker or the President" (Ilie, 2010a: 10), therefore a mediated discourse, whose major strength is "the necessity of confrontation" and "the existence of opposite sides" (Ilie, 2010a: 10).

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Politicians introduce conversational resources and themes from everyday interaction in their discourse, with the purpose of creating:

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines415 - : [2]vol.49 número90 [3]Communication strategies used by different level L2 English learners in oral interaction [4]Extracción abierta de información a partir de textos de Internet en español utilizando reglas sobre categorías de palabras en secuencias: Problemas del método, sus causas y posibles mejoras [5] índice de autores [6]índice de materia [7]búsqueda de artículos [8]Home Page [9]lista alfabética de revistas

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines429 - : lead to positive affect and maintaining motivational intensity. Given the findings regarding the effect of construal level on various cognitive and social phenomena, the results of this study suggest that learning a new language might play a role in these phenomena. For example, Freitas, Salovey and Liberman (2001) found that individuals who chronically used low-level construals had less interest in negative feedback and greater interest in downward social comparison (DSC). Assuming this, it might be the case that speakers of the languages with relatively lower action construal levels might show a greater interest in DSC and less interest in negative feedback. Considering the observed interaction between learning a second language, psychological distance, and construal level in the present study, perhaps that would be interesting to speculate about possible relations between bilingualism and such construal-mediated variables: Does bilingualism influence creative thinking, inasmuch as it is

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines434 - : This work aims at showing that, due to their mainly procedural meaning, discourse particles are linguistic devices used as instructions to ostensively guide a hearer during information processing. By means of a set of eye-tracking reading experiments, we have analyzed how counter-argumentative connectives and focus operators contribute to constraining inferential computations during reading comprehension. Results, based on these experiments, provide empirical evidence that allows supporting three theoretical arguments concerning discourse particles: a) discourse particles are not irrelevant devices in communication (cfr. § 2.1); b) discourse particles have a mainly procedural meaning (cfr. § 2.2); and c) the processing patterns to which discourse particles give rise in utterances depend on the interaction of two factors: the properties of discourse particles themselves and the properties of the utterances in which they occur (cfr . § 2.3).

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines438 - : Jacob, R. & Karn, K. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises (section commentary ). En J. Hyona, R. Radach & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind's eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 573-605). Ámsterdam: Elsevier. [ [60]Links ]

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines465 - : ‟The identity text then holds a mirror up to students in which their identities are reflected back in a positive light. When students share identity texts with multiple audiences (peers, teachers, […] etc.) they are likely to receive positive feedback and affirmation of self in interaction with these audiences” (^[57]Cummins & Early, 2011: 3 ).

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines480 - : In an attempt to classify the intervention types between a practitioner and a client in counseling sessions, ^[52]Heron (2001) puts forward a classification that is applicable to various social and occupational contexts involving interventions between a person who provides a professional service such as a psychologist, a bank manager, or a teacher and the one who is involved and benefits from the service, namely the client. The intervention provided is defined as “any identifiable piece of a verbal and/or nonverbal behavior that is a part of the supervisor’s interaction with the trainee in an enabling situation” (^[53]Hamid & Azman, 1992: 90 ).

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines480 - : Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar . In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press . [ [151]Links ]

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines494 - : However, when subtracting EEG elicited by metaphorical endings from the EEG activity for the literal ones, an N400 effect can be seen in the right central-parietal region (see [87]Figure 3A-B). A repeated measure ANOVA showed a significant main effect for the approach (F(1,17) = 12.71; p = .00, partial η^2 = .42), due to a more increased negativity for the analytical approach than for holistic one. Additionally, a significant interaction of approach by scalp site (ROIs: Right, Center, Left ) was observed due to larger effect over the right ROI (F(2,34) = 8.02; p = .00, partial η^2 = .32).

21
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines562 - : Mihatsch, W. (en prensa). French type-noun constructions based on genre: From the creation of ad hoc categories to ad hoc categorization. En C. Mauri, I. Fiorentini & E. Goria (Eds.), Building categories in interaction: Linguistic resources at work . Nueva York/Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. [ [294]Links ]

22
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines595 - : [2]vol.54 número106 [3]Exploring the Interaction of EFL Student Writers with SFL-based Teaching and Teacher-written Feedback [4]Introduction to the monographic section: Metadiscourse devices in academic discourse [5] índice de autores [6]índice de materia [7]búsqueda de artículos [8]Home Page [9]lista alfabética de revistas

23
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : The integrative approach to metadiscourse proposed by ^[63]Hyland (2005) includes two dimensions: the interactive and the interactional. The former includes code glosses, endophoric markers, evidentials, frame markers and transition markers. The latter involves attitude markers, boosters, engagement markers, hedges and self-mention. Readers are an integral part of specialised discourse, and authors seek to promote and guide effective interaction with their readers. The use of metadiscourse devices is, therefore, essential in this regard. In addition, these mechanisms enable to highlight the authors’ epistemological positioning and preferences while they also organise and develop information in a logical way. ^[64]Mur-Dueñas (2011) explains the relation between the interactive and the interactional dimensions of metadiscourse in the following terms:

Evaluando al candidato interaction:


1) discourse: 19 (*)
2) genre: 8 (*)
5) particles: 6
6) context: 5
8) ilie: 5
9) metadiscourse: 4 (*)
11) participants: 4
13) markers: 4 (*)
16) índice: 4
17) adults: 4
20) palabras: 4 (*)

interaction
Lengua: eng
Frec: 319
Docs: 140
Nombre propio: 2 / 319 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 5
Puntaje: 5.760 = (5 + (1+6.08746284125034) / (1+8.32192809488736)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
interaction
: Altmann, G. & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191-238.
: Arcidiacono, F. & Bova, A. (2015). Activity-bound and activity-unbound arguments in response to parental eat-directives at mealtimes: Differences and similarities in children of 3-5 and 6-9 years old. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 40-55.
: Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Interaction between grammatical categories and cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 689- 699.
: Badura, B. (1972). Kommunikative kompetenz, Dialog, Hermeneutik und Interaction: Eine theoretische Skizze. En B. Badura & K. Gloy (Eds.), Soziologie der Kommunikation. Eine Textauswahl zur Einführung (pp. 246-264). Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
: Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. En Pierre Coirier & Jerry Andriessen (Eds.), Studies in writing. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
: Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic mMarkers in British English: Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Bergmann, K., Aksu, V. & Kopp, S. (2011). The relation of speech and gestures: Temporal Synchrony Follows Semantic Synchrony. Ponencia presentada en el 2nd Workshop on Gesture and Speech in Interaction, Bielefeld, Alemania.
: Bolívar, A. (1986). Interaction through written text. Discourse analysis of newspaper editorials. Tesis doctoral no publicada, University of Birmingham.
: Bolívar, A. (1997a). Interaction through abstracts in ESP. En F. Salager, A. Bolívar, J. Febres & M. Bonet de Serra (Eds.), English for specific purposes in Latin America (pp. 66–72). Mérida: Universidad de Los Andes.
: Bova, A. & Arcidiacono, F. (2018). Interplay between parental argumentative strategies, children’s reactions, and topics of disagreement during mealtime conversations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 19, 124-133.
: Bybee, J. (2014). Analytic and holistic processing in the development of constructions. Language in Interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark, 12.
: Caplan, D., Hildebrandt, N. & Waters, G. S. (1994). Interaction of verb selectional restrictions, noun animacy and syntactic form in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(4), 549-585.
: Chaudron, C. (1987). The role of correction in second language teaching. En B. Das (Ed.), Patterns of classroom Interaction in Southeast Asia, RLC. Anthology Series 17 (pp. 17-50). Singapore: Regional Language Centre.
: Chun, A. & Day, R. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native/non-native conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537-547.
: Clift, R. (2007). Getting there first: non-narrative reported speech in interaction. En E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction (pp. 120-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. En A. Perakyla & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in Interaction (pp. 113-146). Nueva York: Oxford University Press. [144]https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.001.0001
: De Fornel, M. (1995). Processus de contextualisation et interaction verbale. En D. Véronique & R. Vion (Eds.), Modèles de l'interaction verbale. Aix-en-Provence (pp. 127-145). Provence: Publications de l'Université de Provence.
: Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, interaction, evaluation. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. En D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, Learning and Schooling (pp. 30-62). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
: FAIRCLOUGH, N. y WODAK, R. (1998). "Critical Discourse Analysis", en T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Londres: Sage.
: Fawcett, R. (1980). Cognitive linguistics and social interaction. Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter University.
: Fernández Dobao, A. M. & Palacios Martínez, I. M. (2007). Negotiating meaning in interaction between English and Spanish speakers via communication strategies. Atlantis,
: Figure 3 Inter-relation between intrapersonal to interpersonal levels of interaction (^[66]Heron, 2001: 65).
: Flottum, K., Kinn, T. & Dahl, T. (2006). We now report on Versus Let us now see how: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 203-224). Bern: Peter Lang.
: Fujimoto, D. T. (2007). Listener responses in Interaction: A case of abandoning the term backchannel. Journal of Osaka Jogakuin 2year College, 37, 35-54.
: Fumero, M. C. & Díaz, A. (2017). The interaction of parsing rules and argument-predicate constructions: Implications for the structure of the Grammaticon in FunGramKB. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 12, 33-44.
: Garvey, C. (1977). The contingent query and dependent act in conversation. En M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), Interaction Conversation and the Development of Language (pp. 63-93). New York: Wiley.
: Geis, M. (1995). Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge: CUP.
: Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction. Chicago: Aldine.
: Grodner, D., Gibson, E. & Watson, D. (2003). The influence of contextual on syntactic processing: Evidence for strong- interaction in sentences comprehension. Cognition, 95, 275-296.
: Haastrup, K. & Phillipson, R. (1983). Achievement strategies in learner/native speaker interaction. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp.140-158). London & New York: Longman
: Haddington, P. (2007). Stancetaking as an Interactional Activity: Challenging the prior speaker. En R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse Subjectivity, Interaction, Evaluation (pp. 253-282). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Halliday, M. (1992). The notion of 'context' in language education. En T. Le & M. McCausland (Eds,), Interaction and development: proceedings of the international conference, Vietnam, 30 March - 1 April 1992. University of Tasmania: Language Education.
: Heath, C. (1986). Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Heinemann, T. & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2381-2384.
: Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Langauge and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29.
: Huschová, P. (2015). Exploring modal verbs conveying possibility in academic discourse. Discourse and Interaction, 8(2), 35-47.
: Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses. Social interaction in academic writing. Londres: Longman.
: Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
: Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A framework for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. [ [43]Links ]
: Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
: Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting, Journal of Social Issues 23, 8–28.
: Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. En J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 35-71). New York: Basil Blackwell.
: Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14.
: Kim, M-H. (1993). The interaction of global and local theme in English narrative. Korea: Hanshin.
: Krauss, R. M. & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1(1-12), 113-114.
: Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Labarca, A. & Khanji, R. (1986). On communication strategies: Focus on interaction. SSLA, 8, 68-79.
: Lampert, M. D. & Ervin-Trip, S. M. (1993). Structured coding for the study of language and social interaction. En J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 169-206). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 66-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam y Filadelfia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
: Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
: MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692-715.
: Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal 82(3), 338-56.
: Mata de la, M. (2003). Text remembering as a social process: The role of teacher-student interaction in the acquisition of structure strategy. Learning and instruction, 13, 93-115.
: McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: Small interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 33-63.
: McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers production of dative constructions. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(2), 179-207.
: McGlone, M. & Manfredi, D. (2001). Topic-vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1209-1219.
: McKendree, J. (1990). Effective feedback content for tutoring complex skills. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(4), 381-413.
: McQuillan, J. & Tse, L. (1995). Child language brokering in linguistic minority communities: Effects on cultural interaction, cognition, and literacy. Language and Education, 9(3), 195-215.
: Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165-178.
: Myers, G. (1999). Interaction in writing: Principles and problems. En C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp.40–61). London: Longman.
: Nystron, N. (1983). Teacherstudent interaction in bilingual classrooms: Four aproaches to error feedback. En H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 169-189). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
: Page, R. E. (2012). Narratives of illness and personal blogs. En R. Page (Ed.), Stories and Social Media: Identities and Interaction (pp. 49-65). Nueva York: Routledge.
: Page, R. E. (2012). Stories and social media: Identities and interaction. Londres: Routledge .
: Painter, C. (1986). The rol of interaction in learning to speak and learning to write. En C. Painter & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Writing to mean: Teaching genres across the curriculum (pp. 62-97). Sydney: ALAA Occasional Papers 9.
: Perales-Escudero, M. D. (2018). Writer-reader interaction in economics abstracts in English and Spanish; Implications for teaching and translation. MEXTESOL Journal, 42(2), 1-16.
: Peräkylä, A. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2012). Emotion in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. Tesol Quarterly, 21(4), 737-758.
: Plantin, C. (2015). Emotion and affect. En K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel, (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 514-523). Boston: John Wiley & Sons.
: Pol, J. V. D., Volman, M. & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.
: Pomerantz, A. & Mandelbaum, J. (2005). Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction. In K.L. Fitch. & R.E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 149-171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. Human Studies, 22(2-4), 139-162.
: Pérez Hernández, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 259-284.
: Rosemberg, C. & Silva, M. L. (2009). Teacher children interaction and concept- development in kindergarten. Discourse Processes, 46(6), 572-591.
: Rowland, E., Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., Saudargas, R., Robinson, D. H. & Kirk, E. R. (2009). Investigating the interaction of graphic organizers and seductive details. Research in the Schools, 16(2), 29-40.
: Rowley-Jolivet, E. & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45-70.
: Sacks, H, (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing Sociology. En D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 31-74). Nueva York: Free Press.
: Sawilowsky, S. S. (1990). Nonparametric tests of interaction in experimental design. Review of Educational Research, 60, 91-126.
: Scheibman, J. (2007). Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversation. En R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse Subjectivity, Interaction, Evaluation (pp. 111-138). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of missing 'no': The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47, 547-583.
: Shah, P. & Freedman, E. G. (2011). Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top‐down and bottom‐up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 560-578.
: Shaw, C. & Hepburn, A. (2013). Managing the Moral Implications of Advice in Informal Interaction. Research on Langauge and Social Interaction, 46(4), 344-362.
: Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction (second edition). Londres: Sage.
: Stam, G. (1998). Changes in patterns of thinking about motion with L2 acquisition. En S. Santi, I. Guaïtella, C. Cavé, & G. Konopczynski (Eds.), Oralité et gestualité. Communication multimodale, interaction (pp. 615-619). Paris: L'Harmattan.
: Stivers, T. (2005). Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131-58.
: Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31-57. [193]https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123
: Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. EnT. Stivers , L. Mondada & J. Steensig. (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: Stokoe, E. H. & Smithson, J. (2001). Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction.Discourse & Society,12(2), 217-244.
: Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
: Tannen, D. (1993). Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Tannen, D. (2007). Power maneuvers and connection maneuvers in family interaction. En D. Tannen, S. Kendall & C. Gordon (Eds.), Discourse and Identity in Four American Families (pp. 27-48). Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
: Thomas, W. (1972). The definition of situation. En J. Manis & B. Meltzer (Eds.), Symbolic interaction (pp. 331-336). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
: Thompson, G. & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text and Talk, 15(1), 103-127.
: Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58–78.
: Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55-76.
: Van DIJK, T.A.(1980) Macrostructures. An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Londres: Longman.
: Ventola, E. (1987). The Structure of Social Interaction: a systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Pinter.
: Verkuyl, H. (1993). A theory of aspectuality. The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Vine, B. (2004). Getting things done at work. The discourse of power in workplace interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Visser, P. R. S. (1995). Knowledge specification for multiple legal tasks. A case study of the interaction problem in the legal domain. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Leiden, Leiden, Holanda.
: Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as Interaction. London, UK: Longman.
: Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.
: Young, R. F. & Lee, J. (2004). Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in Korean and English conversations. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(3), 380-407.
: van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: van Dijk, T., Ting-Toomey, S., Smitherman, G. & Troutman, D. (1996). Discourse, ethnicity, culture and racism. En T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 144-180). London: Sage Publications.