Part of
Scientific Approaches to Literature in Learning EnvironmentsEdited by Michael Burke, Olivia Fialho and Sonia Zyngier
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 24] 2016
► pp. 57–80
Edited by Michael Burke, Olivia Fialho and Sonia Zyngier
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 24] 2016
► pp. 57–80
Chapter 4. Transforming readings
Reading and interpreting in book groups
In this chapter, book group discourse is analyzed, with the view of considering how literary interpretation happens across short extracts of talk. The book group is seen as a learning environment, a community of practice in which the ‘private’ readings that readers bring to meetings can be transformed through discussing the text with others. Readings are analysed in terms of Allan Bell’s interpretative arc, as this model sees the incremental nature of literary interpretation. Extracts from one particular reading group meeting are considered and the transcript data is approached in a sociolinguistic fashion. Analysis demonstrates that interpretation in this context is more than the sum of its parts, so that what is produced in the talk is group reading rather than isolated, individual action.
References (40)
Bell, A. (2011). Re-constructing Babel: Discourse analysis, hermeneutics and the interpretive arc. Discourse Studies, 13(5), 519-568. 
Coates, J. (1989). Gossip revisited: An analysis of all female discourse. In J. Coates & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communities (pp. 94-122). London: Longman.
. (1996) Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell.
. (2006). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), pp. 28-49.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the High School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society, 10(3), 383-421.
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M.H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 146-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hazen, K. (2002). The family. In J.K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 500-525). Oxford: Blackwell.
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: a method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C.A. Ford, B.A. Fox, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196-224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. & Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 93-137). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Holmes, J. & Meyerhoff, M. (1999). The community of practice: Theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society 28: 173-83.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. London: Longman.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9, 153-183.
Kingsolver, B. (2012). Flight behavior. London: Faber.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, G.H. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13(2), 213-245.
Lerner, G. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In C.A. Ford, B.A. Fox, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 225-256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, E. (2003). Book clubs. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Moore, E. (2006). “You tell all the stories”: Using narrative to explore hierarchy within a community of practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(5), 611-640.
Mullany, L. (2007). Gendered discourse in the professional workplace. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Peace, D. (2013). Red or dead. London: Faber.
Peplow, D. (2011). “Oh, I’ve know a lot of Irish people”: Reading groups and the negotiation of literary interpretation. Language and Literature, 20(4), 295-315.
. (2014). “I've never enjoyed hating a book so much in all my life”: The co-construction of identity in the reading group. In S. Chapman & B. Clark (Eds.), Pragmatics and literary stylistics (pp. 152-171). Houndmills: Palgrave.
. (2016). Talk about books: A study of reading groups. London: Bloomsbury.
Peplow, D., & Carter, R. (2014). Stylistics and real readers. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 440-454). Abingdon: Routledge.
Peplow, D., Swann, J, Trimarco, P. & Whiteley, S. (2016). Reading group discourse: Cognitive stylistics and sociocultural approaches. London: Routledge.
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.
Pratt, N. & Back, J. (2009). Spaces to discuss mathematics: Communities of practice on an online discussion board. Research in Mathematics Education, 11(2), 115-130.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. London: Sage.
Ricoeur, P. (1974). The conflict of interpretations: Essays in hermeneutics, D. Ihde (Ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
. (1981). Paul Ricoeur: Hermeneutics and the human sciences – Essays on language, action and interpretation, J.B. Thompson (Ed. and Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (1992). Lectures on conversation. 2 Vols. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Linguistics Society of America, 50(4), 696-735.
Swann, J., & Allington, D. (2009). Reading groups and the language of literary texts: A case study in social reading. Language and Literature, 18(3), 247-264.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whiteley, S. (2011). Text world theory, real readers and emotional responses to “The Remains of the Day”. Language and Literature, 20(1), 23-42.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Mason, Jessica
2022. Teachers’ Intertextual Identities and English Education. In Pedagogical Stylistics in the 21st Century, ► pp. 263 ff. 
Sevigny, Paul
2022. Revising Role-Based Literature Circles for EFL Classrooms. In Pedagogical Stylistics in the 21st Century, ► pp. 315 ff.
Peplow, David & Sara Whiteley
2021. Chapter 2. Interpretation in interaction. In Style and Reader Response [Linguistic Approaches to Literature, 36], ► pp. 23 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.