The mystery of the missing referent: Objects, procedures, and the problem of the instruction follower

Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 373-382

  Koschmann, Timothy ^a   Lebaron, Curtis ^b   Goodwin, Charles ^c   Feltovich, Paul ^d  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN AND MACHINE COGNITION   (United States)

Author keywords

Gesture; Referential practice; Workplace studies

Indexed keywords

PROBLEM SOLVING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; VOCABULARY CONTROL;

REFERENTIAL PRACTICE; WORKPLACE STUDIES;

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK;

EID: 34547178841     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1180875.1180932     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Amerine, R., & Bilmes, J. (1988). Following instructions. Human Studies, 11, 327-339.
2. Button, G. (Ed.). (1993). Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology. London: Routledge.
3. Cueto-Gareia, J., & Jacobs, M. (2003). Cholecystectomies. In J. Cueto-Garcia, M. Jacobs & M. Gagner (Eds.), Laparoscopic surgery (pp. 191-196). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4. Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 370-404). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 217-242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1996). Formulating planes: Seeing as a situated activity. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Communication and cognition at work (pp. 61-95). New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2000). Configuring action in objects: From mutual space to media space. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 7, 81-104.
8. Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1855-1878.
9. Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal Of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523-562.
10. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1993). Disembodied conduct: Interactional asymmetries in video-mediated communication. In G. Button (Ed.), Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology (pp. 35-54). London: Routledge.
11. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
12. Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. (2003). Reconsidering common ground: Examining Clark's contribution theory in the OR. In K. Kuutti, G. Karsten, P. Fitzpatrick, P. Dourish & K. Schmidt (Eds.), ECSCW 2003: Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 81-98). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
13. Loughlin, K., & Brooks, D. (Eds.). (1996). Principles of endosurgery. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
14. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (Eds.). (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Nardi, B., Kuchinsky, A., Whitaker, S., Leichner, R., & Schwarz, H. (1996). Video-as-data: Technical and social aspects of a collaborative multimedia application. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 4(1), 73-100.
16. Psathas, G. (1990). The 'practices' of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica, 78, 75-99.
17. Schutz, A. (1962). The problem of social reality. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
18. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Quine, W. (1968). Ontological relativity. Journal of Philosophy, 65, 185-212.