queued for review

Over the last few days I've been watching my submitted journal article for signs of progress. The journal I submitted to has a good system that records the on-going progress on the article. up until this morning, my article was queued for review which means it was waiting to be sent out to someone. now it has gone out to a first reviewer. While I'm sure it will be many weeks before I have a verdict on the fate of the article, it helps to see its progress even if it is slow.

meanwhile, I've been doing some more reading on formulations. Volume II of Sacks provides some information and discussion about formuation. For example, I read a little this morning (p. 46) about how a person might complain about a conversation using the formulation "you interrupted me". Since I'm having some trouble on discerning formulations, I went into one of my transcripts and tried to find an example, of where one of the kids has made a formulation. i think the following contains a pretty clear cut example:

B: oh Aurora don't do::n't o::wh
(1.0)
B: no I said don't
A: ↑why

So, B's use of "said don't" formulates what she has said previously rather than just repeating what she has said. In this way, I think that B is pointing out that A has not complied with what was a directive. A has continued to play the game rather than giving B a turn.

In a previous post, I wrote about Sack's ideas on use of reference terms to avoid formulations. I wonder if'dem' is used by B in place of naming the images on the computer screen (of animal tiles), and if A's utterance provides the formulation.

B: yeah um because us have ↑to (0.4) link dem
(0.8)
A: what you have to do is link animals
(0.4)

What do you think?