ANALYZING THE SEQUENNTIAL ORGANIZATION OF TALK AND A TEACHER'SIDENTITITY FORMATION THROUGH CLASSROOM INTERACTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19053/pbfpxf75Keywords:
Conversation Analysis, teachers' talk, teacher identity, IRF/E cycle.Abstract
This article presents a report on a qualitative research study based on analyzing an elementary school teacher's talk by means of the Conversation Analysis Methodology. The aim of the study was to gain a deep understanding regarding the organization of talk of classroom interaction and the way it helps at constructing their identity as English language teachers. The results revealed that the teacher used a lot of discourse markers to catch students attention and encourage students to follow and obey her directions at some specific moments. Accordingly, some factors that shape the teacher's identity were disclosed when analyzing classroom interactions in the light of the IRF/E cycle (Initiation, Response, Feedback/Evaluation)
Downloads
References
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a corpus. Studies in Corpus Linguistics. US: John Benjamins.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Georgetown, MD:Georgetown University Press.
Fajardo, A. (2013). What makes a teacher: Identity and classroom talk. Cuadernos de Linguística Hispánica. No 22, pp.127-146.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 3rd edition. New York: Routledge
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, pp. 291-334. The United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2005). Conversational Analysis and Institutional talk. In K. L. S, Fitch (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, inc.
Kasper, G. (2001) Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics. N° 22, pp. 502-530.
Liidicoat, A. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum.
Lenk, Uta. (1998). Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter NarrVerlag.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition, in W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. London: Academic Press.
McHoul, A. (1978). The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom. Language in Society. 7, 183-213.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Seedhouse, P. (2011). Conversation Analytic Research into Language Teaching and Learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.) The Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Volume II (pp. 345-363). Routledge.
Schegloff, E. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In Psathas, G. (ed.). Everyday language: Studies i ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington.23-78.
Schegloff, E. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotic. N° 7, pp. 289- 327.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, L. (1982). Common discourse particles in English conversation. NewYork: Garland.
Wenger, E. (1998). Сommunities of practice, learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, W. (2010). Latching as a turn-holding device and its function in retrospective turn continuation: Data from Mandarin conversation. ELT Journal, pp. 235-258.
