1887
image of The dynamic layering of relational pairs in L2 classrooms
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

    The dynamic layering of relational pairs in L2 classrooms

    The inextricable relationship between sequential and categorial analysis

  • Author(s): Ricardo Moutinho
  • Source: Pragmatics
    Available online: 20 August 2019
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17047.mou
    • Received : 10 Dec 2017
    • Accepted : 20 Feb 2019
    • Version of Record published : 20 Aug 2019

Abstract

Abstract

The focus of this paper will be placed upon the methods people use to interact in second language learning settings, discussing interactional aspects of language use in the ongoing production of classroom events. The extracts selected for analysis were drawn from Portuguese language lessons (for beginner and advanced students) in a Chinese university. The results show how L2 classroom participants secure joint orientation and mutual understanding of the categorial pairs (such as ‘teacher-student’ and ‘native-non-native’) being invoked in the sequential organization of the utterances. In other words, when classroom members show orientation to a categorial pair, their subsequent moves will exhibit predicates (actions) of that pair, which will be available to the analyst as phenomena to be explored. This suggests that the sequential elements of the interaction and the membership categorization work carried out by the participants require attention for praxiological enquiries.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17047.mou
2019-08-20
2019-12-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, Digby
    1982 “The Teacher as Classroom Researcher: A Modest Method for a New Opportunity.” InDoing Teaching: The practical Management of Classrooms, ed. byGeorge C. G. Payne, and Edward C. Cuff, 130–147. London: Batsford.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Michael
    2011 “Drama Education, Ethnomethodology, and ‘Industrious Chatter’.” InMethodological Choice and Design: Scholarship, Policy and Practice in Social and Educational Research, ed. byLina Markauskaite, Peter Freebody, and Jude Irwin, 93–100. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑8933‑5_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8933-5_8 [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, Helena, Bronwyn Dwyer, and Peter Freebody
    2003Schooling the Child: The Making of Students in Classrooms. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brouwer, Catherine, and Johannes Wagner
    2004 “Developmental Issues in Second Language Conversation”. Journal of Applied Linguistics1 (1): 29–47. 10.1558/japl.1.1.29.55873
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1.29.55873 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carlin, Andrew P.
    2003 “Pro Forma Arrangements: The Visual Availability of Textual Artefacts”. Visual Studies18 (1): 6–20. 10.1080/1472586032000100038
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586032000100038 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cicourel, Aaron V.
    1974 “Some Theoretical Issues in the Assessment of the Child’s Performance in Testing and Classroom Settings.” InLanguage Use and School Performance, ed. byAaron. V. Cicourel, Kenneth. H. Jennings, and Sybillyn. H. M. Jennings, 300–349. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑174950‑7.50011‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-174950-7.50011-6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cuff, Edward C., and Dave E. Hustler
    1982 “Stories and Story-Time in an Infant Classroom: Some Features of Language in Social Interaction.” Semiotica42 (2): 119–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. D’hondt, Sigurd
    2013 “Analyzing Equivalences in Discourse: Are Discourse Theory and Membership Categorization Analysis Compatible?” Pragmatics23 (3): 421–445. 10.1075/prag.23.3.03hon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.3.03hon [Google Scholar]
  9. Eglin, Peter
    2009 “What do we do Wednesday? On Beginning the Class as University Specific Work.” Canadian Review of Sociology46 (1): 39–57. 10.1111/j.1755‑618X.2009.01202.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2009.01202.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Fitzgerald, Richard, and William Housley
    2015 “Introduction to Membership Categorization Analysis.” InAdvances in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. byRichard Fitzgerald, and William Housley, 1–22. London: SAGE. 10.4135/9781473917873
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917873 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fitzgerald, Richard, William Housley, and Carly W. Butler
    2009 “Omnirelevance and Interactional Context.” Australian Journal of Communication36 (3): 45–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Francis, David, and Stephen Hester
    2004An invitation to EM/CA: Language, society and interaction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Freebody, Peter, and Jill Freiberg
    2000 “Public and Pedagogic Morality: The Local Orders of Instructional and Regulatory Talk in Classrooms. InLocal Education Order: Ethnomethodological Studies of Knowledge in Action, ed. byStephen Hester, and David Francis, 141–162. Amsterdam, London: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.73.06fre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.73.06fre [Google Scholar]
  14. 2011 “Ethnomethodological Research in Education and the Social Sciences: Studying the ‘Business, Identities, and Cultures’ of Classrooms.” InMethodological Choice and Design: Scholarship, Policy and Practice in Social and Educational Research, ed. byLina Markauskaite, Peter Freebody, and Jude Irwin, 79–92. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑8933‑5_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8933-5_7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gardiner, Paul, and Michael Anderson
    2017 “Structured Creative Processes in Learning Playwriting: Invoking Imaginative Pedagogies.” Cambridge Journal of Education, Online first. doi:  10.1080/0305764X.2016.1267710
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1267710 [Google Scholar]
  16. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2002Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism, ed. byAnne W. Rawls. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks
    1970 “On Formal Structures of Practical Action.” InTheoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, ed. byJohn C. McKinney, and Edward A. Tiryakian, 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Glenn, Philip and Elizabeth Holt
    2013Studies of laughter in interaction. London; New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gurwitsch, Aron
    1964The field of consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Heap, James L.
    1982 “The Social Organization of Reading Assessment: Reasons for Eclecticism.” InDoing Teaching: The practical Management of Classrooms, ed. byGeorge C. G. Payne, and Edward C. Cuff, 39–59. London: Batsford.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hellermann, John, and Yo-An Lee
    2014 “Members and their Competencies: Contributions of Ethnomethodological Conversation Analysis to a Multilingual Turn in Second Language Acquisition.” System44 (1): 54–65. 10.1016/j.system.2014.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hester, Stephen
    2000 “The Local Order of Deviance in School: Membership Categorization, Motives and Morality in Referral Talk.” InLocal Education Order: Ethnomethodological Studies of Knowledge in Action, ed. byStephen Hester, and David Francis, 197–222. Amsterdam, London: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.73.08hes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.73.08hes [Google Scholar]
  24. Hester, Stephen, and David Francis
    2000 “Ethnomethodology and the Local Educational Order.” InLocal Educational Order, ed. byStephen Hester and David Francis, 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.73.02hes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.73.02hes [Google Scholar]
  25. Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin
    1997 “Membership Categorization Analysis: An Introduction.” InCulture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. byS. Hester, and P. Eglin, 1–23. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hustler, Dave, and George C. F. Payne
    1985 “Ethnographic Conversational Analysis: An Approach to Classroom Talk.” InStrategies of Educational Research: Qualitative Methods, ed. byRobert G. Burgess, 265–291. London: Falmer.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1983 “Power in the Classroom.” Research in Education28: 49–64. 10.1177/003452378202800105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003452378202800105 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jefferson, Gail
    1979 “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance Declination.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 79–96. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2015Talking about Troubles in Conversation. Ed. byPaul Drew, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and Anita Pomerantz. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kasper, Gabriele
    2004 “Participant Orientations in German Conversation-for-Learning.” The Modern Language Journal88 (4): 551–567. 10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.t01‑18‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-18-.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Liberman, Kenneth
    2013More studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Macbeth, Douglas
    2000 “Classrooms as Installations: Direct Instruction in the Early Ages.” InLocal Educational Order, ed. byStephen Hester and David Francis, 21–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.73.03mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.73.03mac [Google Scholar]
  33. Markee, Numa
    2008 “Toward a Learning Behavior Tracking Methodology for CA-for-SLA.” Applied Linguistics29 (3): 404–427. 10.1093/applin/amm052
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm052 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mchoul, Alec W.
    1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society7: 183–213. 10.1017/S0047404500005522
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005522 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mchoul, Alec W., and Rod Watson
    1984 “Two Axes for the Analysis of ‘Common Sense’ and ‘Formal’ Geographical Knowledge in Classroom Talk.” British Journal of Sociology of Education5: 281–302. 10.1080/0142569840050305
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569840050305 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mehan, Hugh
    1974 “Accomplishing Classroom Lessons.” InLanguage Use and School Performance, ed. byAaron V. Cicourel, Kenneth H. Jennings, and Sybillyn H. M. Jennings, 76–142. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑174950‑7.50007‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-174950-7.50007-4 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1989 “Microcomputers in Classrooms: Educational Technology or Social Practice?” Anthropology and Education Quarterly20 (1): 4–22. 10.1525/aeq.1989.20.1.05x1208l
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1989.20.1.05x1208l [Google Scholar]
  38. Mondada, Lorenza, and Simona Pekarek Doehler
    2004 “Second Language Acquisition as Situated Practice: Task Accomplished in the French Second Language Classroom.” Modern Language Journal88 (4): 501–535. 10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.t01‑15‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-15-.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Ohta, Amy S.
    2011Second Language Acquisition Process in the Classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Payne, George C. F.
    1976 “Making a Lesson Happen: An Ethnomethodological Analysis.” InThe Process of Schooling: A Sociological Reader, ed. byMartin Hammersley, and Peter Woods, 33–40. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1982 “Dealing with a Late-Comer”. InDoing Teaching: The practical Management of Classrooms, ed. byGeorge C. G. Payne, and Edward C. Cuff, 90–103. London: Batsford.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Payne, George C. F., and Dave Hustler
    1980 “Teaching the Class: The Practical Management of a Cohort.” British Journal of Sociology of Education1 (1): 49–66. 10.1080/0142569800010104
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569800010104 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2006The Academic Presentation: Situated Talk in Action. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Richards, Keith
    2006 “Being the Teacher: Identity and Classroom Conversation.” Applied Linguistics27 (1): 51–77. 10.1093/applin/ami041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami041 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sacks, Harvey
    1972 “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology.” InStudies in Social Interaction, ed. byDavid Sudnow, 31–74. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sacks, H.
    (1976) On formulating context. Pragmatics Microfiche, 1 (7): pp.F5–G8.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversation [Volumes I and II], ed. byGail Jeffersonwith an Introduction byEmanuel, A.Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Seedhouse, P.
    2004The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sert, O.
    2015Social Interaction and L2 Classroom Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sharrock, Wes, and Bob Anderson
    1982 “Talking and Teaching: Reflective Comments on In-Classroom Activities.” InDoing Teaching: The Practical Management of Classrooms, ed. byGeorge C. G. Payne, and Edward C. Cuff, 170–183. London: Batsford.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist, 70 (6): 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica8 (4): 69–99. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  53. Speier, Matthew
    1970 “The Everyday World of the Child.” InUnderstanding Everyday Life: Towards a Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge, ed. byDavid Sudnow, 188–217. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 1976 “The Child as Conversationalist: Some Culture Contact Features of Conversational Interactions between Adults and Children.” InThe Process of Schooling: A Sociological Reader, ed. byMartyn Hammwersley, and Peter Woods, 98–103. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Tyagunova, Tanya, and Christian Greiffenhagen
    2017 “Closing Seminars and Lectures: The Work that Lecturers and Students Do”. Discourse Studies19 (3): 314–340. 10.1177/1461445617701992
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617701992 [Google Scholar]
  56. Watson, Rod
    1978 “Categorization, Authorization and Blame-Negotiation in Conversation.” Sociology12: 105–113. 10.1177/003803857801200106
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200106 [Google Scholar]
  57. 1994 “Catégories, séquentialité et ordre social [Categories, sequentiality and social order].” Raisons Pratiques5: 151–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 1997 “Some General Reflections on ‘Categorization’ and ‘Sequence’ in the Analysis of Conversation.” InCulture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. byStephen Hester and Peter Eglin, 49–75. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2016 “Harold Garfinkel and Pragmatics.” InHandbook of Pragmatics20, ed. byJan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, 1–64. John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.20.gar1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.20.gar1 [Google Scholar]
  60. Young, Richard F., and Elizabeth R. Miller
    2004 “Learning as Changing Participation: Discourse Roles in ESL Writing Conferences.” The Modern Language Journal88 (4): 519–535. 10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.t01‑16‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-16-.x [Google Scholar]
  61. Zimmerman, Don H.
    1998 “Identity, Context and Interaction” InIdentities in Talk, ed. byCharles Antaki and Susan Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17047.mou
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error