"But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences

Yıl: 2011 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 39 - 54 Metin Dili: Türkçe

"But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences

Öz:
Konuşma Çözümlemesi (KÇ) günlük iletişimdeki konuşmaya odaklanan bir alan olarak başlamış olsa da, builgi hızlı bir şekilde kurumsal konuşmalara da yayıldı (c.f., Drew & Heritage, 1992). Sınıflara yönelik konuşmaçözümlemesi araştırmaları sınıftaki çalışmaların dil aracılığıyla nasıl yapıldığına dair çok büyük bir bilgi birikimisağlamıştır. Dil sınıfları tamamiyle konuya adanmış monograflar (Markee, 2000; Seedhouse, 2004) ile büyük bir ilgiodağı olmuşlardır. Konuşma Çözümlemesi kullanarak sınıf içi konuşmadaki ardışımın bir türünü inceleyen buçalışma, öğrenci girişimli ardışımlardaki art-genişletme oluşumuna odaklanmaktadır. Bu durumlarda, geleneksel üçbölümlü değişim tersine çevirilmektedir; bir öğrenci ardışımı başlatır, öğretmen cevap verir, ve öğrenci üçüncüsırada bir şekilde bunu takip eder. Özellikle hem minimal hem de minimal olmayan art-genişletmeler sadeceardışıklıktaki yerleri bakımından değil, ayni zamanda bu tür sıralamalarin etkileşimsel tamamlanmaları bakımındanda incelenmektedir. Öğrencinin art-genişletme kullanımını detaylı bir şekilde inceleyen bu çalışma, öğrencininardışımları başlatmadaki güç hamlelerini kullanımını, rol değişimlerini ve öğrenci tarafından oluşturulan “esneklikpayını” (Erickson, 2004) sergilemektedir; ki bunların hepsi öğrencilerin kendi öğrenmelerinde etken olduklarınıönermektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Öz:
Although conversation analysis (CA) began as a field focused on everyday talk-in-interaction, focusquickly extended to institutional talk (c.f., Drew & Heritage, 1992). Conversation-analytic research on classroomshas yielded an enormous base of knowledge about how the work of classrooms is done in and through language.Language classrooms have received a great deal of focus, with entire monographs dedicated to the subject (Markee,2000; Seedhouse, 2004). Using conversation analysis to examine one type of sequence in classroom talk, this studyfocuses on the occurrence of post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. In these cases, the traditional three-partexchange is inverted; a student initiates a sequence, the teacher responds, and the student follows-up in the third turnin some way. In particular, both minimal and non-minimal post-expansions are examined not only in terms of theirsequential placement, but also in terms of the interactional accomplishments of such turns. By detailing student useof post-expansion, this study demonstrates student use of power-moves in initiating sequences, role reversal, andstudent-created “wiggle room” (Erickson, 2004) – all of which suggest that the students are agents in their ownlearning.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Allwright, R.L. (1980). Turns, topics, and tasks: Patterns of participation in language learning and teaching. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 165-187). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
  • Beach, W.A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325-52.
  • Beach, W.A. (1995). Conversation analysis: “Okay” as a clue for understanding consequentiality. In S.J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of communication (pp. 121- 161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Damhuis, R. (2000). A different teacher role in language arts education: Interaction in a small circle with teacher. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 243-264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
  • Hall, J. K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.
  • Heap, J. L. (1997). Conversation analysis methods in researching language and education. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 8. Research methods in language and education (pp. 217- 225). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte Jr., W., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Kasper, G. (2009, March). Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. In G. Kasper (Organizer), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition: A comparative perspective. Colloquium conducted at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Denver, CO.
  • Kitzinger, C. (2008). Developing feminist conversation analysis: A response to Wowk. Human Studies, 31, 179-208.
  • Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
  • Lightfoot, D. & Fasold, R. (2006). The structure of sentences. In R. Fasold & J. Connor-Linton (Eds.), An introduction to language and linguistics (pp. 97-121). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Manke, M.P. (1997). Classroom power relations: Understanding student-teacher interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Markee, N. (1995). Teachers’ answers to students’ questions: Problematizing the issue of making meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 63–92.
  • Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McHoul, A.W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-213.
  • McHoul, A.W. (1985). Two aspects of classroom interaction: Turn-taking and correction. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders, 13, 53-64.
  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 323-347.
  • Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreffered turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Sinclair, J.M. & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
  • Thornborrow, J. (2002). Power talk: Language and interaction in institutional discourse. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Waring, H.Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (initiation-response-feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59, 796-824.
APA JACKNICK C (2011). "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. , 39 - 54.
Chicago JACKNICK Christine M. "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. (2011): 39 - 54.
MLA JACKNICK Christine M. "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. , 2011, ss.39 - 54.
AMA JACKNICK C "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. . 2011; 39 - 54.
Vancouver JACKNICK C "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. . 2011; 39 - 54.
IEEE JACKNICK C ""But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences." , ss.39 - 54, 2011.
ISNAD JACKNICK, Christine M.. ""But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences". (2011), 39-54.
APA JACKNICK C (2011). "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-Royal, 5(1), 39 - 54.
Chicago JACKNICK Christine M. "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-Royal 5, no.1 (2011): 39 - 54.
MLA JACKNICK Christine M. "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-Royal, vol.5, no.1, 2011, ss.39 - 54.
AMA JACKNICK C "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-Royal. 2011; 5(1): 39 - 54.
Vancouver JACKNICK C "But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-Royal. 2011; 5(1): 39 - 54.
IEEE JACKNICK C ""But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences." Novitas-Royal, 5, ss.39 - 54, 2011.
ISNAD JACKNICK, Christine M.. ""But this is writing": Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences". Novitas-Royal 5/1 (2011), 39-54.