syntactic and prosodic practices for cohesion in series of three … · 2019. 10. 28. ·...

Syntactic and Prosodic Practices for Cohesionin Series of Three-Part Sequences in Classroom Talk

John HellermannDepartment of Applied Linguistics

Portland State University

Starting from the perspective that social order is locally coconstructed throughtalk-in-interaction, in this article, I investigate sequential, syntactic, and prosodicpractices as locally instantiated interactive resources in the coconstruction of cohe-sive series of consecutive 3-part sequences of talk. Methods for analysis are drawnfrom conversation analysis and acoustic phonetics to present a holistic account ofsyntactic, prosodic, and written resources—a grammar of interaction (Ochs, Scheg-loff, & Thompson, 1996)—in the talk of participants in high school classrooms. Thiscoordination of resources results in interactionally defined segments of activity.

In the tradition of conversation analytic research on talk in institu-tional settings (Drew & Heritage, 1992; Heritage, 1997; Maynard, 1991;McHoul, 1978, 1990; Mehan, 1979), in this project, I see a close analysis ofmicrolevel practices of social interaction as one way to uncover partici-pants’ practices for classroom activity and a necessary preliminary to thediscussion of social or institutionally defined constructs such as classroomdiscourse or role characteristics of teachers and students. The analysis inthis article is a detailed investigation of the process of making orderthrough talk-in-interaction in the classroom focusing on how series of turnsat talk within three-part sequences or initiation-response-feedback (IRF)

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(1), 105–130Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

I thank Cecilia Ford, Jane Zuengler, Liz Miller, Hanh Nguyen, Don Zimmerman, and three anon-ymous reviewers for reading and suggesting improvements to earlier drafts of this article. Any in-consistencies or inaccuracies that remain are my responsibility.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to John Hellermann, Department of Ap-plied Linguistics, Portland State University, 122 East Hall, 632 Hall Street, Portland, OR 97201.E-mail: [email protected]

exchanges (Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) are done cohesivelythrough syntactic and prosodic practices.1

Classroom discourse researchers interested in power relations in theclassroom (Manke, 1997) and pedagogical practice have questioned the ef-ficacy of the use of such series of three-part sequences in which the teacheris dominant in the turn allocation system, giving it the impressionistic label“recitation” (Cazden, 1988; Nystrand, 1997). Although research has estab-lished the ubiquity of the three-part turn allocation system in classroomtalk (e.g., Wells, 1993), in this study, I look closely at the practices fortalk-in-interaction that are used and oriented to in the coconstruction ofteacher dominance in this classroom turn allocation system that result inrecitation-like talk in the classroom. In the analysis, I show how this recita-tion-like talk develops in classroom activities from series of consecutivethree-part sequences of talk, what might be called activity segments.

In place of the pejorative recitation, I use the phrase activity segment2

to describe the interactional organization through talk that results from thecohesive tying of series of three-part sequences in classroom talk. Theseactivity segments are coconstructed through the common orientation tosyntactic and prosodic practices by teachers and students for doing three-part sequences as part of their goal-oriented talk in the classroom. Suchmultisequence activity segments I describe in this analysis are similar towhat Mehan (1979) called a “topically-related set” (p. 70) of three-part se-quences. However, unlike the organization described by Mehan, the cohe-siveness of the series of sequences I describe in this study is not achieved,primarily, through an orientation to subject-matter topic. The segments un-fold turn by turn and sequence by sequence syntactically and prosodicallyas part of the grammar of organized action in the classroom. Although theemergent, turn-by-turn nature of the talk-in-interaction between studentsand teacher is accomplished in part through an orientation to common, re-curring pedagogical and sequential activities involving teacher questioningand student responding (i.e., recitation), participants within this activitymust orient to grammatical-interactive phenomena to order the talk in theseactivities. In segmenting these pedagogical activities, participants orient tothe projection of syntactic structure (syntactic practices–B. Fox, Hayashi,& Jasperson, 1996; Schegloff, 1979), particularly, the concatenate natureof syntax as a resource for linking separate turn constructional units(TCUs; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) across three-part IRF se-quences into cohesive activity segments. As the sound production is part ofthe delivery system for syntactic practices in the turn-taking system, these

106 John Hellermann

segments of talk are not accomplished separately from sound (Ford, Fox, &Thompson, 1996). In this investigation, I focus on the coordination ofthree-part sequences (IRFs) and syntactic practices within the context oftheir sound production to show how pedagogical activities are organized incoconstructed activity segments.

METHODS FOR ANALYSIS

The methods used for the close analysis of talk-in-interaction in theclassroom are conversation analytic in orientation. Conversation analyticmethodology offers a detailed look at talk in the classroom not often em-ployed by either highly interpretive, qualitative, or reductionist quantitativeclassroom discourse research.3 Research from a conversation analytic per-spective employs close, turn-by-turn analyses of talk to uncover partici-pants’own orientation to the social action projected through talk in their in-teraction (Clayman & Maynard, 1995; Sacks et al., 1974). In this project, Ifocus on the unfolding turn-by-turn nature of language in social interactionin series of three-part sequences of talk. In the analysis, I show evidence inthe talk itself for what has been highlighted as a particularly institutionalthree-part sequence of talk and the development of series of these se-quences as an activity segment. Although acoustic analysis is used for themeasurement of prosodic phenomena, the conversation analytic orienta-tion of this project grounds claims made about the interactive import ofsound production in the participants’ orientation to the sequence of talk-in-interaction as it is embodied in sound (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 1996;Schegloff, 1998). However, as conversation analysts’ understanding of theprojective properties of sound production in talk-in-interaction is estab-lished (cf. Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 1996; Couper-Kuhlen & Ford, 2004),acoustic analyses become important as checks on the auditory judgment ofpitch and as an illustrative device for presentation.

DATA

The data for this analysis come from a collection of over 30 hr of class-room talk in two classrooms (a 12th-grade physics class and an 11th-gradeadvanced placement U.S. history class) in a public high school in the Mid-west in the late 1990s.4 The three spates of talk I present in the analysis arerepresentative of the practices used by teachers in my data sample. They

Syntactic and Prosodic Practices 107

show how the provisional nature of syntax in a turn in progress (includingpractices such as template questions, designedly incomplete utterances,and-prefaced elicitations, and turn extensions) allows for the coconstruc-tion of activity segments of talk within a pitch frame. These pitch framesare defined by pitch reset (Wennerstrom, 1998), which occurs between thefinal turn of one segment of talk and the opening turn of the next.

A MULTITURN ACTIVITY SEGMENT

In this first excerpt, the sequential, syntactic, and prosodic practicesused by teacher and students are highlighted in the coconstruction of an ac-tivity segment, a series of 5 three-part sequences from an 11th-grade U.S.history class). The entire segment of talk is given in Excerpt 1, the analysisfocusing on the TCUs around lines 4, 6, 10, 17, and 22.5

(1) [2pen 12:00]

1 T: nice and meek and turn the other cheek.2 (1)3 okay the CLASS STRUCTURE:.(.) strict? or mi:ld. what4 ⇒ idea did you get yesterday.5 Jin: mild.6 T: ⇒ mild. could you move among the classes.7 Jin: (social mobility).8 Aly: yes.9 Tina: yes.

10 T: ⇒ yes. by:?11 (1)12 Jin: plantation.13 Tina: °owning a plan↑tation.°14 (.)15 T: [don’t say-16 Al: [>owning LAND.<17 T: ⇒ [owning land. and WHERE was there (.) always going to18 Tina: [I mean- yeah19 T: be more land available.20 Jin: [the west.21 Al: [the west.22 T: ⇒ the west. (1) >if you could face what danger.<23 Al: [Indians.24 Jin: [Indians.25 Tina: [Indians.

108 John Hellermann

26 Hanh: [Indians.27 T: oh:. alright?28 (1)29 T: let’s go on to the economy (1.0) ok these are strains on

The activity underway in Excerpt 1 is a presentation of ideas from areading on the influence of social class in the colonial United States. Theteacher leads students through issues from this assigned reading in a Socraticdialogue in which she elicits answer bids from students and then evaluatesthe answer bids offered. The activity segment starts with a three-part se-quence in lines 3 through 6. After the teacher’s second elicitation (line 6,“could you move among the classes”), two student answer bids, and herevaluation6 (line10), the teacherextendsher first elicitationwith thepreposi-tion “by,” produced with a sound stretch and slightly rising pitch:

(2)

6 T: ⇒ mild. could you move among the classes.7 Jin: (social mobility).8 Al: yes.9 Tina: yes.

10 T: yes. by:?

In this third elicitation (presented again in Excerpt 2), the teacher usesthe preposition in line 10 to project a collaborative completion by studentsimplying a highly elliptical proposition in progress: “Yes, (you could moveamong the classes) by. …” Although the teacher initiates an extension tothe proposition underway, that initiation is not complete. The teacher usesthe English grammatical system (prepositions require noun phrases forgrammatical completion) embodied in a particular sound pattern (elon-gated vowel with rising pitch) producing a designedly incomplete utter-ance (Koshik, 2002), which elicits student answer bids to collaborativelycomplete (Lerner, 1991) the proposition.

The activity segment continues with the teacher’s fourth elicitation inExcerpt 3 following. In line 17, after Al’s answer bid (line 16) following theteacher’s negative evaluation (line 15) of previous student answer bids, theteacher gives the positive evaluation (repeating Al’s answer bid) and linksthe next elicitation action to his two previous elicitations using the conjunc-tion and to continue the line of questioning on one topic. The conjunctionand is used to join words, phrases, clauses, and, as it is here, larger stretches


of text. However, and-prefaced elicitation turns are also characteristic ofphenomena in social interaction noted by Heritage and Sorjonen (1994) inthe talk of medical practitioners. In that research, Heritage and Sorjonenshowed some actions accomplished by and-prefaced turns to be routinequestioning, getting through a practitioner’s agenda, or topic elaboration.Here, the and-prefaced teacher elicitation seems to be used to encouragetopic elaboration as part of her agenda of questioning:

(3)

16 Al: [>owning LAND.<17 T: ⇒ [owning land. and WHERE was there (.) always going to18 Tina: [I mean- yeah19 T: be more land available.20 Jin: [the west.21 Al: [the west.

The extension of the activity segment and the teacher’s line of ques-tioning continues in Excerpt 4, line 22, when after her repetitive evaluation,the teacher adds a clause that is a syntactic extension of her previous elicita-tion action and becomes another elicitation: “if you could face what dan-ger,” making a next student answer bid conditionally relevant:

(4)

22 T: ⇒ the west. (1) >if you could face what danger.<23 Al: [Indians.24 Jin: [Indians.25 Tina: [Indians.26 Hanh: [Indians.

Within the action of classroom turn taking, the last three elicitationsfrom Excerpt 1 (presented in Excerpts 2, 3, and 4) are given cohesion by theuse of and orientation to syntactic practices for questioning and answering.In Excerpt 2, the bare preposition creates an ellipted, implied elicitation in-viting student answer bids. The last two elicitations from Excerpts 3 and 4(“where was there always going to be more land available” and “if you couldfacewhatdanger”) formacomplex,multiclausegrammaticalunitacross twoteacher turns. Although each elicitation is produced within separate se-quences of talk, each a first in the three-part IRF sequence, the implicit cohe-sion in theirgrammaticalproduction (thesecond“if”clauseandpotential ex-tension of the first elicitation) give a cohesiveness to these two sequences in

110 John Hellermann

the line of questioning, the last in the series of 5 three-part sequences. Thecoconstruction of cohesive strings of collaborative questions and answersthat make up 5 three-part sequences is also done in and through sound. Acloser look at the sound production of this segment of talk shows how pitchlevel works as part of the organization of the segments.

Pitch Reset in Activity Segment 1

Although pitch contour, pitch matching across speaker, loudness, andrhythm have all been shown to be aspects of prosody relevant to the organi-zation of talk-in-interaction (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 1996; Erickson,1992; Fiksdal, 1990; Ford, Fox, & Hellermann, 2004; French & Local,1983; Local, 1992; Schegloff, 1998; Wennerstrom, 2001), in this article Ifocus on pitch height and reset, which have been shown to be cohesive de-vices in classroom discourse (Wennerstrom, 1998).

The prosodic packaging of the activity segment from Excerpt 1 isshown in Figure 1 with the relevant lines opening and closing the activitysegment given in Excerpt 5:

(5) [2pen 12:00]

1 T: nice and meek and turn the other cheek.2 (1)


FIGURE 1 Pitch reset at the start and close of the talk from Excerpt 1.

3 okay the CLASS STRUCTURE:.(.) strict? or mi:ld. what((lines missing))27 T: alright?28 (1)29 T: let’s go on to the economy (1.0) ok these are strains on

The lower-pitched final evaluations of the teacher (lines 1 and 27; indi-cated with dark squares on Figure 1) and the higher pitched openings of newactivitysegments (lines3and29; indicatedwith light triangles inFigure1).

The opening of the activity segment is seen in the prosodic production,specifically, the pitch reset (from 10 to 25 semitones—100% for this seg-ment of talk7) from the teacher’s third turn evaluation in line 1 to her elicita-tion in line 3—the start of the activity segment in Excerpt 1. The end of theactivity segment is indicated by the pitch reset from the teacher’s third-turnevaluation in line 27 to her elicitation for the following activity segment inline 29.

ACTIVITY SEGMENT 2

The second activity segment for analysis comes from the 12th-gradephysics classroom. The teacher is introducing the properties of reflection intwo types of mirrors. The segment of talk in Excerpt 6 includes threeelicitations by the teacher (line 8, lines 11–12, and lines 26–27) that makerelevant the answer bids by the students. The focus of this part of the analy-sis is on the semantic and syntactic practices as cohesive devices that arepart of the deployment of the series of three-part sequences and that tie thethree sequences into a cohesive activity segment.

(6) [11jen 8:30]

1 T: you’re done. (.) now listen up. (.) this is- one of the-2 we’re going to be looking at concave and convex3 mirrors=and obviously (.) this is concave and4 the other that pops out is convex, and immediately when

((lines missing- T briefly introduces topic))8 ⇒ and of course you see [these types (.) where.9 Kif: [I don’t like that one

10 Lon: in the supermarkets11 T: ⇒ exactly and where else do you see mmmirrors like12 this

112 John Hellermann

13 Jim: fun [house.14 Jan: [uhhm the [car.15 T: [every day in the car. on the rear view16 mirror on the right side. =and notice something when you17 take a look at something and of course they’re not quite18 as convex as this notice that you’re farther away. so it19 appears that the car on the on th-that’s following you20 is farther away. [( )21 Jim: [is that why they say that22 they’re uh farther or closer than they actually appear=23 T: =exactly. they they’ve warned you about that because .hh24 obviously most people who drive a car haven’t taken physics25 and they don’t know about that. >it’s convex.< =but you26 notice the one the reasons that they have the convex mirror27 ⇒ on the right hand side so that you see: in the:,28 (1.0)29 T: bee[es? what the30 Jim: [((cough))31 Kif: blind spot.32 T: blind spot very good. alright, now other places

After the teacher announces the topic for the laboratory they are goingto engage in for that day and shows some models of mirrors, in line 8, heelicits responses from students using a modified template question (Barnes,Britton, & Torbe, 1990; Pickering, 1999)—“you see these types where.”This elicitation does not follow a canonical wh- question format with “do”support and subject-verb inversion (which would be “where do you seethese types”) but has the question word at the end of the TCU. This struc-ture presents a template that includes a space in the elicitation itself for stu-dents to “fill in the blank” to form a complete proposition. The form of thiselicitation, the noninverted syntax, makes the action being done by theteacher’s TCU indeterminate until the last word. Until that point in theTCU, the action of the teacher’s talk is an assertion. At the end of the turn,after the final wh-question word, the action can be heard as a directive orelicitation. The student answer bid (line 10, “in the supermarkets”) orientsto the teacher’s talk as an elicitation and is given a positive evaluation (line11, “exactly”) and followed immediately by another teacher elicitation,this one prefaced with “and.” The use of and-prefacing by the teacher inthis instance in Excerpt 6 elicits answers to elaborate on the topic of loca-tions for convex mirrors and shows teacher talk sharing one aspect of theinstitutional talk of medical practitioners. The teacher’s TCU at lines 11through 12 links with the previous elicitation with the use of the and-pref-


acing, working to elaborate the topic and creating the context for a potentiallist in progress of common usages of a convex mirror.

After the teacher’s elicitation in lines 11 through 12, two students offeranswer bids (see Excerpt 7 following). Although Jim’s answer (“fun-house,” line 13) is not given uptake by the teacher, Jan’s (line 14, “uhhm thecar.”) is:

(7)

11 T: ⇒ exactly and where else do you see mmmirrors like12 this13 Jim: fun [house.14 Jan: [uhhm the [car.15 T: [every day in the car. on the rear view16 mirror on the right

Following Jim’s answer in line 13, line 15 shows a teacher’s preference forpositive feedback8 by the syntactic incremental extension9 added to the endof his elicitation: “every day.” Time adverbials such as “every day” are typ-ical turn extenders (Ford, Fox, & Thompson, 2002), and the teacher uses“every day” here as both a response to Jim and a prompt to elicit the re-sponse he is in pursuit of. Jim’s answer bid (line 13) is possibly correct butnot a place where mirrors are used every day. With the extension, theteacher elicits a more common place where convex mirrors are locatedwhile maintaining a syntactic cohesion with the initial formation of theelicitation, extending the ongoing TCU from line 12.

The 3rd three-part sequence in the segment follows the teacher’s shortexpansion on the topic and a student question on that expansion (lines16–25). In Excerpt 8, the teacher gets back to the topic from the previousthree-part sequence on car mirrors in line 18. In lines 19 through 20, thenext teacher elicitation is formed by the teacher leaving the predicate of hisstatement incomplete, a technique teachers routinely employ and discussedby Koshik (2002) as designedly incomplete utterances:

(8)

18 but you notice the one the reasons that they have the19 convex mirror on the right hand side so that you see:20 ⇒ in the:,10

21 (1)22 T: bee [es? what the

114 John Hellermann

23 Jim: [((cough))24 Kif: blind spot.25 T: blind spot very good. alright, now other places

Not only does the orientation to syntax serve to link TCUs to one an-other, but at the end of the teacher’s elicitation (line 20) and follow up elicita-tion (line22),wesee the teacherandstudentsorient to the turn-projectingna-ture of syntax. At the end of line 20, the teacher stops speaking after thearticle “the,” a place where a noun phrase is strongly projected. In English,articles serve as determiners for nouns, and students orient to the teacher’suse of a syntactically incomplete utterance and offer answer bids in this slot.Notice also that the last word of the designedly incomplete utterance at line20, “the,” is stretched and has fairly level pitch, putting the designedly short-enedsyntax inaparticularsoundpackageaspartof theactionofelicitation.

At lines19 through20, the teacher tries toelicit a responsefromstudentsthatwill serveasamodel tohelpdisplay thepropertiesofconvexmirrors.Af-ter the designedly incomplete utterance (which ends in line 20), students donot offer answer bids, and the teacher hints at an answer with a second de-signedly incomplete utterance in line 22—“bee es? what the.” Kif respondswith “blind spot” in line 24, which is repeated by the teacher and given anovert positive assessment (“very good”) before he starts the next segment oftalk with the framing marker “alright” (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975).

Pitch Organization for Excerpt 6

The several syntactic practices highlighted in this section can be seen ascohesive devices in the coconstruction of the series of three-part sequencesas one activity segment in talk. Figure 2 shows the pitch reset at the bound-aries of the segment of talk in Excerpt 6: the low pitch peaks for the finalteacher evaluations (that just preceding the segment, line 1, “you’re done.”and that at the end of the segment, line 25, “blind spot very good”), the pitchpeaks of the opening turn of the activity segment (line 2, “we’re going to belooking at concave and convex mirrors”), and the opening turn of the seg-ment that follows (line 25, “alright, now other places …”). The relevant linesfrom Excerpt 6 are given again, following, as Excerpt 9:

(9) [11jen 8:30]

1 T: you’re done. (.) now listen up. (.) this is- one of the-2 we’re going to be looking at concave and convex


((lines missing))24 Kif: blind spot.25 T: blind spot very good. alright, now other places

The rather lengthy teacher expansion about rear-view mirrors fromlines 16 through 25 that is not part of the activity segment is producedwithin the pitch range set up by the opening and closing pitch resets and isfaster paced than the three-part sequences that surround it indicating,prosodically, the teacher’s treatment of this talk as parenthetical (Local,1992) to the ongoing activity segment.

A THIRD ACTIVITY SEGMENT

In the final activity segment for analysis, also from the 11th-grade his-tory class, the teacher and students are discussing settlement patterns in thecolonial United States. Excerpt 10 shows the teacher and students coordi-nating the resources from a written document with the provisional nature ofsyntax in a prosodic frame to create cohesion in the coconstruction of thenext segment of classroom talk. Like the segment in Excerpt 6, the 4

116 John Hellermann

FIGURE 2 Pitch reset at the start and close of the segment (Excerpt 6).

three-part sequences in Excerpt 10 have a semantic and syntactic cohesive-ness, recognizable parts of one activity segment:

(10) [2pen 10:30]

14 T: ok.15 so she’s just making the point that there were many grou:ps (.)16 ⇒ most of them lived in which of the three regio[ns.17 Andy: [middle.18 Tara: the middle.19 T: the [middle.20 ?FS: [°the middle°.21 T: ⇒ with the ex [ception of ↑what m[ajor group,22 ?fs: [(I forgot)23 Andy: [°the middle.°24 Fay: (here) the pur[itans?25 T: ⇒ [was in the south.26 Tara: °Africans°.27 T: ⇒ the Africans. (.3) .hh a:nd in? New England there was the:?28 Tara: lea[st.29 Jerri: [°puritans.°30 T: least. .hh-[((t has mouth open, ready to continue))31 Tara: [cause they had the strictest(.)uh-the32 strictest um the strictest? way that they governed or something,33 T: ⇒ right.=a:nd what religious re[quirement-34 Andy: [the (.) puritan:s,35 Jerri: °puritan°.36 T: oka:y. the least amount of …

Figure 3 is a reduction of the teacher elicitations from lines 16, 21, 25,27, and 33 showing how together they create a cohesive, longer, multiturnunit.

The 1st three-part sequence and first TCU of the multiunit turn occursat line 16. As in the segment from Excerpt 1, this first TCU by the teacher isan altered form of a wh-question, a wh-question without subject-verb inver-sion—“most of them lived in which of the three regions” instead of “In


FIGURE 3 Reduction of four syntactically linked elicitations in Excerpt 10.

which of the three regions did most of them live” (the canonical interroga-tive form).

The teacher’s elicitation in line 16 sets up a framework within whichstudent responses based, in part, on the written outline they all have and onthe syntactic form of the elicitation, are limited to three: New England,middle, or south. Two answer bids by the students (lines 17 and 18) are ac-knowledged by the teacher with a repetitive evaluation (line 19). Althoughthe wh-initiation type limits the range of student responses (Barnes et al.,1990; Wood & Wood, 1988), its particular syntactic form also has anotherinteractive function. The noninverted syntactic form of the eliciting TCUleaves the turn in progress open for incremental additions to the end to tiethe first of the four elicitations to subsequent elicitations. I show the contin-uing unfolding of syntax in interaction and the concatenation of teacherelicitations across TCUs in the sequence that follows. In Excerpt 11, thesyntactic format of the teacher’s second elicitation in the series (line 21) en-ables cohesion across sequences while projecting the content of and spacesfor student answer bids to follow:

(11)

21 T: ⇒ with the ex[ception of ↑what m [ajor group,22 ?fs: [(I forgot)23 Andy: [°the middle.°24 Fay: (here) the pur[itans?25 T: [was in the south.26 Tara: °Africans°.27 T: the Africans. (.3) .hh a:nd in? New England there was the:?

The teacher’s elicitation (line 21) starts with a prepositional phrasethat makes a syntactic continuation from the end of her first elicitation fromline 16 in Excerpt 10:

(12)

1st elicitation T: ⇒ most of them lived in which of the three regions.students: middle.T: the middle.

2nd elicitation T: ⇒ with the exception of ↑ what major group,

The use of the prepositional phrase in the second elicitation extendsthe first clause from the teacher’s first elicitation and maintains the teach-

118 John Hellermann

er’s tight control of the trajectory of the interaction. This incremental pro-duction of the turn also has interactive import for both the timing and con-tent of the students’answer bids. This prepositional phrase extension of theteacher’s first elicitation is, again, a noncanonical interrogative form affect-ing the possible answer bids by the students. The question word “what” ispositioned after the nominalized verb “exception” in “with the exception ofwhat major group.” In this position, the interrogative phrase “what majorgroup” can be heard as referring to the “exception,” that is, “what majorgroup was the exception.”

At this point in line 21, the syntactic form of the turn closely parallelsthat of the teacher’s first turn from the first sequence in Excerpt 10. Thisparallel is illustrated in Figure 4.

It is at this point in the elicitation (the end of line 2111) that a student,Fay, orients to the formally analogous structure of this second teacher elici-tation, offering an answer (line 24) that is not only interactionally wellplaced but is, with respect to the content of the line of questioning and thesyntactic form, a correct answer. At the end of line 21, what is hearable asthe teacher’s question is, to paraphrase, “what major group did not live inthe middle part of the country.” One “exception” to groups living in themiddle part of the country would be Fay’s answer bid in 24 (“the puritans”).Yet, after Fay’s answer bid, the teacher does not make an evaluation. In-stead, the teacher continues her turn, adding a verb phrase extension (“wasin the south”) to her ongoing turn in progress. The addition of this verbphrase makes the already spoken question word (what) a subject of the justadded verb: “what major group was in the south.” Now, instead of “whatmajor group was the exception,” the phrase is hearable as “what majorgroup was in the south.” The change in syntactic form changes the meaningof the teacher’s initiating interrogative and by the end of line 25, Fay’s an-swer bid is incorrect. The answer to “what major group was in the south” isTara’s answer in line 26 (“Africans”), and the teacher gives a positive as-


FIGURE 4 Parallel syntactic structure in consecutive teacher elicitations.

sessment of the answer bids in line 27. At lines 24 and 26, Fay and Tara ori-ent to the provisional nature of the syntax of the teacher elicitations, offer-ing different answer bids to meet the expectations of the emerging syntacticconstruction at each particular point in the teacher’s unfolding turn.

The series of three-part sequences continues in the talk from Excerpt13 in which, as in the previous two activity segments analyzed, a teacherelicitation uses and-prefaced TCUs (lines 27 and 33), which link theseTCUs with the ends of the previous elicitations:

(13)

27 T: ⇒ the Africans.(.3).hh a:nd in? New England there was the:?28 Tara: lea[st.29 Jerri: [°puritans.°30 T: least. .hh-[((t has mouth open, ready to continue))31 Tara: [cause they had the strictest(.)* uh-the32 strictest um the strictest? way that they governed or something,33 T: ⇒ right.=a:nd what religious re[quirement-34 Andy: [the (.) puritan:s,35 Jerri: °puritan°.36 T: oka:y. the least amount of …(*at this point the teacher has a puzzled look on her face).

The and-prefaced turn in line 33 also has the continuative functionnoted by Schiffrin (1987), resuming the teacher’s line of questioning afterthe brief attempt by a student (Tara) to expand on an answer (lines 31–32).The teacher’s and-prefaced turn in line 33 is also latched to her just-preced-ing, third-position evaluation and continues with a question on religion thatdoes not address the topic that Tara’s expansion brought up. Instead, it fol-lows up on the teacher’s own previous elicitation from line 27 regardingNew England. This move into the next question along with the minimalevaluation of Tara’s longer turn work to move away from Tara’s expandedresponse and away from a turn allocation procedure and sequence type inwhich students might have more than a minimal role. The latch togetherwith the and-prefaced turn show the teacher doing work in line 33 to main-tain the agenda, her line of questioning. The second and-prefaced elicita-tion at line 33 may also show evidence for the coconstruction of a closing tothis activity segment. At line 34, Andy starts an answer bid in overlap withthe teacher’s elicitation. This overlapped answer as well as the “chimingin” (Erickson & Schultz, 1982) by Jerri in line 35 may indicate that stu-

120 John Hellermann

dents hear these and-prefaced turns as attempts by the teacher to getthrough the topic or agenda (Heritage & Sorjonen, 1994), and the studentresponses reflect a focus on routine answers rather than on elaboration ofthe topic. The timing of Andy’s answer bid (in overlap with the teacher’selicitation) is also hearable by the teacher as student assuredness with thetopic, which may trigger the teacher’s end to this particular line of ques-tioning. As in the previous two segments, in this segment, this teacher againmakes use of a teacherly design for eliciting student answers, a designedlyincomplete utterance at line 27.

Other evidence suggesting this sequence as a closing is the teacher’s useof “okay” as a third-position evaluation. The use of “okay” by the teacher issignificant considering the number of teacher evaluations that are repetitionsof a previous student answer bid (Hellermann, 2003). After a series of 3three-part exchanges that end in a teacher repeat of the student answer bid,the teacher’suseof“okay” in the third-positionslothas the interactive importof closure. Beach (1993) showed how “okay” has a “Janus-like” quality assomething like a pivot, which may act to close one sequential action while in-troducing the next. The teacher’s third-position evaluation, “okay” in line 36is also produced low in the teacher’s pitch range, a pitch range that is associ-ated with the close of an activity (Brazil, 1997).

Written Outline as a Resource for the Organizationof Turns at Talk

The syntactic practices highlighted for connecting teacher elicitationswere seen to be similar across the three activity segments described. The seg-mentof talk fromExcerpt13alsoshowsevidenceforanother resource for theorganization of talk. A written document (a reading outline) was available toparticipants in this class. An excerpt of this document is shown in Figure 5,and in the sixth line of text from that outline in Figure 5, one sees the subjectof the teacher’s elicitation at line 27 of Excerpt 13, New England.

After topicalizing ethnic groups for the first elicitation (Excerpt 10, line15, “there were many groups”), in line 27, the teacher chooses New Englandfrom the outline as the topic for the third elicitation in the segment:

(14)

27 T: ⇒ the Africans.(.3).hh a:nd in? New England there was the:?28 Tara: lea [st.


29 Jerri: [°puritans.°30 T: least. .hh-[((t has mouth open, ready to continue))

Tara also seems to use the written outline as a resource in her re-sponse to this elicitation with the answer bid “least” in line 28. Jerri, onthe other hand, answers “puritans” in line 29. The teacher orients to thewell-timed nature of the first student answer bid giving a positive evalua-tion to Tara (line 30), although from the context of the line of question-ing, it appears not to be the better of the two answer bids.12 Based on thetopic and sequence of elicitations, the better answer to the teacher’s elici-tation from line 27 seems to be Jerri’s answer bid “puritans” by analogywith the previous elicitation and answer. In the previous sequence, Ex-cerpt 10, the teacher asked students to match a location with a group (lo-cation, south; group, Africans). In this sequence from Excerpt 14, Jerriorients to the format of the previous sequence as the teacher gives a loca-tion (“New England”) and asks for a noun phrase. By analogy (location,New England; group, Puritans), Jerri offers the answer bid “puritans,” butthe teacher gives an evaluation (line 30) to Tara’s well-timed, second-po-sition answer bid and then continues with an account or explication ofthe evaluation.

Within the meaning that emerged for the series of teacher elicitations,Jerri’s answer bid appears to be the most appropriate. However, Tara’s an-swer bid received feedback from the teacher in part for its timing but also be-cause it appears that Tara used the reading outline (the written documentfrom Figure 5) as a resource for inducing the teacher’s line of questioning.13

In the sixth line of the outline excerpt in Figure 5, we see the phrase “least inNew England,” which gives a possible source for Tara’s response at line 28.On thehandout, the referent for“least”appears tobe“mix,” that is,NewEng-

122 John Hellermann

FIGURE 5 Excerpt of the outline from class.

land had the least number of different ethnic groups of the three colonial U.S.regions. Tara’s response in line 28, “least,” corresponds with the outline thatthe students and teacher are following. Here, the document is used as a re-source for the interaction, and Tara’s response from line 28 is coconstructedas an appropriate answer, one that the teacher was in pursuit of.

The analysis in Excerpts 10 through 14 has shown the interactive useof and orientation to syntactic practices and written artifacts in achievingcohesion across a series of three-part sequences of talk, a series of se-quences that has been characterized as “recitation” and that I call an activ-ity segment. The four teacher elicitations ask students to match a limitednumber of regional distinctions (New England, middle, south) with a lim-ited number of social groups (Africans and Puritans). The teacher’s fourelicitations in this segment are increments of one larger syntactic whole,which, to some degree, follow a written outline.

Prosodic Organization

Like the figures showing the pitch height and reset for the previous twosegments, Figure 6 also indicates that pitch reset occurs at the start and endof the segment of talk in Excerpt 10. The first two marks on the graph in


FIGURE 6 Pitch peaks and pitch reset for the segment of talk in Excerpt 10.

Figure 6 show the reset in pitch from the closing of the segment precedingthat in Excerpt 10 (given following as Excerpt 15), line 14, the teacher’sevaluation of a student answer bid—“okay” (15 semitones, indicated with asquare) to the framing move at the start of this segment (lines 15–16, “soshe’s just making the point, …” 25 semitones, indicated with a triangle).The second pair of markers show the pitch reset from the closing of the seg-ment of talk in Excerpt 10/15 (line 36, the teacher’s evaluation of a studentanswer bid—“okay,” the square indicating 12 semitones) to the pitchheight of the framing move for the following segment (line 36, “the leastamount of …,” the triangle indicating 27 semitones):

(15) [2pen 10:30]

14 T: ok.15 so she’s just making the point that there were many grou:ps (.)((lines missing))35 Jerri: °puritan°.36 T: oka:y. the least amount of …

PITCH ORGANIZATION IN ACTIVITYSEGMENTS: PARATONE AND RHYTHM

The analyses of sound production show the segments presented in thisanalysis to be organized within paratones. The term paratone (by analogywith paragraph) is used to describe a prosodic organization, in this case,pitch organization, at a level greater than a single word, phrase, or utterance(Brown & Yule, 1983; Couper-Kuhlen, 1986; A. Fox, 1973) and attested asan organizational device used in lectures by teachers (Pickering, 1999;Wennerstrom, 1998, 2001). The spates of talk analyzed in this study, ques-tion–answer talk in the classroom, characterized as “recitation,” are de-scribed as syntactically cohesive series of three-part sequences that also ap-pear to be organized in paratones, with the paratone boundaries establishedby the beginning and ending pitch reset for each segment. Inside of theframe of pitch reset, the series of teacher elicitations, student answer bids,and teacher evaluations (three-part sequences) that make up each segmentof talk are produced within the range of high and low pitch established bythe opening and closing pitch resets creating paratones—cohesive-sound-ing, recitation-like segments of talk.

124 John Hellermann

The sound of these segments of talk is also characterized by a regularpattern of linear timing, or rhythm, which cannot be discussed in detail here(cf., Hellermann, 2003). The cohesive, multiunit turns done by the teacherare often produced in a regular tempo, and student answer bids follow inthe rhythmic template set by the teacher’s elicitation. The rhythmic timingof the three-part sequences both reflects and constructs the competitive na-ture of this type of classroom talk (Erickson, 1996). The elicitations andrhythmic, short (often one word) answer bids by students create the recita-tion-like effect of these segments of talk, what Stubbs (1983) called teachermonologue with well-timed support from the student.

CONCLUSIONS

The excerpts of talk I presented in the analysis showed how spates oftalked discussed by classroom discourse researchers as “recitation” are se-ries of three-part sequences that are coconstructed as cohesive activity seg-ments, not through the use of explicit classroom management practices ormetatalk by the teacher or students but rather through linguistic practicesfor talk-in-interaction. Syntactic practices including and-prefaced turns,designedly incomplete utterances, and syntactic extensions are deployedwithin a prosodic frame and coordinated with a written document to pro-duce these cohesive activity segments. The coordination of cues for inter-action drawn from a written outline, the syntactic practices used and ori-ented to by teacher and students, and the sound production of the talkestablished one activity segment distinct from the next within the overallcontext of a classroom activity of question–answer review.

The practices for doing these three-part sequences show the students’and teachers’orientation to the three-part sequence as the dominant turn al-location system for the classroom (Wells, 1993). As Excerpts 10 through15 showed, even when teachers do not design their elicitation TCUs to becomplete, they may be oriented to as such by students. In this way, teacherelicitations and assessments and student answer bids are “interactionalproducts” (Button, 1992) displaying an orientation to the form of answersrequired in the locally defined practice for turn allocation. Students makeanswer bids to teacher elicitations at first possibly complete points. Theshort, rhythmically placed answer bids by students leave space for teachertalk to be extended into multiunit turns to maintain a line of questioningthat accounts for cohesive segments of talk.


A close observation of these sequential practices of talk-in-interactionshows how simple sequential exchange types develop “into exchange com-plexes” (Hoey, 1991, p. 79). Such “exchange complexes” or segments areaccomplished by systematic linguistic practices and maintain a teacher’sline of questioning. These linguistic practices coconstruct the asymmetricturn allocation ascribed to institutional talk and classroom discourse andcharacterized as “recitation.” The analysis I report here shows the impor-tance of a unified description of grammar as it is accomplished in sound toshow the mechanisms for accomplishing action through talk. The practicesof building segments from three-part sequences I described in this articleare the preliminary or primordial practices for as well as the site of the re-constitution of larger social and cultural phenomena (Sacks, 1992, Vol. 1,p. 245): in this case, classroom talk.

NOTES

1 The three-part sequence is illustrated following:

[2pen 12:10]

I 1 T: could you move among the classes.R 2 Hanh: yes.F 3 T: yes.

2 I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this phrase. See also Crow (1994) for dis-cussion of the proposal of the term segment as a term for a topically defined stretch oftalk made up of several sequences.

3 Other classroom research using methods from conversation analysis include Ford (1999),Lerner (1995), McDermott and Roth (1978), McHoul (1978, 1990), and Mehan (1979).

4 The data were collected as part of a 5-year ethnographic study of language socializationin an urban public high school in the Midwestern United States. I am grateful to princi-pal investigators Jane Zuengler and Cecilia Ford for allowing me access to these datafrom their project (“The Socialization of Diverse Learners into Subject Matter Dis-course”), part of the Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA) supportedby the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improve-ment (OERI Award No. R305A60005). The views expressed in this analysis are thoseof the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the principal investigators,CELA, or the U.S. Department of Education.

5 Transcription conventions are those initiated by Gail Jefferson and developed by con-versation analysts. In all transcript excerpts, T indicates “teacher.” Names of all personsand places are pseudonyms.

126 John Hellermann

6 Although the repeated “yes” does not, on the surface, appear to constitute an evaluation,previous research (Hellermann, 2003) showed empirical evidence for teacher repeti-tions of student responses to be treated by students and teachers as a positive evaluationof the student answer.

7 Wennerstrom (1998) expressed pitch reset as a ratio: the difference in pitch between thefinal teacher assessment in the activity segment and the following framing move for thenext segment divided by the pitch range of the entire segment. For example, in Excerpt2, the pitch range of entire segment (difference between the highest and lowest pitch) is14.5 semitones, whereas the difference between the pitch peak of the final teacher eval-uation and the following framing move is 13 semitones. This makes the pitch reset 89%(13/14.5 semitones). The first pitch reset, from final teacher assessment in line 1 to theframing introductory move in line 2, is 79%. Numerical values for pitch reset may beuseful for descriptive purposes, but there is no scale of pitch established to “opera-tionalize” pitch reset. This is an empirical question and best established by looking atthe orientation to pitch reset by participants in their talk-in-interaction.

8 Previous research (Hellermann, 2002) showed that teachers’ repeating an immediatelypreceding student responses is overwhelmingly the most commonly occurring fol-low-up to student responses considered correct. For this reason, I characterize teacherthird-position repetition as a positive evaluation of the student answer.

9 The term extension has been used to characterize a speaker’s incremental syntactic con-tinuation of a TCU with no intervening talk by other participants (Auer, 1996; Ford,1993; Ford, Fox, & Thompson, 2002; B. Fox et al., 1996; Goodwin, 1995; Lerner, 1991;Schegloff, 1979). Such extensions do not implement new action, but continue or specifythe same course of action (Ford et al., 2002). My use of the term extension in this articleis an expansion of this meaning in that although the same speakers’ (a teacher’s) turnsare extended, there is usually talk between the TCU and its extension. Yet like previ-ously described turn extensions, the practice I describe in this article for teacher talk haslinked TCUs that are in the service of a same action type: an elicitation.

10 The vowel in both definite articles (lines 20 and 22) is a “long e,” or, phonetically, [i]. Itis interesting that the teacher uses the “long e” form (which usually occurs before wordsthat start with vowels) rather than the schwa (which occurs before words that start withconsonants) when the answer he is projecting starts with a consonant—“blind spot.”Jefferson (1974) noted the projective properties of the sound quality of the and the useof the with the [�] pronunciation as a resource for error correction when the followingword starts with a vowel. Similarly, in instances from the classroom, the phonetic qual-ity of teachers’ production of the with an elongated [i]-sounding vowel has a particularinteractive purpose: to index designedly incomplete utterances.

11 The incremental production of the elicitation from lines 16, 21, and 25 creates a “syntacticdouble bind” (Franck, 1985) in which each part of the multiunit turn can be heard as com-plete by itself. Students orient to the syntactic completedness of the TCUs as they are pro-duced in time, which accounts for the different answer bids in lines 23, 24, and 26.

12 One reviewer wondered whether the teacher heard Jerri’s answer bid at line 29 (as it wasspoken softly). However, Jerri was seated immediately to the teacher’s left, and for this


reason, I assume that the teacher’s lack of feedback to Jerri’s answer was not because ofits inaudibility.

13 Liz Miller’s insight led me back to the student outline to help interpret this particularthree-part sequence.

REFERENCES

Auer, P. (1996). On the prosody and syntax of turn continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen &M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 57–100). Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Torbe, M. (1990). Language, the learner and the school. (4th ed.).Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for “casual” “Okay” usages. Journal ofPragmatics, 19, 325–352.

Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Button, G. (1992). Answers as interactional products: Two sequential practices used in jobinterviews. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutionalsettings (pp. 212–231). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clayman, S. E., & Maynard, D. W. (1995). Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. InP. ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization oftalk and embodied activities (pp. 1–30). Washington, DC: International Institute forEthnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.

Couper-Kuhlen,E.(1986).AnIntroductiontoEnglishprosody.Tübigen,Germany:Niemeyer.Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. E. (Eds.). (2004). Sound patterns in interaction. Amster-

dam: Benjamins.Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.). (1996). Prosody in conversation: Interactional

studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Crow, B. K. (1994). Conversational episode structure. In R. L. Conville (Ed.), Uses of

“structure” in communication studies (pp. 155–184). Westport, CT: Praeger.Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Erickson, F. (1992). They know all the lines: Rhythmic organization and contextualization

in a conversational listing routine. In P. Auer & A. D. Luzio (Eds.), The contextual-ization of language (pp. 365–397). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology of teacher-studentinteraction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, andschooling (pp. 29–62). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper. New York: Academic.Fiksdal, S. (1990). The right time and pace. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

128 John Hellermann

Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conver-sations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ford, C. E. (1999). Collaborative construction of task activity: Coordinating multiple re-sources in a high school physics lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction,32, 369–408.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Hellermann, J. (2004). Getting past “no”: Sequence, action andsound production in the projection of no-initiated turns. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E.Ford (Eds.), Sound production in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns:The “TCU” revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427–454.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turnincrements. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turnand sequence (pp. 14–38). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fox, A. (1973). Tone sequence in English. Archivum Linguisticum, 4, 17–26.Fox, B., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic

study of syntax and repair. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interac-tion and grammar (pp. 183–237). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Franck, D. (1985). Sentences in conversational turns: A case of syntactic “double bind.” InM. Dascal (Ed.), Dialogue: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 233–245). Amster-dam: Benjamins.

French, P., & Local, J. (1983). Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragmatics, 7,17–38.

Goodwin, C. (1995). Sentence construction within interaction. In U. M. Quastoff (Ed.), As-pects of oral communication (pp. 198–219). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hellermann, J. (2002). The interactional and organizational work of prosody in classroomdiscourse activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repe-tition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32, 79–104.

Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analysing data. In D.Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative analysis: Theory, methods, and practice (pp. 161–182).London: Sage.

Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across se-quences:And-prefacingasafeatureofquestiondesign.LanguageinSociety,23,1–29.

Hoey, M. (1991). Some properties of spoken discourse. In R. Bowers & C. Brumfit (Eds.),Applied linguistics and English language teaching (pp. 64–85). London: Macmillan.

Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society, 2,181–199.

Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for elicitingknowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language in Social In-teraction, 35, 277–309.

Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20,441–458.

Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional ac-tivities. Discourse Processes, 19, 111–131.

Local, J. (1992). Continuing and restarting. In P. Auer & A. D. Luzio (Eds.), The contextual-ization of language (pp. 273–296). Amsterdam: Benjamins.


Manke, M. P. (1997). Classroom power relations: Understanding student-teacher interac-tion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Maynard, D. (1991). Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse. American Journal ofSociology, 97, 448–495.

McDermott, R., & Roth, D. (1978). The social organization of behavior: Interactional ap-proaches. Annual Review of Anthropology, 7, 321–345.

McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Languageand Society, 7, 183–213.

McHoul, A. W. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society,19, 349–377.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue. New York: Teachers College Press.Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Pickering, L. (1999). An analysis of prosodic systems in the classroom discourse of native

speaker and nonnative speaker teaching assistants. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (G. Jefferson, Ed., Vol. 1). Oxford, England:Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organizationof turn-taking for conversations. Language, 50, 696–735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.),Syntax and semantics: discourse and syntax (pp. 261–286). New York: Academic.

Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Languageand Speech, 41, 235–263.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The Englishused by teachers and pupils. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Language, schools and classrooms. London: Methuen.Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories

of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom.Linguistics in Education, 5, 1–37.

Wennerstrom, A. (1998). Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse: A study of Chinesespeakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1–25.

Wennerstrom, A. (2001). The music of everyday speech: Prosody and discourse analysis.New York: Oxford University Press.

Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1988). Questioning versus student initiative. In J. T. Dillon (Ed.),Questioning and discussion: A multi-disciplinary study (pp. 280–305). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

130 John Hellermann

syntactic and prosodic practices for cohesion in series of three … · 2019. 10. 28. ·...

Documents