teacher talk by ml rodriguez

By María Lucía Rodríguez

INSTITUTO DE ENSEÑANZA SUPERIOR EN LENGUAS VIVAS "JUAN RAMÓN FERNANDEZ"

Teacher Talk: Doublespeak,

euphemisms and labelling

María Lucía Rodríguez33.220.227


Language IVDaniel Ferreyra

March 14th, 2014

2


Table of Contents

Abstract 3

Introduction 4

Theoretical Framework 7

Doublespeak 7

Jargon as part of doublespeak 8

Euphemisms 9

Labelling 11

Labelling and Expectations 12

Survey/Data Analysis 15

Doublespeak and jargon as part of doublespeak

15

Euphemisms 18

Labelling, expectations and motivation 22

Conclusion 26

Works Cited 29

Appendix 30

3


Abstract

Teacher Talk is composed of a highly interconnected linguistic system integrated by

technical language, euphemisms and labels – among others - used in the educational

context. Teacher Talk is unfolded in the teachers’ lounge where doublespeak and teaching

jargon is openly manifested. However, an opposite effect occurs when transmitting the

same information at a parents meeting, Teacher Talk then is mainly composed of

euphemisms since these elements avoid explicit reference to distasteful topics. And finally

Teacher Talk involves labelling in the classroom, as well as in faculty meetings/ teachers

conferences, having a detrimental effect on students given that the result is their

performance being influenced by their teachers’ preconception of them and their true

potential. The current study, based on quantitative research, attempts to uncover teachers’

prevalent trends in thought and opinion as regards how they express themselves in their

Teacher Talk depending on the contexts of teachers’ lounge, parents meetings and their

own classrooms. This will shed light on the ways in which language has great influence on

colleagues, parents, students and ourselves providing an opportunity of reflection upon our

work as teachers.

4


Keywords: teachers, students, education, language, analysis, doublespeak, jargon,

euphemisms, labels, expectations, effects.

5


Introduction

Teacher Talk unfolds within the education context by comprising everything that is

uttered at school and its surroundings. Teacher Talk is a linguistic system composed of

many characteristics being doublespeak, euphemisms and labels the most salient ones

which may be employed intentionally or unconsciously. Regardless, they would be

manifested generally in three different scenarios which are the teacher's lounge, during

meetings with superiors or students' parents and within the classroom. Finally, Teacher

Talk affects communication by being connected with expectations and motivation which

would be reflected through students' academic performance.

Teacher Talk doublespeak is one of the three most salient components of Teacher

Talk, it entails the way teachers approach their discipline, the way they identify themselves

and their knowledge regards education. (Zacharias, 2001) In some circumstances, when

referring to the education discipline and situations which unravel inside the classroom, the

application of doublespeak will be premeditated in order to produce subtle changes in the

language and to make " the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant

appear attractive or at least tolerable" (Lutz in Carroll, 2004, p. 29) Regarding knowledge

about education, doublespeak use will be audience-tailored, on the one hand to intentionally

produce a complex speech (Carroll, 2004) but on the other to seek divergence from the ones

"outside our profession [who] are under no necessary obligation to learn the language of

what we do.” (Zacharias, 2001, p. 131)

In order to achieve complexity in a speech, jargon is employed as it is technical

language to specifically approach a profession. (Carroll, 2004) However when used

intentionally to manipulate speech, jargon is considered part of doublespeak. Its aim would


be to make “the simple seem complex, the trivial seem profound, or the insignificant seem

important" (Carroll, 2004, p. 32) so as to seek convergence or divergence with the

audience. The use of jargon with members in specific groups, offices and departments is

welcomed (Zacharias, 2001), contrariwise, jargon may "end up separating speaker from

audience" if used with someone who does not know the language. (Carroll, 2004, p. 133)

The next salient Teacher Talk component is the use of euphemisms which are key

elements considering they are delicate terms used to replace a concept that "seems to be

either taboo, too harsh or simply inappropriate for a given conversational exchange."

(Duda, 2011, p. 7) Whereas teachers may be involved in situations demanding the use of

terms loaded with negative illocutionary force, they would resort to euphemisms so as to

avoid possible loss of face. (Duda, 2011) This implementation of euphemisms then, would

be intentional and premeditated. In contexts where teachers reveal information to superiors

or students' parents, euphemisms will enable them to get their message across and

communicate successfully. (Wang, 2013)

The last salient component is labelling which is inherent in Teacher Talk howbeit

many teachers are not aware of that. Generally, labelling "is practiced by well-intentioned

individuals who do not see themselves as being biased, which makes eliminating [labels]

extremely difficult” (Mio, Barker & Tumambing in Ercole, 2009, p. 32) The act of

categorising individuals as "different" evolves into a distorted classroom environment for

the labelled students as well as for their teachers, classmates and parents. (Hebding & Glick

in Osterholm, Nash and Kritsonis, 2007) Additionally, labels could be inherited since

teachers would "rely on previous evaluations from other teachers as a way to evaluate

incoming students” (Harris in Ercole, 2009, p. 6) ergo those students who are actively

7


coping with those labels would continue having a reputation which would influence their

true academic potential. (Ercole, 2009)

Finally, labels stem from teachers' expectations which impact on the motivation

teachers provide to their students - especially to those who perform better. (Ercole, 2009)

Students labelled negatively would "never get the opportunity to prove that they can be

good students and, instead, perform the only way they know how to: poorly”. (Ercole,

2009, p. 8) Along with their alleged poor performance, students would encounter physical

distancing and stigmatization from their non-labelled classmates. (Osterholm, Nash and

Kritsonis, 2007) Eventually, such experiences would render the disengagement "from the

schooling process [resulting in] alienation [and in the worst scenarios] high engagement in

unhealthy behaviours.” (Ercole, 2009, p. 9)

Hence, the aim of this paper is to analyse what is the extent of teachers’ awareness

of the fact that Teacher Talk influences students' performance through the use of

doublespeak, euphemisms and labels. By recognising a differential treatment enacted with

students, teachers would be better prepared to undermine their detrimental unintentional

actions. (Ercole, 2009)

8


Theoretical Framework

Teacher Talk is essentially everything that is uttered within the school premises.

Even though it is considered a broad term and it is composed of many characteristics,

Teacher Talk will be analysed in this paper focusing only on the three most salient

characteristics. The following are doublespeak, euphemisms and labels which will be

developed next.

Doublespeak

The first of the three most distinguishing features of Teacher Talk is doublespeak.

There are many ways to convey ideas in a speech so as to produce different reactions. Ideas

can be clear, concise and straightforward but they can also be twisted, complex and

obscure. Depending on the speaker’s prior expectations, those ideas will be shaped in such

a way that the speech will be mainly composed of doublespeak. Doublespeak entails subtle

changes in the language by making it obscure and deceitful so as to cause confusion. For

instance, it “makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear

attractive or at least tolerable… It is language that conceals or prevents thought” (Lutz in

Carroll, 2004, p. 29)

In the context of education, the afore mentioned manipulation of speech may take

place if the speaker has speculated with the reaction he desires to originate depending on

the audience his speech is targeted to. Furthermore, doublespeak is influenced by, in this

case, the knowledge regards the education discipline since it constitutes "the ways we speak

about our discipline, the ways we organize our thinking about our discipline, […] the ways

in which we organize and identify ourselves." (Zacharias, 2001, p. 128) So, in other words,


if speculated reactions vary because of different audiences then “we must speak at least

three languages: one of our particular discipline, one of another discipline, and one to the

rest of the universe.” (Zacharias, 2001, p. 131)

Language will express ideas differently if they are heard or understood by teachers,

people acquainted with educational issues or non-specialists. (Zacharias, 2001) “The

problem is ours because those outside our profession are under no necessary obligation to

learn the language of what we do.” (Zacharias, 2001, p. 131) Then language will be

audience-tailored resulting in a speech which varies from specific to vague and vice versa.

For example, jargon plays an important role since it definitely cause the speech to become

specific. Jargon is part of doublespeak considering its application could also be used to

manipulate and obscure a speech as well.

Jargon as part of doublespeak

As priory mentioned, jargon closely conjoins with doublespeak and it is defined as

"the technical language of an art or science, trade or profession." (Carroll, 2004, p. 32).

Jargon is considered to be part of doublespeak on account of producing a change in speech

by "making the simple seem complex, the trivial seem profound, or the insignificant seem

important." (Carroll, 2004, p. 32) The over usage of such language will specify concepts in

discourse, albeit they may not be clear for people who are non-experts. Regardless, jargon

particularly becomes doublespeak once its employment is intentional.

When jargon is used intentionally, two polarized effects will be induced, these being

either convergence or distance. On the one hand, the overuse of jargon at school may

amalgamate teachers who would form subgroups, i.e. they would “become ghettoized” in

their own “offices, departments, and disciplines.” (Zacharias, 2001, p. 133). But on the

10


other hand, jargon doublespeak could sever the audience: "the use of technical language

with someone who does not know the language may end up separating speaker from

audience." (Carroll, 2004, p. 133) By all means, its use should be conscientious for it can

become “off putting” in front of the wrong audience. (Zacharias, 2001)

Euphemisms

The second most notable component of Teacher Talk is the application of

euphemisms. The term euphemism derives from Greek, "eu" denotes "‘well, sounding

good’ and pheme means ‘speaking’" (Duda, 2011, p. 8) being substantially applied as a

"concealing mechanism [which is] available in any natural language.” (Duda, 2011, p. 3)

Socially accepted, the use of euphemisms has naturalised inasmuch as they are words

considered unable to cause offence. Their use preference derives from the fact that

euphemism are delicate, they are used to replace a concept that "seems to be either taboo,

too harsh or simply inappropriate for a given conversational exchange." (Duda, 2011, p. 7)

As aforementioned, euphemisms are employed instead of an offensive term " to

avoid possible loss of face: either one’s own face or, through giving offense, that of the

audience, or of some third party.” (Duda, 2011, p. 8) Howbeit this concealing mechanism

can become doublespeak - as explained in the case of jargon, above - when it is used

speculative and intentionally. "The inoffensive, less emotive, word or expression [can be]

used to mislead or deceive us about unpleasant realities" (Carroll, 2004, p. 30) In the field

of education, for instance, instead of explaining that a student failed, one says that the

person “did not respond to training” (Carroll, 2004, p. 30) or an alternative to

11


communicating that a student is emotionally disturbed, it is notified that he is

"psychologically challenged" (Carroll, 2004, p. 31)

In the examples above, it is clearly demonstrated the effect produced by euphemisms

that is "to attenuate the negative illocutionary force a taboo word or phrase has." (Duda,

2011, p. 8) The necessity society has, especially in the education discipline, is to avoid

being badly-understood owing to the "long-lasting and all-prevailing moral prudery"

(Duda, 2011, p. 9) society is accustomed to. So to counterbalance negative illocutionary

force, euphemisms are convenient to employ due to their little emotive content - which can

be either neutral or positive – consequently being less likely to arouse feelings in the

audience. As Carroll mentions in his book Becoming a Critical Thinker: A Guide for the

New Millennium,

[Y]ou and I generally respond only to things we care about. If words or images or actions arouse no feelings in us, we are not likely to respond to them. If we do not respond to them, we will not think about them. If we do not think about them, we will not do anything about them. If we do not do anything about them, then those in power can continue doing whatever they wish to. Even if they do not have our consent, they do not arouse our opposition either. (Carroll, 2004, p. 28)

Specifically, adjectives like “lovely”, “wonderful”, “good”, “great” have positive

emotive content but adjectives like “disgusting”, “despicable”, “bad”, “stupid” and “ugly”

have negative emotive content. (Carroll, 2004, p. 28) Any adjective as such arouse feelings

so their replacement by euphemisms would attenuate those emotions by saving “the faces

of both sides and [enabling] people to communicate successfully” (Wang, 2013, p. 156)

either being used unconsciously or intentionally as doublespeak.

12


Labelling

The last feature of Teacher Talk to be developed is its labelling component. The

process of labelling derives from sociology and implies the categorization of an individual

as “different,” once that label is acquired

[T]he social group seems to assign to that person a new identity and a new role, a new set of expectations. The social group then responds to the individual according to those expectations, thus reinforcing the label and affecting all future interactions (Osterholm, Nash and Kritsonis, 2007, p. 2).

In the education context, the mere word “label” has a negative connotation since it “creates

a potentially distorted reality for those who bear the label, as well as for their teachers,

parents, and peers” (Hebding & Glick in Osterholm, Nash and Kritsonis, 2007, p. 2)

Moreover, Ercole (2009) states in Labelling in the Classroom: Teacher

Expectations and their Effects on Students' Academic Potential that the labelling process

may take place unconsciously. Those labels are naturalized as stereotypes unintentionally -

being considered, as he mentions, actually “dangerous” (Ercole, 2009). In some

circumstances “it is practiced by well-intentioned individuals who do not see themselves as

being biased, which makes eliminating [labels] extremely difficult” (Mio, Barker &

Tumambing in Ercole, 2009, p. 32) The unconscious and automatic aspects of labelling

make them persistent resulting in teachers who constantly “interpret aspects of pupils'

behaviour as evidence of “cultural deprivation”, “inadequate home background”, etc.

(Nash, 2001, p. 55) Ultimately, persistent labels derive in fixed stereotypes.

Expectations play an important role in the process and effects of labelling. “The

concepts of expectancy and stereotypy have overlapping and cyclical relationships with

13


stigmatization, rejection, and social distance.” (Osterholm, Nash and Kritsonis, 2007, p. 6).

Furthermore, the subjective expectations become internalized principles yielding into a

habit, role play or ways to experience the world. (Nash, 2001) For example at school,

students do not carry labels in a passive manner but they are continuously managing and

coping with them. (Osterholm, Nash and Kritsonis, 2007) In the case of teachers, they may

act differently with “smart” students and with “dumb” ones. They may provide supportive

feedback and higher input to the former even if the “dumb” students might perform as well

as the others. (Ercole, 2009)

In addition to the concepts previously developed, there is a tendency that takes place

in the education context in lieu of creating labels either consciously or unconsciously:

labels could be inherited. Id est., expectations will be influenced by other already fixed

opinions. Many teachers may “rely on previous evaluations from other teachers as a way to

evaluate incoming students” (Harris in Ercole, 2009, p. 6) Unfortunately, such labels will

accompany students along their whole schooling “making it difficult, if not impossible, for

those labelled as poor students to ever reach their true, academic potential.” (Ercole, 2009,

p. 6)

Labelling and Expectations

Regarding labelling theory, Ercole (2009) states that in addition to the intertwined

relations between labels and expectations there comes motivation. Students who are not

behaviourally engaged with a task may need extra motivation to do so since their response

may not be caused by their misunderstanding of the material being taught. Teachers appear

to encounter some difficulty in acknowledging “the discrepancy between their [students’]

cognitions and their actions” (Ercole, 2009, p. 31) and there is a predisposition to base their

14


interaction only on academic achievement, leaving encouragement exclusively to those

who perform better.

On the one hand there is a tendency that students performing better are likely to

receive higher amount of motivation, but on the other hand students labelled as “poor”

performers are prone not to be challenged academically. Whether teachers are aware of this

or not, “these students never get the opportunity to prove that they can be good students

and, instead, perform the only way they know how to: poorly”. (Ercole, 2009, p. 8) The

result is students’ constant management between long term internalized labels, their poor

reputation and teachers’ expectations on their academic capability. (Ercole, 2009)

Even if their academic potential was at stake, labelled students probably would

experience “stigmatization and both social and physical distancing from nonlabelled peers,

factors that render the school experience even less appealing for those targeted.”

(Osterholm, Nash and Kritsonis, 2007, p. 9) Taking into account that students may already

be copying with academic difficulties because of being labelled, they also have to cope

with the possibility of being approached differently by their peers. Such ill treatment could

provoke students to “disengage from the schooling process [resulting in] alienation [and]

high engagement in unhealthy behaviours.” (Ercole, 2009, p. 9)

From teachers’ perspective, the process of labelling may be lessened once teachers

progressively become aware of their actions. Ercole states that

[T]he more awareness that is brought to teachers’ attention about how detrimental this unintentional action can be for their students, the better prepared teachers will be in recognizing this differential treatment they enact with their students. (Ercole, 2009, p. 32)

15


Eventually those students on the verge of being categorized as poor performers would show

their true potential, personal and academically speaking, avoiding label-fixation of any sort.

(Ercole, 2009)

16


Survey/Data Analysis

In order to uncover teachers’ tendencies as regards Teacher Talk in the school

environment, 24 online anonymous surveys have been carried out during this current study.

13 questions were asked to gather information about how teachers express themselves at

school in different situations such as in the break at the teachers' lounge, parents meetings

or specifically in their own classrooms interacting with their students. The interpretation of

the data collected will be based on the theoretical framework of doublespeak, euphemisms

application and labelling theory in the educational context.

Doublespeak and jargon as part of doublespeak

The following analysis will be based on survey questions nº 7 to 101 where 50% of the

survey respondents2 stated that they apply jargon or obscure language intentionally.

Firstly, speech manipulation, known as doublespeak, takes place when there is a

premeditated reaction the speaker is expecting of the audience. In the education context,

doublespeak may be employed by authorities for instance, “the headmasters resort to jargon

to try to convince you to teach overpopulated classes by using such an obscure

language…”3 or when addressed to such authorities for example “they love seeing that you

know what you're doing…”4 This phenomenon occurs when jargon doublespeak is applied

as in the following examples: “we ttend to talk a lot about multicultural, metacognitive and

metalinguistic reflection for example. That's very specific language,”5 and 1 The survey results are found in the Appendix below.2 Note: the examples used are verbatim extracts from written surveys attached in the Appendix.3 Question 9, Survey 3.4 Question 9, Survey 11.5 Question 8, Survey 22.


[I]f truth be told, some head teachers love it when you use big words such lexicon, pragmatics or syntax. Words like peer correction, mixed ability groups and swot analysis can put a broad smile on their faces. Some headmasters and headmistresses want to make sure their teachers know their onions well so jargon may come in handy.6

Such intentional use of jargon doublespeak stems from the teachers’ speculation (about)

their audience reaction which produced a change in speech by "making the simple seem

complex, the trivial seem profound, or the insignificant seem important." (Carroll, 2004, p.

32)

Secondly, the main scenario where jargon 7 is applied is around colleagues in the

teachers’ lounge. For example, “one tends to be technical when talking to people who

understand”8, “I talk to the "psicopedagoga"9 frequently and she uses specific teaching

jargon”10 also “if I talk to the coordinator I do use jargon. It makes it easier to

communicate. I also use jargon with the rest of the teachers in the English department.”11

This is due to the fact that jargon provides specificity (Carroll, 20042) when talking about a

discipline - in this case the education discipline - and that its speech application is

connected with knowledge of the field and identity as professionals. (Zacharias, 2001)

Finally, regarding the effects that may be yielded by doublespeak and jargon

doublespeak, there are two overt polarised reactions which are convergence and distance.

The former generally presents itself in the teachers' lounge where department fragmentation

6 Question 9, Survey 6.7 Examples of jargon used by the survey respondents: “realia”, “syllabus”, “school drop outs”, “peer correction”, “mixed ability groups”, “swot analysis”, “multicultural”, “metacognitive and metalinguistic reflection” among others.8 Question 8, Survey 3.9 Educational psychologist: specialist in education psychology.10 Question 9, Survey 7.11 Question 8, Survey 14.

18


is visible since teachers may seek convergence with their own department colleagues

through the use of specific teaching jargon, for instance

[W]hen I want to help a student I seek for advice [sic] informally and also using technical words. But sometimes I can't share my thoughts with the Biology or the Maths teachers, so I tend to hang around with the teachers of my own department.12

The previous example illustrates the possible result which is teachers becoming

"ghettoized” in their own “offices, departments, and disciplines.” (Zacharias, 2001, p. 133).

Conversely, doublespeak would separate the speaker form the audience (Carroll,

2004) if they are not acquainted with specific terms belonging to a certain discipline. One

of the surveyed teachers explained: "even my colleagues from other departments make

jokes when I use technical language like 'TBL' for e.g. They tend to be more relaxed when

talking about planning.”13 In addition, a similar response is provoked when teachers address

to a non-specialist audience, such as parents at a parent-teacher meeting for e.g.:

I always try to describe [students] strengths and congratulate them on their efforts as clear as possible since parents are not specialists. I also point out where they are not performing as well as I hope and what we can do improve together and help them.14

As illustrated, teachers are in need to tailor their speech when communicating with their

students’ parents considering they are "under no necessary obligation to learn the language

of what we do.” (Zacharias, 2001, p. 131)

12 Question 8, Survey 23.13 Question 9, Survey 13.14 Question 7, Survey 5.

19


Euphemisms

The following analysis will be based on survey questions nº 5, 6, 9 and 1115 where the

majority of the survey respondents16 stated that they include euphemisms in their speeches

intentionally with three different audiences such as students, colleagues, superiors and

parents.

Seeing that euphemisms counterbalance the illocutionary force of negatively loaded

terms, most of surveyed teachers have admitted their employment is crucial "especially

with students who are really sensitive."17 As a matter of fact, since euphemisms are less

likely to arouse feelings (Carroll, 2004) they tend to be teachers' favoured choice to

produce a more tolerable speech:

I had students who were unusually sensitive and I do recall having given one of them helpful feedback on his piece of writing and his eyes watered. I felt so guilty. At times euphemisms and tentative language ARE a must. They make things more tolerable. It's also a good idea to bear in mind what your student is like. You need to ask yourself if your students are used to being given constructive criticism.18

Survey respondents have also noticed the use and lack of euphemisms use when

conversations are exchanged at the teachers' lounge. On the one hand the choice to use

them derives from the fact that euphemism are delicate, they are used to replace a concept

that "seems to be either taboo, too harsh or simply inappropriate for a given conversational

exchange." (Duda, 2011, p. 7) One of the surveyed teachers revealed that her "colleagues

talk about students having concentration problems"19 instead of admitting students being

15 The survey results are found in the Appendix below.16 Note: the examples used are verbatim extracts from written surveys attached in the Appendix.17 Question 11, Survey 318 Question 11, Survey 619 Euphemism used instead of the terms idleness or inattention (Holder, 2002, pp. 79)

20


idle or inattentive - terms which have negative emotive content (Carroll, 2004). She

expresses that "the material they're using is not appealing. It's not like students are ignorant

or stupid... on the contrary!"20 On the other hand, the lack of euphemisms use in the

teachers' lounge is due to the fact that teachers are relaxed around colleagues and express

themselves freely regardless recurring to negatively loaded terms:

[I]f I were to take half of what teachers (in staff rooms) say, I would think students are scam [sic], idiots, the enemy. If I were to take what students say, I would simply be irresponsible.21

In the circumstance of communicating information to superiors, the surveyed

teachers commented on intentionally using euphemisms. For example one of the

respondents mentioned the fact of manipulating speech so as to replace terms with negative

emotive content (Carroll, 2004), "I embellish my speech as well. [Headmasters] love seeing

that you know what you're doing…"22 In addition, when providing information about their

work as teachers and their students’ performance they employ euphemisms to mislead and

replace unpleasant realities. (Carroll, 2004) For instance, to replace the terms "lazy" or

"inattentive" one respondent applied the euphemistic phrase "not very well predisposed to

working" justifying that "it is very hard to motivate [students]"23

On the subject of teachers' highly euphemistic discourse, 40% of the survey

respondents affirmed they employ euphemisms when communicating to parents during

parents meetings. Their intentional use of euphemisms is justified by the fact that they

want to avoid harsh criticism by applying a "silver lining"24. This phenomenon is illustrated

20 Question 5, Survey 521 Question 6, Survey 1522 Question 9, Survey 1223 Question 5, Survey 1124 Question 7, Survey 14


in the following examples where they lessen their speech by employing euphemisms

instead of offensive terms for a successful communication (Wang, 2013): "of course, we

always use euphemisms. Without them you can't get your message across,"25

I have to soften the message when [students] have problems both with their behaviour and performance. "He finds it difficult to..." "He has some dofficulties in..." "He doesn´t behave the way we expect" "He has a lot of potential but...”26

Several respondents agreed to that fact, especially when talking about performance: "if

[students'] performance is not good, I tell [parents] that but in a nice way. I don't want to

use negative adjectives but I don't want to lie."27 Others explained:

I talk about my student's perfomance very respectfully to their parents. Always trying to tell them the good things about their children first and then move on to the things they need to work on a bit more.28

When I attended parent-teacher meetings over a year, I learnt to weigh my words as far as I could especially when talking about their children's performance for some parents may take teachers' criticism very much to heart. Some can even get a little too emotional so I had to be extremely careful. At times, I felt like saying: your kid is a good-for-nothing - even if they know it deep down - but I had to bite my tongue.29

I focus on there strengths and weeknesses. Eg. Academically speaking he is doing well but there are behavioural issues we are working on and we need to keep working on still.30

Additionally, some teachers mentioned the fact that euphemisms render a pleasant and

respectful exchange of ideas for instance, “It saves face, you know…"31 as well as

25 Question 11, Survey 1826 Question 7, Survey 727 Question 7, Survey 1828 Question 7, Survey 1029 Question7, Survey 630 Question 7, Survey 2231 Question 11, Survey 13


I always start by telling them the positive things their children have and try to tell them what they must improve as mildly as possible, but making them understand that they must change.32

As illustrated, speech is intentionally manipulated to communicate effectively. In this case,

these teachers resort to euphemisms instead of an offensive term " to avoid possible loss of

face: either one’s own face or, through giving offense, that of the audience, or of some third

party.” (Duda, 2011, p. 8)

In addition, the employment of hedging and mitigation is a distinctive phenomenon

that occurs at parents meetings alongside with the use of euphemisms. The former consist

of "using language that appears to commit one to a particular view, but because of its

wording, allows one to retreat from that view. [It] is a way to evade the risk of

commitment." (Carroll, 2004, p. 38) The latter is defined by the Oxford Online Dictionary

as "the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something."33

Teachers made it explicit that they resort to hedging and mitigation "especially when

talking to parents"34 for example, "I present the problem without getting too deep into the

real problem. I mean, we must be subtle"35, "in the case of underachievers36, I tell their

parents that they are in need of..., that something is not yet reached..., sometimes that they

need t develop their self esteem"37 and

32 Question 7, Survey 333 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ 34 Question 11, Survey 7, 11 and 2235 Question 7, Survey 2336 Euphemism used to express failure through nervousness or ill-health (Holder, 2002, pp. 420)37 Question 7, Survey 4


I always highlight both positive and negative things (or things to be 'worked on') I'm not going to tell them: hey, my classroom is full of backward38

students... I use a bit of mitigation in my speech.39

Once more, speech has been manipulated intentionally through the use of euphemisms,

hedging and mitigation so as "to attenuate the negative illocutionary force a taboo word or

phrase has." (Duda, 2011, p. 8)

Labelling, expectations and motivation

The following analysis will be based on survey questions nº 5 to 1040 where more than 30%

of the survey respondents41 provided relevant information as regards their labelling habits.

The process of label fixation derive from expectations which eventually become

internalised principles yielding into a habit, role play or ways to experience the world.

(Nash, 2001) In the education field, labels are placed upon students in relation to their

academic performance or personality. Those traits become overt depending on the degree

of engagement students have in class as well as the motivation they get while performing

academically. (Ercole, 2009) For example, many surveyed teachers mentioned this

connection between personality and academic performance through stereotyping and

making generalizations about their students,

Children who love movement and can´t stay sitting on a chair would rarely pay attention to a listening activity if it doesn't involve some kind of physical action, for example.42

38 Euphemism used to indicate a student performs poorly in a class of normal children (Holder, 2002, p. 18)39 Question 7, Survey 840 The survey results are found in the Appendix below.41 Note: the examples used are verbatim extracts from written surveys attached in the Appendix.42 Question 12, Survey 14


Children who feel the need to constantly be moving around the classroom and do away with the extra energy it has affects their performance during the lesson. It's curious but those are the children my headmaster says theu are learning disabled...43

Students who were a little shy, turned out to be better students than those who bothered other classmates or didn't pay attention in class. However, […] I have two very noisy students who are the best of the class. Our expectations have an important role in our Ss work as well.44

In the school where I work, the kids who can't cope with the lesson or their marks are low are taken to the library so they have like private lessons and they really improve!45

As illustrated, labels and “the concepts of expectancy and stereotypy have overlapping and

cyclical relationships with stigmatization, rejection, and social distance.” (Osterholm, Nash

and Kritsonis, 2007, p. 6) The last example, particularly, reflects students’ segregation

because of their academic performance. In the classroom,

[N]onlabeled students bore witness when labeled students [are] called to a special place for special students. The social distancing phenomenon inherent in such segregation is a concern, [...] physical separation from non-labeled peer is disheartening and potentially stigmatizing. (Osterholm, Nash and Kritsonis, 2007, p. 7)

Teachers also commented on labels and motivation by referring to the Pygmalion effect -

defined as "the phenomenon whereby the greater the expectation placed upon people, the

better they perform."46

I would say that a basic thing would be to encourage students all the time (as with the Pygmalion effect) to do their very best.47

43 Question 12, Survey 344 Question 12, Survey 1045 Question 5, Survey 446 Retrieved from http://www.wikipedia.org/ 47 Question 13, Survey 10


Yes. Theis performance mirrors the motivation they get. If you don't reward your Ss they'll think they're bad ones. Even if you have your own personal opinion about your Ss, you can't let that interfere with their work.48

The more motivated students are, the better they would perform since " there is

nothing more demotivating than a teacher saying ‘this group is talking all the time, they

don't work, etc.'"49 However some teachers display a "discrepancy between their [students’]

cognitions and their actions” and there is a predisposition to base their interaction only on

academic achievement, leaving encouragement exclusively to those who perform better.

(Ercole, 2009) Furthermore, teachers who motivate and stereotypy their students in a biased

manner may not be aware of their behaviour. "We tend to stereotype our Ss even if we don't

think we're doing it. Sometimes we don't realice."50 Although differed encouragement “is

practiced by well-intentioned individuals who do not see themselves as being biased”, the

effect unconscious actions and labels produce would make the process of eliminating

[labels] extremely difficult.” (Mio, Barker & Tumambing in Ercole, 2009, p. 32)

Lastly, whether the process of labelling occurs in consciously or unconsciously,

eventually the pervasiveness of negative or deviant labels would provoke a detrimental

effect upon students' performance. Some survey respondents confirm that "[students] with

disruptive behaviour perform less than the rest"51 and they express the result of how

persistent labels can be by saying “it is getting harder and harder to deal with kids and

adolescents nowadays because they tend to involve with drugs or alcohol."52 Ultimately, as

Ercole mentions in Labeling in the Classroom: Teacher Expectations and their Effects on

48 Question 12, Survey 22

49 Question 7, Survey 1950 Question 12, Survey 2351 Question 12, Survey 1552 Question 6, Survey 1


Students' Academic Potential, persistent labels would eventually yield in students'

disengaging “from the schooling process [resulting in] alienation [and] high engagement in

unhealthy behaviours.” (Ercole, 2009, p. 9)


Conclusion

The conclusions drawn after a detailed field research have shown specific discourse

characteristics in connection with Teacher Talk. Due to the vastness the term Teacher Talk

implies, the focus of this paper and the information retrieved from the surveys lied on its

three most salient attributes which are the use of doublespeak, euphemisms and labels.

Primarily, most surveyed teachers made put emphasis on the fact that they

intentionally speculate by using doublespeak with their colleague teachers and superiors.

They stated that their discourse is highly euphemistic as well, so as to communicate

respectfully and save their face especially when confronting their students' parents. The

third and last salient feature analysed was labelling which resulted being the hardest

characteristic to be traced and retrieved from the surveyed teachers' testimonies. The data

interpretation has shed light upon the fact that most of teachers unconsciously label their

students and such label fixation impacts on the students' academic performance since

labelled students receive decreased motivation from their teachers.

Regarding the employment of doublespeak while Teacher Talk unfolds at school, it

is a fact that 50% of the surveyed teachers admitted its intentional application. Teachers

stated that when addressing to superiors they resort to the use of jargon doublespeak so as

to show professionalism and sound complex, profound and important. (Carroll, 2004)

Additionally, the fact that teachers know their superiors make use of such strategy in order

to obscure their speech intentionally as to portray a positive, attractive and tolerable reality

became overt. (Lutz in Carroll, 2004)

Furthermore, the application of jargon connected to the education discipline has

been manifested by several survey respondents. They mentioned situations where jargon


was uttered such as when addressing the coordinator, the educational psychologist or

teachers from their same department. As a matter of fact, surveyed teachers suggested

avoiding the use of jargon when communicating with people outside their field (Zacharias,

2001) such as teachers from other departments or parents. The result of applying jargon in

Teacher Talk is that it produces two polarised effects depending on the audience, which are

convergence or divergence. (Zacharias, 2001).

With reference to euphemisms in Teacher Talk, most surveyed respondents revealed

their speeches are densely euphemistic in a premeditated manner. They are aware that

euphemisms counterbalance the illocutionary force of negatively loaded terms (Duda,

2011) so they use them with sensitive students since many of them are not used to

constructive criticism and they especially use them at parents meetings. 90% of the teachers

surveyed mentioned the term “parents” in their answers alongside with the term “respect”

and “euphemisms”. They admitted embellishing their speeches and making use of “silver

linings” to “save face” and to achieve a successful communication (Wang, 2013) with

parents when talking about their children’s performance.

Interestingly, other Teacher Talk components were mentioned by many survey

respondents when they were talking about euphemisms which had not been taking into

consideration when forming the thesis for this paper. Those are “hedging,” which entails

retreating from a specific view so as to evade commitment, (Carroll, 2004) and

“mitigation,” which reduces the severity and painfulness of the information being told.

Once more, the application of hedging and mitigation exclusively occurred when the

surveyed teachers met their students’ parents. Teachers said they did not want to “get too

deep in the real problem”, that they wanted to be “subtle” or “highlight positive things.”

29


Apropos of the labelling theory, only 30% of the survey respondents revealed their

alleged labelling habits which lead to a punctilious analysis of the reduced data collected.

The surveyed teachers resorted to generalizations and stereotypes to talk about their

students’ performance by naming their personality and their behaviour being the reasons

why their academic performance was poor. One teacher mentioned the label “learning

disabled” and another mentioned her students being taken to the library, to a “special place”

where they would perform better by means of separating such students from the rest of the

group. Survey respondents also related labels with motivation by mentioning the

“Pygmalion effect.” Lastly, some of them were attentive when disclosed that the labelling

process could be unconscious; however they acknowledge that labels have a detrimental

effect on their students’ performance: “If you don't reward your Ss they'll think they're bad

ones.53”

To conclude, Teacher talk is considered to have a high impact on students’ personal

and academic performance. Whether doublespeak, euphemisms or labels are applied

conscious or unconsciously, students will sense the differed treatment they receive from us

teachers. The higher expectations the better, since they will motivate each student in the

classroom raising marks instead of having a detrimental effect on them. The results in this

research have shown that there is a vast number of teachers who are aware of Teacher Talk

influence; however, results also have shed light on the fact that if we reflect upon the

language we use at school, we can approach students by means of Teacher Talk positively,

motivationally and non-judgementally.

53 Question 12, Survey 22

30


Works Cited

Carroll, R. (2004) Chapter Two - Language and Critical Thinking. Becoming a Critical

Thinker: A Guide for the New Millennium. USA: Pearson Learning Solutions.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Chomsky on Miseducation. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,

INC.

Duda, B. (2011) Euphemisms and dysphemisms: in search of a boundary line. CLAC,

ISSN-e 1576-4737, Nº. 45, p. 3-19. Retrieved from

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ejemplar?codigo=285199

Ercole, J. (2009). Labeling in the Classroom: Teacher Expectations and their Effects on

Students' Academic Potential. Honors Scholar Theses. Paper 98. University of

Connecticut. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/98

Holder, R. W. (2002) How Not to Say What You Mean: A Dictionary of Euphemisms. New

York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc.

Nash, R. (2001, January). The Real Bourdieu: Falsity, Euphemism and Truth in Theories of

Reproduction. ACE Papers Issue 8, p. 54- 69. Retrieved from

http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/ace-issue8

Osterholm, K., Nash, W. and Kritsonis, W. (2007) Effects of Labeling Students "Learning

Disabled": Emergent Themes in the Research Literature 1970 Through 2000.

FOCUS on Colleges, Universities & Schools; Vol. 1 N. 1. Texas, USA: National

FORUM Journals.

Wang, M. (2013, August) Corpus Analysis of English Euphemism in College English.

English Language Teaching, Vol. 6 Issue 8, p156- 161.Canadian Center of Science

and Education.

31

http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/ace-issue8

http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/98

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ejemplar?codigo=285199


Zacharias, G. (2001, September) A Question of Audience: Academic Double Talk. 2000

MAASA Presidential Address, 125-135. Retrieved from

https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/issue/view/251.

32

https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/issue/view/251


Appendix

teacher talk by ml rodriguez

Documents

teacher talk doublespeak

introductionteacher

way teachers

teachers preconception

students parents

contexts of teachers

application of doublespeak

labelling mara luca