tianzhi(terrence) zhang€¦ · web viewclassroom discourse. report of final project. die zhu,...
TRANSCRIPT
APLNG 586 Classroom DiscourseReport of final projectDie Zhu, Shuzhan Jiao & Tianzhi Zhang12/5/2017
Introduction of the topic
This final project addresses the function of okay which is naturally occurred in the
classroom conversation. Generally speaking, “Okay is viewed as a transition and marker of
common ground” (Looney et al., 2017, p. 47), and various Conversation Analysis studies have
delved into the okay both in mundane and institutional contexts. The pioneering study of okay
in academic contexts, which is done by Levin & Gary (1983) and based on the data in the lecture
context, summarizes four functions of okay: introduction, elaboration, conclusion, and
embedded hesitation (p. 197). In Liao (2009), the study focusing on how the Chinese teaching
assistants use discourse markers in their L2 English identifies okay as the function of
comprehension check to make sure that the teaching assistants and the students share
intersubjectivity. Additionally, Schleef (2015) revisits the Levin & Gary (1983) and further
concludes that okay also serves as the textual marker and the attention getter in the lecture
context.
Apart from serving as a marker of transition, or so-called “interpersonal functions”
(Looney et al., 2017, p. 46), Looney et al. (2017) innovatively proposes that okay serves
“concurrent and overlapping intra- and inter-personal functions” (p. 58). Supporting with the
examples, this article demonstrates that okay is also used to initiate the self-directed talk of the
L2 teaching assistants in mathematics classroom contexts. Based on these findings, this final
report collects all of okay examples out of a set of videos which was taped in an ESL grammar
classroom, and analyzes the examples from the perspective of Conversation Analysis. The main
purpose of this final paper is twofold: first, exploring the feature of the sequential positions of
examples of okay in the data; second, categorizing the function of okay supported with the
excerpts from the data.
In the following sections, we will describe the background information of our data
source, introduce the analytic framework utilized for the data analysis, present five functions
that we extract from the data, and finally make a conclusion with one preliminary suggestion
for the future direction.
Description of data source
Our analysis is based on CA concepts and the study of classroom interaction. The data
come from an ESL grammar class, a set of 98-minute videos divided into six clips.
Students are placed in the class of grammar level 4. We have both students’ view and
teacher’s view of the same class, so we can not only listen to their utterances and interactions
but observe their body language as well. And we see so many classroom interactions in our
video, and most of them have much CA value to analyze.
As for the contents of the class, at the very beginning of the class, the teacher sets a
reminder on the mid-term exam, then, two students give their presentation individually. During
that time, there are many interactions in both verbal and nonverbal actions between the
teacher and the students, or among students. After that, the teacher together with students
goes over the homework about passive voice and goes over a list of exercises assigned last
class. The whole class are trying to solve the problem they encounter, and in this part, the
teaching language is attractive for us to analyze.
As we endeavor to analyze the discourse marker okay in this 98-minute video, totally we
find 49 tokens of okay. Except 3 of them are not regarded as the discourse marker (e.g., “I am
okay”), we analyze other 46 tokens in sequential way and functional way. Most of them are said
by the teacher and some of them are said by several students.
Analytic framework
As we have mentioned, we try to analyze the discourse marker okay in two ways
combining with nonverbal language. One way is to analyze and locate their sequential
positions, and the other way is to observe and categorize their functional meanings. Moreover,
we pay attention to the non-verbal actions when okay appears, which is another aspect we
consider during the analyzing phase.
We conclude four sequential positions of okay—Turn Initial Okay, Turn Medial Okay,
Turn Final Okay and Stand-alone Okay. As we all know, okay can be produced in various
positions within a turn, so our first three categories include Turn Initial Okay, Turn Medial Okay
and Turn Final Okay. However, what if the okay does not belong to any turn before and after it?
That is to say, such okay is a turn itself and the action of okay is not accomplished by its prior or
later turn. In terms of this situation, we have our last category—Stand-alone Okay, in which is
borrowed the idea from Raymond (2004). Although Raymond analyzed the other discourse
marker so, his main idea is similar to ours, which refers to “participants use to prompt action by
a recipient”, and “a distinctive practice for interaction by examining the sequential environment
in which is produced, the range of contingencies it can be used to manage” (Raymond, 2004, p.
185).
During the intensive communications and interactions in the video, sometimes it is hard
to distinguish and categorize those four sequential positions clearly, especially when it comes to
Turn Medial Okay and Stand-alone Okay. We decide their positions based on two methods: 1)
detect the noticeable pauses; 2) check the completion of turn constructional units. The first
method is to see whether there is noticeable pause before and after okay. For example, if there
is a relatively long pause around okay, presumably such okay is a Stand-alone Okay. However,
the duration of the pause is insufficient to distinguish turns clearly. Hence, scrutinizing whether
the particular utterance is pragmatically completed to accomplish some interpersonal actions in
the context of our data is the other way to recognize turns. That is to say, we focus on TCU to
verify the position of okay. If we affirm the okay is the action accomplished by its prior turn, it’s
a Turn Final Okay. However, since it’s a classroom context, there are many scenes which the
teacher gives a monologue—reading the text or explaining the right answer. Such long
monologue is a big TCU including several small TCUs. If an okay is between two smaller TCUs
but in a big TCU, we, in this case, combine with non-verbal aspect to reconsider which turn the
okay belongs to.
Hereinbefore, we have discussed the sequential aspect of the framework. The other
aspect of our theoretical framework emphasizes on functional meanings. After reviewing and
analyzing each okay on our data, we conclude five functional meanings of okay in our 98-
minute video. They are served as disalignment mitigator, self-directed talk, display of
understanding, comprehension check and attention getter. In the following part, we will extract
the most representative pieces of okay to further explain these functions.
Nonverbal actions play an important role in our transcribing process. On one hand, as
we mentioned before, nonverbal actions can help us verify which turn the okay belongs to. On
the other hand, it is a good signal to help us distinguish the okay’s functional meaning. To be
more specific, if an okay is combined with the rising-head actions to look at others and with the
gesture of grasping the air, we can categorize such okay as the attention getter in order to catch
recipients’ attentions. In our transcript, we add elaborate gesture-speech in order to analyze
the data more accurately and reasonably. Sometimes, we watch one small segment of both
teacher’s view and students’ view alternately in order to make sure how the nonverbal
language is embedded in the conversation.
Transcription procedures
When we decide to focus on discourse markers in our data, we find several markers
which appear frequently in our data, such as oh, so, okay and so on. Later, after searching and
reading relatively studies, we decide to focus on okay, because in this aspect, its findings are
not as many as others. Once we decide to analyze okay, we extract 49 tokens of okay from our
video and compose rough transcripts where the okay appears. The next task is to analyze and
categorize them one by one. Some controversial pieces are reconsidered based on two
principles mentioned before.
We find it interesting that our original decisions is changing along with the editing of
transcripts. After extending and adding more details to our transcripts, a complete description
of the interactions helps us understand the position and function of okays more accurately.
Moreover, when we strive to involve the nonverbal language into our transcript, we have to
redefine the functions. In this way, we become aware that classroom analysis is not only based
on what we hear but what we see as well.
The function of okay
“Okay + laughter” as a disalignment mitigator
According to the Pomerantz (1984), the key issues in the structure around “preference”
and “dispreference” concern “the alignment in which a second action stands to a first, and the
alignment which recipients take up toward a first pair part by the second pair part which
implements their response” (Pomerantz, 1984, as cited in Schegloff, 1995, p. 59). Therefore, if
the second pair part (henceforth SSP) is received as not contributing to the progressivity of the
conversation, it is seen as a dispreferred SSP. In one of our transcripts, we identify the “okay +
laughter” as an integral chunk serves to mitigate a dispreferred response.
Excerpt 1
In this excerpt, the teacher starts to introduce the agenda of the class on that day from
line 7. She firstly introduces that there are two students who are designated to give
presentations and calls their names in line 10. At the same time, the teacher also points (line 9;
fig. 1, frame 1,2) those two students and has eye contacts with them. Then, the teacher leans
leftward and makes a palm down gesture, also has eye contacts with two presenters (line 14;
fig 1, frame 3). At this moment, combined with the 2.2 second gap (line 13) and the array of
non-verbal actions, teacher is waiting for responses from the two students’. Later on, when the
teacher notices that there is no response from the two students regardless of verbal or
nonverbal (line 14; fig. 1, frame 5,6), the teacher produces an okay (with soft voice) which is
followed by the laughter, and takes her hands back and leans backward to her left side (line 17;
fig. 1, frame 4).
Fig. 1
As Schegloff (1995) claimed, “a dispreferred response may be mitigated even to the
vanishing point, i.e., where the dispreferred response is not in fact articulated at all” (p. 64). In
this excerpt, the missed verbally responses and the blank faces of two presenters is viewed
dispreferred by the teacher. Therefore, when the teacher is aware of the awkwardness in line
14, she produces a softer and faster okay relative to the surrounding utterances, and following
with the laughter to alleviate the situation where there is no anticipated response from
students. In this vein, we believe that the “okay + laughter” here is a disalignment mitigator to
deal with the dispreferred second pair part.
Self-directed okay
As described in Looney et al. (2017), in the classroom context, the self-directed okay is
“not only used for structuring lectures but is also crucial for the teachers themselves who use
self-directed okay to direct their own attention and vocalize thought processes” (p. 57).
According to our data, the self-directed okay regularly occurs at the point when the teacher or
the student is hesitating, thinking or processing the information in his or her mind, and it is
usually followed with a return of the previous topic or a brand-new topic. For illustrating, one
salient example presented here was happening during the presentation of one of students.
Excerpt 2
In Excerpt 2, the student explains the reason why he chooses the life and achievements
of Marie Curie as the topic of his presentation. In line 45, after his explanation, there is a
relatively long duration of pause when the student slowly walks back from the desk at the
center of the classroom to the table with the computer. Then, he initiates a question for his
classmates in line 46 with gazing toward the rest of students (line 47; Fig. 2) and waiting for the
responses. After a short gap, with detecting the absence of responses, the student decides to
move on to next section by stating “no (.) i will just continue on that,”. And then, the student
utters an okay with soft voice occurred after a noticeable silence, staring at the computer at the
same time (line 52; Fig. 2). Later on, the student starts to expand the new section of his
presentation.
Fig. 2
The okay here is regarded as a self-directed okay because it not only serves the interpersonal
function to shift to another topic, but also serves as the intrapersonal function of planning the
next step of the presentation in the student’s mind. Additionally, there is no eye gaze between
the presenter and the rest of students. The okay here indicates that the presenter conducts a
private speech at that moment.
Display of understanding
According to Bolden (2006), “the discourse marker ‘oh’ has been found to function as a
‘change-of-state’ token, indexing a change in the speaker’s knowledge, awareness, or attention
in response to some prior action” (Heritage, 1984a, as cited in Bolden, 2006). In our
presentation, we concluded the same function of okay as mentioned in Bolden (2006) as “mark
of state changing”, referring to the change of the epistemic state of students and the teacher.
After further deeper discussion, we find out that “okay” could be a signal of state changing,
which, especially in our data, is able to display interlocutors’ understanding, and keeps the
conversation moving on. As the result, we decide to conclude this function as display of
understanding. Okay could be used to show shared knowledge which may concern the general
knowledge, the knowledge of the outside world or the knowledge that relates to content that
students and teacher have already talked about. In our data, both students and the teacher use
okay to verify their understanding of the current state of the knowledge.
Excerpt 3 (display student’s understanding)
In excerpt 3, okay occurs after teacher’s turn, and initials student1’s turn in which student1
looks at the teacher during paraphrasing her understanding of teacher’s previous content, in
order to correct her knowledge to see if she understands in a right way. In line24, teacher
replays “doable”, and confirms Student1 and Student2’s understand by producing the synonym,
“doable” for “feasible”.
Comprehension check
After calculating the number of okays functioning as comprehension check, it mostly
occurs at the Turn Final position, especially when the tag-questions are produced. This kind of
okays is placed at the end of sentences and is used to monitor listeners’ comprehension. In ESL
setting, most of comprehension check okays appear with rising intonation. However, we cannot
simply define okay functioning as comprehension check only by its’ intonation and position.
In excerpt 4, there are two okays (in line 70 and line 71) occurred, and both of them appear
with rising intonation and in the same position. As a result, nonverbal action plays such an
important role in distinguishing okay’s functions.
Excerpt 4 (Comprehension check)
(line 70) (line 71)
Fig. 3
When the teacher says the first okay in line 70, she rises her head and looks around the
whole class. By looking at the student, she is waiting for possible responses or questions from
the students, and also checking whether they have understood her or not. Combined with the
teacher’s nonverbal language, we regard the first okay as comprehension check. For the second
okay in line 71, this okay is produced in a much softer voice. Besides, the teacher lows her head
down and looks at her book, when she says the second okay. Even the second okay (in line 71)
appears in the turn final with rising intonation, it works as a self-directed, because of the
nonverbal actions.
Attention getter
Okay with a falling tone in lectures is observed to function as attention getter, especially
when there are transitions between activities within the lecturers’ talk. It opens to a new round
of talk as illustrated in the following excerpt.
Excerpt 5
In excerpt 5, the teacher says okay loudly in line 52, and in line 54, the teacher starts to
talk in a loud voice to gain attention of the whole class. Combined with previous action, the
teacher has written on the board for almost 8.3 seconds (from line 49 to line 51), a loud voice of
okay, as well as, a loud start of sentence is a good way to draw students’ attention.
Excerpt 3
(line 20) (line 21)
Fig. 4
In excerpt 3, okay in line 21 also serves the function as attention getter. From the
nonverbal action, the teacher looks around the whole class, before Student1 says okay. After
Student1 says okay initiating her turn, teacher puts eyes gaze on her. Combined with these
nonverbal actions, Student1 uses okay as an attention getter successfully to gain teacher’s
attention.
Conclusion
Grounded in the foregoing discussion, first of all, it is safe to conclude that okay is
pervasively and regularly existed in the L2 classroom context. As cited in Looney et al. (2017),
“okay…, typically occurs around transitional spaces and is most often found at the beginning of
sections of discourse and less frequently at the end and in the middle of stretches of discourse”
(p. 47). The result of our analysis also demonstrates this statement. The majority of okays occur
as stand-alone okays which are filled into the gap between turns. Also, the Turn Initial Okay
frequently occurs to resume a topic mentioned before or initiate a brand-new topic.
Moreover, another notice is that, in most cases, one particular intonation contour is
regularly attached with one specific function of Okay. For instance, the comprehension check
okay is mostly produced with a rising intonation. The falling intonation is usually found when
the attention getter is uttered. We conclude that this phenomenon is the exemplification of the
teacher’s pattern of instruction which is generally formed and utilized along with her teaching
and interacting with students. Finally, as suggested in the section of self-directed okay and
change of state in knowledge okay, okay not only serves in interpersonal functions to make the
transition from one turn to another turn, but also serves in intrapersonal functions.
As for the future direction of studies on okay in talk-in-interaction, we suggest paying
more attention to okay which is produced by the students in various academic contexts such as
in the lab context or the seminar context. We conclude that the student-generated okay is less
frequently occurred by virtue of the only three student-generated okays identified in the data,
Hence, we wonder how and in what functions that okay is produced in other academic
contexts. To our knowledge, there are many studies probing into okay with mainly focusing on
instructors’ aspect in the classroom context. However, based on several preliminary findings
from our data, we believe that okay produced by students, which also plays a significant role in
the organization of turn-taking and organization of preference in classroom or other academic
contexts, is worthwhile to be meticulously analyzed in the future.
Reference
Bolden, G. B., (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers ‘‘So’’ and ‘‘Oh’’ and the doing
of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 661-668.
Levin, H., Gary, D., (1983). The lecturer’s OK. American speech (58), 195-200.
Looney, S.D., Jia. D., & Kimura, D., (2017). Self-directed okay in mathematics lectures. Journal of
Pragmatics, 107, 46-59.
Raymond, G., (2004). Prompting action: The Stand-Alone "So" in ordinary conversation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2). 185-218.
Schegloff, E. A., (1995). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis.
Cambridge University Press, 59. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest com/lib/pensu/detail.action?docID=295702.
Schleef, E., (2008). The “lecturer’s OK” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the
influence of academic division. American speech (83), 62-84.