Discourse strategies of lecturers in higher education classroom interaction : a case at the University Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2013.ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study investigates how linguistic super diversity is managed in a higher education context in Tanzania. Specifically, the use of language in lectures to large classes made up of students with linguistically diverse backgrounds at the University of Dar es Salaam is in focus. Considering the multilingualism of the students as well as the lecturers, and a language-in-education policy, which prescribes English as the language of teaching and learning, the study is interested in the perceptions and practices of those teaching big numbers of students in large lecture halls. The data comprised eight recorded lectures and interviews with the respective lecturers. The intention was to identify, describe, document and analyse interactional strategies that lecturers use, particularly the discourse strategies that lecturers use in conveying new information at a relatively sophisticated level of academic rhetoric, and to facilitate interaction between them and students. With large numbers of students in the audience, and given that they are first year students new to the university-spoken register, lecturers are likely to make remarkable language choices consciously or unconsciously. Conversational Analysis (CA) and Discourse Analysis (DA) approaches facilitated the identification and analysis of conversational and discursive features of lectures as part of spoken registers that are generically used in university teaching. The analysis particularly considered the linguistic diversity of the participants in the higher education context in Tanzania and how lecturers use language to cater for such diversity. The sample involved eight lecturers, four from each of two departments regarded among those with the highest student numbers in the College of Arts and Social Sciences of the University of Dar es Salaam, namely the Department of Political Science and Public Administration and the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology. The findings indicate that lecturers use a selected number of both propositional and structural discourse strategies during lecture sessions. The three most notable propositional discourse strategies are repetition, use of questions, and use of code switching between English and Kiswahili. Lecturers use phrasal and clausal types of repetition to achieve cohesion, topic continuity and emphasis. They use tag, rhetorical, open and closed types of questions to check for comprehension, to stimulate higher level thinking, to manage classroom behaviour as well as to encourage students' participation and independent study. They also use inter and intra sentential types of code switching to engage with students, to translate some concepts, explain, and manage students' behaviour and to advise or encourage students. Regarding structural discourse strategies, the study shows that lecturers notably use discourse markers so and now as cohesive devices, marking such textual functions as framing, linking and showing consequential relationships. They use the discourse markers so and now to achieve similar communicative goals as those achieved using propositional discourse strategies. In referring to themselves or their audience, they use specific pronouns you, we, and I, to perform different functions. They use the pronoun you not only as an interactive device, but also as an explanatory device of significance in classroom interaction. They use the pronoun we not only as a solidarity device, but like you, also as a strong explanatory device. They also use the pronoun I to mark speaker's knowledge and his or her stance about it, and speaker's circumstance and experience. This study not only describes generic features and language practices in big lectures; it also engages critically with some of the established practices and in so doing adds to the literature on individual and societal multilingualism and how lecturers manage it in an African higher education context.AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie is 'n studie van die wyses waarop talige superdiversiteit binne 'n konteks van hoër onderwys in Tanzanië bestuur word. Meer spesifiek, word aandag gegee aan die gebruik van tale gedurende lesings vir groot klasse wat bestaan uit studente met talig diverse agtergronde. Met inagneming van die veeltaligheid van die studente sowel as die dosente, asook 'n taal-in-onderrig-beleid wat Engels as die taal van onderrig en leer voorskryf, stel die studie belang in die persepsies en praktyke van diegene wat groot getalle studente in groot lesinglokale onderrig. Die studie is kwalitatief dáárin dat dit gewerk het met 'n beperkte aantal opnames van lesings en van onderhoude met die dosente wie se klasse opgeneem is. Die bedoeling was om die mees opvallende interaksionele strategieë wat by die Universiteit van Dar es Salaam aangewend word, te identifiseer, te beskryf, te dokumenteer en ook te analiseer. Veral is gekyk na die diskoersstrategieë wat dosente gebruik om nuwe inligting op 'n redelik gesofistikeerde vlak van akademiese retoriek oor te dra, en om interaksie tussen die dosent en die studentegehoor te fasiliteer. Die generiese eienskappe van hierdie lesings is geïdentifiseer deur die hele reeks opnames na te gaan. Die groot getal studente in die gehoor en die gegewe dat hulle eerstetaalsprekers van 'n verskeidenheid verskillende gemeenskapstale is, sal dosente noodwendig, bewustelik of onbewustelik, interessante taalkeuses maak. Die feit dat beide Engels en Swahili amptelike tale in Tanzanië is, dat die meerderheid studente vlot sprekers van Swahili is, selfs al het hulle hulle hoërskoolonderrig deur die medium van Engels ontvang, lei tot die aannames dat (i) Swahili 'n sterk lingua franca tussen sprekers van verskillende eerstetale is, en (ii) voortgesette hoër onderrig deur die medium van Engels onproblematies behoort te wees. Die benaderings van Gespreksanalise (GA) en Diskoersanalise (DA) het die identifikasie en analise van gesprekseienskappe en diskursiewe eienskappe van lesings as deel van die gesproke registers wat generies in universiteitsonderrig gebruik word, gefasiliteer. Die analise het veral in die talige diversiteit van die deelnemers in die konteks van hoër onderrig in Tanzanië en in die wyse waarop die dosente vir hierdie diversiteit voorsiening maak, belanggestel. Die deelnemers aan hierdie studie was agt dosente, vier elk uit twee departemente met die hoogste studentetal by die Kollege van Kuns en Sosiale Wetenskappe van die Universiteit, naamlik die Departement Politieke Wetenskap en Publieke Administrasie en die Departement Sosiologie en Sosiale Antropologie. Die bevindinge dui daarop dat dosente gereeld en generies 'n telbare aantal proposisionele en strukturele diskoersstrategieë gedurende lesings gebruik. Die drie mees opvallende proposisionele diskoersstrategieë is herhaling, die gebruik van vrae en die gebruik van kodewisseling tussen Engels en Swahili. Dosente gebruik frase- sowel as klousherhaling om kohesie, kontinuïteit van die onderwerp en klem te bewerkstellig. Hulle gebruik einddeel-, retoriese en oop en geslote tipe vrae om begrip te toets, om 'n hoër denkvlak te stimuleer, om die gedrag in die klaskamer te beheer, asook om die studente se deelname en onafhanklike studie aan te moedig. Hulle gebruik ook kodewisseling binne en tussen sinne ten einde nouer met die studente te skakel, sekere konsepte te vertaal, studente se optrede te verduidelik, te vertaal en te beheer en studente te adviseer of aan te moedig. Betreffende die strukturele diskoersstrategieë toon die studie aan dat die diskoersmerkers so en now wyd deur dosente gebruik word as kohesiemeganismes wat tekstuele funksies soos raming, skakeling en oorsaaklike verhoudinge aandui. Hulle wend die diskoersmerkers so en now aan om dieselfde kommunikatiewe doelwitte te bereik as dié wat bereik is met die gebruik van proposisionele diskoersstrategieë. In verwysing na hulleself of die toehoorders, span hulle spesifiek die voornaamwoorde you, we en I in om verskillende referensiële funksies of aanspreek funksies te verrig. Die voornaamwoord you word nie slegs as 'n interaktiewe meganisme gebruik nie, maar ook as 'n beduidende verklarende meganisme in klaskamer interaksie. Hulle gebruik die voornaamwoord we nie net as 'n samehorigheids-meganisme nie, maar ook, soos you, as 'n sterk verklarende meganisme. Hulle gebruik ook die voornaamwoord I om sprekerskennis te merk en sy/haar houding daaromtrent uit te druk, asook die spreker se omstandighede en ervaring. In die analise word aandag gegee aan relevante aspekte van tweetalige onderrig, die gebruik van Engels as 'n lingua franca, en die verskynsel van kodewisseling in akademiese diskoers binne 'n veeltalige onderrigkonteks. Die studie beskryf nie alleen generiese eienskappe en taalpraktyke in groot groep lesings nie; dit oorweeg ook sekere gevestigde gebruike in groot lesings dra daarmee by tot die literatuur oor invividuele en gemeenskaplike veeltaligheid en hoe dit hanteer word deur dosente in 'n hoër onderwyskonteks in Afrika.The African Doctoral Academy (ADA) for awarding me a full scholarship for full time doctoral study; the financial assistance the University of Dar es Salaam furnished me with through the Directorate of Research and Publication

The sequential and moral (dis)order of public disputes: how speakers resist, partition and do being reasonable in talk-in-interaction

This thesis puts forward a strong argument for why more up-to-date interactional research is needed into disputes and why disciplines, methodological approaches and theories should come second to the phenomenon. This thesis investigates how people behave in disputes. Disputes are a ubiquitous part of everyday life – we know a great a deal about disputes in particular contexts, how people disagree, and how disputes can be resolved. However, little is known about the specific interactional features of public disputes. Public disputes are disputes which occur in a public place where there are onlookers – for instance, on public transport, on the radio, or during protests, for instance. These are activities which regularly occur throughout everyday life as our opinions, beliefs, views, identity and/or knowledge etc. clash. This research examines actual, naturally-occurring disputes between strangers in public. The focus is on the ways that people challenge those contestations, resist those challenges, and manage their relationship with their co-disputant.The data comprises a corpus of over 100 recordings of disputes between members of the public. The data were collected, transcribed, and analysed within an ethnomethodological framework using a combination of conversation analysis, membership categorisation analysis, and discursive psychology in order to demonstrate how the phenomenon is handled sequentially and rhetorically. This combination of approaches centres the phenomena rather than focusing on the application of methods. The three analytic chapters are organised around different features of disputes and address the overall structural organisation of a dispute.The first analytic chapter inspects enticing sequences, which is a way that a challenge can be produced that reverses the logic of the other’s argument. This chapter (Chapter 3) builds on previous research, and lays the groundwork for the other chapters, to show the sequential placement and forms of resistance to challenges. This illustrates resistance as a solution to the practical problem of being trapped in a challenge with nowhere to go. The second analytic chapter investigates how people do partitioning, that is, how they exploit the boundaries of their situated identity, or category (i.e. from radio caller to father). This chapter (Chapter 4) shows how people reconfigure their relationship with their co-disputant(s), and how certain actions (i.e. requests, directives, instructions) trade on the relevance of this new relationship. The final analytic chapter examines how people work to appear ‘reasonable’ in a dispute. People seek to win a dispute and one way of accomplishing that is to be the ‘reasonable’ person relative to the other’s unreasonable behaviour. In this chapter (Chapter 5), I unpack this to show how, through meta-talk, people present their behaviour as reasonable, or the other’s behaviour as unreasonable, to produce a purportedly-rational argument. I reveal that whilst participants rarely express reasonableness, they do respond to transgressions of conversational norms (i.e. turn-taking, sequence). Consequently, this accomplishes a turn-at-talk and a chance to control the direction of the dispute.The thesis presents a state-of-the-art examination of disputative interactions and contributes significantly to our understanding of the structural organisation of disputes and how people behave in public places. Throughout the course of the thesis, I establish frameworks for future research that combine ethnomethodological approaches, deals with the ‘messiness’ and difficulty of public video-recordings, and develops an understanding of what a dispute actually is.</div