26 research outputs found
Sharing knowledge with peers:Epistemic displays in collaborative writing of primary school children
In focus for this study are epistemic displays in peer talk, throughout collaborative writing events in the context of inquiry learning. Conversational data was obtained from small groups of primary school students (aged 8-12 years). By means of Conversation Analysis, we found that epistemic displays are produced as (i) accounts, (ii) responses to a request for information, (iii) other-corrections, and with reference to the propositional content of a previous epistemic display, as (iv) disagreements, and (v) expansions. The occurrence of epistemic displays is related to specific aspects of the writing activity, concerning contexts that require accounting or evoke expansions, and features of the participation framework. Our research contributes to the understanding of how collaborative writing activities establish contexts for sharing and discussing knowledge in peer talk, and are worth taking into account for educational professionals, when designing collaborative writing activities for that purpose
Text selection proposals in dialogic reading in primary school
In dialogic reading during inquiry learning in primary school, pupils read, think and talk together about text fragments for answering their research questions. This paper demonstrates from a conversational analytic perspective, how the shared activity of text selection is constructed in a goal oriented conversation and how text selection proposals are used. Two main practices are identified depending on the situation: (1) when all participants are reading the text for the first time, a text selection proposal is constructed with reading-out-loud fragments, and (2) when only one of the participants is reading the text, a text selection proposal is constructed with an indexical text reference and indicative summary of the topic. In bothpractices, a separate utterance that functions as a proposal is required to accomplish the complete text selection proposal turn
Text formulations as practices of demonstrating understanding in dialogic reading
This paper examines text formulations in the interaction between peers in primary school during dialogic reading, in inquiry learning settings. In this context pupils collaboratively use information from texts to answer their research questions. The data analyzed include 25 excerpts of pupils demonstrating understanding of text. We used Conversation Analysis to analyze how pupils demonstrate their understanding by the use of text formulations, as a specific type of formulations, and how these formulations function as a bridge between the reading action and the discussion of text content. Parallel to the types of conversational formulations (gist and upshot), we found two practices of demonstrating understanding, namely (1) formulating the gist of relevant text to demonstrate literal understanding, and (2) formulating an upshot to demonstrate how the text contributes to the reading goal. Both types are used to establish shared understanding of text, but focus the discussion as well on what participants find relevant information in the text to further talk about. To reach shared understanding and to use it for next steps, both interactants need to have access to the text in some way. This study contributes to our understanding of how pupils collaboratively use text to build their knowledge
Conversational functions of ‘I know’, ‘you know’ and ‘we know’ in collaborative writing of primary school children
This paper discusses how primary school students, who are writing together in the context of inquiry learning, explicitly orient to knowing of oneself and others within the peer group. Using Conversation Analysis, we disclose the conversational functions of assertions holding ‘I know’, ‘you know’ and ‘we know’. First, students position themselves as knowledgeable, to (i) express a preannouncement of a proposal, (ii) respond to a request for information and (iii) reinforce an assertion with use of an evidential. Second, students claim equal epistemic access, as a response to an action that conveys epistemic authority of a peer. Third, students indicate shared knowledge with other participants, to (i) pursue agreement, (ii) check the epistemic status of a co-participant, (iii) reject a proposal for grounds of relevance and (iv) mark shared, newfound knowledge. The different practices are discussed in terms of epistemics in conversation and dialogic writing
How primary school children address reading problems in dialogic reading
In dialogic reading during inquiry learning settings in primary school, pupils read, think and talk together about text fragments for answering their research questions. In this process, pupils may encounter reading problems, regarding word identification or meaning. Conversation analysis is used to demonstrate how these reading problems are collaboratively addressed. Word identification problems are mostly signalled implicitly during the genuine reading activity and are in most cases immediately corrected by the co-participant, to continue the reading activity as smooth as possible. Meaning problems are displayed more explicitly, by use of requests for information, that are explicit about the purpose, but not always explicitly addressed to the other participant. Therefore all participants, including the text in a principal role, can assist
Relationeel taalgebruik : conversationele strategieën in interpersonele en interculturele communicatie
This study is concerned with the functioning of language in the establishment of relationships
between conversationalists. In my introduction I shall explain the reasons for this investigation
into the relational aspects of language use. In part I (chapter 1 - 4) I shall discuss the theoretical
basis of the description of such a pragmatic language function. In part II (chapter 5 - 8) I shall
elaborate on three relational dimensions. Part III will deal with some relational aspects of
communication in intercultural, i.e. interethnic, contexts. The final chapter contains a summary
of the relevant relational aspects with reference to the development of a schismogenesis between
people.
Part I
Functional theories in linguistics may relate to either internal or organic functions. In the
description and explanation of grammatical structures internal functions may be used, whether
external (organic/activity indicating) functions are proposed or not. Without going into the
linguistic discussion between formalism and functionalism, concerning the grammatical structure
of the language, it will be clear that the study of language use must be seen, by definition, from
a functional perspective. The elementary activity indicating functions that may be distinguished,
might be based on the external components of the situation, or on the intentional states of the
speaker, which may (not) be lexicalized. Previous proposals for functional differentiation have
been discussed in relation to one another. I have tried to show that the elementary functions can
be best described on the basis of the elementary components of the speech situation. However,
we do have to take the interactional aspects of language use into account, and consequently the
components referring to the relationship between speaker and hearer. It is argued that the place
of relational function, concerning the social relationships between speaker and hearer, which
might be settled verbally, is, in addition to the well-known Bühlerian distinctions, an essential
aspect of language use. Many stylistic choices appear to be motivated by these social
relationships between speaker and hearer, realized and/or presupposed by the speaker.
Furthermore, the discourse function of language, i.e. the textual relation between utterances, is
considered to be a relevant aspect in the understanding of conversational interaction. As a result
I would propose a functional model, which may be seen as a pentagon (or a pyramid, depending
on where one places the referential function). I support the pentagon idea. Utterances may be
ascribed to one or all of these functions, presupposing a semantic description of the utterance.
The Speech Act theory could be considered one of the most prominent functional theories with
regard to the functionality of utterances in context, pointing out the propositional and contextual
conditions for special illocutionary acts to be executed. However, the taxonomies which are
proposed by several authors, do not provide an adequate description of relational functions. No
well-known taxonomy has used relational conditions and effects as a criterion. In Searle’s
taxonomy for instance, the relational component of illocutionary functions is considered to be
just one of the twelve possible criteria mentioned, and is considered to be not important enough
to form the basis of the taxonomy. Only Ballmer and Brennenstuhl’s taxonomy (concerning
speech act verbs) has made some room for speech acts with a special type of relationship (called
the ’struggle model’), but does not provide a description of speech acts that refer to other kinds
of relationships.
It is argued that this situation is caused by the lexical orientation of Searle and the other
authors (even if they deny this) regarding speech acts. When the number of performative verbs
denoting relational aspects is small, it might be easy to conclude, in their point of view, that
relational acts are not worth mentioning. The lack of empirical analysis of speech acts in
discourse may be seen as another cause for the absence of relational acts. It does not seem to
be a coincidence, therefore, that the authors dealing with relational aspects within the framework
of the speech act theory happened to be linguists, who tried to explain empirical phenomena in
discourse. In a discussion of the work of these authors by Labov & Fanshel, Holly, Sager and
Adamzik, however, it is concluded that the framework of the original version of the speech act
theory (Austin, Searle) is not tenable. All these authors have to make acrobatic moves to fit their
description within that particular framework, ignoring some elementary assumptions the
framework is based on. All of these authors come across the problem that an utterance is a multi
functional unit, whereas the speech act theory does not provide any instruments to deal with this
multi functionality. No matter how much these approaches differ from one another with regard
to their research methods, their common solution for the observed problem is to postulate speech
acts as layered entities, with interrelated strata. Although the idea of a speech act as a layered
entity may be seen as a way out, it is argued that the suggested connection of the illocutionary
act (in the Searlian sense) with the relational acts is not very convincing.
The problems with the speech act theory for the description of discourse are not restricted to
relational aspects. We have seen that there are indeed a lot of problems with the speech act
theory in this respect. The problem of explaining the relation of the content of the utterance and
the illocutionary interpretation, in particular, does not appear to be solved. The description of
utterances which are, in a way, not prototypical for a certain illocutionary act, such as indirect
speech acts have evoked the question in the literature whether direct speech acts do indeed exist.
Due to the problems in describing the relational aspects, in connection with the above mentioned
inherent problems of the speech act theory, it may be concluded that the speech act theory should
be changed in some essential ways. Referring to the relevance theory, it is suggested that
conversationalists interpret the utterance semantically and use a lot of utterance cues to activate
manifest contextual assumptions, to make a relevant functional interpretation on the levels
indicated by the speaker. In that way we could describe the speech act from the speaker’s point
of view as a bundle of intentions he tries to realize through the utterance of a parcel of language,
in the context of the speech situation. Some of the intentions may be characterized by a
performative verb, or by a discourse structuring verb, but in most cases there is no report of unity
in the interpretation. That is why I regard this model as a fragmentation model of speech acts.
The utterance may be the result of some of the intentional components of the speaker, and may
therefore be accounted for in terms of strategies by which the goals of the speakers (their
intentions) are achieved. Speakers choose several strategies to work out a particular intention,
which has to be recognized by the recipient. These intentions may be based on the functional
parameters as have been discussed, without the need to lexicalize. In this way we may account
for the nuances in the functional interpretation as is desired by discourse analysts. We may regard
this as a radical pragmatic theory, by marginalizing categorial interpretations and intentions.
However, this model may be extended to less local goals. It is argued that the verbal
communication in toto may be described as goal oriented, where so-called communicative
principles (such as the relevance principle and the face saving principle) may be characterized
as global, more general goals, whereas situational goals, related to the institutional contexts, for
example, evoke special strategies which may explain aspects of language use characteristic for
a particular institution.
The constructivistic methodology for the description of relational strategies which has
been proposed for the interpersonal strategies in a familiar speech community will be discussed
in contrast with the strictly inductive methods, used in the ethnomethodological approach of the
discourse analysis. It is argued that, although the strict empirical approach of the methodology
of discourse analysis has provided us with a lot of interesting insights into the organisation of
conversational discourse, this approach does not only lack the unifying and directing character
of theory based approaches, but cannot account for intentional aspects of the communication
either, because of the refusal to rely on intuitions about langauage use, which are not sequentially
underpinned. The constructivistic approach is characterized by a set of theoretical preliminaries,
based upon heuristic analysis of pragmatic phenomena, which have been worked out in relation
to empirical materials. In this methodology different types of knowledge of language users about
contextual characteristics are presupposed, and may bear part of the explanation of the observed
phenomena. Besides that, intuitions about (un)marked language use, are exploited for the
description of ‘regularities’, i.e. the strategies which are attributed to the speaker. Some
theoretical preliminaries have been discussed in prior chapters, some will be discussed later on
in connection with socio-psychological issues about relationships.
The constructivistic approach in this study (part II) is speaker-oriented. This means that
the description is not based on the description of hearer strategies for the interpretation of
utterances, but on the description of productive strategies: given the specific goals in the
interaction, the kinds of strategies that may be used, and the kinds of restrictions that will be put
on the recipient. The relational strategies have been analyzed on three levels of the utterance,
the level of performative use of speech act labels (meta-communicative strategies), the level of
the propositional content (formulation strategies), and the level of the sequential position of the
utterance (sequential strategies).
Part III follows a more analytic approach. This part deals with relational strategies which
may be used in conversational interaction as well as relational consequences of
miscommunication in an intercultural setting and subtle differences indicating the distance to a
conversational partner who belongs to an etnic minority. Such a study requires an analytic or a
(field-) experimental approach even.
Part II
The socio-psychological and sociolinguistic literature regarding the relevance of relationships in
communication has been reviewed, resulting in the differentiation between three relational
dimensions in the description of language use: 1. solidarity - distance, 2. symmetry -
dominance/submission, 3. co-operation - competition and agression. It is contented that these
dimensions might be regarded as particularizations of a fundamental contrast between relations,
viz. the tendency to integration and the tendency to differentiation. People are trying to maintain
a balance between these poles in relation to the different dimensions. The first two dimensions
have been discussed in past socio-linguistic literature on pronomina, address forms, politeness
forms and power forms. But there is no systematic nor an integrative treatment of these
phenomena in connection with other relational phenomena. The third dimension I distinguish,
is relevant from the perspective of carrying out the tasks, which conversationalists have set for
themselves. In this dimension especially, language users may indicate their intention to confirm
the basis of the interactional order (as described by Goffman and Grice), or ignore it. These
indications may or may not coincide with strategies in the other two dimensions. Therefore, I
explore this dimension as a separate resource for language users. For each of these dimensions
I have described relational strategies (on the three different levels) as the means by which
integrative or differential intentions are realized.
The first dimension refers to the amount of solidarity with the conversational partner,
which may be conveyed by strategic language use. The meta-communicative strategies in this
dimension, in which the speaker uses performative expressions, rarely occur in Dutch. As far as
they are indicating social distance, it is shown that they function in the development of conflicts
and are therefore, relevant for the co-operation dimension as well. The formulation strategies refer
to both the code and the content of the utterances. With regard to the code speakers may use
intonation aspects (pitch, speaking rate) to indicate the distance or solidarity towards the recipient,
e.g. by forms of assimilation towards the intonation pattern of the recipient. The content strategies
may be divided into strategies, by which the speaker expresses the distance to or familiarity with
the recipient in a direct or more indirect way. In the direct way predicates denoting the measure
of alliance between speaker and hearer, or discourse modal particles, indicating confidence and
‘togetherness’ in emotion and knowledge are used. The indirect strategies consist of the use of
evaluative lexemes, referring to aspects of the recipient; but also the use of utterances which refer
to a matter of course, or which presuppose the self-evidence of the content of the utterance,
through the use of tag questions or particular modal particles, may be seen as indirect strategies
conveying solidarity intentions. Finally the possibility of stylistic assimilation has to be
mentioned.
Sequential strategies that are relevant in the solidarity dimension are first of all related
to the turn taking machinery. I determined the conditions on which interruption and simultaneous
speaking are functioning to indicate togetherness. But more importantly in this respect is the
preference structure as described in the discourse analysis. I argued in a discussion of some CA
literature on this point, that response utterances, which follow initiative moves with a preference
concerning the next utterance, may indicate an integrative or a differentiating intention in both
the solidarity dimension and the co-operative dimension. In this dimension, we do not only have
to account for the response moves, as I have pointed out, but for the closing third moves in
sequential structures, which may confirm the mutual relationship as well. Finally I characterized
the relational strategies in the solidarity dimension, used in the opening and closing sections of
a conversation: the use of routines in the question/response sequence, and the relational routines
in the pre-closing section of both parties, all of which are motivated by intentions in this
dimension.
The second dimension refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a relationship. This
dimension has one integrative pole, but two differential poles on the asymmetrical side, viz.
dominance and submissiveness. Due to the unmarkedness of language on the symmetrical pole,
I will refer to this dimension as the dominance dimension. The unmarkedness of the symmetry
is shown in the absence of performative expressions, and in the relatively small amount of
formulation strategies indicating such a relation. The symmetrical intention has to be realized
mainly in the mutuality of certain forms of solidarity and social distance, and in the absence of
strategies indicating an asymmetrical intention.
Meta-communicative strategies may be used to convey intentions on the dominance and the
submissive poles of the dimension; not only are illocutionary acts used in that way, but discourse
structuring acts, especially those conveying dominance, as well. However, there is no indication
about the basis for the asymmetry in the meta-cognitive strategies. Many formulation strategies
in this dimension do not show such an indication either. These formulation strategies, conveying
dominance over the recipient consist of depreciating terms and downgrading forms, regarding
certain qualities or properties of the recipient, solidarity forms which cannot be returned,
intensifying and upgrading forms regarding the speaker, direct forms to tell the recipient what
to do, or a differentiation from the recipient in the other two relational dimensions, attention
getting signals and relatively long turns. Formulation strategies conveying submissiveness are
in some respects complementary: hesitant and careful speech, realized through hedges, tags,
hesitations and (unilaterally used) deference forms. Besides these more general formulation
strategies, there are certain formulation strategies which underly the special power bases as has
been observed in the literature.
The sequential strategies in this dimension are first of all found in the organisation of
the turn taking in conversations. Dominance may show itself through turn assignment and self
selection, as well as trough the use of unsupporting forms of interruption, while submissiveness
is conveyed by carrying out the turn obligations, which are set by the prior speaker. Secondly,
we observe sequential strategies in this dimension in the opening and closing sections of the
conversation. It is argued that certain formulations in the opening sequence are relevant in this
respect, and that the distribution of the speakers in the closing section may indicate the intended
relationship in this dimension. Thirdly, we have to mention the strategies which are directing the
recipient in a way he cannot easily avoid. Although one could say that speaking always directs
the conversation in a way, there are strategies which have a special status in this respect. Many
of these strategies make use of the question form of utterances. So we find the chaining of
questions, the questioning in sub-sequential position (’arching’), and the indication of preferred
answers. But in institutional interactions we may find a number of specific directing strategies.
In doctor/patient conversations, for instance, we may observe talking down strategies in
recapitulations, the absence of expressive responses, the absence of the diagnosis and the
explanation of the prescription, whereas in court room interaction the special strategies, used by
the judge, consist of the elicitation of conclusions, which means self accusation, through the use
of a question series with presupposed answers. However, a possibility still remains for some
contra-directing on the part of the patients and the suspects, which confuses the directing of the
dominant speaker.
The third dimension is called the co-operation dimension; the integrative pole is cooperation,
while the differentiating pole of the dimension is competition and even agression. I
have started by challenging the presumption that co-operation is to be considered an elementary
condition for communication. In this dimension it is argued that people choose to define their
relationship in a conversation, without blowing up the communication. Communication
presupposes indeed a mutual orientation of speaker and hearer (which may be characterised in
terms of the relevance principle), but that does not imply that their goals cannot be competitive
or even agressive. Co-operation is defined in this study in terms of collective goals of the
participants, with regard to the referential or the other functions in the conversation. Metacommunicative
strategies in this dimension prove to be mostly responsive in character,
presupposing a prior discourse. Speakers using these strategies may convey the measure of
acceptance or non acceptance of the preceding utterances. On the level of the formulations most
strategies convey non co-operation. Those kinds of strategies may be positioned on the continuum
between the integrative and the differentiating poles, indicating that the goals of the speaker and
the recipient are more or less oppositional, or that the participant is more or less disqualified as
a co-operative conversation partner. These strategies vary from the use of comparision and
contrast constructions in the typifying of the position of the conversation partner, to different
forms of blaming and accusation, and to all kinds of abusive words and curses. On the sequential
level we may observe co-operation strategies which prevent disorder in the turn taking machinery,
by saving silences or interruptions. Another kind of such a sequential co-operation strategy is
found in some introductory formulations, which precede non-accepting moves in the conversation.
Through those kinds of strategies the speaker conveys his positive orientation to the contribution
of the prior speaker, even when he is not accepting that contribution. In case of interactional
incidents, the co-operation relationship is in danger; it may be restored by remedy strategies, but
there may also be an escalation of the incident, as has been shown. Some types of escalation
strategies are worked out. The end of an incident is the return to an interactional balance, which
may be redefined, or the termination of the interaction.
Part III
When the relationship between participants of the conversation is determined by the social groups
to which they supposedly belong, one may often observe relational phenomena in the interaction
which refer to the fundamental opposition of the integration - differentiation continuum. The
categorisation of the conversational partner as belonging to another group, and the treatment of
that categorisation as important, makes that continuum more salient than the particularizations
in the three dimensions. In this part of the study I concentrate on the intercultural communication
and on the relational phenomena and strategies which supply the strategies which are discussed
in part II. One of the most important aspects of intercultural communication between speakers
of different cultures and languages is the possibility of assimilation on the part of the native
speaker, showing an orientation towards the language proficiency level of the conversational
partner, or on the characteristics of the ethnic variety, by converging to or diverging from that
level or those characteristics. I discuss the way in which forms of foreigner talk and
conversational adaptation may be described as relational strategies. My conclusions are first of
all that the relational interpretation of foreigner talk is rather complex, dependent on the level
of proficiency of the conversational partner, and secondly, that a convergence on the accent level
(of a non-native speaker) is positively related to the level of co-operation of the (native speaker)
conversational partner, and to the unmarkedness of the turn taking procedures, and finally, that
the assimilation on a conversational level can only be described in relational terms in connection
with certain conversational goals as well as the other relational strategies which are used in the
conversation.
Another aspect of the intercultural interaction which is related to relational work, is the
existence of miscommunication. I have discussed the origins and the consequences of
miscommunication regarding the relationship between the participants. The consequences of
different cultural schemes for a certain context and the consequences of differences in
conversational rhytm in particular have been discussed and worked out in a few examples. The
phenomena which are connected with misunderstanding are not used in a strategic way to gain
particular goals; but in most cases the recipients cannot distinguish it from intentional verbal
behaviour either. So these phenomena of language use will be interpreted using the relational
parameter, just as they were intended to be.
The most important aspect of the relational aspects of intercultural communication is the
way stereotype beliefs (or prejudices) have their influence on the conversation. The negative
stereotypes may be conveyed, but because of the social taboe, they are often masked. In a
comparative study of telephone conversations of two callers, one with a white (
(eastern Dutch) accent, and one with a black (Westindian) accent, with police officers, I have
analysed the way in which certain stereotypes, connected with relational aspects, become visible
in the language use of the police officers. The strategies which indicate differentiating intentions
in this context (dominance, social distance and non co-operation) are a.o. an indication of
outgroup position, downgrading, suspicion and interrogation. In the confirmation processes of
these prejudiced beliefs I have analysed the way in which complementary schismogenesis could
evolve in the relationships between people from different cultures. A discussion on that issue on
a general level, completes this book.
Taalgebruik in de klas, als basis voor kennisconstructie
Taalgebruik in de klas, als basis voor kennisconstructi