A Conversation Analysis of Turn Taking in the Pakistani Classrooms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/7e6k4921Keywords:
Conversation Analysis, Turn Taking, Interaction, Classroom, InstructorsAbstract
This study focuses one of the research areas called turn-taking during the conversation in an institutional setting. Conversation is highly dependent on the ways how people take turns during their ordinary talks or the conversation in an institutional setting. The researchers collected data from student’s tests, video- taped classroom interactions and the interviews with the teachers. The researchers adopted a Conversation Analytic [CA] framework in order to analyze how turn- taking was done by the students and teachers in a classroom interaction. The general design of study included the four phases typical of CA research projects: recordings of natural interaction, transcription of the recordings, analysis of selected episodes, and reporting of the research. The instructors of English, both female, and male participated in the study. Much of the classroom interaction was based on the instructors’ talk: to review covered material, to introduce new material, and to evaluate student turns. The analysis of turn-taking in a Pakistani classroom showed that the underlying rules or guidelines of interaction were the same as those found in studies of other languages: one speaker at a time, no gaps, no overlaps. Discipline played an obvious role in this kind of language-teaching methodology. It was also observed that when an instructor did not have control of the class and therefore of the turn-taking system, there were more instances of ‘broken rules’ e.g. more overlaps and more repairs as a result of behavioural lapses.
Downloads
References
Adelsward, V., &Nilholm, C. (2000). Who is Cindy? Aspects of identity work in a teacher-parent-pupil talk at a special school. Text, 20 (4), 545-568.
Arminen, I. (2000). On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction.Discourse & Society, 11(4), 435-458. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cicourel, A. (1972). Basic and normative rules in the negotiation of status and rule.In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 229-258). New York: Free Press.
Coupland, N., &Coupland, J. (1998).Reshaping lives: Constitutive identity work in geriatric medical consultations.Text, 18(2), 159-190.
Davies, J. (2003). Expressions of gender: an analysis of pupil’s rendered discourse styles in small groups classroom discussions. Discourse & Society, 14 (2), 115-132.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 3-65). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., &Sorjonen, M. L. (1997).Institutional dialogue. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), discourse studies – A multidisciplinary introductiuon – Vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction (pp.92.118). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Sage.
Goodwin, M. (2002).Building power assymetries in girls’ interaction. Discourse & Society, 13 (6), 715-730.
Grenoble, L. A (1999).Gender and conversational management in Russian. In M. Mills (Ed. ), Slavic Gender Linguistics (pp.113-130). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Compnay.
Gunnarsson, B.-L.(1997). Applied Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies - A multidisciplinary introduction - Vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction (pp. 285-312). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
Hester, S., & Francis, D. (2001). Is institutional talk a phenomenon? Reflections on ethnomethodology and applied conversationa analysis. In A. McHoul& M. Rapley (Eds.), How to analyse? Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods (pp.206-218). New York. Continuum.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Koshik, 1. (2000). Practices of Pedagogy in ESL writing conferences:A conversation analytic study of turn and sequences that assist student revision. University of California, Los Angeles.
Landa, M. H. (2000)..An analysis of discourse startegies in pharamcy c onsultations: Novices and esxperts. L1 and L2.University of Minnesota.
Love, K. (2000).The construction of moral subjectiveness in talk araound text in secondary English.Linguistics & educationa,11(3), 213-249.
Mills, M. (1999c). "Teacher talk" in the Russian and American Classroom: Dominance and Cultural Framing. In M. Mills (Ed.), Slavic Gender Linguistics (pp. 131-152). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mills, S. (2003). Third wave feminist linguistics and the analysis of sexism. http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/open/2003/001/mills2003001-01.html
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The Study of Talk-in Interaction (vol. 35). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
Sacks, H. (1992).Lectures on Conversation (1962-1972), Vols. 1 & 2.In G. Jefferson (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Jefferson, G., &Schegloff, E. (1974).A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Sacks, H. (1984).Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),Stuctures of Social Actions: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp.21-27). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sauntson, H. (2007). Girls’ and Boys; use of Acknowledging Moves in Pupil Group Classroom Discussions.
Language and Educationa, 21 (4), 304-327
Schleef, E. (2008). Gender and academnic discourse: Global restrictions and local Possibilities. Language in Society, 37, 515-538.
Sharonov, I. (1999). Speaker, gender, and the choice of ‘communicatives’ in contemporary Russian.In M. Mills (Ed.), Slavic Gender Linguistics (pp. 153-163). Philadelphia: John benjamins Publishing Company.
Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Stokoe, E. (1998). Talking about gender: the conversational construction of gender categories in academic discourse.Discourse &Society , 12 (2), 217-244.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Schegloff, E. (1992). On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 101-136). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., Jefferson, G., &Schegloff, E. (1974).A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973).Opening up closings.Semiotica, 8, 289-327 Schegloff, E. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165-187.
Ten Have, P. (2000). Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide.Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications. Ten Have, P. (2000). Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Tuffin, K., & Howard, C. (2001). Demystifying discourse analysis: theory, method and practice. In A. McHoul& M.
Rapley (Eds.), How to AnalyseTalk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods (pp. 196-205). New York: Continuum.
Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(4), 315-343
vanLeeuwen-Turnovcová, J., Wullenweber, K., Doleschal, U., & Schindler, F. (Eds.). (2002) Gender-Forschung in der Slawistik.Beiträge der KonferenzGender - Sprache - Kommunikation - Kultur, 28.April bis 1.Mai 2001, InstitutfürSlawistik Friedrich Schiller-Universität Jena. Vienna: Wiener SlawisticherAlmanach.
Wakin, M. A., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1999).Reduction and Specialization in emergency and directory assistance calls.Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 409-437.
Yokoyama, O. T (1999a). Russian genderlects and referential expressions.Language in Society , 28, 204-429.
Zemskaja, E.A. (Ed.). (1973). Russkajarazgovornajareč. Moscow: Nauka. Zemskaja, E.A. (Ed.). (1983). Russkajarazgovornajareč’.Fonetika, morfologija, leksika, žest’. Moscow: Nauka.
Zemskaja, E.A., Kitajgordskaja, M.V. &Rozanova, N.N (1993).OsobennostiMuzskoj I zenskojreci. In E. A. Zemskaja& D. Smeleve (Eds.) Russkijjazyk v ego funkcionirovanii: Kommunikativno- progmaticeskijaspekt (pp. 90-157). Moscow: Nauka.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
