soc 250 group pres slides

7/31/2019 Soc 250 Group Pres Slides

1/33

Talk in Institutional Settings

Ashleigh Bennett

Erin Dunn

Alison Bell


2/33

Introduction


3/33

discourses vs. Discoursesinstitutions vs. Institutions

The messiness of social

reality

missing whatness(Whelan 2012)

The broad, overarching

structure/ framework

E.g. Law, medicine,government

language in use vs. language above the sentence(Mayr 2008, p. 7)


4/33

Institutions

What is an institution?

an established organisation or foundationdedicated to education, public service orculture

the building or buildings housing such anorganisation

(www.thefreedictionary.com/institution)

A more complex view

Talk and language
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/institutionhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/institution


5/33

Identity

A fixed, stable property of the individual psyche ? (Mayes2010 p.194)

No

dynamic, intersubjective, constructed moment bymoment through social interaction and, at the same time,

subject to existing ideologies and perceived socialconstraints.

(Mayes 2010 p.195)


6/33

Talk

a medium for the conveying of information,with varying degrees of effectiveness, from a

speaker to a listener in a transmission model oflearning (Benwell et al 2002, p.430)

Or

as the site for action

(Benwell et al 2002, p. 430)


7/33

Talk as Discourse

Discourse: A culturally and socially organised way of speaking (Mayr

2008 p.7) As construction and a social practice

shaping reality, creating patterns of understanding,which people then apply in social practices. (Mayr 2008 p.

5)

practices which systematically form the objects of whichthey speak.

(Foucault 1972, p.49 in Mayr 2008, p. 8)


8/33

Talk in Institutions

Institutional contexts order patterns of talk

Ritual and uniformity

Accomplishment of tasks

endowed with the performative power to bring intobeing the very realities it claims to describes

(Mayr 2008, p. 3)


9/33

Benwell Study: Shifting Dynamics and

Identities

Agenda-setting positions within the tutorial

setting are more ambivalent than has beenpreviously suggested

Interactional dynamics represent a shift awayfrom traditional classroom hierarchy

Talk as constituting, creating andmanipulating the institution


10/33

The ReadingConstructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shiftingdynamics and identities.


11/33

Tutor led: the construction andnegotiation of tutorial tasks

Found a common three-part sequence in relation

to task formulation1. Future Projection what is to be done in

current tutorial

2. Contextual detail justifying limits of the taskand past actions

3. Next action usually orientated to a studentparticipation and exchange


12/33

1) Future projection

Extract 1: I thought we could go over

(2.0) some of the questions

Extract 2: anyway I thought (0.2)

perhaps that we would try and

remember (1.0) um (.) what (.) a phasarwas


13/33

2) Contextual detail and limits

Extract 1: I think S2 must have done two

so well move onto three

Extract 3: weve done the interactions

of charged particles weve done the

interactions of gamma rays and wevedone (.) a little bit on neutrons


14/33

3) Immediate next action andstudent input

Extract 2: you can tell me (0.4) all about

phasars now (.) OK? (0.2) whos going tostart

Extract 4: what is the Aleppo Button

about?


15/33

Goffman (1967)

Notion of the preservation of face

Negative face: Whenever the tutor makes ademand of a student in the form of a directquestion their negative face is threatened

Positive face: When a tutor evaluates astudents response negatively they arethreatening positive face


16/33

Techniques to preserve face

Negative politeness: usually takes the form of

hedging (umming and ahring) or low modality(examples: sort of, in a sense), hesitations,pauses fillers and strategic use of avoidance

Positive politeness: works by suggesting

solidarity between speaker and hearer; theywant to establish common ground.


17/33

Extract 3


18/33

Features

3 part structure

Students unwillingness to contribute

High degree of positive politeness


19/33

Question

What are some of the differences in

student-teacher interactions whencomparing high school classroom and

university tutorial settings?


20/33

Breaching Institutional Settings


21/33

Breaching

1. Through student behavior

2. Through the stigmatization of expert language

3. Through tutors democratization of theclassroom


22/33

1) Student Resistance

Hesitation

Unelaborated repetition or opinions

Silence at Transitional Relevance Places


23/33

2) Stigmatization of expertlanguage

Culture as linked to the performance of

education

Forms divide between students and

teachers


24/33

Extract 8

9 S3: is there a significant oh [got to put significant

in there thats

10 S2: [significant yeah

11 S3: one of their (.) [favourites isnt it hahaha


25/33


Students also try to downplay their knowledge

to save face among their peers-mediocrity asnormalized


26/33

Extract 8

1 S1: does rehearsal (.) help (.) retain the stimulus

2 (1.0)

3 S2: oohh! [hahahaha

4 S3: [hahahaha

5 S4: [hahahaha=

6 S1: =haha (.) phew (.) [where did that come from? hahaha

7 S2: [haha have you swallowed the dictionary!


27/33


Renegotiating the way people talk present

literary criticism-rather then being textuallyfounded, students often found opinions onpersonal opinions of the text (Allington 2012)


28/33

Question

What authority could students be

resisting through critiquing literaturefrom a subjective standpoint?


29/33

3) Democratizing the classroom

Critical Pedagogy: shifting power in the

classroom through language to createreflexivity (Mayes)

Tutors are less directive, particularly in the use ofhedging

Save face of the student using: humor, irony,increased politeness devices and modifying thetask to suit students efforts


30/33

Question

In your own personal experience of

democratization of the classroom, do youfind that you learn better?


31/33

References

Allington, D 2012, Private experience, textual analysis,and institutional authority: The discursive practice ofcritical interpretation and its enactment in literarytraining, Language and Literature, vol. 21, no. 2, pp211-225

Benwell, B & Stokoe, E 2002, Constructing discussion tasks

in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and studies,Discourse Studies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp 429-453, accessed25/09/12, University of Wollongong Library e-readings


32/33

References Goffman, E 1967, The nature of Deference and

Demeanor, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to-FaceBehaviour, Pantheon Books, New York, pp47-96, accessed

on 26/09/12, University of Wollongong Library e-readings

Kurzon, Dennis. 1995. Talk at work: interaction ininstitutional settings: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds.),Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, xii-580pp,Lingua, vol. 96, no. 4: pp.278-286

institution. (n.d.) The American Heritage Dictionary of theEnglish Language, Fourth Edition. (2003). RetrievedOctober 13 2012 from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/institutionhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/institution


33/33

References Mayes, P 2010, The discursive construction of identity and

power in the critical classroom: Implications for appliedcritical theory, Discourse Society, vol.21, no. 2, pp189-210,

accessed 26/09/12, University of Wollongong Library e-readings

Mayr, Andrea. 2008. Introduction: Power, discourse andinstitutions in Advances in Sociolinguistics: Language andPower: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse, Continuum

International Publishing: London. pp.1-25

Tannen, D 2004, Talking the Dog: Framing Pets asInteractional Resources in Family Discourse, Research onLanguage and Social Interaction, vol. 37, no. 4, pp.399-420,accessed 05/08/12, University of Wollongong Library e-readings

soc 250 group pres slides

Documents