Talk in Institutional Settings

Ashleigh Bennett Erin Dunn Alison Bell

Introduction

discourses vs. Discourses institutions 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)

Institutions
What is an institution? an established organisation or foundation dedicated to education, public service or culture the building or buildings housing such an organisation (www.thefreedictionary.com/institution)
A more complex view Talk and language

Identity
A fixed, stable property of the individual psyche ? (Mayes
2010 p.194)

No dynamic, intersubjective, constructed moment by moment through social interaction and, at the same time, subject to existing ideologies and perceived social constraints. (Mayes 2010 p.195)

Talk
a medium for the conveying of information, with varying degrees of effectiveness, from a speaker to a listener in a transmission model of learning (Benwell et al 2002, p.430) Or
as the site for action

(Benwell et al 2002, p. 430)

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

Talk in Institutions
Institutional contexts order patterns of talk Ritual and uniformity Accomplishment of tasks

endowed with the performative power to bring into being the very realities it claims to describes (Mayr 2008, p. 3)

Benwell Study: Shifting Dynamics and Identities

Agenda-setting positions within the tutorial setting are more ambivalent than has been previously suggested
Interactional dynamics represent a shift away from traditional classroom hierarchy Talk as constituting, creating and manipulating the institution

The Reading
Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities.

Tutor led: the construction and negotiation of tutorial tasks

Found a common three-part sequence in relation to task formulation
1. Future Projection what is to be done in current tutorial 2. Contextual detail justifying limits of the task and past actions 3. Next action usually orientated to a student participation and exchange

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 phasar was

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 weve done (.) a little bit on neutrons

3) Immediate next action and student input

Extract 2: you can tell me (0.4) all about phasars now (.) OK? (0.2) whos going to start Extract 4: what is the Aleppo Button about?

Goffman (1967)
Notion of the preservation of face
Negative face: Whenever the tutor makes a demand of a student in the form of a direct question their negative face is threatened Positive face: When a tutor evaluates a students response negatively they are threatening positive face

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; they want to establish common ground.

Extract 3

Features
3 part structure
Students unwillingness to contribute High degree of positive politeness

Question
What are some of the differences in student-teacher interactions when comparing high school classroom and university tutorial settings?

Breaching Institutional Settings

Breaching
1. Through student behavior
2. Through the stigmatization of expert language 3. Through tutors democratization of the classroom

1) Student Resistance
Hesitation
Unelaborated repetition or opinions Silence at Transitional Relevance Places

2) Stigmatization of expert language

Culture as linked to the performance of education
Forms divide between students and teachers

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

2) Stigmatization of expert language

Students also try to downplay their knowledge to save face among their peers-mediocrity as normalized

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!

2) Stigmatization of expert language

Renegotiating the way people talk present literary criticism-rather then being textually founded, students often found opinions on personal opinions of the text (Allington 2012)

Question
What authority could students be resisting through critiquing literature from a subjective standpoint?

3) Democratizing the classroom

Critical Pedagogy: shifting power in the classroom through language to create reflexivity (Mayes)
Tutors are less directive, particularly in the use of hedging Save face of the student using: humor, irony, increased politeness devices and modifying the task to suit students efforts

Question
In your own personal experience of democratization of the classroom, do you find that you learn better?

References
Allington, D 2012, Private experience, textual analysis, and institutional authority: The discursive practice of critical interpretation and its enactment in literary training, Language and Literature, vol. 21, no. 2, pp211225
Benwell, B & Stokoe, E 2002, Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and studies, Discourse Studies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp 429-453, accessed 25/09/12, University of Wollongong Library e-readings

References
Goffman, E 1967, The nature of Deference and Demeanor, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to-Face Behaviour, Pantheon Books, New York, pp47-96, accessed on 26/09/12, University of Wollongong Library e-readings Kurzon, Dennis. 1995. Talk at work: interaction in institutional 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 the English Language, Fourth Edition. (2003). Retrieved October 13 2012 from <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/institution>

References
Mayes, P 2010, The discursive construction of identity and power in the critical classroom: Implications for applied critical theory, Discourse Society, vol.21, no. 2, pp189-210, accessed 26/09/12, University of Wollongong Library ereadings Mayr, Andrea. 2008. Introduction: Power, discourse and institutions in Advances in Sociolinguistics: Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse, Continuum International Publishing: London. pp.1-25 Tannen, D 2004, Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse, Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 37, no. 4, pp.399-420, accessed 05/08/12, University of Wollongong Library ereadings