WHEN THE TOKENS TALK: IRF AND THE POSITION OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TOKENS IN TEACHER-STUDENT TALK-IN-INTERACTION
Sınıf ortamında öğrencilerin yetenekleri IRF (Başlatım-Cevap-Geri Bildirim) veya IRE (Başlatım-Cevap-Değerlendirme) olarak isimlendirilen varsayıma dayanan bir uygulama ile değerlendirilmektedir. Geri bildirim veya değerlendirme sıralarında, öğretmen genellikle alındılama işaretleri (uhm, yeah, okay gibi) kullanmaktadır. Bu işaretler dinleyiciliği korumada aktif bir rol oynadığı gibi konuşmacılara da, özellikle cevap sıralarında, doğru cevapları veya ifadeleri hazırlamaları için gerekli olan zamanı sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışma öğretmen tarafından başlatılmış IRF (Başlatım-Cevap-Geri Bildirim) dizileri yapısında 'alındılama işaretlerinin' nasıl yer alacağını incelemektedir ve bu yapıdaki 'okay' cevaplarının modelini araştırmaktadır. Bulgular, özellikle 'güçlü alındılama işaretleri' (yeah veya okay gibi) ve 'pasif alıcılık işaretleri' (uhmö uhhm veya hmm gibi) sınıflandırmaları ile birlikte bu işaretlerin ilginç bir dağılımını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Ayrıca, bulgular 'ok' cevaplarını kullanmanın ilave konuşmaları ve olması yakın kapanışları davet ettiklerini göstermektedir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları öğrenci-dostu ve kapsayıcı sınıfların oluşturulmasında kullanılabilir
In classroom settings, students` competence is regularly evaluated through a default practice named Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) or Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE). In the feedback or evaluation turn, the teacher normally uses acknowledgement tokens (such as uhm, yeah, okay). These tokens perform an active role of maintaining listenership as well as helping the speakers to buy the necessary time to prepare the right answers or expressions, especially in 'response' (R) turns. The aim of this paper is to study how the 'acknowledgement tokens' are placed within the framework of teacher-nominated IRF sequences and to explore the recognizable pattern of 'okay' responses within an IRF framework. The findings suggest an interesting distribution of these tokens, especially with the classifications of 'strong acknowledgement tokens' (such as: yeah or okay) and 'passive recipiency tokens' (such as: uhm, uhhm, or hmm). Moreover, the findings suggest that the usage of 'ok' responses invites further talk as well as an imminent closure. The findings of this study could be used to create a learner-friendly and inclusive classroom
___
Cazden, C. B. (1986) Classroom Discourse. In M. E. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan.Cazden, C. B. (2001) Classroom Discourse: The language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Coulthard, M. (1975) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Dimulescu, C. (2010) Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Barsov 3(52), 111-118.
Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993a) 'Back Channels Revisited: Acknowledgment Tokens and Speakership Incipiency'. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 157-177.
Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993b) Some Uses of "Yeah". Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26,203-212.
Gardner, R. (1997) The Listener and Minimal Responses in Conversational Interaction. Prospect 12, 12-32.
Gardner, R. (1998) Between Speaking and Listening: The Vocalisation of Understandings. Applied Linguistics 19(2), 204-224.
Gardner, R. (2001) When Listener Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guthrie, A. M. (1997) On the Systematic Development of Okay and Mmhmm in Academic Advising Sessions. Pragmatics 7(3), 397-415.
Hellermann, J. (2003) The Interactive Work of Prosody in the IRF Exchange: Teacher Repetition in Feedback Moves. Language in Society,32(1), 79-104.
Hellermann, J. (2005) Syntactic and Prosodic Practices for Cohesion in Series of Three-part Sequences in Classroom Talk. Research on Language & Social Interaction,38(1), 105 - 130.
Heritage, J. (1984) A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, (pp. 299-347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacknick, C. M. (2011). "BUT THIS IS WRITING": Post-expansion in Student- initiated Sequences. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 39-54.
Jacobson, C. & Lehrer, R. (2000) Teacher Appropriation and Student Learning of Geometry through Design. JRME,31(1), 71-88.
Jefferson, G. (1978) What's in a 'Nyem'? Sociology, 12, 135-139.
Jefferson, G. (1981) On the articulation of topic in conversation: Research report to the Social Science Research Council (Britain). [online] available from http://www.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/topic_report.pdf
Jefferson, G. (1983) Proceedings from Tilburg papers in language and literature. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University.
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-shift Implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 1-30.
Jefferson, G. (2002) Is ''no'' an Acknowledgment Token? Comparing American and British Uses of (+)/(-) Tokens. Journal of Pragmatics,34, 1345-1383.
Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39,1204-1230.
Li, H. (2013). Student Initiative and Missed Learning Opportunities in an IRF Sequnece: A Single Case Analysis L2 Journal, 5(2), 68-92.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacWhinney, B. (2001). From CHILDES to TalkBank. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M. Ezeizaberrena, I. Idiazabal & B. MacWhinney (Eds.)Research on Child Language Acquisition, (pp. 17-34).Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
McCarthy, M. (2003) Talking Back: "Small" Interactional Response Tokens in Everyday Conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 36(1), 33-63.
Mehan, H. (1979) Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N. (1992) Talk for Teaching and Learning. In K. Norman (Ed.),Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project, (pp. 215-223). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009) Dialogic Teaching in the Primary Science Classroom. Language and Education,23(4), 353-369.
Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000) What's the Use of 'Triadic dialogue'?: An Investigation of Teacher Student Interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376- 406.
Nystrand, M. (1997) Dialogic Instruction: When Recitation becomes Conversation. In M. Nystrand (Ed.) Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom, (pp. 1-29). New York: TeachersCollege Press.
Radford, J., Ireson, J. & Mahon, M. (2006) Triadic Dialogue in Oral Communication Tasks: What are the Implications for Language Learning?. Language and Education, 20(3), 191 - 210.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974) A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language,50(4/1), 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982) Discourse as Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of "uh huh" and Other Things that Come between Sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.) Analyzing Discourse,Text, and Talk, (pp. 71-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E.A. (1988). Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Ed.) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, (pp. 89- 135). Cambridge, England: Polity.
Schegloff, E. A. (2010) Some Other "Uh(m)"s. DiscourseProcesses,47, 130-174.
Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S. & Olsher, D. (2002) Conversation Analysis and Applied Linguistics'Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3-31.
Sinclair, J. M. & Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Strom, D., Kemeny, V., Lehrer, R. & Forman, E. (2001) Visualizing the Emergent Structure of Children's Mathematical Argument. CognitiveScience,25(5), 733-773.
TalkBank. (2003) Class Bank: Curtis [online] available from _____http://www.talkbank.org/media/ClassBank/Curtis/> [February 16 2011]
Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising Classroom Interactional Competence. Novitas- ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1), 1-14.
Walsh, S. & O'Keeffe, A. (2010). Investigating Higher Education Seminar Talk. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4(2), 141-158.
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A Single Case Analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796-824.
Watt, D. & Shanahan, S. (1994). Math and More 2-Teacher Guide,(pp. 21-64). Atlanta, GA: International Business Machines Corp.
Wells, G. (1993) Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A Proposal for the Articulation of Theories of Activity and Discourse for the Analysis of Teaching and Learning in the Classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1-37.
Wong, J. (2000). The Token "Yeah" in Nonnative Speaker English Conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction,33(1), 39-67.
- ISSN: 1307-4733
- Yayın Aralığı: Yıllık
- Başlangıç: 2007
- Yayıncı: -
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
GRAMMAR AS A JOINT ACHIEVEMENT: CO-CONSTRUCTIONS IN L2 INTERACTIONS
Neiloufar FAMILY, Natalia DURUS, Gudrun ZIEGLER
VALIDATING MYSELF-AS-A-LEARNER SCALE (MALS) IN THE TURKISH CONTEXT
LECTURERS' VIEWS OF CURRICULUM CHANGE AT ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING DEPARTMENTS IN TURKEY
MEHMET SERCAN UZTOSUN, Salah TROUDI
APPEALING TO A BROKER: INITIATING THIRD-PERSON REPAIR IN MUNDANE SECOND LANGUAGE INTERACTION