Teacher-oriented address terms in students’ reproach turns

Lehtimaja, Inkeri

doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.008

Cited by 50 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participation in classroom activity, especially in university plenary settings, demands specific interactional work from the students (on secondary school data, see Lehtimaja 2011). They have limited space to intervene without breaking the norms of interactional organization.…”

Section: Data and Methodological Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking Clauses and Actions in Social Interaction

Laury

Etelämäki

Couper‐Kuhlen³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Data and Methodological Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking Clauses and Actions in Social Interaction

Laury

Etelämäki

Couper‐Kuhlen³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Laughter has in large part been characterized as a marker of resistance and humorous stances in classroom interaction (Lehtimaja, 2011;Piirainen-Marsh, 2011;Roth et al, 2011). Laughter may arise around turns in which students resist, disrupt, or undermine the interactional order of the classroom.…”

Section: Morality Laughter and Play In Classroom Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Laughter may arise around turns in which students resist, disrupt, or undermine the interactional order of the classroom. Students do this in a variety of ways including producing reproaches (Lehtimaja, 2011), 'designedly cheeky questions or remarks' (Piirainen-Marsh, 2011: 369;Roth et al, 2011) and disaligning responses (Looney and Kim, 2018;Looney and He, forthcoming). Such actions engender laughter and may contain laughter in their design.…”

Section: Morality Laughter and Play In Classroom Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classroom teasing: Institutional contingencies and embodied action

Looney

2021

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares the sequential position, action, and design of teasing sequences in classroom and mundane interaction. This collection of teases comes from a university Geosciences classroom, and the analysis demonstrates that, like teases in ordinary conversation, classroom teases are sequentially bound and designed in extreme fashions. Nonetheless, classroom teasing sequences are unique in terms of the actions and precise designs of teasables and teases as well as the sequential contingencies that create opportunities for teasing. This paper contributes to past conversation analysis research showing how teases as sequences of embodied action are subject to local contingencies and constraints.

show abstract

“…Answers given on behalf of other students are common during lessons of Finnish as a second language (FL2) in lower secondary school, where the interaction is often very lively (Lehtimaja 2011; see also Schwab 2011). It is typical that the students compete actively for answering turns and give alternative or complementary answers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encouraging participation or restraining teasing? Teacher responses to uninvited students’ answers

Lehtimaja

Tainio

2019

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a second-language classroom, it is beneficial for learning to encourage student participation. However, the teacher has to consider issues of equal participation and moral order. Drawing on a corpus of Finnish as a second language lessons for teenage students and adopting a conversation analytic approach, this article examines situations in which the students produce uninvited, teasing answers on behalf of other students. We focus especially on teacher responses: the teachers either ignore, ratify or sanction the uninvited answers. In our analysis, we show how the participants negotiate the right to answer, and how the teachers take into account the turn-taking rules of classroom interaction and the ongoing pedagogical activity, as well as moral considerations. In the article, ignoring the uninvited answer is treated as a default teacher response, since it corresponds to norms of prototypical classroom interaction. However, the teacher can ratify an uninvited answer if it is useful for pedagogical purposes, or s/he can sanction an uninvited answer if it is unacceptable for classroom talk or if the target of the teasing turn displays embarrassment. While participating in pedagogical activities, the students pursue their own social goals at the same time. This social dimension can promote learning but needs to be handled with care by the teacher.

show abstract

Teacher-oriented address terms in students’ reproach turns

Cited by 50 publications

References 17 publications

Linking Clauses and Actions in Social Interaction

Linking Clauses and Actions in Social Interaction

Classroom teasing: Institutional contingencies and embodied action

Encouraging participation or restraining teasing? Teacher responses to uninvited students’ answers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About