Discourse Analysis Applied to English Language Teaching in Colombian Contexts. Theory and Methods was edited and published by Editorial Universidad El Bosque in December 2015 in Bogotá, Colombia

NOTES

Chapter Two

Exploring Pragma-grammatical Roles of “Do” in EFL Students’ Spoken Production

¹Laura Arias and Kimberly Vinck participated in this project as research assistants to fulfill their pedagogical project implementation requirement to graduate from the Bilingual Education Major.

Chapter Five

From Underdogs to Important Speakers: Unveiling Language Learners’ Identities through Peer-approval Discourses

²The students’ real names have been changed for ethical concerns.

³Spanish interventions from the transcripts were translated in order to enhance reading comprehension.

© Universidad El Bosque
© Wilder Yesid Escobar Alméciga, Harold Castañeda-Peña, Edgar lucero, Carolina Gómez Lobatón, and Lorena Caviedes.

ISBN: 978-958-739-061-2
ISBN e-book: 978-958-739-062-9

Publishing House Editorial Universidad El Bosque
Av. Cra. 9 No. 131 A – 02. Building D, 4^th floor
Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
Phone number 6489000 Ext. 1395
www.uelbosque.edu.co/editorial
editorial@unbosque.edu.co

Editor Publishing House Editorial Universidad El Bosque
Francisco Javier Gutiérrez V. Mg

Scientific Committee
Adam Creighton M.A.
Craig Stokes Ph.D.
Martha Isabel Espitia M.A.
Francisco González Puentes Ph.D.
Alicia García Bejarano Ph.D.
Ruth Stella Chacón Ph.D. Candidate
Francisco Javier Gutiérrez M.A.

Copyediting: Randall Davis Barfield

Design and layout: Alexánder Castañeda

Diseño de ePub:
Hipertexto - Netizen Digital Solutions

© All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the owners of the copyright.

Content

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE
CLASSROOM DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: OUTLINING THE FIELD

Harold Castañeda-Peña

About the Author

Introduction

Classroom language viewed as discourse

Discourse analysis in general educational settings

Discourse analysis in foreign and second language educational settings

Summary and discussion

CHAPTER TWO
EXPLORING PRAGMA-GRAMMATICAL ROLES OF “DO” IN EFL STUDENTS’ SPOKEN PRODUCTION

Wilder Escobar

About the Author

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Research Design

Data Analysis

Do in Speech Markers and Conversation Fillers

Common Socio-cultural Conventions within an Interpretive Community

Forms and Functions of Agreement and Disagreement

Word Associations

Conclusion

CHAPTER THREE
DOING RESEARCH ON CLASSROOM INTERACTION: APPROACHES, STUDIES AND REASONS

Edgar Lucero

About the Author

Introduction

Language Classroom Interaction

Research on Language Classroom Interaction

Three Research Works in Language Classroom Interaction

Implications of the Three Research Works

Why Doing Research on Language Classroom Interaction?

Further Research

CHAPTER FOUR
UNVEILING THE MASKED MEANINGS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS TO CLASSROOM DISCOURSE

Carolina Gómez

About the Author

Introduction

Theoretical framework

The Concept of Identity

Construction of Identity

Language and identity

Identity as language learners

Classroom interaction

Research Methodology

Instruments for data collection

Research approach

Methodology for data analysis

Results of the research experience

Conclusions

CHAPTER FIVE
FROM UNDERDOGS TO IMPORTANT SPEAKERS: UNVEILING LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ IDENTITIES THROUGH PEER-APPROVAL DISCOURSES

Lorena Caviedes

About the Autor

Introduction

Language, Identity and Discourse: Theoretical Concepts

Method

Instructional design

Findings

Conclusions

Further Research

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

At some point in history, humans began to discover the real, multidimensional and elaborate nature of words coming to the realization that they were not transparent, but rather, they possessed symbolic characteristics beyond their literal meaning which played an active part in the creation and transformation of realities. This meant that meaning-making and interpretation were a social and multifaceted negotiation which required boundless information from the social environment in order to make sense, not merely of the physical world around them, nor simply of the language-constituting bits and pieces, but about the self as well, especially in relation to its physical and social surroundings and its interdependence as to time and space (Gee, 1996) in a way that created individual and collective identities. Escobar (2013) defines this as:

“[…] a historical and sociocultural structure which makes the ever-changing co-formations of relationships possible between the self and the world and that, through discourse, allows us to identify, understand, conceive, construct, and accept or reject the different possibilities within a given time and space while seeking individual or collective interests. Accordingly, identity is closely and directly related to discourse since this is how individuals act and interact, position themselves and are positioned in a social place, a way of being in the world, and thus, a way to form and transform identities.” (p. 50)

Hence discourse transcends all realms of society: science, politics, religion, culture, education, psychology, language, thought, etc. Initially, and in Jørgensen & Phillips (2002)’s words, “[…]language is structured according to different patterns that people’s utterances follow when they take part in different domains of social life, familiar examples being ‘medical discourse’ and ‘political discourse’” (p. 1). However, while there are socially pre-established patterns of language use which allow us to distinguish between discourse genres, types, and ways in which language behaves according to context specificities, there are also sociocultural conventions at play in interaction which create, assign, shape, and modify meaning, and whose systematical and meticulous examination would potentially expose, on the one hand, understandings of the word and the established relations to it—inter alia beliefs, intentions, dispositions, attitudes, choices, values, positions, desires, knowledge—and on the other, the potential that discourse poses to create, maintain, and change them (Escobar 2013; Fairclough, 2003; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002; Van Dijk, 1993). That is to say that once humans caught a glimpse of the scope of possibilities discourse presented to construct and modify people’s knowledge, ideologies, and social understandings, they saw an advantage they could use for their gain and consequently, analyzing discourse would reap numerous benefits, among others, in the following general arenas.

Initially and at an operational level, discourse contributes to the understanding of language and language behavior, factoring in prescriptive as well as ever-changing parameters to nurture understandings about speaking and writing mechanics such as the position, form, and functions of parts of speech; the configuration of language in conversations and other speech events; and changes of language use across genres, geographical regions, generations, and communities of practices. This understanding, in turn, could potentially boost language development, not only for the purposes of learning or acquiring a subsequent language, but also to enhance the communicative performance in genres and domains in one’s dominant language—of which one may not have a full command (e.g. refining texts to reach academic publishing levels or learning business vocabulary and idiomatic usage for business contexts).

Analyzing discourse beyond the fundamentals of language while bearing in mind the reciprocal influencing-dynamics that culture and language exert on one another (Escobar & Gómez, 2010) can shed light on the ways in which society structures and engages in communication as well as how such communication builds and transforms society, generates common sociocultural representations, and establishes a social order to reveal collective principles: the ideologies, values, and idiosyncrasies associated with language behavior (e.g. patterns of language use, language variations, and language evolution).

Similarly, discourse operates alongside cognitive domains creating, establishing, and justifying a socially constituted body of knowledge. In their exploration of this, Appel and Lantolf (1994) sought to explore ways in which speaking mediates thinking, comprehending, and higher-order cognitive processes to claim that “speaking not only mediates the subjects’ attempts to report on what they understand from a text, but also how it serves as the process through which they come to comprehend a text” (p. 437). That is to say, “discourse is a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world)” (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 1). However, discourse does not just enable knowledge construction and its diffusion, it also serves as a screening mechanism which selects what knowledge claims can be socially acknowledged by positioning people in places, employing means of communication, and designing discursive strategies that regulate what can be said about something, Foucault’s “when, where, and how” (1988). Consequently, discourse analysis may prove useful in both informing cognitive processes and uncovering the discursive strategies that establish knowledge both in society and in intentions.

At a personal level, discourse embodies ways of constructing and reconstructing our views of the world and our relationships to others, means of devising strategies to position and reposition ourselves so as to take up distinct roles in society, forms of acting in, and interacting with the world, of representing and interpreting realities and of thinking, doing, and being and thus, ways of manufacturing the self in light of the multifaceted power dynamics of social interaction (Clark, 2010; Fairclough, 2003; Foucault, 1988; Gee 1996, 1999; Norton, 2000). Examining this would help us understand the formation processes of social constructs like membership, positioning, gender, community, otherness and their corresponding associations with past experiences, present developments, and future possibilities.

At a political level, the rise of spoken discourse prompted individuals to imagine themselves as part of communities, and gave birth to the concept of nationalism which was successively reinforced with printed discourse that stressed common characteristics (capitalism, Christianity, democracy, etc.,) and downplayed the differences between sub-groups (Anderson, 2006). In this regard, social forces at work have taken various forms: from the use of the most powerful biological weapons to subtle pursuits for communication control. On the one hand, country incursions like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii were displays of force in the quest for power accompanied by discursive elaborations of national identities, supremacy, sovereignty, and justice. Subtle occupation campaigns, on the other hand, involve the monopolization of the media: propaganda, news, movies, satellites, radio and television stations, and other forms in addition to discourse channels which exemplify the creation of confusion, bewilderment, and perplexity: “Modern and more effective power is mostly cognitive, and enacted by persuasion, dissimulation, or manipulation, among other strategic ways to change the minds of others in one’s own interests” (Van Dijk, 1993, p. 254). Hence, the value of being able to discern such phenomena lies in the potential to identify outdated and unjust social structures, to raise awareness, and to strive for social change.

Examining the nature of language and its relationships to the self, others, thought, knowledge, culture, and society is every bit what education should be about. Rogers et al. (2005), for example, explores literature about discourse analysis in education in light of those relationships it establishes with the physical and social domains (e.g. explaining methods, studying issues of reflexivity, and discussing singularities like ideology, privilege, power, and control) to conclude that critical approaches to discourse analysis have changed education and this, in turn, has widened the boundaries and altered the characteristics of discourse analysis itself.

In this specific area of English education in the Colombian national context, researchers have increasingly embraced discourse analysis to fulfill a wide range of functions. To better understand how language works, for example, Chapetón (2009) employed a qualitative and quantitative mixed-approach to discourse analysis to study frequency, distribution, and functions of discourse markers in EFL student interaction to describe pragmatic characteristics of such discourses. Castañeda (2012), on the other hand, utilized its tools to characterize discourses which emerged from women EFL learners in online discussions about literature and how language mediates their social exchanges and, consequently, their learning processes. Maloof and Housset Fonseca (2009) taught critical discourse analysis to enhance the critical thinking processes of students. On the topic of identity, Soler (2012) explored ways in which ethnic identities are discursively constituted around dynamics of adaptation, resistance and negotiation in learning. Gómez (2012) studied processes of identity construction in the EFL classroom and their relation to the development of the target language.

Moving beyond the impact that discourse analysis may have in the micro-level contexts of individual EFL classrooms, in the policy realm, Guerrero (2010) analyzed official discourses to describe the ways in which English teachers are portrayed in documents like the Estándares básicos de competencias en lenguas extranjeras: inglés. Formar en lenguas extranjeras, el reto [Basic Standards of Competencies in Foreign Languages: English. Development in Foreign Languages, the challenge]. Escobar (2013), on the other hand, frames a study of English policymaking processes in Colombia under discourse analysis principles to illustrate discursive strategies employed to form and transform identities and, thereby, justify asymmetrical power structures in English education.

Despite the numerous aforesaid examples of studies on discourse analysis, the discussion addressing the corresponding relations of second or foreign language acquisition and discourse analysis in the Colombian context is still limited (Castañeda-Peña, 2012); hence, this book, Discourse Analysis Applied to English Language Teaching in Colombian Contexts: Theory and Methods represents an attempt to complement such discussions by depicting social practices in EFL teaching and learning processes and contributing to the academic community with the assertions that may ensue in regard to language knowledge, social constructions, and dynamics of power and control.

This book presents a conceptualization and contextualization of discourse analysis, followed by studies of language patterns, structures of conversations, identity constitution, and the vision of virtual communities through online interactions. It concludes by drawing assertions between discourse analysis and the acquisition of English as a foreign language in Colombian contexts.

The first chapter, ‘Classroom Discourse Analysis: Outlining the Field’ draws constituents from many different discourse analysis approaches to situate and characterize classroom language. To begin, it deliberates on how discourse studies define classroom language. Subsequently, it delineates discourse analysis in general educational settings, from feminist post-structural analysis (a derivation) which facilitates the understanding of power dynamics of learning in foreign language classroom interactions. Accordingly, the author elaborates and advises on methodological implications regarding classroom discourse to finally expand on the analysis of discourse for English as foreign and second language settings.

The second chapter, ‘Exploring Pragma-grammatical Roles of ‘Do’ in EFL Students Spoken Production’ is a corpus linguistics study that uses computerized tools to examine naturally occurring conversations and characterize patterns of language use to subsequently compare them to the socio-cultural language configurations native English speakers use in their natural sociocultural exchange to analyze their potential impact on communication. The analysis is initially guided by patterns of use, overuse, and underuse of linguistic resources which consequently warrants the detailed examination of specific linguistic items through the creation and use of concordances; additionally, this chapter exemplifies the study of one specific linguistic item ‘do’ and its interrelations to other linguistic components in meaning-making attempts and in light of sociocultural representations.

Chapter three, ‘Doing Research on Classroom Interaction: Approaches, Studies and Reasons’ reflects upon the structures of conversations discussing three investigations conducted under conversation analysis methodologies and theories about discourse analysis. These studies postulate influences of L1 on L2, describe request events and delineate sequencing in classroom conversations. This chapter advocates discourse analysis to understand the pragmatics of interaction, the construction of social roles in the EFL classroom, and the discursive dynamics of the EFL teaching and learning endeavor.

Chapter Four, ‘Unveiling the Masked Meanings of Classroom Interaction: A Critical Analysis to Classroom Discourse’ seeks to characterize the identity-forming processes of EFL learners and how such identities may have an impact on the linguistic development and performance of EFL students. It advocates the need to enlarge our conception of the foreign language beyond the linguistic code and in isolation from other knowledge constructions into conceptualizations of language as a social practice that mediates cognitive processes of diverse natures.

Chapter five, ‘From Underdogs to Important Speakers: Unveiling Language Learners’ Identities through Peer-Approval Discourses’ explores the discursive construction of status, hierarchy, and membership to groups in virtual contexts observing the interchange of opinions and reactions of students’ affiliations to music, hobbies, knowledge, etc., and in terms of peer approval and disapproval. This study highlights the importance of discourse analysis in terms of the contested power struggles evidenced in a learning environment, the importance of understanding such dynamics in the teaching practice, and the possible mitigation of hostile environments to enhance learning.

Finally conclusions draw comprehensible associations between discourse analysis and language in several arenas: (a) the progressive evolution of discourse analysis and what it could represent for language education today; (b) the understanding of language make up and behavior and how discourse analysis could promote advantageous findings about linguistic structures and language use; (c) the establishment of connections between language and society to describe how language structures social life and, reciprocally, how social life structures language; (d) exploring the intricate relation between language and the self to depict identity-forming processes in foreign language interaction; and (e) describing individual and collective dynamics of social positioning which strive for distinctiveness as well as ‘me’ membership.

Discourse analysis holds wide-reaching importance for the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language. It provides methods to acquire linguistic knowledge and update linguistic competence in a context where English is not commonly spoken in social life; it allows inquiries into social factors which play a crucial role in linguistic development and performance; and, it facilitates understanding the social appropriations of English as a foreign language and the construction and positioning of the persona in foreign language interaction.

As such, Discourse Analysis Applied to English Language Teaching in Colombian Contexts: Theory and Methods seeks to stimulate the discussion about discourse analysis within the English teaching and learning processes, exemplify approaches to such analysis which may result in changes in teaching practices, and disseminate findings derived from studies which have exhibited a significant impact in the field of English as a foreign language teaching and learning in Colombia.

Wilder Escobar &
Harold Castañeda-Peña

About the Author

Harold Castañeda-Peña holds a Doctoral Degree in Education, Goldsmiths, University of London. He is an assistant professor at the School of Science and Education at Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas where he directs the Master Program in Applied Linguistics to TEFL and the Research Group Aprendizaje y Sociedad de la Informacion. He is interested in gender, information literacy and videogaming in relation to language learning and teacher education from a discursive perspective. He has published articles relating gender and ELT preschool education in The Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, Signo y Pensamiento and Magis, Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación. He is also coauthor of the book Gender and language research methodologies edited by Harrington et al, Palgrave MacMillan (2008) and is author of the book Masculinities and femininities go to preschool: Gender positioning in discourse published by Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in 2009.

Classroom Discourse Analysis: Outlining the Field

Introduction

Discourse analysis in linguistics has been applied to work on the way sentences or utterances cohere into discourse (Potter, 2004) and linguists have also developed the work of discourse analysis through the use of classroom interaction. This rather restricted view of the possible scopes of the linguistic studies of discourse is challenged by Van Dijk (1981), who argued years earlier, that by “discourse studies we refer to the new interdisciplinary field between linguistics, poetics, psychology and the social sciences concerned with the systematic theory and analysis of discourses and their various contexts” (Van Dijk, 1981, p. 1). Among those various contexts, it seems that the educational context has been ranked as one important valuable object of study.

There is truth in both Potter’s and Van Dijk’s views, but their somewhat dissimilar positions about the range of action that discourse analysis has might indicate more than a lack of coherence within what is traditionally understood by discourse analysis. Consequently, a complete deconstruction of discourse analysis applied to classroom language with the philosophical approach Derrida recommends may still be needed. This entails a search for the limits and margins of discourse analysis (Derrida, 1982) if research of this type is to qualify its own scope and methods.

This deconstructive claim is especially understood if we keep in mind the overwhelming expansion of research that started especially in the late 60’s and early 70’s about specific educational contexts where classroom language is analyzed (Bellack et al., 1966; Cazden et al., 1972; Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Cazden, 1988) and is still growing to date (Christie, 2002). Discourse analysis studies have involved the second and foreign language classrooms (McCarthy and Carter, 1994; Seedhouse, 1995; Nunn, 2001) and (MacNaughton, 1988; Blackbourn-Brockman, 2001). For a recent review regarding Latin America, see Castañeda-Peña (2012).

It is within such heterogeneous approaches that this chapter aims at briefly sketching the discourse analysis applied to classroom language. In order to achieve this goal, how discourse studies have viewed classroom language will be described; second, discourse analysis in general educational settings and the feminist post-structuralist approach will be outlined; third, discourse analysis in foreign and second language educational settings will be traced; fourth, the discussion about which methodology is appropriate to investigate classroom discourse will be summarized. Finally, I will introduce my own discussion about researching classroom discourse in foreign/second language instructional settings. The review proposed is not exhaustive but comprehensive in scope.

Classroom language viewed as discourse

What is classroom language? Does it differ from conversation? Is it a type of text? Is it a type of discourse? These are four important questions whose answers will provide scientific research with a less distorted view of discourse analysis in relation to classroom language. The expression ‘scientific research’ is as wide-ranging as it is intended to be and is used here comprehensively. As was stated in the introduction, this is due to the evolution discourse analysis has experienced regarding classroom discourse. The difference between classroom language and a conversation could be precisely identified from two properties that here will be called symmetry and level of formality. I will use the following transcript to illustrate these two concepts.

The transcript could represent two different situations and it could be assumed that I am accepting that both classroom language and a conversation are the same. That’s not my intention and I will provide a context for each situation to amend my initial assumption. First, it could be a small chat between two friends in which one is offering new information about a recent visit he/she has made to a museum. Second, this transcript could be an excerpt on a lesson about history or chemistry on mummified bodies. Symmetry as defined in any dictionary entry implies proportion. Thus, any linguistic interaction is symmetrical if the participants share on an equal basis their turn taking and their right to interrupt with specific purposes such as making new stands, agreeing or verifying if the interlocutor is still involved in the exchange. This example seems to be asymmetrical; interlocutor 1 is sharing a new topic with interlocutor 2 and they organized the interaction by assuming the role either of the questioner or of the answerer. In an ideal conversation, the relationship seems to be more symmetrical. This means that the participants talk or hold the conversation by distributing somewhat evenly their right to speak and express their thoughts. In this example, this does not happen because one of the interlocutors displays longer turns, makes more comments and asks more questions.

Regarding classroom language, this asymmetry is normally accepted, but this does not necessarily imply it should be acceptable that the teacher has a privileged position due to her/his officially assigned role to guide a teaching/ learning process. In that sense, teachers hold the power to distribute turns of speaking, to formally assess what is said, to interrupt, etc. However, neither classroom language nor conversations occur out of context. Filling in the square brackets [purposefully left blank] and adding lines 1-6, and 17 contextualizes the conversation and the interaction becomes the following:

It is obvious now that interlocutor 2 is a teacher and both interlocutors 1 and 3 are students. Most of the time, the teacher is asking questions (lines 1-2, 10 and 13), which sometimes are also used to call students’ attention to something or to organize turns (line 16). The teacher uses other opportunities to inform her students (lines 4-6) or to assess what students have just said (line 12). On the students’ side, the number of assumed turns seems to be comparatively smaller in this particular excerpt. Lines 7 and 8 appear to be used by the student to add a commentary to what is being stated by the teacher. Lines 11, 14 and 17 are straightforward answers to questions addressed by the teacher. According to this example, taken from Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, p. 85-86), due to particular contexts and to particular participants’ personalities, both classroom language and conversation could be considered asymmetrical.

On the other hand, because of the traditional role imposed on teachers, classroom language most of the time may be more asymmetrical compared to conversations. Cazden (1988), considers the construction of a lesson structure, mainly talks about variation in the speaking rights; as in the example above, she mentions that teachers tend to keep talking more than students do. She implies that there are deviations to the structure because basically classroom talk is context-shaped. However, sometimes regarding its structure, “classroom talk becomes more like informal conversation–not the same as conversation” (Cazden, 1988, p. 55). It should be recalled that the transcript provided was introduced either as a chat between friends or as a history/chemistry class. All these assumptions depend on many variables; for example, according to expected learning outcomes, both teachers and students could play an active role in the construction of classroom interactions. They might or might not negotiate knowledge co-construction according to motivational levels, attention span, and other factors (none of which are considered here).

Level of formality can be an alternative criterion to define a linguistic exchange. The dichotomy formal/non-formal attempts to describe to what extent a situated interaction makes evident who the participants are and how they relate to each other. Again, classroom language could be assumed as spoken in the formal context of education where the teacher structures the exchanges and socializes students through the use of language. Notice how students in the example taken from Sinclair and Coulthard always attached the word Miss to most of their answers (lines 7, 14 and 17). I should also say that the word social here is used in a very wide-ranging way and that it is not my purpose now to discuss its appropriateness in describing educational purposes. Therefore, back to the initial point and, as a generalization, a conversation is typically either a formal or a non-formal co-construction and, this should be judged by the circumstances in which a particular conversation takes place.

However, symmetry and level of formality do not completely trace out what classroom language and conversations are because the last two are always embedded in the expression and construction of social meaning and it is there, in the construction of social meaning, where the level of formality may also vary. This last statement implies a deep epistemological discussion to formally characterize both symmetry and level of formality as part either of the structural or the pragmatic (and even the stylistic) level of classroom discourse and conversation. Although this chapter does not aim at being part of such enquiry, it seems to be appropriate to ask, as Sinclair and Coulthard did, about “how far different educational levels anticipate different types of discourse” (1975, p. 114), and how different kinds of conversation that might or might not share different textual patterns anticipate differences as well. This agrees with Van Dijk’s (1981) idea about what discourse studies should additionally accomplish because, as he stated, “an interactional analysis of discourse will not only be concerned with structural or functional properties of dialogues. It will especially have to indicate what the various social contexts of these structures and functions are. Not any conversation can take place in any context” (Van Dijk, 1981, p. 6).

Two concepts should be additionally explored: text and discourse. The distinction among them is necessary to move towards an understanding of myriad explanations about discourse analysis. According to Fairclough (1995), there is a common understanding for discourse analysis about what a text is; in his own words: “a rather broader conception has become common within discourse analysis, where a text may be either written or spoken discourse” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 4). It could be assumed then that discourse contains texts or rather that discourse is made out of texts. A newspaper, for example, is a written discourse about recent happenings (most of the time) that are texts contributing to the construction of a broader discourse. By the same token, the study of classroom discourse is the study of discourses made out of classroom-generated texts. In that sense, a lesson could be considered a discourse that is constructed by sequential texts structured by the interaction of teachers and students in the classroom. Consequently, classroom discourse is also text-context situated. This is what allows a dialectic interrelationship between the speech producers and their situated discourse. As Fairclough (1995) asserts, language use is “imbricated in social relations and processes which systematically determine variations in the properties of language, including the linguistic forms which appear in texts” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 73).

Although the limits between properties such as symmetry and level of formality and concepts such as text and discourse seem to be blurred, they still help us to understand that classroom language and conversations are not the same, especially when properties and concepts are applied to real pieces of language interaction or when approached by different streams of discourse analysis, as will be shown below. There are also different structural, functional, social and ideological levels in discourse. For example, a teacher might claim to be democratic in his/her classroom; this involves an idea (ideological level) of a specific human being he or she shares and wants to perform his educational practice within such a framework (social level), but his/her discursive actions (functional level) may be proven as contradictory because of the speech acts (structural level) used while teaching. As a consequence, those levels should be seen and examined in light of discourse analysis theory. Such theory might be qualified as critical.

The previous considerations will not be discussed any further due to the descriptive and exploratory purpose that this chapter has at this stage. However, the fact that many things, in Potter’s view (2002), are called discourse analysis constitutes a reference to revisit the investigations made through such an approach. The next section will outline discourse analysis in general educational settings and the feminist post-structuralist approach as part of additional ontology and epistemology behind it.

Discourse analysis in general educational settings

In this section I will include brief reviews about discourse analysis from the standpoint of traditional linguistic theory and from functional perspectives within the educational setting. The review will be as chronological as possible and will include feminist post-structuralist approaches to discourse analysis because of the educational settings and academic subjects these theories have normally dealt with (academic writing, mother tongue, etc.). In that sense, only two researchers will be quoted here. However, it is known that there exists a sizeable quantity of feminist literature appealing to the use of discourse analysis and other methods to analyze gender in several contexts that are not related at all to education. The review I am proposing is exploratory and does not pretend to be extensive in nature but rather illustrative of how general educational contexts have been studied through discourse analysis.

Bellack’s work (1966) could be placed at a foundational level for the studies of classroom language. It is a valuable piece of research not only for the interesting data analysis it provides but also for the theoretical framework used to support the research. Bellack bases his research on the concept of teaching cycle. The teaching cycle allowed him to describe classroom discourse “as current sequences in the verbal exchange among teachers and students” and this concept also allowed him “to describe the ebb and flow of the teaching process as it develops over time.” (Bellack et al, 1966, p. 5). The study was conducted while a unit of study was developed with 15 different high school classrooms involving 345 students. Bellack concludes that there is a strong correlation between dimensions of classroom discourse and dimensions of learning and suggests that research about discourse analysis in the classroom should address not only descriptive issues of such language but should also “describe the variety of outcomes that might be associated with classroom activity” (p. 235). Finally, the author asserts the existence of five rather general rules in the language game of teaching and frames language teaching within the theory of language games proposed by Wittgenstein. First, those rules imply that structuring, soliciting, responding and reacting are pedagogical moves and all of them are used in different proportions on a teaching unit. Second, it is the teacher who leads the game; students play a rather passive role in the game. Third, the teaching unit is about a substantial matter structured by the teacher. Fourth, players (teachers and students) use a referential approach to the subject matter and instead of interpretive tasks performed in the classroom there are just factual presentations and their corresponding explanations. Fifth, the degree of game success depends on the degree of commitment of both kinds of players: teachers and students. Interestingly enough, this research depended a lot on statistical analysis of frequency. Bellack’s major contributions to the field of discourse analysis are his concepts of teaching cycles and moves, both units of discourse. The latter unit included a hierarchical structure supported by different types of moves such as soliciting, responding, structuring and reacting which will later be redefined by Sinclair and Coulthard; these concepts will be explained below. The same research line was followed by a number of linguists whose work will be described in the following paragraphs.

In their seminal work, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) point out that studies concerning classroom interaction started back in the 1940’s when some studies about conversation were also part of scholars’ interests. These two linguists define their analysis “as primarily sociolinguistic” (p. 9) under the influence of the theory of speech acts related to language functions. Potter (2004) argues that Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) took on the challenge of constructing a model “to make sense of discourse structures in a whole range of different settings” (p. 201). They followed Bellack’s concept of pedagogical move to characterize the limits among utterances. According to Bellack (1966, p. 6) classroom verbal behavior could be a language game. Any game implies a structure and requires from players strategic moves to accomplish goals as they play. Based on these ideas of moves to play a structured game Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) identified the initiation, followed by a response which is again followed by feedback as a typical classroom exchange. The next example shows how an exchange may have different moves: