Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton September 29, 2018

会话分析路向的课堂研究

Conversation analytic approach to classroom research
运同 刘

提要:

会话分析(Conversation Analysis)的研究对象是人们的交际活动,包括日常的会话和机构性交谈。课堂教学是机构性交谈的一种,因此从会话分析创立之初,就有研究者按照会话分析的理论和方法来对课堂交流进行研究。本文从课堂交互研究和课堂学习研究两个方面概述了会话分析路向的课堂教学研究,包括主要的课题及其成果。在课堂交互活动研究方面,研究者从话轮转换、序列结构、会话补救三个方面深入挖掘课堂交互活动的特点。早期的一些研究较多关注于教师主导的课堂活动,描述教师在话轮分配上的主导地位;新近的研究开始关注其他类型的课堂活动或教师主导的课堂中其他类型的活动中的话轮替换形式。在课堂教学活动序列结构方面,会话分析路向的课堂研究显示了它微观分析的优势,细致而深入地描述 IRE 在课堂教学中的具体实现过程,准确地描写了后续话轮的作用。纠正学生的错误是课堂教学中的重要一环,会话分析路向的课堂研究表明,把课堂教学中的补救或纠错与日常会话的补救做简单的对比是不恰当的。课堂的补救行为跟 IRE 序列有密切的关联,并且研究还发现课堂上的补救行为与课堂教学环境有很大关联,跟课堂教学中不同阶段的特定教学目标密切相关。此外,会话分析路向的习得研究在很多方面丰富和补充了已有的第二语言习得研究。它最大的优势在于利用真实的语料来揭示学习者的理解和学习是否、何时、怎样、为什么产生。同时由于会话分析导向的习得研究把学习看作是一种社会交流活动,突破了大多数 SLA 研究把学习当作是个体认知活动的局限。我们认为,会话分析注重真实语料以及交互者视角的特点给汉语作为第二语言的课堂研究提供了有益的借鉴。

Abstract

This article first reviews two broad traditions employed to analyze L2 classroom interaction in order to prepare the ground for a Conversation Analytic approach to classroom research. The first approach reviewed is called the psychometric approach,sometimes also referred to as experimental research. Language classroom researchers following the psychometric tradition typically investigate the effect of different methods, materials, teaching techniques, and types of classroom interaction on language learning. Numerous criticisms are leveled at the experimental research paradigm and one of them is that the researchers do not look at what actually happens in the classrooms themselves. The second approach reviewed is Discourse Analysis (DA), which uses principles and methodology typical of linguistics to analyze classroom discourse in structural-functional linguistic terms. Although the DA approach has proved popular within the L2 teaching and research profession, researchers found that the fundamental practical limitations of the DA approach are that it tends to homogenize and oversimplify the classroom interaction.

Conversation Analysis (CA) is the dominant approach to the study of human social interactions across various disciplines and classroom interaction is among the earlier forms of institutional talk to be investigated within Conversation Analysis. In the main part of this article, a general overview of main topics and studies of L2 classroom interaction within CA is provided. According to Gardner (2013) there are two main strands of CA research on classroom interactions:work that investigates interactional practices of classroom talk and work that attempts to investigate learning and knowledge transmission through talk.

Applying some key concepts within CA into the L2 classroom (especially a teacher-fronted classroom), researchers find that “there appears to be a set of underlying normative practices for turn-taking (teacher dominates next speaker selection, students have limited rights for next speaker selection), sequence organization (teacher produces first-pair parts and has special right to talk in the third position, students predominantly produce second-pair parts), and repair (teachers dominate other initiations of repair, typically following a student answer to their question)” (Gardner, 2013: 594). But when researchers turn their focuses on the neglected domains in the teacher-fronted classroom and the task-oriented, learner-centered classroom, more flexible, dynamic and complicated interaction patterns are discerned. For example, Jacknick (2009) found student-initiated participation was prevalent in grammar-focused teacher-fronted activities in the classroom under study. He identified student-initiated participation in a range of the sequential environments falling along the continuum between these two extremes of easier and difficult initiation, depending on project ability and redirection of talk.

The three-part instructional sequence (Initiation-Response-Evaluation) has been criticized for its strict delimitation of participation rights of teacher and students, nevertheless, according to CA mentality, it is the three-part sequence that helps enable progressivity in the classroom and demonstrate understanding and learning to the public.

Repair is a set of practices to deal with the problem of speaking, hearing and understanding. Research into repair in the L2 classroom shows that its organization does not fundamentally differ from mundane conversation. At the same time, Seedhouse (2004) argued for a new perspective that there is no single, monolithic organization of repair in the L2 classroom and there is a reflexive relationship between the organization of repair and the pedagogical focus.

Firth and Wagner’s (1997) challenge to SLA and call for a respecification of its domain was a prominent mark for the emergence of CA-for-SLA. Since then more researchers have begun to employ the CA methodological tools to reveal the essence of classroom learning. Two main research types have been developed: one focuses on learning practices in the L2 classroom; the other tries to trace learner’s changes in behavior, participation practice and language use over time. Some researchers argue that CA-for-SLA can be used to show whether, when, how, and why understanding and learning occur as conversational behavior (Markee, 2000).

Since the late 1990s, a considerable amount of research has emerged through the use of CA’s tools to analyze interaction in the L2 classroom. The purpose of our examination of conversation analytic approach to classroom research is not so much to show the achievements of conversation analytic approach to classroom research as to call for adopting conversation analytic approach in Chinese as a second/foreign language classroom research. In the final part of this paper we explore one of the applications of conversation analytic approach to demonstrate how effective it is when employed to help future teacher observe classroom teaching.

附录

会话语料转写(指由 Gail Jefferson 设计的系统)常用符号及意义。但是由于本文利用的语料来自不同的研究者,其使用的转写符号也不尽一致。对于某一例证中转写符号的意义,请参考原作者的文献。

[左边的方括号表示重叠话语的开始地方;
]右边的方括号表示重叠话语结束的地方;
=在一行话语的结束和另一行话语的开端,或者在一行话语的内部表示没有间隔;
(.)表示极短的停顿,一般少于零点二秒。
(0.0)表示以秒为单位的停顿,例如(7.1)表示七点一秒的停顿;
表示前面声音的延长,冒号越多表示延长得越厉害;
表示声音的突然结束;
表示上升的语调;
表示下降的语调;
表示继续的语调;
a不那么明显的音高下降用冒号前的下划线表示;
a 不那么明显的音高上升用冒号加下划线表示;
CAPITALS大写表示这一部分言语与周围的言语相比声音大得多;
°°表示中间的言语比周围的轻;
><两个符号中间的言语比周围的言语语速快;
.hh表示说话人吸气,h越多表示吸气越长;
hh表示说活人呼气,h越多表示呼气越多;
()表示磁带上不清楚的声音;
(word)表示转写者的猜测;
(())表示非言语的成分,或者是转写者认为有关的信息; 表示讨论的相关部分;
[H: 21.3.89:2]表明收集该语料的研究者、收集地点、收集时间等;

(源自 Hutchby and Wooffitt,1999:vi-vii)

参考文献

陈瑶, 2000, 《课堂观察方法之研究》。上海华东师范大学硕士论文。 Search in Google Scholar

刘若云、 林柱, 2009, 汉语课堂教学录像与汉语国际教育硕士的培养。《沈阳师范大学学报(社会科学版)》第 4 期, 124–126 页。 Search in Google Scholar

路扬, 1996, 伯明翰学派话语分析法及其发展。《外语研究》第 4 期, 6–9+12 页。 Search in Google Scholar

亓海峰, 2015, 汉语国际教育专业硕士学位论文选题和研究方法调查分析。《云南师范大学学报》(对外汉语教学与研究版)第 1 期, 87–92 页。 Search in Google Scholar

杨楠、彭志平、刘希明等, 2007, 《汉语课堂教学示范》(语法篇)。 北京:北京语言大学电子音像出版社。 Search in Google Scholar

张海静, 2013, 《汉语国际教育硕士生课堂观摩能力研究——以广外汉语国际教育硕士研究生为例》。广东外语外贸大学硕士论文。 Search in Google Scholar

张杰, 1994, 伯明翰学派话语分析模式及其问题。《安庆师范学院学报》第 1 期, 16–20 页。 Search in Google Scholar

English translation of the reference in Chinese

Chen, Y. 2000. Ketang guancha fangfa zhi yanjiu[Study on methods of classroom observation]. MA.D. diss. Shanghai: East China Normal University. Search in Google Scholar

Liu, R. Y. and Z. Lin. 2009. Hanyu ketang jiaoxue luxiang yu hanyu guoji jiaoyu shuoshi de peiyang[CSL classroom teaching video and cultivating MTCSL]. Shenyang shifan daxue xuebao(social science edition) 4. 124–126. Search in Google Scholar

Lu, Y. 1996. Bominghan xuepai huayu fenxifa jiqi fazhan[Birmingham School's discourse analysis and its development]. Waiyu yanjiu 4. 6–9+12. Search in Google Scholar

Qi, H. F. 2015. Hanyu guoji jiaoyu zhuanye shuoshi xuewei lunwen xuanti he yanjiu fangfa diaocha fenxi[The investigation on topic selection and research methods of MTCSL students’dissertaions]. Yunnan shifan daxue xuebao 1. 87–92. Search in Google Scholar

Yang, N., et al. 2007. Hanyu ketang jiaoxue shifan(yufapian)[ Chinese teaching demonstration (grammar part)]. Beijing: Electronic Audio and Video Publishing House of Beijing Language and Culture University. Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, H. J. 2013. Hanyu guoji jiaoyu shuoshisheng ketang guanmo nengli yanjiu: yi Guangwai hanyu guoji jiaoyu shuoshi yanjiusheng weili[Study on Class Observation Ability of Mater of Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages ——Illustrated by the Example of Graduate Students of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies]. MA.D. diss. Guangzhou: Guangzhou University of Foreign Studies. Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, J. 1994. Bominghan xuepai huayu fenxi moshi jiqi wenti[The discourse analysis model of Birmingham school and its problems]. Anqing shifan xueyuan xuebao 1. 16–20. Search in Google Scholar

Allwright, D. 1983. Classroom-centered research on language teaching and learning: A brief historical overview. TESOL Quarterly 17(2). 191–204.10.2307/3586649 Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, D. 2005. Vowel-marking as an interactional resource in Japanese Novice ESL conversation. In: Keith Richards and Paul Seedhouse, (eds.), Applying conversation analysis, 214–234. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

Firth, A. and J Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81(3). 285–300.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x Search in Google Scholar

Freebody, P. and J. Freiberg. 2011. Ethnomethodological research in education and the social sciences: studying ‘the Business, Identities and Cultures’ of classrooms. In: Markauskaite L. et al. (eds.), Methodological Choice and Design, Methodos Series 9. DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-8933-5_7. Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, R. 2013. Conversation Analysis in the Classroom. In: Jack Sidnell and Tanya Sitvers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 593–611. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Search in Google Scholar

Hellermann, J. and E. Cole. 2008. Practices for social interaction in the language-learning classroom: Disengagements from dyadic task interaction. Applied Linguistics 30(2). 186–215. doi:10.1093/applin/amn032. Search in Google Scholar

Hopkins, D. 1985. A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Jacknick, C. M. 2009. A Conversation Analytic Account of Student-initiated Participation in an ESL Classroom. Ph. D. diss. New York: Columbia University. Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

MacBeth, D. 2004. The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society 33(5). 703–736. Search in Google Scholar

Markee, N. 2000. Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Search in Google Scholar

McHoul, A. 1978. The organization of turns in classroom talk. Language in Society 19. 183–213. Search in Google Scholar

McHoul, A. 1990. The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society 19. 349–377.10.1017/S004740450001455X Search in Google Scholar

Mehan, H. 1979. Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Nunan, D. 1992. Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Nunan, D. and K. Bailey 2010. Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, H., E. A. Schegoff and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50. 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010 Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Scherer, G. A. and M. Wertheimer 1964. A psycholinguistic experiment in foreign language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill. Search in Google Scholar

Seedhouse, P. 2004. The organization of language classroom interaction. Language Learning 54(S1). 181–222. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00272.x. Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Waring, H. Z. 2013. Managing stacy: A case study of turn-taking in the language classroom. System 41. 841–851 [2017-12-26]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.007. Search in Google Scholar

Wong, J. 2005. Sidestepping the grammar. In K. Richards, P. Seedhouse Applying Conversation Analysis, 159–173. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

Xie, X. y. 2011. Turn allocation patterns and learning opportunities. ELT Journal 65(3). 240–250. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq064. Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-09-29
Published in Print: 2018-10-09

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston