Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton April 22, 2021

Teachers and supervisors negotiating face during critical account requests in post observation feedback

Helen Donaghue

Abstract

This article shows, through the analysis of “real life” institutional interaction, how experienced teachers and supervisors negotiate face when teachers contest or manage supervisors’ critical account requests during post observation feedback meetings. A linguistic micro-analysis of data extracts is supplemented with ethnographic data drawn from participant perspective interviews and researcher knowledge. The analysis shows how participants subtly and skillfully employ facework to manage the potential face-threat engendered by criticism and disagreement. This facework is mostly successful, but in one case the supervisor orients to face-threat and closes down the topic of discussion. This demonstrates that face is consequential to both unfolding talk and the feedback goal of dialogue and development. Feedback participants, both supervisors and teachers, also engage in moves of face support and face maintenance. The analysis shows face to be an emergent, situated relationship, co-constructed by both participants, and also shows that participants are willing to risk face-threat to achieve institutional goals (supervisors) and defend their actions (teachers). This supports the view that face-threat is rational and common and indicates that criticism, account requests, and disagreements are acceptable norms in post observation feedback.


Corresponding author: Helen Donaghue, Sheffield Hallam University – Sheffield Institute of Education, Arundel Building, Sheffield, S1 1WB, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, E-mail:

Appendix: Transcription conventions

[ indicates the point of overlap onset
(0.3) an interval between utterances (3 tenths of a second in this case)
(.) a very short untimed pause
WORD indicates a stressed word
we:ll : indicates lengthening of the preceding sound
- a single dash indicates an abrupt cut-off
rising intonation, not necessarily a question
falling intonation
◦ ◦ utterances between degree signs are noticeably quieter than surrounding talk
! definite and emphatic intonation
? intonation indicates a question
(xxxx) a stretch of unclear or unintelligible speech
(guess) indicates transcriber doubt about a word
(sighs) additional information
(laughs) indicates laughter
eh, ah, um fillers
mm/mmhm backchanneling indicators

  1. non-standard forms included: cos (because); yeah (yes); ok

References

Apker, Julie & Susan Eggly. 2004. Communicating professional identity in medical socialization: Considering the ideological discourse of morning report. Qualitative Health Research 14(3). 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303260577.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 2(2). 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr.2006.011.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2078–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021.Search in Google Scholar

Bolden, Galina B. & Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2011. Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication 61(1). 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, Caroline. 2008. Allowing for practice: A critical issue in TESOL teacher preparation. ELT Journal 60(4). 355–364.10.1093/elt/ccl026Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511813085.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Wei-Lin & Michael Haugh. 2011. Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 43(12). 2948–2963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.009.Search in Google Scholar

Chiang, Shiao-Yun. 2009. Personal power in a power-full “I”: A discourse analysis of doctoral dissertation supervision. Discourse and Communication 3(3). 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481309337199.Search in Google Scholar

Clifton, Jonathan. 2012. Conversation analysis in dialogue with stocks of interactional knowledge: Facework and appraisal interviews. Journal of Business Communication 49(4). 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612436974.Search in Google Scholar

Copland, Fiona. 2008. Feedback in pre-service English language teacher training: Discourses of process and power. Birmingham: University of Birmingham PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Copland, Fiona. 2011. Negotiating face in feedback conferences: A linguistic ethnographic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 43(15). 3832–3843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.014.Search in Google Scholar

Council of Europe. 2018. Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR). https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions (accessed April 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and the weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35.Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield & Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1545–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00118-2.Search in Google Scholar

Diamond, Julie. 1996. Status and power in verbal interaction: A study of discourse in a close-knit social network, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.40Search in Google Scholar

Dobs, Abby Mueller. 2014. Identities in conflict: Examining the co-construction of impoliteness and identity in classroom interaction. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 2(1). 36–73. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.2.1.02dob.Search in Google Scholar

Donaghue, Helen. 2016. The construction and negotiation of identity and face in post observation feedback. Birmingham: Aston University PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Donaghue, Helen. 2018. Relational work and identity negotiation in critical post observation teacher feedback. Journal of Pragmatics 135. 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.002.Search in Google Scholar

Domenici, Kathy & Stephen Littlejohn. 2006. Facework: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781452204222Search in Google Scholar

Farr, Fiona. 2011. The discourse of teaching practice feedback. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203846742Search in Google Scholar

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2013. Introduction: Face, identity and im/politeness: From Goffman to practice theory. Journal of Politeness Research 9(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2013-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Gordon, Cynthia & Melissa Luke. 2012. Discursive negotiation of face via email: Professional identity development in school counselling supervision. Linguistics and Education 23(1). 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Grainger, Karen, Sara Mills & Mandla Sibanda. 2010. “Just tell us what to do”: Southern African face and its relevance to intercultural communication. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2158–2171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.017.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael & Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini. 2010. Face in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2073–2077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2007. Constructing and navigating epistemic landscape: Progressivity, agency and resistance in initial elements of responses to yes/no questions. In Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Association Conference, Goteborg, Sweden.Search in Google Scholar

Heydon, Georgina. 2003. “Now I didn’t mean to break his teeth”: Applying topic management to problems of power asymmetry and voluntary confessions. In Srikrant Sarangi & Theo Van Leeuwen (eds.), Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, September 2002 Cardiff University. London: BAAL and Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Martin. 2017. Reading between the lines: Exploring methods for analysing professional examiner feedback discourse. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 40(5). 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2016.1166484.Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam & Richard Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9.Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam. 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110926552Search in Google Scholar

Louw, Stephen, Watson Todd Richard & Pattamawan Jimarkon. 2016. Teacher trainers’ beliefs about feedback on teaching practice: Negotiating the tensions between authoritativeness and dialogic space. Applied Linguistics 37(6). 756–764.10.1093/applin/amu062Search in Google Scholar

Mills, Sara. 2005. Gender and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263.Search in Google Scholar

Mullany, Louise. 2008. “Stop hassling me!” Impoliteness, power and gender identity in the professional workplace. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language, 231–254. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 51–101. New York: New York Academic Press.10.1093/oso/9780190927431.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Jo. 1992. Face-threatening acts and politeness theory: Contrasting speeches from supervisory conferences. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision 7(3). 287–301.Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39(4). 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004.Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2009. Face, identity and interactional goals. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication and social interaction, 137–154. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Thornborrow, Joanna. 2002. Power talk. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, Karen & Jessica Robles. 2013. Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. New York: Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, Karen. 2008. ‘Reasonable hostility’: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research 4. 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2008.009.Search in Google Scholar

Vásquez, Camilla. 2004. “Very carefully managed”: advice and suggestions in post-observation meetings. Linguistics and Education 15. 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2004.10.004.Search in Google Scholar

Vehviäinen, Sanna. 2009. Student-initiated advice in academic supervision. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2). 163–190.10.1080/08351810902864560Search in Google Scholar

Wajnryb, Ruth. 1994. The pragmatics of feedback: A study of mitigation in the supervisory discourse of TESOL teacher educators. Sydney: Macquarie University PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-06-27
Accepted: 2019-08-05
Published Online: 2021-04-22
Published in Print: 2022-02-23

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow