-
This article was downloaded by: [187.181.205.196]On: 17 March
2015, At: 17:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in
England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Classroom DiscoursePublication details, including instructions
for authors andsubscription
information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20
Contrasting identities: a languageteachers practice in an
English forSpecific Purposes classroomYusuke Okadaaa Graduate
School of Language and Culture, Osaka University,Toyonaka,
JapanPublished online: 29 Sep 2014.
To cite this article: Yusuke Okada (2015) Contrasting
identities: a language teacherspractice in an English for Specific
Purposes classroom, Classroom Discourse, 6:1, 73-87,
DOI:10.1080/19463014.2014.961092
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.961092
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy
of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or
endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
&
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/19463014.2014.961092&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-09-29http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19463014.2014.961092http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.961092
-
Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
-
Contrasting identities: a language teachers practice in an
Englishfor Specific Purposes classroom
Yusuke Okada*
Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University,
Toyonaka, Japan
For language teachers who are concerned about referring to their
own and stu-dents identities other than in the roles of teacher and
student in the class-room, this conversation analytic study aims to
give insights into the use ofidentity. Detailed analysis of the
data of English for a Specific Purpose (ESP)classrooms indicates
that contrasting the teachers and students non-default situ-ated
identities, such as senpai (senior in English) with kohai (junior
in Eng-lish) and sociologist with scientist, is a way for the
language teacher to performthe role of teacher effectively in ESP
classrooms: the practice constructs anepistemic gradient among the
teacher and the students and makes some actionsaccountable by the
participants, who is ascribed a superior epistemic status withan
identity. The study concludes with a discussion of the contribution
the use ofidentity can make to ESP/LSP (language for specific
purposes) and suggestionsfor ESP/LSP course development.
Keywords: identity; epistemics; English for specific purposes;
conversationanalysis; teacher training
Introduction
In language classrooms, where a target language is taught,
learned and assessed, theidentities of teacher and student are
relevant to all the participants, and classroominteraction is
normatively managed through the actions affiliated with such
identi-ties. The most notable example is the
initiation-response-feedback/evaluation (IRF/E) pattern, which
consists of a sequence of role-specific actions, namely the
tea-chers initiation of an action, the students response to the
action and the teachersfeedback or evaluation (Mehan 1979; Sinclair
and Coulthard 1975). However, suchsituation-relevant roles are not
the only features of the participants identities inlanguage
classrooms. For example, the teacher might be identified as old
man,Canadian or linguist; a student might be categorised as a boy,
Japanese or psycholo-gist. The question arises as to whether such
non-role specific identities can play anypart in the language
classroom.
Employing a conversation analysis (CA) framework, Richards
(2006) analysedthe talk of English as a second language (ESL)
classrooms in order to determinewhether it is possible to produce
an authentic conversation in a language class-room, where
turn-taking is managed by identities other than those of teacher
andstudents. Such a situation would contrast with the traditional
teacher-led lesson inwhich turn-taking is governed by the roles of
teacher and students. He found that
*Email: [email protected]
2014 Taylor & Francis
Classroom Discourse, 2015Vol. 6, No. 1, 7387,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.961092
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.961092
-
the teacher and students could indeed move out of their situated
roles, which wereassociated with the language classroom, by
orientating toward other features of theiridentities, and that
authentic conversations were possible in such a classroom con-text.
One of Richards examples involved a student and teacher orienting
to theiridentities as a member of a Taiwanese war model-making
group and a westerner,respectively, through displaying their
knowledge on the topic of the swastika andhaving an authentic
conversation in the language classroom. In this interaction,
thestudent explained to the teacher and other students what a
military model-maker is,and what he understood the swastika to
mean. Richards findings suggested that thenon-default identities of
both teacher and students can have pedagogical value inlanguage
classrooms.
However, while the value of orienting toward non-default teacher
and studentidentities is recognised as an interactional and
educational resource for languageclassroom discourse, language
teachers remain concerned about orienting to identi-ties other than
the role of teacher (e.g. Braine 1999; Clarke 2008; Nagatomo
2012;Varghese et al. 2005). Teachers may be concerned that such an
identity switch maylead to a loss of control over the classroom, or
that disclosure of their own personalbeliefs or values associated
with an identity may be an obstacle to teaching(Richards 2006,
7273). At the same time, practitioners in the field of language
forspecific purposes (LSP) express concern with regard to the roles
teachers shouldplay and what identities they should exhibit in the
LSP classroom. This concernarises as the nature of the LSP
classroom differs from that in an ordinary languagelearning
classroom, in that the teacher may be less knowledgeable than the
studentson the specific subject material (see Belcher 2009 for a
review). It follows that itwould be informative to document whether
and how teachers can use participantsdifferent identities for
pedagogical purposes while remaining in the role of teacherin the
language/LSP classroom. A need for research in this area has been
identifiedby language educationists (Varghese et al. 2005, 39), as
well as practitioners of LSPcourses and programmes.
The present study aims to provide insight into the potential
value of incorporat-ing identities other than the situated
role-specific identities of teachers and studentsby documenting the
practice in interactional teaching activities in an actual
Englishfor Specific Purposes (ESP) classroom. The following section
offers an illustrationof the CA approach to identity on which this
study is theoretically and methodologi-cally based. Following this,
the data to be analysed are described. The analysis ofthe data is
then set out, showing how the teacher used his own and his
studentsidentities in an ESP classroom. The paper concludes with a
discussion of: (1) howparticipants identities can be used in the
language classroom; (2) what contributionsuch use of identity can
make to the language classroom; and (3) suggestions forESP/LSP
course development.
A CA approach: identity as a cultural and interactional
phenomenon
From the CA perspective, any identifications or categorisations
that may be appliedto a participant are regarded as resources for
interpreting and (re)producing the par-ticipants identity. However,
any such orientation toward ones identity must be visi-ble to and
reportable by co-participants in the relevant interaction.
Zimmermans(1998) idea of identity-as-context, later employed by
Richards (2006), is a means
74 Y. Okada
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
of documenting the details of a participants orientation toward
his/her own andothers identities in an interaction. Zimmerman
(1998) proposes three types of iden-tity. The first is discourse
identity, which emerges in the action at each interac-tional turn
(e.g. current speaker, listener, questioner, answerer). The second
issituated identity, which reflects a situation-specific role (e.g.
teacher or student).The third is transportable identity, which is
reflected by physical and cultural fea-tures visible or audible to
others, and which accompanies the person across contexts(e.g.
Japanese, Canadian, old man, young girl, disabled). The term
culture hererefers to a recoverable, reproducible stock of
knowledge and skills available indaily, routine, mundane ways of
talking and acting (Lee 1991, 225). It should benoted that
discourse and situated identities, as well as transportable
identities, areworked up (Antaki and Widdicombe 1998, 14) by
participants cultural knowl-edge. Thus, a participants display of
cultural understanding of what actions areappropriate in the
language classroom (e.g. correcting a syntactic error in a
class-mates speech; answering a question on a grammatical point)
reveals how s/he per-forms his/her situated roles as teacher and
student. While it can be said that thesituated identities of
teacher and student, as well as a set of discourse identities
asso-ciated with these roles, are normatively exercised (Richards
2006, 60), every identityis constructed through participants
enactment of cultural reasoning, and no fixedidentity is
established prior to an interaction.
Participants cultural reasoning around identity is clarified by
another CA con-cept, namely the membership categorisation device
(MCD; Sacks 1972a, 1972b,1992). An MCD comprises a collection of
identities (i.e. a set of identities that gotogether) and some
rules for their application. One such rule of application is the
so-called economy rule (Sacks 1992 vol. I, 246) which suggests that
participantsunderstand an identity in terms of its relationship to
other identities in the collection.For example, if a participant is
referred to in a conversation as a teacher, this leadsthe
participants in the conversation to invoke the collection School,
which includesstudent as another participant. From that point, the
teachers future, current, and pastactions, and other predicates1
associated with the identity teacher, are understoodand expected in
relation to the student (and other identities co-categorised in
thecollection School). Considering the same example from a
different angle, if aparticipant comes to the front of the
classroom and starts to speak to the rest of theparticipants, the
former participant is understood to be a teacher and the latter
partic-ipants are understood to be students. These assumptions are
made according to theso-called viewers maxim (Sacks 1992 vol. I,
259), which states that a (co-)partici-pants performance of
predicates associated with a particular identity suggests
theparticipant is implementing one identity from a collection.
Combining these two CA notions related to identity, namely
identity-in-contextand MCD, it appears that discourse identity is
reflected by predicates associated witha particular category within
a collection. A particular category may be either a situ-ated
identity or a transportable identity.2 Whereas a participants
execution of a dis-course identity constitutes his/her situated or
transportable identity, what aparticipant is supposed to do is
predicted by the way s/he is understood by the otherparticipants in
the interaction. Such cultural reasoning around identity-in-context
andMCD proffers two procedures for a participant in a
conversational interaction towork up or make relevant his/her own
situated and transportable identity, as well asthose of other
participants. The first is a (co-)participants execution of
identity
Classroom Discourse 75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
predicates; the second is a (co-)participants direct reference
to an identity, such asYoure Japanese or Im a native speaker of
English.
The indirect implementation of a participants identity through
his/herperformance of an identity-predicate suggests that a
participants identity may beunderstood through the predicate(s)
demonstrated. Mori (2003) documented how aninter-cultural
communication interaction between Japanese students and
Americanstudents was constructed in a language classroom through
their asking each otherparticular culture-related questions, and
code-switching according to the hearers.
Note that the direct identification of a participants identity
not only instructsother participants how to understand the
identified participants conduct in terms ofthe predicates
associated with the identity; it also validates expectations
regardinghow the participant is supposed to behave towards other
participants. Hauser (2011)demonstrated that, in conversational
interaction, participants use such direct identifi-cation to
proffer or even to negotiate implications derived from the
identity. Con-sider a statement made by a Japanese student in a
university English classroom:Fukushima people dont think they speak
dialect. They think they speak standardJapanese (Hauser 2011, 192).
This reflects a direct identification of certain individu-als
originating from Fukushima, a north-eastern part of Japan,
according to one par-ticular transportable identity. The direct
identification of Fukushima people instructsthe other participants
on how to understand the predicate (i.e. being unaware ofspeaking a
dialect) of individuals from Fukushima in terms of this
transportableidentity. The point of Hausers (2011) study is that
direct identification is a way togeneralise a single individual
into a category of people in terms of one or moreshared features.
On this basis, participants can negotiate the level of generality
of apersons identity to suggest a different implication. For
example, in the above caseof Fukushima people, another participant
offered a further identification later in theconversation, namely
Many people who speak dialect think so (Hauser 2011, 192).This
identification many people who speak dialect refreshes the
co-participantsunderstanding they move from an assertion that only
Fukushima people whospeak a dialect think they speak standard
Japanese to an assertion that many peoplewho speak a dialect,
including those from Fukushima, think they speak
standardJapanese.
As is clear from the discussion above, CA treats a participants
identity as pri-marily an interactional phenomenon which is made
relevant by participants bothdirectly and indirectly through their
cultural reasoning. Furthermore, participantsillustrate their
understanding of (co-)participants orientation to relevant features
oftheir identity through their action at a subsequent turn. This
visibility and availabilityof each participants own understanding
warrant further analysis (see Bilmes 1985;Sacks, Schegloff, and
Jefferson 1974). CA is an emic analysis, achieved not
byinterviewing participants but by investigating participant
orientations, relevancies,and intersubjectivity, [which] are not
treated as states of mind that somehow lurkbehind the interaction,
but instead as local and sequential accomplishments that mustbe
grounded in empirically observable conversational conduct (Markee
and Kasper2004, 495). Detailed transcription is used as a way to
make the participants orienta-tion toward features of the
interaction visible and available to both the researcherand his/her
readers. Such detailed transcription allows the reader to follow
theanalysis of data segments, promoting the reliability and
validity of the analysis(Seedhouse 2005). In the analyses presented
below of a teachers use of identitiesother than teacher and student
in ESP classrooms, the focus is on how participants
76 Y. Okada
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
themselves treat their own and co-participants identities in
conversational interac-tion. The guiding questions for the analysis
are:
(1) Does the teacher employ non-role-specific identities for
himself and his stu-dents for pedagogical purposes while
maintaining the roles of teacher andstudents?
(2) If so, how is this done successfully?
The data
The data analysed in this study come from a corpus of 720
minutes of video-recorded classroom interaction of an ESP course at
a Japanese university. The coursewas an elective for junior and
senior students in a chemistry department. Threejunior students
registered for the course, and one senior student voluntarily
partici-pated. The course was taught by means of team-teaching by a
Japanese English lan-guage teacher and a scientist. The English
teacher was expected to teach thestudents how to use English as
scientists, while the scientist taught the course con-tent. The
students were aware of the roles each teacher was supposed to
fulfil. Intwo-thirds of the class sessions, the English language
teacher taught the studentsmainly through discussions on scientific
topics chosen by the students from a varietyof sources. The
remaining one-third of the sessions were taught by both the
Englishteacher and the scientist, and each session included
presentations by the students onscientific topics, as well as the
teachers feedback to the students. The Englishteacher had majored
in sociology.
Initial investigation of the corpus revealed six cases in which
the English teacherexplicitly invoked identities for himself and
the students other than teacher and stu-dent. As is clear from the
discussion above, several possible identifications of a per-son
exist at the same time. Participants in an interaction may choose a
particularidentification to communicate a particular implication of
a person(s). The focus ofthe present analysis is on: (1) the
reason(s) why a particular identification isemployed; (2) how such
an identification is treated by co-participant(s); and (3)
whatpedagogical goal is achieved by the identification. Two
excerpts from the data,selected as being perspicuous cases
(Garfinkel 2002), are analysed below. Theexcerpts were transcribed
in detail according to standard CA conventions (seeAppendix),
making participants displays of their understanding clear to both
theresearcher and the reader. Pseudonyms are used for all
participants in thesesegments.
Analysis
In the segment below, three junior students (Murata, Ikeda and
Beppu), one seniorstudent (Fujino) and the English teacher (Asano)
are engaged in a classroom discus-sion. Murata has selected an
article and prepared discussion questions about theapplicability of
a new method of cross-coupling reaction3 shown in the article.
Hesummarises the article he selected, and poses some questions to
the class. The seg-ment begins with Asano (A) asking Murata (M) a
question. The participants areseated as in Figure 1.
Classroom Discourse 77
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
Segment 1
To the question asked by Asano in lines 499 and 501, Murata
answers positively bynodding, but soon adds the uncertainty marker
maybe in line 503. While Fujino
Figure 1. The seating chart for Segment 1.
78 Y. Okada
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
(F) acknowledges Muratas response in line 504, Asano gives no
uptake, remainingsilent for 0.5 seconds in line 505. With his
subsequent actions (i.e. h::m in line506, a further 2.0-second long
silence in line 507 and the repetition of maybe inline 508), Asano
seems to indicate his dissatisfaction with the ambiguity
expressedby Murata, who is supposed to be knowledgeable on the
issue. Murata then giveshis own interpretation, starting his turn
in lines 511512 with but, which indicateshe is negating Asanos
expectation that he should be knowledgeable about the
cross-coupling method. Murata explains that understanding all the
issues regarding themethod is beyond his capability. Thus, his turn
presents an excuse for his ambiguity.Asano then acknowledges
Muratas position in the subsequent turn (hm in line513).
Overlapping Asanos hm, in line 514 Murata further comments on his
posi-tion, starting with so, which seems to suggest so I dont know
whether or not themethod is easy to use. However, before Murata
finishes his turn, in lines 515516Asano interrupts with an
utterance reflecting a direct identification of Fujino assenpai
(senior), which is a situated identity other than student.4
Note that Asano does not merely ascribe the situated identity of
senpai to Fujino.He contrasts Fujinos identity with that of Murata.
Considering Muratas declarationthat he is not knowledgeable about
all the issues regarding the new cross-couplingmethod, Asano points
to Fujino and poses an epistemic stance (Heritage 2012),namely that
she as a senpai understands the method, while attaching the
epistemicmitigation marker maybe. The Japanese word senpai refers
to a person who issenior to the other members of a group, who are
referred to as kohai (junior).However, the distinction is not
simply a matter of age, but rather entails the idea thata senpai is
more knowledgeable than a kohai. Fujino is therefore categorised as
amore knowledgeable participant than Murata. This contrast in terms
of their situatedidentities other than students exerts a rhetorical
force on Fujino. She is required toexpress whether she affiliates
or disaffiliates with the teachers stance that she(Fujino) has
epistemic primacy (Stivers, Mondada, and Steensig 2011) derived
fromthe identity. If she affiliates with the identity, she should
talk about her understand-ing of the cross-coupling method. If she
disaffiliates with the identity, she shouldexplain the reason(s)
why she rejects the epistemic status (Heritage 2012) imposedon her
by Asanos use of senpai.
In line 517, Fujino takes the latter position. By waving her
hand horizontally infront of her face, she denies that she knows
much about the method. However, Asanogives no uptake of Fujinos
denial and Murata keeps his eyes on Fujino. These actionsindicate
that they are still waiting for Fujinos response. Fujino then takes
another turnto explain her position (lines 519522). This turn
contains many intra-turn pauses,reflecting Fujinos difficulty in
producing the appropriate utterances. She explains thatshe knows
there are many ways of synthesising, but she does not know much
aboutcross-coupling methods. In this account, she individualises
her lack of knowledge withI think (line 519) and I dont know (line
521). She does not directly reject the iden-tity of senpai, but
claims that she as an individual person does not have
thoroughknowledge on the matter. She does show that she has some
knowledge, by saying thereare many ways of synthesising that could
be used by someone in the field. However,she avoids being asked
further questions by her claim to not know very much,
whichinvalidates the other participants expectation of her as a
particular category of a person(i.e. an ideal senpai) who can
inform the ongoing discussion. After a short silence inline 523,
Murata shows sympathy with Fujino by saying me too. Asano
acknowl-edges Fujinos account in line 525 and then assigns the next
speaker in line 527.
Classroom Discourse 79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
Segment 1 illustrates how a teacher might accomplish a task by
contrasting fea-tures of students identities. The classroom
activity is a discussion, and one of theteachers aims is to
facilitate students engagement. With his questions, Asano
dis-tributes turns and keeps the topical discussion going. In
Segment 1, Asanos iden-tity-bound predicate is to manage the
interaction. It is in this capacity that he solicitsa response from
Fujino by invoking her identity as senpai. It would be possible
forthe teacher to select a different identification for Fujino,
e.g. maybe she under-stands in lines 515516. However, such an
identification may not have obtained heraccount when she
disaffiliated with the epistemic status, as there is no moral
discrep-ancy if an individual person is not knowledgeable about a
matter; no individual isexpected to know everything. However,
senpai and kohai is a type of MCD, a stan-dard relational pair that
constitutes a locus for a set of rights and obligations con-cerning
the activity of giving help (Sacks 1972a, 37). Thus, there is a
culturalexpectation that a senpai should be more knowledgeable than
a kohai, and in Japa-nese culture a senpai is obliged to help a
kohai. When a senpai fails to be moreknowledgeable than a kohai,
s/he becomes accountable for his/her lack of knowl-edge. After
Fujino accounts for her lack of knowledge, Asano does not
disaffiliatewith her position, but moves the discussion along by
nominating another student.Their actions reflexively and
interactionally (re)produce their cultural knowledge onthe relevant
identities. Contrasting a feature of Fujinos identity with one of
Mura-tas, Asano makes relevant Fujinos contribution to the ongoing
activity, regardlessof whether she affiliates or disaffiliates with
the proposed epistemic gradient(Heritage 2012) between herself and
Murata, in which she is more knowledgeablethan Murata in the field
of science.
The second segment will further illustrate how identities other
than teacher andstudent can be useful in the ESP classroom context.
The participants are the same asin the first segment, but this
second interaction occurred in a different session, inwhich Beppu
(B) had prepared an article and discussion questions. The
segmentbegins with Beppu asking a discussion question to the whole
class. The participantswere seated as in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The seating chart for Segment 2.
80 Y. Okada
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
Segment 2
No one replies to Beppus question, and he attempts to solicit a
next speaker bylooking at Ikeda (I) and the teacher Asano in line
135. After a 3.0-second silencein line 136, Beppu again glances at
Ikeda, and then looks at Asano for 3.8 sec-onds at line 139. Asano
notices Beppus gaze and asks for clarification as towhether Beppu
is asking the question of him in line 140, pointing to him.
Beppuconfirms this by nodding and then laughs.5Asano then answers
Beppus questionwith a reason in lines 145146 he does not know
because he is a sociologist.By referring to himself as a
sociologist, Asano retroactively justifies his lack ofknowledge of
the plants and implies that Beppus asking of such a question
ofAsano is inappropriate. In other words, the direct identification
of sociologistaccounts for Asanos legitimate epistemic inferiority,
thereby defending Asanossituated identity as teacher; Asano is not
expected to have specialised knowledgein the field of science.
On seeing Beppus acknowledgement, Asano takes another turn to
refer to thestudents as scientists (lines 148149), pointing one by
one to Ikeda, Beppu, Murataand Fujino. This identification
contrasts sharply with Asanos sociologist and
Classroom Discourse 81
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
refreshes the participants relationships in terms of the
epistemic responsibilitiesderived from their identities: scientists
are supposed to have epistemic primacy oversociologists in the
domain of science. Beppu shows an understanding of Asanosutterance
in the next turn with hm in line 150. Asanos lengthy silence in
lines151154 seems to indicate that he is awaiting a response from
one of the scientiststo Beppus question, but no scientist offers
one. With the words so you might havecome across such plants in
line 155, Asano explicitly makes relevant the studentsepistemic
status concerning a scientific topic, while mitigating their status
by the useof the epistemic mitigation marker might, thereby leaving
room for the students todeclare their lapse of knowledge on the
particular scientific topic. Furthermore, thephrase coming across X
characterises X as something one encounters accidentally,rather
than seeking it out purposefully. This formulation also serves to
reduce thestudents obligation to know. Reflexively, it constructs
Asano as someone who isnot in a position to have any firm
assumption about what these student scientistsshould know. Fujino
turns to Asano in the middle of this utterance in line 156,
andafter a 0.4-second pause at line 157 she confesses that even she
did not know thatthe sunflower absorbs radioactive materials. In
lines 158160 she apologises for herlack of knowledge.6 The act of
apologising displays Fujinos understanding of herepistemic
responsibility as a scientist. A feature of her identity as
scientist is therebydiscursively co-constructed.
In the turn immediately following Fujinos utterance in line 161,
Beppu offersno reaction but looks at Asano and Fujino. This lack of
feedback might be dueto the low volume of the last part of Fujinos
utterance (sorry I dont knowany) Beppu may not have heard it.
Beppus staring at Asano and Fujino leadsto Asanos repair of Fujinos
response for Beppu (so she doesnt know in line162) and Beppu
recognises Fujinos response by nodding in the next turn in line163.
However, Beppu does not offer any further uptake, remaining silent
for1.4 seconds (line 164). Asano then further clarifies Fujinos
answer by adding anobject noun phrase (any of such plants in line
165), and Beppu firmly acknowl-edges Asanos clarification by
nodding twice (line 166). Asano then moves on toa further action,
allocating a turn to Ikeda by pointing to him in line 167. In
line168, Ikeda takes a turn and apologises for his lack of
knowledge. As in the caseof Fujino above, Ikedas apology reflects
his orientation to his offending thecultural expectation derived
from his identity as scientist. Beppu acknowledgesIkedas response
in the next turn (line 169). Beppus audible inhalation in thisturn
seems to indicate his orientation to holding a turn, and no one
attempts tonominate him- or herself as the next speaker. However,
after Beppus secondinhalation and a 1.9-second silence, Asano takes
a turn and nominates Murata asa next speaker (line 170).
In this second segment, the teacher contrasted the participants
situated identitiesother than teacher and student by formulating
himself as a sociologist and the stu-dents as scientists. That
formulation achieved the pedagogical task of facilitating astudents
participation in an ongoing discussion activity. Although the
students con-tributions to the discussion were unhelpful in terms
of content, as they were unableto provide the name of a plant that
absorbs radioactive materials, they could at leastverbalise their
answers to a discussion question as scientists. The teacher may
beregarded as somewhat inept, since he himself did not proffer any
plant name, dodg-ing epistemic responsibility by identifying
himself as a sociologist while demandinga response from the
students. However, this practice is considered a legitimate way
82 Y. Okada
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
of teaching in an ESP course. One of the aims of such a course
is to socialise stu-dents as members of a specific community. Thus,
demanding that students take onthe epistemic responsibility of the
scientist as opposed to the sociologist should berecognised as an
effective act of teaching. Most importantly, the students
themselvesaccepted the teachers identity as a sociologist, and
acted as scientists in a sciencediscussion. In other words, through
performing the situated identity of scientist, eachis being
socialised as a scientist, irrespective of his/her position on the
noviceexpertcontinuum of scientist.
Discussion and conclusions
The teacher in the two segments analysed here apparently did not
hesitate to employthe students and his own identities other than
teacher and students. This contrastssharply with teachers concerns
about such use of identity reported in previous stud-ies. The
difference may well stem from differences in the activities
expected of lan-guage teachers in ESP and other ESL classrooms. In
the ordinary languageclassroom, the language teacher is
knowledgeable about the content of the lesson,i.e. the target
language. In such a context, the teacher can provide the
requiredknowledge and check whether or not the students have gained
it by asking a knownanswer question or display question (see Lee
2006; Macbeth 2003). Such a prac-tice creates an IRE/F three-turn
sequence. However, the language teacher in an ESPclassroom is not
necessarily knowledgeable about the content of the lesson, as maybe
the case when the specific knowledge domain is science. The lack of
contentknowledge typical of language teachers in such contexts is
reflected by the prefaceto the teachers question in line 493494 of
segment 1 above: I have a question isa typical introduction to a
genuine question asked by a less knowledgeable partici-pant of a
more knowledgeable participant. Furthermore, the teacher
acknowledgedthe students responses with tokens (variants of hm, mm
hm) but did not evaluatetheir responses or provide feedback, such
as answering the question in order to con-vey new information to
the students. These actions on the part of the language tea-cher
show how the actions of language teachers in an ESP classroom
differ fromthose of language teachers in an ordinary or
language-focused classroom. In thisESP classroom, the language
teacher is not aiming to teach the subject of science;he is
teaching the students how to use the target language as scientists.
The teacherdoes this by maintaining the interaction, distributing
turns and keeping the discus-sion going. The present data show that
the teachers and students identities otherthan teacher and student
were a useful resource for the teacher to perform the predi-cates
associated with his role of teacher in this ESP classroom.
The detailed analysis of the two interactional segments from an
ESP classroomrevealed that the English teacher achieved certain
teaching goals by contrasting hisown and students identities. This
practice enabled the teacher to facilitate thestudents engagement
in a discussion activity and the process of socialising them
asscientists. Both segments were organised by the teacher
performing his role as aninteractional pivot (Hauser 2003).
Contrary to concerns among language teachersabout orientation
toward identities, the teacher did not lose control of the
classroomor bring about unpleasant results by invoking identities
other than the roles of tea-cher and student. Rather, the teacher
used such identities effectively in doing hisjob. Such utilisation
of students as a teaching resource is recommended by
ESPpractitioners (Benesch 2001), and the present study shows how
students expertise
Classroom Discourse 83
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
can be incorporated in ESP teaching. The practice may be
considered a part of theteachers classroom interactional competence
(Walsh 2006).
A participants situated identity or role and its predicates are
determined in rela-tion to other participants situated identities
in a given situation. What a senpai issupposed to do in a situation
is determined by how other participants are identifiedwithin the
interaction. If other members are constructed as kohai, the member
identi-fied as senpai is expected to have and exhibit more
expertise on the subject area.When one participant is referred to
as a sociologist and the others as scientists in aconversation on a
science domain, the scientists are supposed to be more
knowl-edgeable than the sociologist. Contrasting such situated
identities enables the ESPteacher to establish an epistemic
gradient where epistemic statuses of the participantsare positioned
according to their identities. Furthermore, this obligates the
moreknowledgeable party to contribute to the ongoing topic. It is
possible for the moreknowledgeable participant to deny this
obligation, but such a norm-breaching actionrequires the
participant to account for his/her refusal, as was illustrated in
Segment1. By contrasting a feature of a participants situated
identity with a teachers orother students identity, the teacher can
impose an obligation on the identity-ascribedstudent to account for
the proposed action (such as answering a question), irrespec-tive
of whether or not s/he affiliates or disaffiliates with the
identity and its predi-cates. Sert and Walsh (2013, 561) suggest
that managing turn distribution inlanguage classrooms is a skill
[of the language teacher], which should beexplored further on its
own right. The present study showed that one way to man-age turn
distribution in language classrooms is to contrast identities of
participantsto make relevant the participants epistemic
statuses.
Long (2005) proposed that all language courses should be
developed with spe-cific purposes, rather than for a general
purpose in a one-size-fits-all approach(19). However, one of the
problems in developing LSP courses is the role the lan-guage
teacher should or can play in the classroom. The present study
indicates thatthe language teacher can facilitate and support
students identity-formation and soci-alisation process by
exploiting the students knowledge, despite lacking expertise onthe
course content. At the same time, the findings suggest that, if
there is a memberwho is supposed to have more expertise on the
subject matter, like the senpai in thisdata, it is helpful for LSP
classrooms to develop the contents of the lesson throughthe
interaction. Therefore, an LSP course should be taught not solely
by a languageteacher, but rather by a team consisting of a language
teacher and a participant whois more knowledgeable in the subject
area than the students are, such as a specialistor a senior
student. Such a course will provide a more productive and
learning-richenvironment for the students.
The question as to whether or not the practice of contrasting
situated identitiesother than teacher and student can be employed
without bringing any unwelcomeresults is beyond the scope of this
study. To answer such a question, moreknowledge is needed on
teachers use of identity in a variety of languageclassrooms. The
importance of the present study lies in its detailed description
ofactual classroom interactions. Further studies should examine
whether teachers useof non-default situated identities, as well as
transportable identities, is useful forperforming teaching tasks in
both ordinary language classrooms and subject-specificlanguage
classrooms.
84 Y. Okada
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
Notes1. These other predicates include rights, entitlements,
obligations, knowledge, attributes,
and competences (Hester and Eglin 1997, 5).2. In some
situations, the situated identity and the transportable identity of
a participant can
be one single category. For example, if a Japanese person is
introduced as a representa-tive of Japan at an international
conference, Japanese is regarded as both the personstransportable
identity and situated identity.
3. A cross-coupling reaction in organic chemistry involves
synthesising reactions of twodifferent organics with the aid of a
catalyst.
4. In that senpai is not a visible or audible feature of Fujino,
it is not her transportable iden-tity. Rather, it is a situated
identity that she is supposed to perform within the context ofthe
university or the department in which the class is offered.
5. Beppus laughter occurs after his confirmation, by nodding,
that he is asking Asano toreply to his question about the plant
absorbing radioactive materials. It may be that hislaughter is
triggered by an interactional problem caused by Asano, specifically
byAsanos (re)action to being asked a question by Beppu. Asano is
the teacher but hisrequest for confirmation as to whether Beppu is
asking him the question is inconsistentwith his situated identity
teacher. Thus, Asanos categorical contradiction may be thecause of
Beppus laughter. Ikedas and Fujinos laughter in lines 143 and 144
occursalmost simultaneously with Beppus, suggesting that they also
share the understanding ofthe problem caused by Asanos (re)action.
However, without concrete interactional evi-dence, it is impossible
to determine whether the laughter is due to the problem, or
simplydue to embarrassment.
6. It may be that, since Asano pointed to Fujino last, Fujino
interprets this as a turnallocation and takes the turn. On the
other hand, it may be that Fujino is performing heridentity as
senpai, fulfilling the associated epistemic obligation by providing
the kohaiparticipants with an answer.
ReferencesAntaki, C., and S. Widdicombe. 1998. Identity as an
Achievement and as a Tool. In Identi-
ties in Talk, edited by C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe, 114.
London: Sage.Belcher, D. 2009. What ESP Is and Can Be: An
Introduction. In English for Specific
Purposes in Theory and Practice, edited by D. Belcher, 120. Ann
Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.
Benesch, S. 2001. Critical English for Academic Purposes:
Theory, Politics, and Practice.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bilmes, J. 1985. Why That Now? Two Kinds of Conversational
Meaning. DiscourseProcesses 8: 319355.
Braine, G. 1999. Non-native Educators in English Language
Teaching. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clarke, M. 2008. Language Teacher Identities: Co-constructing
Discourse and Community.Clevedon Hall: Multilingual Matters.
Garfinkel, H. 2002. Ethnomethodologys Program: Working Out
Durkheims Aphorism.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hauser, E. 2003. Corrective Recasts and Other-correction of
Language Form in Interactionamong Native and Nonnative Speakers of
English. PhD diss., University of Hawaii atManoa.
Hauser, E. 2011. Generalization: A Practice of Situated
Categorization in Talk. HumanStudies 3: 183198.
Heritage, J. 2012. Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and
Territories of Knowledge.Research in Language and Social
Interaction 45: 129.
Hester, S., and P. Eglin. 1997. Membership Categorization
Analysis: An Introduction. InCulture in Action: Studies in
Membership Categorization Analysis, edited by S. Hesterand P.
Eglin, 123. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Classroom Discourse 85
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
Lee, J. 1991. Language and Culture: The Linguistic Analysis of
Culture. In Ethnomethod-ology and the Human Sciences, edited by G.
Button, 196226. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Lee, Y.-A. 2006. Respecifying Display Questions: Interactional
Resources for LanguageTeaching. TESOL Quarterly 40: 691713.
Long, M. H. 2005. Methodological Issues in Learner Needs
Analysis. In Second LanguageNeeds Analysis, edited by M. H. Long,
1976. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Markee, N., and G. Kasper. 2004. Classroom Talks: An
Introduction. The ModernLanguage Journal 88: 491500.
Macbeth, D. 2003. Hugh Mehans Learning Lessons Reconsidered: On
the DifferencesBetween the Naturalistic and Critical Analysis of
Classroom Discourse. American Edu-cational Research Journal 40:
239280.
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.Mori, J. 2003. The Construction of
Interculturality: A Study of Initial Encounters Between
Japanese and American Students. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 36:143184.
Nagatomo, D. H. 2012. Exploring Japanese University English
Teachers ProfessionalIdentity. Clevedon Hall: Multilingual
Matters.
Richards, K. 2006. Being the Teacher: Identity and Classroom
Conversation. AppliedLinguistics 27: 5177.
Sacks, H. 1972a. An Initial Investigation of the Usability of
Conversational Data for DoingSociology. In Studies in Social
Interaction, edited by D. Sudnow, 3174. New York,NY: Free
Press.
Sacks, H. 1972b. On the Analyzability of Stories by Children. In
Directions in Sociolin-guistics: The Ethnography of Communication,
edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes,325345. New York, NY: Basil
Blackwell.
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Volume I & II.
Edited by G.Jefferson. Oxford:Blackwell.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A Simplest
Systematics for the Organi-zation of Turn-taking for Conversation.
Language 50: 696735.
Seedhouse, P. 2005. Conversation Analysis as a Research
Methodology. In ApplyingConversation Analysis, edited by K.
Richards and P. Seedhouse, 251266. Basingstoke:Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sert, O., and S. Walsh. 2013. The Interactional Management of
Claims of InsufficientKnowledge in English Language Classrooms.
Language and Education 27: 542565.
Sinclair, J. M., and R. M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis
of Discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stivers, T., L. Mondada, and J. Steensig. 2011. Knowledge,
Morality and Affiliation inSocial Interaction. In The Morality of
Knowledge in Conversation, edited by T. Stivers,K. Mondada and J.
Steensig, 324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varghese, M., B. Morgan, B. Johnston, and K. A. Johnson. 2005.
Theorizing LanguageTeacher Identity: Three Perspectives and Beyond.
Journal of Language, Identity, andEducation 4: 2144.
Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York:
Routledge.Zimmerman, D. H. 1998. Identity, Context and Interaction.
In Identities in Talk, edited by
C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe, 87106. London: Sage.
86 Y. Okada
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
-
Appendix
Transcription conventions(.2) Time gap of about 0.2 second(1)
Time gap of about 1 second(.) Brief time gap= "latched" utterances[
The beginning of overlapped talk( ) Unintelligible stretch(( ))
Transcriber comment- Cut-off: Elongated sound? Rising intonation.
Falling intonation, Continuing intonation Marked rise of
immediately following segment Marked fall of immediately following
segmentunder Emphasis Smiled voice Decreased volume> <
Increased speed
Classroom Discourse 87
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
187.
181.
205.
196]
at 1
7:31
17
Mar
ch 2
015
Abstract Introduction A CA approach: identity as a cultural and
interactional phenomenon The data Analysis Discussion and
conclusionsNotesReferences Appendix