ESTABLISHING RAPPORT IN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

ESTABLISHING RAPPORT IN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

_______________

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

San Diego State University

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Linguistics

_______________

by

Tamara Brooke Boyens

Spring 2011

iii

Copyright © 2011

by

Tamara Brooke Boyens

All Rights Reserved

iv

Beautiful things are difficult.

-Greek Proverb

v

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Establishing Rapport in Academic Discourse by

Tamara Brooke Boyens Master of Arts in Linguistics

San Diego State University, 2011

This study examines factors involved in the creation of rapport between students and teachers within an ESL classroom, and reviews general concepts in classroom discourse. To investigate how rapport is created in ESL educational contexts, two classrooms were recorded and transcribed in the opening phase of a lesson. Both transcripts were taken from small classes with fewer than ten students, and in order to elucidate potential rapport building differences, the data were taken from one advanced ESL class and one beginning ESL class. An examination of the subsequent transcripts showed relevant differences between the two classrooms. The teacher of the advanced class made extensive use of personal anecdotes, humor, explanations of cultural references, footing shifts, humor, laughter, and narratives, while the teacher of the beginning class maintained what might be considered a traditional classroom format using an IRE pattern and direct nomination strategies. The analysis of the resulting data suggested that it is possible to have student participation even in the absence of student speech. The teacher of the advanced class made effective use of what was essentially a long narrative to establish rapport with the students. Conversely, the teacher of the beginning class may have negatively affected rapport by forbidding the use of the L1, maintaining a rigid IRE structure, directly nominating students, and inadvertently indexing other students as non-participants in the discourse. A discussion of these findings proposes that the effective creation of rapport can be achieved simultaneously with educational goals in the classroom. Adapting narratives and other associated socio-affective techniques for different levels of ESL classes, and prudently alternating more traditional classroom formats with more casual structures may provide an enhanced balance between classroom regulating discourse and rapport-building functions.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................1 

The Influence of the IRE ..........................................................................................3 

Alternatives to the IRE .............................................................................................4 

Positive Aspects of the IRE .....................................................................................6 

Cultural Differences .................................................................................................7 

Culture and Language Socialization ........................................................................7 

Motivation ................................................................................................................8 

The Significance of Constructing Rapport ............................................................10 

Politeness and Face ................................................................................................11 

Power .....................................................................................................................12 

Footing and Narratives ...........................................................................................13 

Culture, Humor, and Politeness .............................................................................15 

Personality Types ...................................................................................................17 

Class Size ...............................................................................................................19 

Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................20 

2 DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................22 

Participants .............................................................................................................23 

vii

Level 5 .............................................................................................................23 

Level 2 .............................................................................................................24 

Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................24 

3 ESTABLISHING RAPPORT IN ESL CLASSROOMS ..............................................26 

The Level 5 Classroom ..........................................................................................27 

Culture, Narrative, and Personal Anecdotes ..........................................................27 

Footing Shifts .........................................................................................................30 

The Level 2 Classroom ..........................................................................................34 

The IRE ..................................................................................................................34 

Conclusion .............................................................................................................40 

4 DISUCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING, AND FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................................................................44 

Discussion and Implications for Teaching .............................................................44 

Future Research .....................................................................................................49 

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................51

APPENDIX

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS ........................................................................55 

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are several people that I would like to thank for helping me through the thesis

process:

Sam Spevack, for always being more than my bestともだち친구.

Abby Fox, Heather Cones, Ryan Cones, and Caitlin Meuel, for standing by my side

through everything.

Carolina Moxley, Wona Lee, Kim Celano, Matthew Arambul, and Sarah Hansen, for

being great friends and academic partners. I have learned so much from you all.

Stefania Costa, for giving me my first ESL teaching job, being an amazing school

director, and giving me the inspiration for this project.

Finally, I would like to thank the Linguistics faculty at SDSU, especially Dr. Deborah

Poole, Dr. Eniko Csomay, Dr. Betty Samraj, and Dr. Gregory Keating for providing me with

wisdom and guidance throughout my time in the department. I would also like to thank

Dr. Phillip Serrato for taking the time to serve on my thesis committee.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF RELATED

LITERATURE

Rapport may be a relatively nebulous concept in comparison to other more readily

visible features of classroom discourse, but there are multiple techniques that may be used to

analyze transcripts for these types of interactions. One such technique is to investigate the

frequency of particular words that tend to signal changes in what Goffman (1981) refers to as

footing shifts. When an utterance is produced, linguistic and paralinguistic factors create a

stance or footing alignment for a speaker, which indicates their relationship with their

interlocutor. Within academic discourse situations, the choice of footing alignment can either

distance the speaker from the listeners or index the speaker as being closer to the listener.

These different footings can serve different functions, and it is normal to alternate footings

during a discourse sequence. According to Nguyen (2007), projecting a stance that indicates

a closer relationship with the listeners can help to foster rapport. Rapport may be especially

valuable in academic settings, where a positive learning environment has been shown to

cultivate educational development in students.

One way that footing, and consequently rapport, can be projected is by the use of

different personal pronouns such as I, you, we, us, and our, because they indicate whether the

speaker is indexing themselves more closely or more distantly from the listener. In

particular, the pronoun we is mentioned by Inigo-Mora (2004) as being potentially indicative

of an inclusive and non-authoritarian stance when used by teachers. Another factor

2

influencing rapport is the use of humor and the production of laughter. According to Coates

(2007), laughter helps to create group solidarity and discourse chains that are more

collaborative. Following this idea, Norrick and Spitz (2008) demonstrated how humor can

both prevent and end conflict situations, and that laughter even in the absence of humor can

still sometimes produce the same results. Politi (2009) demonstrated that the use of humor,

even when laughter is only produced by the speaker, can be used as a technique to decrease

potentially tense classroom moments. These combined effects of conflict resolution and

solidarity indicate how humor and laughter might be a powerful tool in academic

interactions.

However, even though the usage of particular pronouns and the presence of humor

and laughter are potentially indicative of rapport building, conversational contexts can

construct different meanings for these features. Inigo-Mora (2004) showed that we is a

unique pronoun in that it is the only one that can project an inclusive or exclusive footing,

which can then display either an authoritarian or non-authoritarian stance. Similarly, Bell

(2009) demonstrated that failed humor can have negative consequences, such as the listener

verbally attacking the speaker, a result which would be clearly destructive to the process of

rapport building.

Additionally, there are other many other key features present in classroom discourse

that can have a tremendous influence on how rapport is created between the discourse

participants. To gain insight into how some of these elements are employed within academic

situations, this study will use qualitative research methods to investigate the construction of

rapport within a specifically English as Second Language (ESL) context.

3

THE INFLUENCE OF THE IRE

The language of the classroom is specialized. It differs from the type of casual

discourse found in typical social interactions. Just as the way in which we converse with each

other can affect our interpersonal relationships, the way in which we communicate during

classroom lessons can have a profound impact on student performance.

In the majority of western classrooms the teacher controls all classroom activities and

dictates what happens during the hours of instruction. Language is the primary tool used by

the teacher to maintain their authority over classroom interaction. The most common way for

the teacher to do this is by using what Cazden (1988) referred to as the default script. In this

paradigm a discourse sequence is initiated by the teacher, the student responds, and then the

teacher closes the set by providing an evaluation of the student’s utterance. This pattern has

been called the initiation, response, and evaluation sequence (IRE). It is the natural product

of most classroom interactions unless something overt is done to alter the pattern.

Within the IRE sequence Mehan (1979) describes four different question types

commonly used by teachers during the initiation phase: choice, process, product, and

metaprocess questions. Each type of question has a preferred response type. Choice questions

require students to select from a yes/no answer, process questions require the students to

provide an opinion, product questions must be answered with factual information, and

metaprocess questions require students to provide a rationale for their responses. Although

the response types are different for each variety of elicitation, queries from each category are

often display questions. An elicitation is considered to be a display question when the teacher

already has a specific answer in mind, and the answers to display questions typically only

require a limited response from the target student.

4

One of the criticisms of the IRE sequence is that regardless of the question type, the

utterances produced by the students tend to be very short, with most of the spoken language

being produced by the teacher. Control over who talks and what is said is maintained by the

specific expectations of the instructor. Consequently, the classroom remains fronted by the

teacher and student participation is limited. This effect of producing restricted oral output

may be especially deleterious within language education programs. In Singapore, Vaish

(2008) found that most English language classrooms rigidly followed the IRE pattern, even

though oral proficiency is an expected outcome of instruction. The use of this method has

seen students in Singapore falling behind in examinations of spoken English. As a result of

similar repercussions in a wide range of contexts, alternatives to the default script have been

proposed.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE IRE

One such alternative to the teacher fronted classroom is described by Goldenberg and

Patthey-Chavez (1995) as the instructional conversation (IC). During the IC teachers step

down from their roles as leaders of the classroom and facilitate a student centered

environment. IC teachers attempt to ask fewer display questions and avoid direct nomination

of students. The goal of this strategy is to promote an environment that produces discourse

similar to a discussion. Students are encouraged to talk directly with each other rather than to

the teacher in order to expand their own opinions and ideas. This type of setting has been

shown to produce increased attention during lessons, better language comprehension, and

longer student utterances in comparison to the traditional IRE format.

For analogous reasons some studies promote the use of group work to decrease the

amount of teacher fronted interaction in the classroom. For example, a study by Ohta and

5

Nakaone (2004) showed that during a Japanese language lesson students produced a large

volume of speech when engaged in group work. The students asked each other a significant

number of questions, and were able to answer most of the questions in the target activity

without the aid of the teacher. By having the teacher assume a peripheral role, the students

collaboratively completed the assigned task. Poole and Patthey-Chavez (1994) found similar

results in alternate participant structure activities. Different situations were analyzed,

including small group work, a task involving the creation of a video project, and students in a

computer lab receiving help from an assistant. In all of these cases the interactions were

student rather than expert-centered. These situations avoided the IRE framework and allowed

for successful assisted performance between an expert and a novice, as well as between two

novices.

Creating this type of environment can be challenging for teachers, even in

instructional settings that have more inherent potential to be student-centered. During student

writing conferences, for example, Koshik (2002) found that a certain type of question

structure, known as reversed polarity questions, is used frequently. Reversed polarity

questions are yes/no questions that have a structure that would typically require one type of

answer (either affirmative or negative), but in fact require the opposite polarity in the

expected answer. Koshik argues that they are actually a type of display question and their use

helps transform the conference into another iteration of the IRE sequence. An analysis of

writing conference structures by Poole and Patthey-Chavez (1994) mirrored the potential for

this dyadic interaction to mimic the IRE paradigm.

A further obstruction to increased student participation is the attitude of the teacher

towards individual students. In a study of a Spanish language class, Hall (2007) demonstrated

6

the effects of biased teacher attention. During class time and during individual speaking

conferences, the favored students were allowed to violate the preferred IRE sequence, while

disfavored students were confined to the traditional paradigm.

The construction of an activity can also have a negative influence on the discourse

structure. In a conversational activity in a Japanese foreign language class, Mori (2002)

found that a flaw in planning turned what was supposed to be a realistic discussion into a

very structured interview. Students were expected to interview native speaker guests with a

list of prepared questions. The conversations were meant to be bidirectional, a mock version

of the Japanese discussion forum called “Zadankai.” However, because the native speakers

were not informed of the nature of the task, a naturalistic interaction did not occur.

POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE IRE

Although it has been negatively viewed by numerous studies, there is some evidence

that the IRE sequence can still play an important classroom role. Hall (2007) showed that the

IRE sequence is actually used in different types of repair sequences for the purpose of

negotiating meaning. According to proponents of the interaction hypothesis in second

language acquisition, repair and negotiation of meaning are important components of

language acquisition, and these can occur within a classroom IRE sequence. For example,

Lee (2006) demonstrated that the IRE sequence and associated display questions can help

students to scaffold correct answers. The IRE format can be used to aid students in language

comprehension, and it also functions as a way for teachers to organize classroom

interactions.

7

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Elements of traditional Western classrooms such as the IRE sequence, display

questions, and student nomination may be useful in some circumstances, but individuals from

other ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds may find these classroom features to be

obstructive to the learning process. A study by Lin (1999) of ESL students in Hong Kong

showed how individual student variables interact with teacher practices in the classroom.

Using the native language during part of the lesson, a practice forbidden in many classrooms,

served to motivate and assist students of lower socioeconomic status that were unresponsive

to traditional instruction methods.

Within a mainstream Western classroom, ESL students are often treated differently.

Analyses by Verplaetse (2000) and Duff (2002b) showed that ESL students receive fewer

high-level open-ended questions, and more low-level display questions than their native

speaker peers. This creates the restricted utterances typical of display questions. Furthermore,

the differential treatment by teachers and subsequent student reactions can create a cultural

void between the ESL students and their classmates. In an examination of an ESL program in

a mainstream Hawaiian school, Talmy (2008) demonstrated how inappropriate teaching

methods and materials can have a negative effect on student motivation and learning.

Decreased student motivation then caused teachers to lower their expectations of the

students, which further compounded the problem.

CULTURE AND LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION

Forcing students from different backgrounds to conform to a standardized teaching

format is often unsuccessful. One of the reasons for these cultural mismatches is the

construct of language socialization. Communication patterns are created by parent-child

8

interactions at a very young age. Different cultures have diverse values placed on the various

aspects of language use, and by the time an individual reaches adulthood those values may be

deeply ingrained (Poole, 1992). These communication patterns are reinforced in the expert-

novice relationship between students and teachers in the classroom. As an example, listening

is considered to be an important aspect of Japanese culture. The same emphasis on listening

that can be seen in Japanese parents communicating with their children is also reflected in the

way in which Japanese teachers talk to their students in the classroom (Cook, 1999).

When a student is placed in a classroom that reinforces a communication practice at

odds with their own language socialization histories, McCollum (1989) found that their

behavior may not conform to teacher expectations. Unless there is an understanding of where

this incongruence has originated, both students and teachers may become frustrated. Another

difficulty faced by ESL students is a possible lack of cultural background knowledge. Duff

(2002a) noted the high frequency of pop culture references made in a high school classroom.

Because of the volume of references that were made, the ESL students had difficulty

participating in classroom discussions and teacher narratives.

MOTIVATION

Interactional and cultural issues can cause a problem with motivation, which is an

important component of successful language learning. Motivation is a complex concept, and

the various factors involved in the construct have been debated. One proposed model of

motivation is known as the expectancy-value theory. According to Mori (2004), this theory

emerged from cognitive psychology and has been used to examine motivation in language

acquisition. Expectancy in this model refers to how successful a student believes they will be

in a given task, while value refers to four different sub-components related to how much

9

success in the task is worth to the individual. The four subcomponents related to value are:

attainment value, intrinsic value, extrinsic value, and cost. Attainment value speaks to the

importance of completing a task, intrinsic value is the amount of enjoyment or pleasure the

task brings, and extrinsic value refers to how useful a task is in terms of practical desires.

Cost consists of any negative penalties associated with the task. This can include anything

from literal monetary cost, to emotional distress.

A negative classroom environment can affect many of the different aspects of

motivation, especially the expectancy, intrinsic, and cost components. If a student does not

find an activity enjoyable, they feel they are going to fail at the task, or they have anxiety

about engaging in the activity, then it follows they are not going to be motivated to do the

task. According to Bergin (1999), there are both individual and situational factors that

influence interest in educational activities. Significant factors related to the individual include

cultural identification and values. As previously discussed, this aspect may be problematic

for ESL students struggling to function within a different culture. Other key individual

aspects include emotional and affective characteristics, including how competent a student

feels they are at an activity. This is in harmony with the description of expectancy-value

theory.

Situational aspects of classroom interest can also be affected by cultural background.

Bergin found that people are inherently interested in social interaction. Students are more

likely to be motivated to engage in learning when it involves socializing with classmates, and

they perform better when they are allowed to work with people they are friends with. If

students are not able to form successful social bonds because of cultural disparities, then they

may be deprived of this positive aspect of classroom interaction. In addition to these social

10

factors, humor and narratives were also mentioned as items that captured student interest.

Both of these can be affected by a lack of cultural knowledge and ineffective classroom

communication habits. In order to promote the inclusion of all students, Duff (2002a)

suggested giving surveys to students regarding their pop culture knowledge. Additionally, to

assist ESL students during class lectures, teachers can make an effort to explain pop culture

references by providing comprehensible explanations and writing related key terms on the

board.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CONSTRUCTING RAPPORT

Another way to mitigate certain negative possibilities in classroom interactions is to

foster the creation of rapport with students. Although explanations of what constitutes

rapport may vary, the definition provided by Nguyen (2007) revolves around the building of

trust and positive relationships, and this general description will be used for the purposes of

the following analyses. Being able to establish good rapport is thought to be crucial for

developing an effective learning environment, and while maintaining a positive classroom

environment is not an easy task, its importance has not gone unnoticed by researchers.

Krashen (1981) discussed the importance of making students feel comfortable and thereby

lowering what was termed the affective filter. By decreasing student anxiety and increasing

motivation and self-esteem, Krashen believed it was possible to facilitate language learning.

In a study by Song (2006) of college level ESL students, a major factor contributing

to academic failure was a lack of motivation associated with negative attitudes and a lack of

subject interest. Many students reported disliking the teacher and disliking reading and

writing in general. The students expressed a desire for better communication with professors

and individual conferences where they could effectively convey their needs and problems. In

11

addition, they cited a need for professors to learn about and consider students’ unique

characteristics as individuals. Catt, Miller, and Schallenkamp (2007) explained that while

instructors tend to think that having a comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter is

paramount, students actually value communication skills above other qualifications. Many

students are interested in building relationships with, and learning about the personal lives

and experiences of their instructors.

POLITENESS AND FACE

The question then becomes, how can teachers effectively use the knowledge of what

motivates and captures students’ attention within the classroom to build rapport? A

fundamental dilemma in the establishment of rapport is the issue of conflicting roles.

Instructors must balance the goals of completing classroom tasks with the building of

relationships with students. Social talk helps with this process, but is often thought to be at

odds with the instructional talk designed to govern classroom activities. A problem with

many of the procedures teachers are required to perform is that they require what Brown and

Levinson (1987, as cited in Nguyen, 2007) called face threatening acts. Negative face is a

person’s wish to escape being imposed upon, and positive face is a person’s desire to be

included or looked upon favorably. A face threatening act endangers one or both of these two

basic desires. Instructional goals often require teachers to perform actions such as calling for

attention, asking questions, and making corrections, all of which entail a potential face threat.

Two ways to avoid or mitigate a face threat are by using positive politeness or negative

politeness. Positive politeness is a direct strategy, and helps to reduce the face threat by

creating a closer relationship between interlocutors, while negative politeness uses the

modulation of language to create psychological distance and thereby reduce the face threat.

12

Choosing politeness strategies can have other consequences in terms of how they

project the speaker’s image. In reference to social status, positive politeness may be seen as a

projection of powerlessness. This may be useful in the creation of rapport between students

and teachers, as it reduces the hierarchical separation between them, but it may also create an

image of indecisiveness and a lack of authority. Reducing the distance between a speaker and

a listener may help mitigate face threats, but assuming closeness to be a desirable outcome

may be an ethnocentric presupposition. Not all cultures consider closeness to be appropriate

or advantageous, especially within a classroom setting. Goldsmith (2007) claimed that face

actually has much to do with playing different social roles and staying in character when

appropriate. In a classroom, the teacher must maintain the role of the instructor, and the

students must also fulfill their roles as learners. When this cooperatively constructed process

is somehow violated, or goes against cultural expectations, politeness tension may result.

POWER

Teachers face a unique challenge because they must balance functions that can be

counterproductive. Because some communicative functions are inherently face threatening,

and many required classroom activities involve these types of demands, one of the

difficulties encountered by instructors attempting to create rapport is the balance of power.

Harris (2003) studied how various issues associated with power affected politeness and the

maintenance of face. According to Harris, certain amounts of power are derived purely from

institutional roles. Increased power should give the speaker more rights to violate a speaker’s

face and impose demands; however, Harris found that more powerful speakers actually used

more mitigating strategies when performing face threatening acts than did their less powerful

hearers.

13

A potential factor in this prospective paradox is the level of voluntary participation. In

a situation like a physician’s office or a classroom, the level of participation leans heavily

towards being voluntary. The speaker has little certainty that the hearer will comply with

their demands. By constructing rapport, there may be a higher potential that the hearer will

acquiesce to a given request. In a situation where participation is mandatory, such as a

courtroom, there is less opportunity for the hearer to be noncompliant, because they are

obligated by law to obey. In these cases, it may be less necessary for speakers to mitigate

face threats. Also, according to Harris, when a powerful speaker mitigates a face threat it

may indicate that speaker’s wish to co-create the discourse by providing a way to prevent the

interaction from breaking down due to impoliteness.

FOOTING AND NARRATIVES

When a teacher performs shifts between authoritative and friendly attitudes, they are

doing what Goffman (1981) calls indexing a footing. When an utterance is produced,

linguistic and paralinguistic factors create a stance or alignment for the speaker. The other

speaker must then do the same, and the resulting creation of alternating footings is called the

participation framework. Changes in footing are similar to code switches, where these

changes are signaling a shift in how speakers are aligning themselves with their listeners.

These shifts are typically marked by verbal or nonverbal cues, and continual changes in

footing are normal in conversations. With each shift in footing, the participants of the

conversation are in a sense playing different roles, and it is normal for the interlocutors to

take a break from one footing only to return a previous one. There is a form of place-holding

taking place, where the original footing is simply put on hold.

14

According to Goffman (1981), speakers and listeners will typically exchange roles

within the interaction, but in certain circumstances, such as a lecture format, these normal

exchanges are suppressed, and one speaker dominates the floor. This typically occurs when

there is some form of task to be accomplished. An interesting example of when this can

happen is the telling of a narrative. Within a narrative exchange the speaker may change their

footing numerous times without ever signaling that they are giving up the floor. In cases

where one speaker is seen as having absolute control of the floor, conversations may occur

amongst the listeners that do not include the dominant speaker.

However, even though there is a possibility for narratives to exclude some listeners

from the discourse, narratives are known to be potentially valuable classroom tools. While

the definition of what a narrative is has taken many forms, in the most general sense it can be

thought of as either a verbal or written story. Rymes (2008) said that narratives can help form

connections between student peers, and between students and their instructors. However,

narratives, like other forms of social talk, are often relegated to the times before or after

formal instruction are occurring. According to Rymes, a conversational narrative is

bidirectional. Even when listeners are not contributing verbally, they will provide non-verbal

feedback which shapes the narrative. In this way narratives are actually co-authored by the

other participants and can be shared by the entire group. Rhymes mentions that constructing

these joint narratives can help build rapport between students and the teacher. This telling of

stories allows individuals to enter the world of someone else, and share experiences in a

nonthreatening way that might not be possible otherwise.

Narratives have the potential to produce these positive effects in the classroom

because they allow for the speaker to maintain the floor while simultaneously connecting

15

with listeners in a nonthreatening manner. Conversely, projecting a strong instructional

footing may cause the opposite results. For instance, calling on individual students can

exclude other students from the interaction, who are effectively cast as non-participants. This

is especially relevant in ESL classrooms where exposure to linguistic input and language are

so crucial. Classroom formats that exclude students from the discourse may be problematic,

as direct student nomination and the subsequent IRE sequence are so prevalent in classroom

situations. Nguyen (2007) says that instruction need not exclude students, and that switching

back and forth between social and instructional footings within the body of a class lesson can

help mitigate face threats and assist in the building of rapport.

CULTURE, HUMOR, AND POLITENESS

Humor is a useful tool that teachers can use to navigate the problem of conflicting

instructional and affective goals. Catt et al. (2007) noted that humor and informality can be

extremely useful for bridging the communication gap between students and teachers. Humor

also helps focus student attention and interest, and can assist with the reduction of classroom

anxiety. In a study of undergrads viewing sets of videos in a distance learning format, Garner

(2006), found that students preferred the videos that contained humor, and gave higher

ratings to the instructor. Most significantly, students also retained more information from the

videos that contained humor as opposed to the videos that did not. Humor is clearly a

powerful tool, but it must be wielded with caution because its interpretation is so subjective.

When a face threat is present, discomfort can be felt by both the hearer and the

speaker. Politi (2009) found even when humor produces laughter only from the speaker, it

can be used as a technique for the speaker to protect their own face, and decrease the tension

caused to both hearers and speakers when a face threat is present. This further reflects the

16

idea that discourse is co-constructed, and face threats occurring for speakers can cause equal

discomfort to their hearers. Also in line with previous articles, Nguyen (2007) discusses the

importance of humor and laughter as another way to reduce threats to face, and bring a class

back to a shared attention point.

Another crucial component of politeness, and associated rapport, is culture.

According to Goldsmith (2007) politeness theory has validity across cultures, however it has

been observed that there is variation in the way in which politeness is realized between

cultures. Craig, Tracy, and Spisak (1986) noted that different cultures often rank and

interpret the severity of face threats differently. To further investigate this phenomenon,

Schnurr and Chan (2009) studied intercultural enactments of politeness in leadership

situations. This study found that the way in which leaders in Hong Kong and leaders in New

Zealand performed leadership duties was very different. Hong Kong leaders used strategic

categories that were similar to their New Zealand counterparts, but Hong Kong culture

dictates that leaders must maintain a great power distance from their subordinates. Schnurr

and Chan found that humor was used by both cultures to establish rapport; however, in the

Hong Kong study, subjects didn’t index themselves as close to their subordinates, and they

had a limited use of self-deprecating humor, as compared to the New Zealand subjects. When

the Hong Kong leaders did use self-deprecating humor, their subordinates refrained from

responding to that particular form of discourse. Subordinates also avoided making their

superiors the direct subject of jokes, which was not the case with the New Zealand

subordinates.

Another cultural difference in politeness and subsequent rapport was investigated by

Nakane (2006). Japanese culture makes extensive use of silence as a politeness strategy,

17

particularly for the purpose of protecting the positive face of the speaker, but using silence in

inappropriate contexts for different cultures can actually cause a face threat instead of

preventing one. These findings are in harmony with Stewart (2008) which found that

speakers are typically more concerned with protecting their own face than the face of their

hearers. Nakane (2006) noted that by giving Japanese students time to plan in groups and

prepare to respond to questions may prevent some periods of silence, thereby reducing

probable face threats within culturally mixed groups.

PERSONALITY TYPES

Related to the concept of reducing student anxiety is the theory of personality type.

While there are many models of personality, one of the most popular and frequently used in

psychology is the Myers Briggs Typology Indicator (MBTI), which is based on the theories

of Carl Jung. MBTI uses a ranking of preferences for eight different cognitive functions to

create sixteen distinctive types. Subjects are given a four letter code with binary choices,

where each type is either Introverted (I) or Extroverted (E), Sensing (S) or Intuitive (N),

Thinking (T) or Feeling (F), and Judging (J) or Perceiving (P). For example, an Extroverted,

Intuitive, Feeling, and Perceiving type would be coded as an ENFP, while an Introverted,

Sensing, Thinking, and Judging type would be coded as an ISTJ (Myers & Myers, 1995).

MBTI is often used as a career assessment tool, and studies have correlated MBTI

types with learning profiles and outcomes. MBTI has been found to have cross-cultural

validity, and many learning differences that might otherwise be attributed to culture and

gender are actually voided when personality type is accounted for (Carreil, Prince, & Astika,

1996; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990). A study by Carreil et al. (1996) found that there are several

significant relationships between personality type and language learning outcomes, and

18

classroom behaviors. Additionally, there may also be a relationship between successful

teachers and their personality type (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Rushton, Morgan, & Richard,

2007).

In studies regarding MBTI personality types and second language learning, some

general trends were seen in preferences for different types, and one of the most pertinent

discoveries in terms of rapport is that Extroverts prefer social interaction, and Introverts

prefer small groups and solitary work (Carreil et al., 1996; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990).

Introverts must feel comfortable before they will take risks or engage in any social activities,

so creating a comfortable environment for them is especially important. These findings

suggest that the affective filter hypothesis mentioned by Krashen (1981) may be particularly

relevant for Introverts. Additional importance can be placed on acknowledging the reticence

of Introverted types to participate in social interaction in the context of second language

learning, as several models of second language acquisition have cited the importance of

language output and negotiation of meaning (Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Gass & Mackey, 2007;

Lantolf & Thorne, 2007; Lynch, 1996).

While the dichotomy between Introversion and Extroversion may be one of the most

important MBTI features in classroom interaction, what creates a comfortable environment

may differ across the other personality type variables. For example, Sensing types seem to

dislike humor and have lower levels of classroom anxiety, while Intuitive and Thinking types

have higher levels of anxiety, but respond well to humor and other affective devices. In

contrast to Thinking types and Sensing types, Feeling and Perceiving types cite a need for

social interaction and class harmony. Sensing, Thinking, and Judging types tend to prefer

concrete, logical, and sequential learning, while Intuitive, Feeling, and Perceiving types tend

19

to prefer less structured learning environments that provide variety and allow them to reason

abstractly (Carreil et al., 1996; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990).

Carreil et al. (1996) and Ehrman and Oxford (1990) suggest that using learning

strategies based on personality types can help teachers have an awareness of how to create an

improved classroom environment. Using this knowledge of student learning style differences

can have an effect on motivation, and even if student MBTI types are unknown, educators

can use knowledge of student preference ranges to create a more globally comfortable

classroom environment.

CLASS SIZE

Another significant that affects teacher-student rapport is class size. In a study using

the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken Language (MICASE), Lee (2009) found that

small and large lecture courses exhibited differences in lecture format, word choice, and

sentence structure. In smaller classes, lecturers were more likely to make some form of a

digression, such as a personal statement or anecdote, to reduce the distance between the

teacher and the students.

Lee also found a difference in the use of pronouns. Successful lecturers were found to

use more of the pronoun we, particularly in large classes. We is used more frequently in large

classes, seemingly because professors are able to use this pronoun as a way to create a sense

of rapport. According to Lee, even the use of exclusive we can be used to reduce power

distance and create a sense of rapport and community within a large classroom. Lee found

that small classes used I less frequently, possibly because it is not as necessary to reduce the

distance between teachers and students. Rapport is more innately present simply due to the

smaller class size.

20

Class size also effects how words are used. Smaller classes within MICASE used

okay as a discourse marker, while large classes used okay as a way of checking in with the

class. Using okay as a checking function helps the professor keep a connection with the class,

which, according to Lee, is more necessary in large lecture classes where confirmation of

rapport is more difficult to ascertain. Experienced professors may be more subconsciously,

and even consciously aware of these factors related to class size.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

As has been illustrated, creating a positive classroom environment and building

rapport with students is a complex process, and its success or failure may seem mysterious.

By using conversation analysis, Nguyen (2007) showed that rapport building can be directly

witnessed within the unfolding of classroom interactions. Because every classroom setting

and the activities done within these different classrooms is unique, it is worthwhile to

examine how, and why rapport is or is not established within different contexts.

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the growing body of literature regarding

classroom interaction and the construction of rapport. With such a multitude of variables,

including culture, politeness, humor, personality, and class size it can be difficult to make

generalizations that are applicable across a wide range of situations. In order to provide

insight into a greater number of conditions, this study will examine the construction of

rapport from multiple angles. Because the language classroom has its own specialized

subsets of goals and problems, two ESL classrooms at opposite ends of the proficiency

spectrum were recorded and transcribed for analysis.

The remainder of the study is organized as follows: Chapter Two of this study will

preview methodology, while Chapter Three will address the analysis of the two ESL

21

classrooms, and Chapter Four will summarize and integrate findings from both portions of

the investigation, and discuss possibilities for future branches of research.

22

CHAPTER 2

DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY

The interactional data collected for this study were obtained from two classes in a

private Southern California Intensive English Program (IEP) institution. Students at these

types of institutions differ from immigrant students. Many of these individuals will only be

studying in the United States for a short period of time (as little as one week), while others

may stay for much longer, with the intention of pursuing higher education or employment

within the country. Their purposes for studying English, and the ages of the students may

vary, as opposed to other populations that may exhibit more homogeneity in these areas. The

country of origin for these students varies, but there is a high concentration of European

students from Germany, Spain, and Italy, as well as large section of Asian students from

Japan and Korea. The school itself is run by a larger Japanese corporation, and it holds

special English for Academic Purposes (EAP) class sessions specifically for pre-college

Japanese students.

The classes at this school are divided by levels, with five being the highest (except

during summer months when Level 6 is opened) and two being the lowest. Morning classes

are divided into two 1.5 hour blocks. The first session is titled Reading and Writing, and the

second is titled Listening and Speaking. In the afternoon various elective courses are offered,

such as Business English, American Culture and TOEFL and TOEIC Preparation. The

recordings used in this study came from class Level 5 and Level 2 at the very beginning of

the Reading and Writing class block.

23

PARTICIPANTS

The following sections will describe the participants of the two classrooms involved

in the study.

Level 5

The first class recorded, the most advanced level offered at the time of the study, is

labeled as Level 5. The teacher of Level 5 is the only teacher at the school who has been

given full time hours. She is a longtime employee that is regarded by the school staff as being

entertaining and well-liked by students. The participants in the Level 5 class consisted of nine

students as well as the teacher and observing researcher. Alphanumeric abbreviations for the

participants are given below:

T: Teacher

TB: Tamara Boyens (observer)

S1: Korean, male

S2: Korean, female

S3: Italian, male

S4: Japanese, female

S5: Korean, male

S6: German, female

S7: Italian, male

S8: Italian, male

S9: Japanese, male

24

Level 2

The second class recorded for this study is labeled as Level 2, and was the lowest

proficiency level offered at the time of the study. The teacher of Level 2 had been an

employee of the school for approximately eight months. At the time of the recording the

Level 2 teacher had been absent for several days prior, and a substitute had been filling in for

her class. The participants in the Level 2 class consisted of six students in addition to the

teacher and the observing researcher. Because many students were addressed by name in the

data, a pseudonym is provided when available, in addition to an alphanumeric abbreviation

that was assigned to all participants. Abbreviations and pseudonyms for the participants of

Level 2 are given below:

T: Teacher

TB: Tamara Boyens (observer)

S1: German, male (Pascal)

S2: Japanese, male (Yuki)

S3: Spanish, male (unknown)

S4: Japanese, female (Nana)

S5: Japanese, female (Akiko)

S6: German, female (Maria)

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The data for this study were recorded using two digital voice recorders. One recorder

was placed on the teacher’s desk, and the other was placed in the middle of the classroom on

an empty desk. Video data were not collected, as the director of the school requested that

cameras not be used in the study. Approximately the first ten minutes of each class opening

25

were then transcribed from the recordings using transcription conventions taken from a

classroom discourse analysis framework (see Appendix). The resulting transcript was then

analyzed for classroom discourse features and how they effected the construction of rapport.

26

CHAPTER 3

ESTABLISHING RAPPORT IN ESL

CLASSROOMS

This chapter will analyze transcripts taken from two ESL classrooms at the opposite

ends of the proficiency spectrum in order to analyze what factors contributed to the

construction of rapport. In order to make this comparison data were collected from two

classes in a private Southern California Intensive English Program (IEP) institution. Class

Level 5 consisted of advanced ESL learners and was led by an experienced teacher, while

Class Level 2 consisted of beginning ESL students and a less experienced instructor. A

detailed explanation of the school and participants in the two classrooms was provided in

Chapter 2. The recordings used in this study came from Class Level 5 and Level 2 at the

opening phase of the reading and writing class block. In addition to proficiency levels this

chapter will also discuss what effects teacher characteristics can have on the outcomes of

classroom interaction. Factors to be examined in the discussion of rapport include laughter

and humor, the use of narratives, pop culture references and explanations, the IRE, different

uses of pronouns, and footing shifts. An examination of the two transcripts will show a sharp

contrast between the teaching styles of the two instructors. The following discussion will

show that the Level 5 teacher used many of the components noted as potentially capable of

rapport building, while the Level 2 teacher maintained interaction consistent with a more

traditional teacher-fronted classroom.

27

THE LEVEL 5 CLASSROOM

When examining the transcript for the Level 5 class, it becomes apparent that the

majority of the discourse is essentially an extended teacher narrative punctuated by abundant

laughter and spontaneous short utterances from the students. While verbal contributions from

students were minimal, it should be noted that the entire class was engaged with and

participating in the narrative with either non-verbal responses or laughter. In the course of

the narrative, the Level 5 instructor uses several techniques to help create shared attention

and build rapport with students. These include alternations between footings, the use of

humor, personal anecdotes, a lack of direct student nomination, and explanations of cultural

phenomena.

CULTURE, NARRATIVE, AND PERSONAL ANECDOTES

Within the Level 5 transcript a significant portion of the teacher’s speech is in the

form of a narrative, which is mainly used to explain cultural concepts in addition to

interweaving the cultural information with examples from her own experience. She is in

effect aligning herself with the students and lessening the gap between them. This is an

attempt to simultaneously share personal experiences and pertinent cultural information.

In the following examples, shading will be used to highlight pieces of the discourse

that represent personal anecdotes or self-reference from the instructor, and italics will show

instances of cultural explanations. If both features are present simultaneously, shading and

italics will be used to illustrate this phenomenon. In addition, the use of bolding will be used

to highlight instances where the pronoun we was used. In excerpt 1, several of these features

can be observed.

28

Excerpt 1

1. T: It’s the most traditional American sport. We say something is as American as baseball and apple pie.

2. S9: ((laughing)) apple pie.

3. T: It’s just the epitome of what something American is. If you say Kristen’s like baseball and apple pie. That means ((laugh)) when you think of me you think (.) think that I’m so American. Something is so American. So:: it’s fun. We just bought our Padre tickets. If any of you will be here in April they have open—opening game. And the opening game I think is like April 5th is between the Dodgers and the Padres. The L.A. Dodgers which is a big rivalry. You know San Diego teams and L.A. teams, don’t like each other.

4. S8: ((laughter)) Oh really

5. T: Like Oosaka and Tokyo or maybe Seoul and Pusan. You wanna. You wanna beat ‘em so much. I have a little problem because I grew up closer to L.A. in Santa Barbara so I feel like schizophrenic when I watch the Dodgers play the Padres.

6. S9: Mmm ((laughter))

7. T: You know go Dodgers..go Padres! I can’t say beat the Dodgers I can’t say it I can’t say it. When I was a little girl for my-for my father, my brother, my grandfather it was like a religion, the Dodgers. The Dodgers have to win. It’s fun. I think the best part about baseball is to go to a game. You have to experience it. It’s American culture to have a hotdog and drink a beer and watch. And and it’s a really nice atmosphere, different from football. American football is fun, it’s like fights and cheerleaders. And when I went to a-to a Charger game more people were watching the cheerleaders and watching the fights. Nobody was watching the game. =

8. Ss: [((laughter))

9. T: = And we said that we have to get more expensive seats next time because we were kinda in the cheap seats up above, the only thing that was left and that’s where all the fights are. We looked down at the expensive seats, people were just drinking wine and relaxing, but way up in what we call in the Nosebleeders.

In example 1, the instructor is giving an explicit explanation of the phrase “as

American as apple pie,” and where it originated (Lines 1 and 3). In doing so, she also

references herself within the explanation and then goes on to give a personal anecdote

(line 3). Following that, she relates the story back to the students by telling them when she

thinks the game is going to occur in case they want to watch it (line 3). She then continues

29

the cultural description of the rivalry between the Dodgers and the Padres (line 3). In line 5

she gives an example of a similar rivalry that some of the students may be familiar with

before referencing her own personal experience again. This interweaving of anecdotes with

more objective cultural practices occurs again when she discusses her own experiences at

baseball and football games, and how the typical American experiences such activities

(line 7). Line 8 continues in the pattern of line 3 where she melds a personal anecdote with

the instructional task of explaining the vocabulary item, “nosebleeders.”

In other excerpts, similar features were present, but instead of simply talking about

American cultural traditions, the instructor mentions cultural practices familiar to her

students. However, because the students have diverse cultural backgrounds and interests, she

maintains the pattern of explaining potentially unfamiliar information in order to preserve

classroom unity. Excerpt 2 below illustrates some of these examples.

Excerpt 2

1. T: Oh oh who is who is in the finals of the world—did anybody go this weekend at Petco park?

2. T: You went? Japan won!

3. Ss: Yeah

4. T: Yeah::: Japan won. Last time (..) they won everything. They beat—oh so they beat Cuba, which is a big win because Cuba is a good team.

5. S8: Yeah

6. T: They played (xxxx)(…) Taiwa::n. How’s Korea doing? Did Korea Survive?

7. S5: Korea? Of course.

8. T: Of course! What about the United States? Lost?

9. Ss: (xxxx)

10. T: I don’t know, I only know that Japan beat Cuba, I don’t know the rest. Do you guys know what we’re talking about? They had the world baseball classic down at Petco

30

Park. And we um (..) yeah it’s it’s been here because um it started in Anaheim, which is kinda near Disneyland. And every year well it’s been coming back. Japan won the last time. Now last year I had some students who volunteered, Japanese and Korean students. And the Korean students got to meet Chan Ho Park and he was really, they said he was really a cool guy, really nice. Uh:: so you guys like baseball?

Although the non-verbal responses were not captured during data collection, it is clear

from the audio data and the researcher’s notes that only a portion of the classroom is

responding to this initial question (lines 2-9). Only one segment of the classroom seems to

either have attended or know about the baseball game being referenced. In other words, due

to a lack of background knowledge, a portion of the class is potentially excluded from the

discourse. The instructor then attempts to rectify the situation (line 10). She references the

students who don’t seem to be participating in the dialogue by directly asking if they are

familiar with what she is talking about (line 10). She follows this up with an explanation of

the event, an anecdote about her own experience with the event, and a question to the

students about their own opinion of baseball (line 10). The last sentence of line 10 is

interesting because she is in fact speaking about experiences shared by her and former

students, which may also serve to solidify the sense of cohesion between her and the class as

a whole. The overall effect of the excerpt, and in particular line 10, is to bring the rest of the

class back to a shared attention point.

FOOTING SHIFTS

In a number of other instances the teacher continues to exhibit many of the features

discussed in the previous section, but with the addition of notable instances of footing shifts.

The instructor persists in explaining cultural references along with personal anecdotes, but as

the opening phase of the class begins to come to a close, she starts to add instructional talk to

her narrative. Excerpt 3 below contains several examples of these footing shifts.

31

Excerpt 3

11. T: ((laughing)) Yeah the really high seats called nosebleeders like uh, we’re in the nosebleeders ((writing on the board)) so we’re only gunna have fights all around us. Or people throwing beer bottles and the police came, and really crazy really crazy. But, doesn’t it feel like spring? It’s the perfect spring day today. So we’re going to have lots of things to do. The first thing is the announcements, St. Patty’s day tomorrow. St. Patrick’s Day. Did anyone do anything this weekend?

12. S8: Mmmm

13. T: Go and drink green beer at the bar? There was a parade in Hillcrest? You missed it you missed it?

14. Ss: ((laughter))

15. T: But lot’s of events for St. Patrick’s Day and I guess we’re gunna have a little party. One thing though. You have to wear green. You have to wear green. If any—yeah none of you have green eyes so there’s no excuse. If you don’t wear green tomorrow you get pinched.

16. S9: Pinched. Oh:

At the beginning of this excerpt, the teacher begins with a continued description of

“nosebleeders,” and writes the term on the board (line 11). She then seamlessly transitions

back into the anecdote within the same sentence (line 11). Her framework then moves from

the past to the present by switching from the story of her experience at the baseball game to

the topic of the current weather (line 11). After this she switches her footing again by

addressing the instructional task of announcements, and then directly transitions back to a

more intimate stance by asking if anyone did anything over the weekend (line 11). It is also

worthwhile to mention that this question was not targeted at any specific individual in the

classroom. The sequences following it indicate that this apparent question is really just an

extension of the narrative rather than a true question. She begins by asking the question, “Did

anyone do anything this weekend?” (line 11), and after the minimal responses of the students

(line 12), she answers her own question (line 13). The limited responses provided by the

32

students (line 12) reflect their understanding of this narrative arrangement. They appear to

understand that the teacher is in fact continuing to hold the floor, despite asking the class a

non-referential question. At the end of the excerpt (lines 15), she performs another set of

footing changes by sandwiching the classroom announcement of a party in between

information about local St. Patrick’s Day events, and cultural information about the practice

of pinching and wearing green on the holiday.

While a large portion of the transcript follows this pattern of continual shifts in

footing, a final example addresses more instructional tasks than in the previous excerpts. This

is because the opening phase is beginning to transition into this first formal lesson of the day.

When playing the role of instructor there is more potential for conversational moves to be

face threatening, and excerpt 4 illustrates how the Level 5 instructor continued to use footing

shifts in addition to pronoun manipulation to mitigate potentially face threatening

conversational acts.

Excerpt 4

17. T: Yay:: So Tami’s here and we are going to talk about reporting verbs. In little bit I have a worksheet for you also about verb tense and reporting verbs. Cuz you guys did unit 8 too last week right? About war, about women in the war? So we’re all on the same page. But we talked about what (… ) direct and indirect speech. And most people say said or told. But the first thing we’re going to do today is go over some other verbs. You could mix it up, you don’t have to say um. You should go to a party on St. Patrick’s Day.

18. T: She said that we should go to a party on St Patrick’s Day. =

19. Ss: =((chorusing)) She said that we should go to a party on St. Patrick’s Day.

20. T: You don’t always have to use said. You could be more specific with other reporting verbs. So we’re gunna go over that. I have a nice little worksheet for you about this with some other rules about changing direct speech indirect speech. And then we’re gunna have a little fun with phrasal verbs (…) your favorite ((laughing)). And we’re gunna read. Our reading for today is about Muhammad Yunus, who I mentioned last week because we were talking about charities (…) and (..) remember what he did? Muhammad Yunus he won the Nobel Prize for (… ) starting (…) microloans.

33

Microloans. So a micro—a very small loan. Fifty dollars, thirty five dollars. To women in developing countries so they could buy raw materials and start their own businesses. And it was a great success. And through him many families were educated and had food and books and everything they needed. Because if you get one person in the family, maybe the mama, and anybody give them the opportunity, they lift everyone else up. So it’s a great idea. It’s just a short reading about what he did. And then we’re going to use phrasal verbs and start our own organization.

Here the teacher begins the sequence by mixing an informal exclamation of happiness

with the introduction of a class guest and a description of the grammar lesson planned for the

morning (line 17). She moves on to give a summary of what they had discussed previously

about the grammar point in question (line 20). In this phase she moves away from using the

more commanding pronoun I to using we. For example, in the following section she uses we

three times in a row, when she could have used you instead: “So we’re gunna go over that. I

have a nice little worksheet for you about this with some other rules about changing direct

speech indirect speech. And then we’re gunna have a little fun with phrasal verbs (…) your

favorite ((laughing)) And we’re gunna read.” By using the inclusive we here she is in effect

aligning herself with the students even as she is performing the hierarchical task of regulating

classroom activities.

Even with these shifts in footing, the students still seem to understand that the

conversational arrangement has changed by accepting a somewhat tacit invitation to chorus

(line 19). Even though she is performing a classroom management task by announcing

scheduled activities, a playful shift occurs when she says, “And then we’re gunna have a

little fun with phrasal verbs (…) your favorite ((laughing)).” She is simultaneously playing

two different roles. She is performing the face threatening act of imposing an activity on the

students, while mitigating this act by aligning herself with the students. She does this by

adding humor to her utterance and indicating that she knows phrasal verbs are not necessarily

easy or fun from the student’s perspectives.

34

THE LEVEL 2 CLASSROOM

Even on initial inspection the transcript from the Level 2 opening is quite different

from the Level 5 transcript. The dense paragraphs of narrative are largely absent, and the

majority of the student interaction resembles forms of the IRE sequence. The Level 2 teacher

performs fewer footing changes, and there is a great deal of direct nomination being

performed by this instructor. Because of this there are instances where other students are

indexed as non-participants. While there is significantly more student speech in this

transcript, an examination of the interaction will show that there is actually less classroom

participation and shared attention being created in the discourse.

THE IRE

As noted above, one of the most prominent features of the Level 2 transcript is the

consistency with which the instructor used the IRE sequence and largely maintains an

instructional footing throughout the discourse. As described by Cazden (1988), the IRE is the

default framework for a classroom, and exclusively using this format may have negative

consequences, such as restricted student output, and students that are excluded from the

ongoing discourse. Excerpt 5 below is essentially a long chain of IRE exchanges.

Excerpt 5

1. T: Um, how’s your week going?(...)Good? Yeah?

2. S3: Yeah.

3. T: Okay, why is it going good? Can you tell me a little about it?

4. S3: Umm: well this is my last week. Um: (xxxx).

5. T: yeah?

6. S3: Buy souvenirs.

35

7. T: Does your family want you to bring them gifts?

8. S: Yes=

9. T= From San Diego? Yeah?

10. S3: Um: Um:: yes, it’s fine.

11. T: Yeah? Well good, I’m glad you’re having a good week.

While her first question is not directed at any particular student (line 1), once a

student volunteers a response she begins the IRE progression (line 3). The questions in line 3

could be considered metaprocess inquiries, and they project a clear instructional stance.

Rather than assuming the role of a casual conversation partner, she is playing the part of a

teacher by attempting to get the student to reflect on and expand his previous utterance.

Unlike the Level 5 instructor, she refrains from volunteering her own personal information or

anecdotes regarding her own weekend, which would be expected in a typical non-

instructional conversation. She continues this pattern of questioning (lines 5-10) until she is

satisfied with the student’s responses, and then closes with her final evaluation of his answers

in line 11, “Well good, I’m glad you’re having a good week.” This signals the end of this

sequence.

In some cases, the conversation topic of both classes is identical, such as the baseball

games that occurred prior to the recordings, but within the Level 2 data, a fascinating contrast

to the Level 5 class can be seen. The Level 5 instructor uses this topic as a subject matter for

an ongoing narrative, while the Level 2 instructor includes it as continued content for IRE

sequences. Excerpt 6 illustrates how a similar topic can be framed differently within

classroom interactions.

Excerpt 6

12. T: What about you Nana?

36

13. S4: Good. Um::

14. Ss: ((laughter))

15. T: How is your week going?

16. S4: Um: This week? Um: (.)This week?

17. T: Remember how I said before so far? If I say how is your week going so far? It means from the beginning until:: now. So like Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.

18. S4: Uh:: Yesterday I went to go to WBC. Do you know WBC? Baseball game. World baseball game =

19. T: =Oh the baseball series. Cool. Yeah Japan won right? They beat Cuba?

20. S4: Yes::

21. T: Oh cool, good. Uh, awesome.

Both excerpts 6 and 2 are discussing a similar topic, but unlike Excerpt 2 of the Level

5 class, which fundamentally retains its narrative footing despite contributions from the

students, this excerpt essentially remains an IRE chain. The teacher begins by directly

nominating a student to respond to her question (line 12). When she doesn’t get the response

that she requires (lines 13-16), she pauses to give an explanation of her expectations

(line 19). Then, the student begins to tell the story about what she did the day before

(line 18). In the following response, the teacher gives a closing response, “cool,” and then

begins another IRE sequence, which effectively ends the interaction with the student

(lines 19-21). Unlike the Level 5 example in Excerpt 2, the topic of the baseball game is not

expanded on, as the interaction remains focused on the single nominated student, and the

other students are indexed as non-participants in the discourse.

This pattern of nominating single students and excluding others continues to occur in

the Level 2 transcript. Even as other speakers have the potential to join the discourse, the

teacher makes it clear that she is controlling the interaction, and she only nominates a single

37

student. In some cases, the nominated student will have a side sequence with another student

that is not nominated. This phenomenon concurs with Nakane (2006), who found that

allowing students to confer in small groups may prevent potentially face threatening silences

in the classroom. An example of this process can be seen in Excerpt 7.

Excerpt 7

22. T: And Akiko what about you, how is your week going?

23. S5(Akiko): Um::

24. T: How is your week going so far? So like today it’s Thursday. So from Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday until now.

25. S5(Akiko): I went to Las Vegas.

26. T: Oh really?

27. S5(Akiko): Yeah.

28. T: Oh Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday?

29. S5(Akiko): Oh.

30. T: What days did you go to Las Vegas? On what day?

31. ((S5[Akiko] and S6[Nana] consulting in Japanese))

32. S5(Akiko): Sunday Uh: (..) Saturday.

33. T: Oh really? Did you go with Nana?

34. S5(Akiko): Yes

35. T: Really? Where did you guys stay? What hotel?

36. S5(Akiko): Um::: Planeto Hollywood.

37. S2(Yuki): Planet Hollywood.

38. T: Oh Planet Hollywood.

The familiar IRE pattern emerges in Excerpt 7, but a significant observation is this

continued maintenance of the dyadic interaction. The teacher initiates the sequence by

38

nominating the student Akiko (line 22) and continues the sequence until Akiko is unable to

respond (lines 23-30). Acknowledging that she is aware that the teacher is the designated

dominant speaker, the nominated student Keiko consults privately with her friend Nana in a

side conversation, and code switches to Japanese (line 31). Nana seems to recognize that she

is not an authorized speaker, and refrains from audibly joining the dyad (line 32). Then, the

teacher references Nana, but is still casting Nana as a non-participant in her interaction with

Akiko, and as such only Akiko responds, and the teacher maintains her role as the director of

this teacher fronted classroom (lines 33-36). The IRE is preserved, and any interaction

occurring between the students is done off the record in private side sequences.

Other examples in the Level 2 transcripts show even greater instances of the professor

conducting very specific IRE sequences with isolated students. In the infrequent examples

where the Level 2 teacher offers personal anecdotes, the exclusive use of the IRE actually

orients the anecdotes to single students only, and indexes the remainder of the class as non-

participants in her narrative. Excerpt 8 shows a sequence of this nature.

Excerpt 8

39. T: What about you Pascal? How’s your week going?

40. S1: My week is (..) It’s very good. Because Um, Monday we go shopping with family and yesterday and Tuesday I go to beach.

41. T: That’s good. Your face looks like you got some sun. It’s a little bit red. That’s okay. My sister is in town, that’s why I’ve been gone. Um Akiko and Nana if you could make it in English only in the classroom?

42. S5: Sorry

43. T: Thank you. Um, my sister has been in town this week and so we went to the beach what, Sunday? And her face turned red like yours because she didn’t put on enough sunscreen. But good. How was um: Josh? The sub? Everything went fine?

In this excerpt, the instructor begins a narrative about where she has had been for the

39

first part of the week, but the narrative is directed towards Pascal only (Lines 39-14). As

such, Akiko and Nana are engaging in a side conversation in Japanese because they are aware

that they are not part of the dominant conversation occurring in the classroom. The teacher

corrects this behavior verbally by asking them to refrain from using their native language in

the classroom (line 41). It is probable that she may not only be attempting to stop their

Japanese usage in the classroom, but also the unauthorized side sequence that occurred. In

addition to indexing certain students as non-participants, stopping the side sequence further

cements her instructional footing, and prevents the students from potentially assisting each

other with negotiating the meaning of the classroom discourse. Again, as demonstrated by

Nakane (2006), allowing students, particularly those of Japanese descent, to work in small

groups before being required to respond to questions can help prevent the use of silence as a

face-protecting device.

The method the Level 2 professor used to transition from the opening phase into the

lesson proper differed significantly from the Level 5 professor. The Level 5 professor

continued her pattern of interweaving cultural information and personal anecdotes with

instructionally oriented statements, while the Level 2 teacher largely maintained her

instructional footing. Excerpt 9 shows this transition phase in the Level 2 classroom, where

the opening sequence transitions into the first formal lesson of the morning

Excerpt 9

T: Perfect. So Jeff Johnson, or Jeffrey. Jeffrey Johnson and his wife Bonnie had a winning lottery ticket (..) right? And so they wanted to keep all of the money to themselves. They didn’t want to split it in half. They did not want to share it. His parents (..) let’s see their names were Joe and Barbara (..) got very upset. And they had hurt feelings, they got angry and sad because they thought that he should share it with them. Because for many years they had been buying lottery tickets together. So anyways this unit was just about the lottery. Like that,

40

remember, and you guys did some vocabulary activities. Do you have any questions about anything from the unit?

This excerpt is similar to the final excerpt from the Level 5 class, but there are some

key differences. Although this instructor is also summarizing previously discussed material,

she is keeping herself aligned as an instructor. She uses the third person pronoun they when

summarizing the material and you or you guys when addressing the class. Although in many

places it would be in appropriate to use an alternate pronoun, unlike the Level 5 teacher, she

doesn’t intersperse the use of the pronoun we, and thus keeps herself aligned more distantly

in the instructor’s position. There is also a lack of humor in this passage, which the Level 5

instructor used to mitigate some of the face threats caused by mentioning upcoming

classroom activities.

CONCLUSION

As the data discussed above have demonstrated, although both classrooms were

teacher-fronted, the transcripts for the two classes reveal important differences. The Level 5

class opening consisted mainly of teacher narrative, while the Level 2 class was mostly

governed by student nominations and IRE sequences. Within these interactions both teachers

exhibited changes in footing, but the Level 2 teacher performed these switches more sparsely.

In contrast, the Level 5 instructor exhibited continuous footing shifts, while the Level 2

teacher almost exclusively maintained her instructional stance. In the instances where she

switched footings by providing an anecdote, she restricted her audience to a specifically

selected student, and indexed the others as non-participants. Shifts in footing, as discussed by

Goffman (1981), are normal within both conversations and narratives. The Level 5 teacher

follows this expectation by alternating her stance as an instructor with a stance closer to that

of a peer. Nguyen (2007) says that these playful shifts in footing can be seen as humorous

41

acts that help create shared attention amongst the class and furthers the construction of

rapport between the teacher and the students. At the same time, she is still fulfilling her role

as a teacher by managing classroom activities.

The narratives in the Level 5 transcript also function as a medium for the instructor to

explain relevant cultural activities and terms. In doing this she helps assure that everyone in

the class is able to participate in the discourse. This is important because as Duff (2002a)

mentions, a lack of cultural schemata can represent a significant communication barrier for

students. Even though many of the student responses in the Level 5 class consisted of shared

laughter and nonverbal behavior, the amount of participation observed throughout the

transcript indicates that the techniques used by the teacher were successful for this class. As

Rymes (2008) described, the laughter and other responses of the students represent a co-

constructed narrative shaped both by the speaker and the other participants.

The Level 5 teacher was also successful with promoting laughter amongst the

students during the classroom’s opening phase, which is consistent with potentially positive

effects in classroom (Catt et al., 2007; Coates, 2007; Garner, 2006; Nguyen, 2007; Norrick &

Spitz, 2008; Politi, 2009). Another interesting aspect of the Level 5 transcript is the quantity

of rapport building devices, as according to Lee (2009), more powerful speakers may not do

as much face threat mitigating work unless the level of voluntary participation is high. This

suggests that the Level 5 teacher may recognize this interactional feature, and may further

reflect her desire to promote participation and class harmony.

In the views of some analyses, the Level 2 teacher may seem to be more successful in

terms of invoking student participation. There is indeed considerably more student speech

present in the Level 2 data. However, as the analysis revealed, student responses in this

42

transcript mostly resembled the short utterances typical of IRE interactions. Also, because of

the teacher’s use of student nomination and the persistence of the IRE format, students who

were not part of the dyad were indexed as non-participants. The consequences for this were

that actual student participation time in the class opening period was quite limited. The Level

2 instructor also used far fewer shifts in footing, or other techniques such as humor, to

mitigate face threats. For the bulk of the transcript she retains her hierarchical instructor

footing. A potential consequence for these interactional practices is a failure to build rapport,

motivation, and or an environment that facilitates cooperative learning.

While the differences seen in the two classes may partially be the result of differences

in teaching style and length of teaching experience between the instructors, the language

proficiency level of the students is another component to consider when examining the

resulting dichotomy. Much of the detailed and fast-paced narrative, and quick switches in

footing supplied by the Level 5 teacher, may have made the discourse difficult or

incomprehensible to the Level 2 students. In the same fashion, simple IRE sequences with

direct questions may be too easy or boring for the Level 5 students. The Level 2 teacher may

have been making an attempt to simplify the discourse in order to provide her students with

access to the language. However, this may be at the sacrifice of student participation and

motivation.

Although MBTI data were not available in this study, it is probable that the two

teachers were of different personality types. Extroverts are more likely to be active socially

and openly share personal information (Myers & Myers, 1995). Also, many successful

teachers have been rated as Extroverts (Rushton et al., 2007), and certain types such as

Feeling and Perceiving types may be more likely desire a highly interactive and harmonious

43

classroom (Carreil et al., 1996; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990). Differences seen in the transcripts

may be a combination of teacher and student personality types, proficiency level of the

students, and experience level of the teachers.

This chapter suggests that it is still possible to build rapport and shared attention

within a traditional teacher-fronted classroom, and that a lack of speech doesn’t have to mean

a lack of student participation. A potential implication for teaching is that caution should be

used when nominating individual students, and steps may need to be taken to ensure that the

other students in the classroom are not being excluded from the interaction. Using humor,

switches to less formal footings, narratives, and careful explanations of cultural terms can be

used as a tool to build rapport and aid in more complete student participation.

44

CHAPTER 4

DISUCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING,

AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The aim of this study was to investigate the various factors involved in the creation of

rapport in classroom discourse. In particular, features unique to multicultural participants

and specifically ESL class contexts were addressed and analyzed. This chapter will review

and synthesize the background information and research analysis results presented in

Chapters 1 and 3, provide a discussion of potential pedagogical implications, and review

prospective avenues for further research.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING

Although the analysis of two ESL classroom transcripts has demonstrated many of

the features typically found in classroom discourse, the two transcripts examined in this study

exhibited many contrasts in terms of the participants and the resulting discourse. In terms of

participants, Level 5 was taught by an experienced instructor and the students were of an

advanced proficiency level. Level 2 was taught by an inexperienced teacher, and the students

were at a beginning level of English proficiency. After evaluating the data from each

classroom, it was found that the discourse exhibited in the Level 2 data consisted of multiple

strings of IRE sequences, while the Level 5 data demonstrated a series of long narratives that

contained many explanations of cultural terms and personal anecdotes, but produced little in

terms of student verbalizations. Despite these results, both classrooms were from the same

45

IEP school, and it was initially predicted that there would be more homogeneity found within

the data.

The question then becomes one of cause and effect; what caused these differences in

the transcripts, and what effects did they have on the learning outcomes and participant

structures within the classrooms? In terms of the causes of the variations, some of these

differences could have been due to several circumstances, including the experience level of

the teacher, the proficiency levels of the students, and the personality type of the participants.

All of these factors could have an important impact on the interaction patterns, but the

student proficiency levels seem to have had a particularly visible effect.

The reason proficiency levels may have had a substantial effect on the interaction

could have been due to practical concerns. The techniques used by the Level 5 instructor

might not have been appropriate for classes of lower proficiency levels, as what the Level 5

teacher did would be largely incomprehensible to beginning students. The Level 5 teacher

did many positive things within the classroom opening timeframe, but her speech was very

fast and dense. It’s possible that many students in the Level 5 class itself could not fully

comprehend the narrative, as little opportunity was provided for any comprehension checks,

requests for clarification, or other episodes of negotiation for meaning. Although the Level 2

teacher’s techniques would not have posed a comprehension problem for students of higher

proficiency levels, it’s conceivable that the interactional methods would have been

potentially boring and unsuccessful in establishing rapport.

As a further consideration, the experience levels of the teachers also may have

influenced the interaction patterns. The Level 5 teacher was a highly experienced instructor

that had been teaching for many years in a variety of ESL and EFL contexts. Conversely, the

46

Level 2 teacher had only been teaching ESL for a few months. Because of her extensive

teaching experience, it’s possible that the Level 5 teacher had an increased awareness of how

certain classroom discourse moves affected the discourse. According to Harris (2003), the

level of voluntary participation of a situation may cause more powerful speakers to perform

more footing shifts in order to mitigate face threats. As a result, the Level 5 teacher may have

been consciously or unconsciously responsive to this situation, which could have been the

source of many of the rapport-building features present in the opening narrative.

In the Level 2 data, the teacher’s extensive use of direct nomination has several

potential origins. As a novice teacher, she may have been affected by the silence present in

the classroom. According to Nakane (2006), Japanese listeners may use silence as a way of

mitigating face threats, which in turn may actually cause a face threat to speakers from other

cultures. The Level 2 class included several Japanese speakers, and their silence may have

prompted the Level 2 teacher to mitigate the resulting face threat by directly nominating the

students to produce speech. The behavior of both the students and the teacher would then be

consistent with Politi (2009), who suggested that face threats can affect both the speaker and

the hearer in a discourse situation. Furthermore, while data from both classes revealed

conversational moves that might have had deleterious effects, one particularly interesting

feature observed in the Level 2 transcript was the prohibition of the use of the L1. As

discussed by Lin (1999), forbidding the use of the native language in the classroom is a

common practice, as language teachers and institutions would like to maximize input and

output in the target language, but banning the use of codeswitching could have negative

consequences. Even at an advanced level, prohibiting codeswitching can disrupt the use of

the L1 to scaffold communication in the target language, and may inhibit classroom

47

solidarity and cohesion. Although the origin of the Level 2 teacher’s philosophy regarding

the use of the L1 in the classroom is unknown, the instructor’s abrupt handling of the

incident within the data discussed in Chapter 3 may have been due to a lack of teaching

experience.

After analyzing the various discourse features present in both data sets, the results

from this study showed several potential applications for the classroom. For example, in

accordance with Krashen (1981), lowering the affective filter can assist with the language

acquisition process, and it’s possible that the Level 5 teacher was attempting to accomplish

this goal by using the rapport-building strategies of humor, footing shifts, personal anecdotes,

cultural explanations and narratives, that have been described by several studies as positive

factors in classroom interaction (Catt et al., 2007; Coates, 2007; Duff, 2002a; Garner, 2006;

Nguyen, 2007; Norrick & Spitz, 2008; Politi, 2009; Rymes, 2008). As a consequence, even

without extensive student talk the Level 5 teacher was able to engage her students and

contribute to a feeling of shared attention and group cohesion. Likewise, the Level 2

teacher’s use of the IRE may have helped structure the classroom session and stimulate

output and negotiation for meaning, which are also noted to be important for successful

second language acquisition (Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Gass & Mackey, 2007; Hall, 2007;

Lantolf & Thorne, 2007; Lee, 2006; Lynch, 1996). Both instructors were likely attempting to

accomplish instructional goals using divergent methods.

It’s possible that attempting to modify and blend the two teaching styles to adapt

them to different levels and types of classes may be an effective compromise. In order to

increase rapport and maintain instructional goals, it may also be useful to alternate between

different interactional techniques, thereby interweaving some of these different practices to

48

enhance the overall learning experience. Face threats caused by instructional demands might

be mitigated by footing shifts which decrease the distance between instructors and students.

This can be augmented by using narrative and anecdotal strategies, and classroom structure

can be maintained by alternating more instructional stances with these casual exchanges.

However, teachers should use caution when holding the floor for long periods of time by

using purely narrative discourse. Using this strategy could be inappropriate for beginning

language learners, and may prevent students from verbalizing and gaining valuable practice

with producing output. Providing narratives with associated anecdotes and cultural

explanations could be achieved using simpler language, slower speech, more pauses, and

opportunities for comprehensions checks may make such rapport building discourse

accessible and useful for lower level students.

Similarly, carefully using the IRE can provide structure in the classroom, and direct

nomination can coax students to produce output and attempt to negotiate for meaning.

Nevertheless, of the IRE and direct nomination should be used prudently. Teachers should be

aware that excessive use of these strategies without the use of other face threat mitigating

acts might have implications for decreasing rapport, and indexing other students as non-

participants. Likewise, the solution to the issue of the L1 may be to refrain from completely

eliminating the L1 during instruction and simply curtail the practice by allowing for an open

classroom dialogue regarding its appropriate purposes and uses within the instructional time

period. This would allow opportunities for the positive uses of the L1 noted by Lin (1999) to

be realized.

Above all, teachers should remember that students are individuals, and no two

classrooms are the same. Remaining flexible and aware of the factors that have the potential

49

to positively or negatively influence classroom interactions may assist with establishing the

most effective learning environment for students. Simply having an awareness of the

dynamic interplay of classroom discourse features could help facilitate more active

interaction, particularly within the second language classroom.

FUTURE RESEARCH

This study presented data from two different ESL classes, but because every class is

different, future studies could involve examining how other variables affect the interaction.

For example, the transcripts from this study were taken from small classes of fewer than ten

students. Future studies could involve analyzing how increasing or decreasing the class size

affects the interaction. Lee (2009), for example, found that in general university class

discourse, class size has the potential to alter factors such the types of discourse sequences

and pronoun usage. It would also be potentially worthwhile to examine different varieties of

class genres, as this study only worked with ESL classes in a particular setting. Additionally,

computational corpus methods could be utilized to examine larger patterns of how different

types of metadata affect the results of the classroom interaction and the construction of

rapport.

As discussed in Chapter 3, MBTI data were not available for the participants in the

transcripts analyzed for this study, but according to previous studies MBTI types can

influence the classroom behavior of both teachers and students (Carreil et al., 1996; Ehrman

& Oxford, 1989, 1990; Rushton et al., 2007). Obtaining MBTI types and cross-referencing

types with transcript data and student feedback regarding the interaction in the classroom

might provide additional relevant information. Also, correlating student feedback from

surveys with MBTI types, transcript data, and learning outcomes may further elucidate the

50

significance of interaction within classroom settings. Other variables to consider comparing

in future studies would be gender, age, educational histories, language socialization, culture,

and the experience level of the teacher.

In addition, initiating a study that teaches instructors to record, transcribe, and

critically analyze their own discourse data may help promote the propagation of smaller

action research studies that would provide immediate feedback for unique classroom settings.

Giving teachers the tools to evaluate and improve their interaction methods may assist with

accomplishing educational goals and improving the learning experience for both teachers and

students. As a result, continuing to analyze how rapport is established within the classroom

can assist both teachers and students with creating a comfortable and effective learning

environment for all participants.

51

REFERENCES

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The use of adverbials and natural order in the development of temporal expression. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language, 30, 299-320.

Bell, N. D. (2009). Responses to failed humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 1825–1836.

Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87-98.

Carreil, P., Prince, M., & Astika, G. (1996). Personality types and language learning in an EFL context. Language Learning, 46(1), 75-99.

Catt, S., Miller, D., & Schallenkamp K. (2007). You are the key: Communicate for learning effectiveness. Education, 127(3), 369-378.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 29–49.

Cook, H. M. (1999). Language socialization in Japanese elementary schools: Attentive listening and reaction turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1443-1465.

Craig, R., Tracy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research, 12(4), 437-468.

Duff, P. A. (2002a). Pop culture in ESL students: Intertexuality, identity, and participation in classroom discussions. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(6), 482–487.

Duff, P. A. (2002b). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289-322.

Ehrman, R., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13.

Ehrman, R., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-327.

Garner, R. L. (2006). Humor in pedagogy. College Teaching, 54(1), 177-180.

52

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction, input, and output in second language acquisition. In B. Vanpatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquistion: An Introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.

Goldenberg, C., & Patthey-Chavez, G. (1995). Discourse processes in instructional conversations: Interactions between teacher and transition readers. Discourse Processes, 19, 57-74.

Goldsmith, D. (2007). Brown and levinson’s politeness theory. Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars, 1, 219-236.

Hall, J. K. (2007). Redressing the roles of correction and repair in research on second and foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 91, 511-526.

Harris, S. (2003). On politeness and power: making and responding to ‘requests’ in institutional settings. Text, 23(1), 27–52.

Inigo-Mora, I. (2004). On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(1), 27-52.

Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851-1877.

Krashen, S. (1981). The “fundamental pedagogical principle” in second language teaching. Studia Linguistica, 35(1-2), 50-70.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. Vanpatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquistion: An Introduction (pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lee, J. (2009). Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small and large class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 42-57.

Lee, Y. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 691-713.

Lin, A. M. (1999). Doing-english-lessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 33, 393-412.

Lynch, T. (1996). Communication in the Classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

McCollum, P. (1989). Turn-allocation in lessons with North American and Puerto Rican students: A comparative study. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 20, 133-156.

53

Mehan, H. (1979). The structure of classroom lessons. In H. Mehan (Ed.), Learning Lessons (pp. 35-80). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 323-347.

Mori, S. (2004). Significant motivational predictors of the amount of reading by EFL learners in Japan. RELC, 35(1), 63-81.

Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts Differing. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Nakane, I. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1811–1835.

Nguyen, H. T. (2007). Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Language and Education, 21(4), 284-303.

Norrick, N. R., & Spitz, A. (2008). Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1661–1686.

Ohta, A. S., & Nakaone, T. (2004). When students ask questions: Teacher and peer answers in the foreign language classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42(3), 217–237.

Politi, P. (2009). One-sided laughter in academic presentations: A small-scale investigation. Discourse Studies, 1, 561–584.

Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the 2nd language classroom. Language Learning, 42, 593-616.

Poole, D., & Patthey-Chavez, G. (1994). Locating assisted performance: A study of instructional activity settings and their effects on the discourse of teaching. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 3-35.

Rushton, S., Morgan, J., & Richard, M. (2007). Teacher’s Myers-Briggs personality profiles: Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 432–441.

Rymes, B. (2008). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical Reflection. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Schnurr, S., & Chan, A. (2009). Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong: A cross cultural case study of workplace talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 131-157.

54

Song, B. (2006). Failure in a college ESL course: perspectives. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 417–431.

Stewart, P. (2008). Protecting a speaker’s face in impolite exchanges: The negotiation of face-wants in workplace interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 31-54.

Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of the ESL student at Tradewinds High: Contingency, multidirectionality and identity in L2 socialization. Applied Linguistics, 29, 619-644.

Vaish, V. (2008). Interactional patterns in Singapore’s English classrooms. Linguistics & Education, 19, 366-377.

Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). How content teachers allocate turns to limited English proficient students. Journal of Education, 183(3), 19-35.

55

APPENDIX

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

56

[ Overlapping

= Contiguous utterances

(xxxx) Indecipherable utterance

(.) Untimed short pause

:: extension of sound or syllabus

(-) Self-interruption or cut-off

(( )) Contextual information