Preference and embodiment in an oral preschool classroom
Teachers’ ‘No’-preferring questions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.24266Keywords:
embodiment, Conversation analysis, polar questions, question design, classroom interaction, preschoolAbstract
This study extends research on question preference and, specifically, polar questions that prefer reverse-polarity responses. In the context of a deaf or hard-of-hearing (D/HH) oral preschool classroom, I examine what I call teachers’ ‘No’-preferring questions (No-PQs), or polar questions that are grammatically positive yet exhibit a preference for students’ ‘No’-responses. Using Conversation Analysis, I focus on a collection of 25 cases of teachers’ No-PQs that present some behaviour or way of doing something for students to evaluate (e.g. Do we cry?). All instances of these No-PQs are co-produced with embodied conduct that help convey a negative stance towards the behaviour/way of doing something presented in the question and, resultantly, conditions students’ ‘No’-responses as preferred and aligning. 17 (68%) of these cases sequentially occurred when teachers were beginning classroom activities or invoking future events. In these environments, teachers’ embodied conduct served as demonstrations of a proposed behaviour or way of doing something and thus were treated by participants as instructional. In contrast, eight (32%) of these cases sequentially occurred while teachers were orienting to a student’s prior conduct as problematic. In this environment, teachers’ embodied conduct served as imitations of a student’s conduct and thus were responsive and treated by participants as disciplinary. I show how embodiment is a vital resource for resolving action ambiguity in interaction, which might be especially useful for D/HH children who may or may not rely more than hearing children on visual information for communication. Data are drawn from 25 hours of video-recordings in one oral classroom in the United States.
References
Amar, C., Nanbu, Z. & Greer, T. (2022). Proffering absurd candidate formulations in the pursuit of progressivity. Classroom Discourse, 13(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1798259
Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes–no questions are not alternative questions. In H. Hiz (Ed.), Questions (pp. 87–105). Springer.
Clayman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In Advances in Group Processes (pp. 229–253). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19009-6
Clayman, S. E. & Loeb, L. (2018). Polar questions, response preference, and the tasks of political positioning in journalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1449438
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ono, T. (2007). ‘Incrementing’in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(4), 513–552.
Duran, D. & Jacknick, C. M. (2020). Teacher response pursuits in whole class post-task discussions. Linguistics and Education, 56, 100808, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100808
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V. & Hager, J. C. (2002). Facial Action Coding System [e-book]. Research Nexus.
Enfield, N.J. & Levinson, S.C. (2006). Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Routledge.
Fox, B.A. & Thompson, S.A. (2010). Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003751680
Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 593–611). Wiley-Blackwell.
Gironzetti, E. (2017). Prosodic and multimodal markers of humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor (pp. 400–413). Routledge.
Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite, A. (2018). Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. Routledge.
Hall, J. K. & Looney, S. D. (eds). (2019). The Embodied Work of Teaching. Multilingual Matters.
Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis) affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2106–2119.
Hayano, K. (2013). Question design in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 395–414). Wiley-Blackwell.
Heath, C. & Luff, P. (2013). Embodied Action and Organizational Activity. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 283–307). Wiley-Blackwell.
Heinemann, T. (2008). Questions of accountability: yes–no interrogatives that are unanswerable. Discourse Studies, 10(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085590
Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.10170S0047404503321049
Hepburn, A. & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–76). Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1427-1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3
Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (eds), Why Do You Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse (pp. 42–68). Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–578.
Heritage, J. & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliott, M. N., Beckett, M. & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: the difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(10), 1429–1433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0279-0
Houen, S., Danby, S., Farrell, A. & Thorpe, K. (2019). Adopting an unknowing stance in teacher–child interactions through ‘I wonder …’ formulations. Classroom Discourse, 10(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1518251
Jakonen, T. & Evnitskaya, N. (2020). Teacher smiles as an interactional and pedagogical resource in the classroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 163, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.04.005
Kendrick, K. H. & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120
Klattenberg, R. (2021). Question-formatted reproaches in classroom management. Classroom Discourse, 12(3), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1713834
Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1851–1877. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lim, F. V. (2020). Designing Learning with Embodied Teaching: Perspectives from Multimodality. Routledge.
Lindström, A. & Sorjonen, M. L. (2013). Affiliation in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 350–369). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lindwall, O., Lymer, G. & Ivarsson, J. (2016). Epistemic status and the recognizability of social actions. Discourse Studies, 18(5), 500–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616657958
Luff, P. & Heath, C. (2015). Transcribing Embodied Action. In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 367–390). Wiley-Blackwell.
McHoul, A.W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005522
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.
Mondada, L. (2020). Audible sniffs: Smelling-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 140–163.
Montiegel, K. (2021a). Other-initiated repair and preference principles in an oral classroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 178, 108–120.
Montiegel, K. (2021b). ‘Use your words’: Vocalization and moral order in an oral preschool classroom for deaf or hard-of-hearing children. Language in Society, 52, 1–21.
Montiegel, K. (2022). Teachers’ gestures for building listening and spoken language skills. Discourse Processes, 59(10), 771–790.
Montiegel, K. (2023). Peer socialization in an oral preschool classroom. Language & Communication, 89, 63–77.
Pillet-Shore, D. M. (2017). Preference organization. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action.
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2012). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 210–228). Wiley-Blackwell.
Robinson, J. D. (2020). One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759
Rossi, G. (2015). The request system in Italian interaction. Doctoral dissertation, Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen.
Ruusuvuori, J. (2013). Emotion, Affect and Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 330–349). Wiley-Blackwell.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301
Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J. (2010). The ordinary ethics of everyday talk. In M. Lambek (ed.), Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action (pp. 123–139).
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (eds). (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
Sikveland, R. O., Solem, M. S. & Skovholt, K. (2021). How teachers use prosody to guide students towards an adequate answer. Linguistics and Education, 61, 100886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100886
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford University Press.
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K. E. & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
Stivers, T. & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.10170S0047404506060179
Stivers, T., Rossi, G. & Chalfoun, A. (2022). Ambiguities in action ascription. Social Forces, online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac021
Stokoe, E. & Edwards, D. (2008). ‘Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door?’ Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations. Discourse Studies, 10(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085592
Tai, K. W. & Brandt, A. (2018). Creating an imaginary context: Teacher’s use of embodied enactments in addressing learner initiatives in a beginner-level adult ESOL classroom. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1496345
Tainio, L. (2012). Prosodic imitation as a means of receiving and displaying a critical stance in classroom interaction. Text & Talk, 32(4), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0026
van der Meij, S., Gosen, M. & Willemsen, A. (2022). ‘Yes? I have no idea’: teacher turns containing epistemic disclaimers in upper primary school whole-class discussions. Classroom Discourse, online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2022.2103008
Waring, H. Z. (2012). Yes-no questions that convey a critical stance in the language classroom. Language and Education, 26(5), 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.656651
