Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of English
Bachelor Degree Project
English Linguistics
Autumn 2020
Supervisor: Kathrin Kaufhold
Establishing and preserving social relations in classroom discourse A study of a teacher’s redress to FTAs that
enhance and maintain teacher-student rapport
Julia Rudolfsson
Establishing and preserving social relations in classroom discourse A study of a teacher’s redress to FTAs that enhance and maintain teacher-student rapport
Julia Rudolfsson
Abstract This study examines how a Swedish upper secondary school EFL teacher avoids performing Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) in instances of reprimanding and giving oral feedback to students. The results and discussion show that the teacher evades potential FTAs caused by statements and demands by using indirectness in the form of questions and requests. Moreover, the feedback was delivered in an emphatic manner, primarily consisting of positive reinforcement regarding the students having performed a task, and secondarily on content and students’ skills. The act of causing face impediments was also mitigated in the delivery of performance feedback with the use of hedges to corrections and with the use of plural ‘you’ rather than focusing on individual student’s errors. These findings suggest that teachers can enhance and maintain rapport with their students in instances that are inherently face-threatening, thereby providing further insight into how teachers can strengthen social relations through the choice of appropriate speech acts.
Keywords
Rapport, FTAs, Speech Acts, Politeness Strategies, face, classroom discourse
Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research aim and research questions ................................................ 2
2. Literature review ............................................................................ 3
2.1 Speech Acts ................................................................................... 3
2.2 Face, Positive face and negative face ................................................. 4
2.3 Politeness: Positive politeness and Negative politeness ........................ 5
2.4 On and off-record Politeness: direct and indirect speech acts ................ 6
2.5 Interpersonal rapport ...................................................................... 7
3. Previous research ........................................................................... 8
4. Methodology ................................................................................ 10
4.1 The research site and participants .................................................... 10
4.2 Data collection ............................................................................... 11
4.3 Analytical framework ...................................................................... 12
5. Results and Discussion .................................................................. 13
5.1 Establishing a behavioral frame with requests and questions ................ 14
5.2 Using in-group makers and tag-questions to maintain a behavioral frame ........................................................................................................ 16
5.3 Feedback formulations .................................................................... 19
6. Conclusion ................................................................................... 22
6.1 Suggested further research ............................................................. 23
References ...................................................................................... 25
Appendix A ...................................................................................... 27
Appendix B ...................................................................................... 32
Appendix C ...................................................................................... 33
1
1. Introduction
Within contemporary educational settings, different goals and interests are negotiated
and challenged through communicative actions and means. The different interests
present in classrooms are diverse and differ between individual students as well as
between the students and their teacher (Fägersten, 2012). The teacher is assumed to
have the power through his or her role as an educator; meanwhile, the students are
capable of impairing the teacher’s role and goals if their interests contradict. At such
occasions, minor linguistic aggressions, both verbal and non-verbal, can be observed in
the language used by the participants whose interests diverge. In situations where
conflicts arise, a type of communicative disharmony erupts, which causes discomfort
and potential embarrassment for the interactional participants. In a classroom
environment, communicative disharmony also risks producing an environment not
conducive to learning (Lundahl, 2019; Ädel, 2011). Conversely, certain speech patterns
can be identified in interactions where the participants try to mitigate the consequences
of conflict by recognizing and considering differing interests of the interactional
participants. Such communicative strategies are important for building relationships and
trust, ultimately creating a classroom environment with a positive learning experience.
A person who is able to juggle his or her as well as different interlocutors’ goals
while maintaining a harmonious conversation is said to have good rapport. Rapport, as
defined by Helen Spencer-Oatey (2008), refers to people’s “subjective perceptions of
(dis)harmony or smoothness-turbulence in interpersonal relations” (p. 335). Situations
in which conflicts arise in classrooms are often due to bad rapport, whereas the opposite
can be said when teachers knowingly or unknowingly utilize communicative strategies
in their classroom discourse that enhance and maintain the teacher-student relationship.
By analyzing classroom discourse - the language used by teachers and students
in the classroom - researchers, teachers, and others affiliated with the realm of education
have been able to improve classroom practices. Classroom discourse includes both
verbal and nonverbal exchanges and has traditionally been a focal point for educational
researchers and linguists due to learning experiences often involving speech. Classroom
discourse has been studied and analyzed to understand different knowledge paradigms,
and also how knowledge is constructed and conveyed to students (see Nuthall, 1997;
Jocuns, 2012; McComas, 2014; Klattenberg, 2020). In other words, researchers have
mainly been interested in the language used in the transfer of information and
2
knowledge from teacher to student (Ädel, 2011). However, a supportive classroom
climate is an equally important factor for students’ knowledge development as the
transfer of subject matter content (Ädel 2011; McComas, 2014). Exactly how teachers
create supportive, comfortable classroom environments with rapport-oriented
communicative strategies is however a much less researched area.
Language teaching, being that it is constituted by continual interaction between
teachers and students, enables an arena for the study of rapport-enhancement and
rapport-management; this study therefore examines how a teacher integrates rapport-
oriented communication in classroom discourse. More specifically, the study will
investigate a teacher’s speech acts that are inherently face-threatening and which may
disrupt the communicative harmony, such as reprimands of students’ behaviors and
giving feedback to students’ performances. By analyzing verbal and non-verbal speech
acts in classroom discourse, this paper aims to broaden the understanding of how
teachers can establish and maintain rapport with upper secondary school students in
Swedish EFL-classrooms despite performing face-threatening acts, such as
reprimanding students’ behaviors and giving feedback.
1.2 Research aim and research questions
The purpose of this paper is to investigate rapport-enhancing and rapport-maintaining
speech acts used by a teacher in a Swedish upper secondary school where EFL is taught.
The research question to be answered is:
• How is the teacher able to enhance and maintain rapport with her students in
instances of reprimanding students’ behaviors and in instances of giving
feedback to students’ performances?
3
2. Literature review
In order to untangle the multifaceted concept of rapport and its relevance for classroom
practices and learning, the field of pragmatics provides sophisticated theories that “take
discourses as units of study” (Allan & Jaszczolt, 2012, p. 1). Pragmatics is the linguistic
discipline that engages with speakers’ utterances and the hearers’ interpretations of said
utterance, or “the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed”
(Stalnaker, 1972 in Huang, 2007, p. 2). The ‘pragmatic turn’ in philosophy and
linguistics awakened linguists’ interest in how sentences are used in communication,
how meaning is altered by context, and how human agents participate, form, and are
formed by social practices (Allan & Jaszczolt, 2012; Motsch, 1980). In this section,
relevant theories for the present study will be presented, as they highlight the pragmatic
inferences in communication and its relevance for building rapport.
2.1 Speech Acts
The theory of Speech Acts sheds some light on the issue of context in communication.
Speech Act theory was originally developed by J. L Austin during the mid-twentieth
century, and later on developed by John R. Searle (Huang, 2007). The foundational
concept of speech acts is that the minimal unit of human communication starts with the
performance of certain kinds of acts (Searle et al., 1980). A central assumption is that
the utterance of a sentence is, or is part of, an action that depends on social institutions
and conventions (Huang, 2007); for example, there are performative utterances that are
both descriptive and inherently constitute part of an action, such as pronouncing
someone husband and wife or apologizing for being late (Huang, 2007). These types of
performative utterances are, as described by both Austin and Searle, part of
illocutionary acts; when we say something, we usually do it with some goal or purpose
in mind (Huang, 2007). The speaker’s utterance fills a function, or it is as a step in the
course of accomplishing the speaker’s goals. Some examples of illocutionary speech
acts are making statements, asking questions, accusing, apologizing, blaming, giving
permission, joking, nagging, promising, ordering, refusing, swearing, or thanking
4
(Huang, 2007), and these acts can have different levels of directness or indirectness (see
Spencer-Oatey, 2008).
According to Huang (2007), the illocutionary act is “the action intended to be
performed by a speaker in uttering a linguistic expression, by virtue of the conventional
force associated with it” (p. 102). Often, the illocutionary speech act’s literal meaning is
not the same as its intended pragmatic inference; statements are often camouflaged as
questions, and questions sometimes function as indirect demands. In these cases, in
which the propositional content is encoded into an illocutionary act, it is relevant to
speak of the illocutionary force assigned to an utterance, i.e., what the illocutionary act
actually entails (Kissine, 2012). Pragmatics as a linguistic discipline therefore sets out
to investigate how language is used, its effects, and its consequences in different
contexts and settings.
2.2 Face, Positive face and negative face
According to Helen Spencer-Oatey (2008), all languages have a dual function: the
transfer of information, and the management of social relations. The scholarly interest
regarding the “constitution and manipulation of social relationships through language”
(Terkourafi, 2012, p. 617) focuses on how certain speech acts affect, alter and challenge
social relations. Speech acts might either enhance, maintain, or strain a relationship
depending on how it affects a hearer’s face. Face, as described by Helen Spencer-Oatey
(2008), is a “concept that is intuitively meaningful to people, but it is difficult to define
precisely” (p. 14). Face concerns people’s sense of worth, dignity, respect, honor, status,
reputation, and competence, i.e. a person’s sense of identity and self-image – the
concept of self that a person wants people to recognize. Face plays into the perception
and evaluation of one’s identity as an individual, as part of a group, and how one
defines oneself in their relationship with others (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). The people
involved in any type of social relation typically have a fundamental desire to have
others evaluate them positively, to be treated fairly, to be entitled to personal
consideration, and not to be ordered, exploited, or taken advantage of (Spencer-Oatey,
2008). In addition, Brown and Levinson (1987) make the assumption that every adult
member in society has a certain rational capacity that allows them to interact
purposefully, i.e., performing speech acts that lead to achieving their goals. They also
5
emphasize that people tend to cooperate and assume each other’s cooperation as means
to establish harmonious interaction that upholds the individuals’ separate faces, and in
doing so avoid participants losing face – causing them to feel embarrassed or humiliated
due to the lack of recognition or ignorance of participants’ face wants (Brown &
Levinson, 1987).
The speaker can attend to the hearer’s face wants by either acknowledging their
positive face or their negative face. The former refers to positive constituents of self-
image – the desire to have positive aspects of one’s personality being noticed,
appreciated, and approved of by interactants, whereas the latter refers to “the basic
claim to territories, personal preserves … i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from
imposition” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 60). Ultimately, if our face is challenged, it
causes us to feel embarrassment, anger, irritation, and frustration. Failure of
attentiveness towards the face of the interlocutor might give rise to conflicts, but there
are communicative strategies that milden the effect of inherently face-threatening
speech acts, such as demands and reprimands (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Face Threatening
Acts (FTAs), the use of language that causes offense (Terkourafi, 2012) are detrimental
to social relations and rapport unless they are followed up by felicitous facework
strategies that repair and restore our faces (Redmond, 2015).
2.3 Politeness: Positive politeness and Negative politeness
Linguists’ notion and interest in face stem from Brown and Levinson’s (1987) studies of
linguistic politeness. Politeness strategies operate as a remedial effect on the speech acts
that are inherently threatening to face, and thereby work as a type of diplomatic protocol
that “presupposes that potential for aggression as it seeks to disarm it, and makes
possible communication between potentially aggressive parties” (Brown & Levinson,
1987, p. 1). Brown and Levinson’s theorization of politeness builds upon Goffman’s
previous recognition of ‘virtual offense’ that occurs if an action by A potentially
infringes on B’s interests; however, semiotic adjustments of the potential offense – the
addition of polite expressions as redress to FTAs – might soften the impediment
because agent A displays consideration of the wants of agent B. In other words,
politeness can pave the way for more successful communication by fulfilling the wants
of the interactional participants, thus enabling an influential form of social control
which alleviates conflict (Brown & Levinson, 1987). A full list of different politeness
6
strategies, detailed explanations, and examples that have relevance for this paper can be
found in Appendix A.
Expressions of politeness are further subcategorized depending on form,
speaker’s intention, and the relationship between the interlocutors. Positive politeness is
recognized as expressions of solidarity: expressions that satisfy and adhere to the
hearer’s positive face. If the speaker performs an FTA, s/he can compensate for the
potential face intrusion by claiming ‘common ground’ – the speaker expresses the same
wants, approval, empathy, or interest for him/herself – by attending to the hearer’s
interests, wants, needs, by trying to seek agreement or avoid disagreement, joke, and
use in-group identity markers (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Similarly, the speaker can
also attend to the hearer’s positive face through a cooperation mechanism in which the
speaker displays knowledge and concern for the hearer’s wants and takes them into
account by making offers or promises as compensation for face intrusions (Brown &
Levinson, 1987).
Just as positive politeness addresses the hearer’s positive face, negative
politeness is a redressive action concerned with the hearer’s negative face (Brown &
Levinson, 1987; Terkourafi, 2016). In order to avoid conflict, speakers perform speech
acts that minimize the imposition consequently produced by a particular FTA. Such
speech acts may include hedges and downgraders as FTA redress, and thereby enable an
abstract sense of ‘social distance’ which preserves the hearer’s perception of agency.
Brown and Levinson (1987) argue that “negative politeness is the most elaborate and
the most conventionalized set of linguistic strategies for FTA redress” (p. 130) because,
as argued by Terkourafi (2012), it is safer to assume that the hearer prefers autonomy
and self-determination over “expressions of regard” (p. 621). However, as mentioned by
both Brown and Levinson (1987) and Spencer-Oatey (2008), negative politeness is most
common in Western cultures, and the concept of face and politeness differs between
societies.
2.4 On and off-record Politeness: direct and indirect speech acts
In order to make communication as efficient as possible, we should initially assume that
the message being forwarded to the hearer is clear and unambiguous – the goal of the
speaker is explicit and coded into the message, and the illocutionary force matches the
propositional content. Brown and Levinson (1987) define this type of utterance as bald-
7
on-record, and a clear motive for people to employ directness is the want to perform an
FTA more than the want to satisfy the face of the hearer, or if the speaker does not fear
retaliation from the hearer. In some cases, speech acts without non-minimization of the
face threat are also used within task-oriented communication such as instructions, or in
cases where the speaker is concerned with the hearer’s positive face and makes on-bald-
record statements with sympathetic advice (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
Contrary to bald-on-record politeness, off-record politeness is a communicative
strategy in which the meaning is related to a specific context. They are labeled as ‘off-
record’ utterances because of their ambiguous nature in which the intention of the
message, the illocutionary force, requires interpretation (Brown & Levinson, 1987), and
potential FTAs performed by the speaker are mitigated due to the indirect use of
language. Demands, for example, are inherently threatening to one’s negative face, but
the illocutionary force can be disguised with indirectness, such as a question or a
request, and the indirect phrasing functions as redress to the FTA (Brown & Levinson,
1987).
2.5 Interpersonal rapport
As previously mentioned, politeness strategies can function as a diplomatic protocol
that enables possible communication between potentially aggressive parties (Brown &
Levinson, 1987). By showing care and consideration for other parties’ face wants,
politeness strategies also enable a type of social control. The speaker can change the
course of the relationship’s development with different speech acts, and if the speaker’s
goal is to strengthen the relationship and to build rapport, s/he typically resort to polite
utterances as a resource for harmonious communication.
Interpersonal rapport, as suggested by the term, revolves around the relations
between people and the employment of linguistic expressions related to the relational
goal of the speaker. Spencer-Oatey (2008), in her discussion of interpersonal rapport,
includes two types of positive rapport-orientations (p. 32):
1. Rapport enhancement: a desire to strengthen or enhance harmonious
relations between the interlocutors
2. Rapport maintenance: a desire to maintain or protect harmonious relations
between the interlocutors
8
Within the first orientation, rapport enhancement, the face that a person assumes for
oneself and others has greater importance in that it establishes the relational
fundaments, whereas rapport maintenance seeks to preserve the current relation, which
relates to a greater concern for the rapport-threatening behavior and acts that minimize
FTAs (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Both orientations involve three interconnected
components: the concern for participant’s face and awareness of the cultural notions of
face in a given context, the participants showing concern for treating each other fairly
and in accord with social roles, expectancies, behavioral norms and appropriateness, and
lastly, management of interactional goals – being able to attend to the goals of all
participants including one’s own (Spencer-Oatey, 2008).
3. Previous research
The purpose of the current study is to investigate how a teacher enhances and maintains
rapport with her students while also having to perform FTAs in her role as an instructor.
These two tasks are not isolated islands – they are often simultaneously performed in
the speech acts that teachers utter. This section will therefore illustrate previous
researchers’ conclusions regarding the benefits of rapport in a learning environment, as
well as to explicate rapport strategies that illuminate the notion of teachers’ dual roles as
instructors and relationship-builders. Furthermore, the present study is also concerned
with the integration of rapport in feedback because evaluations of performance might
intrude on the students’ want to be perceived as competent.
Overall, there has been little research on the matter of communicative rapport-
strategies used by teachers – especially in non-English language classrooms (Yung
Park, 2016). Ädel’s (2011) contribution to the subject is useful in terms of
understanding how people in acquaintance-like relationships build relationships. For
rapport-enhancement Ädel’s (2011) study suggests that phatic talk – ‘small talk’ or off-
task conversations - is imperative for building rapport due to the speaker’s attempt to
enter the interlocutor’s “realm of the personal” (Placencia, 2004, p. 223). These findings
suggest that teacher-student relationships benefit from moving between on-task
instructional and off-task interpersonal communication, and a similar conclusion was
made by Mi Yung Park (2016) in her study of classroom discourse within a Korean as a
Foreign Language class in which the teacher integrated rapport-enhancement and
9
rapport-maintenance into language instruction. The telling and sharing of personal
information, Coupland (2000) says, is at the “center of pursuit and confirmation of
rapport and intimacy in relationships” (p. 16). Also, feedback in the form of corrections
was recognized as being initially focused on the positive aspects of students’
contributions, and implicit feedback in the form of recasts downgrade the correction’s
seriousness; thereby, corrections serve as a resource for the teacher to express affiliation
instead of bluntly addressing students’ interactional troubles (Yung Park, 2016, p. 119).
Aside from verbal speech acts, non-verbal acts are also effective resources for
managing and softening FTAs produced by complaints and corrections. The teacher
observed in Looney and He’s (2020) study often used smiles as resources to express
both affiliation and disaffiliation related to class disturbances. The scholars found that
laughter and smiles are widely understood as face-saving acts in that they redress FTAs
associated with the positive values of face, ultimately making teachers able to control
the communicative courses in the classroom, such as redirecting off-task talk to on-task
talk. Looney & He (2020) found that teachers and students often resort to laughter when
a student provides a delayed or disaligning response; to show affiliation, students
produce standalone laughter that alludes to “the non-serious nature of disaligning turns”
(Looney & He, 2020, p. 1), and teachers often respond with laughter and smiles as to
recognize the disaligning interaction and as an attempt to redirect the nature of the
interaction back to being on-task.
Ädel’s (2016) and Allen et al’s (2003) studies imply that giving feedback can
provide teachers with an opportunity to enhance rapport with their students. Contrary to
rapport-building, Ädel (2016) noticed that teachers’ written feedback to students’ texts
rarely considered students’ face sensitivities. Most teachers gave their feedback in bald-
on-record form in which the students’ performance was at center for critique “for
having done X and not having done Y” (p. 60). However, some teachers had adopted a
feedback strategy that was more rapport-oriented in that it did not explicitly or
implicitly critique the students’ writing skills, but rather separating the text from the
students’ performances, e.g. by saying that the text is missing something rather than
saying that the student has failed to do something. Ädel (2016) concludes that feedback
focusing on the text itself “seem[s] quite useful in that they help the students project an
image of themselves as (typically more accomplished) writers in the future” (p. 65).
Even though Ädel (2016) does not include the notion of rapport in her paper, her
findings suggest that feedback formulations have imperative effects for rapport-
10
enhancement and rapport-maintenance in the sense that it can adhere to students’
positive face – their want to be perceived as competent and approved of by interactants -
and can serve as a useful tool in accommodating a relationship built on trust and respect
between interactants. Furthermore, Allen et al (2003) noticed that students who received
feedback on their self-assessment made more positive evaluations of their examiner, the
class sessions, and showed greater self-esteem, self-competence, and self-understanding
compared to the study participants who did not receive assessment feedback. Drawing
from previous studies, Allen et al (2003) conclude that teacher feedback in the early
stages of a teacher-student relationship indeed correlates with rapport and relationship-
building, especially if it is delivered in an emphatic manner, and that these strategies
contribute to a collaborative working relationship.
4. Methodology
The current study comprises data gathered from audio-recorded classroom interactions
and an audio-recorded interview with the teacher; the data therefore represents an etic
and an emic perspective. The analysis is inspired by Conversation Analysis (CA) and is
performed in a deductive manner as relevant concepts from speech act theory,
politeness theory, and previous research are applied in the analysis of the transcript
extracts.
4.1 The research site and participants
The present study examines teacher-student interactions in two EFL classrooms in a
Swedish upper secondary school with mostly vocational profiles. The school is located
in Östergötland county and it offers three levels of English language courses: English 5
(E5) and the elective, non-mandatory English 6 (E6) and English 7 (E7). The
curriculum for secondary school English on all three levels focuses largely on
improving students’ communicative skills, which consequently requires continuous
interaction between the teacher and the students. The classes in which data was
collected were chosen with the sole criterion being that they should be interaction
focused, which language subject classes usually are, and they therefore provide an
opportunity for studying authentic teacher-student interactions.
11
The two observed classes are one E6 class and one E7 class, both taught by the
same teacher. The classes range from 25-35 students with different educational profiles:
vocational (E6) and engineering (E7), and many of the students are not previously
acquainted with each other. In addition, the classes include students whom the teacher
has not been instructing in the past. The study’s primary participant is a female English,
Swedish, and history teacher who has been teaching since 2014.
On the day of observations, the E6 students had to present group projects which
they had prepared in previous classes. Each group consisted of 3-4 students; they
presented their group projects in front of two other groups and the teacher in a separate
classroom while the other students worked individually on a reading log in their main
classroom. The E7 students, on the other hand, were working on individual essays, and
the teacher instructed and monitored their writing progress. The different class setups
provided an opportunity to study the teacher in two separate contexts. In the E6 class,
the teacher gave the students feedback orally after their presentation, whereas E7
contains more teacher instruction and teacher-student on-task and off-task interaction.
Prior to the class observations, the teacher and the students were informed about
the purpose of the study, how data would be collected, the handling of the data
collected, their rights to remain anonymous, and to obtain data material upon which the
participants gave their consent.
4.2 Data collection
The data collected for this qualitative study is comprised of recordings from non-
participating observations in the E6 and E7 classes, each being 165 minutes long. The
classes are split up into two sessions with a 20-minute break between the sessions. To
make the students and the teacher feel more comfortable and use authentic language, the
classes were only audio recorded; non-verbal acts, such as smiles, shrugs, head shakes,
etc., were noted in writing.
As the study and analysis are dominantly teacher-utterance focused, the
recording was paused while the E6 students were presenting their group projects and
picked up again for the duration of the time that the teacher was giving the different
student groups immediate post-presentation feedback. During E7, there were no
interruptions in the recording. For the audio recording devices to gather as much
material as possible, one recording device was placed at the back of the classroom and
12
one device in the front. However, despite setting up several recording devices, it is
difficult to discern the teacher speaking in instances of one-on-one interactions with the
students because of the peer-to-peer conversations surrounding the teacher.
After the data had been collected in the two different classes, a 20-minute-long
interview was conducted with the teacher to understand her perspective, wants, needs,
and goals that motivate certain speech acts. The interview was semi-structured, and the
teacher was asked to describe different student characteristics within E6 and E7, how
she caters to different face sensitivities, and situations where conflicts could occur.
4.3 Analytical framework
The foundational concept on which this study is based is that teachers in their role as
educators have a dual mission: to instruct and to build social relations with their
students. Occasionally, teachers have to perform FTAs as a means of classroom
management and in their role as instructors; the purpose is therefore to investigate how
a teacher can enhance and maintain rapport with her students in instances of
reprimanding students’ behaviors and in instances of giving feedback to students’
performances as both of these scenarios involve potential face-threats.
The method of analysis draws on institutional Conversation Analysis (CA).
According to Kimura et al (2018), institutional CA is concerned with the interactions
taking place in institutional settings, such as classrooms in which for example turn-by-
turn methods are carried out and expected by participants. CA’s overall approach,
whether institutional or not, is to identify participants’ goal orientations and how they
are carried out in their actions, which requires attention to the overall structural
organization “beyond what is immediately observable within a single turn or sequence”
(Kimura et al, 2018, p. 192). CA is therefore compatible with the application of speech
act and politeness theory because it recognizes that face-threatening messages often are
encoded into less face-threatening propositions.
To review rapport-enhancement and rapport-maintenance, relevant sections
including reprimands and feedback were identified and selected for transcription. The
transcript was then coded with symbols that mark features of intonation, emphasis,
prolongation, overlaps, interjections, unintelligible talk, pauses, non-verbal acts, etc.
The coding in itself is not relevant for the analysis of rapport but rather functions as a
tool to demonstrate authentic language use. Furthermore, the students’ names are
13
irrelevant for the study; therefore, student utterances are mostly labeled with Student.
However, there are instances in which a student’s name is relevant in the preceding and
proceeding communicative exchanges. In such instances, the students’ names have been
replaced with pseudonyms. A full list of transcript symbols can be found in Appendix
B. Due to the length constraints, only eight transcript extracts have been selected for
analysis. The whole transcript can be found in full in Appendix C.
After having identified several segments where politeness and use of indirect
speech acts functioned as redress to an FTA, it was possible to create more narrow and
precise analytical categories regarding classroom management and rapport: (i) Setting a
behavioral frame with requests and questions, and (ii) Using in-group markers and tag
questions to maintain a behavioral frame. Furthermore, as the E6 class included
numerous instances where the teacher gave the students feedback, the category (iii)
Feedback formulations was also established and designated towards analyzing how the
teacher structured her feedback, and what speech acts and politeness elements were
most commonly used.
The interview with the teacher is an attempt to explain the speech acts “from the
inside” (Groom & Littlemore, 2011, p. 82) – the teacher’s perspective provides a better
understanding of why certain speech acts are more appropriate than others in a given
situation. Looking at the content within the three analytical categories from an
outsider’s and an insider’s perspective will better represent and encapsulate ways in
which this teacher can enhance and maintain rapport with her students, as well as how
she avoids performing FTAs.
5. Results and Discussion
The analysis and discussion of the data present relevant transcript extracts categorized
into three analytical categories with two different rapport-orientations. The first two
categories are primarily concerned with maintaining rapport in that the teacher
utterances do not challenge the relational harmony in the interactions while also setting
a frame for student behavior, while the last category – feedback formulations – is more
concerned with rapport-enhancement (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). The results and discussion
comprise audio recording transcripts as well as data gathered from an interview with the
teacher, where she expressed her knowledge of student sensitivities as background for
her choice of speech acts.
14
5.1 Establishing a behavioral frame with requests and questions
In the two extracts presented below, the teacher is making on- and off-record demands,
requests, and statements that are possible face-threats. However, with the use of
indirectness, the teacher is able to avoid face impositions.
In extract 1, the teacher is instructing the E6 students of what they are expected to
do as preparation before giving their presentations:
Extract 1
Teacher: So that’s number one. Number two is looking
through your presentation, making sure that you
all know – ERIK? Eyes here please –(0.5)I know
that you missed each other over the weekend but
please leave each other alone for now ((class
laughs)). (2.0)
Teacher: We will do [the group presentations] in the order
that is on Canvas(.)You all know what group number
you have.
Students: No.
Teacher: No? So you might want to go to Canvas and look at
tha:t?
Erik: [indistinct off-task conversations]
Teacher: And(.)am I missing something? Is there a
conversation going on that xxx?(1.0)you will be
allowed to speak very shortly, so please just
listen?
Erik: Okay, sorry
Teacher: Thanks(.) If you go to Canvas, you’ll see what
group you’re in, what group number you have –
Erik, do you want to come sit here with me? –
Erik: Yeah ((raises from his seat and sits down on a
chair closer to the teacher))
Teacher: Yeah, thanks [((students laugh))
According to the teacher, one way for her to keep the “classroom at an acceptable
level” is to joke and to act non-confrontational, but still firm and clear, which can
be seen in this extract. In this exchange, the student, Erik, is having a hard time
focusing on the teacher’s instructions. First, the teacher is conventionally indirect
15
(Brown & Levinson, 1987): she makes an off-record, indirect demand by
suggesting that Erik should be more attentive to what she is saying. The utterance
“eyes here please” is followed by a humoristic acknowledgment of their unwanted
behavior, (“I know that you missed each other”), which in turn is followed by the
illocutionary force of a demand masked as a request initiated by please (“leave
each other alone for now”). However, Erik proceeds to talk to his peer, which is
recognized by the teacher. The teacher diverts from the on-task instructions with a
question meant to further address the disturbance caused by Erik, and bargains
with him (“you will be allowed to speak shortly”) with a request (“so please just
listen?”). As suggested by Brown and Levinson (1987), the negative politeness
strategy of ‘redress other wants of hearer’ is a partial compensation of the FTA in
that it recognizes the hearer’s desire for autonomy and agency. When this strategy
is deemed unsuccessful, the teacher makes a demand in the form of a suggestion
(“do you want to come sit here with me?”) as a means to stop the interruptions
caused by Erik’s behavior. Erik accepts her request, and the teacher rewards him
(“thanks”). Because of the humoristic tone and the choice of on- and off-record
illocutions, the seriousness of the interaction is downplayed, and Erik is more
willing to put his own will aside and abide with the teacher.
In extract 2, the teacher is enquiring the students in E7 about their essay
progress:
Extract 2
Teacher: Last class, you started preparing work for the
essay […] do you remember this?
Student: Yes
Teacher: Okay good(.)how far did you get with all of this?
Student: Don’t know
Teacher: Don’t know(.)do you want to check?
[The teacher reminds the students about the topic that
they are going to write about. The students have watched
a film about the topic]
Teacher: Did any of you take notes when watching?
Student: No
16
Teacher: Do you maybe realize that it would have been good
to take notes to be able to answer these
questions?
Student: Yeah
Johan: ((shakes his head))
Teacher: Ye:ah(.)Johan don’t be stubborn, you
know I’m right [((smiles))
Initially, the teacher asks the students about their essay progression. When a student says
he is unsure, the teacher repeats the student’s response (“don’t know”) and makes an on-
record request (“do you want to check?”) that instructs the student to investigate his
progress. In the interview, the teacher mentions that it is common for some of the E7
students to not take the class very seriously despite it being the most difficult English
class in upper secondary school. Instead of calling out the students for their ‘naïve
attitude’, she poses questions as encouragement to engage in the class activities. This is
further seen in the interaction with Johan where the teacher initially asks a rhetorical
question instead of making a statement regarding the importance of engaging in the class
activities (“do you maybe realize that it would have been good to take notes…?”). When
Johan makes a non-verbal act of disagreement by shaking his head, the teacher is
jokingly making a dissenting on-record statement (“you know I’m right [about taking
notes]”) followed by a smile as a downgrader to her remarks. This method is in line with
the findings in Looney and He’s (2020) study in which the teacher used smiles to show
affiliation and disaffiliation; in this example, the teacher’s smile could be interpreted as
doing both. The smile both functions as a softener to the intrusion on Johan’s want of
not taking notes, but also as a disaffiliation technique in that it is preceded by a remark
of Johan’s lack of concern for the class task.
5.2 Using in-group makers and tag-questions to maintain a behavioral frame
In order to claim common ground with the students and in-group identity, the teacher
often addresses the students as a group and involves herself as well. For example, in the
following sequence, the teacher is setting up a behavioral framework for the E6 students
who are about to give their presentations:
17
Extract 3
Teacher: Okay guys, and what do we do when someone else is
having their presentation?
Student1: Laughing
Teacher: No(.) that’s what we don’t do, right?
Student 1: Okay
Teacher: So what do we do?
Student2: We be quiet
Teacher: [We’ll be quiet(.)Yeah! No phones, no computer, no
laughing
The teacher establishes a behavioral frame based on common ground-knowledge for
how to act when other groups are giving their presentations by claiming that “we” as a
group assume and expect a certain behavior. In this instance, the teacher expresses the
FTA (impinging on the students’ autonomy) as a general rule, which dissociates the
speaker and the hearer from the face imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Even
though there is no overwhelming risk of the teacher behaving in an unsupportive
manner, she includes herself in the description of how to behave when other students
give presentations. Using an inclusive “we” instead of “you” reduce the risk of face
impediments in that it does not ‘call out’ the student – i.e., it reduces culpability. In
addition, tag questions such as “right?” implies that cooperation is taken for granted – a
strategy defined as being optimistic (Brown & Levinson, 1987) where the teacher makes
a statement and assumes that the students want to accommodate her, i.e., that her want
is also their want.
As noted by Yung Park (2016), shifting between instructional to an interpersonal
communication style benefits teacher-student rapport because it grounds the teacher and
the students as more equal conversational partners. In the next sequence, the teacher
finds one student in E7 using his cellphone:
Extract 4
Teacher: Carl, what are you doing? Carl: I need to text [the class coach]
Teacher: That’s not an excuse
Rasmus: It kinda is, but it’s a shitty excuse
Joel: He was bitten!
Teacher: Bitten?
Rasmus: Yeah, at a soccer game.
18
Teacher: Did you actually get bitten?
Carl: Yes
Teacher: By what?
Carl: A human.
Teacher: A human? Really? That’s gross! Did you get a tetanus shot?
First, the teacher shows her disapproval of Carl using his cellphone by asking what he is
doing rather than making a blunt on-record statement. When Carl explains why he is
using his phone and it is still not accepted by the teacher, another student, Rasmus, steps
in (“it kinda is, but it’s a shitty excuse”), and a third student, Joel explains Carl’s reason
to text the class coach. Here, the teacher shifts to an interpersonal, off-task
communication style, showing interest in what happened to Carl by repeating Joel’s
statement (“bitten?”), and the stress on “actually” further exaggerates her interest in
what had happened to Carl.
In-group identity markers, such as the inclusive “we”, and address forms that
convey in-group membership (guys, using first names) are often used when the speaker
implicitly or explicitly wants to claim common ground with the hearer/s. These
expressions are associated with positive politeness, and also involve the use of jargon or
slang (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In extract 5, the teacher notices that two students are
conversating about off-task topics, and she addresses them to proceed with the on-task
activity: Extract 5
Students: [off-task talk]
Teacher: are you actually working on your essays?
Students: Hm?
Teacher: Guys, if you still can’t focus, separate
yourselves from each other […] please just try and
focus for five minutes(.)please, I know you can do
it.
The teacher is setting a behavioral frame in which the students are directed to focus on
the on-task activity rather than interrupting each other. First, the teacher asks them a
question that is meant to redirect the students’ attention to the on-task activity (“are you
actually working on your essays?”). The teacher then claims common ground with the
students with the in-group marker “guys”, and the direct demand (“separate yourselves
from each other”) is softened by the preceding indirect statement of the conditions (“if
19
you still can’t focus”). Lastly, the teacher is transforming the whole sequence into a
request by saying “please just try…” and address the students’ positive face in saying “I
know you can do it”, which conveys a sense of believing in the students’ competence.
5.3 Feedback formulations
One key motivator for the teacher’s formulation of feedback stems from her awareness
of the students’ face sensitivities. During the interview, the teacher mentioned that
many of her students feel anxious about their performances. As non-native speakers,
many students feel anxious about having to speak English (Xie, 2020), and the teacher
claims that her general impression is that students today are very sensitive and regard
their abilities in mostly negative terms. Giving feedback is therefore an endeavor that
requires attention to formulations and content in order to avoid face threats. The ways in
which the teacher approach the task of giving feedback, which can be seen in the
extracts and in her reflections, is to exaggerate the positive aspects, to focus on the
product rather than the person (especially in feedback to written student work), and
mainly to encourage students with positive reinforcement for having accomplished a
task that feels uncomfortable for them. In the following extracts, the teacher is giving
the students immediate post-group presentation feedback. A noticeable pattern in all of
the teacher’s feedback is the initial inquiry regarding the students’ sentiments and
evaluation of their presentation. The students assess their performance and the teacher
gives them assessment-feedback, which, according to Allen et al (2003), enables
rapport-enhancement, especially at an early stage of building teacher-student
relationships.
In extract 6, the teacher is attempting to enhance rapport with her students by
asking them about their sentiments and their self-assessment after having performed
their group presentations: Extract 6
Teacher: Alright guys(.) how did you feel?
Student1: Nervous and.(.)
Student 2: [inte så bra
[Not great
Teacher: Not good?
Student 1: Nä:
No:
20
Teacher: Stay with the English please.(.)
Student 1: Not so good.
Teacher: Not so good(.)Okay! And you felt nervous? How did
you feel, Erik?
Erik: Nervous and(.)eh(.)I am angry at myself.
Teacher: Why are you angry with yourself?
Erik: Because I was reading eh(.)[from]the computer when
I (1.0)
Teacher: when you should have been speaking freely?
Erik: Yeah.
The teacher repeats some of the remarks made by the student (“not so good … you felt
nervous? … why are you angry with yourself?”). Repetition, as expressed by Brown
and Levinson (1987), often stresses emotional agreement with the hearer’s message. In
this case, the teacher conveys empathetic support to the students. The student, Erik,
makes an indirect claim that he should have been speaking more freely rather than
supporting himself with notes. The teacher responds to this issue with a question
(“when you should have been speaking freely?”), which has the illocutionary force of a
statement. However, this strategy conveys a supportive affiliation with the students, and
it allows the teacher to share performance-feedback without making an FTA.
As mentioned by Spencer-Oatey (2008), rapport-enhancement strategies include
speech acts that mostly adhere to a hearer’s positive face. These strategies are
commonly used when a speaker has a desire to strengthen or enhance harmonious
relations between him/her and the hearer/s. Due to two circumstances, it is
understandable why the teacher includes positive politeness strategies in her feedback:
firstly, because of students’ antagonistic feelings toward their performance, and
secondly, it could be due to the fact that the teacher is at the beginning of forming
relationships with the students in E6, and therefore emphasizes her care and empathy for
the students to establish trust. In extract 7, one student, Samantha, is being critical
towards her performance, and the teacher makes an effort to reassure her and the rest of
the class:
Extract 7 Teacher: You did good, Samantha(.)you did good
Samantha: ((shakes head))
Teacher: Why are you so hard on yourselves?
21
Samantha: Because we get grades and it’s hard to just say
‘Oh I’m good at this!’
Teacher: Well, I think that is just the exact attitude you
guys need(.)you need to be like(0.5)‘I’m a:wesome’
Samantha: ((laughs)) [no
Teacher: ((laughs)) Yes! You’re way too hard on yourselves
(2.0)
Teacher: How did you feel, Bella?
Bella: (2.0) Nervous
Teacher: Nervous, yeah(.)and still you talked without any
help, no cards no nothing(.)that is very
impressive(.)especially if you feel nervous
Teacher: Uhm(.)honestly, all of you, like this entire
class, you’re too hard on yourselves (0.5) like
it’s insane! You have to learn how to go ‘I’m
pretty good at this, I know my stuff’, right?
(0.5) You are better at this than you give
yourselves credit for (1.0) You’re all clear, it
is structured, I can hear every word you say.
Yes(.)there are always things we can improve upon,
but sometimes you have to stop and go ‘I did this,
I’m good(.)I never thought I’d have the courage to
speak English in front of someone, but you do it
and you nail it(.)Am I ever gonna get you to be
kind to yourselves?
Student: No ((shakes head))
Teacher: I think you did great(.)at least I’m happy.
The whole extract revolves around the emotional state of the students, and the teacher
feedback is generally focusing on enhancing interpersonal rapport. She emphasizes the
fact that they have performed a ‘scary’ task, which in itself is an achievement, and her
use of laughter and smiles enhance her message regarding the students’ great effort. In
extract 7, there are students who are particularly negative about themselves, and the
teacher therefore does not include any explicit information about improvements.
Furthermore, extract 7 includes two instances where ‘like’ serves as a hedge (“all of
you, like this entire class … like it’s insane”) in the teachers’ utterances. Even though
the content is well-intended, the teacher makes a negative remark about the students’
attitude, but the hedge makes her opinion vaguer, and therefore less serious in nature
(Brown & Levinson, 1987). Also, it is worth noticing that the proclaimed ‘insanity’ is
22
not aimed to dismiss the students, but rather meant to assert the students that they do not
have anything to worry about regarding their performances.
Even though the majority of the time spent on giving feedback revolves around
the students’ attitude and feelings, the teacher makes a statement regarding
pronunciation which a majority of the students had issues with:
Extract 8 Teacher: All of you though – legislative – its le[ʤ]e-
slative – not le[g]e-slative(.)le[ʤ]eslative. […]
pat yourselves on the back and go ((breathes
out)). You’re done!
The feedback is aimed at the students as a group rather than as individuals. Similar
feedback was given to all of the groups after their presentations rather than being
interjected mid-presentation, and the plural ‘you’ softens the correction and makes it
less face-threatening (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
6. Conclusion
This study has investigated rapport-orientation strategies utilized by one teacher in two
different EFL classes. The purpose of the study has been to identify speech acts that
either enhance or maintain the teacher’s rapport with her students in situations where
FTAs are difficult to avoid; teachers as instructors occasionally need to reprimand
students’ behaviors and give feedback to students, all of which constitutes situations
that could harm teacher-student rapport because the acts are inherently face-threatening.
As we have seen, the teacher is able to establish behavioral frames for the students
through her choice of speech acts. The speech acts often have the illocutionary force of
a statement or a demand; however, the message is conveyed in an indirect manner in the
form of a question or a request. These strategies function as redress to FTAs related to
reprimands and reduce the risk of confrontation, thereby making the teacher able to
maintain rapport with her student. Furthermore, with the use of tag-questions and in-
group identity markers, the teacher continues to establish a behavioral frame without
impeding on the students’ face. In addition, the teacher shows flexibility in shifting
from formal to informal, off-task interaction. In doing so, the teacher also involves
interpersonal rapport, which is an important factor involved in expanding the
relationship beyond its institutional setting. These strategies display a clear rapport-
23
orientated communication style held and carried out by the teacher – even though she
occasionally has to perform FTAs, the students are not offended, and communicative
harmony is sustained.
The clear objective of the teacher’s oral feedback is to acknowledge the
students’ antagonistic feelings about speaking in front of groups, as well as their
negative feelings regarding themselves. Since this is a common issue within educational
institutions today, the teacher emphasizes positive aspects of students’ performances
and exaggerates positive reinforcement. Primarily, the teacher provided empathetic
feedback to the students’ self-assessment, an efficient strategy for enhancing rapport
when giving performance feedback. Not only does the teacher show that she cares about
the students’ sentiments, but also attempts to encourage the students to believe in their
self-competence. Feedback on the content of the performances is mentioned secondarily
because too much focus on issues/improvements might at this point in time do more
harm than good. The content feedback provided by the teacher is therefore aimed at the
group of students as a whole rather than individual student’s errors; hence, the FTA of
giving feedback is softened through the use of a plural ‘you’. However, these strategies
are not universal because people as individuals have different face sensitives, and
teachers need to be aware of them if they want to avoid FTAs. Regardless, the study
suggests that proper handling of speech acts, as well as the use of positive and negative
politeness strategies, are beneficial in enhancing rapport with students despite having to
perform FTAs.
6.1 Suggested further research
Because of the student compositions, the classes provide an opportunity to investigate
how teachers enhance and maintain rapport with ‘new’ and ‘old’ students. However,
this study does not make any distinctions between students with whom the teacher
already has established a relationship, or relationships that are at their starting points. As
a suggestion for further research, it might be worthwhile to investigate the length of
teacher-student relationships; most likely, the choice and outcome of speech acts are
due to how well the interactional participants know one another and their awareness of
each other’s face sensitivities. Furthermore, this study does not consider the student
perspective. The consequences of certain speech acts and the students’ general attitude
24
towards different communicative styles would also be important for a more holistic
understanding of rapport-oriented communication.
25
References
Allan, K., & Jaszczolt, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Allen, A., Montgomery, M., Tubman, J., Frazier, L., & Escovar, L. (2003). The Effects of Assessment Feedback on Rapport-Building and Self-enhancement Processes. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 25(3), 165-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.17744/mehc.25.3.lw7h84q861dw6ytj
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Coupland, J. (Ed.). (2000). Small Talk. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Fägersten, K. (2012). Teacher Discourse and Code Choice in a Swedish EFL Classroom. In Yoon, B., Kim, H. Teacher’s Roles in Second Language Learning: Classroom Applications of Sociocultural Theory. (pp. 81-98). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Groom, N., & Littlemore, J. (2011). Doing Applied Linguistics: A Guide for Students. New York: Routledge.
Huang, Y. (Ed.). (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jocuns, A. (2012): Classroom Discourse. In Chapelle, C.A. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0134
Kimura, D., Malabarba, T., & Hall, J. (2018). Data Collection Considerations for Classroom Interaction Research: a Conversation Analytic Perspective. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 184-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1485589
Kissine, M. (2012). Sentences, Utterances, and Speech Acts. In Allan, K., Jaszczolt, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 169-190)
Klattenberg, R. (2020). Question-formatted Reproaches in Classroom Management. Classroom Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1713834
Looney, D.S., & He, Y. (2020). Laughter and Smiling: Sequential Resources Managing Delayed and Disaligning Responses. Classroom Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1778497
Lundahl, B. (2019). Engelsk språkdidaktik: Texter, Kommunikation, Språkutveckling. (4th revised ed.) Lund: Studentlitteratur.
McComas, W.F. (Eds). (2014) The Language of Science Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Motsch, W. (1980). Situational Context and Illucutionary Force. In Searle, J.R., Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (Eds.) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. (pp. 155-168) D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Nuthall, G. (1997). Peer Cultures and Their Challenge for Teaching. In Biddle, B.J., Good, T.L., & Goodson, I.F (Eds.), International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 521-592). Springer Science; Business Media Dordrecht.
Placencia, M.E. (2004). Rapport-Building Activities in Corner Shop Interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(2), 215-245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00259.x
Redmond, M.V. (2015). Face and Politeness Theories. English Technical Reports and White Papers. Iowa State University. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/engl_reports/2
26
Searle, J., Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (Eds.). (1980). Speech Act Theories and Pragmatics. (introduction) D. Reidel Publishing Company
Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.) (2008). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Terkourafi, M. (2012). Politeness and Pragmatics. In Allan, K., & Jaszczolt, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 617-637).
Yung Park, M. (2016). Integrating Rapport-building into Language Instruction: A Study of Korean Foreign Language Classes. Classroom Discourse, 7(2), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2015.1116103
Xie, L. (2020). A Study on English Speaking Anxiety of College Students. World Scientific Research Journal, 6(7), 231-234. https://10.6911/WSRJ.202007_6(7).0033
Ädel, A. (2011). Rapport Building in Student Group Work. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 2932-2947.
Ädel, A. (2016). Remember That Your Reader Cannot Read Your Mind: Problem/Solution-Oriented Metadiscourse in Teacher Feedback on Student Writing. English for Specific Purposes, 45(2017), 54-68.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.002
27
Appendix A
The following material has been collected from Brown and Levinson (1987). Examples of Positive Politeness 1. Notice, attend to hearer (his/her interests, wants, needs, goods)
Speaker should take notice of aspects of hearer’s condition, such as noticeable changes and noteworthy possessions: anything that would give an indication as though the hearer would want the speaker to notice and approve of it. Examples used as FTA redress from Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 103):
a) Goodness, you cut your hair! (…) By the way, I came to borrow some flour. b) You mut be hungry, it’s a long time since breakfast. c) What a beautiful vase this is! Where did it come from?
1.1. Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with hearer)
Often performed with exaggerated intonation, stress, and other prosodic features, as well as using intensifying modifiers (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 104):
a) What a fantástic gárden you have!
b) Oh my god, that is absolutely
c) This top looks really good on you! 2. Use in-group identity markers Speaker implicitly or explicitly claims common ground with hearer/s accordingly with the definition of the group: in-group usages of address forms, jargon or slang, and of ellipsis.
2.1. Address forms that convey in-group membership:
a) Guys! Please, be quiet when I’m talking. b) Come on, buddy. Cheer up! c) Joe, will you help me carry these bags?
2.2. Use of jargon or slang
incrédible fantástic hórrible dévastating
28
In-group terminologies – referring to an object with a slang term – allow the speaker to evoke the shared associations and attitudes that s/he and the hearer/s both have toward that object, and may then be used as FTA redress:
a) Chill for a little bit while I get dressed. b) You were slayin’ on the dance floor last night. c) Give me my twenty bucks, will you?
a)
3. Repetition
Conveying agreement by repeating all of or part of what the preceding speaker has said – not only is the hearer demonstrating that s/he has heard what the preceding speaker has said (satisfying output; related to 1. Notice, attend to hearer), repeating is also used to stress emotional agreement with the message:
a) A: Rachel is going to the University of Michigan next year. B: Oh, the University of Michigan!
4. Hedging opinions Speaker may choose to be vague about his own opinions. The positive politeness strategy of exaggeration is often manifested by choice of words at the extremes end of the spectrum. If the speaker is uncertain of the viewpoints of the hearers, hedging is a safer bet due to them making one’s own opinion vaguer and therefore safer. Note: normally, hedges are a feature of negative politeness, but some hedges have a positive politeness function as well; for example, sort of, kind of, like, in a way, etc. The hedge marks the word it is modifying. Redress of FTA come from common-ground notion of leaving it up the hearer to interpret the message – the assessment made by the speaker that there is a shared, common knowledge of how to interpret the message.
a) I really sort of
5. Expressions that convey cooperation speaker’s cooperation with hearer/s
Speaker and hearer share goals in some domain and therefore agree to speech acts that assumes cooperation. Expressions of cooperation can serve as FTA redress-strategies of hearer’s positive-face want. The cooperation strategy may be stressed by the speaker indicating some knowledge of and sympathy toward hearer/s’ wants.
5.1. Speaker asserts or presupposes knowledge of and concern for hearer’s wants
think hope
wonder
. . .
29
This strategy highlights that A and B are cooperators, and puts pressure on B, the hearer, to cooperate with A, the speaker. A asserts or implies knowledge of B’s wants and A’s willingness to comply with B:
a) Look, I know you want the car back by 5 pm, so should I go to town now? (request)
b) I know you hate scary movies, but this one isn’t that bad. Please, watch it with me! (request/offer)
c) I don’t want to stress you out, but you need to take the dog for a walk before your meeting. (request/demand)
6. Be optimistic A assumes that B wants to accommodate to A’s wants and will help obtaining them. A assume B’s cooperation to obtain A’s wants, and might hide their wants and perform a tacit act:
a) A: Wait a minute, you haven’t brushed your hair/teeth! (as a child, B, walks out the door)
In this case, the mother or father wants the child to brush his/her hair/teeth before going out in public. By performing a statement-type speech act in this manner and under these circumstances, A assumes that B wants it too and urges him/her to cooperate with A’s wants. Furthermore, optimistic or presumptuous expressions of FTAs consequently follow these types of statements and typically minimize the size of the threat by implying that it is nothing to ask or offer, or that cooperation is taken for granted:
b) You haven’t forgotten to turn in that college application,
c) You will lend me your car, right? d) You won’t object if I ask Kate out, will you?
7. Include both speaker and hearer in the activity This is similar to point 3.1 – Address forms that convey in-group memberships but is restricted to the use of ‘we’ rather than ‘me’ or ‘you’. Brown and Levinson (1987) notes that let’s in English is in itself an inclusive ‘we’ form. Some examples are:
a) Let’s have a cookie then. (i.e. me) b) Let’s pick up a broom and clean this up, eh? (i.e. you) c) Let’s stop at the next gas station for a bathroom break. (i.e. I need to go to the
bathroom, so let’s stop) d) A little fussy today, are we? (i.e., you)
I hope. haven’t you.
30
Examples of Negative Politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987) 8. Be Direct Messages that are more direct and unambiguous can be deemed as polite since they minimize the imposition by not taking up too much of the hearer’s time. However, the direct strategy requires a weighted evaluation regarding redress of negative face in order to evade the risk of performing an FTA of the hearer’s face wants. 9. Be conventionally indirect Indirect speech acts are performed when the speaker is faced with opposing tensions and desires. One desire or want is to give the hearer an opt out in order to increase the hearer’s feeling of autonomy and limit the risk of face imposition, and the other desire is to go on record, which is more face threatening if not followed up by a facework strategy. Conventional indirectness is a compromise of the two desires: the use of ambiguity that requires contextual interpretation. The speaker can therefore convey a desire to have gone off record, i.e. to have conveyed the same thing indirectly. The speech act of making requests are often uttered in its more indirect forms because they appear more polite. They are often syntactically marked as questions, but due to the context the hearer understands the propositional content:
a) Can you pass the salt? (on-record indirect request with FTA redress) vs. Pass the salt! (request/demand without FTA redress)
Requests can also be conventionalized in the illocutionary device of making statements:
b) I need a comb. (indirect request) c) You did not clean the kitchen. (indirect request)
10. Pluralization of the ‘you’ and ‘I’ in pronouns Different languages, such as Swedish, French, Tamil, and more, have specific pronouns for plural ‘you’ that are considered more polite in different situations—honorifics. However, this is not the type of pluralization that I would like to highlight for the purpose of this study. Despite English having the same form of plural and singular ‘you’, it still serves an important politeness function. Similar to the function of conventionalized indirectness, it gives the hearer/s an ‘out’ since it does not literally single out whoever is being addressed, and is therefore threatening to the hearer/s positive and negative face:
a) You need to practice some pronunciation. (when talking to a group of students) Furthermore, there is a widespread use of ‘we’ as replacement of ‘I’. ‘We’ reduces culpability, as in:
b) We regret to inform you …
31
Also, the inclusive ‘we’ I used similar to ‘you’ in terms of grouping people together and highlighting a ‘mutual benefit’ which reduces the imposition on the hearer/s’ negative face:
c) We need to clean up in here before we leave. d) We need to work on our manners.
11. State the FTA as a general rule One way of dissociating the speaker and the hearer from the face imposition in the FTA is to state the FTA as some general social rule, regulation, or obligation.
a) Passengers will please refrain from smoking onboard the aircraft. b) Students taking the test will show up 30 minutes before the set test time. c) We don’t laugh when someone is presenting their project.
12. Redress other wants of hearer The speaker offers partial compensation for the face threat in the FTA by redressing some particular other wants of the hearer. However, it cannot be any want because negative politeness is concerned with a very “narrow band of [the hearer’s wants, a very narrow facet of his person” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 209) – namely, the hearer’s desire for autonomy, territorial integrity, and agency:
a) If you cook tonight, I will do your laundry and cook tomorrow.
32
Appendix B
Transcript symbols Inspired by Mi Yung Park (2016) [ A single bracket on the left indicates the point of
overlap onset
[ ] A description enclosed in square brackets indicates
that a part in the current sequence has been replaced
for reasons of anonymity, or with a less ambiguous
description.
[…] Dots within square brackets indicates that a part of a
speech sequence has been omitted
xxx Unintelligible talk
? Rising intonation at the end of an utterance
! Rising intonation at the end of an utterance
- - A description enclosed between two hyphens indicates
an interjection
. Single punctuation indicates falling intonation
, A comma indicates continuing intonation
(.) A dot in parentheses indicates a small gap within or
between utterances
: A colon indicates prolongation of the immediately
prior sound.
(0.0) Numbers in parentheses indicate duration of silence
word Bold lowercase indicates stress or speaker emphasis
WORD Bold uppercase indicates fragments relatively louder
than the surrounding talk
WORD Italics indicate that something is said in Swedish;
English translation follows
(( )) A description enclosed in double parentheses indicates
non-verbal activity
33
Appendix C
Transcript Teacher greets the students individually as they walk inside the classroom Teacher: Hi Rebecca
E6 – Classroom instructions before students work on their own before group presentations: Teacher: So that’s number one. Number two is looking through
your presentation, making sure that you all know –
ERIK? Eyes here please(.) – I know that you missed
each other over the weekend but leave each other alone
for now ((class laughs)).
Teacher: We will do [the group presentations] in the order that
is on Canvas(.) You all know what group number you
have.
Students: No.
Teacher: No? So you might want to go to Canvas and look at
tha:t?
Students: [indistinct off-task conversations]
Teacher: And (.) Am I missing something? Is there a
conversation going on that xxx(.) You will be allowed
to speak very shortly, so please just listen
Erik: Okay, sorry
Teacher: Thanks(.) If you go to Canvas, you’ll see what group
you’re in, what group number you have – Erik, do you
want to come sit here with me? –
34
Erik: Yeah
Teacher: Yeah, thanks [((students laugh))
Continuation of class instructions:
Teacher: When the other are doing their presentations, what
will the rest of you do? Sit here and just chill?
Student: Yeah
Teacher: [No:, no it doesn’t work like that((smiles)). When
you’re not doing your presentations, you’re reading
Divergent!(.)I have published two chapters. I’m not
saying you have to read both, you don’t have to, uhm,
do that, but I know many of you are fast readers! So
that’s why I have published two. You will have time to
look through your reading logs a:nd work with the
vocabulary you have written down(.) Now you’ll have
time to translate words and learn(.)
Teacher: Share your documents with me. You should have created
a document in OneDrive called like Divergent […]
everyone needs to share their document with me.
Student interacts with teacher:
Student: [teacher’s name], vet du hur svå:rt det var att hitta
information?
Do you know how difficult it was to find information?
Teacher: No: I don’t because I actually think we need to do a
class on how to search for information, because there
is a lo:t of information about this out there
Student: Jag vill att det ska stå exakt hur de gör
I want it to say exactly how they do it
35
Teacher: That is kind of the point of finding information(.)
you might have to search for and choose multiple
sources to get the big picture(.) Not everything is
just handed to you on a plate, so we might have to
work on that a bit.
Student: Jag önskar att det hade varit det
I wish it would have been that way
Teacher: Me too! That would be nice.
Group presentations, information about what the teacher expects
from the students:
Teacher: Okay, and what do we do when someone else is having
their presentation?
Student1: Laughing
Teacher: No(.) that’s what we don’t do, right?
Student1: Okay
Teacher: So what do we do?
Student2: We be quiet
Teacher: [We’ll be quiet(.) Yeah! No phones, no
computer, no laughing
After no1 group presentation; teacher feedback:
Student: [talks about their presentation and what they might
have omitted] I don’t know if we actually explained
it, but.(.)
Teacher: You did, you did(.) you did explain that, and also
where the executive branch checks it(.) You could have
mentioned the judicial branch as well and how they
play into it(.) but in general I think you had really
good structure in your PowerPoint (0.5) you could have
practiced it a bit more(.) but your structure was
good! and mainly you all speak clearly so it’s really
easy to hear what you are saying, and I think that you
36
were able to manage to do the assignment well and
according to the instructions, so pat yourselves on
the back(.) Really good job, guys(.) Thank you
After group no2 presentation, teacher feedback:
Teacher: Alright guys(.) how did you feel?
Student1: Nervous and.(.)
Student 2: [inte så bra
Not great
Teacher: Not good?
Student1&2: Nä:
No:
Teacher: Stay with the English please.(.)
Student1: Not so good.
Teacher: Not so good(.) Okay! And you felt nervous?
How did you feel, Erik?
Erik: Nervous and(.) eh(.) I am angry at myself.
Teacher: Why are you angry with yourself?
Erik: Because I was reading eh(.) [from] the computer when I
(0.5)
Teacher: when you should have been speaking freely?
Erik: Yeah.
Teacher: So, in general guys, I think you did a go:od job! You
have good structure, you had good information(.) I
think your nerves were what was the main issue here
Student: xxx calm
Teacher: [Yeah, if you would have gone ((shrugs)) I’ll be fine,
I think you’d all be feeling less like Sophie is doing
right now since she thinks it didn’t go well – I think
it went well - good structure, good content(.)
could’ve had more of a conclusion. What you guys
should do(.) all of these words you haven’t said
before [that are] hard to pronounce - succession,
presidential, constitution, constitutional – you
should say those a hundred times before because even
37
if you’re nervous you’ll be able to say them(.)
they’ll be in the back of your head like this ((snaps
fingers)). Pat yourselves on your back!
Student1: I just got one question(.)
Teacher: Yeah?
Student1: There was one word I didn’t understand(.) What’s
[vett-o]?
Teacher: What’s what?
Student: Vett-o? Veto?
Teacher: Veto! A veto is
[((student Peter raises hands))(.)
Teacher: Yeah Peter?
Peter: I can answer.
Teacher: Yeah go ahead!
After no3 group presentation:
Teacher: Okay so you also had good structure(.) that goes for
all of you. It was very clear what you were talking
about(.) Good content as well. I think you could have
been a little clearer with […] However there were some
issues with the pronunciation; judicial(.)
Student: it is a hard word
Teacher: yeah! I know! ((laughs)) There are hard words and we
might have to do a pronunciation lesson and talk about
how to look up how words are pronounced
Student: Google translate! You know the(0.5) the words under
the(.) you know the translation(.)
Teacher: [there are weird symbols!
Student: there is a: yeah weird symbols and the way you
pronounce it
Teacher: Yes! The international phonetic alphabet
Student: elephants what?
((teacher and students laugh))
Teacher: Phonetic. We will talk about it (1.0) Anyway! I think
you did a good job(.) you speak clearly, your
38
pronunciation is good in general so it’s easy to
understand you. Really really good job(.) I am really
proud of you. Pat on the back! [((pats her own back))
Before no4 group presentation, information for whole class:
Teacher: What do we do when other groups are presenting?
Student: Be quiet
Teacher: Yes! We’re quiet(.) yes. We don’t look at our
computers or phones(.) right? And we’re supportive
(0.5) No laughing, no giggling
After no4 group presentation, teacher feedback:
Teacher: Thank you guys! How did that feel?
Student: Okay
Teacher: okay. Linn, how did you feel?
Linn: Hm:: (1.0) okay.
Teacher: yeah? How about you Tim?
Tim: Not the worst thing I know
Teacher: Sorry?
Tim: Not the worst thing I know
Teacher: ((laughs and smiles)) okay. Lily, how did it feel for
you?
Lily: You know I hate speaking in front of people
Teacher: [yeah.
Lily: [so no(.) it doesn’t feel good
Teacher: [gives feedback on presentation] and Lily, you did
very well so you should be proud of yourself. I know
that you don’t like this, but you did very well. So
please, take that to heart. Alright guys. Well done!
Please sit and take a breath.
39
Before no5 group presentation:
((students are plugging in their computer to do their
presentation))
Student1: [I believe in us
((students laugh))
Teacher: ((chuckles and smiles)) GOOD!
After no5 group presentation, teacher feedback:
Student: I wasn’t well prepared.
Teacher: You weren’t well prepared
[students are performing off-topic conversations in
the background] but you also – LADIES (1.0) ((sighs))
I am talking to you right now, will you please focus?
Students: Yeah, sorry
Teacher: Thank you. I know you felt unprepared Sebastian and I
know [you had issues within the group], but watching
you guys work for the past two weeks (.) I know that
you have had a hard time with the assignment(.)
finding sources and putting it together, so with that
in mind I think you did really well
Teacher addresses whole class in between group presentations:
Teacher: I am wondering why you never speak English in class
with me because this sounded great(.) so I want to
hear more of that because it was really good, guys
(0.5) I need you have some more confidence in your own
abilities, okay?
Student Sebastian in no5 group approaches the teacher:
40
Sebastian: Is it okay if I have a chat?
Teacher: Yes of course!
Teacher and student: xxx
Teacher: I see you’re not feeling awesome right now(.)you’re
fine(.)you did really well(.)don’t beat yourself up.
After no6 group presentation:
Teacher: How did that feel?
Robert: Det gick bra tycker jag
I think it went well
Teacher: English, Robert
Robert: It felt ve:ry good!
Teacher: It felt very good ((smiles)). Good! How about you
ladies?
Student: A little bit nervous but it was fine
Teacher: Mhm ((smiles)) (0.5) same for you Samantha?
Samantha: Yeah
Teacher: Klara?
Klara: I think since it’s not our first language it was
pretty good
Teacher: ((laughs)) yes, it was good guys. You’re easy to understand (.) there is no problem at all [students talk in the background – Guys (0.5) I’m speaking here – uhm. You had good structure, so it was easy to follow you. All of you though – legislative – its le[ʤ]e-slative – not le[g]e-slative(.) le[ʤ]eslative. […] pat yourselves on the back and go ((breathes out)). You’re done!
(10.0)
Teacher: You did good, Samantha (.) you did good Samantha ((shakes head)) Teacher: Why are you so hard on yourselves? Samantha: Because we get grades and it’s hard to just say ‘Oh
I’m good at this!’ Teacher: Well, I think that is just the exact attitude you guys
need(.)you need to be like (0.5) ‘I’m a:wesome’
41
Samantha: ((laughs)) [no Teacher: ((laughs)) Yes! You’re way too hard on yourselves. Teacher: How did you feel, Bella? Bella: (2.0) Nervous Teacher: Nervous, yeah (.) and still you talked without any
help, no cards no nothing (.) that is very impressive(.)especially if you feel nervous
Teacher: Uhm(.) Honestly, all of you, like this entire class, you’re too hard on yourselves (0.5) like it’s insane! You have to learn how to go ‘I’m pretty good at this, I know my stuff’, right? (0.5) You are better at this than you give yourselves credit for (1.0) You’re all clear, it is structured, I can hear every word you say. Yes (.) there are always things we can improve upon, but sometimes you have to stop and go ‘I did this, I’m good (.) I never thought I’d have the courage to speak English in front of someone’ but you do it and you nail it(.) Am I ever gonna get you to be kind to yourselves?
Student: No ((shakes head)) Teacher: I think you did great (.) at least I’m happy.
E7 – Classroom instructions before students work on their individual essays: Teacher: Last class, you started preparing work for the essay
[…] do you remember this? Student: Yes Teacher: Okay good(.)how far did you get with all of this? Student: Don’t know Teacher: Don’t know(.)do you want to check? [The teacher reminds the students about the topic that
they are going to write about. The students have watched
a film about the topic]
Teacher: Did any of you take notes when watching? Student: No
42
Teacher: Do you maybe realize that it would have been good to take notes to be able to answer these questions?
Jim: Yeah [student Johan shakes his head
Teacher: Ye:ah(.)Johan don’t be stubborn, you know I’m right [((smiles))
Teacher: You also need one page with works cited(.)right? I’m
not saying you have to have -you look scared, John! - you don’t have to have sources that take up a whole page(.)I’m saying you need a separate page for your sources even if you only used three of them.
Teacher: And(.)did I(.)okay I didn’t write that here, but I’m gonna add it! But I’m(.)can anyone tell me what format your paper will be in?
Students: Times New Roman Teacher: Times New Roman. And what(.)12 points? Students: No. Size 12 Teacher: 12 points((smiles)). And do we have any spacing? Students: 1.5 Teacher: Yeah, go:od guys, you’ve actually learned [((laughs
and puts her hands together at chest level) Students: ((claps their hands))
Teacher interacts off-task with student during lecture: Student: ((opens a bottle of soda and drinks)) Teacher: Don’t you think it’s too early for that? ((smiles))
Teacher enquires about students progression: Teacher: ((approaches students)) how are we doing? Student: Zehr gut. Teacher: Zehr gut? This is not German class ((smiles))
Teacher approaches student who is using his cellphone Teacher: Carl, what are you doing? Carl: I need to text [the class coach] Teacher: That’s not an excuse
43
Rasmus: It kinda is, but it’s a shitty excuse Joel: He was bitten! Teacher: Bitten? Rasmus: Yeah, at a soccer game. Teacher: Did you actually get bitten? Carl: Yes Teacher: By what? Carl: A human. Teacher: A human? Really? That’s gross! Did you get a tetanus shot?
Conversation with student: Student: I don’t know why but I prefer writing on paper(.)it’s
strange Teacher: Actually, it is not strange at all! I do that too its
good because it makes it more visual.
Addressing whole class: Teacher: We have another hour where you get to work with your
essays so ple:ase let me know if you need any help or if anything is unclear(.) but try to keep focused and keep your voices down if you need to discuss anything with each other(.)remember that you only have two classes and you have used half of this one already so please stay focused and work
Students: yeah Teacher: Good(.)thank you. Let’s get started!
Teacher acknowledges students’ off-task activity: [Students are engaging in off-task talk] Teacher: are you actually working on your essays? Students: Hm? Teacher: Guys, if you still can’t focus, separate yourselves
from each other […] please just try and focus for five minutes(.)please, I know you can do it.
Summing up class, E7:
44
Teacher: Alright guys will you all listen up please(2.0)I just want to be very clear(.)that this class and next class are(.)you’re writing your papers(.)the class after that you will be peer review your papers […] after that you will turn in your final draft […] do you guys feel like you’re on top of things?
Students: yeah Teacher: Here’s the deal(0.5)I feel like crap
[students: oh no] so I will let you go a few minutes early today. Thank you guys
INFORMATION FROM INTERVIEW (not coded): How long have you been teaching? 7th year, since 2014 – started teaching directly after getting her degree. Teaches English and Swedish, but is also able to teach history Information about E6: Elective, English 6 (not mandatory) 35 students from two different classes – both in the same program (naturbruk). Profile horses and writing, and the others have animal parks and nature guiding/adventure. Mostly girls – 8 boys. 2nd year students.Special group. Very different from each other depending on their profile Energetic boys who can’t sit still or be quiet and “animal park girls” who are fairly quiet, want to do well, kinda shy. Headstrong ladies who are doing the horse profile. They are very ambitious, but they have a tendency to think “my way or the highway” so you kinda have to navigate around them a little bit to make sure you keep the atmosphere in the classroom at an acceptable level. What are your strategies for keeping the classroom at an acceptable level? Teacher: I joke around with them a lot ((laughs)) but mostly I’m fairly non-confrontational, but kind and sweet and still firm and clear so they appreciate structure and clear instructions. It is a good frame to work within. Otherwise it’s a lot of personal chemistry with those ladies in particular – it’s like “do they like you or don’t they like you” and if they don’t like
45
you, they are not going to behave well. We’ve had a good start so far. I went in knowing this, so I had a “buddy-buddy” approach from the get go and now I’m transitioning into becoming more strict as we go on to ascertain they know I’m not “your friend” and I’m still your teacher. It’s working so far! I’ve heard it so many times: no smiles before Christmas. I think it’s better to create an environment in your classroom where everyone’s comfortable and that they know I care about them. This generation, I’m not sure what it was like when we were in school, but they’re very sensitive, and they need to know that you care about what happens to them. I think it might be just teenagers actually, and if you are kind but still structured and firm, and have demands and have expectations, they’ll know that: she cares about me and it helps the environment a lot. Information about E7: Third year – technical program/engineering 25 boys from two different classes, same program divided in two. The teacher has had had one class before and the other one was brand new. Teacher comment: “that was kind of interesting going in. that I knew half of them and didn’t know the other half at all. They are happy ((laughs)) spirited, not all of them are very serious and ambitious and they go in without realizing that English 7 is a way more difficult course than the previous one […] not everyone takes it seriously” Do you feel like you communicate differently with the students that you’ve known longer than the ones that are new? Teacher: Yes In what way? Teacher: I think I can be harsher with the one’s I’ve known longer because they know me and they know that if I tell them to be quiet or work or throw a jovial insult in there, they know it’s a joke because they know me. With the ones I haven’t known as long I’ve been testing the waters a bit and see what type of people they are […] after a month and a half they’re starting to come together as group rather than half and half, so I think that works fairly well now. In the beginning I was more reserved with the ones I didn’t know Do you find class composition to be an important factor in terms of how comfortable you are, or is it easier to be comfortable with the students you have known longer?
46
Teacher: The people that are in the group makes it easier, but I have to say that [class composition] matters more than having known them a longer time. Do you notice a difference in yourself in terms of how comfortable you are when you speak to the students formally or informally? Teacher: I’m more comfortable being informal with a group I feel comfortable with or have known a long time. To be formal is also to have some kind of shield or protection. You don’t really put yourself out there as a person. Being formal or informal and how I’m comfortable with it comes with the group. They way to talk to a group, an individual and the response a specific student needs comes with experience. What are your thoughts about giving feedback or critique to someone? Teacher: Depends on if it’s in a group, then I’m heavy on the positive feedback so you kind of wrap the negatives into that. Like, “You could think about this one thing but overall it’s amazing”. If it’s one to one it’s easier to say “you have to work on these things” but always telling them why. Being more explicit and informative .. do “this” because of “this”. They don’t feel embarrassed then. They never leave me with the feeling of them not being good. They have a tendency to take it to heart and it being an attack on them as people rather than their skills. In written, I’m always very careful with how I phrase it. I never say “you haven’t cited your sources” I always phrase it as “the text doesn’t contain the sources” so it’s never on the person but the product. That is also learned from experience. [Feedback also] depends on the group and the people because some students need more of the negative feedback. Sometime they think a little too much of themselves and you need to bring them down to have them understand that you can’t just stop learning. In [E6], some girls think they’re just bad at everything – so I focus more on “you’re fine, you’re good, you can do so much more than you think. Just think about this thing (at the bottom)” What usually triggers conflict? Teacher: Usually I’d say some kind of miscommunication. Maybe I’m in a bad mood and I snap way earlier, and the students go “I didn’t do that or you didn’t tell them” – usually it’s just not understanding each other. Like, you were supposed to do for today, why haven’t you done it? [the students say] You didn’t say that. I usually don’t say “Yes I did, you didn’t listen”.
47
Solving [the issue of miscommunication] is just to always being really clear, and I try to make sure I know that I’m right before I even try to defend myself. I don’t go into conflict to show “I’m the big boss here” it’s just easier to say that “I might be wrong, I’m gonna double check this”. I’d rather do that than have an unnecessary conflict
Stockholms universitet
106 91 Stockholm
Telefon: 08–16 20 00
www.su.se