skip to main content

Stance Taking and Identity in Classroom Interactions: A Small Scale Study

*Mukhlash Abrar orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Jambi University, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2020 PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract
This present article is mainly concerned with the nature of stance-taking and identity in classroom interaction. The data of the research were taken from the interactions in an English Foreign Language class. Going through the framework of stance triangle (Du Bois, 2007), the author explored the features of stances that are frequently taken in foreign language classroom interactions and the identities enacted from the interactions. The finding of the research suggested that epistemic stance was dominantly taken in the interactions, especially by the students. This unequal distribution of stance-taking is likely to occur due to the teacher’s teaching style and students’ lack of evaluation skill. In addition, the finding indicated that both teacher and students, when they take stances, constructed diverse discourse identities, including speaker, answerer, and evaluator. These diverse identities show that the classroom interactions between teacher and students is fairly communicative and dynamic.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Stance taking, Identities, Classroom interaction

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Statistics:
Share:
  1. Abrar, M. 2013. The pattern of classroom interaction and the distribution of turn taking: A study in two different classes in Jambi. Unpublished Master Thesis: Diponegoro University
  2. Anderson, L.W. Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. New York: Longman Publishing
  3. Bednarek, M. 2006. Epistemological positioning and evidentiality in English news discourse: A text-driven approach. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 26(6). 635-660
  4. Bethan, B. & Stokoe, E. 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press
  5. Bernstein, B.B. 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
  6. Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. 2001. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. United Kingdom: Penguin Books
  7. Bernstein, B.B. 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield
  8. Best, S. & Kellner, D. 1991. Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. New York: Guilford Press
  9. Biber, D. & Finegan, E. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1). 93-124
  10. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman
  11. Biber, D. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  12. Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  13. Boud, D. 2013. Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Routledge
  14. Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5). 585-614
  15. Caliendo, G. & Compagnone, A., 2014. Expressing epistemic stance in University lectures and TED talks: a contrastive corpu-based analysis. Lingue e Linguaggi, 11. 105-122
  16. Chafe, W. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 20. 261-272
  17. Chojnicka, J. 2012. Linguistic markers of stance in Latvian parliamentary debates. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation: Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan
  18. Chojnicka, J. 2015. Stance and politeness in spoken Latvian. Lingua Posnaniensis, 57(1). 25-40
  19. Clifford, J. 1988. The predicament of culture. Harvard: Harvard University Press
  20. Conrad, S. & Biber, D. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 56-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  21. Damari, R.R. 2009. Stancetaking as identity work: Attributed, accreted, and adjusted stances taken by an intercultural couple. Georgetown Working Papers in Language. Discourse and Society, 3. 18-37
  22. Du Bois, J.W. 2002, November. Stance and consequence. In annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans
  23. Du Bois, J.W. 2007. The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139-182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company
  24. Duckworth, E. 2009. Helping students get to where ideas can find them. The New Educator, 5(3). 185-188
  25. Eekelen, I.M.V., Boshuizen, H.P. & Vermunt, J.D., 2005. Self-regulation in higher education teacher learning. Higher Education, 50(3). 447-471
  26. Endo, T. 2013. Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and functions of wo juede (I feel/think). Equinox Publishing. 12-34
  27. Englebretson, R. 2007. Stancetaking in Discourse. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 1-25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
  28. Erikson, E. 1974. Womanhood and the inner space. In J. Strouse (Ed.). Woman & analysis, 333-364. New York: Dell
  29. Falchikov, N. & Boud, D., 1989. Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4). 395-430
  30. Falchikov, N. 1994. Learning from peer feedback marking: student and teacher perspectives. In H.C. Foot , C. J. Howe, A. Anderson, A. K. Tolmie, & D. A. Warden (Eds.). Group and interactive learning, 411-416. Southampton and Boston: Computational Mechanics Publications:
  31. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., Mcenery, T. & Boyd, E. 2015. Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics.1-26
  32. Gardner, R. 2001. When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
  33. Garrett, T. 2008. Student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management: A case study of three elementary teachers. The Journal of Classroom Interaction. 34-47
  34. Goodwin, M.H. 2006. The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell
  35. Goodwin, C. 2007. Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1). 53-73
  36. Haddington, P. 2004. Stance taking in news interviews. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 17. 101-142
  37. Hogg, MA. & Abrams, D. 2006. Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge
  38. Hübler, A. 1983. Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
  39. Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  40. Hyland, K. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, 122-142. London: Longman
  41. Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic genres. Harlow, UK: Longman
  42. Iinuma, M. 2015. Learning and teaching with technology in the knowledge society: New literacy, collaboration and digital content. Springer
  43. Iwasaki, S. & Yap, F.H. 2015. Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 83. 1-9
  44. Jaffe, A. 2009. Stance sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  45. Jenkins, R. 1996. Social identity. London: Routledge
  46. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. 1998. Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Press
  47. Johnstone, B. 2007. Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 49-68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
  48. Kärkkäinen, E. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of interactional functions, with a focus on think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
  49. Kärkkäinen, E. 2006. Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 26(6). 699-731
  50. Katzenstein, P.J. 1996. The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. Columbia University Press
  51. Kiesling, S.F. 2009. Style as stance: Stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation. In A. Jaffe (Ed.). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, 171-194. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  52. Lemke, J.L. 1998. Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientations in text semantics. Functions of Language, 5(1). 33-56
  53. Linde, C. 1997. Evaluation as linguistic structure and social practice. In B.L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg (Eds.). The construction of professional discourse, 151-172. New York: Addison Wesley Longman
  54. Local, J. & Walker, G. 2008. Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 28(6). 723-747
  55. Kirkham, S. 2011. Personal style and epistemic stance in classroom discussion. Language and Literature, 20(3).201-217
  56. Macken-Horarik, M. & Martin, J.R. 2003. Negotiating heteroglossia: Social perspectives on evaluation. (Special Issue). Text 23(2)
  57. Martin, J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston, and G. Thompson (Eds.). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 175. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  58. Maschler, Y. & Estlein, R. 2008. Stance-taking in Hebrew casual conversation via be'emet (really, actually, indeed', lit.in truth'). Discourse Studies, 10(3). 283-316
  59. Matoesian, G. 2005. Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(2). 167-193
  60. Mauranen, A. 2003. "But here's a flawed argument": Socialisation into and through Metadiscourse. Language and Computers, 46(1). 19-34
  61. McKeachie, W. 1999. Teaching tips. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
  62. Morita, N. 2004. Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. Tesol Quarterly, 38(4). 573-603
  63. Myers, G. 2010. Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4). 263-275
  64. Nuyts, J. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3). 383-400
  65. O'Boyle, A. 2010. Interpersonal aspects of thinking skills in an intercultural language learning context. Language Society and Culture, 31. 62-71
  66. Palmer, F.R. 1979. Modality and the English modals. New York: Longman
  67. Precht, K. 2003. Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. Text, 23(2). 239-258
  68. Rismark, M. & Solvberg, A.M. 2011. Knowledge sharing in schools: A key to developing professional learning communities. World Journal of Education, 1(2). 150
  69. Roseano, P., González, M., Borràs-Comes, J. & Prieto, P. 2016. Communicating epistemic stance: How speech and gesture patterns reflect epistemicity and evidentiality. Discourse Processes, 53(3). 135-174
  70. Salager-Meyer, F. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2). 149-170
  71. Sayah, L. & Hashemi, M.R. 2014. Exploring stance and engagement features in discourse analysis papers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3). 593-601
  72. Swales, J.M. & Burke, A. 2003. “It’s really fascinating work": Differences in Evaluative Adjectives across Academic Registers. Language and Computers, 46(1). 1-18
  73. Thompson, S.A., & Hopper, P. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee, P. Hopper (Eds.). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  74. Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (Eds.). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  75. Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(02). 391-425
  76. Wendt, A. 1994. Collective identity formation and the international state. American Political Science Review. 384-396
  77. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press
  78. White, H.C. 1992. Identity and control: A structural theory of social action. Princeton University Press
  79. White, P.R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2). 259-284
  80. Wilen, W., Ishler, M., Hutchison, J. & Kindsvatter, R., 2000. Dynamics of effective teaching. Allyn & Bacon
  81. Wragg, E.C. & Brown, G. 2001. Questioning in the secondary school. London: Routledge
  82. Wu, R.J.R. 2004. Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  83. Yang, W. 2014. Stance and engagement: A corpus-based analysis of academic spoken discourse across science domains. LSP Journal-Language for Special Purposes, Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition, 5(1). 62-78
  84. Zimmerman, D.H. 1998. Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki, & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in Talk, 87-106. London: Sage

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2021-09-20 02:10:32

No citation recorded.