Two texts on Classroom Discourse
by
Judith Green & Carol Dixon, University of California, Santa Barbara
<http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/sec/p-greendixon.htm>
This
page presents HTML versions of two papers:
Judith
L. Green & Carol N. Dixon, �The
Social Construction of Classroom Life�, International encyclopedia of
English and the Language Arts, Vol. 2. Pp. 1075-1078. A. Purves in
collaboration with Scholastic Press, New York 1994.
The
papers are to be used in connection with the seminar �Classroom Discourse�,
given by Judith Green and Carol Dixon at Pedagogiska institutionen, Uppsala
University, Stureg. 4, 14 Sept 1999, 15.15-17.00. For more information see http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/edu-research/hsem.htm
/Donald Broady
Green,
J.L. & Dixon, C., 1994, The social construction of classroom life.
International encyclopedia of English and the Language Arts, Vol. 2. Pp.
1075-1078. A. Purves (Editor), New York.
Judith
L. Green & Carol N. Dixon
Viewing
classroom life as socially constructed acknowledges the primacy of social
interactions in all that occurs in classrooms.
As members of the class interact with each other and with materials, they
are constructing the everyday patterns of life that define what learning and
teaching, reading and writing, teacher and student, interacting and interpreting
are in a particular classroom or group within a classroom.
Learning in classrooms is not merely an individual or psychological
process, it is also a group and a social process that influences what students
have an opportunity to learn and how they participate in the everyday events of
classroom life. (See also Reading As A Social Process)
The
socially constructed nature of life in classrooms becomes visible in the
patterns of life member construct as they interact with each other over time.
These patterns influence the expectations for participating in and across
the events of everyday life, the roles and relationships possible, the types of
activities available, and the opportunities for learning that are constructed.
Across years of schooling, these patterns have consequences for what
students have an opportunity to learn how to do, what they will count as
knowing, and how they will act in future situations (Green, J. Kantor, R. &
Rogers, T.,1990, Exploring the
complexity of language and learning in theclassroom. In B. Jones and L. Idol (Eds.),
Educational values and cognitive
instruction: Implications for reform(pp.333-364). Vol. II. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum).
Constructing
Patterns of Classroom Life
From the
first moments of interaction, members of the classroom group initiate a social
process that establishes who can interact with whom; what is to be accomplished
through the interactions among members; when, where, and how members will engage
with each other and curriculum materials; the conditions and purposes for the
interactions; and a set of expected outcomes. As a teacher and her or his students interact, they also
establish an identity as a class in a particular room in a particular year, as
members of that class, as members of sub-groups within that class, and as
individuals within that class or a particular sub-group.
Simultaneously, they establish what it means to be a community, and
learners, students, teachers, readers, writers, peers, friends, artists,
scientists, historians, musicians within that community.
These
patterns of interaction establish a particular way of living together, a
classroom order, that is constituted by the social roles and relationships among
members; expectations members construct for how life will be conducted; and
understandings of what members count as knowledge, participation, social
interactions, text, and individual within this classroom.
What it means to live in one classroom, and to be a student and a teacher
in that classroom, differs from what it means to assume these roles and
relationships and live in another classroom, even if the intended curriculum
remains the same. (See also Hidden Curriculum)
Through
the processes of interacting and interpreting, members construct a social
history that inscribes a particular world.
This world appears ordinary to members who contributed to the
construction of the patterns of life (insiders) but may not be perceived or
interpreted by outsiders (e.g., new students, student teachers, or visitors) as
members would. New students and
student teachers are faced with the problem of becoming members of the class, of
subgroups, and of a peer culture (teacher or student).
Visitors are faced with the problem of seeing the world and its
requirements from an insider's point of view.
To solve this problem, outsiders need to develop local knowledge of
social and academic processes including: meanings
for terms and phrases (the referential system);
expectations for what can and may occur that members have constructed to
guide their everyday life in this classroom (routines and conventions),
understandings of common or patterned ways of interacting with others (the
discourse system), and knowledge of ways of constructing, using and responding
to oral and written classroom texts and other artifacts (the interpretive
system) (Edwards & Mercer, 1987, Common
Knowledge. New York: Falmer).
If outsiders fail to see life
from a member's perspective a clash occurs that may have consequences for both
members and the outsider. For
example, if an administrator, who values a quiet classroom with students in
their seats, enters and sees students walking about the room and talking to
others, this outsider may interpret the students' actions as indicating off-task
behavior or lack of control by the teacher.
This interpretation may lead to a negative evaluation of the teacher and
of students. If the administrator
talks with members and asks them to explain what is happening, a different
understanding may be constructed. If
the students are able to show that the activity is purposeful and is tied to a
particular academic task (e.g., forming discussion groups; locating reference
material), the administrator has evidence that the class is in control and that
what appeared on the surface to be inappropriate activity is patterned and
purposeful within the particular situation.
Learning to see the patterns of activity from a member's perspective is
essential to construct situationally appropriate interpretations and
perceptions.
As
students acquire new knowledge, expand their repertoires for learning and
participating, move to a new subgroup, or engage in new areas of the curriculum,
the patterns of life often change to support the ways of interacting required by
these shifts. Patterns of
interaction and organization constructed by members are not static. Classroom life is dynamic and open to change.
Members must continually monitor interactions within and across the
events of everyday life since patterns of interaction may be revised, refined,
discontinued, redefined and reestablished at any point in time.
For
outsiders or new people entering this ongoing system of life, the task is more
complex for they do not share the common history of that classroom. For
students taken out of the class during the day (e.g., for special help), the
task is also complex for they have missed a part of the pattern of life.
These students must continually reenter each time they leave this stream
of classroom life. Additionally,
when students are absent, they are also faced with reentry at a new point time.
In each of these instances, the person seeking entry or reentry will be
faced with the task of understanding life and its requirements for participating
at that point in time as members do.
Constructing
Ways of Interacting in Classrooms
One of
the principal means through which patterns of interaction are constructed is
language. To interpret the patterns
of life, members need to process linguistic and nonverbal aspects of the social
interactions of others. Language,
in relationship to the social construction of life in classrooms, refers to the
oral and written discourse norms, expectations, and strategies that members
establish through their daily interactions.
Defined in this way, the language-of-the-classroom is a group constructed
phenomena; a locally negotiated system of meanings; and a local set of
conventions for interacting, participating and communicating information and
knowledge within a particular classroom.
Through
the language members bring to the classroom from other settings, they construct
a common classroom language or referential system comprised of terms (e.g.,
names for objects or processes in the particular classroom ) and discourse
strategies (e.g., turn taking, topic initiation, essay writing). Meanings of terms and the functions of strategies are
situated in the patterns of life within a group (e.g.,
Call
It Courage is the name of a reading group; use twelve inch voices is a way
of defining volume when speaking with a partner or at a table activity; one
stroke of the chimes means stop, look and listen) (Mishler, 1979, Meaning in
Context is there any other kind,
Harvard
Education Review).
As these
ways of interacting become locally defined, they become conventions and
resources that members draw on to participate in socially and academically
appropriate ways within the particular classroom. Any pattern of interaction or term can become a convention if
it is interactionally acknowledged and used by members as part of everyday life.
For example, circle-up is a signal to students to move to the discussion
area rug for sharing time. The
terms circle-up, discussion area rug, and sharing all have locally constructed
meanings that differ from their use or function in other settings (e.g., home,
community, another classroom).
Members
construct social and academic conventions related to all aspects of classroom
life including ways of distributing and using time, space, and materials;
formatting papers; presenting information in oral and written form; assessing
information and performances; interpreting actions and interactions of others;
and engaging in particular events. Conventions
contribute to the construction of a common set of expectations for how members
will interact, participate, and share information.
The
existence of conventions does not insure their use or that they will remain
unchanged. Given the dynamic nature
of classroom interactions, conventionalized patterns may need to be established,
suspended, revised, and reestablished within and across events (e.g., when
students fail to get quiet when the teacher sounds the chimes again, or when a
new area of the curriculum is introduced).
In instances when conventions are broken, a frame clash (i.e., a clash in
expectations) will occur. For
example, students may forget to write their name at the top of a paper or may
not get quiet when the chime rings. At
such instances, the teacher or other group members make visible the expected
actions and may take action to repair or to reestablish the convention (e.g.,
the action or the type of topic that is appropriate). If the frame clash is not repaired it may lead to confusion
resulting from inconsistent or unclear action, disruption or construction of a
new convention.
The
existence of conventionalized interaction patterns makes daily life more or less
predictable or routine. The
construction of routines is part of the process of developing a social system
for the classroom. Differences in
patterns of classroom life from one classroom to another and one year to another
are partially reflected in the types and range of conventions and routines that
are established by teachers with their students.
Just
which routines or conventions are necessary is part of the debate about
approaches to education. This
debate reflects conceptual and philosophical differences in what educators view
as teaching, learning, curriculum, and classroom organization and management.
Differences are reflected in who can do or say what to whom, when and
where, for what purpose(s), under what condition(s), with what outcome(s).
Particular patterns of routines or conventions are more likely to occur
in classrooms that reflect one orientation (e.g., student-centered approaches)
than in another (e.g., content-centered, technology-driven, or
recitation-formatted). These
patterns of conventions and routines help to shape opportunities for learning,
ways of interacting, and what members of a particular classroom count as
knowledge.
The
construction of a common set of routines and conventions does not insure that
individual members will automatically act in socially and academically
appropriate ways. Members do not
enter a classroom as blank slates; rather, they bring with them histories as
students in other classrooms; a range of social, linguistic, cognitive and
perceptual abilities; and histories as conversational partners and participants
in a range of non-school settings (e.g., home, community, church).
From participating in these other settings, they develop a repertoire of
interactional patterns that they draw on to perceive, interpret and participate
in the events of daily life within the new group or situation.
These
resources become part of a frame of reference for an individual or a group.
A frame of reference can be thought of as a lens through which an
individual or a group sees and interprets what is being constructed.
As a person interacts with others and contributes to the world being
constructed in the class, her or his personal frame of reference may be
transformed or revised and a group frame constructed.
As individuals or group members gain new experiences, these experiences
become part of their frames of reference and may, in some instances, lead to a
reconceptualization of the way in which the world or a part of the world is
understood. A frame of reference is
not a static entity but a constantly evolving repertoire of understandings,
beliefs, values, ways of interacting, experiences, and processes (e.g.,
cognitive, social, linguistic, perceptual, motor) of individuals or groups.
How individual members interpret the event and processes in which they
are participating is influenced by a range of factors including their position
within the group, their relationship to their peer group(s), what they perceive
as important or valued at that given point in time, how they are feeling at that
moment, whether they have been attending to the full range of happenings, how
they interpret the textbook, and/or how they prefer to present self.
When an
individual or a group does not interpret the event or process in the same way, a
frame clash occurs. This frame
clash may be overt or tacit. If
overt, it makes visible the differences in interpretation among members.
For example, if a student has interpreted a story in a unique way, that
student may challenge the interpretation that seems to be commonly held.
What members do when overt clashes occur makes visible what counts as
appropriate or preferred participation or interpretation within the group or to
individual members (e.g., teacher, other students).
Tacit
frame clashes may also occur and the reason for these clashes may not be overtly
visible. For example, if students
do not make visible differences in interpretation or see that they hold
different interpretations, they may act as if everyone agrees. These actions may result in confusion for individuals, the
group or both. Factors that
contribute to tacit frame clashes include:
differences in linguistic resources, cultural assumptions about what is
appropriate or what counts, and background experiences with the types of
activities or processes being constructed.
Tacit frame clashes often disrupt the flow of activity and lead to
negative assessment of student ability or to perceptions that a student's
actions are inappropriate .
The
existence of a frame clash, overt or tacit, makes visible what members expect,
what they are holding each other accountable to, and what they view as
appropriate participation. For
example, if a teacher asks students for the name of a character and the students
respond with a description (e.g., the little man), the teacher and students have
arrived at a point of potential frame clash.
If the teacher does not receive the answer she expected, a name, she has
a variety of options: she can
accept the response as semantically equivalent and move on, reject the response
and ask the question again, or accept the response as one possible way of
answering while still inviting the name. How
the teacher responds signals what the preferred response is and whether a frame
clash has actually occurred.
To
participate in socially and academically appropriate ways, members must engage
in a complex set of processes. They
must monitor what is occurring and required at the local moment, interpret the
action and requirements as others do, select from their repertoires for
interacting ways that meet the demands of the local situation, and then, act in
ways that fit the actions and expections of the local moment.
If they fail to do so intentionally or unintentionally, they may be
defined by the teacher and other group members as not listening, knowing, or
understanding and may be viewed by members as outsiders to the group or
classroom.
Consequences
of Living in Particular Classrooms
To see
life in classrooms as socially constructed leads to new understandings of
factors that influence what students have an opportunity to learn from living in
classrooms. From this perspective,
knowledge one gains from schooling is related to the range and types of
opportunities people have to learn in their roles as students, .
Learning, therefore, is not an individually accomplished process, but a
socially negotiated process that interacts with an individual's goals,
presuppositions about learning, abilities, perceptions, values, peer group
position, background knowledge and expectations.
What
counts as learning, knowing, participating and interpreting, therefore, is
socially constructed moment-by-moment, day-by-day, month-by-month in a
particular self-contained classroom or across classrooms.
Across years of schooling, the range of models that students have
opportunities to experience and to construct limit or expand their frames of
reference for what counts as knowing, interpreting new situations, displaying
knowledge in new settings, and being students; and their repertoires for
interacting .
The
conceptualization of classroom life as socially constructed requires expansion
of the definition of teacher and student. Traditionally,
the terms teacher and student refer to institutionally designated and societally
defined roles that give particular rights to one of these actors (the teacher)
and place particular obligations on the other (the students).
This view does not capture the dynamic nature of these roles or the ways
in which they are defined within a particular classroom.
From a social construction of life perspective, what it means to be a
student, teacher, group member, and peer is defined and redefined, constructed
and reconstructed within a particular classroom.
There is no generic role of teacher, only teacher-in-this-class and
students-in-this class, peers-in this-class, reading (speaking,
interacting)-in-this-class.
Further,
the range of roles associated with teacher will depend on the philosophical
approach of the person legally designated as teacher. For example, a teacher with a student-centered approach, will
hand-over to students certain opportunities to take-up a range of roles.
Students will have opportunities to take-up the role of teacher for other
students. In contrast, students in
a computer intensive program may have other opportunities for taking-up the role
of teacher. In each of these classroom approaches, students have an
opportunity to assume the role of teacher under certain conditions.
The roles and relationships associated with these opportunities differ
and lead to different opportunities for learning.
Which opportunities society values or which are seen as most effective
changes with time. While society
debates what types of schools it wants, students are living in classrooms and
are constructing particular types of knowledge, learning particular processes,
and engaging in particular forms of life. From
these patterns of life across classrooms and schools, students are constructing
institutionalized definitions of teaching and learning, definitions that they
carry to new situations and use to frame their interpretations and expectations
for learning in these new settings.
References
Baker,
Carolyn & Luke, Allan (Eds.), Towards
A Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Edwards,
Derek & Mercer, Neil, 1987, Common
Knowledge: The Development of
Understanding in the Classroom. New
York: Falmer Press.
Emihovich,
Catherine, (Ed.), (1989), Locating
Learning: Ethnographic Perspectives
on Classroom Research. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Green,
Judith L. & Harker, Judith O. (Eds.), 1988,
Multiple Perspective Analyses of Classroom Discourse.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lemke,
Jay, 1990, Talking Science: Language,
Learning and Values. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Marshall,
Hermine, (Ed.), (1992), Redefining Student
Learning: Roots of Educational
Change. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Solsken,
Judith., 1992, Literacy, Gender and Work
in Families and School. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Citations
in Paper
Bloome,
David & Egan-Robertson, Ann, 1993, The social construction of
intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons,
Reading Research Quarterly
Edwards,
Derek & Mercer, Neil, 1987, Common
Knowledge: The Development of
Understanding in the Classroom. New
York: Falmer Press.
Green,
Judith, Kantor, Rebecca, &
Rogers, Teresa (1990). Exploring
the complexity of language and learning in theclassroom.
In Beau Fly Jones and Lorna Idol (Eds.),
Educational values and cognitive
instruction: Implications for reform, pp.333-364. Vol. II. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum
Heap,
James, 1992, A situated perspective
on what counts as reading. In
Carolyn Baker & Allan Luke (Eds.), Toward
a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy, Philadelphia:
John Benjamins
Mehan,
Hugh, 1979, Learning Lesson. Harvard
University Press.
Mishler,
Elliot, 1979, Meaning in Context: Is
there any other kind?
Harvard
Education Review, 49, 1-19.
Green,
J., Franquiz, M., & Dixon, C., The myth of the objective transcript. TESOL
Quarterly, 31 (1), Pp. 172-176
Judith
Green, University of California, Santa Barbara
Maria
Franquiz, University of Colorado at Boulder
Carol
Dixon, University of California, Santa Barbara
Transcribing
is a tool commonly used by researchers, both those concerned with the study of
language and those concerned with exploring other dimensions of everyday life
through language. Underlying much
of this work is the belief that it is possible to write talk down in an
objective way. In this commentary,
we argue that transcribing is a situated act within a study or program of
research embedded in a conceptual ecology of a discipline (Green, Kelly,
Castanheira, Esch, Frank, Hodel, Putney, & Rodarte, 1996; Toulmin, 1990; Van
Dijk, 1985a). Transcribing,
therefore, is a political act that
reflects a discipline�s conventions as well as a researcher�s
conceptualization of a phenomena, purposes for the research, theories guiding
the data collection and analysis, and programmatic goals (Edwards, 1993; Ochs,
1979).
Our own
political act in writing this article is to construct the arguments that follow
by drawing on sociolinguistic perspectives informed by cultural anthropology
(Green & Dixon, 1993; Green & Harker, 1988). To illustrate the importance of this argument for the TESOL
audience, we discuss two key issues: transcribing
as an interpretive process and as a representational process. Central to these
conceptualizations is the understanding that a transcript is a text that
�re�-presents an event; it is not the event itself.
Following this logic, what is
re-presented
is data constructed by a researcher for a particular purpose,
not just talk written down.
Transcribing
As An Interpretive Process
The
situated nature of transcript construction is being discussed across disciplines
(e.g., Duranti & Goodwin, 1992; Edwards & Lampert, 1993; Green &
Harker, 1988; Van Dijk, 1985a,b). Underlying
these discussions is a concern for choices made in representing data.
While agreeing with Edwards (1993) that choice is a central part of the
political process of constructing a transcript, we see choice as also involving
a series of interpretive processes.
The act
of choosing a segment of life to transcribe implies decisions about the
significance of the strip of talk or the speech event, which, in turn, implies
that the talk or event has been interpreted from some point of view (e.g.,
sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, second language acquisition).
Thus, choosing a unit of talk to transcribe is a political act:
From whose point of view will the selection be made--the researcher�s etic perspective and
goals, and/or the
emic perspective and goals of members of the group?
The act
of choosing talk is also influenced by researchers� assumptions about
language, both a priori and in situ. What
counts as language and what is perceived as a meaningful bit of language in situ
depends on the researchers� cultural knowledge of that language�s system and
discourse practices. Such knowledge
shapes researchers� interpretations of what they hear, see, understand, and
do. For example, hearing a sound as
stress involves understanding how stress is signaled and understood within a
particular language group. To see
silence as meaningful, and not merely the absence of talk, or to see someone as
taking the role of questioner involves cultural understanding of the discourse
practices of a social group (Gumperz 1982; Phillips, 1983; Tannen, 1984). Thus,
writing down what one hears is the result of a range of interpretive acts.
Transcribing
As A Representational Process...
Representing
�others� is a topic of concern across disciplines (Atkinson, 1990; Cortazzi,
1993; Patai, 1988, 1993). The
intersection of these discussions with the issue of transcripts as
representations is captured in the following issues: what is represented in the transcript (e.g., talk, time,
nonverbal actions, speaker/hearer relationships, physical orientation, multiple
languages, translations); who is representing whom, in what ways, for what
purpose, and with what outcome; and how analysts position themselves and their
participants in their representations of form, content and action.
From this perspective, a transcript represents both the researcher(s) and
the participants in particular ways. Transcripts,
therefore, are partial representations, and the ways in which data are
represented influence the range of meanings and interpretations possible.
The
process of transcribing, however, is not an end in-and-of-itself.
Rather, a transcript is an analytic tool constructed for a particular
purpose embedded in a program of research (Corsaro, 1985).
Analysis of data represented as a transcript often entails reading the
transcript in the presence of audio or video data, field notes, or other forms
of head notes (knowledge gained from being in the situation). Thus, a transcript is shaped by and, in turn, shapes, what
can be known (c.f. Fairclough, 1993 on text construction). For example, a traditional linear transcript implies
contiguity of talk in time. Constructing
a transcript with multiple columns to focus on roles and relationships is both a
theoretical position and political act which breaks this convention (Ochs, 1979;
Lin, 1993; Tuyay, Jennings & Dixon, 1995). Yet, a linear transcript makes examining collaborative
interactions among different language speakers, or exploring which language was
used for what purpose, difficult since talk may overlap, events may co-occur and
interactions may be non-linear or contiguous (e.g., Bloome & Theodorou,
1988; Floriani, 1993; Tuyay, Jennings & Dixon, 1995).
The use of a linear transcript, and not a transcript that displays the
complexity of relationships, means that the reader must rely primarily on the
narrative interpretation provided by the writer who had access to contextual
information not represented in or with the transcript.
The
Politics of Transcription: Questions
For A TESOL Audience
The
issues that our sociocultural perspective raised about transcribing as a
political act are critical to a TESOL audience.
The argument presented can be posed as a series of questions:
Who will be involved in constructing the transcript?
How will �talk� be selected, in what ways, and for what purpose?
What level of contextual information will be provided, so that
�readers� may �hear� and/or �see� the researcher�s interpretive
processes? How will persons and
their talk and related actions be represented in the transcript?
What is invisible within the transcript that needs to be articulated in
the narrative? These issues are
particularly important when the transcriber is of a different language group
than the speaker(s), or when more than one language is involved.
For then the question is: Whose
language is being represented, and whose language counts, when language counts?
References
Atkinson,
P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination:
Textual construction of reality. New York: Routledge.
Bloome,
D. & Theodorou, E. (1988). Analyzing teacher-student and student-student
discourse. In J. Green & J. Harker (Eds.),
Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse. (pp. 217-248).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Corsaro,
W. A. (1985). Friendship and peer culture
in the early years. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Cortazzi,
M. (1993). Narrative analysis. London:
The Falmer Press.
Duranti,
A. & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking
context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards,
J.A. (1993). Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. in
Edwards, J.A. & Lampert, M.D. (Eds.)).
Talking
data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Edwards,
J.A. & Lampert, M.D. (Eds.) (1993). Talking
data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fairclough,
N. (1993). Discourse and text:
Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis.
Discourse and Society, 3(2),
193-218.
Floriani,
A. (1993) Negotiating what counts: Roles and relationships, content and meaning,
texts and context. Linguistics and
Education. 5 (3&4), pp. 241-274.
Green,
J. & Dixon, C. (1993). Introduction to "Talking knowledge into being:
Discursive and social practices in classrooms.
Linguistics and Education. 5 (3&4), 231-239.
Green,
J.L. & Harker, J.O. (Eds.) (1988). Multiple
perspective analyses of classroom discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Green,
J.L., Kelly, G.J., Castanheira, M.L., Esch, J., Frank, C., Hodel, M., Putney,
L., & Rodarte, M. (1996). Conceptualizing a basis for understanding: What
differences do differences make? Educational
Psychologist, 31(4), 227-234.
Gumperz,
J. (1982). Discourse strategies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, L.
(1993) Language of and in the classroom: Constructing the patterns of social
life. Linguistics and Education.. 5
(3&4), pp. 367-409.
Ochs, E.
(1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B.B. Schefflin (Eds.),
Developmental
pragmatics. New York: Academic, pp. 43-72.
Patai,
D. (1988, 1993). Brazilian women speak:
Contemporary life stories. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Philips,
S. (1983). The invisible culture:
Communication in classroom and community on the warm springs Indian reservation.
New York: Longman.
Tannen,
D. (1984). Conversational style.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Toulmin,
S. (1990).
Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. New York: The Free
Press.
Tuyay,
S., Jennings, L. & Dixon, C. (1995) Classroom discourse and opportunities to
learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third
grade classroom.
Discourse Processes.
Van
Dijk, T.A. (1985a). Handbook of discourse
analysis, Vol. 1: Disciplines of discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Van
Dijk, T.A. (1985b). Handbook of discourse
analysis, Vol. 3: Discourse and dialogue. New York: Academic Press.
URL of this page is
http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/sec/p-greendixon.htm
These
HTML versions created by Donald Broady
Back to SEC home page
Back to h�gre seminariet i
pedagogik (Advance seminar in Education) <http://www.skeptron.uu.se/broady/edu-research/hsem.htm>