Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 34:2 (2024) ► pp.238–263

The use of invitations to bid in classroom interaction

ORCID logo | Kangnam University
This study explores the interactional meaning of an invitation to bid in Korean elementary school EFL classroom interaction by adopting a conversation analytic perspective. The study argues that participants use invitations to bid to indicate that a question elicits knowledge worthy of public demonstration. The analysis of thirteen video-recorded EFL lessons revealed that teachers use invitations to bid, fulfilling instructional agenda or demands whether they are set up at the beginning of an activity or arise midway. Students similarly invite themselves to bid, showing their understanding of the meaning that the practice carries. While teachers overwhelmingly accept students’ self-invitations, they may reject them in light of the details of instructional here and now. It is argued that deciding which student population should reply is a matter of negotiation although teachers have the final say, oriented to consequences of turn allocation on the work of teaching in progress.
Keywords: invitation to bid, classroom interaction, conversation analysis, turn allocation, individual performance, EFL
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Turn allocational procedures
    • 2.2Hand-raising and individual performance
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Teachers’ invitations to bid
    • 4.1Invitations to bid at the beginning of an activity
    • 4.2Invitations to bid in the middle of an activity
  • 5.Students’ self-invitations to bid
  • 6.Teachers’ rejection of students’ proposals
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 10 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22001.par
References (34)
References
Beach, Wayne A. 1993. “Transitional Regularities for ‘Casual’ “Okay” Usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 19 (4): 325–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. Douglas. 2014. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1981. “Adults’ Corrections of Children’s Mistakes: A Response to Wells and Montgomery.” In Adult-Child Conversation: Studies in Structure and Process, ed. by Peter French, and Margaret MacLure, 244–267. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 2019. “Classroom Interaction Research: The State of the Art.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (3): 212–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, David T. 1993. “From Role to Person: The Moral Layeredness of Classroom Teaching.” American Educational Research Journal 30 (4): 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2009. “Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society 23 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Jay L. 1990. Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene. 2002. “Turn-sharing: The Choral Co-production of Talk-in-Interaction.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Celia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 225–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Margutti, Piera. 2006. ““Are You Human Beings?”: Order and Knowledge Construction through Questioning in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Linguistics and Education 17 (4): 313–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “On Designedly Incomplete Utterances: What Counts as Learning for Teachers and Students in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (4): 315–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McHoul, Alexander. 1978. “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7 (2): 183–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCollum, Pamela. 1989. “Turn-Allocation in Lessons with North American and Puerto Rican Students: A Comparative Study.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 20 (2): 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paoletti, Isabella, and Giolo Fele. 2004. “Order and Disorder in the Classroom.” Pragmatics 14 (1): 69–85.Google Scholar
Park, Yujong. 2014. “The Roles of Third-Turn Repeats in Two L2 Classroom Interactional Contexts.” Applied Linguistics 35 (2): 145–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, George, and David Hustler. 1980. “Teaching the Class: The Practical Management of a Cohort.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 1 (1): 49–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petitjean, Cécile. 2014. “Social Representations of Turn-taking in Classrooms: From Compulsory to Post-compulsory Schooling in French-speaking Switzerland.” Classroom Discourse 5 (2): 138–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philips, Susan U. 1972. “Participant Structures and Communicative Competence: Warm Springs Children in Community and Classroom.” In Functions of Language in the Classroom, ed. by Courtney B. Cazden, Vera P. John, and Dell Hymes, 370–394. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Deborah. 2005. “Cross-cultural Variation in Classroom Turn-taking Practices.” In Directions in Applied Linguistics, ed. by Bruthiaux Paul, Atkinson Dwight, Eggington William, Grabe William, and Ramanathan Vaidehi, 201–220. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1975. “Everyone Has to Lie.” In Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, ed. by Marie Sanches, and Ben Blount, 57–80. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sahlström, Fritjof. 2002. “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37 (2): 47–57.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwab, Götz. 2011. “From Dialogue to Multilogue: A Different View on Participation in the English Foreign‐Language Classroom.” Classroom Discourse 2 (1): 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective, Language Learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers, eds. 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John McHardy, and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoffelsma, Lieke, and Tessa Cyrina van Charldorp. 2020. “A Closer Look at the Interactional Construction of Choral Responses in South African Township Schools.” Linguistics and Education 581: 100829. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Junko. 2018. “Practices of Self-Selection in the Graduate Classroom: Extension, Redirection, and Disjunction.” Linguistics and Education 461: 70–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dam, Jet. 2002. “Ritual, Face, and Play in a First English Lesson: Bootstrapping a Classroom Culture.” In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization, ed. by Claire Kramsch, 237–65. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Waring, Hansun Zhang. 2013. “Managing Competing Voices in the Second Language Classroom.” Discourse Processes 50 (5): 316–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xie, Xiaoyan. 2010. “Turn Allocation Patterns and Learning Opportunities.” ELT Journal 65 (3): 240–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar