Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 8:4 (2017) ► pp.542–570

The question of power in language classes from a critical discourse analysis perspective

Once a student, always a student?

| Kharazmi University
| Iran Language Institute (ILI)
| Kharazmi University

Informed by the major tenets of critical discourse analysis, the present study attempted to expose the chasm between veteran English teachers enjoying a nation-wide popularity and those linguistically talented novices achieving locally mediocre fame in the Iranian EFL context. In so doing, two highly competent English teachers, each as a prime example of the above-mentioned camps, were selected to serve as the main participants of the research. The analysis of their classroom talk indicated that linguistic excellence could not fulfill the role of educated experience as far as discourse competence was concerned. In all, the discursive strategies used by the experienced teacher seemed to manifest his recognition of students' voices and created a more heteroglossic atmosphere in the classroom.

Keywords: critical discourse analysis, critical classroom discourse analysis, teacher talk, heteroglossic, monoglossic, teacher-student interaction, power relations, experiential value, relational value
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Review of the related literature
    • 2.1Classroom discourse
    • 2.2Critical discourse analysis
    • 2.3Critical classroom discourse analysis
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants and class format
    • 3.2Data collection procedure and data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Experiential value in vocabulary
      • 4.1.1Rewording
      • 4.1.2Overwording
    • 4.2Relational value in vocabulary
      • 4.2.1Euphemism
      • 4.2.2Classification schemes
      • 4.2.3Formality
    • 4.3Expressive value in vocabulary
    • 4.4Connective value in vocabulary
      • 4.4.1Metaphor
    • 4.5Experiential value in grammar
      • 4.5.1Agency
      • 4.5.2Negation
    • 4.6Relational value in grammar
      • 4.6.1Imperatives
      • 4.6.2Modality
      • 4.6.3Inclusive we
      • 4.6.4Processes
      • 4.6.5Turn-taking moves
    • 4.7The relational values of interactional conventions
      • 4.7.1Connective value in grammar
      • 4.7.2Interruption and controlling topic
      • 4.7.3Enforcing explicitness and formulation
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 19 January 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.4.04bab
References
Baker, Paul
2006 Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul and Sibonile Ellece
2011 Key terms in discourse analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Barnes, Douglas
1969 “Language in the secondary classroom”. In Language, the learner and the school, ed. by Douglas Barnes, James Britton, and Harold Rosen. 11–77.Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bellack, Arno A., Herbert Kliebard, Ronald Hyman, and Frank Smith
1966 The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Brookfield, Stephen
2005 The power of critical theory for adult learning and teaching. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1995 Critical Discourse Analysis. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
2001 Language and Power (2nd ed.). Harlow, U.K.: Longman.Google Scholar
Flanders, Ned A.
1970 Analyzing teaching behavior. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fisher, Ros and Shirley Larkin
2008 “Pedagogy or ideological struggle? An examination of pupils’ and teachers’ expectations for talk in the classroom.” Language and Education 22 (1): 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, Maria, Nina Spada, and Patrick Allen
1985 “Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms.” TESOL Quarterly 19 (1): 28–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gee, James Paul
1996 The social linguistics and literacies: Ideology discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
1999 An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2004 “Discourse analysis: what makes it critical?” In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education, ed. by Rebecca Rogers. 19–50. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giddens, Anthony
1984 The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert
2001 Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Berkeley, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Hunt, Kellogg W.
1970 “Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults.” Society for the Research in Child Development Monograph 134 (1): 1–67. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, B.
1999 “Critical classroom discourse analysis.” TESOL Quarterly 33(3): 453–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcuse, Herbert
1964 One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Matusov, Eugene
2007 “Applying Bakhtin scholarship on discourse in education: A critical review essay”. Educational Theory 57(2): 215–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menard-Warwick, Julia
2008 “Because she made beds every day: Social positioning, classroom discourse, and language learning.” Applied Linguistics 29 (2): 267–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partington, Alan
2004 “Corpora and discourse, a most congruous beast.” In Corpora and discourse, ed. by Alan Partington, John Morley, and Louann Haarman, 11–20. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak
2001 Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John and Malcolm Coulthard
1975 Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun
1998 Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
2001 “Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity”. In Methods of critical discourse analysis by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 95–120. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Steve
2006 Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
2001 “What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments.” In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 1–13. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

刘, 心语
2021. A Study on the Teacher-Student Power Relation in Webinar Classes—A Case Study of a Graduate Course. Modern Linguistics 09:05 ► pp. 1315 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.