Interpersonal Engagement in Graduate-Level Classroom Discourse: Researching Gender-Related Patterns Li-Fen Lin

Abstract Martin and White’s (2005) heteroglossic engagement system is a cover-all term for resources such as modality, hedging, polarity, intensification, concession, and attribution. Former research on academic writing has paid a great deal of attention to how writers utilize these resources to meet the discourse community’s expectations and to gain acceptance for their proposition. However, not much has been done on how speakers employ interpersonal engagement to take a stance towards the various points-of-view and value positions in academic spoken discourse. In this paper, I look at how graduate students use these resources to negotiate their stance in a graduate seminar, and examine whether there are gender-related patterns in constructing interpersonal meanings. The paper draws on ethnographic data collected through participant observations in a methodology class in an MATESOL program. Four one-hour classroom observation transcripts have been chosen for this study. The paper takes an in-depth look at four linguistic resources of engagement: projection, modality, negation and counterexpectancy for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data. The paper concludes with a discussion of the application of the framework of engagement to spoken academic discourse and the implication of engagement/gender analysis for pedagogy in graduate seminars.

1. Introduction Most gender-based investigations of classroom discourse, from primary school to postgraduate classroom, have focused on the role that gender played in classroom interaction, conversational strategies and styles, and quantity of speech (e.g. Bergvall & Remlinger 1996; Davies 2003; Graddol & Swann 1988; Hall & Sandler 1982; Krupnick 1985; Sadker & Sadker 1985; Smith-Lovin et al. 1986; Sommers & Lawrence 1992; Swacker 1975). A majority of these studies conformed to other language and gender research in different contexts and described female students’ language as powerless and lack of assertiveness (e.g.

Nina Nørgaard (ed.) 2008. Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication vol. 29 (ISSN 0906-7612, ISBN: 978-87-90923-47-1)

Bergvall & Remlinger 1996; Lakoff 1973). However, very little classroom discourse research has provided systematic analysis to examine how assertiveness is performed and how interpersonal meanings are realized by female and male students in classroom talk. In seeking a tool to describe and explain how men and women negotiate the exchange of interpersonal meanings in an academic setting, I draw on Martin and White’s (2005) heteroglossic engagement to provide a theoretical framework and analytical techniques. Martin and White’s (2005) heteroglossic engagement is a cover-all term for resources such as modality, hedging, polarity, intensification, concession, and attribution. Former research on academic writing has paid a great deal of attention to how writers utilize these resources to meet the discourse community’s expectations and to gain acceptance for their proposition (e.g. Hood 2004; Hyland 1996; White 2002). However, not much has been done on how speakers employ interpersonal engagement to take a stance towards the various points of view and value positions in academic spoken discourse. By drawing on Martin and White’s (2005) heteroglossic engagement, this paper aims to look at how interpersonal engagement resources are adopted by graduate students to negotiate their stance and positioning in this particular seminar class setting, and examine whether there are gender-related patterns in constructing interpersonal meanings.

2. Gender in classroom discourse Inspired by Lakoff (1973), language and gender research has focused on the “difference” between men and women’s linguistic behavior. Some explore the different speech styles adopted by men and women, for example: men’s speech styles are competitive, while women’s are cooperative (Coates 1986; Tannen 1992); men interrupt women more than the reverse (Zimmerman & West 1975); and women tend to be more polite than men (Holmes 1995). Others examine the language differences: women use the minimal responses yeah and

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

523

uh-huh to signal attentiveness, while men tend to use them so signal agreement (Maltz & Borker 1982); women tend to hedge and men talk notably longer than women (Swacker 1975). According to Cameron in her 2005 article summarizing the theoretical shift in approaches to language and gender over the past 10-15 years, the above studies fall either in the ‘dominance’ approach, focusing on gender inequality resulting from male dominance and female subordination, or in the ‘cultural difference’ approach, emphasizing separate gendered subcultures. Although these two approaches provide different explanations (‘male dominance’ and ‘cultural difference’) for the differences in gendered linguistic behaviors and identities, for Cameron, both approaches are the products of the common treatment of gender and sex: men and women are two internally homogeneous groups with different gendered linguistic behaviors and identities acquired through early socialization. For these two approaches, “gender is something you have” (Cameron 2005: 484), which Cameron calls a ‘modern’ feminist view of gender. Early research that examined the interactions of gender and discourse in the classroom setting followed the same ‘modern’ feminist view. They sought different patterns of behavior between female and male students. Some assessed gender-related linguistic behavior (Sommers & Lawrence 1992; Sadker & Sadker 1993; Swann 1993) and found that female students usually played supportive roles in mixed-sex group and were less likely to call out or make trouble. Some looked at the amount of talk produced (Graddol & Swann 1988; Krupnick 1985; Sadker & Sadker 1985; Swacker 1975). Myra and David Sadker (1985) found that in K-12 classrooms boys spoke more often than girls at a ratio of over 3:1. Graddol and Swann (1988) found a similar pattern at a ratio of 2:1. The dominant participation of male students in the classroom continued in higher education. Krupnick (1985) in her study carried out at Harvard University observed a ratio of 2.5: 1.

524

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Some explored this phenomenon further to explain why male students so often dominate classroom talk. Graddol and Swann (1988) accounted for boys’ dominance in terms of teacher-student dynamics. They found that the teachers’ gaze was more on the boys than on the girls, and that teachers tended to call more on boys than on girls. On the other hand, Krupnick (1985) suggested it was a teacher’s gender that influenced the extent to which male students dominated classroom talk. Her observation showed that female students participated more in classes taught by female instructors, while male students dominated at length in male-majority classes with male teachers. Some classroom talk research focused on the role of the teacher (Hall & Sandler 1982; Tannen 1992). Through empirical studies of postsecondary and other classrooms, reports and surveys, and responses to requests for information at various campuses, Hall and Sandler (1982) suggested teacher discrimination was the main cause for a “chilly classroom climate” for women. They maintained that the “chilly classroom climate” for women in higher education reduced women’s self-confidence and assertiveness and lowered their participation and performance. Specific differences in treatment of female and male students included: faculty interrupt women more than men; make less eye contact; give women less detailed instructions; prefer men to women in choosing student assistants; subtly discriminate against women by using sexist humor; view women as less capable and less serious; and ask women factual questions instead of more demanding analytical questions. As we have just witnessed, the question, “Do men and women use language differently?” has been at the heart of gender-based investigations of classroom discourse. Recent research, however, has shifted away from the rigid dichotomy of gendered linguistic behavior into a more constructivist and dynamic view of gender identities (Cameron 1990, 1998, 2005; Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 2003; Ehrlich 1997). This shift, which Cameron (2005) calls the ‘postmodern’ feminist view of gender, focuses “on specificity (looking at particular women

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

525

and men in particular settings) and complexity (looking at the interactions of gender with other kinds of identity categories and power relations)” (Cameron 1998: 947, italics in original). Research in this vein has been influenced by Judith Butler’s notion of “performativity” (Butler 1990), inspired by J. L. Austin’s performative utterances (Austin 1962). For ‘postmodern’ feminist researchers, gender is perceived as what one performs (does) interactionally and situationally in local contexts, fluid and discursive in nature. Gender, therefore, “has no ‘ontological status’: it is not a fixed attribute of persons whose global influence on behavior can be assumed a priori in every case, but rather something that may (or may not) be ‘made relevant’ and that has in any case to be ‘accomplished’ by participants in specific interactions” (Cameron 2005: 487, italics in original). Further exploration of gender-based research in classroom settings from this perspective can be found in Bergvall and Remlinger’s study of female students in engineering education in the United States (1996) and Davies’s analysis of pupils’ gendered discourse styles in small group classroom discussion in England (2003). Bergvall and Remlinger’s on-going examination of academic interaction at a technological university finds that female students’ lack of a history of practice as powerful, public speakers subverts their power to challenge restrictive traditional gender norms and pursue new choices. Situated in the debate about girls’ disadvantaged position in schools and the apparent under-achievement of boys, Davies’s (2003) research explores the way in which pupils signal gender allegiances. Using discourse analysis techniques, she demonstrates how girls create a sense of unity and enhance a co-operative learning climate through linguistic cohesive devices and mirroring each other’s experience in story telling; and how powerful boys feel the conflicting pressures of their peers and the school because of the view that conformity to educational expectations is feminine. Her findings inform school teachers about the importance of the impact of gendered group dynamics and the need for collaboration between

526

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

teachers and their pupils to improve the chances of all pupils in the academic arena. Moreover, this gender conformity conflict in the boys demonstrates that the diversity of the gendered linguistic performances can be found in different local contexts by small groups or even by every individual subject (Cameron 2005). As Cameron points out in her 2005 review article, the shift from binary gender difference to the diversity of gender identities and gendered practices arises from the assumption that there is no generic masculinity or femininity. Masculinity and femininity is the performance enacted by every aspect of one’s social identity, including age, class, ethnicity, profession, etc. Therefore, the relationship of language to gender should be examined locally and context-dependently (Cameron 2005). This view echoes Eckert & McConnell-Ginet’s landmark essay, “Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice” (1992), in which they call for ethnographic work within communities of practice. My ethnographic research stands in this line of investigation and looks locally at the way gender is performed interpersonally using linguistic resources of engagement, which adds to the increasing body of literature in language and gender research informed by the ‘postmodern’ feminist approach (Cameron 2005).

3. Interpersonal meanings in academic discourse The resources of language to enact interpersonal meanings (Halliday 2004), the negotiation of our social relationships, attitudes and emotions, have been the focus of research on academic discourse, especially on academic writing. Research on how writers/speakers employ linguistic resources to convey an attitude to what is said and to their interlocutors has traditionally been done under headings such as modality (e.g. Palmer 1986), hedging/boosting (e.g. Hyland 1996, 2000), meta-discourse (Crismore 1989; Hyland 2000, 2005), etc. For example, by identifying the forms, purposes and distribution of hedges in a corpus of 26

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

527

molecular biology research articles, Hyland (1996) concludes that hedges are a prevalent feature of research writing in the biological sciences and the mastering of hedge statements is key for students’ participation in a research world. In his 2000 book, Hyland examines metadiscourse items, textual and interpersonal, through the use of corpus and interview data and reveals how writers from different disciplines position themselves to meet the discourse community’s expectations and to gain acceptance for their proposition. The metadiscourse items examined include logical connectives, endophoric markers, evidentials, hedges, boosters, attitude markers, relational markers and person markers. To bring all the diverse lexico-grammatical terms mentioned above together and to account for the agency in stance negotiation, White (2001) adopts a Bahktinian perspective of ‘heteroglossia’ and Fairclough’s ‘intertextuality’ to modify Martin and Rose’s (2003) model of engagement within Appraisal theory into heteroglossic engagement (White 2003). In his model, the linguistic resources, such as projection, modal verbs, modal adjuncts, negation, conjunction/connectives of expectation and counter-expectation, etc. are seen as operating to reflect the process of interaction or negotiation within a text between alternative social-semiotic positions. For example, a modal value such as ‘I think that…’ has been seen as epistemological, as a reflex of the speaker’s current state of knowledge with respect to some propositional content under the individualistic model (Karkkainen 2003), and as projecting clauses to report what we think in Martin and Rose’s (2003) model. But for White, it can also “additionally or alternatively be seen as signaling that the meanings at stake are subject to heteroglossic negotiation” (White 2001: 17), which means that it is used to acknowledge the contentiousness of a particular proposition or the willingness of the speaker to negotiate with those who hold a different view. White’s heteroglossic engagement network, therefore, provides a taxonomy of options for bringing other voices into the texts and for intersubjective positions. For the purpose of

528

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

the present study, this framework thus provides a systemic account of how both female and male graduate students stylize their interpersonal meanings linguistically. The model of heteroglossic engagement resources proposed by White (2003) is represented in figure 1 from Martin and White (2005):

Figure 1: Heteroglossic engagement from Martin and White (2005)

In her unpublished dissertation, Appraising Research: Taking a stance in academic writing, Hood (2004) draws on this notion of heteroglossic engagement (Martin & White 2005) to analyze the ways in which published writers and student writers align or dis-align

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

529

readers with their point of view in the texts “to encourage the conclusion that their research study is warranted” (Hood 2004: 206). Her analysis concludes that the role of the writers is the “meta-evaluator” or “ultimate adjudicator” (Hood 2004: 223) in the construction of an argument by introducing other voices into the text and positioning themselves in relation to those other voices. Recski (2004), on the other hand, draws on the Hallidayan (2004) notion of modality within the framework of engagement to investigate the interpersonal meanings in spoken academic discourse. To demonstrate that the levels of modal certainty are an important feature in conveying commitment to one’s proposition, Recski examines modal choices in transcripts of two dissertation defenses from the University of Michigan. His findings show that the degree of commitment to the truth value of a proposition corresponds to the level of modal certainty and to the candidate’s level of knowledge. He then calls for further studies of modality from a functional perspective to investigate the role and the identity of the speakers in the interaction. As exemplified above, few, if any, studies have explored how interpersonal meanings are conveyed in classroom discourse. By drawing on Martin and White’s notion of heteroglossic space, I examine the linguistic resources identified within the framework of engagement encoded in graduate-level classroom discourse to explore the ways students negotiate with and introduce other voices in relation to their own value positions. In so doing, I also investigated whether gender-related patterns of interpersonal meaning construction exist in this particular class setting.

4. Methodology My examination of the interpersonal engagement in graduate-level classroom discourse was part of a larger ethnographic study. In this discursive analysis, quantitative summaries of

530

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

engagement choices employed by each speaker across the texts were also given to present a quantitative perspective on the linguistic patterns. So were counts of turns of talk per participant and numbers of words spoken. The academic setting chosen for this study was a teaching methodology class of a MA TESOL program at a university in California. All students taking this class were also required to teach an ESL course two hours per week as their practicum. The class size was small, with only 3 students, one female and two male, which allowed for more interactive conversation. All of the students, Elmira, Berto and Simon (all pseudonyms), were native speakers of English. The White, female professor teaching this class also taught a Language and Gender course at the time this research was conducted. The practicum ESL courses taught by the three MA students focused on developing listening and speaking skills in the context of introducing international students to American university academic culture. Discussion and reflection on the practicum always served as the prelude for the class. Since the purpose of this study is to ethnographically explore interpersonal engagement (Hymes 1972), I joined the class for 10 weeks as a participant as well as an observer so that the observations were contextualized. During the observation, I audio recorded the class and jotted down abbreviated notes and expanded upon descriptions after class as soon as I could. The recording was transcribed and four hours of the transcription were chosen based on the high amount of discussion as a whole class and on the quality of recording for interpersonal engagement analysis.

5. Data analysis Four linguistic resources of engagement – projection, modality, negation and counterexpectancy – are examined in the four-hour classroom observation transcripts. In this section,

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

531

I briefly summarize and explain choices within these four categories in the construal of interpersonal meaning. The choices are exemplified with actual realization from the recorded classroom discussion. Multiple examples are given to demonstrate the application of various grammatical resources for each category.

5.1 Projection Resources of projection introduce other voices into a text to expand heteroglossic space. These resources include projecting verbs, as in 1a. It was really interesting when she said, “I wanted to be very careful at this point” where they are about to write the letter, and she tells the students to write a strong letter but without ideas from structure. (Elmira in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) and names for speech acts, as in 1b. I did get a lot of great response from the students. (Simon in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) and projecting within clauses, as in 1c. Students think the teachers should know what they’re talking about. (Elmira in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) and direct quotations, as in 1d. They said, “Oh, it went so fast”, “It went so quickly.” (Berto in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) 5.2 Modality Alongside projection, resources of modality also function to introduce additional voices into a text, either as entertaining a possibility or as attributing propositions to other sources. Halliday (2004: 618) describes modality as “the area of meaning that lies between yes and

532

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

no – the intermediate ground between positive and negative polarity”. There are four types of modality: A. Probability, realized through the use of incongruent modalization: e.g. I think, I guess, I know; through the use of interpersonal adjunct: e.g. perhaps, probably, certainly; and through the use of modal finite: e.g. must, may, might. These resources put distance between the speaker and the judgement they make. For example: 2a. I think they were interested in learning that. (Simon in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) In excerpt 2 a. Simon, tempers his conversational contribution by modalizing the propositions, they were interested in learning that. B. Usuality, realized through the use of adverbs of frequency, such as usually, sometimes, always; and through the use of objective clauses, like It is usual …, or It is rare….For example: 2b. People used to bring lab reports or papers on physics into a language class and I always felt kind of dumb and you read and hardly understand any of it. (Berto in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) In the above example, Berto tempers the message he contributes with reference to degrees of frequency. C. Obligation, realized through the use of modal finites, like should and have to. Together with inclination, obligation is used to temper “the directness with which we seek to act upon each other” (Eggins & Slade 1997: 102). For example: 2c. I guess you’ll really have to learn some of it. (Berto in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005)

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

533

In excerpt 2c. Berto softens the directness of his suggestion to learn some business English if an ESL teacher who has never been in business is asked to teach business English. D. Inclination, realized through the use of finite will or attitudinal adjective like willing and determined. For example: 2d. If people are working together it seems like they’d be less willing to share because maybe to keep the distance line. (Simon in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) 5.3 Negation Negation also implies the introduction of another voice into the dialogue. White explains that “the negative is not the simple logical opposite of the positive, since the negative carries with it the positive, while the positive does not reciprocally carry the negative” (White 2001: 3). However, negation, unlike modality, which opens up heteroglossic space, closes down or rejects other potential voices. For example: 3a. So we’re talking about all holidays, not just focus on Halloween. (Simon in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) In this example, Simon aligns his interactants and rejects the possibility of “just focus on Halloween” when the teaching topic for the very week is “Holidays”.

5.4 Counterexpectancy A further resource to close down heteroglossia in text is known as counterexpectancy. Though the options under counterexpectancy act to limit the possibilities of alternative voices, they invoke, not reject, as in the case of negation, a particular expectation (White 2001). Counterexpectancy, therefore, creates more dialogic space, in relation to negation, for the alternative. Martin and Rose (2003) include two sets of resources for tracking and adjusting

534

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

readers’/listeners’ expectations: one set are concessive conjunctions like but, even if, however, although, in fact, indeed, instead of, etc; and the other set are continuatives, which occur inside the clause, including words like finally, still, only, just, even, etc. For example, Berto, in the following excerpt, uses continuatives, still and only, to adjust the expectation to go through all seven activities in one class. 4a. I skipped the telling the story about yourself, I skipped the whole mock introduction and I still only got through like four of the seven. (Berto in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) In excerpt 4b., Elmira uses but to signal a counterexpectation about her ability to answer a student’s question about how to distinguish can and can’t in speech. 4b. I was trying to think about maybe we say it going down if we can’t or something but I didn’t know what the rule was. (Elmira in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005)

6. Findings 6.1 Quantity of speech and ENGAGEMENT resources produced To determine who participates in and dominates the class conversation and what role gender plays in such participation, I tallied turns of talk per participant and numbers of words spoken (see Table 1). Although the instructor engaged students in interactive class discussion, she still controlled most of the conversation floor in the classes in which no pair work was assigned. On the students’ part, the data showed that Simon and Berto took fewer turns than Elmira. Berto, who is the youngest of the three, took the fewest turns. However, in the close analysis of two class meeting recordings, a total of 220 minutes, I found that all students fared quite well at taking their share of the conversation time. Each took the floor for around 30 minutes in the 220 minutes recording, which demonstrated that Simon and Berto spoke more words per turn than Elmira, but Elmira spoke faster than Simon and Berto.

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

535

Turns

Words

n

%

n

%

Instructor

498

53%

12867

67%

Elmira

177

19%

2305

12%

Simon

138

15%

2156

11%

Berto

123

13%

1989

10%

Total

936

100%

19317

100%

Table 1: Counts of turns per participant and words spoken

Besides measuring the amount of talk produced in classroom discourse, the examination of engagement resources used by the students illustrated how each of them participates in the class discussion. I first identified and classified engagement choices by making reference to Martin and White’s (2005) engagement framework and by examining the meanings of these choices contextually. The engagement choices employed by each speaker were then summarized in Table 2. Several linguistic patterns displayed in the texts were identified. These linguistic patterns are illustrated and interpreted in the following.

Elmira

Speaker

Simon

Berto

Engagement

n

%

n

%

n

%

Total

274

100%

301

100%

296

100%

Projection

84

31%

86

29%

79

27%

Modality

87

32%

100

33%

85

29%

Negation

58

21%

61

20%

76

26%

Counterexpectancy

45

16%

54

18%

56

19%

Table 2: Summary of engagement in the texts

536

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

6.2 Projection The projection resources employed most by the speakers were mental clauses such as I think/guess/know + clause (see Table 3). It is important to note here that these mental clauses serve not only as “the projecting part of a clause nexus of projection, but also as a mood Adjunct” (Halliday 2004: 614), a metaphorical realization of probability (for further explanation, see Halliday 2004). Therefore, when participating in class discussion, all three students displayed engagement mostly by reporting what they thought or felt and in the meantime hedged the propositions they just contributed. As in excerpt 1e, Berto used I think to hedge his opinion of participatory approach: 1e. I think that’s my biggest problem with this model, it’s not that I don’t like this approach, but that I don’t want people to feel like they’re not doing something constructive. (Berto in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) Additional sources of evaluation and voices were also introduced, mostly by reporting verbs. All three students usually quoted or reported what their ESL students in their practicum courses said or thought to support the reflection they shared or to illustrate the questions they raised. For example: 1f. Some people in the class knew that it was in April. (Berto in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005) 1 g. They came together and came up with some suggestions about how to visit and what to see and how to get there and stuff. (Simon in Classroom observation transcript: 11/12/2005) Only a few voices from the assigned readings were incorporated into their discourse to endorse their proposition. In the following excerpt, Berto quoted Auerbach (1992) to explain his concern about students’ suspicion against participatory approach:

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

537

1 h. The whole time I read this book I was thinking when are they going to mention this and then they did on P. 42, “If students have internalized the very model of education that excluded them in the past—the teacher-fronted transmission-of-knowledgeand skills model—these questions may seem odd to them: Teachers are supposed to know what to do.” (Berto in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005)

One interesting observation from the summary was that Elmira used many more projections within clauses, where responsibility for opinions to sources is explicitly assigned (Martin & Rose 2003), and employed a little less mental clauses (hedges) than her male classmates, though the difference of the latter was not significant. For example, in the following extract, Elmira assigned the responsibility for ‘not taking the class’ to ‘the student’: I have one student who just emailed me this afternoon and said he um is not going to be able to take the class anymore. (Elmira in Classroom observation transcript: 10/18/2005)

Speaker

Elmira

Simon

Berto

I know/ guess/ think + clause

41

51

50

~ know/ guess/ think + clause

0

1

2

reporting verbs

17

19

15

names of speech acts

2

5

1

projecting within clauses

23

9

8

direct quotations

1

1

3

Total

84

86

79

Projection

Table 3: Summary of Projection in the texts

6.3 Modality The most common resources of probability were mental clauses: I think + clause, I guess + clause, and I know + clause (see Table 4). Elmira used fewer resources of probability than

538

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Simon and Berto, especially I guess + clause. On the other hand, Elmira employed more high values of modals of obligation, while Berto used the least resources of inclination. Among them, Simon used the most resources of modality, with a preference for median or low values of probability, may and might. The above linguistic patterns of each student to some extent correlated with the observations White (2001) made by drawing on Poynton’s model of the interpersonal with respect to the context of social situation. White observed that:

[Thus] a consistent preference for high values of modals of obligation (you must/should, it’s necessary that etc) and for high values of probability (definitely, I’m certain that etc) are linked with the more powerful speaker in an unequal status relationship. In contrast, a preference for modal values of inclination (I’m keen, I’m willing etc) and for low values of probability (perhaps, may, I guess…) are linked with the less powerful speaker in an unequal status relationship (White 2001: 3, italics in original). Given that Elmira, Simon and Berto had an equal status in this class, the reasonable interpretation of Elmira’s linguistic pattern in the classroom discourse was that she was a powerful and assertive speaker, or that in a class where she was outnumbered by her male classmates, she strived to be as powerful and assertive as her male peers by being very selective in her interpersonal engagement choices. On the other hand, Simon’s preference for median or low values of probability, may and might, indicated his attempts to be polite (Lakoff 1973; McMillan, et al. 1977) and to invite other voices during the class discussion. The interpretation of Simon’s preference for low values of probability, therefore, can be his display of politeness and interpersonal sensitivity, which was used to characterize women’s language in previous studies (Lakoff 1973; McMillan et al. 1977).

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

539

Speaker

Elmira

Simon

Berto

87

100

85

I think + clause

24

20

26

I guess + clause

3

11

8

I know + clause

14

20

17

perhaps/ probably/certainly

5

3

3

may/ might

12

26

19

Total

58

80

73

5

2

4

should

9

3

2

have to

4

5

5

13

8

7

11

10

1

Modality Total Probability

Usuality sometimes/ often/ always/ usually/common/ never Obligation

Total Inclination will/ willing

Table 4: Summary of Modality in the texts

6.4 Negation and counterexpectancy Both the resources of negation and counterexpectancy are systems for adjusting interlocutors’ expectations and steering them down an alternative path. All three students employed a similar amount of these resources (see Table 5 and Table 6) in similar ways. For example, in the second half of the class on November 22, the students were invited to develop guidelines for grading their portfolios that they were about to turn in at the end of the quarter. All of them used negation and counterexpectancy to reposition their interactants, to articulate their meanings and to negotiate their stance on what the portfolio should be like for them: Elmira: but I don’t know if those questions should be our whole paper, do you see what I’m saying?

540

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Simon: but in the paper we don’t have to talk about the portfolio. I mean, the content of the portfolio but not the act of putting together the portfolio. Berto: I like that too but I’m just not sure, so the focus is up to us then? They first used the concessive conjunction but to signal that they were countering an expectation, in Berto’s example, an expectation of his agreement, “I like that too”. Then they rejected the proposition by negation and at the same time implicated the possibility of its opposite. From the above observation, it is obvious that there was no gendered difference in strategies of stance and alignment in this particular academic setting. Speaker

Elmira

Simon

Berto

58

61

76

Negation no/ not

Table 5: Summary of Negation in the texts

Speaker Counterexpectancy (Total) Concessive Conjunctions

Elmira

Simon

Berto

45

54

56

20

33

29

25

21

27

but/however/although(though) /even if/unless/instead of/ suddenly/of course Continuatives finally/still/simply/only/just/ even/at least/actually

Table 6: Summary of Counterexpectancy in the texts

7. Discussion The qualitative and quantitative analysis of content and context of the graduate-level classroom talk has shown that the students in this study do not conform to the traditional

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

541

male/female dichotomy in terms of their linguistic behavior (Graddol & Swann 1988; Krupnick 1985; Sadker & Sadker 1985, 1993; Sommers & Lawrence 1992; Swacker 1975; Swann 1993). Contrary to previous findings that women controlled proportionately less floor time than men, Elmira, the female student in this study, did quite well at taking her share of the conversation time. She even out-talked her male classmates in terms of turns at talk and word counts. And given that each of them spoke for similar amounts of time, she was also speaking faster than Berto and Simon. On the other hand, contrary to the prototype of male dominant participation, Berto and Simon seemed to perform masculinity through their reserved manner in this particular practice. Besides the quantity of speech, by looking into how the students employed engagement resources to convey interpersonal meanings, I found that Elmira was an assertive participant in classroom talk, which again challenged the claim by “chilly climate” research that women students participated less and were less assertive (Hall & Sandler 1982). As previously discussed, while all students employed resources such as maybe, I guess that… or I think that… to indicate uncertainty or lack of commitment to, or confidence in the proposition and at the same time signaled the potential for heteroglossic negotiation, Elmira also demonstrated a consistent preference for high values of modals of obligation and high values of probability, tendencies which have been linked with more powerful and assertive speakers (White 2001). On the other hand, Simon’s preference for low values of probability indicated that cooperative and polite speech styles were not exclusive to women’s language (Lakoff 1973). From the quantitative and qualitative data analysis, this study does not correspond with the previous classroom language and gender research. There was gender difference, but not stereotypical gender difference, in linguistic behavior found in this particular academic setting. The local context this paper investigated was a TESOL methodology class which was taught by a female professor and whose students were going into a profession that is predominated

542

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

by females. It may not be so surprising then that Elmira did not position herself as powerless as the engineering or science female students did (e.g. Bergvall & Remlingerl 1996). As pointed to by Cameron as characteristic of the ‘postmodern’ feminist approach, “intra-group differences and inter-group similarities are as significant as differences between groups” (Cameron 2005: 484). The way Elmira constructed her interpersonal style may display a more salient contrast with that of female graduate students in science or engineering graduate seminars than that of Berto and Simon. Moreover, the fact that all of my participants employed similar interpersonal engagement resources to perform their gender and social identities in this TESOL methodology class indicates they have developed similar discourse repertoires in this particular community of practice. On the other hand, ethnographically, the small size of the class can be an important factor in that the instructor could attend to student participation easily, and the students did not have to compete vigorously with others to take the conversation floor. Moreover, the fact that the instructor’s interest in language and gender issues in societies and her teaching a language and gender class at the same time the study was conducted can be another factor of changing the language use in this context. This study has attempted to illustrate how male and female employ interpersonal engagement to take a stance towards the various points-of-view and value positions in academic spoken discourse. However, because interpersonal engagement analysis does not deal with resources such as intonation which are important in spoken discourse and also important for performing gender, it does not help to capture Elmira’s femininity constructed through those resources. Further development of the category of interpersonal engagement from this aspect is called for, in particular to gain a better insight into spoken linguistic behavior. Moreover, besides the focus on engagement choices, a close examination of each student’s negotiated attitudes toward the subject matters discussed in the classroom talk should be able to shed

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

543

more light on how gender interacts with individual and social variants in academic settings and in turn influences student language use in classroom talk. Therefore, an Appraisal analysis would better describe and explain the relationship of language to gender. Further research with a bigger number of students and with a variety of contexts may give a more holistic picture of how interpersonal meanings are constructed in classroom discourse and whether gender-related patterns exist. A full understanding of the complex interaction of power system and role expectations and language use may benefit both female and male students in developing strategies in class participation. Research along this line can guide teachers to pay attention to these patterns by analyzing students’ interpersonal engagement choices. To promote participation by all students, teachers then can modify these patterns by raising students’ awareness of their linguistic practice and by encouraging them to pursue new choices

Li-Fen Lin, Ph. D. Candidate Department of Linguistics University of California, Davis [email protected]

544

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

References Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon. Bergvall, V. L. and Remlinger, K. A. (1996). “Reproduction, resistance and gender in educational discourse: the role of Critical Discourse Analysis”, Discourse & Society, 7, 4: 453-479. Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York & London: Routledge. Cameron, D. (1990). “Demythologizing sociolinguistics”, in J. Joseph & T. Taylor (eds.), Ideologies of language. London: Routledge: 79-93. Cameron, D. (1998). “Gender, Language, and Discourse: A Review Essay”, Signs, 23, 4: 945-973. Cameron, D. (2005). “Language, Gender, and Sexuality: Current Issues and New Directions”, Applied Linguistics, 26/4: 482-502. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking With Readers: Metadiscourse As Rhetorical Act, American University Studies Series XIV: Education, Peter Lang Publishing. Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language. London: Longman. Davies, J. (2003). “Expressions of gender: an analysis of pupils’ gendered discourse styles in small group classroom discussion”, Discourse & Society, 14, 2: 115-132. Eble, L. (1999). “Classroom Talk: How Men and Women Use Language Differently”, Strani jezic, 28 (1): 11-15. Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). “Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 21: 461–90. Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell. Ehrlich, S. (1997). “Gender as social practice: Implications for SLA”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 4: 421-446. Hall, R. M. & Sandler, B. R. (1982). “The classroom climate: A chilly one for women?”, Association of American Colleges, Project on the status of Women. Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (3rd Ed.). London: Arnold. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London and New York: Longman. Hood, S. (2004). Appraising Research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Technology, Sydney. Hyland, K. (1996). “Talking to the Academy; Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles”, Written Communication, 13, 2: 251-281. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Singapore: Pearson Education Asia Pte Ltd. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. New York: Continuum. Hymes, D. (1972). “On communicative competence”, in J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Karkkainen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

545

Krupnick, C. G. (1985). “Women and men in the classroom: inequality and its remedies”, On Teaching and Learning: Journal of the Harvard- Danforth Center, 1 (May): 18-25. Lakoff, R. (1994, reprinted from 1973). “Language and woman’s place”, in C. Roman et al. (eds.), The women and language debate: A source book. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press: 280-291. Maltz, D. N. & Borker, R. A. (1982). “A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication”, in J. J. Gumperz (eds.), Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 196-216. Martin, J. R. (1997). “Analysing genre: functional parameters”, in F. Christie & J. R. Martin (eds.), Genre and institutions: social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell: 3-39. Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum. Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation, Appraisal in English. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D. & Gale, W. S. (1977). “Women’s Language: Uncertainty or Interpersonal Sensitivity and Emotionality?”, Sex Roles, 3, 6: 545-559. Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Recski, L. (2005). “Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: a functional account of dissertation defenses”, English for Specific Purpose, 24: 5-23. Sadker, M & Sadker, D. (1985). “Sexism in the schoolroom of the 80s”, Psychology Today, March: 54-57. Smith-Lovin, L., Skvoretz, J. & Hudson, C. J. (1986). “Status and participation in six-person groups: a test of Skvoretz’s comparative status model”, Social Forces, 64: 992-1005. Sommers, E & Lawrence, S. (1992). “Women’s Ways of Talking in Teacher-directed and Student-directed Peer Response Groups”, Linguistics and Education: 4, 1-36. Swacker, M. (1975). “The sex of speaker as a sociolinguistic variable”, in Thorne & Henley: 76-83. Swann, J & Graddol, D. (1988). “Gender inequality in classroom talk”, English in Education, 22: 48-65. Tannen, D. (1992). “How men and women use language differently in their lives and in the classroom”, The Education Digest: 3-6. White, P. R. R. (2003). “Appraisal and the resources of intersubjective stance”. Website: www.grammatics.com/appraisal. White, P. R. R. (2002). “Appraisal - the Language of Evaluation and Intersubjective Stance”, www.grammatics.com/appraisal. White, P.R.R. (post 2002). “Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance”. http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/textSpecial/beyond-modality(white).pdf White, P.R.R. (2001). “Appraisal: An Overview”, www.grammatics.com/appraisal. Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (1975). “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation” in B. Thorne & N. Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Domination. Rowley, MA: Newbury House: 105-129.

546

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008