Micaela Martnez Cynthia Hutchins

Critical Discourse Analysis #2 Introduction This critical discourse analysis is based on an instructional conversation in a classroom setting in the TESOL Masters program at California State University, San Bernardino. It is based on a transcript of said conversation, which took place among nine students of different ages, gender and cultures. The conversation was thirty minutes long and was guided by a prompt given to the group by the professor. The prompt was given to all the participants and then removed so as to not to distract the participants. Categories of critical discourse analyzed are: analysis of participation, turns, leadership, use of gambits, and adjacency pairs. In addition, we will also make compare this particular Instructional Conversation with the previously analyzed Instructional Conversation.

Analysis of Verbal Participation Student Leader one Leader two Student one Student two Student three Student four Student five Student six Student seven Turns 11 16 31 6 47 4 10 36 15 Word Count 432 333 803 126 899 53 179 707 508

Turns Per the above embedded chart, it is clear that students three, one and six had the highest number of turns. For example, student number three had forty-seven turns during the thirty minutes conversation, student number one had thirty-one turns and student number six had thirty-six turns during the same conversation. The word count for the three students is also relatively high compared to other students. For example, student number three had 899 words, student one had 803 words, and student six had 707 words. On the other hand, the students with the lowest participation were students four and two. Student two had only six turns. Student four had the lowest turns with only four participations in the conversation. In addition, student four had only fifty-five words, and student two had 126 words in total. The average number of words per turn for the three students with the highest number of turns was eighteen. That said, surprisingly the average number of words per turn for students one, leader one, and student seven was higher. For example, the average number of words per turn for leader one was 39 words per turn. Secondly, student seven had a 34 words average per turn. Lastly, student one had an average of 25 words per turn. Therefore, student one, a male of Korean descend had the most participation in the conversation. Student ones participation could be attributed to the fact that he works as an educator. In his case, because he works as a substitute teacher with older children, he may encounter more discipline problems with students which prompted more interjections in this particular conversation. In comparison to the first analysis, in this conversation it was again the native English speakers that dominated the conversation. Needless to say, it was probably a mixture of reasons why this is so; lack of cultural awareness, lack of vocabulary and a desire to keep harmony by not introducing controversial or contrary opinions.

Analysis of Leadership This instructional conversation was led by two leaders. Both leaders were young females and both are non-native speakers of English. That said, they both had about equal number of turns. However, the total word count had a difference of one hundred words. Additionally, in both instances of leadership there was a lack of leadership in reference to the deeper themes that could have been developed. This lack of direction could have been due to the lack of fluency in English or maybe due to the lack of cultural knowledge. For example, in turn number 143, leader two asks so its okay to wear military clothing? After the conversation, I was informed that in their culture an individual who wears military attire is usually part of that establishment. Therefore, the prompt was difficult for the leaders to relate to due to cultural differences. Perhaps that is the reason that there appeared to be two synchronous conversations. The native speakers of English were more disposed to delve into the main them and the sub-themes while the nonnative speakers of English kept the conversation level at the prompt and tried to find a solution to the problem at hand (in the prompt). However, this did not deter the students from contributing to the conversation. In contrast to the first Instructional Conversation were there was only one leader, this conversation was led by two students. That being said, because the students were used to the Instructional Conversations they were more prepared and gave clear instructions to the members of the group as to how the conversations would take place. For example, in the first conversation the leader did not welcome the group, give directions or ask if there were any unfamiliar words of concepts. Additionally, in the first analysis the leader had 37 turns whereas in the second between the two leaders they only had 27 turns. This demonstrates a monopolization of turn by the first leader.

Gambits One of the purposes of the instructional conversation is to practice gambits. That being said, for this particular instructional conversation the gambits were not provided. However, the group did inject different gambits: In comparison, in the first conversation the instructor did provide gambits. Nevertheless, gambits were kept to a minimum in both conversations and when used were used as part of normal discourse. Turn number 87 97 111 151 Student S6 L1 S3 S1 gambit Thats kind of what I was try to get Yes, I agree with your point To some extent Actually

Adjacency Pairs: Finding adjacency pairs in this particular Instructional Conversation was difficult because the conversation seemed to have two different conversations going on at the same time. For example, in turn number ninety-seven, leader number one brings up the high school setting and how some people talk to the students and distract other students. Right after that, in turn number ninety-eight, student number three begins to relate an anecdote about feeling threatened by others peoples ideas. This is an example of how this conversation was at two different levels.

Theoretical Analysis (Text, Institutions, and Sociocultural) Using Faircloughs three-levels of discourse, where Fairclough has attempted to show that language and power are related, it can be deduced that the native speakers of English

dominated the conversation and that the non-native students were passive participants for the most part.

Text In this particular case, the text was the conversation itself, although a transcript of the conversation was used to analyze the conversation. This was the case for the analysis of the first Instructional Conversation as well. For example, the transcript was used to account for the number of turns word count per person, and the average number of words per turn. Additionally, except for the different levels of English among the participants and the cultural differences the students spoke college academic English. Additionally, metaphors and euphemisms were used by the native speakers. For example, the idiom a running commentary had to be explained for the benefit of some students. The register of the conversation was informal.

Institutions

The institution of education, in this case, a university setting, was the main theme of this instructional conversation. The group focused on the role of the professor in the classroom and on classroom management. Additionally, the freedom of the students in the United States to express opposing views was explored. While the international students focused on the mock situation, the native speakers of English focused on deeper issues of freedom and gender differences. For example, in turn number fifty-three, leader number two says: yeah, in the prompt nothing has been decided. This statement is a reflection of the lack of understanding of the purpose of the instructional conversation: to look beyond the prompt and to think about the underlying issues.

Socio-cultural Although the group was not able to discuss the main theme and underlying sub-themes such as gender differences, and freedom of expression, the students were able to interact and share ideas and information with each other.

Summary

For this particular instructional conversation, I decided to be one of the participants in order to get a better understanding of the dynamics that were a part of the conversation. Although, I was determined to try to get to a deeper level thematically, I was unsuccessful. In the end, I gave up and this can be observed by the number of turns (15), I was student seven. Upon reflection, various items stand out as reasons why the conversation did not reach the level I was expecting. Although the leaders tried to do a good job in their role, the lack of English and cultural understanding prevented them from being successful. For example, while the nativespeakers of English did delve into themes a bit more deeply, the non-native speakers focused on the prompt itself and not on the themes. Additionally, the native speakers of English felt a certain frustration at being redirected to the prompt when the issues were being discussed among them. Perhaps the leaders felt pressured to perform in a certain manner not only because they were being recorded but because they were being graded on their performance. While the fact that the conversation was for academic reasons as well as being recorded was a contributing factor in both the conversations, during the first instructional conversations the non-native speakers of English tried to contribute and were ignored while in the second conversation the non-native speakers of English referred back to the prompt. Another factor was probably the theme itself. For example, in the first conversation the theme was that of family relations and communication,

in comparison to this conversation, where the rules of conduct in an academic setting in other cultures are strictly guided. The foreign students were unable to relate to the setting and dismissed it. Overall, the same level of discourse was present in both conversations. The themes were developed further by the native speakers of English and were kept at a more superficial level for the non-native speakers. Furthermore, the native speakers of English dominated both conversations. The cultural differences were evident as well as the lack of communicative competence. That said, there was learning and adjustments from the first conversation to the second one. For example, the leadership was improved. Secondly, participation increased in the second conversation. That said, gambits were kept to a minimum in both conversations and both groups were aware of being recorded therefore possibly adjusting their level of discourse and not expressing their ideas fully. Finally, the fact that the students were cognizant of a grade being attached to their participation could have been a large contributing factor.