V

Aa

b

A

KEMMCIH

1

adtposhhf

rwpiab

p

0h

Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

j ourna l ho me p ag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / l inged

oices, grins and laughter in the lecture room

nne Banninka,∗, Jet Van Damb,1

ACLC, English Department, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam, The NetherlandsACLC, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

vailable online 22 August 2013

eywords:ducational dialogultiparty interactionultimodal communication

omplex footingsnstitutional discourseigher education

a b s t r a c t

This paper investigates the listening behaviors of students in a university lecture hallfor cues of ‘active listening’ and/or cognitive/emotional engagement. Claims that the lec-ture format intrinsically lacks opportunities for learning since there is no (verbal) studentresponse are examined on the basis of video data of a lecture on the first day of term in alarge lecture theater seating 300+ students. We show evidence of the intricate coordina-tion and synchronization of individual and multi-listener responses with emerging unitsof the lecture-in-progress and conclude that there is no research-based ground to supportthe aforementioned claim. Laughter, whisper voices, grins, and prosodic cues are part ofthe data that should be addressed to advance our understanding of complex participationmodes in formal institutional settings.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

This paper started out as an investigation of the notion that there is no evidence of active engagement or cognitivectivity on the part of students during institutional events of the type ‘straight lecture’. We address the issue on the basis ofetailed analyses of video data recorded during an introductory lecture on the first day of term in a large university lectureheater seating approximately 300 students. In the course of our investigations the emphasis shifted to include linguistichenomena and multimodal semiotic resources that are more generally relevant to the coordination and synchronizationf interactional behaviors. Our investigation is in the nature of a case study in so far as it focuses on just the one lecture, butince this lecture is also part of a larger corpus we will occasionally claim more general relevance for phenomena that weave encountered (and described) elsewhere. Our general aim is to make some progress toward articulating what relevantlyappens in the lecture room and what are appropriate ways to describe and interpret the discourse complexity commonly

ound there.In task-oriented multiparty events such as university lectures there is a lot going on simultaneously. Questions with

espect to the selection of data and their interpretation are therefore notoriously difficult to resolve. What needs to be done,e suggest, is that we scrutinize the lecture room interface for online signs of attention and cognitive engagement on theart of individual students and/or groups of students. Detailed observations of the coordination and synchronization of the

nteractional behaviors of participants might enable us to make valid inferences about the extent to which students arectively processing the lecturer’s input (cf. Goodwin, 1984 for a similar recommendation with respect to the interactional

ehaviors of story listeners).

In this paper we zoom in on the gray area of backchannel communication: the synchronized verbal, nonverbal andaralinguistic behaviors of the students attending the lecture. We also follow prosodic and deictic cues in the lecturer’s

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 205253053; fax: +31 205253052.E-mail addresses: e.a.bannink@uva.nl (A. Bannink), h.r.vandamvanisselt@uva.nl (J. Van Dam).

1 Tel.: +31 205253053; fax: +31 205253052.

898-5898/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.06.003

A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584 573

monolog that signal complex changes in footing (Goffman, 1979, 1981) on the part of the speaker. The many voices andinstances of ‘double-voicing’ that are in evidence (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986) index modes of dialogic involvement that, we willargue, can mediate both emotional engagement and cognitive activity on the part of the listening students (cf. Wortham,1994).

In more technical terms the phenomena we address involve structural features of discourse production and discourseprocessing (Polanyi & Scha, 1983) in formal task-oriented multiparty settings. The potential of discourse genres andspeaker/hearer roles to be recursively embedded means, for instance, that lecturers may briefly shift to a conversational,narrative or theatrical stance inviting their audiences to change their footing accordingly – without breaking the dominantlecture frame.

This paper, like its twin in this issue of Linguistics and Education (Bannink & Van Dam, 2013), was motivated by ourexperiences as participant observers in actual lecture events that were part of the project reported on in section 3. Wenoticed discrepancies between what is claimed about the lecture as a pedagogical genre in mainstream educational researchliterature and our in situ observations. In line with the trend to re-explore traditional practices (Maley, 2004) we decidedto undertake detailed investigations of the lecture room interface in order to reassess the constraints and affordances of theuniversity lecture as a teaching/learning environment.

2. Theoretical framework

The theoretical orientation of our investigation is interdisciplinary. Departing from a socio-cultural, situated view oflearning as mediated, discursively constructed in social situations and communities of practice (cf. Lave & Wenger, 1991;Vygotsky, 1986) we draw on insights from conversation analysis, discourse analysis and pragmatics as well as the literatureon genres, ethnography of speaking, speaker/hearer configurations and communicative practices (e.g. Duranti & Goodwin,1992; Goffman, 1974, 1979, 1981; Goodwin & Goodwin, 2004; Hanks, 1996; Hymes, 1964, 1972; Kendon, 1967, 1992).

The lecture as a genre has a long history in the study of rhetoric, but our main concern in this paper is not with persuasivetechniques or effective argumentation on the part of the speaker. We investigate claims about the lack of students’ attentionand cognitive engagement during lectures. Therefore, our main focus will be on listener behaviors and what can be inferredfrom them and on the intricate coordination between speaker and listener behaviors. Since we monitor the processingof the lecturer’s input in multiple screened-off student domains, there are fruitful correspondences to be explored withstory recipients and with the novel as a genre that also exploits dialogic modes of engagement (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986).Bakhtin’s distinction between ‘authoritative’ and ‘internally-persuasive’ discourses was picked up and further developed byeducational researchers such as Kamberelis (2001), Matusov (2009) and Wortham (1994, 2001). It serves as a metaphor forways in which students may internalize and appropriate the voices that are dialogically modeled for them on their way tobecoming academic scholars and practitioners.

In order to account for hybrid discourse forms and emerging discourse complexity in the course of a lecture, structuralfeatures of institutional multiparty interactions need to be systematically addressed. This requires a discourse model thatincludes nonverbal, paralinguistic and prosodic features of talk as relevant data and is able to account for the fact that genresand discourse contexts can be mutually and recursively embedded, invalidated or stacked on a moment’s notice (Bannink &Van Dam, 2006; Polanyi, 1988; Polanyi & Scha, 1983; Van Dam, 2002). In the context of the present paper prosodic cues areespecially important in signaling changes in footing (Goffman, 1979/1981) that cast the students in the role of actors/speakersin off-record or virtual discourse domains.

3. About the data

Over the past few years we have collected a corpus of video-taped lectures and seminars taught by experienced professorsand lecturers at the University of Amsterdam. The work was done within the framework of the project Compentences inContext.2 The lectures cover a wide range of subjects: Physics, Mathematics, Law, Philosophy, Foreign Languages, Sociology,Psychology, History, Language and Culture. For some recordings we used simple camcorders; others were made with twoprofessional cameras. One camera was focused on the lecturer; the other on (different sections of) the audience. The resultingtapes were brought together in split screen mode, so as to enable us to monitor the synchronization of interactional behaviors.

A note with respect to ethical dimensions of the recordings is in order. The students in the lectures were informedbeforehand that the tapes would be used for research purposes and for the website that is being developed as a learningtool for new members of staff at our university (see also Bannink & Van Dam, 2013). They were invited to change seats andmove outside the reach of the camera if they objected to being filmed or to the footage being used in academic publications.

We interviewed the professors before and/or after the lectures and whenever possible – in between lectures – also

interviewed some of the students. These were open interviews. Apart from the opening question that enquired after anymemorable or unexpected events, decisions about what was worth topicalizing were left very much in the hands of theinterviewees.

2 For more information about this project, see Bannink and Van Dam (2013), section 4.1. We thank the University of Amsterdam and in particular theICTO board for providing the funds that enabled us to carry out this project.

5

4

aetSorptl“

aced(cgtp

ci‘oosao

scbsaep

hmsabwiei

5

pGhtga

74 A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584

. The lecture: some recent perspectives

These days the lecture is often referred to as an outmoded (even obsolete) practice, a necessary evil, brought about byn unfortunate combination of dwindling funds and a growing number of college and university students both in the west-rn world and in third world countries (cf. Gibbs, 1981; Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). The lecture’s long tradition as a cornerstoneeaching format in university settings might well work against it, in this age of unprecedented technological possibilities.urely, it is argued, we ought to be able to come up with something less conventional and more exciting than one manr woman force-feeding a group of students in a stuffy lecture hall (cf. ‘conduit metaphor’; Reddy, 1993)? Foreman, as aepresentative of this line of thought, proposes to replace the lecture by “an approach (. . .) that exploits the pedagogicalromise of emerging interactive technologies, meets students’ expectation for deep digital engagement, motivates persis-ence, customizes the experience to each student’s unique needs, and promotes both long-term memory and the transfer ofearning to the practical realm of everyday life” (2003, p. 14). In practical terms, he suggests, lectures should make way forthe kind of immersive digital environments that have been popularized by the videogame industry” (2003, p. 12).

Up to the present day, however, the lecture has proved to be an extremely resilient pedagogical format. Friesen, in annalysis of the role of the lecture through the ages, claims this is because of “its flexibility and adaptability in response tohanges in media and technology as well as in culture and epistemology” (2011, p. 100). In the past centuries the lecture hasvolved from a form of manuscript recitation in medieval times through authorial performance to the “textually enabledramaturgical effect” (2011, p. 101) of today. Ideally, it preserves the illusion of ‘fresh talk’ (Goffman, 1981), even thoughor perhaps because) the lecturer has meticulously prepared the event. The lecture’s very flexibility as a teaching formatould well cause it to survive the digital revolution of the twenty-first century. It is able to incorporate other conventionalenres (rhetorical question/answer sequences, narratives, theatrical performances, demonstrations, etc.), as well as exploithe affordances of modern technologies. The popularity of e.g. the TED talks on the internet seems to point toward theossibility of a new lease of life (cf. Friesen, 2011).

But the problem remains that the lecture format seems in crucial ways incompatible with the principles of the reigningonstructivist paradigm of teaching and learning. The main tenet of constructivist theories is that learners should be activelynvolved in their own learning process. While this may be obviously (almost trivially) true, clearly we must agree on whatbeing actively involved’ encompasses and what it excludes. Mayer observes: “passive venues involving books, lectures andn-line presentations are classified as non-constructivist teaching whereas active venues such as group discussions, hands-n activities and interactive games are classified as constructivist teaching” (2004, p. 14; italics ours). The underlying premiseeems to be that cognitive activity presupposes publically displayed behavioral activity. It is unclear whether such a viewlso accounts for long-term or structural processes that involve the re-interpretation and recontextualization of the wordsf others in off-record or in peripheral participation modes (cf. Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978).

If active cognitive processing is seen as directly related to the extent to which learners may assume the role of currentpeaker or actor (cf. deWinstanley & Bjork, 2002), we are talking about interactivity in a narrow linear sense: unless studentsan individually perform some on-record next move in response to a specific local utterance, prompt or task, they cannote presumed to be cognitively active. The preferred format seems to be conversation: one-on-one informal talk betweentudent and machine, student and teacher or student and peer(s), preferably with equal distribution of speaker/hearer rolesnd mutual agency and contingency. From such a perspective the lecture clearly does not qualify as a productive learningnvironment. In formal, multiparty interactional events such as lectures, agency in the form of individual initiatives is, inrinciple, not foreseen for participants in the student role (but see Bannink & Van Dam, 2013).

We argue that learning can also be mediated in silent or off-record interactional roles that involve learners as over-earers, collective listeners and/or dialogically-addressed agents. Inner speech and virtual speech as well as outer speechay be involved. The very constraints of the lecture as a formal institutional situation, i.e. the fact that there is no need to

ay anything, may enable or invite students to focus on the structural relations between emerging larger discourse unitsnd their overall semantic connectedness. What constitutes empowering teaching/learning situations is co-determinedy parameters like the formality of the occasion, the number of participants and their spatial positioning. The first stepith respect to an assessment of the lecture as a pedagogical genre is finding ways to capture and describe the simultaneous

nteractional behaviors of many. Addressing that discourse complexity crucially involves fine-grained observation and micro-thnographic detail: tapping insider knowledge as well as devising adequate tools to describe and analyze the lecture roomnterface.

. Focus on the hearer: contexts of listening roles and listening behaviors

In informal conversation individual listeners are under some obligation to make minimal contributions to the talk-in-rogress in order to signal to the speaker: I’m with you; I’m listening; I have taken in what you are saying up to this point (cf.oodwin, 1986; ‘acknowledgement tokens’; Jefferson, 1984; ‘continuers’; Schegloff, 1982). Yngve (1970) is credited with

aving coined the term backchannels for minimal verbal responses like uh-huh, yeah, quite and other interactional behaviorshat accompany a speaker’s talk but that do not, themselves, occupy a turn at talk. Similarly, head nods, smiles, laughter,esturing and shifts in gaze or bodily orientation are part of the array of semiotic resources at participants’ disposal to displayn orientation toward the speaker and to the joint activity currently in progress (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2004).

A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584 575

But backchanneling also serves another purpose: it monitors and regulates speaker change. In the formal setting of thelecture hall, however, speaker change simply is not relevant (most of the time): the lecturer is the canonical Speaker. Lecturesare podium occasions (Goffman, 1981) and for that reason there is no functional need on the part of members of the audienceto give off minimal responses, either as a sign of actively attending to the talk in progress or in order to scrutinize it forpossible turn transition points. As a consequence the continuous array of verbal and nonverbal backchannel behaviors thatroutinely accompany a speaker’s speech in informal occasions is mostly absent in the formal setting of the lecture hall,although more conversational expressive listening modes can of course be briefly shifted to by individual students.

The absence of listening responses on the part of students during a straight lecture is therefore, in principle, neutral, i.e.cannot be interpreted as the absence of cognitive activity. However, any backchannel responses that do occur can be countedas positive evidence that individual students or groups of students are indeed closely attending to the lecturer’s evolvingtalk. There is one condition: we have to verify that they correlate with discourse unit boundaries, i.e. that they appear intandem with emerging segments of the lecturer’s speech. In our data we will therefore monitor the backchannel behaviorsof individual students as well as collective responses of the audience as a whole – as they relate to the talk in progress.

6. Selection and analyses of the data

In this section we will discuss three episodes from a single sociology lecture, one of the first lectures we recorded for ourproject. We opted for the ‘case study’ format for various methodological reasons. Our main aim is to make a case for theprimacy of fine-grained observation when addressing the issue of students’ active engagement – social, cognitive, emotional– with the subject matter of a lecture-in-progress. We will argue that a broader notion of the type of observable interactionalphenomena that needs to be taken into account is in order.

Our choice of data was also guided by practical considerations. The topics covered in the footage had to be general enoughto be easy to follow for a wide range of readers. It would be counterproductive for the main argument if readers continuallyhad to figure out what on earth was going on at the level of the lecture agenda. And the quality of the footage had to beexcellent in order to enable us to zoom in on the coordination between emergent (sub)units of the lecturer’s talk and theresponses they drew from members of the audience. For that reason we decided to select one of the (few) lectures in ourcorpus that were recorded by professionals.

The lecture under discussion in this paper was presented in a large lecture theater for an audience of about 300 students.The students, first-year sociology and anthropology students, were distributed unevenly over approximately twenty-fiverows in a rectangular hall. The lecturer - highly experienced and respected in his field - had taught this particular coursefor many years. The first half of the lecture time was devoted to a general introduction of the program, to practicalitiesrelating to the organization of the classes and seminars, and requirements for passing the exam. After the break the lecturerproceeded with an overview of the field of sociology organized around three key questions: who does what and for whom?;who is in charge over whom?; who belongs to whom?. All data analyzed in this paper derive from the second half of the lecture.

This lecture is a conventional token of its type, a prototypical ‘straight’ lecture. What we have is a talking head, a longmonolog and a large audience. There is no PowerPoint presentation nor are there other visual materials to structure orillustrate the lecture content; there are no interactive interludes in which the voices of individual students are heard norare their actions assessed (with one exception: see episode 6.2). It is hardly surprising that many researchers would assumeno cognitive activity on the part of students: at first sight it seems ‘nothing is happening’ at the receiving end. But thatvery assumption presents a number of questions for us as ethnographers and linguists: are we addressing everything thatrelevantly happens in the dialogic construction of learning in the lecture hall? Is the constructivist claim that lecturesconstitute ‘passive’ environments corroborated by what we see in the footage?

A note on the transcription of the data is in order. Considering that there are no opportunities for students to take over thefloor, very detailed transcriptions of the lecturer’s speech - e.g. in accordance with the conventions of Conversation Analysis -seemed unnecessary for our present purpose. We make an exception for prosodic features in the lecturer’s production style.These are important since they index footing changes. Changes in voice and speaker role as well as marked changes in rhythm,volume or pitch are therefore indicated in the transcript. So are hearable reactions from the audience. The introduction ofsplit-screen stills serves to capture the synchronization of students’ interactional behaviors with (sub)units of the lecturer’smonolog in progress – one of the main features of our argument.

6.1. Data 1. Facial expressions as a sign of active processing

The data to be discussed in this section occurred in the last ten minutes of the lecture when the professor elaboratedon the third of the three sociological questions that provided the framework for this lecture: ‘who belongs to whom?’. Heillustrated this question with examples of different types of communities – religious; regional; professional, etcetera – andthen proceeded to tell an anecdote about the sociologist Auguste Comte whose work was on the course agenda for the

second lecture. He explained that Comte first thought science could replace religion as a binding force in society, but laterfeared that the decline of religious institutions and rituals might negatively affect social cohesion. He voiced these concernsby relaying Comte’s question: ‘would not society fall apart without such binding institutions?’. The anecdote that followedrecounted how in the end Comte came up with a different solution.

5

wtb

tat

D

L

76 A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584

The split screen display technique allowed us to observe the lecturer and a part of the student audience at the same time:e could see the simultaneous nonverbal behaviors of individual students or subgroups of students who are seated within

he camera’s reach. This way we could trace the intricate synchronization between one of the students’ successive listeningehaviors and emergent segments of an anecdote-in-progress in the lecturer’s speech.

At the beginning of the Comte story the camera zoomed in on this particular student, whose response to each episode inhe unfolding story was very expressive. His listening behaviors punctuated the various segments of the unfolding anecdote,s we will see in data 1. The stills are inserted at the relevant places of the discourse-in-progress. For now we will focus onhe successive behaviors of this student exclusively:

ata 13

[L(ecturer) is speaking about the sociologist Comte; S(tudent) is listening and writing in his notebook]

. . .people lose their sense of security – Comte thought that there were alternative solutions for thisproblem - early on he believed that SCIENCE could take over the role of religion – [looks up] at the ENDof his life – [faster, low tone] you will read about that when you are preparing for next week’s class[back to earlier pace and tone] – you will read that towards the END of his life [student stops writingand looks up in the direction of the lecturer] he developed completely DIFFERENT fantasies – that [leansforward] what was needed was a completely NEW religion [student displays wide grin]-

- a kind of CATHOLICISM [student chuckles, moves his hand as if to start writing in his notebook, butlooks up again, baffled look on his face, mouth open]

but a kind of CATHOLOCISM that suits a MODERN highly DEVELOPED industrial society and he called itthe HUMANITY religion and he felt that he himself should be its POPE – [student looks around as if tosee how others react]

[lower tone, fast] he had already thought about the CLOTHES he would wear when he preached in theNotre DAME

A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584 577

as the HIGH PRIEST of the new Réligion de l’Humanité [collective student laughter] – and u::h – [L. looks up;marked change of tone] YEA - you folks are LAUGHING now – and that’s quite RIGHT of course[student looks up open-mouthed, half-amused, half-baffled] but . . .(etc.)[L raises the issue of what is the point of this anecdote about Comte]

The video stills clearly show different stages and components of this student’s emotional reactions and rising bewilder-ment upon hearing the successive details of the anecdote about Comte. At the onset of the story he is taking notes (fig. 1),looking up at the lecturer at intervals – as students routinely do in their institutional listening role when attending a courselecture (especially if, as in this case, there are no PowerPoint slides to gaze at). When the lecturer launches into his anecdote,however, we see marked changes in the student’s listening behavior. The information that Comte wanted to abolish religionin order to create a new kind of religion is met with a wide grin (fig. 2), followed by a puzzled look (fig. 3). The student isabout to write something down when he corrects himself and apparently decides to stop making notes (as can be inferredfrom a corrective gesture that results in his pen ending up balancing in the air, in non-functional mode; figs. 4 and 5). Whenhe hears that Comte even wanted to be the Pope of this new religion, he looks around as if seeking to share his feelings ofutter bewilderment with others (fig. 4). And finally, when the story reaches its climax in disclosing that Comte had alreadyplanned his official dress when stepping into office in the Notre Dame, he looks the other way again (fig. 5) as if abandoningall hope of making sense of this guy Comte. Similar sequences of silent laughter, puzzled looks, and looking around forsupport are observable in other students sitting in his vicinity.

Discourse units such as stories and arguments are often embedded in lecture room discourse for task-related purposes.Since the institutional context dictates that there can be no public, on-record follow-up moves on the part of individual ormultiple listeners, we cannot scrutinize what happens in student next turns in order to verify whether they are effectivein engaging the students intellectually or emotionally. It is important, therefore, to know where to look for signs of parallelsimultaneous engagement: in off-record individual student domains.

We propose that we need to consider both the internal structure of the discourses-in-progress and the social ecologies inwhich affordances are created to scaffold cognitive engagement. In this case we can to a large extent reconstruct the innerdialog (Vygotsky, 1978) going on in this student’s mind from his outward actions and reactions. His bewilderment is almostpalpable, increasing with the need to accommodate each new incoming piece of information. There is evidence that thisemotional involvement is triggered by the discongruities encountered, the conflicting inputs that have to be reconciled (cf.‘cognitive dissonance’; Festinger, 1957): how can a famous sociologist be so blind to the consequences of his own thinking?

There is reason to re-consider ‘the’ context in which these observations have to be interpreted. How does the currentnarrative frame relate to the global institutional one that contextualizes it? The successive, expressive listening behaviors onthe part of this particular student occur in finely-tuned synchrony with emerging subunits of the lecturer’s story. That makesit plausible that, during the telling of the story, he was not solely involved in his ritual institutional listener role. There is a pointat which he decides to abandon his note-taking altogether in favor of the more spontaneous stance of conversational storylistener. There is also the apparent wish to share his disbelief with others and to seek reassurance for his growing confusion.It seems institutional and conversational listening roles have merged, collapsed. As Richardson (1995) states: “according topsychologist Jerome Bruner (1986), narrative reasoning is one of two basic and universal human cognition modes. The otheris the logico-scientific. The two modes are irreducible to each other and complementary”. (1995, p. 200/201).

The different stance does not cue a Goffmanian frame-break. It signals added complexity that clearly also reflects on the

lecturer’s speaking role. He has temporarily adopted a narrator voice and stance that absorb his institutional speaker role.He is telling the institutional story.

3 Transcription conventions. For easier reading we have used only minimal transcription conventions. For our purpose the detailed transcriptions usedin CA are not strictly necessary.L lecturerS studentSSS+ several or the majority of students simultaneously[laughter] contextual information, meta- comments↗ rising intonation,↘ falling intonationBROTHER emphasis through pitch, tone or volume– short pause– – marked pause“. . .” different speaker voice (direct speech)

5

6

wBrtotr

swwaoa

rsais

D

L

hfttptb

D

L

SL

tft(ul

lIot

78 A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584

.2. Data 2. Collective laughter and hybrid discourse practices

Hearable reactions on the part of student audiences are no exception in the lecture room. In fact subdued cries, mumbling,hispered comments or soft laughter on the part of members of the audience are a regular feature of university lectures.ut in spite of their pervasive presence, backchannel ‘noises’ usually do not make it to the status of data in educationalesearch. There are good reasons for that. They tend to occur simultaneously, in clusters, and are difficult to hear, difficult toranscribe and difficult to interpret. Yet they may yield important online information in signaling how students, individuallyr collectively, are currently processing what they hear. Lecturers report that they often take their cue from them (‘readinghe audience’) in deciding when to adjust their pace, tone or subject matter in the evolving dialogic co-construction of lectureoom discourse (cf. Bakhtin, 1981).

Laughter in response to a joke or a funny story is attributed to the fact that more than one cognitive mental schema orcript is in force (cf. Raskin, 1985). When the first of these scripts is activated, incoming new information that is incongruousith that script necessarily triggers the activation of a second one. This creates a tension or ambiguity that has to be dealtith. In the final stage, the complexity is indeed resolved – by laughter. The occurrence of laughter implies that listeners have

ctively, cognitively reconstructed the implicit opposition. In the case of the data to be discussed below the pervasivenessf the laughter coming from various corners of the lecture room suggests that this was the case for many or most of thettending students.

Even so, a crucial fact about backchannel responses (Goffman, 1979; Yngve, 1970) is that, in a sense, they do noteally have a life out there, in the public interactional domain. They have no floor since those who utter them have nopeaking rights. They do not require a follow-up move and do not demonstrably affect the course of events in the publicrena. For that reason they supposedly do not count as salient moves in the unfolding interaction. But we may well wonderf this is still the case if backchannel behaviors like laughter are explicitly noticed, mentioned and taken up by the canonicalpeaker, the lecturer himself.

We return to the ‘Comte’ episode:

ata 2a

early on he believed that SCIENCE could take over the role of religion – [looks up] at the END of his life – [faster, lowtone] you will read about that when you are preparing for next week’s class - you will read that [back to earlier paceand tone] towards the END of his life he developed completely DIFFERENT fantasies – that [leans forward] what wasneeded was a completely NEW kind of religion – [soft student laughter hearable] a kind of CATHOLICISM - a sort ofCatholicism that suits a MODERN highly DEVELOPED industrial society–and he called it the HUMANITY religion andhe felt that he himself should be its POPE – [hearable laughter]- [lower tone, fast] he had already thought about theCLOTHES he would wear when he preached in Notre DAME as the HIGH PRIEST of the new Réligion de l’Humanité[collective student laughter] – and u::h – [looks up; marked change of tone] YEAH you folks are LAUGHING now –and that’s quite RIGHT of course – but [continues his story about Comte]

The lecturer interrupts his monolog for a meta-comment on what is happening here and now: the laughter that is clearlyearable in the lecture hall. The shift in rhythm and tone of his voice signals a break in the storytelling occasion, a change in

ooting. In technical terms ‘yea - you folks are laughing now . . .’ is a formulation (cf. Dorr-Bremme, 1990) that describes whathe students are presently doing. The student laughter thus acquires the status of an on-record public event, as somethinghat relevantly happens right now in the lecture situation. As researchers and ethnographers, i.e. from a situated or emicerspective (cf. Van Lier, 1988), we cannot afford to ignore it. So before proceeding with the analysis proper, we will re-writehe relevant part of the transcript to account for the fact that, as a result of being topicalized by the teacher, the laughter hasecome part of the data (nonlinear modeling; Polanyi & Scha, 1983).

ata 2b Updated transcript 2a (partial) with re-analysis status students’ laughter

[. . .] he had already thought about the CLOTHES he would wear when he preached in Notre DAME as the HIGHPRIEST of the new - Réligion de l’Humanité -,

SS+ [collective student laughter] and uh – [looks up; marked change of tone] - yea you folks are LAUGHING now – and that’s quite RIGHT of course –

but [continues his story about Comte]

From the distribution of laughter throughout the lecture hall it seems legitimate to assume that many students followedhe emerging story with interest and were amused or intrigued by this weird character, the famous philosopher and founding-ather of sociology, who they would be reading about for next week. It may increase their motivation to indeed read the setext – but we do not know anything for certain. The general laughter does, however, make it plausible, according to Raskin’s1985) script-based theory of humor, that the students have been actively involved in monitoring successively incomingnits of the story-in-progress and have reconstructed the incongruity that had to be resolved. The pervasiveness of the

aughter suggests that this was the case for many of the attending students.Note that the lecturer seems to take his cue for the completion of the anecdote from the very occurrence of the student

aughter. These are spontaneous student contributions, unlike institutional responses elicited by teacher questions in lockstepnitiation-Response-Feedback/Evaluation mode (IRF/E; Cazden, 1988; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). At the same time, featuresf the institutional situation continue to be in evidence. In fact, the lecturer’s ‘that’s quite right too’ sounds remarkably like aeacher’s third-place evaluation move that typically follows a student response move in the canonical classroom discourse

A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584 579

structure. There is a curious suggestion that the students are collectively being praised here for laughing at the right time(institutional context) while at the same time the completion point of the story was jointly achieved (conversational context).

Apparently, members of the audience in a formal lecture situation can, on a moment’s notice, briefly embed the moreactive stance of conversational listeners within the more extended performance of their ‘passive’ institutional roles. These aremixed or hybrid practices indeed (cf. Bakhtin, 1981; Kamberelis, 2001; Koole, 2007; Van Dam van Isselt, 2009) and they arethe rule rather than the exception in institutional multiparty talk. There are structural features of institutional interactionswaiting to be unraveled here.

6.3. Data 3. Complex participation formats: peer byplay

In this episode the lecturer illustrates an academic notion with an example of a situation students may well encounter ineveryday life – a trusted technique to involve students on a more personal level in the subject-matter. It was late autumn, thelecture took place in the evening and most students would return home by bicycle in the dark afterwards. The newspapershad just been featuring a lively – very Dutch – debate on whether cyclists could be fined for carrying lights that were attachedto their person rather than their bikes.

When addressing the second of his key questions (‘who is in charge over whom?’), the lecturer illustrates his point aboutsocial hierarchies with an example of a situation in which someone in authority, in casu a policeman, can issue orders thatyou cannot ignore, that you must even physically obey. Several paralinguistic and prosodic markers signal a change in footing(Goffman, 1981) as the lecturer embarks on a role play in which he acts out the relevance of power relations to familiarexperiences. As public speaker he animates the voices first of a police officer and then of a generic student in a projecteddialogic encounter in which a student acts as an offender and is sanctioned by the police officer (cf. ventriloquation; Bakhtin,1981). In the footage we see one of the students (student A.) echo this role play with a personal experience which she shareswith a friend sitting next to her (student B.). The private conversation runs parallel to the lecturer’s story and ends shortlyafter the lecturer has picked up the thread of his academic exposé.

Data 3

SSS [students take notes or look in the direction of the lecturer]L WHO has the right to say to someone else “I want you to do this” - - and then the other says [shift to conversational

tone] “okay” – WHY does the other respond with “okay” that’s a very PROFOUND question – [slow, emphasison every word] - WHAT- IS – THE - REASON that one person has the power to control the other and that the otherexperiences the authority this person has over him or her as JUST and RIGHT – [normal lecture tone] we are inclinedto take that for granted but in fact it is very – MYSTERIOUS – [conversational tone, fast, low voice] say you rideon your bike later tonight and you don’t have one of these hysterically flashing lights on your handlebar or on yourrear wheel [student A. and B. begin to talk softly to each other, gestures of flickering bicycle lights, laughing softly] -

.

5

p1lnoerec

aettas

80 A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584

a policeman can stop you and say [change of tone; authoritative voice]“EH-EH you haven’t got a light on your bike”and you are BOOKED and you have to go home by foot – and then you say something like [change of tone;submissive voice] “yes officer, yes I’m sorry [gesticulates] - I DID buy them but they’re at home on my table” [changeof tone; authoritative voice] – “yeah, well, that doesn’t mean anything to me they’re not on your bike so” – [back tolecture tone and speed] you think it’s completely NORMAL that a perfect STRANGER forces you to get off your bikeand tells you to put lights on your bike and you immediately assume that he absolutely has the RIGHT to say this[students resume their conversation]–[fast; alternating voices] you try to wriggle your way out of it “sorry, sorry”and “yeah well yeah such a shame just this week my mother also said to me.” - “I couldn’t care less and you areBOOKED” – [back to lecture voice] you ACCEPT this and then you have to pay and [student B. looks up] after a whileyou get sent a payment slip [students resume their conversation] – WHY do you ACCEPT this – WHY don’t you say[change of tone; self-assured, condescending voice]“my DEAR man I LIKE your cap but it is NONE of your businesswhatsoever” [student A. and B. both look up; so do other students; there is subdued laughter] –

“I don’t find it really necessary to have proper lights on my bike” – [A. and B. briefly resume their conversation]-

[emphatically, more slowly] WHY do people OBEY other people? – [default lecture tone] well for instance MaxWEBER - we are going to discuss him in about five weeks - has said some VERY interesting things about this - heargues for instance that we do this because we have come to a RATIONAL agreement [A. and B. stop theirconversation and both orient to the lecturer] –

Formal instructional templates such as the lecture or the teacher-fronted lesson are characterized by more gap –auses that are not to be interpreted as turn-transition-relevance-points – than conversational interactions (McHoul,978). Thus opportunities are created for students to share in-group comments about what they have just heard in col-

usive byplay: subordinate communications geared to the task at hand (Goffman, 1981). These student contributions areot turns at talk and are timed and pitched to minimally interfere with what is going at the level of the dominant statef talk: here the ongoing teacher monolog. Whispered peer communications in the cracks and seams of institutionalvents are quite common, in fact almost the rule in educational multiparty settings (cf. Van Dam, 2003). But they areitual faults – and for that reason as cultural members we are instructed to ignore them. They tend to be not-noticed ordited out in research protocols; they are seldom the object of investigation and cannot be reduplicated under laboratoryonditions.

In the synchronization of their verbal and nonverbal behaviors with the lecturer’s emerging story (figs. 1–6) students A.nd B. clearly show that discontinuous participation modes, not discrete speaker/hearer roles are at issue. The students arengaged in two interactions simultaneously: while conducting their animated private conversation they continue to orient to

heir role in the dominant lecture frame. At regular intervals they look up and interrupt their talk to listen. There is evidencehat they indeed monitor the lecturer’s ongoing monolog and synchronize the end of their talk with his return to corecademic business. Clearly, the straight lecture offers opportunities for students to do speaking in embedded conversationalubdomains while staying firmly lodged in their institutional hearer roles.

A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584 581

The key issue, now to be addressed, is whether there are indications that these complex floors may mediate intellectualactivity or emotional involvement on the part of students. Well, for a start, we know from the gestures during their collusiveconversation that these two students are not engaged in random social small talk. Their exchange is on topic, task-related:student A. imitates the flickering of a bicycle light with her hand (fig. 2) and indicates where it was fastened to her body(fig. 3). Her gestures show that the peer conversation not only runs parallel to, but is also parasitic on what is happening atthe level of the lecture agenda. We are reminded that in informal contexts of talk a story told by one participant routinelyprovides a ‘ticket’ for another to tell a next story that resonates with the experiences reported by the former storyteller (cf.‘story chain’; Günthner, 1992; ‘story round’; Tannen, 1984). Here the lecturer’s vivid role play has triggered a mirror storyin a simultaneous off-record interactional subdomain. Sharing a personal experience with a peer creates affordances toappropriate and internalize academic content, not only for the storyteller herself but by proxy also for her friend (‘vicariousexperience of relevance’; Hodgson, 2005; ‘peer scaffolding’; Vygotsky, 1978). The point: an abstract category like the asym-metrical distribution of power obtaining in society at large is now mapped onto, anchored in, experiences in the personaldomain.

What about the other students? Are there any cues that they are also actively involved in processing the lectureinput while lodged in their institutional listening roles? Up to this point the lecturer has been addressing his audi-ence in monologic authoritative mode and voice. Shifting to a narrator stance, however, he dialogically reframes eachof the addressed students (generic ‘you’) as speaker and actor in an online-created story world, one that strikinglyresembles the world outside the lecture room. He first sketches a conventional scenario for dealing with a police-man’s authority when having committed an offense in the public domain, a scenario that he relays in a genericstudent voice (cf. ‘participant example’; Wortham, 1994). It is a scenario, moreover, that the students are all familiarwith.

But ordinary events and unmarked behaviors, we know, do not make a good story, nor do they bring home culturallyshared truths (cf. Bruner, 1991; Polanyi, Lakoff, & Ross, 1985). The lecturer therefore reframes the course of events in termsof an alternative scenario that casts the students in an altogether different role: one that challenges and resists defaultpower relationships obtaining in society at large. He animates what, as characters in the story, the projected students didNOT say (and, to the extent that co-present students identify with the voices attributed to them in the story world mightnever dream of saying): WHY don’t you say “my DEAR man I DO like your cap but it is NONE of your business whatsoever”. Herewe have an instance of complex ventriloquation, double-voicing and polyphonic domains if ever there was one (Bakhtin,1981; Kamberelis, 2001). The students hear yet another hypothetical version of their projected selves in the story-worldquestioning and resisting the policeman’s authority.

Should this episode be interpreted as empowering in the sense that it invites students to act in novel ways, aswas the case in a similar episode described in our twin paper (Bannink & Van Dam, 2013, section 6.2)? In otherwords: does it urge them to resist the authoritative voice of the policeman – should the occasion present itself? Notreally – as can be gathered from the nonverbal and paralinguistic reactions of students in the lecture hall. Precisely atthis point in the teacher’s monolog many of the students are looking up, some with a quizzical or amused expressionon their face, and there is subdued laughter (fig. 4). The suggestion that they should categorically reject the police-man’s authority seems to be interpreted as funny rather than as a realistic scenario that they feel inclined to orientto. But as a thought experiment this participant example mediates a greater awareness of the arbitrariness of powerdifferences and unmarked cultural conventions for conducting oneself in social situations. The realization how deeplyentrenched they are in our everyday behaviors shows up only when they are violated (Garfinkel, 1967). Stories and roleplay in hypothetical virtual domains may serve to provide students with the symbolic tools to acquire an academic mind-set: the ability to make the familiar strange, i.e. think in novel ways about the everyday phenomena they are about tostudy.

6.4. Data 4. End of lecture data: so what’s the point?

Our last data occurred at the very end of the lecture. The lecturer rounded off his introduction to what sociology isabout by returning to the three key questions that he had started out with and around which he had organized the lecture’scontent. He said them once more, out loud: “who does what and for whom; who is in charge over whom; who belongs towhom?”

Repeating key notions or issues at the end of a lecture or talk is of course a well-known rhetorical strategy. It is aninstance of ‘good educational practice’ and in line with pedagogical recommendations to promote retention and retrievalon the part of the students (cf. ‘semantic redundancy’; Tannen, 1989) while catering for differences in the processing speed(cognitive abilities?) of individual students. But a lecture is also in the nature of an emergent and continuing institutional‘story’. This was the first installment. At the end of a story-telling occasion the narrator normally invites listeners to inter-actively accomplish the story exit and move the discourse back to the here-and-now, the world in which the story istold (Labov & Waletsky, 1967). For a lecture in sociology it is especially relevant that academic questions should resonate

in the world beyond the lecture hall: the students’ everyday lives. So the issue ‘what’s the point about these questions’arose once more, recontextualized as something students themselves might say in a hypothetical informal conversa-tion with a friend, roommate or relative. It was produced as an aside, in a very fast, run-on conversational productionstyle.

5

D

L

tfwvqnh

sbooi

6

l

D

L

wcs

a

D

L

tadwmt

7

‘sesmci

82 A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584

ata 4

(immediately following the repetition of the three questions)[very fast; run-on production style] and so when you come home later to-day and someone asks you “so you’ve justattended your first SOCIOLOGY class – nice – and what is sociology all ABOUT” then at least you have an answer –you are able to say – “WELL I’ve found out it’s about three fairly simple questions – but IN FACT they are quite DEEP(. . .)” [change to lecture voice] – they seem quite simple but when you begin to think them through they are evensomewhat MYSTERIOUS – like what I said just now about the question WHY do I listen to what this policeman tellsme –

What we have here is yet another example of complex double-voicing (Bakhtin, 1981). For the uninitiated hearer/readerhis may seem like a clear case of ‘drill-and-kill’: an invitation to just repeat what the teacher has said. No learning can resultrom such an exercise, it will be claimed. But words may also address future words that will never be uttered. Most studentsill not actually find themselves engaged in exactly this kind of interaction. The wider point is that the students are given a

oice in some other social domain and that an internally-persuasive stance is ascribed to them with respect to the academicuestions and answers that have just been modeled. It is suggested that they are now in a position to realize (that they haveow learned?) that these are non-trivial questions that do not have simple answers and that they are in fact quite ‘deep’:ave all kinds of ramifications and consequences in everyday life.

There are resonances to be explored with the notion that people can change by telling stories about themselves: narrativeelf-construction (e.g. Wortham, 2001). Here we have a mixed form. The suggestion is raised that students can be empoweredy having stories told about themselves. We propose the term: narrative other-self construction for these hybrid forms. Andther more complex authorial forms can be imagined: narrative collective-self or collective-other construction; collusivether-other construction. In all of these cases Bakhtin’s famous dictum: “in the everyday rounds of our consciousness, thenternally-persuasive word is half-ours, half-some else” (1986, p. 345) eminently applies.

.5. Data 5 and 6. Interview metadata: satellite conversations

Three weeks after the lecture had taken place we interviewed the lecturer. When discussing the different parts of theecture, he spontaneously brought up the ‘Comte’ episode. Looking amused, he said with a laugh:

ata 5

Yeah that Comte story – it was funny a few days later one of the students wrote to me in an email that his motherhad said she didn’t agree at all with the way I had described him - she thought I had been very unfair to Comte –

Let us first establish that it is not very likely students went home and had the type of narrowly task-related conversationith a significant other that the teacher suggested and that we discussed in the previous section. In the spontaneous lecturer’s

omment, however, we find unequivocal evidence that lecture topics can become a lively subject of debate in (at least) onetudent’s home environment.

There are also other indications in the interview data that the lecturer’s words are closely attended to by the studentsnd that class topics and events may have a second life in social peer domains beyond the walls of the lecture room:

ata 6

Sometimes I check my mail in the evening and I find a message from a student saying this afternoon you said thisand that and we were in the pub with friends and we think you are wrong- that’s something I really like – that youdiscuss with a student something you said in the lecture room that morning on the very same evening

As we briefly mentioned in the twin paper in this issue (Bannink & Van Dam, 2013), there are many opportunities for face-o-face in-group communications in the wake of formal lecture situations. There is interval talk that includes the lecturers one of the participants; corridor talk; coffee break talk and, in many cases, there are also conversations via electroniciscussion boards. The fact that shared notions and a shared language for talking about these notions have been establishedith respect to an academic discipline; that lecture room jokes and mishaps can be shared and a sense of in-group identityay develop as a result of sharing these experiences over time – all of this may be instrumental in bringing the students

ogether as a community of learning.

. Conclusions

This paper was originally conceived as an investigation into discursive practices during institutional events of the typestraight lecture’ with special attention to hearer roles and listening behaviors. When zooming in on the coordination ofpeaker and hearer roles and structural features of discourse production and discourse processing a more complex picturemerged. What is in evidence, we have tried to show, is a dialogic engagement in polyphonic interactional domains in which

peaker and hearer roles cannot be analytically separated. We have to go beyond individual turns at talk and conversationaletaphors to demonstrate how cognitive activity, with respect to internalizing and appropriating the key notions and

ategories of an academic discipline, may be triggered by modeling voices and roles at embedded and collusive levels ofnstitutional multiparty interactions.

A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584 583

We first addressed the intricate synchronization of students’ backchannel behaviors with emerging (sub)units of thelecturer’s talk. We argue that nonverbal displays of attention and emotional involvement (section 6.1), collective laughter(section 6.2), and collusive peer byplay (section 6.3) are an integral part of the data that should be addressed when studyingthe lecture room interface. Our analyses suggest that institutional arguments may be contextualized as an emerging ‘aca-demic story’ that, in drawing laughter from members of the audience and activating experiences from their everyday lives,allows students to relate to the academic content cognitively as well as emotionally. The students attending this lecturedemonstrably recognized frame inconsistencies and came up with mirror stories that may serve as an anchor for memory.

In addition we showed that, by being dialogically addressed, students – while remaining hearers – are given a role andvoice that they can orient to not in next turn in the current situation, but in embedded hypothetical discourse worlds. Suchhybrid and structural features of lecture room discourse can be exploited to mediate scaffolding and learning. They willonly be in evidence when details of interactional behaviors and their mapping onto different versions of ‘self’ and ‘other’ arerecognized as relevant data and included in researchers’ protocols and analyses. The point is well put by Hanks: “It is theoverall participation framework as an emergent process that ‘does the learning’, just as [. . .] it is the participation frameworkin which an utterance acquires meaning that ‘does the talking” (1996, p. 222).

8. Wider implications

8.1. Theoretical implications

A key issue arising from this exploratory investigation into the simultaneous backchannel behaviors of students in formalinstitutional settings as well as the effect of dialogic modes of address, is how these phenomena can be coherently, system-atically, studied (cf. Goodwin & Goodwin, 2004). A promising angle might be to compare the production and reception ofweb-lectures, that are increasingly popular with students, researchers and the general public alike, to their face-to-faceprototypes. What is the effect of indexical mappings and modes of direct address like those we repeatedly encountered inthe lecture room data (see also: Bannink & Van Dam, 2013) when teacher and students are not physically co-present? Is thelack of opportunities for on-the-spot peer negotiations a significant absence or can it be compensated for through satelliteconversations in computer-mediated communities of learning (e.g. Johnson, 2012)? We argue that correspondences ratherthan oppositions between pedagogic genres should be explored, on the basis of detailed, multimodal observation protocolsthat are scrutinized for insider-relevant meaning.

8.2. Practical implications

The relevance of fine-grained observation is especially salient in teacher education programs, be they tailored to teachingin primary, secondary or higher education. It is our experience that novice teachers, at the beginning stages of their careers,are unable to see the structural strategies that enable experienced teachers to preserve the coherence of the instructionalagenda while at the same time reading the complex behavioral input of a classroom or a lecture room full of learners andsimultaneously dealing with any practical emergencies that may arise. A timely look, pause, or gesture in combination witha change of tone, gaze direction or bodily orientation may cue the occurrence of an off-record interactional subdomain inwhich problems of understanding or practical dilemmas may be addressed and resolved from a different footing or stance (cf.Hall & Smotrova, 2013). A better understanding of the art of teaching requires an awareness of the potential to strategicallyembed, invalidate and re-embed informal, formal and complex versions of ‘self’ and ‘other’ in an array of theatrical, narrativeand conversational stances within an ongoing dominant state of talk.

To conclude: a practical example with respect to sensitizing novice teachers to institutional backchannel behaviors. Inorder to highlight the differences between conversational and formal institutional listening modes in multiparty settingswe staged a Garfinkel-type breaching experiment. We asked two students to prepare a brief story and when they had leftthe room to do so instructed the audience to refrain from displaying any conversational backchannels when they werelistening to the first student: no eye contact, no nods, no smiling, no signs of bodily orientation toward the speaker. It turnedout that the student was unable to finish her story. She broke it off half-way, saying: “OK – I’m going to stop here – clearlythis doesn’t interest you”. That was exactly what we had seen novice teachers do during their teaching practice when, inthe eyes of their more experienced colleagues, lack of attention on the part of the students was not at issue. With respectto the second student’s story members of the audience were instructed to pretend they were listening to a friend in aninformal conversational setting and act accordingly: respond with head nods, whispered ‘hm-hms’, smiles and regular eyecontact in synchrony with segments of the unfolding story. Again the student was unable to finish her story: we were all in

giggles.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to all professors and students who took part in the CiC project. In particular we thank Bart vanHeerikhuizen for his permission to use his lecture data in this paper.

5

R

BBBB

BCd

DDFFFGG

GGGG

GGG

HHH

HH

JJ

KKK

KLLMMMMMPP

P

RR

RS

STTV

V

V

VVVWWY

84 A. Bannink, J. Van Dam / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 572– 584

eferences

akhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.akhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V.W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.annink, A., & Van Dam, J. (2006). A dynamic discourse approach to classroom research. Linguistics and Education, 17(3), 283–301.annink, A., & Van Dam, J. (2013). The first lecture: Playing upon identities and modeling academic roles. Linguistics and Education,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.001runer, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–21.azden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.eWinstanley, P., & Bjork, R. (2002). Successful lecturing: Presenting information in ways that engage effective processing. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 89, 19–31.orr-Bremme, D. W. (1990). Contextualization cues in the classroom: Discourse regulation and social control functions. Language in Society, 19, 379–402.uranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.estinger, L. (1957). The theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.oreman, J. (2003). NEXT-Generation – Educational technology versus the lecture. Educause, 13–22.riesen, N. (2011). The lecture as a transmedial pedagogical form: A historical analysis. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 95–102.arfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.ibbs, G. (1981). Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing. Available online: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/resources/20reasons.html SCED Occa-

sional Paper No. 8, Birmingham. (accessed 29.11.11).offman., E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.offman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25, 1–29.offman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.oodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp.

225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.oodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text, 6(3), 283–316.oodwin, C. h., & Goodwin, M. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 222–244). Maldan, MA: Blackwell.ünthner, S. (1992). Comments on: Klaus Müller: theatrical moments. In P. Auer, & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 223–232).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.all, J. K., & Smotrova, T. (2013). Teacher self-talk: Interactional resource for managing instruction and eliciting empathy. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 75–92.anks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.odgson, V. E. (2005). Lectures and the experience of relevance. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning: Implications for

teaching and studying in higher education (pp. 159–171). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.ymes, D. H. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 1–34.ymes, D. H. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography

of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston.efferson, G. (1984). Notes on the systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 198–200.ohnson, N. (2012). Promoting emergent understanding and knowledge: Computer-mediated communication from a complexity theory perspective. Arizona

Working Papers in SLAT, 13, 19–37.amberelis, G. (2001). Producing heteroglossic classroom (micro)cultures through hybrid discourse practices. Linguistics and Education, 12(1), 85–125.endon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.endon, A. (1992). The negotiation of context in face-to-face interaction. In A. Duranti, & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 323–334). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.oole, T. (2007). Parallel activities in the classroom. Language and Education, 21(6), 487–501.abov, W., & Waletsky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of Washington.ave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning—Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.aley, A. (2004). Breaking rules. EA Journal, 21(2), 8–19.atusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. New York: Nova Science Publishers.ayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.cHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in society, 7(2), 183–213.ulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175–185.

olanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 601–638.olanyi, L., Lakoff, G., & Ross, J. (1985). Telling the American story. A structural and cultural analysis of conversational storytelling. Norwood, N.J: Ablex Publishing

Corporation.olanyi, L., & Scha, R. J. H. (1983). On the recursive structure of discourse. In K. Ehlich, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Connectedness in sentence, discourse and

text (pp. 141–178). Tilburg: Tilburg University.askin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Reidel: Dordrecht.eddy, M. (1993). The conduit metaphor – A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 164–201).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ichardson, L. (1995). Narrative and sociology. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Representation in ethnography (pp. 198–221). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.chegloff, E. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.),

Analyzing discourse, text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington: Georgetown University Press.inclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.annen, D. (1984). Conversational style. Norwood. NJ: Ablex.annen, D. (1989). Talking voices – Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.an Dam, J. (2002). Ritual, face and play in a first English lesson: Bootstrapping a classroom culture. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition, language

socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.an Dam, J. (2003). Language acquisition behind the scenes: Collusion and play in educational settings. In J. Leather, & J. Van Dam (Eds.), Ecology of language

acquisition (pp. 203–222). Dordrecht: Kluwer.an Dam van Isselt, J. (2009). Mixed genres in lecture room discourse. In B. Botma, & J. van Kampen (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2009 (pp. 39–51).

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.an Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York: Longman Group Ltd.

ygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.ygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.ortham, S. (1994). Acting out participant examples in the classroom. Amsterdam: Benjamins.ortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action: A strategy for research and analysis. New York: Teachers College Press.

ngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 567–578.