Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:50:22.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The organization of repair in classroom talk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

A. W. McHoul
Affiliation:
School of Humanities, Murdoch University

Abstract

This article is a conversation-analytic investigation of the forms of organization that allow specific items of classroom discourse – words, phrases, up to whole turns at talk – to be altered by subsequent items. Central to the article is an analytic distinction between self-correction and other-correction, that is, between repair sequences in which the speaker of the initial item (the “trouble source”) makes the correction and instances in which this is performed by one of her or his interlocutors (cf. Jefferson 1974; Schegloff et al. 1977). The classroom case is analytically interesting both for its own sake and also on account of research speculations that other-correction should be more frequent in adult-child talk than in other genres of conversation. However, in order to provide an analysis of the problem sensitive to the particularities of the classroom, it is necessary to look not merely at corrections, but at the larger repair trajectories in which they occur. These trajectories consist of corrections plus their prior initiations, the latter being means by which speakers mark out some item as requiring correction. Once the social identities of teacher and student are mapped against self-and other-forms of initiation and correction, it is possible to discern some of the structural preferences of classroom discourse along the general axis of repair. The materials are taken from geography lessons in Australian high school classrooms. (Repair and correction, question and answer, clue-giving, expansion sequences, modulation, classroom discourse, everyday language use, Australian English, conversation analysis, sociology of education)

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cicourel, A. V. (1973). Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press. 294338.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 3:181–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society 7:182213.Google Scholar
McHoul, A. W. (1985). Two aspects of classroom interaction, turn-taking and correction: A research report. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders 13:5364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHoul, A. W. (1987). Why there are no guaranteers for interrogators. Journal of Pragmatics 11:455–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHoul, A. W., & Watson, D. R. (1984). Two axes for the analysis of “commonsense” and “formal” geographical knowledge in classroom talk. British Journal of Sociology of Education 5:281302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, G., & Hustler, D. (1980). Teaching the class: The practical management of a cohort. British Journal of Sociology of Education 1(1):4966.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2):361–82.Google Scholar
Schenkein, J. N. (ed.) (1978). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic.Google Scholar