Small but Multi-functional: Response Tokens in Content Language Integrated Learning Interaction

Abstract

This paper is an investigation of language use inside a content language integrated learning (CLIL) classroom at Saudi tertiary level. It examines the difference in language use between teachers and students in four subject-specific classrooms in which English is used as a medium of instruction. The study is informed by corpus linguistics (CL) and uses the principles and theoretical underpinning of conversation analysis (CA). It identifies the most frequent linguistic features of CLIL and examines their diverse interactional functions in this context. Amongst the most frequent linguistic features in CLIL are short response tokens such as "yes" and "no". Using a micro-analytic approach to conversation analysis, a closer look at the data shows the students' ability to use small and limited linguistic resources to accomplish multiple interactional functions such as taking the floor, taking turns and, most importantly, displaying orientation to knowledge. The data reflected the relationship between frequency and meaning construction. With regard to the difference in language use between teachers and students with regard to comes to short response tokens, the study shows some common interactional uses of response tokens between teachers and students, such as agreement, acknowledgement, response to confirmation checks and yes/no questions. On the other hand, it shows some exclusive interactional use of the same token by teachers and students. Finally, the paper emphasises the relationship of language, interaction and orientation to content knowledge in CLIL classrooms. Pedagogically, the findings have implications for teachers' language use and for increased classroom interaction.

Mapping Conversation Analysis Studies in the Arab World: Applications and Implications

“…Clift and Helani [2010] identified the functions of the religious marker "inshallah" (meaning "God willing"). Jawhar [2016] explored the meaning construction of the marker "yes" in different contexts (e.g. agreement, continuer, and acknowledgement).…”

“…The methodology adopted by all the studies was limited to CA, with the exception of Jawhar [2016], who combined CA and corpus linguistics, and Al-Ghathami [2018], who included quantitative measures. All studies used audio recordings for data collection.…”

Thai University Students’ Use of Yes/No Tokens in Spoken Interaction

“…It's easy to read, too.). However, in real-time social interaction, yes/no tokens play more multifunctional roles (Eggins & Slade, 1997;Schegloff, 2001), includeing confirmative responses (Jawhar, 2016); agreement (Drummond & Hopper, 1993;Jawhar, 2016;Lamertz, 2011); alignment (Lamertz, 2011;Stivers, 2008); acknowledgement (Drummond & Hopper, 1993;Gardner, 2001;Jawhar, 2016;Jefferson 1984;Jefferson, 1985;McCarthy, 2003); topic shift (Jefferson, 1985;Fuller, 2003); incipient speakership (Gardner, 2007, p. 321;Jefferson, 1983Jefferson, , 1984Jefferson, , 1985Jefferson, , 1993Drummond & Hopper 1993) and acceptance (Liddicoat, 2007). On the other hand, the no token also serves a greater number of functions such as a return to a previous topic (Lee-Goldman, 2011); joke-to-serious no token/stance shift (Schegloff, 2001); repair initiation (Schegloff, 1992;Lee-Goldman, 2011); a turn-negotiation token (Lee-Goldman, 2011); command (Lee-Goldman, 2011); rejection to a command (Lee-Goldman, 2011) and despair (Lee-Goldman, 2011).…”