dispreffered turns in ordinary conversation and in L2 classrooms share the same characteristic features. As in ordinary conversation, in L2 classrooms, teachers’ preferred third turn actions are produced directly right after the second turns of students and silence between the second turn and third turn marks a dispreference (e.g., Hellermann, 2003; Macbeth, 2000, 2004; Margutti, 2004; McHoul, 1990; Lee, 2008), but see Kääntä (2010). In addition, as in ordinary conversation, teachers’ dispreffered third turn actions can be ‘packaged’ so as to minimise the degree of disaffiliation and conflict (Seedhouse, 2004).
It has also been discussed that as in ordinary conversation, in L2 classrooms, teachers can also indicate in advance how they will evaluate the second turns of students before students’ turns reach a completion and teachers produce their third turns (e.g., Kääntä, 2010). The findings coming from the study of Kääntä (2010) have suggested that teachers foreshadow the
emergence of repair by withholding the revealing of correct answers on a transparency during the student second turn responses and by a cut-off body movement at the TRP before
producing their verbal TCUs, thus demonstrating how teachers project the dispreferred nature of their next-actions before producing their third turns through embodied resources. The findings coming from the current study support her findings in that the teacher displays in advance the dispreferred nature of her next-actions both during the students’ second turns (e.g., by shifting her gaze from the student to the book) (see line 10 in Extract 16) and at the TRPs during pauses (e.g., by performing a frozen body posture and holding her gaze towards the class) (see Extract 18). However, the data analysed for the current study also show that the teacher displays in advance within the students’ second turns that she will acknowledge the second turns of students as correct vis-à-vis their pedagogical agenda before producing her third turn, thereby projecting preferred next-actions at the same time as the turns are being produced. As she does this in the absence of talk by solely drawing on non-verbal resources like head nods and hand gestures (see line 6 in Extract 3 and line 25 in Extract 11), she also displays the preferred nature of the students’ second turns by deploying the token analysed for the current study (i.e., ‘Mm hm’) within and during the student’s second turns and drawing on multiple semiotic resources (e.g., a shift in prosody and body posture, hand gestures, head nods) (see line 12 in Extract 9). As such, she projects ‘embodied preferred next-actions’ in the
147
L2 classroom. Therefore, based on these findings, it can be suggested that in L2 classrooms, teachers can also display the positive nature of their evaluation at the same time as students are producing their second turns.
5.5 The Projection of Distinctive Recipiency through Differential ‘Head Nods’ in the L2 Classroom
As discussed in the Literature Review chapter, according to some researchers, head nods performed by recipients in interaction can display continuing recipiency together with or in the absence of verbal vocalisations (Duncan, 1972; Goodwin, 1986; Schegloff, 1982), whereas according to some, by drawing on this particular non-verbal resource at different positions in interaction, recipients can also project their affiliation with speakers (Heath, 1992; Stivers, 2008). As such, the literature isn’t consistent regarding if head nods performed by recipients display a particular stance towards speakers’ talk or solely continuing recipiency in ordinary conversation. What should be asked here is then that ‘does the shape of a nod help to disambiguate the use of it on this matter’? More precisely, ‘can different types of head nods be used to perform different actions in interaction, thereby displaying distinctive recipiency’? The study of Whitehead (2011) has demonstrated that speakers’ head nods at third position (i.e., following responses to questions in the course of ‘minimal post-expansions’) (Schegloff, 2007) can take different shapes, thereby performing different actions. That is, an expansive type of nod (i.e., more expansive in amplitude and duration) is used to register a prior
utterance as news together with or in the absence of a verbal change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984a), whereas a less expansive type of nod is used to register the receipt of a prior utterance without treating it as news. As such, the findings coming from his study suggest that in
ordinary conversation, speakers adjust their nods at third position in such ways that they move from displaying simple receipt and acknowledgment of prior turns to displaying a distinctive recipiency. Therefore, it can be claimed that performing distinct types of head nods together with or in the absence of verbal tokens is intersubjective in that it conveys different meanings (i.e., actions) in interaction.
In L2 classrooms, the function of teachers’ head nods is restricted to interactive work they do in allocating turns to students, together with the first pair part of the IRF or after with verbal tokens (i.e., embodied allocation) (Kääntä, 2010, 2012), or in acknowledging the second turns of students in the third turns of the IRFs. With regards to the latter, no research has
specifically examined the potential role that the shape of teachers’ head nods (e.g., one or multiple, rapid or slow, deep in their vertical trajectory or shallow, more or less expansive in
148
duration and amplitude) plays in displaying distinctive recipiency. However, the findings coming from the current study contribute to the research literature in this sense, as they suggest that as in ordinary conversation, in L2 classrooms, teachers can adjust their nods at third position in such ways that they move from displaying simple receipt (i.e., continuing recipiency) to displaying distinctive recipiency (i.e., assessment).
As demonstrated in the Analysis chapter, the data analysed for the current study show that ‘Mm hm’ is almost always accompanied by the teacher’s head nods. However, as the sequential placement, timing, and prosodic shape of the token change depending on what communicative work the teacher wants to convey at that point, so does the shape of the nods. For example, when the token is deployed as a strong acknowledgment token, the teacher draws upon full expansive up-and-down or down-and-up nods (occasionally multiple full rapid up-and-down nods) (e.g., Extracts 4, 5). When it is deployed as a bridging continuer or an expansion elicitor, the teacher performs a rapid down nod (see Extracts 6 and 13), which might be contributing to the functional variability of the token displaying ‘go ahead and say more’. However, when the token is deployed as an assessment-like continuer, the teacher draws upon a full expansive type of nod (i.e., more expansive in amplitude and duration) (see Extract 8) or a full rapid up-and-down nod (see Extract 9), which might be contributing to the functional variability of the token displaying that the teacher is acknowledging the second turns of the students as ‘correct’ in addition to the continuer work, thereby projecting ‘embodied preferred next-actions’ within and during the turns. As such, the shape of the teacher’s nods is intersubjective in that it contributes to the function of the token at a
particular point (e.g., displaying assessment, displaying continuing recipiency, or projecting a continuation from the students), thereby projecting distinctive recipiency. Therefore, based on these findings, it can be suggested that as in ordinary conversation, teachers can display distinctive recipiency through differential ‘head nods’ in L2 classrooms.