Regulative Discourse for Pre-Schoolers: Should English Language Teachers Be Polite?

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Department of Pedagogy, Didactics of Social Sciences, Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain

2 Department of English Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain

Abstract

This study aims to contribute to the research literature on politeness in language teachers’ requestive behaviour. More specifically, it adopts a multilingual approach to explore teachers’ politeness strategies in the English for Young Learners (EYL) classroom, an underresearched instructional setting where regulative discourse tends to predominate. Participants are two pre-school teachers and two intact groups of 4/5-year-old children. 1,942 procedural and disciplinary directives in six video-recorded lessons are processed from a discourse-pragmatic perspective centred on directness, modifiers, and person deixis. The emerging syntactic and sequential design of regulative discourse seems to respond to factors like activity type and differing understandings of classroom power relations or deontic stances (Stevanovic, 2011). Results can serve as an awareness-raising exercise useful to draw attention to the need of strengthening practitioners’ pragmatic sensitivity in teacher training.

Keywords


Alcón, E., Safont, M. P., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting: A socio-pragmatic approach. RÆL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 4, 1-35.
Arnold, J. (2019). The importance of affect in language learning. Neofilolog, 52(1), 11-14.  http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/n.2019.52.1.2
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Burdelski, M. (2010). Socializing politeness routines: Action, other-orientation, and embodiment in a Japanese preschool. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1606-1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.007
Burdelski, M. (2013). Socializing children to honorifics in Japanese: Identity and stance in interaction. Multilingua, 32(2), 247-273. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2013-0012 
Cekaite, A. (2010). Shepherding the child: Embodied directive sequences in parent-child interactions. Text and Talk, 30(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.001
Cekaite, A. (2012). Affective stances in teacher-novice student interactions: Language, embodiment, and willingness to learn in a Swedish primary classroom. Language in Society, 41(5), 641-670. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000681
Christie, F. (1994). On pedagogic discourse. Melbourne: Institute of Education, University of Melbourne.
Christie, F. (2000). The language of classroom interaction and learning. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities. Functional linguistics perspectives (pp. 184-205). Cassell.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2005). Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: Directives in content and language integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1275-1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.002
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml007 
Derakhshan, A. (2022). The 5Cs positive teacher interpersonal behaviors: Implications for learner empowerment and learning in an L2 context. Springer.
Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation and learning. Communication Education, 53 (1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000135742
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1982). Structures of control. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 27-47). Academic Press.
Gardner, R. (2019). Classroom interaction research: The state of the art. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52, 212-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1631037
Ghonsooly, B. & Mazaheri, H. (2010). On the relationship between emotional intelligence and directive speech acts preference. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 50-60.
Glaser, K. (2018). Enhancing the role of pragmatics in primary English teacher training. Glottodidactica, XLV(2), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2018.45.2.06
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk, 26 (4/5), 513–541. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2006.021 
Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 122-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008
Grimmer, T. (2021). Developing a loving pedagogy in the early years: How love fits with professional practice. Routledge.
He, A. W. (2000). The grammatical and interactional organization of teachers’ directives: Implications for socialization of Chinese American children. Linguistics and Education, 11(2), 119-140.
He, A. W. (2004a). Identity construction in Chinese heritage language classes. Pragmatics, 14 (2/3), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.14.2-3.06he   
He, A. W. (2004b). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 568-582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-19-.x
Holmes, J. (1983). The structure of teachers’ directives: A sociolinguistic analysis. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 89-115). Longman.
Iedema, R. (1996). ‘Save the talk for after the listening’: The realisation of regulative discourse in teacher talk. Language and Education, 10(2/3), 82-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789608666702
Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and socialization in an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(11), 1467-1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00113-1  
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Felix-Brasdefer & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 11) (pp. 281-314). University of Hawai’i at Manoa National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Khanjani, A., Vahdany, F., & Jafarigohar, M. (2017). EFL teacher education in Iran: Does it promote trainees’ pedagogical content knowledge? Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 159-186. https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2017.13096
Liu, Y. & Hong H. (2009). Regulative discourse in Singapore primary English classrooms: Teachers’ choices of directives. Language and Education, 23(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780802152812
Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Mouton de Gruyter.
Macbeth, D. H. (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education, 3(4), 281-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(91)90012-8
Manke, M. P. (1997). Classroom power relations: Understanding student-teacher interaction. London/New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603555
Margutti, P. (2011). Teachers’ reproaches and managing discipline in the classroom: When teachers tell students what they do ‘wrong’. Linguistics and Education, 22(4), 310-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.015
 Martí, O. & Portolés, L. (2019). Is teacher talk for very young language learners pragmatically tuned? Directives in two EAL classrooms. In P. Salazar-Campillo & V. Codina-Espurz (Eds.), Investigating the learning of pragmatics across ages and contexts (pp. 87-122). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409699_006   
Mercer, S. & Gkonou, C. (2020). Relationships and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 164-174). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774390
Murphy, V. A. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford University Press.
Mushin, I., Gardner, R., & Gourlay, C. (2019). Preparing for task: Linguistic formats for procedural instructions in early years schooling. Linguistics and Education, 54, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.100749
Nguyen, H. T. (2007). Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Language and Education, 21 (4), 284-303. https://doi.org/10.2167/le658.0  
Nikolov, M. & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J. (2011). All shades of every color: An overview of early teaching and learning of foreign languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000183
Nikula, T. (2002). Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and content-based classroom settings. Pragmatics, 12 (4), 447-467. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.12.4.03nik
Payne, G. & Hustler, D. (1980). Teaching the class: The practical management of a cohort. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(1), 49-66.
Pujiastuti, R. T. (2013). Classroom interaction: an analysis of teacher talk and student talk in English for young learners (EYL). Journal of English and Education, 1 (1), 163-172. Retrieved from: https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/L-E/article/view/361/250
Rahimi Domakani, M., Mirzaei, A., & Zeraatpisheh, S. (2014). L2 learners’ affect and pragmatic performance: A focus on emotional intelligence and gender dimensions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 149-174.
Rich, S. (2014). Taking stock: Where are we now with TEYL? In S. Rich (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching English to young learners (pp. 1-19). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137023230_1
Rodríguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning:  Affective learning as the central causal mediator.  Communication Education, 45 (4), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379059 
Safont, M. P. (2018). Are classroom requests similar in all EFL settings? Focusing on a young multilingual learning environment. In P. Romanowski & M. Jedynak (Eds.), Current Research in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (pp. 123-141). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92396-3_7
Sato, S. (2008). Use of ‘please’ in American and New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (7), 1249-1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.09.001
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. B. K. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Ablex.
Searle, J. R. (1999). Mind, language and society: Philosophy in the real world. Phoenix: Guernsey Press Co.
Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InList), 52, 1-37. Retrieved from: http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/52/Inlist52.pdf
Stevanovic, M. & Kuusisto, A. (2019). Teacher directives in children’s musical instrument instruction: Activity context, student cooperation, and institutional priority. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(7), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1476405
Stevanovic, M. & Svennevig, J. (2015). Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008 
Syathroth, I. L. (2017). Language varieties used by English teachers in young learners classes. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 82. https://doi.org/10.2991/conaplin-16.2017.62
Waring, H. Z., & Hruska, B. L. (2012). Problematic directives in pedagogical interaction. Linguistics and Education, 23, 289-300. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.06.002 
Warren, A. (2014). ‘Relationships for me are the key for everything’: Early childhood teachers’ subjectivities as relational professionals. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(3), 262-271. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.15.3.262
Wichmann, A. (2004). The intonation of please-requests: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1521-1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.003
Xi, H., Liu, D. & Wang, D. (2016). A study on the adaptability of person deixis in English teacher talk. US-China Foreign Language, 14(12), 840-844. https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2016.12.002