Academic Group Discussions as a Ritual Frame: An Interactional Approach

Authors

  • Zhaoyi Pan

    English Language Coordinating Section, the School of Information Technology, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v6i4.6554
Received: 7 May 2024 | Revised: 22 July 2024 | Accepted: 26 July 2024 | Published Online: 24 September 2024

Abstract

Academic group discussions were studied as a ritual frame by adopting the interactional approach in this research. The first aim was to examine how students reached alignment with university lecturers via speech acts (SAs) in group discussions based on the integrative SA model in the interactional approach. The second aim was to examine how the students avoided conflicts with university lecturers in the process of reaching alignment. A total of 61 Thai university students and two American university lecturers were involved in this research. The data consisted of naturally occurring group discussions: English was used as a lingua franca (ELF). Qualitative and quantitative methods were used for the analyses in this research. Following the interactional approach, a bottom-up analysis was employed to identify the SAs. The results revealed seven Exchange patterns that consisted of different Moves realized via the SAs in the academic group discussions, including the frequent uses of the SAs Request, Opine, Tell, and Resolve. The Exchange patterns indicated that academic group discussions constituted a ritual frame in which the seemingly erratic utterances had regular patterns. Furthermore, the students did not engage in conflicts with the lecturers due to the SAs Request, Resolve, and Opine including a Grounder. This finding indicated that the disagreements in the academic group discussions were regarded as having positive discourse functions for resolving academic problems.

Keywords:

Ritual frame; Interactional Approach; Group discussion; Speech act; Disagreement; Institutional discourse

References

Akoto, O.Y., 2023. Role switch in lecturer-students classroom interaction: A corpus-based study of self-referential personal pronouns. Corpus Pragmatics. 7(2), 121–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-023-00142-1

Almusallam, I.I., 2023. Offers in Saudi EFL talks: A focus on the learners’ pragmatic competence in interactions. Journal of Pragmatics. 214, 164–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.05.003

Boux, I.P., Margiotoudi, K., Dreyer, F.R., et al., 2023. Cognitive features of indirect speech acts. Language Cognition and Neuroscience. 38(1), 40–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2077396

Council of Europe, 2020. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment-Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. Available from: www.coe.int/lang-cefr

Cuenca, M.-J., 2023. Disagreement, epistemic stance and contrastive marking in Catalan parliamentary debate. Journal of Pragmatics. 203, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.001

Edmondson, W., 1981. Spoken Discourse. A Model for Analysis. London: Longman.

Edmondson, W., House, J., 1981. Let’s Talk and Talk about It: A Pedagogic Interactional Grammar of English. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

Edmondson, W.J., House, J., Kádár, D.Z., 2023. Expressions, Speech Acts and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ELAN, 2023. ELAN (MacOS Version) [Computer software]. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Available from: https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan

Eslami, Z.R., Raeisi-Vanani, A., Sarab, M.R.A., 2023. Variation patterns in interlanguage pragmatics: Apology speech act of EFL learners vs. American native speakers. Contrastive Pragmatics. 4(1), 27–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10068

Goffman, E., 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper Colophon Books.

House, J., Kádár, D.Z., 2021a. Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

House, J., Kádár, D.Z., 2021b. Altered speech act indication: A contrastive pragmatic study of English and Chinese Thank and Greet expressions. Lingua. 264, 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103162

House, J., Kádár, D.Z., 2023a. An interactional approach to speech acts for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review [Online first]. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0116

House, J., Kádár, D.Z., 2023b. Speech acts and interaction in second language pragmatics: A position paper. Language Teaching [Online first]. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444822000477

House, J., Kádár, D.Z., Liu, F., et al., 2021. Interaction, speech acts and ritual: An integrative model. Lingua. 257, 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103082

Kádár, D.Z., House, J., 2020a. Ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic approach. Pragmatics. 30(1), 142–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19018.kad

Kádár, D.Z., House, J., 2020b. Revisiting the duality of convention and ritual: A contrastive pragmatic inquiry. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 56(1), 83–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2020-0003

Pan, Y., 2022. Framing in interactive academic talk. Pragmatics. 32(1), 131–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20028.pan

Pan, Z., 2023. Examination of data collection methods for pragmatic competence assessment of EFL learners. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies. 12(2), 159–171. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.55493/5019.v12i2.4798

Pan, Z., 2024. Impoliteness in polylogal intercultural communication among Asian EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics. 21(2), 227–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-2003

Pietroiusti, G., 2022. Having a disagreement: Expression, persuasion and demand. Synthese, 200(1), 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03509-0

Searle, J.R., 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.

Shahrokhi, M., Khodadadi, B., 2023. Perception of impoliteness in disagreement speech acts among Iranian upper-intermediate EFL students: A gender perspective. International Journal of Speech Technology. 26(2), 271–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10772-023-10029-w

Shimamoto, D., 2022. How advanced-level Japanese EFL learners manage disagreements in group discussions. The Journal of Asia TEFL. 19(3), 777–796. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.3.3.777

Spencer-Oatey, H., Kádár, D.Z., 2020. Intercultural Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toluei, B., Tahririan, M.H., 2023. Resolving disagreements: A conversation analytic study on disagreements in completion sequences among EFL learners. The Language Learning Journal. 51(6), 718–733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2061580

Wang, Y.-F., Lin, M.-F., Treanor, D., et al., 2022. Disagreements in casual Taiwanese Mandarin conversations: A gender-based study. Journal of Pragmatics. 192, 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.02.007

Xia, Z., Liu, F., Kádár, D.Z., et al., 2023. Ritual small talk in Chinese. Acta Linguistica Academica [Online first]. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2023.00663

Zhu, W., Wang, J., 2022. Disagreement by Chinese speakers of English: evidence of pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences. 93, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101487

Downloads

How to Cite

Pan, Z. (2024). Academic Group Discussions as a Ritual Frame: An Interactional Approach. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(4), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v6i4.6554

Issue

Vol. 6 , Iss. 4 (October 2024)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2024 Moussa Diagne Faye, Vini Yves Bernadin Loyara, Amadou Keita, Mamadou Diop, Angelbert Chabi Biaou, Mahamadou Koita, Hamma Yacouba

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.