Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 43–63 | Cite as

Appraising lexical bundles in mathematics classroom discourse: obligation and choice

  • Beth Herbel-Eisenmann
  • David Wagner
Article

Abstract

Working from a large corpus of transcripts from secondary mathematics classrooms, we identify patterns of speech that encode interpersonal positioning. We extend our analysis from a previous article (Herbel-Eisenmann, Wagner & Cortes, Educ Stud Math, 2010, in press), in which we introduced a concept from corpus linguistics—a “lexical bundle,” which has been defined as a group of three or more words that frequently recur together, in a single group, in a particular register. In that article we noted the prevalence of pervasive stance bundles unique to the mathematics classroom register. Because stance bundles communicate personal feelings, attitudes and values, we noted the importance of positioning in mathematics classrooms. In this article, we interpret the stance bundles as they relate to authority in mathematics classrooms by organizing them into groups that relate to the ways in which students are assumed to have choice in the discourse and to have obligations. Gradations of obligation and choice are important because they can help mathematics educators think about the ways in which they might open up or close down discourse in the classroom. We argue that it is important for university researchers, classroom teachers, and even mathematics students to engage in conversations about issues of authority, as they relate to developing mathematical understanding in their classroom discourse.

Keywords

Appraisal linguistics Authority Collocation Concordance Corpus linguistics Critical discourse analysis Lexical bundle Mathematics education Positioning Socio-cultural Stance bundle Systemic functional linguistics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the teacher-researchers for allowing us to work in their classrooms and for the time and feedback they offer us. We would also like to thank David Pimm, Sam Otten, Jeffrey Shih, three anonymous reviewers, and Candia Morgan for feedback on an earlier draft of this article. We recognize the contributions of Michelle Cirillo, Sam Otten, Lorraine Males, and Rachel Goeb for their assistance in the data collection and coding processes. The research reported in this article was supported with funding from the National Science Foundation ([NSF], Grant No. 0347906). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

References

  1. Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. The Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Authority and authority relations in mathematics education: A view from an 8th grade classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barlow, M. (2002). MonoConcPro (version 2.0): Computer software. Houston: Athelstan.Google Scholar
  5. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Borland Delphi Professional. (1998). Imprise Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, S., & Walter, M. (1990). The art of problem posing (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Carter, B., & Sealey, A. (2000). Language, structure, and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chazan, D., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 2–10.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 32–51). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Fassnacht, C., & Woods, D. (2005). Transana v2.0x. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.Google Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant, M., & McGraw, R. (2006). Collaborating to investigate and improve classroom mathematics discourse. In L. Van Zoest (Ed.), Teachers engaged in research: Inquiry into mathematics classrooms, grades 9-12 (pp. 231–251). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Graves, B., & Zack, V. (1997). Collaborative mathematical reasoning in an inquiry classroom. In E. Pehkonnen (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-first Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 17–24). Lahti, Finland.Google Scholar
  18. Halliday, M. (1978). Sociolinguistic aspects of mathematics education. In Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Negotiation of the “presence of the text”: How might teachers’ language choices influence the positioning of the textbook? In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 134–151). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Cirillo, M. (Eds.). (2009). Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher research in mathematics classrooms. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  22. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Wagner, D., & Cortes, V. (2010). Lexical bundle analysis in mathematics classroom discourse: The significance of stance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Houssart, J. (2001). Rival classroom discourses and inquiry mathematics: 'The whisperers'. For the Learning of Mathematics, 21(3), 2–8.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, C. (2006). Language for learning mathematics: Assessment for learning in practice. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Appraisal: Negotiating attitudes. In Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (pp. 22-65). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  30. Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moschkovich, J. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.Google Scholar
  32. O'Connor, M. C., Godfrey, L., & Moses, R. P. (1998). The missing data point: Negotiating purposes in classroom mathematics and science. In J. G. Greeno (Ed.), Thinking practice in mathematics and science (pp. 89–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Oyler, C. (1996). Making room for students: Sharing teacher authority in room 104. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory, ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  36. Powell, A. (2004). The diversity backlash and the mathematical agency of students of color. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-eighth conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 37–54). Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  37. Rotman, B. (1988). Towards a semiotics of mathematics. Semiotica, 72(1/2), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowland, T. (1992). Pointing with pronouns. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(2), 44–48.Google Scholar
  39. Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Metacognitive and epistemological issues in mathematical understanding. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 245–361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Stubbs, M. (1996). Towards a modal grammar of English: A matter of prolonged fieldwork. In Text and corpus analysis (pp. 196-229). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. Wagner, D. (2007). Students' critical awareness of voice and agency in mathematics classroom discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Re-mythologizing mathematics through attention to classroom positioning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wetherell, M. (2003). Paranoia, ambivalence, and discursive practices: Concepts of position and positioning in psychoanalysis and discursive psychology. In R. Harré & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts (pp. 99–120). London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  47. White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284.Google Scholar
  48. Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Mathematics, social class, and linguistic capital: An analysis of mathematics classroom interactions. In B. Atweh, H. J. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education (pp. 201–215). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations