Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 1029–1039 | Cite as

Authority and politeness theories: conflict and alignment in mathematics group communication

  • Konstantinos Tatsis
  • David Wagner
  • Bożena Maj-Tatsis
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

In the paper we deploy two related theoretical and methodological approaches to see how they complement each other in the analysis of oral communication in mathematics group work. The first approach is an authority framework that builds on positioning theory and the second is politeness theory, with a focus on the sociological notion of face. Authority and face both describe the relationship among individuals in interaction. We analyse two episodes of students interacting in group work, one instance with teacher mediation and one without. We use these to study how students’ and teachers’ face-needs are interwoven with authority structures. We ask how politeness theory and the authority framework complement each other, and how the associated conceptual tools illuminate each other when used together. Our combined analyses underline the importance of the authority of an imagined expert for the maintenance of smooth cooperation. At the same time, while the authority framework describes the acknowledgment of choices as an open dialogical space, politeness theory describes the awareness of choices as a potential threat. Both frameworks envision an alignment as a possible outcome of interactions that seem to contain conflicting face-needs.

Keywords

Authority Politeness theory Positioning Face 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andersson, A., & Wagner, D. (2016). Language repertoires for mathematical and other discourses. Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (pp. 1166–1172). Tucson, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. L., & Howson, A. G. (1979). Language and mathematical education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 10(3), 161–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Prediger, S. (Eds.). (2014). Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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). Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin University Books.Google Scholar
  8. Harré, R. (2015). The ultimate insight: a moral dimension for social psychology. Positioning Theory Symposium, Bruges, Belgium, July 8, 2015. Video available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxmHTk7aYto. Accessed 27 Oct 2017.
  9. Harré, R., & Langenhove, L. van (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Wagner, D. (2010). Appraising lexical bundles in mathematics classroom discourse: Obligation and choice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Wagner, D., Johnson, K., Suh, H., & Figueras, H. (2015). Positioning in mathematics education: Revelations on an imported theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(2), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jablonka, E., Wagner, D., & Walshaw, M. (2012). Theories for studying social, political and cultural dimensions of mathematics education. In M. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 41–66). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tatsis, K. (2007). Investigating the influence of social and sociomathematical norms in collaborative problem solving. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Filippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1321–1330). Larnaca, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  16. Tatsis, K., & Dekker, R. (2010). Combining approaches for the analysis of collaborative Mathematics learning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(2), 18–21.Google Scholar
  17. Tatsis, K., & Maj-Tatsis, B. (2017). Authority structures in preservice teachers’ talk. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds) Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME10, February 1–5, 2017) (pp. 1380–1387). Dublin, Ireland: DCU Institute of Education and ERME.Google Scholar
  18. Tatsis, K., & Rowland, T. (2006). Vague language in Greek and English mathematical talk: A variation study in face-work. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, N. Stehliková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 257–264). Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
  19. Tatsis, K., & Wagner, D. (2018). Authority and politeness: Complementary analyses of mathematics teaching episodes. In J. Moschkovich, D. Wagner, A. Bose, J. Rodrigues & M. Schütte (Eds.), Language and communication in mathematics education: International perspectives (pp. 171–185). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thompson, P. W., & Cobb, P. (1998). On relationships between psychological and sociocultural perspectives. In S. Berenson, K. Dawkins, M. Blanton, W. Coulombe, J. Kolb, K. Norwookd & K. Stiff (Eds.), Proceedings of the PME-NA12, Vol. 1 (pp. 3–26). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  21. Van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14–31). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Re-mythologizing mathematics through attention to classroom positioning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2014). Identifying authority structures in mathematics classroom discourse—A case of a teacher's early experience in a new context. ZDM - The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 46(6), 871–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2018). A discourse-based framework for identifying authority structures in mathematics classrooms. In C. Knipping, H. Straehler-Pohl & U. Gellert (Eds.), Inside the mathematics class: sociological perspectives on participation, inclusion, and enhancement. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 9–24). Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  26. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 390–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of IoanninaIoanninaGreece
  2. 2.University of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada
  3. 3.University of RzeszówRzeszówPoland

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options