Abstract
This article investigates how students reason and argue to make sense of fictional literature. Excerpts from students’ talk are analysed using the concepts categorisation, particularisation and recontextualisation, and interpreted from a socio-cultural, dialogical perspective. The analyses show that the students’ arguments oscillate between personal experience and the novel, and between categorising and particularising perspectives. The subject relevance of talk that lies between everyday and scientific talk, and between personal and analytic readings, is revealed. The bridging of different readings, different language practices, and different learning contexts is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The class studied here, follows the syllabus R94 which puts large emphasis on classic Norwegian literature and literary history: http://www.udir.no/upload/larerplaner/Felles%20allmenne%20fag/lareplan_norsk_english.rtf (2009.02.13). For the final exam students have often been asked to analyse a text, and to place it in terms of literary history.
As I understand it, the girls are referring to Albertine’s sister, who was a prostitute.
Although not mentioned here, the students also talk about Albertine’s boyfriend and father. The boyfriend pretends to be interested in Albertine, but dumps her for a girl from a good family. Albertine’s father is a sailor; mostly drunk and violent when he is at home.
References
Andriessen, J. 2005. Arguing to learn. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, ed. R. Keith Sawyer, 443–459. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnseth, H.C., and R. Säljö. 2007. Making sense of epistemic categories. Analysing students’ use of categories of progressive inquiry in computer mediated collaborative activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23 (5): 425–439.
Bakhtin, M.M. 2004. The problem of speech genres. In Speech genres and other late essays, eds. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Billig, M. 1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bommarco, B. 2006. Texter i dialog: En studie i gymnasieelevers litteraturläsning (Texts in dialogue). Malmö: School of Education, Malmö University.
Dysthe, O. 1993. Writing and talking to learn: A theory-based, interpretive study in three classrooms in the USA and Norway. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
Elmfeldt, J. 1997. Läsningens röster. Om litteratur, genus och lärarskap (Voices of reading. On Literature, Gender and Teaching). Stockholm: Symposion.
Freedman, A., and I. Pringle. 1989. Contexts for developing argument. In Narrative and argument, ed. Richard Andrews, 73–84. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Furberg, A., and S. Ludvigsen. 2008. Students’ meaning making of socioscientific issues in computer mediated settings: Exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education 30 (13): 1775–1799.
Haworth, A. 1999. Bakhtin in the classroom: What constitutes a dialogic text? Some lessons from small group interaction. Language and Education 13 (2): 99–117.
Hjörne, E., and R. Säljö. 2004. “There is something about Julia”: Symptoms, categories, and the process of invoking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the Swedish school: A case study. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 3 (1): 1–24.
Hvistendahl, R. 2000. “Så langt ‘vår’ diktning tenner sinn i brann”: En studie av fire minoritetsspråklige elevers arbeid med norsk litteratur fra perioden 1860–1900. (A study of four students from cultural minorities working with Norwegian literature from the period 1860–1900). Oslo: Faculty of Arts, University of Oslo.
Jordan, B., and A. Henderson. 1995. Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4 (1): 39–103.
Kaspersen, P. 2004. Tekstens transformationer (Transformations of the text). Odense: University of Southern Denmark.
Linell, P. 1992. The embeddedness of decontextualization in the contexts of social practices. In The dialogical alternative, ed. Astrid H. Wold, 253–271. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Linell, P. 1998. Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ludvigsen, S., and A. Mørch. 2003. ‘Categorisation in knowledge building. Task specific argumentation in a co-located CSCL environment.’ In Designing for change in networked learning environments, eds. Wasson, B., Hoppe, U. and Ludvigsen, S., 67–76. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Mäkitalo, Å. 2002. Invisible people: Institutional reasoning and reflexivity in the production of services and ‘social facts’ in public employment agencies. Mind, Culture, and Activity 9 (3): 160–178.
Mäkitalo, Å. 2003. Accounting practices as situated knowing: Dilemmas and dynamics in institutional categorization. Discourse Studies 5 (4): 495–516.
Mäkitalo, Å. 2009. Categories as constitutive tools: Some analytical suggestions for the study of institutional practices. International Journal of Social Welfare (in press). http://www.ipd.gu.se/personal/asa.makitalo/publications/
Mäkitalo, Å., and R. Säljö. 2002. Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: Categories as situated practices. Text. Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 22 (1): 57–82.
Molloy, G. 2002. Läraren, litteraturen, eleven. En studie om läsning av skönlitteratur på högstadiet (The teacher, the literature and the student). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
Penne, S. 2006. Profesjonsfaget norsk i en endringstid. Norsk på ungdomstrinnet. Å konstruere mening, selvforståelse og identitet gjennom språk og tekster. Fagets rolle i et identitetsperspektiv, i et likhets- og ulikhetsperspektiv (Constructing meaning, understanding of self and identity through language and text). Oslo: Faculty of Education, The University of Oslo.
Rødnes, K.A., and S. Ludvigsen. 2009. Elevers meningsskaping av skjønnlitteratur—samtaler og tekst (Students’ meaning making of educational literature—talk and text). Nordisk Pedagogik 29 (2): 235–249.
Rommetveit, R. 1990. On axiomatic features of a dialogical approach to language and mind. In The dynamics of dialogue, ed. Ivana Markovà, and Klaus Foppa, 83–104. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Säljö, R., E. Riesbeck, and J. Wyndhamn. 2001. Samtal, samarbete och samsyn: En studie av koordination av perspektiv i klassrumskommunikation (Dialogue, co-operation and perspectival co-ordination). In Dialog, samspel og læring (Dialogue, interaction and learning), ed. Olga Dysthe, 219–240. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Smidt, J. 1988. Seks lesere på skolen—hva de søkte og hva de fant (Six readers in school—what they sought and what they found). Trondheim: Faculty of Arts, The University of Trondheim.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. 1991. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Yonge, C., and A. Stables. 1998. ‘I am It the clown’: Problematising the distinction between ‘off task’ and ‘on task’ classroom talk. Language and Education 12 (1): 55–70.
Acknowledgments
This project is financed by the Department of Teacher Education and School Development at the University of Oslo. I especially want to thank my supervisors Frøydis Hertzberg and Sten Ludvigsen for guidance and comments. Thanks also to Andreas Lund, David Middleton and the participants of the PhD programme “Learning, Communication and ICT” at the Faculty of Education, for constructive comments. I am particularly grateful to the teacher and the students who let me into their classroom and trusted me to use their material.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rødnes, K.A. Making Connections: Categorisations and Particularisations in Students’ Literary Argument. Argumentation 23, 531–546 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9166-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9166-7