Contrasting Identities

This article was downloaded by: [187.181.205.196]On: 17 March 2015, At: 17:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Classroom DiscoursePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20

Contrasting identities: a languageteachers practice in an English forSpecific Purposes classroomYusuke Okadaaa Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University,Toyonaka, JapanPublished online: 29 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Yusuke Okada (2015) Contrasting identities: a language teacherspractice in an English for Specific Purposes classroom, Classroom Discourse, 6:1, 73-87, DOI:10.1080/19463014.2014.961092

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.961092

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/19463014.2014.961092&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-09-29http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19463014.2014.961092http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.961092

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Contrasting identities: a language teachers practice in an Englishfor Specific Purposes classroom

Yusuke Okada*

Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Japan

For language teachers who are concerned about referring to their own and stu-dents identities other than in the roles of teacher and student in the class-room, this conversation analytic study aims to give insights into the use ofidentity. Detailed analysis of the data of English for a Specific Purpose (ESP)classrooms indicates that contrasting the teachers and students non-default situ-ated identities, such as senpai (senior in English) with kohai (junior in Eng-lish) and sociologist with scientist, is a way for the language teacher to performthe role of teacher effectively in ESP classrooms: the practice constructs anepistemic gradient among the teacher and the students and makes some actionsaccountable by the participants, who is ascribed a superior epistemic status withan identity. The study concludes with a discussion of the contribution the use ofidentity can make to ESP/LSP (language for specific purposes) and suggestionsfor ESP/LSP course development.

Keywords: identity; epistemics; English for specific purposes; conversationanalysis; teacher training

Introduction

In language classrooms, where a target language is taught, learned and assessed, theidentities of teacher and student are relevant to all the participants, and classroominteraction is normatively managed through the actions affiliated with such identi-ties. The most notable example is the initiation-response-feedback/evaluation (IRF/E) pattern, which consists of a sequence of role-specific actions, namely the tea-chers initiation of an action, the students response to the action and the teachersfeedback or evaluation (Mehan 1979; Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). However, suchsituation-relevant roles are not the only features of the participants identities inlanguage classrooms. For example, the teacher might be identified as old man,Canadian or linguist; a student might be categorised as a boy, Japanese or psycholo-gist. The question arises as to whether such non-role specific identities can play anypart in the language classroom.

Employing a conversation analysis (CA) framework, Richards (2006) analysedthe talk of English as a second language (ESL) classrooms in order to determinewhether it is possible to produce an authentic conversation in a language class-room, where turn-taking is managed by identities other than those of teacher andstudents. Such a situation would contrast with the traditional teacher-led lesson inwhich turn-taking is governed by the roles of teacher and students. He found that

*Email: [email protected]

2014 Taylor & Francis

Classroom Discourse, 2015Vol. 6, No. 1, 7387, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.961092

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.961092

the teacher and students could indeed move out of their situated roles, which wereassociated with the language classroom, by orientating toward other features of theiridentities, and that authentic conversations were possible in such a classroom con-text. One of Richards examples involved a student and teacher orienting to theiridentities as a member of a Taiwanese war model-making group and a westerner,respectively, through displaying their knowledge on the topic of the swastika andhaving an authentic conversation in the language classroom. In this interaction, thestudent explained to the teacher and other students what a military model-maker is,and what he understood the swastika to mean. Richards findings suggested that thenon-default identities of both teacher and students can have pedagogical value inlanguage classrooms.

However, while the value of orienting toward non-default teacher and studentidentities is recognised as an interactional and educational resource for languageclassroom discourse, language teachers remain concerned about orienting to identi-ties other than the role of teacher (e.g. Braine 1999; Clarke 2008; Nagatomo 2012;Varghese et al. 2005). Teachers may be concerned that such an identity switch maylead to a loss of control over the classroom, or that disclosure of their own personalbeliefs or values associated with an identity may be an obstacle to teaching(Richards 2006, 7273). At the same time, practitioners in the field of language forspecific purposes (LSP) express concern with regard to the roles teachers shouldplay and what identities they should exhibit in the LSP classroom. This concernarises as the nature of the LSP classroom differs from that in an ordinary languagelearning classroom, in that the teacher may be less knowledgeable than the studentson the specific subject material (see Belcher 2009 for a review). It follows that itwould be informative to document whether and how teachers can use participantsdifferent identities for pedagogical purposes while remaining in the role of teacherin the language/LSP classroom. A need for research in this area has been identifiedby language educationists (Varghese et al. 2005, 39), as well as practitioners of LSPcourses and programmes.

The present study aims to provide insight into the potential value of incorporat-ing identities other than the situated role-specific identities of teachers and studentsby documenting the practice in interactional teaching activities in an actual Englishfor Specific Purposes (ESP) classroom. The following section offers an illustrationof the CA approach to identity on which this study is theoretically and methodologi-cally based. Following this, the data to be analysed are described. The analysis ofthe data is then set out, showing how the teacher used his own and his studentsidentities in an ESP classroom. The paper concludes with a discussion of: (1) howparticipants identities can be used in the language classroom; (2) what contributionsuch use of identity can make to the language classroom; and (3) suggestions forESP/LSP course development.

A CA approach: identity as a cultural and interactional phenomenon

From the CA perspective, any identifications or categorisations that may be appliedto a participant are regarded as resources for interpreting and (re)producing the par-ticipants identity. However, any such orientation toward ones identity must be visi-ble to and reportable by co-participants in the relevant interaction. Zimmermans(1998) idea of identity-as-context, later employed by Richards (2006), is a means

74 Y. Okada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

of documenting the details of a participants orientation toward his/her own andothers identities in an interaction. Zimmerman (1998) proposes three types of iden-tity. The first is discourse identity, which emerges in the action at each interac-tional turn (e.g. current speaker, listener, questioner, answerer). The second issituated identity, which reflects a situation-specific role (e.g. teacher or student).The third is transportable identity, which is reflected by physical and cultural fea-tures visible or audible to others, and which accompanies the person across contexts(e.g. Japanese, Canadian, old man, young girl, disabled). The term culture hererefers to a recoverable, reproducible stock of knowledge and skills available indaily, routine, mundane ways of talking and acting (Lee 1991, 225). It should benoted that discourse and situated identities, as well as transportable identities, areworked up (Antaki and Widdicombe 1998, 14) by participants cultural knowl-edge. Thus, a participants display of cultural understanding of what actions areappropriate in the language classroom (e.g. correcting a syntactic error in a class-mates speech; answering a question on a grammatical point) reveals how s/he per-forms his/her situated roles as teacher and student. While it can be said that thesituated identities of teacher and student, as well as a set of discourse identities asso-ciated with these roles, are normatively exercised (Richards 2006, 60), every identityis constructed through participants enactment of cultural reasoning, and no fixedidentity is established prior to an interaction.

Participants cultural reasoning around identity is clarified by another CA con-cept, namely the membership categorisation device (MCD; Sacks 1972a, 1972b,1992). An MCD comprises a collection of identities (i.e. a set of identities that gotogether) and some rules for their application. One such rule of application is the so-called economy rule (Sacks 1992 vol. I, 246) which suggests that participantsunderstand an identity in terms of its relationship to other identities in the collection.For example, if a participant is referred to in a conversation as a teacher, this leadsthe participants in the conversation to invoke the collection School, which includesstudent as another participant. From that point, the teachers future, current, and pastactions, and other predicates1 associated with the identity teacher, are understoodand expected in relation to the student (and other identities co-categorised in thecollection School). Considering the same example from a different angle, if aparticipant comes to the front of the classroom and starts to speak to the rest of theparticipants, the former participant is understood to be a teacher and the latter partic-ipants are understood to be students. These assumptions are made according to theso-called viewers maxim (Sacks 1992 vol. I, 259), which states that a (co-)partici-pants performance of predicates associated with a particular identity suggests theparticipant is implementing one identity from a collection.

Combining these two CA notions related to identity, namely identity-in-contextand MCD, it appears that discourse identity is reflected by predicates associated witha particular category within a collection. A particular category may be either a situ-ated identity or a transportable identity.2 Whereas a participants execution of a dis-course identity constitutes his/her situated or transportable identity, what aparticipant is supposed to do is predicted by the way s/he is understood by the otherparticipants in the interaction. Such cultural reasoning around identity-in-context andMCD proffers two procedures for a participant in a conversational interaction towork up or make relevant his/her own situated and transportable identity, as well asthose of other participants. The first is a (co-)participants execution of identity

Classroom Discourse 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

predicates; the second is a (co-)participants direct reference to an identity, such asYoure Japanese or Im a native speaker of English.

The indirect implementation of a participants identity through his/herperformance of an identity-predicate suggests that a participants identity may beunderstood through the predicate(s) demonstrated. Mori (2003) documented how aninter-cultural communication interaction between Japanese students and Americanstudents was constructed in a language classroom through their asking each otherparticular culture-related questions, and code-switching according to the hearers.

Note that the direct identification of a participants identity not only instructsother participants how to understand the identified participants conduct in terms ofthe predicates associated with the identity; it also validates expectations regardinghow the participant is supposed to behave towards other participants. Hauser (2011)demonstrated that, in conversational interaction, participants use such direct identifi-cation to proffer or even to negotiate implications derived from the identity. Con-sider a statement made by a Japanese student in a university English classroom:Fukushima people dont think they speak dialect. They think they speak standardJapanese (Hauser 2011, 192). This reflects a direct identification of certain individu-als originating from Fukushima, a north-eastern part of Japan, according to one par-ticular transportable identity. The direct identification of Fukushima people instructsthe other participants on how to understand the predicate (i.e. being unaware ofspeaking a dialect) of individuals from Fukushima in terms of this transportableidentity. The point of Hausers (2011) study is that direct identification is a way togeneralise a single individual into a category of people in terms of one or moreshared features. On this basis, participants can negotiate the level of generality of apersons identity to suggest a different implication. For example, in the above caseof Fukushima people, another participant offered a further identification later in theconversation, namely Many people who speak dialect think so (Hauser 2011, 192).This identification many people who speak dialect refreshes the co-participantsunderstanding they move from an assertion that only Fukushima people whospeak a dialect think they speak standard Japanese to an assertion that many peoplewho speak a dialect, including those from Fukushima, think they speak standardJapanese.

As is clear from the discussion above, CA treats a participants identity as pri-marily an interactional phenomenon which is made relevant by participants bothdirectly and indirectly through their cultural reasoning. Furthermore, participantsillustrate their understanding of (co-)participants orientation to relevant features oftheir identity through their action at a subsequent turn. This visibility and availabilityof each participants own understanding warrant further analysis (see Bilmes 1985;Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). CA is an emic analysis, achieved not byinterviewing participants but by investigating participant orientations, relevancies,and intersubjectivity, [which] are not treated as states of mind that somehow lurkbehind the interaction, but instead as local and sequential accomplishments that mustbe grounded in empirically observable conversational conduct (Markee and Kasper2004, 495). Detailed transcription is used as a way to make the participants orienta-tion toward features of the interaction visible and available to both the researcherand his/her readers. Such detailed transcription allows the reader to follow theanalysis of data segments, promoting the reliability and validity of the analysis(Seedhouse 2005). In the analyses presented below of a teachers use of identitiesother than teacher and student in ESP classrooms, the focus is on how participants

76 Y. Okada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

themselves treat their own and co-participants identities in conversational interac-tion. The guiding questions for the analysis are:

(1) Does the teacher employ non-role-specific identities for himself and his stu-dents for pedagogical purposes while maintaining the roles of teacher andstudents?

(2) If so, how is this done successfully?

The data

The data analysed in this study come from a corpus of 720 minutes of video-recorded classroom interaction of an ESP course at a Japanese university. The coursewas an elective for junior and senior students in a chemistry department. Threejunior students registered for the course, and one senior student voluntarily partici-pated. The course was taught by means of team-teaching by a Japanese English lan-guage teacher and a scientist. The English teacher was expected to teach thestudents how to use English as scientists, while the scientist taught the course con-tent. The students were aware of the roles each teacher was supposed to fulfil. Intwo-thirds of the class sessions, the English language teacher taught the studentsmainly through discussions on scientific topics chosen by the students from a varietyof sources. The remaining one-third of the sessions were taught by both the Englishteacher and the scientist, and each session included presentations by the students onscientific topics, as well as the teachers feedback to the students. The Englishteacher had majored in sociology.

Initial investigation of the corpus revealed six cases in which the English teacherexplicitly invoked identities for himself and the students other than teacher and stu-dent. As is clear from the discussion above, several possible identifications of a per-son exist at the same time. Participants in an interaction may choose a particularidentification to communicate a particular implication of a person(s). The focus ofthe present analysis is on: (1) the reason(s) why a particular identification isemployed; (2) how such an identification is treated by co-participant(s); and (3) whatpedagogical goal is achieved by the identification. Two excerpts from the data,selected as being perspicuous cases (Garfinkel 2002), are analysed below. Theexcerpts were transcribed in detail according to standard CA conventions (seeAppendix), making participants displays of their understanding clear to both theresearcher and the reader. Pseudonyms are used for all participants in thesesegments.

Analysis

In the segment below, three junior students (Murata, Ikeda and Beppu), one seniorstudent (Fujino) and the English teacher (Asano) are engaged in a classroom discus-sion. Murata has selected an article and prepared discussion questions about theapplicability of a new method of cross-coupling reaction3 shown in the article. Hesummarises the article he selected, and poses some questions to the class. The seg-ment begins with Asano (A) asking Murata (M) a question. The participants areseated as in Figure 1.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

Segment 1

To the question asked by Asano in lines 499 and 501, Murata answers positively bynodding, but soon adds the uncertainty marker maybe in line 503. While Fujino

Figure 1. The seating chart for Segment 1.

78 Y. Okada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

(F) acknowledges Muratas response in line 504, Asano gives no uptake, remainingsilent for 0.5 seconds in line 505. With his subsequent actions (i.e. h::m in line506, a further 2.0-second long silence in line 507 and the repetition of maybe inline 508), Asano seems to indicate his dissatisfaction with the ambiguity expressedby Murata, who is supposed to be knowledgeable on the issue. Murata then giveshis own interpretation, starting his turn in lines 511512 with but, which indicateshe is negating Asanos expectation that he should be knowledgeable about the cross-coupling method. Murata explains that understanding all the issues regarding themethod is beyond his capability. Thus, his turn presents an excuse for his ambiguity.Asano then acknowledges Muratas position in the subsequent turn (hm in line513). Overlapping Asanos hm, in line 514 Murata further comments on his posi-tion, starting with so, which seems to suggest so I dont know whether or not themethod is easy to use. However, before Murata finishes his turn, in lines 515516Asano interrupts with an utterance reflecting a direct identification of Fujino assenpai (senior), which is a situated identity other than student.4

Note that Asano does not merely ascribe the situated identity of senpai to Fujino.He contrasts Fujinos identity with that of Murata. Considering Muratas declarationthat he is not knowledgeable about all the issues regarding the new cross-couplingmethod, Asano points to Fujino and poses an epistemic stance (Heritage 2012),namely that she as a senpai understands the method, while attaching the epistemicmitigation marker maybe. The Japanese word senpai refers to a person who issenior to the other members of a group, who are referred to as kohai (junior).However, the distinction is not simply a matter of age, but rather entails the idea thata senpai is more knowledgeable than a kohai. Fujino is therefore categorised as amore knowledgeable participant than Murata. This contrast in terms of their situatedidentities other than students exerts a rhetorical force on Fujino. She is required toexpress whether she affiliates or disaffiliates with the teachers stance that she(Fujino) has epistemic primacy (Stivers, Mondada, and Steensig 2011) derived fromthe identity. If she affiliates with the identity, she should talk about her understand-ing of the cross-coupling method. If she disaffiliates with the identity, she shouldexplain the reason(s) why she rejects the epistemic status (Heritage 2012) imposedon her by Asanos use of senpai.

In line 517, Fujino takes the latter position. By waving her hand horizontally infront of her face, she denies that she knows much about the method. However, Asanogives no uptake of Fujinos denial and Murata keeps his eyes on Fujino. These actionsindicate that they are still waiting for Fujinos response. Fujino then takes another turnto explain her position (lines 519522). This turn contains many intra-turn pauses,reflecting Fujinos difficulty in producing the appropriate utterances. She explains thatshe knows there are many ways of synthesising, but she does not know much aboutcross-coupling methods. In this account, she individualises her lack of knowledge withI think (line 519) and I dont know (line 521). She does not directly reject the iden-tity of senpai, but claims that she as an individual person does not have thoroughknowledge on the matter. She does show that she has some knowledge, by saying thereare many ways of synthesising that could be used by someone in the field. However,she avoids being asked further questions by her claim to not know very much, whichinvalidates the other participants expectation of her as a particular category of a person(i.e. an ideal senpai) who can inform the ongoing discussion. After a short silence inline 523, Murata shows sympathy with Fujino by saying me too. Asano acknowl-edges Fujinos account in line 525 and then assigns the next speaker in line 527.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

Segment 1 illustrates how a teacher might accomplish a task by contrasting fea-tures of students identities. The classroom activity is a discussion, and one of theteachers aims is to facilitate students engagement. With his questions, Asano dis-tributes turns and keeps the topical discussion going. In Segment 1, Asanos iden-tity-bound predicate is to manage the interaction. It is in this capacity that he solicitsa response from Fujino by invoking her identity as senpai. It would be possible forthe teacher to select a different identification for Fujino, e.g. maybe she under-stands in lines 515516. However, such an identification may not have obtained heraccount when she disaffiliated with the epistemic status, as there is no moral discrep-ancy if an individual person is not knowledgeable about a matter; no individual isexpected to know everything. However, senpai and kohai is a type of MCD, a stan-dard relational pair that constitutes a locus for a set of rights and obligations con-cerning the activity of giving help (Sacks 1972a, 37). Thus, there is a culturalexpectation that a senpai should be more knowledgeable than a kohai, and in Japa-nese culture a senpai is obliged to help a kohai. When a senpai fails to be moreknowledgeable than a kohai, s/he becomes accountable for his/her lack of knowl-edge. After Fujino accounts for her lack of knowledge, Asano does not disaffiliatewith her position, but moves the discussion along by nominating another student.Their actions reflexively and interactionally (re)produce their cultural knowledge onthe relevant identities. Contrasting a feature of Fujinos identity with one of Mura-tas, Asano makes relevant Fujinos contribution to the ongoing activity, regardlessof whether she affiliates or disaffiliates with the proposed epistemic gradient(Heritage 2012) between herself and Murata, in which she is more knowledgeablethan Murata in the field of science.

The second segment will further illustrate how identities other than teacher andstudent can be useful in the ESP classroom context. The participants are the same asin the first segment, but this second interaction occurred in a different session, inwhich Beppu (B) had prepared an article and discussion questions. The segmentbegins with Beppu asking a discussion question to the whole class. The participantswere seated as in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The seating chart for Segment 2.

80 Y. Okada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

Segment 2

No one replies to Beppus question, and he attempts to solicit a next speaker bylooking at Ikeda (I) and the teacher Asano in line 135. After a 3.0-second silencein line 136, Beppu again glances at Ikeda, and then looks at Asano for 3.8 sec-onds at line 139. Asano notices Beppus gaze and asks for clarification as towhether Beppu is asking the question of him in line 140, pointing to him. Beppuconfirms this by nodding and then laughs.5Asano then answers Beppus questionwith a reason in lines 145146 he does not know because he is a sociologist.By referring to himself as a sociologist, Asano retroactively justifies his lack ofknowledge of the plants and implies that Beppus asking of such a question ofAsano is inappropriate. In other words, the direct identification of sociologistaccounts for Asanos legitimate epistemic inferiority, thereby defending Asanossituated identity as teacher; Asano is not expected to have specialised knowledgein the field of science.

On seeing Beppus acknowledgement, Asano takes another turn to refer to thestudents as scientists (lines 148149), pointing one by one to Ikeda, Beppu, Murataand Fujino. This identification contrasts sharply with Asanos sociologist and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

refreshes the participants relationships in terms of the epistemic responsibilitiesderived from their identities: scientists are supposed to have epistemic primacy oversociologists in the domain of science. Beppu shows an understanding of Asanosutterance in the next turn with hm in line 150. Asanos lengthy silence in lines151154 seems to indicate that he is awaiting a response from one of the scientiststo Beppus question, but no scientist offers one. With the words so you might havecome across such plants in line 155, Asano explicitly makes relevant the studentsepistemic status concerning a scientific topic, while mitigating their status by the useof the epistemic mitigation marker might, thereby leaving room for the students todeclare their lapse of knowledge on the particular scientific topic. Furthermore, thephrase coming across X characterises X as something one encounters accidentally,rather than seeking it out purposefully. This formulation also serves to reduce thestudents obligation to know. Reflexively, it constructs Asano as someone who isnot in a position to have any firm assumption about what these student scientistsshould know. Fujino turns to Asano in the middle of this utterance in line 156, andafter a 0.4-second pause at line 157 she confesses that even she did not know thatthe sunflower absorbs radioactive materials. In lines 158160 she apologises for herlack of knowledge.6 The act of apologising displays Fujinos understanding of herepistemic responsibility as a scientist. A feature of her identity as scientist is therebydiscursively co-constructed.

In the turn immediately following Fujinos utterance in line 161, Beppu offersno reaction but looks at Asano and Fujino. This lack of feedback might be dueto the low volume of the last part of Fujinos utterance (sorry I dont knowany) Beppu may not have heard it. Beppus staring at Asano and Fujino leadsto Asanos repair of Fujinos response for Beppu (so she doesnt know in line162) and Beppu recognises Fujinos response by nodding in the next turn in line163. However, Beppu does not offer any further uptake, remaining silent for1.4 seconds (line 164). Asano then further clarifies Fujinos answer by adding anobject noun phrase (any of such plants in line 165), and Beppu firmly acknowl-edges Asanos clarification by nodding twice (line 166). Asano then moves on toa further action, allocating a turn to Ikeda by pointing to him in line 167. In line168, Ikeda takes a turn and apologises for his lack of knowledge. As in the caseof Fujino above, Ikedas apology reflects his orientation to his offending thecultural expectation derived from his identity as scientist. Beppu acknowledgesIkedas response in the next turn (line 169). Beppus audible inhalation in thisturn seems to indicate his orientation to holding a turn, and no one attempts tonominate him- or herself as the next speaker. However, after Beppus secondinhalation and a 1.9-second silence, Asano takes a turn and nominates Murata asa next speaker (line 170).

In this second segment, the teacher contrasted the participants situated identitiesother than teacher and student by formulating himself as a sociologist and the stu-dents as scientists. That formulation achieved the pedagogical task of facilitating astudents participation in an ongoing discussion activity. Although the students con-tributions to the discussion were unhelpful in terms of content, as they were unableto provide the name of a plant that absorbs radioactive materials, they could at leastverbalise their answers to a discussion question as scientists. The teacher may beregarded as somewhat inept, since he himself did not proffer any plant name, dodg-ing epistemic responsibility by identifying himself as a sociologist while demandinga response from the students. However, this practice is considered a legitimate way

82 Y. Okada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

of teaching in an ESP course. One of the aims of such a course is to socialise stu-dents as members of a specific community. Thus, demanding that students take onthe epistemic responsibility of the scientist as opposed to the sociologist should berecognised as an effective act of teaching. Most importantly, the students themselvesaccepted the teachers identity as a sociologist, and acted as scientists in a sciencediscussion. In other words, through performing the situated identity of scientist, eachis being socialised as a scientist, irrespective of his/her position on the noviceexpertcontinuum of scientist.

Discussion and conclusions

The teacher in the two segments analysed here apparently did not hesitate to employthe students and his own identities other than teacher and students. This contrastssharply with teachers concerns about such use of identity reported in previous stud-ies. The difference may well stem from differences in the activities expected of lan-guage teachers in ESP and other ESL classrooms. In the ordinary languageclassroom, the language teacher is knowledgeable about the content of the lesson,i.e. the target language. In such a context, the teacher can provide the requiredknowledge and check whether or not the students have gained it by asking a knownanswer question or display question (see Lee 2006; Macbeth 2003). Such a prac-tice creates an IRE/F three-turn sequence. However, the language teacher in an ESPclassroom is not necessarily knowledgeable about the content of the lesson, as maybe the case when the specific knowledge domain is science. The lack of contentknowledge typical of language teachers in such contexts is reflected by the prefaceto the teachers question in line 493494 of segment 1 above: I have a question isa typical introduction to a genuine question asked by a less knowledgeable partici-pant of a more knowledgeable participant. Furthermore, the teacher acknowledgedthe students responses with tokens (variants of hm, mm hm) but did not evaluatetheir responses or provide feedback, such as answering the question in order to con-vey new information to the students. These actions on the part of the language tea-cher show how the actions of language teachers in an ESP classroom differ fromthose of language teachers in an ordinary or language-focused classroom. In thisESP classroom, the language teacher is not aiming to teach the subject of science;he is teaching the students how to use the target language as scientists. The teacherdoes this by maintaining the interaction, distributing turns and keeping the discus-sion going. The present data show that the teachers and students identities otherthan teacher and student were a useful resource for the teacher to perform the predi-cates associated with his role of teacher in this ESP classroom.

The detailed analysis of the two interactional segments from an ESP classroomrevealed that the English teacher achieved certain teaching goals by contrasting hisown and students identities. This practice enabled the teacher to facilitate thestudents engagement in a discussion activity and the process of socialising them asscientists. Both segments were organised by the teacher performing his role as aninteractional pivot (Hauser 2003). Contrary to concerns among language teachersabout orientation toward identities, the teacher did not lose control of the classroomor bring about unpleasant results by invoking identities other than the roles of tea-cher and student. Rather, the teacher used such identities effectively in doing hisjob. Such utilisation of students as a teaching resource is recommended by ESPpractitioners (Benesch 2001), and the present study shows how students expertise


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

can be incorporated in ESP teaching. The practice may be considered a part of theteachers classroom interactional competence (Walsh 2006).

A participants situated identity or role and its predicates are determined in rela-tion to other participants situated identities in a given situation. What a senpai issupposed to do in a situation is determined by how other participants are identifiedwithin the interaction. If other members are constructed as kohai, the member identi-fied as senpai is expected to have and exhibit more expertise on the subject area.When one participant is referred to as a sociologist and the others as scientists in aconversation on a science domain, the scientists are supposed to be more knowl-edgeable than the sociologist. Contrasting such situated identities enables the ESPteacher to establish an epistemic gradient where epistemic statuses of the participantsare positioned according to their identities. Furthermore, this obligates the moreknowledgeable party to contribute to the ongoing topic. It is possible for the moreknowledgeable participant to deny this obligation, but such a norm-breaching actionrequires the participant to account for his/her refusal, as was illustrated in Segment1. By contrasting a feature of a participants situated identity with a teachers orother students identity, the teacher can impose an obligation on the identity-ascribedstudent to account for the proposed action (such as answering a question), irrespec-tive of whether or not s/he affiliates or disaffiliates with the identity and its predi-cates. Sert and Walsh (2013, 561) suggest that managing turn distribution inlanguage classrooms is a skill [of the language teacher], which should beexplored further on its own right. The present study showed that one way to man-age turn distribution in language classrooms is to contrast identities of participantsto make relevant the participants epistemic statuses.

Long (2005) proposed that all language courses should be developed with spe-cific purposes, rather than for a general purpose in a one-size-fits-all approach(19). However, one of the problems in developing LSP courses is the role the lan-guage teacher should or can play in the classroom. The present study indicates thatthe language teacher can facilitate and support students identity-formation and soci-alisation process by exploiting the students knowledge, despite lacking expertise onthe course content. At the same time, the findings suggest that, if there is a memberwho is supposed to have more expertise on the subject matter, like the senpai in thisdata, it is helpful for LSP classrooms to develop the contents of the lesson throughthe interaction. Therefore, an LSP course should be taught not solely by a languageteacher, but rather by a team consisting of a language teacher and a participant whois more knowledgeable in the subject area than the students are, such as a specialistor a senior student. Such a course will provide a more productive and learning-richenvironment for the students.

The question as to whether or not the practice of contrasting situated identitiesother than teacher and student can be employed without bringing any unwelcomeresults is beyond the scope of this study. To answer such a question, moreknowledge is needed on teachers use of identity in a variety of languageclassrooms. The importance of the present study lies in its detailed description ofactual classroom interactions. Further studies should examine whether teachers useof non-default situated identities, as well as transportable identities, is useful forperforming teaching tasks in both ordinary language classrooms and subject-specificlanguage classrooms.

84 Y. Okada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

Notes1. These other predicates include rights, entitlements, obligations, knowledge, attributes,

and competences (Hester and Eglin 1997, 5).2. In some situations, the situated identity and the transportable identity of a participant can

be one single category. For example, if a Japanese person is introduced as a representa-tive of Japan at an international conference, Japanese is regarded as both the personstransportable identity and situated identity.

3. A cross-coupling reaction in organic chemistry involves synthesising reactions of twodifferent organics with the aid of a catalyst.

4. In that senpai is not a visible or audible feature of Fujino, it is not her transportable iden-tity. Rather, it is a situated identity that she is supposed to perform within the context ofthe university or the department in which the class is offered.

5. Beppus laughter occurs after his confirmation, by nodding, that he is asking Asano toreply to his question about the plant absorbing radioactive materials. It may be that hislaughter is triggered by an interactional problem caused by Asano, specifically byAsanos (re)action to being asked a question by Beppu. Asano is the teacher but hisrequest for confirmation as to whether Beppu is asking him the question is inconsistentwith his situated identity teacher. Thus, Asanos categorical contradiction may be thecause of Beppus laughter. Ikedas and Fujinos laughter in lines 143 and 144 occursalmost simultaneously with Beppus, suggesting that they also share the understanding ofthe problem caused by Asanos (re)action. However, without concrete interactional evi-dence, it is impossible to determine whether the laughter is due to the problem, or simplydue to embarrassment.

6. It may be that, since Asano pointed to Fujino last, Fujino interprets this as a turnallocation and takes the turn. On the other hand, it may be that Fujino is performing heridentity as senpai, fulfilling the associated epistemic obligation by providing the kohaiparticipants with an answer.

ReferencesAntaki, C., and S. Widdicombe. 1998. Identity as an Achievement and as a Tool. In Identi-

ties in Talk, edited by C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe, 114. London: Sage.Belcher, D. 2009. What ESP Is and Can Be: An Introduction. In English for Specific

Purposes in Theory and Practice, edited by D. Belcher, 120. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.

Benesch, S. 2001. Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory, Politics, and Practice.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bilmes, J. 1985. Why That Now? Two Kinds of Conversational Meaning. DiscourseProcesses 8: 319355.

Braine, G. 1999. Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clarke, M. 2008. Language Teacher Identities: Co-constructing Discourse and Community.Clevedon Hall: Multilingual Matters.

Garfinkel, H. 2002. Ethnomethodologys Program: Working Out Durkheims Aphorism.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hauser, E. 2003. Corrective Recasts and Other-correction of Language Form in Interactionamong Native and Nonnative Speakers of English. PhD diss., University of Hawaii atManoa.

Hauser, E. 2011. Generalization: A Practice of Situated Categorization in Talk. HumanStudies 3: 183198.

Heritage, J. 2012. Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.Research in Language and Social Interaction 45: 129.

Hester, S., and P. Eglin. 1997. Membership Categorization Analysis: An Introduction. InCulture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, edited by S. Hesterand P. Eglin, 123. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

Lee, J. 1991. Language and Culture: The Linguistic Analysis of Culture. In Ethnomethod-ology and the Human Sciences, edited by G. Button, 196226. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lee, Y.-A. 2006. Respecifying Display Questions: Interactional Resources for LanguageTeaching. TESOL Quarterly 40: 691713.

Long, M. H. 2005. Methodological Issues in Learner Needs Analysis. In Second LanguageNeeds Analysis, edited by M. H. Long, 1976. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Markee, N., and G. Kasper. 2004. Classroom Talks: An Introduction. The ModernLanguage Journal 88: 491500.

Macbeth, D. 2003. Hugh Mehans Learning Lessons Reconsidered: On the DifferencesBetween the Naturalistic and Critical Analysis of Classroom Discourse. American Edu-cational Research Journal 40: 239280.

Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Mori, J. 2003. The Construction of Interculturality: A Study of Initial Encounters Between

Japanese and American Students. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36:143184.

Nagatomo, D. H. 2012. Exploring Japanese University English Teachers ProfessionalIdentity. Clevedon Hall: Multilingual Matters.

Richards, K. 2006. Being the Teacher: Identity and Classroom Conversation. AppliedLinguistics 27: 5177.

Sacks, H. 1972a. An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for DoingSociology. In Studies in Social Interaction, edited by D. Sudnow, 3174. New York,NY: Free Press.

Sacks, H. 1972b. On the Analyzability of Stories by Children. In Directions in Sociolin-guistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes,325345. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Volume I & II. Edited by G.Jefferson. Oxford:Blackwell.

Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organi-zation of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language 50: 696735.

Seedhouse, P. 2005. Conversation Analysis as a Research Methodology. In ApplyingConversation Analysis, edited by K. Richards and P. Seedhouse, 251266. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

Sert, O., and S. Walsh. 2013. The Interactional Management of Claims of InsufficientKnowledge in English Language Classrooms. Language and Education 27: 542565.

Sinclair, J. M., and R. M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Stivers, T., L. Mondada, and J. Steensig. 2011. Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation inSocial Interaction. In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, edited by T. Stivers,K. Mondada and J. Steensig, 324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Varghese, M., B. Morgan, B. Johnston, and K. A. Johnson. 2005. Theorizing LanguageTeacher Identity: Three Perspectives and Beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, andEducation 4: 2144.

Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge.Zimmerman, D. H. 1998. Identity, Context and Interaction. In Identities in Talk, edited by

C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe, 87106. London: Sage.

86 Y. Okada

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

Appendix

Transcription conventions(.2) Time gap of about 0.2 second(1) Time gap of about 1 second(.) Brief time gap= "latched" utterances[ The beginning of overlapped talk( ) Unintelligible stretch(( )) Transcriber comment- Cut-off: Elongated sound? Rising intonation. Falling intonation, Continuing intonation Marked rise of immediately following segment Marked fall of immediately following segmentunder Emphasis Smiled voice Decreased volume> < Increased speed


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

187.

181.

205.

196]

at 1

7:31

17

Mar

ch 2

015

Abstract Introduction A CA approach: identity as a cultural and interactional phenomenon The data Analysis Discussion and conclusionsNotesReferences Appendix

Documents

Contrasting Identities