APLNG 586 Classroom DiscourseReport of final projectDie Zhu, Shuzhan Jiao & Tianzhi Zhang12/5/2017

Introduction of the topic

This final project addresses the function of okay which is naturally occurred in the

classroom conversation. Generally speaking, “Okay is viewed as a transition and marker of

common ground” (Looney et al., 2017, p. 47), and various Conversation Analysis studies have

delved into the okay both in mundane and institutional contexts. The pioneering study of okay

in academic contexts, which is done by Levin & Gary (1983) and based on the data in the lecture

context, summarizes four functions of okay: introduction, elaboration, conclusion, and

embedded hesitation (p. 197). In Liao (2009), the study focusing on how the Chinese teaching

assistants use discourse markers in their L2 English identifies okay as the function of

comprehension check to make sure that the teaching assistants and the students share

intersubjectivity. Additionally, Schleef (2015) revisits the Levin & Gary (1983) and further

concludes that okay also serves as the textual marker and the attention getter in the lecture

context.

Apart from serving as a marker of transition, or so-called “interpersonal functions”

(Looney et al., 2017, p. 46), Looney et al. (2017) innovatively proposes that okay serves

“concurrent and overlapping intra- and inter-personal functions” (p. 58). Supporting with the

examples, this article demonstrates that okay is also used to initiate the self-directed talk of the

L2 teaching assistants in mathematics classroom contexts. Based on these findings, this final

report collects all of okay examples out of a set of videos which was taped in an ESL grammar

classroom, and analyzes the examples from the perspective of Conversation Analysis. The main

purpose of this final paper is twofold: first, exploring the feature of the sequential positions of

examples of okay in the data; second, categorizing the function of okay supported with the

excerpts from the data.

In the following sections, we will describe the background information of our data

source, introduce the analytic framework utilized for the data analysis, present five functions

that we extract from the data, and finally make a conclusion with one preliminary suggestion

for the future direction.

Description of data source

Our analysis is based on CA concepts and the study of classroom interaction. The data

come from an ESL grammar class, a set of 98-minute videos divided into six clips.

Students are placed in the class of grammar level 4. We have both students’ view and

teacher’s view of the same class, so we can not only listen to their utterances and interactions

but observe their body language as well. And we see so many classroom interactions in our

video, and most of them have much CA value to analyze.

As for the contents of the class, at the very beginning of the class, the teacher sets a

reminder on the mid-term exam, then, two students give their presentation individually. During

that time, there are many interactions in both verbal and nonverbal actions between the

teacher and the students, or among students. After that, the teacher together with students

goes over the homework about passive voice and goes over a list of exercises assigned last

class. The whole class are trying to solve the problem they encounter, and in this part, the

teaching language is attractive for us to analyze.

As we endeavor to analyze the discourse marker okay in this 98-minute video, totally we

find 49 tokens of okay. Except 3 of them are not regarded as the discourse marker (e.g., “I am

okay”), we analyze other 46 tokens in sequential way and functional way. Most of them are said

by the teacher and some of them are said by several students.

Analytic framework

As we have mentioned, we try to analyze the discourse marker okay in two ways

combining with nonverbal language. One way is to analyze and locate their sequential

positions, and the other way is to observe and categorize their functional meanings. Moreover,

we pay attention to the non-verbal actions when okay appears, which is another aspect we

consider during the analyzing phase.

We conclude four sequential positions of okay—Turn Initial Okay, Turn Medial Okay,

Turn Final Okay and Stand-alone Okay. As we all know, okay can be produced in various

positions within a turn, so our first three categories include Turn Initial Okay, Turn Medial Okay

and Turn Final Okay. However, what if the okay does not belong to any turn before and after it?

That is to say, such okay is a turn itself and the action of okay is not accomplished by its prior or

later turn. In terms of this situation, we have our last category—Stand-alone Okay, in which is

borrowed the idea from Raymond (2004). Although Raymond analyzed the other discourse

marker so, his main idea is similar to ours, which refers to “participants use to prompt action by

a recipient”, and “a distinctive practice for interaction by examining the sequential environment

in which is produced, the range of contingencies it can be used to manage” (Raymond, 2004, p.

185).

During the intensive communications and interactions in the video, sometimes it is hard

to distinguish and categorize those four sequential positions clearly, especially when it comes to

Turn Medial Okay and Stand-alone Okay. We decide their positions based on two methods: 1)

detect the noticeable pauses; 2) check the completion of turn constructional units. The first

method is to see whether there is noticeable pause before and after okay. For example, if there

is a relatively long pause around okay, presumably such okay is a Stand-alone Okay. However,

the duration of the pause is insufficient to distinguish turns clearly. Hence, scrutinizing whether

the particular utterance is pragmatically completed to accomplish some interpersonal actions in

the context of our data is the other way to recognize turns. That is to say, we focus on TCU to

verify the position of okay. If we affirm the okay is the action accomplished by its prior turn, it’s

a Turn Final Okay. However, since it’s a classroom context, there are many scenes which the

teacher gives a monologue—reading the text or explaining the right answer. Such long

monologue is a big TCU including several small TCUs. If an okay is between two smaller TCUs

but in a big TCU, we, in this case, combine with non-verbal aspect to reconsider which turn the

okay belongs to.

Hereinbefore, we have discussed the sequential aspect of the framework. The other

aspect of our theoretical framework emphasizes on functional meanings. After reviewing and

analyzing each okay on our data, we conclude five functional meanings of okay in our 98-

minute video. They are served as disalignment mitigator, self-directed talk, display of

understanding, comprehension check and attention getter. In the following part, we will extract

the most representative pieces of okay to further explain these functions.

Nonverbal actions play an important role in our transcribing process. On one hand, as

we mentioned before, nonverbal actions can help us verify which turn the okay belongs to. On

the other hand, it is a good signal to help us distinguish the okay’s functional meaning. To be

more specific, if an okay is combined with the rising-head actions to look at others and with the

gesture of grasping the air, we can categorize such okay as the attention getter in order to catch

recipients’ attentions. In our transcript, we add elaborate gesture-speech in order to analyze

the data more accurately and reasonably. Sometimes, we watch one small segment of both

teacher’s view and students’ view alternately in order to make sure how the nonverbal

language is embedded in the conversation.

Transcription procedures

When we decide to focus on discourse markers in our data, we find several markers

which appear frequently in our data, such as oh, so, okay and so on. Later, after searching and

reading relatively studies, we decide to focus on okay, because in this aspect, its findings are

not as many as others. Once we decide to analyze okay, we extract 49 tokens of okay from our

video and compose rough transcripts where the okay appears. The next task is to analyze and

categorize them one by one. Some controversial pieces are reconsidered based on two

principles mentioned before.

We find it interesting that our original decisions is changing along with the editing of

transcripts. After extending and adding more details to our transcripts, a complete description

of the interactions helps us understand the position and function of okays more accurately.

Moreover, when we strive to involve the nonverbal language into our transcript, we have to

redefine the functions. In this way, we become aware that classroom analysis is not only based

on what we hear but what we see as well.

The function of okay

“Okay + laughter” as a disalignment mitigator

According to the Pomerantz (1984), the key issues in the structure around “preference”

and “dispreference” concern “the alignment in which a second action stands to a first, and the

alignment which recipients take up toward a first pair part by the second pair part which

implements their response” (Pomerantz, 1984, as cited in Schegloff, 1995, p. 59). Therefore, if

the second pair part (henceforth SSP) is received as not contributing to the progressivity of the

conversation, it is seen as a dispreferred SSP. In one of our transcripts, we identify the “okay +

laughter” as an integral chunk serves to mitigate a dispreferred response.

Excerpt 1

In this excerpt, the teacher starts to introduce the agenda of the class on that day from

line 7. She firstly introduces that there are two students who are designated to give

presentations and calls their names in line 10. At the same time, the teacher also points (line 9;

fig. 1, frame 1,2) those two students and has eye contacts with them. Then, the teacher leans

leftward and makes a palm down gesture, also has eye contacts with two presenters (line 14;

fig 1, frame 3). At this moment, combined with the 2.2 second gap (line 13) and the array of

non-verbal actions, teacher is waiting for responses from the two students’. Later on, when the

teacher notices that there is no response from the two students regardless of verbal or

nonverbal (line 14; fig. 1, frame 5,6), the teacher produces an okay (with soft voice) which is

followed by the laughter, and takes her hands back and leans backward to her left side (line 17;

fig. 1, frame 4).

Fig. 1

As Schegloff (1995) claimed, “a dispreferred response may be mitigated even to the

vanishing point, i.e., where the dispreferred response is not in fact articulated at all” (p. 64). In

this excerpt, the missed verbally responses and the blank faces of two presenters is viewed

dispreferred by the teacher. Therefore, when the teacher is aware of the awkwardness in line

14, she produces a softer and faster okay relative to the surrounding utterances, and following

with the laughter to alleviate the situation where there is no anticipated response from

students. In this vein, we believe that the “okay + laughter” here is a disalignment mitigator to

deal with the dispreferred second pair part.

Self-directed okay

As described in Looney et al. (2017), in the classroom context, the self-directed okay is

“not only used for structuring lectures but is also crucial for the teachers themselves who use

self-directed okay to direct their own attention and vocalize thought processes” (p. 57).

According to our data, the self-directed okay regularly occurs at the point when the teacher or

the student is hesitating, thinking or processing the information in his or her mind, and it is

usually followed with a return of the previous topic or a brand-new topic. For illustrating, one

salient example presented here was happening during the presentation of one of students.

Excerpt 2

In Excerpt 2, the student explains the reason why he chooses the life and achievements

of Marie Curie as the topic of his presentation. In line 45, after his explanation, there is a

relatively long duration of pause when the student slowly walks back from the desk at the

center of the classroom to the table with the computer. Then, he initiates a question for his

classmates in line 46 with gazing toward the rest of students (line 47; Fig. 2) and waiting for the

responses. After a short gap, with detecting the absence of responses, the student decides to

move on to next section by stating “no (.) i will just continue on that,”. And then, the student

utters an okay with soft voice occurred after a noticeable silence, staring at the computer at the

same time (line 52; Fig. 2). Later on, the student starts to expand the new section of his

presentation.

Fig. 2

The okay here is regarded as a self-directed okay because it not only serves the interpersonal

function to shift to another topic, but also serves as the intrapersonal function of planning the

next step of the presentation in the student’s mind. Additionally, there is no eye gaze between

the presenter and the rest of students. The okay here indicates that the presenter conducts a

private speech at that moment.

Display of understanding

According to Bolden (2006), “the discourse marker ‘oh’ has been found to function as a

‘change-of-state’ token, indexing a change in the speaker’s knowledge, awareness, or attention

in response to some prior action” (Heritage, 1984a, as cited in Bolden, 2006). In our

presentation, we concluded the same function of okay as mentioned in Bolden (2006) as “mark

of state changing”, referring to the change of the epistemic state of students and the teacher.

After further deeper discussion, we find out that “okay” could be a signal of state changing,

which, especially in our data, is able to display interlocutors’ understanding, and keeps the

conversation moving on. As the result, we decide to conclude this function as display of

understanding. Okay could be used to show shared knowledge which may concern the general

knowledge, the knowledge of the outside world or the knowledge that relates to content that

students and teacher have already talked about. In our data, both students and the teacher use

okay to verify their understanding of the current state of the knowledge.

Excerpt 3 (display student’s understanding)

In excerpt 3, okay occurs after teacher’s turn, and initials student1’s turn in which student1

looks at the teacher during paraphrasing her understanding of teacher’s previous content, in

order to correct her knowledge to see if she understands in a right way. In line24, teacher

replays “doable”, and confirms Student1 and Student2’s understand by producing the synonym,

“doable” for “feasible”.

Comprehension check

After calculating the number of okays functioning as comprehension check, it mostly

occurs at the Turn Final position, especially when the tag-questions are produced. This kind of

okays is placed at the end of sentences and is used to monitor listeners’ comprehension. In ESL

setting, most of comprehension check okays appear with rising intonation. However, we cannot

simply define okay functioning as comprehension check only by its’ intonation and position.

In excerpt 4, there are two okays (in line 70 and line 71) occurred, and both of them appear

with rising intonation and in the same position. As a result, nonverbal action plays such an

important role in distinguishing okay’s functions.

Excerpt 4 (Comprehension check)

(line 70) (line 71)

Fig. 3

When the teacher says the first okay in line 70, she rises her head and looks around the

whole class. By looking at the student, she is waiting for possible responses or questions from

the students, and also checking whether they have understood her or not. Combined with the

teacher’s nonverbal language, we regard the first okay as comprehension check. For the second

okay in line 71, this okay is produced in a much softer voice. Besides, the teacher lows her head

down and looks at her book, when she says the second okay. Even the second okay (in line 71)

appears in the turn final with rising intonation, it works as a self-directed, because of the

nonverbal actions.

Attention getter

Okay with a falling tone in lectures is observed to function as attention getter, especially

when there are transitions between activities within the lecturers’ talk. It opens to a new round

of talk as illustrated in the following excerpt.

Excerpt 5

In excerpt 5, the teacher says okay loudly in line 52, and in line 54, the teacher starts to

talk in a loud voice to gain attention of the whole class. Combined with previous action, the

teacher has written on the board for almost 8.3 seconds (from line 49 to line 51), a loud voice of

okay, as well as, a loud start of sentence is a good way to draw students’ attention.

Excerpt 3

(line 20) (line 21)

Fig. 4

In excerpt 3, okay in line 21 also serves the function as attention getter. From the

nonverbal action, the teacher looks around the whole class, before Student1 says okay. After

Student1 says okay initiating her turn, teacher puts eyes gaze on her. Combined with these

nonverbal actions, Student1 uses okay as an attention getter successfully to gain teacher’s

attention.

Conclusion

Grounded in the foregoing discussion, first of all, it is safe to conclude that okay is

pervasively and regularly existed in the L2 classroom context. As cited in Looney et al. (2017),

“okay…, typically occurs around transitional spaces and is most often found at the beginning of

sections of discourse and less frequently at the end and in the middle of stretches of discourse”

(p. 47). The result of our analysis also demonstrates this statement. The majority of okays occur

as stand-alone okays which are filled into the gap between turns. Also, the Turn Initial Okay

frequently occurs to resume a topic mentioned before or initiate a brand-new topic.

Moreover, another notice is that, in most cases, one particular intonation contour is

regularly attached with one specific function of Okay. For instance, the comprehension check

okay is mostly produced with a rising intonation. The falling intonation is usually found when

the attention getter is uttered. We conclude that this phenomenon is the exemplification of the

teacher’s pattern of instruction which is generally formed and utilized along with her teaching

and interacting with students. Finally, as suggested in the section of self-directed okay and

change of state in knowledge okay, okay not only serves in interpersonal functions to make the

transition from one turn to another turn, but also serves in intrapersonal functions.

As for the future direction of studies on okay in talk-in-interaction, we suggest paying

more attention to okay which is produced by the students in various academic contexts such as

in the lab context or the seminar context. We conclude that the student-generated okay is less

frequently occurred by virtue of the only three student-generated okays identified in the data,

Hence, we wonder how and in what functions that okay is produced in other academic

contexts. To our knowledge, there are many studies probing into okay with mainly focusing on

instructors’ aspect in the classroom context. However, based on several preliminary findings

from our data, we believe that okay produced by students, which also plays a significant role in

the organization of turn-taking and organization of preference in classroom or other academic

contexts, is worthwhile to be meticulously analyzed in the future.

Reference

Bolden, G. B., (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers ‘‘So’’ and ‘‘Oh’’ and the doing

of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 661-668.

Levin, H., Gary, D., (1983). The lecturer’s OK. American speech (58), 195-200.

Looney, S.D., Jia. D., & Kimura, D., (2017). Self-directed okay in mathematics lectures. Journal of

Pragmatics, 107, 46-59.

Raymond, G., (2004). Prompting action: The Stand-Alone "So" in ordinary conversation.

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2). 185-218.

Schegloff, E. A., (1995). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis.

Cambridge University Press, 59. ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral.proquest com/lib/pensu/detail.action?docID=295702.

Schleef, E., (2008). The “lecturer’s OK” revisited: Changing discourse conventions and the

influence of academic division. American speech (83), 62-84.