TURN-TAKING IN CINEMATIC DISCOURSE: LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR ESP TEACHING

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.155922

Keywords:

ESP, distance learning, communicative competence, turn-taking, strategy, intersubjectivity, cinematic discourse, conflict situation, cooperative situation

Abstract

 

The article focuses on the issues of teaching turn-taking for ESP students in blended distance learning courses at B2 level. It lays the rationale for the use of film episodes of business interaction in distance learning highlighting turn-taking as an operational meta-discursive category. In multimodal cinematic discourse, turn-taking is performed by heterogeneous semiotic resources: linguistic, non-linguistic, cinematic codes and underpinned by intersubjectivity. Turn-taking strategies of initiating and responding types are viewed as a system of interactional dialogic communication management which includes discursive means of turn-claiming, attempt-suppressing and turn-yielding where each type is actualised by its own set of tactics and techniques. We claim that ESP learners need to know the main parameters for turn-taking in oral professional communication; such as the participants’ stance, speaker – hearer relations and their intersubjectivity, the transition point in a conversation, discourse situations, and specific semiotic resources. In cooperative discourse situations, turn-claiming and turn-yielding strategies are determined by initiating tactics of statement or interrogation. Unlike this, in conflict situations, turn-taking strategies depend upon initiating tactics of statement, interrogation, order, inducement and predetermine responding tactics. In asynchronous and blended formats of distance learning, the preferable delivery methods for this material include video recordings and digital games which facilitate receiving new information and motivate students to practice new communicative skills.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Iryna Lavrinenko, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Dept of Business English and Translation. Assistant professor

 

Iryna Shevchenko, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

head of ESP and Interpreting Department  (foreign languages), Dr, Full Professor

References

  1. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
    | |
  2. Aristov, A.A., & Susov, I.P. (1999). Kommunikativno-kognitivnaya lingvistika i razgovorniy diskurs [Communicative cognitive linguistics and spoken discourse]. Lingvisticheskiy vestnik : sbornik nauchniyh trudov, 1, 5-10.
  3. Bateman, J.A., & Schmidt, K.-H. (2012). Multimodal film analysis: how films mean. New York, London: Routledge.
  4. Cienki, A. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics, gesture studies, and multimodal communication. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 603-618. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0063
    |
  5. Dijk, T.A. van. (2015). Critical Discourse Analysis (new version). In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 1. (pp. 466-485). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
  6. Eemeren, F. van., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentaciya, kommunikaciya i oshibki [Argumentation, communication and mistakes]. St. Petersburg: Vasil'evskij ostrov.
  7. Frolova, I.Y. (2009). Strategiya konfrontaciyi v anglomovnomu dyskursi [Strategy of confrontation in English discourse]. Kharkiv, Ukraine: Kharkiv Univ. Press.
  8. Gumperz, J.J. (1971). Language in Social Groups. Stanford : Stanford University Press.
  9. Helasvuo, M.-L., Endo, T. & Kärkkäilen, E. (2018). Introduction. Units in responsive turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 117-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.006
    |
  10. Holmberg, B. (1995). Theory and Practice of Distance Education (Routledge Studies in Distance Education). 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge
  11. Hughes, R. (2006). Turn-taking awareness: Benefits for teaching speaking skills in academic and other contexts. In Usó-Juan Esther, Martínez-Flor Alicia (Eds.), Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the four Language Skills (pp.215–234). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197778.3.215
  12. Hymes, D.H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J.Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  13. Ibraheem, S.J. (2017). Turn-taking strategies in English language teaching (ELT). In Dr. Hussein Salem Mcawn (Ed.), Dirasat Tarbawiya (pp.291-308). Retrieved 7 May 2019 from https://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=135181
  14. Jung, E. H. (2009). The Machinery of Turn-taking in L2 Instructed Talk-in-interaction. English Language Teaching, 21( 3), 1-20.
  15. Karasik, V.I. (2004). Yazykovoj krug: lichnost', koncepty, diskurs [Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse]. Volgograd: Peremena.
  16. Lavrinenko, I. (2011). Stratehii i taktyky zminy komunikatyvnykh rolei u suchasnomu anhlomovnomu kinodyskursi. [Turn-taking strategies and tactics in the contemporary English cinema discourse. Thesis for a PhD degree in philology, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National university, Kharkiv, Ukraine.
  17. Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (2003). A Communicative Grammar of English, Third Edition. N.Y.: Routledge.
  18. Makarov, M.L. (2003). Osnovy teorii diskursa [Foundations of the discourse theory]. Moscow: Gnosis.
  19. Mapes, G. (2018) (De)constructing distinction: Class inequality and elite authenticity in mediatized food discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22 (3), 265-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12285
    |
  20. Martynyuk, A.P. (2008). Regulyatyvna funkciya movy kriz pryzmu integratyvnyh tendencij u movoznavstvi [Regulative function of language through the prism of integrative trends of language studies]. Visnyk Kharkiv. nats. un-tu im.V.N. Karazina, 805, 10-15.
  21. Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9, 194-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346
    |
  22. Niess, M., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2013). Developing Asynchronous Online Courses: Key Instructional Strategies in a Social Metacognitive Constructivist Learning Trajectory. The Journal of Distance Education, 27, (1). Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20130820130944/http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/831/1473
  23. Peters, H. (2014). Global English online: A case study of a distance learning course in a business context. Language and Literacy, 16(1), 111-138. https://doi.org/10.20360/G28300
  24. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696-735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
    |
  25. Santoso, I., Syihabuddin, S., Azis, A. & Lukmana, I. (2017). Turn-Taking in German as Foreign Language Classroom. In Fuad Abdul Hamid, Didi Sukyadi et al. (Eds.), The Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and The Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with The First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education – Volume 1: CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE (pp.689-694). Bandung, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007173306890694
  26. Saputro, T. H. (2015) The Relevance of Turn-Taking to EFL Teaching and Learning: An Awarness Raising and Practice Model. Celtic: Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature & Linguistics, 2 (3), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.22219/CELTICUMM.Vol2.No3.19-26
  27. Seedhouse, P. (2005) Conversation Analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38 (04), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444805003010.
  28. Senft, G. (2014). Understanding Pragmatics: an interdisciplinary approach to language use. New York: Routledge.
  29. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2012). Fundamental and inherently interrelated aspects of animation. In A. Foolen, U. Ludtke, T. Racine, & J. Zlatev, (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language (pp. 29–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  30. Shevchenko, I. (2015). Discourse Categories: A Case for Metacommunication. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Proceedings of Academic Science: 11th International Scientific and Practical Conference (pp. 28- 33). Sheffield: Science and Education Ltd
  31. Shevchenko, I. (2017). Vvedeniye [Introduction]. In: Y.Bondarenko, A.Martynyuk, I.Frolova, I.Shevchenko (Eds.), Kak narisovat' portret pticy: metodologiya kognitivno-kommunikativnogo analiza yazyka. [How to draw a portrait of a bird: Methodology of cognitive-communicative analysis of language] (pp. 8-12). Kharkiv: Kharkiv University Press.
  32. Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-34). London; N. Y.: Longman.
  33. Susov, I.P. (2009). Lingvisticheskaya pragmatika [Linguistic pragmatics]. Vinnytsia, Ukraine: Nova Knyga.
  34. Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i1.1770
  35. Vaughan, D.R., & Norman, D. (2010). Blended Learning. In M.F. Cleveland-Innes and D.R. Garrison (Eds.), An Introduction to Distance Education: Understanding Teaching and Learning in a New Era (pp. 165-198). New York: Routledge.
  36. Virkkula-Räisänen, T. (2010). Linguistic Repertoires and Semiotic Resources in Interaction: A Finnish Manager as a Mediator in a Multilingual Meeting. International Journal of Business Communication, 47 (4), 505-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610377315
  37. Weatherall, A. & Edmonds, D.M. (2018). Speakers formulating their talk as interruptive. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.008
    |
  38. White, C. (2012). Distance Language Learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley Online Library (Online service). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0338
  39. White, C. (2014). The distance learning of foreign languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 47(4), 538-553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000196
    | |
  40. Zlatev, J. (2008a). The Co-evolution of Intersubjectivity and Bodily Mimesis. In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (pp. 215-244). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  41. Zlatev, J., Brinck, I. & Andrén, M. (2008b). Stages in the Development of Perceptual Intersubjectivity. In F. Morganti, A. Carassa, & G. Riva (Eds.), Enacting Intersubjectivity: A Cognitive and Social Perspective on the Study of Interactions (pp. 117-132). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  42. Jung, E.H. (2009). The Machinery of Turn-taking in L2 Instructed Talk-in-interaction. 영어교육연구 [English Education Research], 21, 3, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.17936/pkelt.2009.21.3.001

Downloads

Published

2019-06-09

How to Cite

Lavrinenko, I., & Shevchenko, I. (2019). TURN-TAKING IN CINEMATIC DISCOURSE: LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR ESP TEACHING. Advanced Education, 6(12), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.155922

Issue

2019: Issue 12

Section

ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Iryna Shevchenko, Iryna Lavrinenko

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).