http://www.diva-portal.

org

This is the published version of a paper published in Linguistics and Education.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Duran, D., Sert, O. (2019)

Preference organization in English as a Medium of Instruction classrooms in a Turkish
higher education setting
Linguistics and Education, 49: 72-85
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.12.006

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-42699
 Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/linged

Preference organization in English as a Medium of Instruction

classrooms in a Turkish higher education setting
Derya Duran a , Olcay Sert b,∗
a
Foreign Language Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
b
Mälardalen University, School of Education, Culture and Communication, English Studies, Box 883, Västerås 721 23, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Previous conversation analytic research has documented various aspects of preference organization
Received 18 April 2018 and the ways dispreference is displayed in relation to pedagogical focus in L2 and CLIL classrooms
Received in revised form (Seedhouse, 1997; Hellermann, 2009; Kääntä, 2010). This study explores preference organization in
21 December 2018
an under-researched context, an English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) setting, and it specifically
Accepted 21 December 2018
focuses on how a teacher displays dispreference for preceding learner turns. The data consist of 30 h
Available online 7 February 2019
of video recordings from two EMI classes, which were recorded for an academic term at a university
in Turkey. Using Conversation Analysis, we demonstrate that the teacher employs a variety of interac-
Keywords:
Conversation analysis
tional resources such as changing body position, gaze movements, hedging, and delaying devices to show
Preference organization dispreference for preceding student answers. Based on our empirical analysis, the ways the teacher pri-
Classroom interaction oritizes content and task over form/language are illustrated. The analyses also reveal that negotiation
English as a medium of instruction of meaning at content level and production of complex L2 structures can simultaneously be enabled
Higher education through teachers’ specific turn designs in EMI classroom interaction. This demonstrates that preference
organization, particularly in a teacher’s responsive turns, can act as a catalyst for complex L2 produc-
tion and enhance student participation. This study has implications for conversation analytic research
on instructed learning settings, and in particular on teachers’ turn design in classroom interaction.
© 2019 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction teacher-led discussions (Escobar Urmeneta & Evnitskaya, 2014),

epistemic search sequences in peer interactions (Jakonen & Morton,
Conversation analytic research into second/foreign/additional 2015), clarification requests (Kääntä & Kasper, 2018), definitional
(L2) classrooms has documented interactional organization in practices (Kääntä, Kasper, & Piirainen-Marsh, 2016), vocabulary
these contexts and revealed, for example, the reflexive relation- explanations (Morton, 2015), multimodal resources in students’
ship between pedagogy and interaction (Seedhouse, 2004, 2005, explanations (Kupetz, 2011), and multimodal displays of willing-
2019), L2 learning behaviors in students’ participation practices ness to participate (Evnitskaya & Berger, 2017).
(Hellermann, 2008), and described language teachers’ multimodal Although the body of knowledge on classroom interaction is
(e.g. Matsumoto & Dobs, 2017; Sert, 2015, 2017, 2019) and mul- expanding in CLIL classroom contexts in countries like Finland,
tilingual (e.g. Sert, 2015) resources. These studies, in addition to Denmark, Spain, Austria, and Germany, conversation analytic
many others (Jacknick & Thornbury, 2013; Markee, 2000; Waring, research on English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) classroom
2016; Markee & Kunitz, 2013; Sert & Walsh, 2013, to name a few), interaction, in particular in higher education settings, is scarce.
have helped us understand the minute level details of pedagogical Research reflecting what is actually happening in EMI classrooms in
activities in L2 classrooms. Such research has also triggered conver- higher education is timely, as the differences between CLIL and EMI
sation analytic investigation into Content and Language Integrated need to be documented to be able to develop research-informed
Learning (CLIL) classrooms, resulting in micro-analytic investiga- pedagogical practices. It has so far been argued that while CLIL is
tions into turn taking and repair practices (Kääntä, 2010, 2012), “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional lan-
guage is used for the learning and teaching of both content and
language” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 1), EMI is regularly used
as an umbrella term for academic subjects taught through English,
∗ Corresponding author.
with little or no explicit aim to develop students’ language skills. It
E-mail addresses: deryadrnn@gmail.com (D. Duran), olcay.sert@mdh.se
(O. Sert).
refers to “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.12.006
0898-5898/© 2019 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85 73

(other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the structural-interactional point of view to illuminate its organiza-
first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” tional features, dismissing the psychological meaning of the term.
(Dearden, 2015, p. 4; Macaro, 2018, p. 2). While CLIL has a dual Similarly, Schegloff (2007) maintains that ‘it is a socio/interactional
focus on content and language (see Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2014; feature of sequences and of orientations to them, not a psycholog-
Dalton-Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo, & Nikula, 2014 for a debate on the ical one’ (p. 61) [emphasis original]. So rather than providing an
conceptualization of CLIL), the subject-content mastery is the dis- explicit definition for preference and by not referring to subjective
tinguishing attribute (Brown & Bradford, 2017) and the primary feelings or preferences of interactants, scholars tend to refer to its
aim in EMI. Conversation analytic research is, then, needed to bet- structural characteristics, which can be discerned by closely inves-
ter understand the discursive dynamics of EMI classrooms so as tigating the interactional features and work. A number of practices
to reveal the ways interactional organization “transforms intended have been identified in the production of preferred and dispreferred
pedagogy into actual pedagogy” (Seedhouse, 2012, p. 2). second pair-parts, which are produced responsive to preceding
Our focus in this paper is on one of the “central organi- turns with conditional relevance. Preferred turns are affiliative and
zational principles of social interaction” Pekarek-Doehler and face-affirming (Pillet-Shore, 2016, 2017), while dispreferred turns
Pochon-Berger (2015, p. 234) in classrooms, namely preference are considered disaffiliative, face-threatening (Heritage, 1984). As
organization. Preference organization, in conversation analytic these two notions do perform differently in interaction, while one is
terms, refers to how actions are designed either to support or doing face-preserving action while the other is doing a disaffiliative
weaken social solidarity in interaction (Pillet-Shore, 2017). It action, interactants employ different sets of design features in these
informs the organization of agreements and disagreements, accep- two alternatives (Schegloff, 2007; Pillet-Shore, 2015). Preferred
tances and declinations, and a variety of other actions. While second pair-parts are usually produced without delay, mitigation or
preferred format actions are regularly affiliative, dispreferred turns account while dispreferred turns are generally designed with delay,
of actions are disaffiliative (Heritage, 1984; Pomerantz, 1984). Such qualification or accounts (Heritage, 1984; Nishizaka & Hayano,
interactional constructs are consequential in institutional interac- 2015; Pillet-Shore, 2016, 2017; Schegloff, 2007). This pattern in par-
tion, as has earlier been shown by Pillet-Shore (2016) in her analysis ticipants’ design can be observed both as sequence-responding and
of teachers’ evaluative turns. sequence-initiating actions and we will focus on the responding
Using conversation analysis, we focus on a teacher’s embodied turns within the scope of the current study.
displays of dispreference in content classrooms in an EMI setting in To illustrate, Extracts 1 and 2 are cases pointing to the distinctive
Turkey. More specifically, the sequential context in which we focus features of displaying preference and dispreference, respectively.
on dispreferred actions is the teacher’s responsive and evaluative Both of the extracts come from the corpus analyzed in the present
turns, which mostly appeared in IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow paper, which is based on higher education classroom interactions in
up) sequences (Mehan, 1979). Our empirical analysis draws on Turkey. Consider Extract 1, which illustrates how the teacher mani-
30 h of video-recorded English-medium lessons on ‘Guidance’. To fests her preferred turn-of-action, evidenced by the design, format,
our knowledge, no research on the design and sequential unfold- and content of her response that is delivered with no gap and
ing of dispreferred teacher turns in EMI classrooms exists. This is includes visual and verbal resources for acceptance of the student
an important focus of inquiry, as the ways a teacher responds to answer. T stands for the lecturer, and Suz and Bir are the students.
Extract 1: I know better, 08 04 15

Immediately following Suz’s response (lines 5–9) to her ques-

and shapes learners’ contributions (Walsh, 2011) with specific turn tion, in line 11, T nods repeatedly and accepts Suz’s response
designs have consequences for subsequent participatory practices overtly with an explicit positive assessment marker (Waring, 2008)
and student engagement. Our multimodal analysis of a teacher’s ‘exactly’ in turn-initial position. She also rephrases the student
dispreferred response turn designs and the interactional unfold- contribution, thus providing ratification by conveying the same
ing of these sequences demonstrate how the teacher prioritizes meaning with Suz. Although there is a delay following the student
content, tasks, and activities over ‘language’. We also show that response, it is not a break since this temporal delay is accompa-
the teacher’s dispreferred turn designs can act as a catalyst for nied by continuous nodding (Heath, 1992), which functions as an
grammatically complex L2 production and enhance student par- acknowledgment marker and signals positive evaluation early on.
ticipation. In short, the extract shows that the preferred second pair-part is
produced with a positive evaluation (exactly) and an embodied
2. Preference organization in classroom interaction action (nodding) functioning as acknowledgment. Given the fact
that dispreferred utterances are generally built with hedges and
The concept of preference organization has been a controver- delays, it is important to present how these design features are
sial topic in CA literature (Church, 2004; Bilmes, 2014). Although used in interaction. Extract 2 describes how the teacher employs a
the notion of ‘preference’ might indicate a psychological dis- variety of verbal and nonverbal resources to show dispreference in
position in its original development, Sacks (1995) provides a an evaluative turn.
74 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85

Extract 2: Fifth and sixth grade, 05 03 15

Following T’s interrogative question on the stages elementary Previous CA studies have yielded important insights into the
students go through, Bir provides a response in sotto voce. Silence notion of preference in a variety of contexts (Enfield & Stivers,
along with her embodied behavior (raised eyebrows, pouted lips) 2007; Holtgraves, 2000; Lerner, 1996; Park, 2015). Considering
seem to be designed as a hedged response to T’s request (line 8–9). the CA work on preference organization in classroom discourse,
Following a 0.5 s silence, T produces an open-class repair initiator silence has been marked as an interactional resource to display
‘huh?’ (Drew, 1997), accompanied with lowering her head toward dispreference (Hellermann, 2003; Macbeth, 2000, 2004; Margutti,
Bir, which seems to project a problem of hearing. Bir repeats her 2004) in teachers’ third turn within IRF sequences. Hellermann
answer, using soft voice again. Following the temporal delay (line (2003) demonstrates that temporal delays in a teacher’s response
13), T repeats Bir’s contribution by shifting her gaze from Bir to to a student answer may show that the preceding student answer
the class. The open-class repair initiator ‘huh?’ employed by T (also is somehow erroneous or inappropriate. Describing repair tra-
employed in line 11 to foreshadow trouble) indicates that a prob- jectories in CLIL and EFL classrooms, Kääntä (2010) shows how
lem of understanding or hearing has occurred and it is followed by teachers employ a variety of semiotic resources to project dispre-
a bald ‘no’ in line 15. T, then, specifies what she has been asking ferred turn-of-actions. These devices include body orientations to
for and re-establishes mutual gaze with Bir. All in all, the dispre- teaching materials, shift of gaze, motionless gaze and body move-
ferred answer is marked with temporal delay, divergent gaze, and ments, cut-off body conducts, and withholding the revealing of the
an unmitigated, explicit correction for student’s current under- correct answers. She also argues that repair trajectories change
standing. All these interactional resources do service in maintaining according to the way silence is in use. When silence is combined
intersubjectivity in interaction, either in an aligned or a disaligned with a particular type of teachers’ embodied actions, repair is per-
way. Atkinson et al. (2007) define alignment as “the means by formed by the students, however, when silence is accompanied
which human actors dynamically adapt to – that is, flexibly depend with the verbal turn constructional unit (TCU), the repair trajec-
on, integrate with, and construct – the ever-changing mind-body- tory is accomplished either by teachers or students in the form of
world environments” (p. 171) [emphasis original]. In this regard, self- or peer-performed repair.
Schegloff (2007) argues that “the key issues in the organization In his longitudinal study, Hellermann (2009) examines the inter-
around ‘preference’ and ‘dispreference’ concern the alignment in actions of an adult learner of English in a language classroom. He
which a second action stands to a first, and the alignment which investigates negative responses in dispreferred turn designs, and
recipients take up forward a first pair part by the second pair part in particular focuses on the use of ‘no’. He reveals that the use of
which implements their response” (p. 59). The preferred turn, then, ‘no’ for the purposes of other-correction, third-position repair, and
embodies an alignment while the dispreferred response projects a multiple sayings is attended to by peers as appropriate within the
disalignment. More specifically, considering the context of IRF third classroom community of practice. He tracks learning in students’
turns we have described in Extracts 1 and 2, T affirms in the pre- orientations to preference for affiliation in producing negative
ferred format and refuses in the dispreferred format, respectively. responses. Seedhouse’s (1997) study, on the other hand, investi-
Although the organization of preference in Extracts 1 and 2 gates missing ‘no’ in L2 classrooms. He focuses on the structural
is different in terms of structural and sequential features, mul- features of repair in form and accuracy contexts (e.g. moments
tiple concurrent and cross-cutting preferences are at work. By in L2 classroom interaction in which linguistic form is prioritized
assembling together linguistic, embodied (nodding, gaze shift) and over meaning) and finds that by avoiding bald negative evalua-
sequential resources, both extracts display the preferred and dis- tion of learners’ errors, teachers are interactionally showing that
preferred second pair-parts of the teacher in evaluative turns. it is embarrassing and face-threatening to make mistakes. In other
While silence is observable in both of the instances, in the former words, in an implicit way, errors are treated as problematic, thereby
case the interactional work it does is providing more space to the making pedagogy and interaction working in direct opposition to
student which is accompanied by embodied means, i.e. nodding. each other. In content classrooms, investigating the interactional
In the latter example, silence along with nonverbal conduct (shift- structure of repair in mathematics classes, Ingram, Baldry, and Pitt’s
ing gaze from the student and orienting to the classroom) seems to (2013) findings are in line with Seedhouse’s findings. They reveal
assess the adequacy of the student response. that by avoiding direct and overt negative evaluations of students’
 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85 75

mistakes, teachers bring up a conflict between their pedagogical different in Turkey, where there is a lack of empirical micro-analytic
beliefs and their interactional work, which is supportive of a no- or research on what is actually happening in classrooms.
indirect evaluation of mistakes.
In short, research on preference organization has shown that
3.1. English as a medium of instruction in Turkish higher
pedagogic work gets done by teachers (e.g. evaluation of student
education
performance) through particular verbal and embodied interac-
tional devices within preferred and dispreferred turn designs.
English as a medium of instruction has been a disputable topic
Structural features in conversation associated with preferred and
in Turkish education (Macaro, Akıncıoğlu, & Dearden, 2016; Selvi,
dispreferred turn designs are, then, worthy of investigation if one
2014). While supporters of EMI argue for the benefits of it such as
wants to describe the interactional architecture of EMI classrooms.
(1) the contribution of learning a second language to competencies
Based on our review of literature, to our knowledge, there are
in the first language (Alptekin, 1998) and (2) the facilitating trait
no studies that particularly focus on teachers’ dispreferred turn
of bilingualism to cognitive and linguistic development (Kırkıcı,
designs in EMI contexts, and this is an important research gap.
2004), opponents consider its presence in education as a viola-
Seedhouse (2004) argues that preference organization is one of the
tion of human rights (Demircan, 2006) and a threat to Turkish
building blocks of the interactional architecture of L2 classrooms.
culture (Sinanoğlu, 2000). There is a substantial body of literature
Focusing on this phenomenon may also reveal unique interactional
investigating EMI in Turkey and many of these studies have been
properties of EMI interaction, and can feed into research on L2
conducted through quantitative data collection tools such as ques-
use both in EMI as well as in EFL settings. Identifying unique fea-
tionnaires and surveys (Güler, 2004; Derintuna, 2006). Moreover,
tures of preference organization in EMI may reveal how student
qualitative research has not gone beyond attitude and perception
engagement is facilitated in meaning-focused, rather than linguis-
studies using mostly interviews (Sert, 2008). Although such stud-
tic form-focused encounters in classrooms. In the next section, we
ies have contributed to our growing body of knowledge on what
will provide a review of English as a medium of instruction in the
participants think about EMI practices, it has provided less on how
world and in Turkey.
EMI functions as an instructional tool in classrooms. These studies
are important in that they shed light on the multiple challenges
stakeholders face in adopting EMI as well as on the benefits EMI
3. English as a medium of instruction in the world
brings together. To the best of our knowledge, however, the inter-
actions between students and teachers in EMI classrooms in Turkey
English, which has a global lingua franca status today, is a widely
have remained under-researched. In other words, what seems to
adopted medium of instruction in many educational settings in
be missing in the previous literature related to EMI research is a
the world. It has helped to promote mobility within and beyond
close analysis of what actually happens when teachers and stu-
Europe and has contributed to the improvement and sustainabil-
dents interact within the walls of the classrooms. The current study
ity of high-quality education (Hahl, Järvinen, & Juuti, 2014). EMI
is an attempt to deepen our understanding of actual practices in
courses focus on content learning (Smit & Dafouz, 2012), making
EMI classrooms, via unpacking how situated practices, i.e. teacher’s
“no direct reference to the aim of improving students’ English”
dispreferred turns designs, are co-constructed in pedagogical activ-
(Dearden & Macaro, 2016, p. 456). The exclusive focus on con-
ities.
tent has also been confirmed by research which showed how EMI
A strand of research which focuses on the negative effects of
teachers prioritize subject content, evidenced by for instance very
EMI in education reveals that EMI leads to difficulties with compre-
limited teacher-initiated focus on vocabulary and grammar (Jiang,
hending the concepts, lack of knowledge about the subject content,
Zhang, & May, 2016), a point which we will revisit in the discus-
feelings of isolation and separation and unwillingness to participate
sion section. EMI is a term used “ubiquitously geographically and,
because of the inadequate language proficiency (Kocaman, 2000).
usually but not exclusively, applied to higher education” (Macaro,
Sert (2000) attributes lower levels of academic attainment of stu-
Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018, p. 37). It has earlier been suggested
dents to EMI, while Zok (2010) maintains that students’ insufficient
that in contexts where English is used as a medium of instruc-
involvement in the classroom activities and their difficulties with
tion, (1) English acts as a vehicle for learning content; (2) content
writing and note taking result from the policies and applications
learning outcomes are central; (3) language-related outcomes are
that are inherent in EMI. Dalkız (2002) highlights that students
peripheral, and (4) subject content specialists teach EMI courses
mainly have difficulties in grasping questions in EMI settings, and
(Brown & Bradford, 2017). However, it is important to note here
thus they cannot formulate a proper response to them. In brief,
that implementation of EMI courses is context-driven, generally
what has come out as a general finding from the relevant research
depending on the individual instructors, language proficiency of the
is that language development is positively affected by EMI, whereas
classes or the discipline under focus. Therefore, we cannot provide
disciplinary learning is impacted adversely as EMI seems to have
a ‘one-size-fits-all’ definition for EMI programs.
a negative impact on the acquisition of academic content (Arkın,
The diversity in the implementation of EMI programs in the
2013). However, we take the position that such claims regarding
world has resulted in different models. In a recent paper that
L2 use and learning of academic content require a micro-analytic,
conceptualizes EMI, Schmidt-Unterberger (2018) argues that a
empirical investigation, and this is one of the aims of the present
combination of EMI courses and explicit English for Specific Pur-
paper.
poses (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction is
a more realistic model. What is more realistic or beneficial for learn-
ing content and language, however, requires closer investigation of 4. The data and context??
instructional practices and learning outcomes. In a recent system-
atic review of EMI research, Macaro et al. (2018) show that EMI English has been adopted as the ‘medium of instruction’ by cer-
research has dominantly looked into teacher and student beliefs tain universities in Turkey. The Middle East Technical University,
about EMI (e.g. Chapple, 2015; Earls, 2016) and professional devel- founded in 1956, is the first higher education institution in Turkey
opment of EMI teachers (e.g. Guarda & Helm, 2016). Studies that to provide EMI in all its degrees. Following this initiation, Boğaziçi
investigate the impact of EMI on language learning are limited to University was established in 1971 to do the same service and as the
the use of language tests, and research into interaction in EMI in first private foundation-funded university to provide instruction
higher education is rare (Macaro et al., 2018). The situation is no in English, Bilkent University was founded in 1984. As of January
76 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85

2017, there are 185 universities in Turkey, serving 7 million stu- multimodal approach to the data. CA insists on naturally occur-
dents (Higher Education Council) and most of these universities ring data, and analyses are drawn on transcriptions of audio-visual
offer one-year intensive English preparation courses for all incom- recordings that capture as much detail as possible with regards to
ing students. Apart from the three universities mentioned above talk, embodied conduct, and the material world. Therefore, with a
which provide education in English in all their degree programs, the multimodal focus, the data was collected using three cameras, one
rest of the universities in Turkey offer EMI partially, not employing of which was positioned in the back of the class focusing on the lec-
English as the ‘officially approved language’ in their institutions. turer and the slides. The other two, located in the right and the left
The data for this study come from detailed transcriptions of 30 h front corners of the rooms, were screening the students so that the
of video recording of two classes, which were observed for twelve data would be viewed and analyzed from multiple perspectives,
weeks at a university adopting EMI for all its degree programs in allowing the researchers to bring evidence to social phenomena
Turkey. The contents of the recorded course were the same in both based on visual details including gestures and gaze movements.
classes, which were taught by the same lecturer. The title of the The initial stage of the data analysis began with watching each video
course is ‘Guidance’, offered to senior (4th year) undergraduate over and over again to get ourselves familiar with the data, a proce-
students1 as a compulsory course by the Department of Educa- dure that is also known as unmotivated looking (ten Have, 2007).
tional Sciences. The classes met every week and the sessions were Later, all of the recorded data were transcribed using Transana
two hours and fifteen minutes. The data was collected during the software, a computer program for transcribing, databasing, and
spring term of the 2014/2015 academic year, between February and analyzing video and audio data.
May 2015. Based on a CA framework, the transcriptions were done pay-
The focal teacher of this study is an associate professor of ing close attention to fine details of talk-in-interaction, including
psychological counseling and guidance at the Department of Edu- timing, prosody, and embodied actions. The transcription conven-
cational Sciences. She is an experienced lecturer with a teaching tions were adopted from Jefferson (2004), with additional notations
background over 20 years. The participants, altogether 78 in both describing embodied behaviors. With a close investigation of these
classes, were fourth year undergraduate students studying at the detailed transcriptions together with the video recordings and by
Faculty of Education. The classes were heterogonous in terms focusing on turn taking, repair, and preference organization, a
of language proficiency as the students were majoring in differ- recurrent phenomenon, namely ‘the teacher’s dispreferred turns-
ent educational departments, including computer education and of-action to student responses’ has been identified. These recurrent
instructional technology, elementary education, foreign language cases, which consist of 39 instances of the teacher’s responsive
education, and secondary science and mathematics education. Stu- turn design that display “less than agreement”, have built up the
dents are required to be at least at B2 level according to the Common collection for the present paper. The final stage of the analytic
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) to be able pursue their procedure involved analysis of each excerpt with a meticulous
undergraduate studies. As the participants had been exposed to inspection.
English as the only medium of instruction during their past 4.5
academic years (one year at preparatory school and 3.5 years 6. Analysis and findings
in undergraduate program), they supposedly had reached the C1
(CEFR) level during the time of data collection, but there is no con- In this section, we will provide a close analysis of the phe-
crete evidence for their level based on a standard language test. In nomenon under focus by depicting (1) how the teacher prioritizes
the first class, there were 37 female and 2 male students and their content and activity over language use (Extract 3), (2) the ways
ages ranged between 21 and 25 during the time of the recordings. In these dispreferred turn designs are performed at the multimodal
the second class, there were 30 females and 9 males, their age rang- level (Extract 4), and (3) how such teacher turns potentially push
ing from 22 to 26. In the second class there were 4 foreign students, students to produce complex L2 utterances at turn and grammatical
all able to speak and understand the local language (i.e. Turkish). level (Extracts 5 and 6).
Before the collection of the data, written consents were signed by Extract 3 follows a task in which the students have helped each
the participants, and the data collection procedure was approved other in co-constructing different roles, namely helper, helpee, and
by the university research ethics committee. The anonymity of the observer. The lecturer (T) wants to hear about their reflections
participants has been guaranteed by pseudonyms. on this activity and asks about their experiences during the task.
In this segment, one of the students shares her experience. The
5. Analytic procedure extract shows how the students and the teacher establish divergent
institutional goals in a task and how these different orientations
The analyses in this study follow a conversation ana- to the task at hand unfold in interaction within dispreferred turn
lytic methodology (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), with a design.

1
A sample curriculum with course titles can be found at https://catalog.metu.
edu.tr/program.php?fac prog=412.
 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85 77

Extract 3: Intention of the exercise, 16 04 15

In this fragment, Evi starts talking about her experience with the
activity. In line 3, she initiates a word search marked with her open (in particular Evi) and the teacher approach the task under focus
palms (see Fig. 1), an explicit embodied conduct in a word search differently. What is interesting in this excerpt is that although Evi
activity (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986). The turn-final word in line 3 demonstrably orients to a linguistic trouble with a word search,
(a↑ny:) is produced with rising intonation and is stretched along T does not attend to this. That is, T prioritizes task requirements
with maintaining mutual gaze with T, thus potentially making rel- and content over language (by not attending to the word search)
evant an ‘other-repair’ in the follow-up turn which is followed by in this specific context as how Evi has performed with her group
a hesitation marker. In the following turn, a 1.6 s silence emerges friends does not align with the pedagogical goal of T. This lack of
during which Evi closes her eyes and moves her two hands upwards orientation to the word search and the maintenance of the focus
with her palms open (see Fig. 3); a combination of embodied con- on content and the task can be evidenced by the dispreferred turn
duct signaling a solitary word search activity. In line 7, prefacing her design of T, marked by the pause (Margutti, 2004) in line 6.
turn with an acknowledgment token (>okay<), T displays under- It is worth noting that T manifests her dispreferred turn design
standing by repeating Evi’s utterance that has been produced before by not attending to the immediate need of the student, which is a
the initiation of the word search (it wasn’t a p↑rob↓lem=): candidate word to be offered by T. T’s specification of the intention
a turn that receives a confirmation by Evi. In line 9, T overlaps of the exercise in line 9 also receives laughter from other students
with Evi, and by starting her turn with the contrastive conjunc- in line 10, leading Evi to produce an alignment marker with audi-
tion ‘but’, which functions as a predisagreement, she shows that ble laughter (£yes:£); bypassing the face-threatening effect of the
the way Evi has performed with her group members does not serve dispreference as has previously been shown in L2 classrooms (Sert
the pedagogical purpose of the task. More precisely, the students & Jacknick, 2015). Between lines 12–13, prefacing her turn with
78 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85

another pre-disagreement token ‘o↓kay (.) but’, T justifies why educational discourse. It can be noted here that the way the teacher
they have to perform in a different way in the helping process. Sub- designs her turn in two parts; first the repetition/formulation of
sequently, Evi acknowledges this comment (‘huh’). There is 1.9-s of Evi’s answer gist and then producing the ‘but’ clause, demonstrate
silence in line 15, possibly signaling to T that further elaboration is that the teacher treats the response as ‘less than preferred’, more
required, and therefore she obtains the floor again and talks about particularly marks their different interactional goals in the current
the ways talking together might be useful (lines 16–22). In other task.
words, T makes it obvious that what she has expected from this Extract 4 takes place after the class has received a handout which
exercise is not what Evi and her group members have done, thus lists ‘distorted thoughts’ with examples. The teacher asks the stu-
specifying the intention of the exercise once more. dents to look through the list and find if they have ever experienced
In sum, this excerpt demonstrates how a student engages in any of these thoughts. The fragment is an example of how repair is
a word search through vocal and visual practices, and how the conducted using multisemiotic resources, drawing on the teacher’s
teacher does not attend to this need, showing preference for main- embodied conduct and learning materials to manage the clarifica-
taining the pedagogical agenda (a focus on the task and content in tion of a terminological item. The repair trajectory is other-initiated
this EMI context) through her dispreferred turn design. The analy- other-repair where the teacher initiates repair and completes it,
sis in a way describes how divergent orientations are managed in thus showing her dispreferred turn-of-action.
Extract 4: Doing filtering, 15 04 15
 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85 79

T initiates the sequence with a question inviting students to Jefferson, and Sacks (1977) after a repairable utterance is brought
tell if they are doing filtering. By self-selecting herself in line 7, to a transition-relevance place, other recipients generally withhold
Fer obtains the floor and specifies a condition (it depends on talking, and thereby withholding correcting the other. In this sense,
the person actua:lly). This utterance precedes the silence in it promotes a more affiliative environment for the speaker to cor-
line 08 (1.2 s) during which T looks at Fer with furrowed eye- rect themselves. However, in the following turn prefacing her turn
brows (see Fig. 4), prefacing a potential repair to be offered in the with ‘okay but’, T foreshadows a rejection or at least a contrast in
follow-up turns. In the following turn (line 9), Nag adds on to the her upcoming talk. As in the previous extract, ‘okay but’ appears in
formulation provided by Fer previously by offering another condi- the same design but unlike Extract 3 in which there is the formu-
tion, ‘situation’. Nag’s contribution to the interaction illustrates lation of Evi’s answer, in the present case T goes straight to stating
how T’s embodied behavior is interpreted as a sign of forthcom- what is wrong in the understanding displayed by Fer. T specifies
ing trouble as Nag performs a peer-repair through verbal conduct. ‘what filtering is not’ by reading out from the handout (see Fig.
At this point, through nonverbal selection, T assigns the rights to 6) and thus uses the learning material as an interactional object
the floor to Fer by using her index finger (line 10). In the follow- for bringing off teacher explanation and supporting students’ task
ing turn, through nodding and with a rising intonation, Fer displays work (Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2014; Jakonen, 2015). Immediately
alignment with Nag with the acknowledgment marker ‘yeah’, and following this, Fer shifts her gaze toward her worksheet (see Fig.
marked as in a quiet tone, her following words receive a minimal 7) and in the following part, T states clearly what she does not
contribution from T in line 12. In the next turn, one of the students mean by ‘filtering’ and clarifies the difference between ‘censoring’
(Sx) provides the same formulation (situation) and this contribu- and ‘filtering’. Here, the dispreferred turn is marked by the silence
tion is also not oriented to by T. Fer’s attempt in the following before T’s turn and the turn initial discourse markers ‘okay but’ are
turn to elaborate on her ideas is interrupted by T (i am talking designed to demonstrate something less than agreement (Steensig
about you:) accomplished using a deictic gesture (see Fig. 5), thus & Asmuss, 2005; Szczepek Reed, 2015).
repairing the previous contributions. In this case T does not employ In Extract 5, along with the findings of the previous extract (e.g.
overtly negative correction, but she initiates the repair sequence by silences, partial agreement), we exemplify how the teacher marks
making her pedagogical focus clear and this reminder is enriched dispreference resorting to (1) hesitation markers, and (2) gaze
by T’s embodied conduct (pointing gestures directed toward the movements, following a formulation and understanding offered by
respondent). one of the students. The extract also showcases how the resources
Between lines 16 and 22, Fer elaborates on her answer by pro- to display dispreference push the student to extend her turn using
viding examples from her own life, receiving embodied displays a prepositional phrase, thus increasing the syntactic complexity
of listenership from T. Fer’s explanation of the concept ‘filtering’ of her utterance. Before the extract starts, the teacher has been
is followed by half a second of silence. According to Schegloff, lecturing on interpretation skills in counseling.
80 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85

Extract 5: Interpretation and summarizing, 15 04 15

The extract starts with Fer’s information-seeking question, tar- line 11, T flags the difference of these two terms with a so-prefaced
geted at understanding the difference between ‘interpretation’ and formulation, and goes on to explain what ‘summary’ refers to from
‘summarizing’. In line 3, T starts providing the second pair-part lines 11 to 14, closing her turn with a gestural demonstration (see
of the question-answer adjacency pair by explaining ‘interpreta- Fig. 8). This explanation, positioned as a first, prompts a formula-
tion’ (in in [the interpretation); however, her response turn tion by Fer, and she formulates her candidate understanding (we
is overlapped after the repeat of the preposition in turn-initial posi- just repeat what we heard) in line 15. Taking the institutional
tion by Fer, who completes her question ([the information). nature of this interaction into account, such a claim of understand-
Starting with an acknowledgment token that shows the receipt ing invites a confirmation from the teacher.
of the question (◦ okay◦ ), T starts an explanation sequence. From What follows Fer’s utterance in this post-expansion is a long
lines 5 to 8, T explains what ‘interpretation’ is. This is followed by silence (0.7 s) that precedes a hesitation marker (er::) accompa-
non-verbal (nodding) and nonvocalized listenership tokens by Fer, nied by gaze aversion as T shifts her gaze up (see Fig. 9); all being
illustrating receipt of information. These listenership tokens are features of dispreferred turn design. In line 18, possibly analysing
responded to by a nod from T, thus creating the grounds for align- the teacher’s actions as manifesting a forthcoming disconfirmation
ment. Following these embodied actions that create mutuality, in of her understanding, Fer provides a turn-increment (Schegloff,
 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85 81

1996), syntactically tied to her formulation provided in her pre- generally prioritized over linguistic accuracy, this may facilitate
vious turn (with different wo[rds). By adding an increment to student engagement. Furthermore, if we take an L2 use perspec-
her TCU, Fer appears to be handling the possible upcoming dis- tive, we observe opportunities created by the teacher for relatively
agreement (Schegloff, 2000) or a possibly face-threatening action complex language production. By syntactic complexity, we refer
and thus becomes alert to a dispreferred action. That is, Fer per- to the complexity of sentence structure and the degree of sophis-
ceives a problem with her preceding utterance and formulates her tication in language production at phrase and utterance/sentence
prior candidate understanding with an incremental expression. level. That is to say, the action performed by the teacher in line
What follows from lines 19 to 22 is T’s alternative explanation, 17 generates pushed output, in which the student produces a
building on Fer’s formulation. In her explanation, T puts empha- prepositional phrase, syntactically tying this new utterance to
sis on the comparison marker and repeats it twice (mo:re), as she her previously produced turn; a phenomenon known as format-
proposes the alternative understanding by using a collective sug- tying (Goodwin, 1990). Thus, negotiation for meaning at content
gestion marker (let’s say), thus avoiding explicit disagreement level and production of complex L2 morpho-syntax are simultane-
and negative evaluation, which may potentially have been face- ously enabled; preference organization acting as a catalyst for this
threatening. interplay.
Extract 5 has shown that the turn design that includes embod- Extract 6 illustrates how the teacher deploys verbal and embod-
ied as well as verbal elements of dispreference (in particular line ied resources to indicate dispreference. We will again argue for
17) is visually available to students and it pushes turn completions the complexity of L2 production enabled through dispreferred turn
by students themselves, creating more space for meaning negotia- design; this time pushing the student to produce a subordinate
tion. Since the implicit evaluative nature of the teacher’s follow-up clause tied with a conjunction. The segment takes place when a
actions also (from lines 19 to 22) helps avoid face-threatening student bids for a turn and poses an information-seeking question
potential of dispreferred turn designs, it thus also creates align- while the teacher is engaged in lecturing.
ment. Keeping in mind that this is an EMI context and content is Extract 6: Consulting and counseling, 25 03 15
82 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85

The extract begins with Esi’s information-seeking question that starts her turn with the stance marker ‘I think’, which is followed
queries the difference between ‘consulting’ and ‘counselling’; a by a hesitation marker (er:). What happens next is that a lengthy
question related to a past learning event. Prefacing her question silence (2.7 s) emerges during which Fer looks down and T keeps
with the Turkish honorific address term (‘hocam’) (tr: my teacher) nodding at her. In the following turns Fer manages to complete her
and a stance marker (‘I think’), Esi makes her K(-) epistemic utterance (lines 13–14).
status (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b) recognizable (I have missed a An approximately 1 s silence takes place when T breaks the
point). In line 4, T acknowledges the question with ‘o↑kay’ and mutual gaze with Fer and looks up (see Fig. 12). The gaze shift
by orienting to the class, redirects the question back to the stu- here conveys dispreference (Park, 2015), which works as a repair
dents simply by asking what the difference is. Immediately after initiation. In line 16, Fer attempts to build more on her previous
that, by also changing her place and walking toward the middle of formulation with the elaboration marker ‘I mean’. During the 1.4 s
the class, T asks specifically what the difference between ‘consult- silence, T shifts her gaze up (see Fig. 13), and displays a thinking
ing’ and ‘counselling’ is. In line 7, during a long silence, T scans the face (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986) accompanied by movement of
class for a potential answer and smiles at the students. In the fol- her body to the right (see Fig. 14); a combination of these embod-
lowing turn, by moving her hand to the left side (see Fig. 10), she ied resources might be indicating dispreference. Fer’s formulation
invites participation from the students. This embodied invitation of in line 18 is followed by a 1.4 s silence, and in line 20, by using the
the teacher is an interesting example of promoting progressivity of minimal acknowledgment token ‘mhmm::’ which may function as a
the interactional sequences in the classroom context. In line 11, Fer weak agreement (Davidson, 1984), T displays that Fer’s answer is
 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85 83

not what she is looking for; marking dispreference again. Overlap- Mancho-Barés’ (2015) results, in that their findings also revealed
ping with the teacher’s turn, Fer qualifies her display of epistemic very few language focus episodes caused by linguistic limitations.
status when she utters the phrase ‘as far as I know’, where she Given that language focus can be a prominent feature in CLIL inter-
makes it obvious that the piece of information she has provided is actions (e.g. Jakonen & Morton, 2015), our findings then can display
within the scope of her epistemic domain but it might be wrong. at least some aspects of the institutional dynamics of EMI interac-
This also resembles what we have observed in Extract 5, in which tion embedded in preference organization, as subject content is
the dispreferred turn design of T and embodied indicators of this prioritized over language. With these findings, we documented the
push the student to produce an additional clause (a subordinate micro-level details of a macro-level policy (i.e. a focus on content
clause with ‘as far as I know’ in this extract, and a prepositional rather than on language) in action, embedded in the local contin-
phrase ‘with other words’ in Extract 5); thus promoting complex gencies of sequential actions.
L2 production at syntactic level. While the former one hedges the Furthermore, Extracts 5 and 6 are important from both EMI
level of certainty of the answer, the latter one serves to elaborate the and ‘L2 use’ perspectives, as they indicate the intricate relationship
answer; in this sense, they do different jobs in interaction although between dispreferred turn designs of a teacher and their potential
they both come out as increments. After half a second of silence to push complexity in students’ use of English at syntactic level,
in line 22, by giving an opportunity to Fer to repair, T acknowl- facilitating extensions of student turns, and enabling students’
edges what Fer has uttered with a downward toned ‘o↓ka:y’. The reanalyzes of their own turns. These extracts outline how incre-
incorrectness of Fer’s response becomes more apparent when T ments, which are turn constructional unit extensions, are designed
aborts her own turn to allocate the turn to Mec, that is, T is still to address different issues in interaction (e.g. handling possible
looking for something else as the received answer from Fer is insuf- upcoming disagreement). Such findings are important in partic-
ficient. Between lines 28 and 31, Mec responds to the question as ular with regards to meaning-and-fluency contexts (Seedhouse,
an attempt to provide the response T is looking for and T keeps 2004) in L2 classrooms, which look “similar to daily interactions
nodding at Mec as an indicator of listenership. In line 33, T acknowl- in many ways, and aim to promote use of language in meaningful
edges what Mec has uttered with ‘<oka:y oka:y>’ and assesses interactions in classrooms” (Sert, 2015, p. 29). The findings show
her contribution ‘some↑how correct’, which functions as a par- that teachers can promote extended learner turns through spe-
tial agreement. That is, her assessment characteristically manifests cific turn designs when the focus is on meaning and subject rather
something less than agreement. Following her laughter, T produces than language, which is a feature of classroom interaction that can
another assessment ‘partially correct’ (line 36) and closes the be transferred to L2 teaching. From this perspective, the interplay
sequence with final explanations with which she provides a full between dispreferred turn designs and the syntactic complexity of
account for the question. English language at turn level has potential to inform L2 classrooms
Overall, Extract 6 demonstrates that by marking the student’s and CLIL classrooms, where English is also ’content’ rather than the
response as problematic and inadequate through a variety of verbal medium of communication only.
and nonverbal resources, the teacher delivers dispreferred actions We argue that a micro-analytic investigation into EMI inter-
with dispreferred design features. By employing specific embodied action has proven to be useful for extending our understanding
conduct such as pointing at the student, shifting gaze or moving her of EMI in higher education. Successful EMI classrooms and their
body to the right side, the teacher treats the student contribution as interactional architecture can feed into research and practice in EFL
something repairable. Considering the interactional function of the and CLIL classrooms, as revealing successful interactions through a
increment it serves, we can say that produced as a post-gap incre- micro-analytic lens in EMI contexts can create models of language
ment along with the weak agreement of the teacher, it functions as use to maintain meaning through language repertoires success-
a repair practice through which the student addresses her less than fully. For example, samples of specific turn designs can be used
preferred response (Schegloff, 2000). The last two extracts are also as training materials in L2 teacher education where the teach-
important for us in that they demonstrate how preference organi- ers are teaching to students at more advanced levels in terms of
zation can become a site to show the ways a teacher’s turn design language proficiency. This would promote more communicative
triggers L2 complexity at multiple levels. In this sense, the signif- language classrooms, where teachers, through their dispreferred
icance of increments should be acknowledged within the context turn designs, could facilitate extended learner turns.
of conversational turn taking in L2 classroom discourse. A number of turn-design features have constructed the teacher’s
turns as disagreement-implicative but at the same time as a facil-
itator for more extended learner turns in our study. First, the
7. Discussion and conclusion employment of a temporal delay has been observed, which demon-
strably creates a break in interaction (Schegloff, 2007). Second,
Our findings have first empirically demonstrated how dispre- hedging and delaying devices are deployed which delay the pro-
ferred turns of action are co-constructed in two EMI classrooms duction of the actual response. Last, the locally contingent ways
in a higher education setting in Turkey. Extract 3 has illustrated in which the teacher manages her body seems to be critical for
the teacher’s preference for maintaining her pedagogical agenda (a the students to overview the adequacy of their prior responses.
focus on the task and content, rather than a word that is searched In other words, students orient to all these interactional resources
by the student) through her dispreferred turn design. From a mul- employed by the teacher by attempting to produce increments over
timodal perspective, Extract 4 has showcased how dispreference their just-prior contribution.
is marked visually, for example by gaze aversions and orientations We also argue that the robust methodological tools of
to materials. In this sense, the extract illustrates how bodily-visual conversation analysis helped us better grasp the pedagogical
practices along with learning materials are at play in dispreferred dynamics of EMI classroom interaction, as they enabled us to
turn designs. see the value of embodied resources in establishing and co-
The focus on subject content rather than on language in EMI constructing pedagogical practices. The field of EMI, in and beyond
classroom interaction, as has been revealed in our study, has also the Turkish higher education context, can benefit from more
been confirmed in Jiang et al.’s (2016) research. Their investiga- micro-analytic investigations, since teaching and learning are
tion into a Chinese EMI higher education context has demonstrated embodied in the micro-details of pedagogical interaction. Using
only few instances of teacher-initiated ‘focus on form’ on lexis conversation analysis, our study has documented an aspect of
and grammar. These findings are also in line with Arnó-Macià and preference organization in a teacher’s turn design, but we need
84 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85

more micro-analytic evidence to portray interactional and insti- Arkın, I. E. (2013). English-medium instruction in higher education: A case study in
tutional dynamics of EMI. Future research should look into other a Turkish University context Unpublished PhD thesis. Cyprus: Eastern Mediter-
ranean University.
interactional practices (e.g. teacher and learner questions, code- Arnó-Macià, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in
switching and translanguaging, repairs) in EMI classrooms so as to content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and
be able to be conducive to teaching and teacher education in these implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 63–73.
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction
contexts. in a sociocognitive approach in second language acquisition. Modern Language
Journal, 91, 169–188.
Bilmes, J. (2014). Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor. Journal of Prag-
Acknowledgements
matics, 64, 52–71.
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In
The data used in this study comes from the PhD study of the P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education
(pp. 328–334). Tokyo: JALT.
first author (Duran, 2017), supervised by the second author. We
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and
thank the lecturer and the students who gave their consent for this looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
research. We thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English.
their insightful comments. We also want to thank Leila Kääntä, who International Education Studies, 8(3), 1–13.
Church, A. (2004). Preference revisited. RASK: International Journal of Language and
provided very useful comments on an earlier version of the paper. Linguistics, 21, 111–129.
Finally, we are grateful for the analytic insights of the participants Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Content and language integrated learning.
in data sessions organized by HUMAN (Hacettepe University Micro- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalkız, A. (2002). Ortaöğretimde İngilizce kimya eğitiminin başarıya etkisi Unpublished
Analysis Network) and the Finnish Center of Excellence in Research master’s thesis. Turkey: Marmara University.
on Intersubjectivity in Interaction. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under
my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz,
Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218.
Appendix A. Transcription conventions Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and pro-
posals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage
(Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 102–128).
(1.8) Numbers enclosed in parentheses indicate a pause. The number Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
represents the number of seconds of duration of the pause, to one Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction – A growing phenomenon. Lon-
decimal place. A pause of less than 0.2 s is marked by (.) don, UK: British Council.
[] Brackets around portions of utterances show that those portions Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards
overlap with a portion of another speaker’s utterance. English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Lan-
= An equal sign is used to show that there is no time lapse between guage Learning and Teaching, 6, 455–486.
the portions connected by the equal signs. This is used where a Demircan, Ö. (2006). Öğrenici açısından yabancı dil öğretimi ile yabancı dilde öğretim
second speaker begins their utterance just at the moment when ilişkisi. http://www.yde.yildiz.edu.tr/sunumdosyalar/s 061130.htm
the first speaker finishes. Derintuna, D. (2006). İngilizce kullanım ortamında alan oğretim elemanlarının
:: A colon after a vowel or a word is used to show that the sound is oğrencilerin dil yeterliliğiile ilgili beklentileri [Academic English language require-
extended. The number of colons shows the length of the extension. ments of students through the perspectives of their content teachers] Unpublished
MA thesis. Turkey: Marmara University.
(hm, hh) These are onomatopoetic representations of the audible exhalation
Drew, P. (1997). “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of
of air)
troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101.
.hh This indicates an audible inhalation of air, for example, as a gasp.
Duran, D. (2017). Student-initiated questions in English as a medium of instruction
The more h’s, the longer the in-breath. classrooms in a Turkish higher education setting Unpublished PhD thesis. Turkey:
? A question mark indicates that there is slightly rising intonation. Hacettepe University.
. A period indicates that there is slightly falling intonation. Earls, C. W. (2016). English medium of instruction at higher education: Advanc-
, A comma indicates a continuation of tone. ing understanding of the phenomenon. In C. W. Earls (Ed.), Evolving agendas
– A dash indicates an abrupt cut off, where the speaker stopped in European English-medium higher education (pp. 189–202). London: Palgrave
speaking suddenly. Macmillan.
↑↓ Up or down arrows are used to indicate that there is sharply rising Enfield, N. J., & Stivers, T. (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural
or falling intonation. The arrow is placed just before the syllable in and social perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
which the change in intonation occurs. Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N. (2014). ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive
Under Underlines indicate speaker emphasis on the underlined portion of nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case
study. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 165–180.
the word.
Evnitskaya, N., & Berger, E. (2017). Learners’ multimodal displays of willingness
CAPS Capital letters indicate that the speaker spoke the capitalized
to participate in classroom interaction in the L2 and CLIL contexts. Classroom
portion of the utterance at a higher volume than the speaker’s
Discourse, 8(1), 71–94.
normal volume. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said. Talk as social organization among black
◦
This indicates an utterance that is much softer than the normal children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
speech of the speaker. This symbol will appear at the beginning Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and co-participation in the activity
and at the end of the utterance in question. of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51–75.
><, <> ‘Greater than’ and ‘less than’ signs indicate that the talk they Guarda, M., & Helm, F. (2016). “I have discovered new teaching pathways”: The link
surround was noticeably faster, or slower than the surrounding between language shift and teaching practice. International Journal of Bilingual
talk. Education and Bilingualism, 1–17.
(would) When a word appears in parentheses, it indicates that the Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2014). A response: The concept of the classroom
transcriber has guessed as to what was said, because it was ecology and the roles of teachers in materials use. The Modern Language Journal,
indecipherable on the tape. If the transcriber was unable to guess 98(2), 671–672.
what was said, nothing appears within the parentheses. Güler, C. (2004). An investigation into the academic English language needs of students
at Yıldız Technical University and disciplinary teachers’ attitudes towards English-
£C’mon£ Sterling signs are used to indicate a smiley or jokey voice.
medium instruction at the tertiary level Unpublished MA thesis. Ankara, Turkey:
→ Highlights point of analysis
Bilkent University.
+ Marks the onset of an embodied action (e.g. shift of gaze, pointing) Hahl, K., Järvinen, H.-M., & Juuti, K. (2014). Accommodating to English-medium
italics English translation instruction in teacher education in Finland. International Journal of Applied Lin-
(()) Describes embodied actions within a specific turn and time guistics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12093
Adapted from Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008) Heath, C. (1992). Gesture’s discreet tasks: Multiple relevancies in visual conduct
and in the contextualisation of language. In P. Auer, & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The
contextualisation of language (pp. 101–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
References Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher
repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32(1), 79–104.
Alptekin, C. (1998). İkinci dil, anadil yeteneğini arttırır [Second language increases Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Mul-
the competence in mother-tongue] [Learning foreign languages do not lead tilingual Matters.
to forgetting Turkish]. In A. Kilmci (Ed.), Anadilinde çocuk olmak: Yabancı Dilde Hellermann, J. (2009). Practices for dispreferred responses using “no” by a learner
Eğitim[To be a child in mother-tongue: Education in foreign language] (pp. 39–41). of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL),
İstanbul: PapirüsYayınevi. 47(1), 95–126.
 D. Duran, O. Sert / Linguistics and Education 49 (2019) 72–85 85

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pillet-Shore, D. (2015). Being a “good parent” in parent-teacher conferences. Journal
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowl- of Communication, 65(2), 373–395.
edge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. Pillet-Shore, D. (2016). Criticizing another’s child: How teachers evaluate students
Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of during parent–teacher conferences. Language in Society, 45(1), 33–58.
knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. Pillet-Shore, D. (2017). Preference organization. In J. Nussbaum (Ed.), The Oxford
Holtgraves, T. (2000). Preference organization and reply comprehension. Discourse research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.
Processes, 30(2), 87–106. org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.132
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some fea-
Ingram, J., Baldry, F., & Pitt, A. (2013). The influence of how teachers interactionally tures of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage
manage mathematical mistakes on the mathematics that students experience. (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University
In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, & M. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th congress of the Press.
European Society of Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1487–1495). Ankara: Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systemat-
European Society of Research in Mathematics Education. ics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4),
Jacknick, C. M., & Thornbury, S. (2013). The task at hand: Noticing as a mind-body- 696–735.
world phenomenon. Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Honor Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation. Cambridge: Blackwell.
of Richard Schmidt, 309. Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.
Jakonen, T. (2015). Handling knowledge: Using classroom materials to construct and In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.
interpret information requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 100–112. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in Schegloff, E. (2000). When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–243.
a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–94. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner University Press.
(Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amster- Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in
dam: John Benjamins. the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.
Jiang, L., Zhang, L. J., & May, S. (2016). Implementing English-medium instruction Schmidt-Unterberger, B. (2018). The English-medium paradigm: A conceptualisa-
(EMI) in China: Teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning moti- tion of English-medium teaching in higher education. International Journal of
vation and needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 527–539.
1–13. Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between peda-
Kocaman, A. (2000). Yabanci dilde egitim [Education in a foreign language]. gogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47(3), 547–583.
Cumhuriyet Gazetesi Bilim Teknik Eki., 708, 14–15. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A con-
Kırkıcı, B. (2004). Foreign language-medium instruction and bilingualism: The anal- versation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
ysis of a myth. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2, 109–121. Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teach-
Kupetz, M. (2011). Multimodal resources in students’ explanations in CLIL interac- ing, 38(4), 165–187.
tion. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 121–142. Seedhouse, P. (2012). Conversation analysis and classroom interaction. In C. A.
Kääntä, L. (2010). Teacher turn-allocation and repair practices in classroom interac- Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
tion: A multisemiotic perspective Unpublished PhD thesis. Finland: University of Seedhouse, P. (2019). L2 classroom contexts: Deviance, confusion, grappling and
Jyväskylä. flouting. Classroom Discourse, 10(1) https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcdi20/
Kääntä, L. (2012). Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Class- 10/1
room Discourse, 3(2), 166–186. Selvi, A. F. (2014). The medium-of-instruction debate in Turkey: Oscillating between
Kääntä, L., Kasper, G., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2016). Explaining Hooke’s Law: Defi- national ideas and bilingual ideas. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15,
nitional practices in a CLIL physics classroom. Applied Linguistics, http://dx.doi. 133–152.
org/10.1093/applin/amw025 Sert, N. (2000). İngilizce dil yeterliği ile akademik başarı arasındaki ilişki [The relation-
Kääntä, L., & Kasper, G. (2018). Clarification requests as a method of pursuing under- ship between English language proficiency and academic success] Unpublished PhD
standing in CLIL physics lectures. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 205–226. http://dx. thesis. Turkey: Ankara University.
doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1477608 Sert, N. (2008). The language of instruction dilemma in the Turkish context. System,
Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. 36, 156–171.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303–321. Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. University Press.
Macaro, E., Akıncıoğlu, M., & Dearden, J. (2016). English medium instruction in Sert, O. (2017). Creating opportunities for L2 learning in a prediction activity. System,
universities: A collaborative experiment in Turkey. Studies in English Language 70, 14–25.
Teaching, 4(1), 51–76. Sert, O. (2019). Mutual gaze, embodied go-aheads, and their interactional con-
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English sequences in L2 classrooms. In J. K. Hall, & S. Looney (Eds.), The embodied,
medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. interactional achievement of teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Macbeth, D. (2000). Classrooms as installations: Direct instruction in the early Sert, O., & Jacknick, C. M. (2015). Student smiles and the negotiation of epistemics
grades. In S. Hester, & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order. Ethnomethod- in L2 classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 97–112.
ological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 21–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sert, O., & Walsh, S. (2013). The interactional management of claims of insuffi-
Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in cient knowledge in English language classrooms. Language and Education, 27(6),
Society, 33, 703–736. 542–565.
Margutti, P. (2004). Classroom interaction in an Italian primary school: Instructional Smit, U., & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language instruction in higher
sequences in pedagogic settings Unpublished PhD thesis. England: University of education. Gaining insights from English-medium instruction at European univer-
York. sities. AILA Review (Vol. 25) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. New Jersey: Routledge. Sinanoğlu, O. (2000). Bir New York rüyası: “Bye-bye” Türkçe [A New York dream: “Bye-
Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second lan- bye” Turkish]. İstanbul: Otopsi.
guage acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, Steensig, J., & Asmuss, B. (2005). Notes on disaligning ‘yes but’ initiated utterances
63(4), 629–664. in German and Danish conversations. Two construction types for dispreferred
Matsumoto, Y., & Dobs, A. M. (2017). Pedagogical gestures as interactional resources responses. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation:
for teaching and learning tense and aspect in the ESL grammar classroom. Lan- Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 349–373). John
guage Learning, 67(1), 7–42. Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Szczepek Reed, B. (2015). Managing the boundary between ‘yes’ and ‘but’: Two ways
MA: Harvard University Press. of disaffiliating with German ja aber and jaber. Research on Language and Social
Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation anal- Interaction, 48, 32–57.
ysis perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage.
Nishizaka, A., & Hayano, K. (2015). Conversational preference. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Rout-
T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. ledge.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom:
Park, I. (2015). Or-prefaced third turn self-repairs in student questions. Linguistics IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92,
and Education, 31, 101–114. 577–594.
Pekarek-Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional Waring, H. Z. (2016). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation
competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, analysis. Oxon: Routledge.
repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno, & S. W. Eskildsen Zok, D. (2010). Turkey’s language revolution and the status of English today. The
(Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–270). English Languages: History, Diaspora, Culture, 1, 1–13.