Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 6:4 (2015) ► pp.565–592

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The practice of (re)formulating in classroom interaction

Some preliminary remarks

Published online: 21 December 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.4.05kap
Although the practice of (re)formulating has been examined in a variety of institutional settings, its realization in the framework of school interaction has received no attention from a conversation analytic perspective. The present article aspires to fill this gap, offering some preliminary remarks about how reformulations, namely versions of what was previously said or implied, are accomplished in the classroom. More specifically, two types of the teacher’s reformulations are distinguished, on the basis of his/her epistemic access to what is reformulated. The research aims at demonstrating how a general practice adapts to the central activities of the setting in which it is employed.
References (46)
Antaki, Charles, Rebecca Barnes, and Ivan Leudar. 2005. “Diagnostic Formulations in Psychotherapy.” Discourse Studies7 (6): 627–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka. 2005. Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baleghizadeh, Sasan, and Shahid Beheshti. 2010. “Recast and its Impact on Second Language Acquisition.” International Journal of Language Studies4 (4): 57–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina. 2010. “‘Articulating the Unsaid’ via and-Prefaced Formulations of Others’ Talk.” Discourse Studies12 (1): 5–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 1993. “Reformulating the Question: A Device for Answering/Not Answering Questions in News Interviews and Press Conferences.” Text13 (2): 159–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, Kathy. 1986. “The Process of Problem Re(formulation) in Psychotherapy.” Sociology of Health and Illness8 (1): 44–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2011. “The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics.” Human Studies341: 115–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2003. “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings: A Sketch.” InIn Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper, ed. byPhillip Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron, and Jenny Mandelbaum, 293–308. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 2007. “The Right Connections: Acknowledging Epistemic Progression in Talk.” Language in Society361: 319–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks. 1970. “On Formal Structures of Practical Action.” InTheoretical Sociology, ed. byJohn C. McKinney and Edward A. Tiryakian, 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcia, Angela. 1991. “Dispute Resolution without Disputing: How the Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argument.” American Sociological Review56 (6): 818–835. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greatbatch, David. 1992. “On the Management of Disagreement between News Interviewees.” InTalk at Work, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 268–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1988. “On the Language of Physical Science.” InRegisters of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features, ed. byMohsen Ghadessy. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1985. “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 31, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, 95–119. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Rod Watson. 1979. “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” InEveryday Language, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 1996. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. “On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation”. Studium Linguistik141: 58–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kapellidi, Charikleia, 2013. “The Organization of Talk in School Interaction.” Discourse Studies15 (2): 185–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2010. “Questions that Convey Information in Teacher-Student Conferences.” InWhy Do You Ask: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. byAlice Freed and Susan Ehrlich. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurri, Katja, and Jarl Wahlström. 2007. “Reformulations of Agentless Talk in Psychotherapy.” Text & Talk27 (3): 315–338. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy, and Leila Ranta. 1997. “Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition19 (1): 37–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie. 1983. “Sprecherwechsel in der Schule.” InKommunikation in Schule und Hochschule, ed. byKonrad Ehlich and Jochen Rehbein, 77–101. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McHoul, Αlec. 1978. “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society7 (2): 183–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. “The Organization of Repair in Classroom Talk.” Language in Society19 (3): 349–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. “The Structure of Classroom Discourse.” InHandbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 31, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, 115–131. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercer, Neil. 2004. “Sociocultural Discourse Analysis: Analysing Classroom Talk as a Social Mode of Thinking.” Journal of Applied Linguistics1 (2): 137–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Connor, Mary Catherine, and Sarah Michaels. 1996. “Shifting Participant Frameworks: Orchestrating Thinking Practices in Group Discussion.” InDiscourse, Learning and Schooling, ed. byDeborah Hicks, 63–103. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi, and Sanna Vehviläinen. 2003. “Conversation Analysis and the Professional Stocks of Interactional Knowledge.” Discourse & Society14 (6): 727–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage. 2006. “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society35 (5): 677–705. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. byGraham Button and John R.E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language501: 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics, ed. byTalmy Givon, 261–286. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. “Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair.” Discourse Processes23 (3): 499–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schleef, Erik. 2005. “Gender, Power, Discipline, and Context: On the Sociolinguistic Variation of Okay, Right, Like, and You Know in English Academic Discourse.” InTexas Linguistic Forum 48, ed. byChiho Sunakawa, Tomoko Ikeda, Shannon Finch, and Shetty Malavika, 177–186. Austin, Texas: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John, and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: 
Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waring, Hansun Zhang. 2002. “Displaying Substantive Recipiency in Seminar Discussion.” Research on Language and Social Interaction35 (4): 453–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

MORI, Ippei
2023. Constitutive Methods for Deliberation in Mass Teaching Lessons. Japanese Sociological Review 74:2 ► pp. 280 ff. DOI logo
Amri, Marwa & Olcay Sert
2022. Establishing understanding during student-initiated between-desk instructions in project work. Cambridge Journal of Education 52:6 ► pp. 667 ff. DOI logo
Jacknick, Christine M. & Derya Duran
2021. Transforming student contributions into subject-specific expression. System 98 ► pp. 102485 ff. DOI logo
Pulles, Maaike, Jan Berenst, Tom Koole & Kees de Glopper
2021. Text formulations as practices of demonstrating understanding in dialogic reading. Text & Talk 41:4 ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo
Solem, Marit Skarbø & Karianne Skovholt
2019. Teacher Formulations in Classroom Interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 63:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue