Montiegel2023a
| Montiegel2023a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Montiegel2023a |
| Author(s) | Kristella Montiegel |
| Title | Preference and embodiment in an oral preschool classroom |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2023 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Children and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 7 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 92-118 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1558/rcsi.24266 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This study extends research on question preference and, specifically, polar questions that prefer reverse-polarity responses. In the context of a deaf or hard-of-hearing (D/HH) oral preschool classroom, I examine what I call teachers’ ‘No’-preferring questions (No-PQs), or polar questions that are grammatically positive yet exhibit a preference for students’ ‘No’-responses. Using Conversation Analysis, I focus on a collection of 25 cases of teachers’ No-PQs that present some behaviour or way of doing something for students to evaluate (e.g. Do we cry?). All instances of these No-PQs are co-produced with embodied conduct that help convey a negative stance towards the behaviour/way of doing something presented in the question and, resultantly, conditions students’ ‘No’-responses as preferred and aligning. 17 (68%) of these cases sequentially occurred when teachers were beginning classroom activities or invoking future events. In these environments, teachers’ embodied conduct served as demonstrations of a proposed behaviour or way of doing something and thus were treated by participants as instructional. In contrast, eight (32%) of these cases sequentially occurred while teachers were orienting to a student’s prior conduct as problematic. In this environment, teachers’ embodied conduct served as imitations of a student’s conduct and thus were responsive and treated by participants as disciplinary. I show how embodiment is a vital resource for resolving action ambiguity in interaction, which might be especially useful for D/HH children who may or may not rely more than hearing children on visual information for communication. Data are drawn from 25 hours of video-recordings in one oral classroom in the United States.
Notes
