The Application of Sinclair and Coulthard’s Model for Analyzing Classroom Discourse to a Non-Traditional Japanese Conversation Class

FOR YOUR LEARNING

The Application of Sinclair and Coulthard’s Model for Analyzing Classroom

Discourse to a Non-Traditional Japanese Conversation Class

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Background of Sinclair and Coulthard’s Model for Classroom Discourse Analysis

2.1 Rank Scale of the Model

2.1.1 Exchanges and Moves

2.1.2 Acts

3 Analysis of Transcribed Data from a Recorded English Class

3.1 Background of the Class and Recording

3.2 The Transcription

3.3 Analysis of the Data

3.3.1 Where the Data Fit Easily

3.3.2 Where the Data Was Problematic

4 Implications for Understanding Communication in the EFL Classroom

4.1 Usefulness of the Model

4.2 Limitations of the Model

5 Conclusions

6 References

7 Appendices

1 Introduction
The job of the teacher, the setting, and social relations are factors that affect classroom
communication (Sinclair & Brazil, 1982, p. 20). Historically English classrooms have been teacher fronted, controlled and highly structured. The way teachers and students interact in these traditional kinds of classrooms is very different from how people communicate in ‘the real world’. However, in recent years the trend is for classrooms to be more loosely structured, student centered, and with the focus on learning English through meaningful communication. These kinds of classes are often meant to give students more opportunities to contribute to and participate in ‘real world’ conversations. Whether a class follows a traditional style or more recent trends, analyzing classroom discourse is a useful way for teachers to understand the structure of communication between teachers and students.
The purpose of this paper is to first briefly introduce a model developed by Sinclair and Coulthard(1992) for analyzing classroom discourse. I will then use this model to analyze data transcribed from a recording of a conversation class I taught at a Japanese university. For exchanges that do not adhere to the Sinclair and Coulthard model because of the non-traditional style in which the class was conducted, I will use categories from a model developed by Francis and Hunston (1992) for analyzing everyday conversations. Then, both the ease and difficulty of fitting the data to the model will be commented on. Finally, the usefulness and limitations of using this model for analyzing classroom communication will be discussed.
2 Background of Sinclair and Coulthard’s Model for Classroom Discourse Analysis
In 1970 Sinclair and Coulthard began performing research to investigate “the structure of verbal interaction in classrooms” (Coulthard, 1985, p. 120). In their original discourse analysis model, published in 1975, they found that in traditional teacher led native-speaker school classrooms, where teacher and student roles were well defined, interactions were highly structured (McCarthy, 1991, p. 12). For teachers especially, the Sinclair and Coulthard discourse analysis model has implications because “the discourse type it chose to analyse was school lessons” (Cook, 1989, p.46). It is this model that I will use to analyze a transcription of classroom discourse for this paper.

2.1 Rank Scale of the Model

Sinclair and Coulthard’s model is similar to another model used to describe grammar developed by Halliday (as cited in Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992). Halliday’s model, based on linguistic theory of the time, organized categories of grammar into ranks, each rank having a structure expressed by the rank below it, with the exception of the lowest rank, which has no structure (Sinclair & Coulthard,1992) (See Table 1).
Table 1: Halliday Rank Scale
Grammar
Highest Rank
Lowest Rank
Sentence
Clause
Group
Word
Morpheme

Sinclair and Coulthard’s rank scale system is identical in terms of organization, but their model
describes categories of classroom discourse (See Table 2).

Table 2: Sinclair and Coulthard Rank Scale

Classroom Discourse
Highest Rank
Lowest Rank
Lesson
Transaction
Exchange
Move
Act

The highest rank in Sinclair and Coulthard’s model was the lesson, but they were unable to show structurally how a lesson is made up of transactions (Coulthard, 1985, p. 123). The other four ranks, on the other hand had well defined structure. Transactions were made up of exchanges, exchanges were “expressed in terms of moves”, and moves consisted of “one or more
acts” (Coulthard, 1985, p. 124-125). For the purposes of this paper the transcribed data will only be analyzed at the level of exchange, move and act. These three ranks will be explained in sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.

2.1.1 Exchanges and Moves

Sinclair and Coulthard indicate in their model that there are two “major classes” of exchange:
boundary exchanges and teaching exchanges (1992, p. 25). According to Sinclair and Coulthard, boundary exchanges typically signal the beginning or the end of a lesson, transaction, or a change of topic with words like ‘right’, ‘alright’, ‘now’, ‘OK’ spoken with falling or rising intonation and a short pause. They describe teaching exchanges as the “individual steps by which the lesson progresses” (1992, p. 25).
In the Sinclair and Coulthard model, teaching exchanges consist of a minimum of one move, and a maximum of three: a required opening move, followed by a potential answering move and then a potential follow-up move (Cook, 1989, p. 47). These moves are also labelled as Initiation (I), Response (R) and Feedback (F) (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992, p. 26), which are the terms used to express the structure of exchanges. In an exchange the move is “the minimal contribution a speaker can make to an exchange” (Coulthard, 1985, p. 125). Typically, in their model, Initiation (I) moves are made by the teacher, these are sometimes followed by a student verbal or non-verbal Response (R) move, and then the teacher makes some kind of a Feedback or Follow-up (F) move which accepts, rejects, evaluates, or comments on the student response move (Hellerman, 2003, p. 80).
The following is an example of a typical IRF exchange:
(I) Teacher: What is this?
(R) Student: It’s a pen.
(F) Teacher: Very good.
(Author’s example)
According to Sinclair and Coulthard (1992) teaching exchanges are comprised of eleven
subcategories, six of which are designated as ‘free’ exchanges and five that are ‘bound’ exchanges.
Bound exchanges are exchanges which are tied to the immediately preceding free exchange. They occur when the teacher or student needs the previous exchange to be repeated or re initiated due to factors such as unsatisfactory response or misunderstanding. Free exchanges have four main functions: informing, directing, eliciting, and checking (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992, p. 25). An explanation of the functions and structures of each type of free exchange can be seen below (See Table 3). In regards to the IRF structure in the table, parentheses are used when a move is not always required.

Table 3: Free Teaching Exchanges

Free Exchanges Function Structure

Teacher Inform Used to pass facts, opinions, ideas, and new information to the
students.
I(R)
Teacher Direct Used to direct the students to do, but not say something. IR(F)
Teacher Elicit Used to obtain a verbal contribution from students. IRF
Pupil Elicit Used for student questions requiring a response from the
teacher.
IR
Pupil Inform Used when students offer relevant or interesting information. IF
Check Used by teachers to see how well students are understanding,
or hearing. It can be considered a kind of eliciting exchange.
IR(F)
(Based on Sinclair and Coulthard, 1992, p. 26-28)

2.1.2 Acts

Acts are the lowest rank in the model. Moves are made up of acts, although “some moves consist of a single act” (Coulthard, 1985, p. 125). Sinclair and Coulthard specified twenty-two acts in their model. Each act has a code and has a general “interactive function” (Coulthard, 1985, p. 126) that is realized by a speaker’s utterance. While some moves are made up of several acts, there is usually one ‘free standing’ act which can stand on its own without being dependent on the other acts in a move. The ‘free standing’ act, or ‘head’ in an initiating move, serves to indicate or label the type of exchange (i.e. eliciting, informing, directing). The following example and explanation further clarify how exchanges, moves and acts interact:
(I) Teacher: Where are you from (el)
(R) Student: Eugene (rep)
(F) Teacher: Eugene ok (e) Oregon State then (com)
(Authors Example)
In this exchange, the teacher makes an initiating (I) move which consists of an elicitation (el) act. This elicitation is the only act in the move and it can stand on it’s own, therefore it is the ‘head’ and indicates that the exchange is a Teacher Elicit type of exchange (See Table 3). In the response (R) move the student makes a reply (rep). In the third and final follow-up (F) move there are two acts, the teacher first evaluates (e) the student response, and then comments (com) on it. For a list and explanations of all of the different acts used in the analysis performed for this paper see appendix 7.

3 Analysis of Transcribed Data from a Recorded English Class

3.1 Background of the Class and Recording

To prepare for this paper I first obtained permission to record a lesson from four of my students in a small conversation class at the Japanese prefectural university where I work. At first I planned on audio recording the class, but later opted to record the lesson using a small handheld digital video recorder instead, so as to be sure to capture all of the nonverbal features of conversation that could occur (Francis & Hunston, 1992, p. 124). I set up the video camera in a stationary unobtrusive position and left it on record for the entire lesson.
The class was a thirty minute, not for credit conversation class. The students who attended were motivated, had an advanced level of English, and tried to speak out as much as possible during class. The students ranged from eighteen to twenty-two years of age and were all from different faculties. The class title was “TalkTalkTalk”, and as the title suggests, the purpose of the class was to give the students opportunities to engage in free conversations about a specific topic. The goal for the recorded lesson was for the students to describe and talk about their hometowns.
At first, one problem I foresaw when deciding to record this kind of conversation class, was that the exchanges might not easily fit into Sinclair and Coulthard’s highly structured model due to the relaxed atmosphere of the class and relative looseness of who was in control of the conversations.
However, as it was a classroom conducted by a teacher, I presumed it was likely that much of the data would adhere to the model for classroom discourse, and I went ahead with the recording.

3.2 The Transcription

After reviewing the thirty minute recording, five or six extracts were found that contained a fair amount of interaction between the teacher and students. Due to the labor intensity of transcribing recorded data, I “selectively” (Swan, 2001, p. 328) chose to transcribe three sections I thought would be appropriate. The transcriptions and their keys were prepared using simple conventions illustrated by Swan (2001, p. 331) and can be found in the appendices (See Appendices 1-3). The transcription also includes non-verbal actions because utterances are often “accompanied by gestures and can sometimes be replaced by them.” (Sinclair & Brazil, 1982, p. 20). The transcriptions were used to make the analysis (See Appendices 4-6).

3.3 Analysis of the Data

After transcribing the three sets of data (See Appendices 1-3) it was necessary to analyze the data using Sinclair and Coulthard’s classroom discourse model at the level of exchange, move and act.
In terms of presentation, the layout of the analysis was set up in the form of a table with a key at the end of the table (See Appendices 4-6). In the table, exchanges are separated by rows. In each row there are five columns. The first column designates the specific type of exchange, the second column shows the opening move, the third column contains the answering move, the fourth column contains the follow-up move, and the last column gives the exchange number for reference. In this way the structure of each exchange is represented in the middle three columns using IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback) for each of the three possible positions where moves can occur. Within each of these three move positions speakers and the specific acts they perform are represented. A sample exchange can be seen below.

\

Exchange
type
Initiation Response Feedback Ex.
Pupil
Inform
S2: Sunshine is very
very hard for my skin
(i)
T: Ok (ack) 20
(See Appendix 5)
In terms of the analysis process, it was first necessary to determine who was making the opening move for each exchange. The next step was assigning at least one ‘head’ act to one of the utterances made in that initiation to determine what type of exchange it was. After that, response and feedback moves and the acts they consisted of were coded. This process took many hours and several revisions. Even after the revisions there were a number of exchanges which simply did not fit into Sinclair and Coulthard’s model. For the exchanges that resembled ‘real world’ conversations that would normally be found outside the classroom, I found it useful to adapt exchange types from Francis and Hunston’s model for analyzing everyday conversation. The table below (See Table 4) shows exchange types that were adapted and their IRF structure. In regards to the IRF structure, parentheses are used when a move is not required. It is important to note that even though the Francis and Hunston model permits more than three moves in an exchange, the Sinclair and Coulthard model’s maximum of three moves per exchange was kept in the analysis for
this paper.

Table 4: Francis and Hunston Exchanges
Exchanges Function Structure
Inform Used to offer information. I(R/I)R(Fn)
Elicit Used to elicit information, decision, or agreement. I(R/I)R(Fn)
Greet Used to greet or take leave, observing conventional
procedures.
IR
(bound-Elicit)
Clarify
Used to elicit clarification of a preceding utterance. I(R/I)R(Fn)
(bound-Elicit)
Repeat
Used to elicit repetition of a preceding utterance. I(R/I)R(Fn)
(bound-Elicit) Reinitiation
Used to indicate that an informing move is still required
following a silence by the other speaker.
I(R/I)R(Fn)
(Based on Francis & Hunston, 1992, p. 137-139)
In addition to the exchange types, acts from the Francis and Hunston model were also used. These acts are incorporated into the complete list of acts in the appendices (See Appendix 7). Some act types from the Francis and Hunston model have functions and realizations that are nearly identical to those from the Sinclair and Coulthard model. The ones that differ or simply do not exist are marked with asterisks.

3.3.1 Where the Data Fit Easily

There were places where the data fit into the model smoothly. The following is an example of three such exchanges that fit well. They occurred at the beginning of the lesson when the students and teacher were just getting to know each other.
Exchange
type
Initiation Response Feedback Ex.
Teacher
Elicit
T: What year are you
(el)
S4: Freshman (rep) T: Freshman ok (e) so
first year then (com)
16
Teacher
Elicit
T: and and you (el) S1: No (rep) 17
7
Repeat T: What’s your name
(l)
S1: ah <laughter>
(ack) my name uh my
name is Motoki (rep)
T: Motoki ok (e) 18
(See Appendix 4)
In exchanges 14 and 15 (See Appendix 4) Student 4 (S4) just finished introducing herself. Then in Exchange 16 you can see the teacher (T) take control of the conversation and initiate the first move in the exchange by asking what year in university S4 is in. She replies that she is a ‘freshman’, to which T follows-up with evaluative feedback in the form of ‘ok’ and comments that another way to say this would be ‘first year’. After that, T maintains control of the conversation and in exchange 17 turns to S1, eliciting him to introduce himself. Unfortunately a misunderstanding occurs at this point and S1, thinking that T is asking if he is also a freshman, replies ‘no’ mistakenly. This causes a bound exchange to occur in the form of a repeat in exchange 18. T rephrases the question, and the student acknowledges his mistake with a non-verbal response ‘<laughter>’, then replies with his name. Finally T evaluates his response as acceptable. In the analysis there were some exchanges like the one above where the teacher dominated the conversation and maintained control with teacher elicits and informs. In these cases, the data fit into the model easily.

3.3.2 Where the Data Was Problematic

Many of the difficulties I encountered fitting the data into the model were related to how the class was conducted. In this type of conversation class, students are able to, and indeed expected to, speak freely. Many exchanges resembled everyday conversations, therefore they did not fit into the typical classroom pattern of teacher-student-teacher interaction. In this section I’d like to comment on several of the difficulties and how I dealt with the problematic data. One issue I encountered was with greetings (See Appendix 4, Exchanges 1-3). Greetings are an important type of exchange in many classroom settings. However Sinclair and Coulthard’s model does not describe any exchange types or acts that cover greetings. Francis and Hunston (1992) have a greet exchange in their model, and propose acts that make up the moves in this type of exchange, which I incorporated into the analysis.

Another problem in fitting the data to the model had to do with eliciting exchanges. According to Sinclair and Coulthard’s model a teacher elicit must have an Initiation, Response, and a Feedback move. In my data there were several places (See Appendices 4 & 6, Exchanges 5, 6, 9, 13, 42)
where no feedback or follow-up move is made by the teacher. For these exchanges I adapted the
elicit exchange type and acts from Francis and Hunston’s model. For example:
Exchange
type
Initiation Response Feedback Ex.
**Elicit T: I haven’t seen you
for awhile (s) what’s
your name again (z) (.)
you are (3 sec) you are
(2 sec) Hirohito (m. pr)
S2: No (rej) 5
**Elicit T: Takuya (m. pr) S2: No (rej) 6

In the above T is asking S2’s name. At first I thought it would be appropriate to label exchange 5 a teacher elicit exchange, and exchange 6 a bound re-initiate exchange from Sinclair and Coulthard’s model. However, I opted to adapt from Francis and Hunston’s model instead because the conversation more resembled ‘everyday conversation’ and in their model feedback moves are not necessary in an elicit exchange.
In several places throughout the analysis (See Appendices 4 & 6, Exchanges 5, 6, 9, 13, 38, 42) the teacher asks ‘real’ questions. Berry (as cited in Willis, 1992) explains that ‘real’ questions “which seek to elicit information, will be asked not by a primary knower K1, but by a secondary knower, K2” (p. 114) as opposed to pseudo questions which are asked by the K1 and, in classrooms, are usually questions to which teachers already know the answer (McCarthy, 1991). A primary knower (K1) is the person who knows the answer to what is being asked, while a secondary knower may not (Willis, 1992). For these ‘real’ questions I found it more appropriate to assign categories from Francis and Hunston’s model. The following is an example of the difference between ‘real’ and ‘pseudo/classroom’ questions (See Table 5).

Table 5: Pseudo/Classroom and Real Questions
Pseudo/Classroom Real
K1: What is 2+2?
K2: 4
K1: That’s right, very good.
K2: What time do you get off?
K1: About 5:00
K2: Ok
(Author’s examples)
Another problem I encountered had to do with teacher elicit and pupil inform exchanges (See
Appendix 4-6, Exchanges 11, 20, 25, 27, 30, 33, 34, 45) . In these types of exchanges I frequently
came across utterances in the feedback move position that could not be classified as evaluate acts.
This is a problem because in both teacher elicit and pupil inform exchanges an evaluate is “the
obligatory element in the Follow-up move” (Willis, 1992, p. 116).
The reason for the common occurrence of this issue had to do with, again, the ‘real’ kinds of
conversations that took place. In everyday conversations follow-up moves can occur in eliciting
and informing exchanges, but often the kind of move is very different from classroom discourse
(Brazil & Coulthard, 1992). Willis (1992) offers a solution to this issue. He suggests allowing the
acknowledge act to stand as “the head of a Follow-up move” (Willis, 1992, p. 118). I found this
useful and incorporated it into my analysis for both teacher elicit and pupil inform exchanges where appropriate.
Due to the free and openness of turn-taking in the class, there were other problems encountered, and places where it was necessary to incorporate exchange types and acts from Francis and Hunston’s model for everyday conversation. Due to space restrictions I will not comment on all of my findings here, but one final set of exchanges that I found particularly difficult to fit into Sinclair and Coulthard’s model is the following:
Exchange type
Initiation Response Feedback Ex.
**Inform S4: And there are
beautiful eh beach and
mm and satoki
[indistinguishable] (i*)
p. 68 & 72 p. 138
35
10
**(Bound
Elicit)
Repeat p.
138
T: Satoki what huh (l) S4&5: Satokibi
[indistinguishable] (i)
36
**(Bound
Elicit)
Clarify
T: What is satokibi
(ret)
S5: Sugar uh (i) 37
(See Appendix 6)
In these exchanges we see S4 trying to explain what the Japanese word ‘satokibi’ means in English.
From the first initiating move to the final response, these utterances do not fit into the Sinclair and Coulthard model. If the first exchange is described as a pupil inform, the students utterance in the initiating move would have to be evaluated by the teacher in the follow-up move position. What we see though is a bound elicit. But according to Sinclair and Coulthard’s model, a bound elicit may only follow a teacher elicit or direct exchange (1992, p. 28), not a student initiated exchange as is the case in the extract above.
As were many of the exchanges in the analysis, this one does not adhere to the model. If the
revised exchange structure described by Coulthard and Brazil (1992, p. 72) with a maximum of four structural elements (I (R/I) R (F)), not three as originally proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard, could have been used, exchanges 36 and 37 would have fit together more smoothly. In other words, I found that using Sinclair and Coulthard’s three part exchange structure to force the elements of this exchange together impossible in this case, and opted to use bound elicits from Francis and
Hunston’s model instead.