Language Diversity and Classroom Dialogue : Negotiation of Meaning by Students in an Internationalised Postgraduate Classroom

Abstract

One aspect of internationalisation of Australian higher education that has been problematic is the experiences of non-English speaking background (NESB) international students as participants in English-language medium classroom interactions. This study investigated ways nine NESB and nine English speaking background (ESB) postgraduate coursework students negotiated meanings in a tutorial-style classroom over one semester through collection and analysis of classroom data. Working within sociocultural conceptions of discourse, discursive practices, and learning as dialogic (Bakhtin, 1986; Linell, 1998), the initial analysis was conducted at clause level using the Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Martin, 1992) model. More specifically, the analysis focussed on the social function of language, negotiation of exchanges of meanings in and through dialogue realised in the semantics, lexicogrammar, and phonology of the system of interpersonal meaning. The semantic system of SPEECH FUNCTION was used to produce four data subsets based on discursive relationships in which students participated in exchanges of information and goods/services through (i) adoption of the speech roles of giving or demanding, or (ii) accepted the speech roles of receiving or giving on demand. Each data subset was then subjected to a more delicate analysis of students’ language choices at the clause level within the systems of interpersonal meanings. The data subsets were analysed also to identify primary/secondary knowers/actors in interactions (Martin, 1992) and the roles of participants as speakers and addressees in the co-construction and negotiation of the discursive text (Linell, 1998). Analysis revealed significant findings of variation in participation in classroom interaction in the context of diversity in language background. In the four discursive relationships, analysis at clause and text levels found significant variation in participation of students of NESB and ESB in construction of the discursive text in both quanta of participation as speakers and addressees and in the language choices of their contributions. Despite evidence of individual difference, it was concluded that what emerged from incongruence between the discursive resources and repertoires of NESB and ESB students was constitution of a discursive space for student participation, and the engendering of students’ identities, occupied primarily by the practices of ESB students. Although NESB students were successful in taking up offers of discursive space as direct addressees, student participation in negotiation of the co-construction of the discursive text was undertaken increasingly by students who independently adopted roles to establish discursively active identities in the emergent discourse community. Participation by NESB students was additionally constrained by language choices that relied heavily on polarity and made little use of the resources of modality to position speakers and their audience in relation to propositions under negotiation. In addition, discursive positioning by students as primary knowers, realised in adoption of the role of giving information more frequently than that of demanding, was an insight into the discursive relationships that operate in postgraduate classrooms and the nature of learning in and through negotiation of authoritative dialogical discourse. From a dialogic sociocultural perspective, the quantitatively and qualitatively distinct discursive contributions and experiences of students in the class have implications for opportunities for classroom learning at both the individual and class level. Findings are used to argue that silence is a legitimate discursive role in polyadic classroom dialogue and that the privileging of talk in learning that has ensued from constructivist theory ignores the complexities of the dialogic relations of listeners with the spoken word. It is suggested that the emergence of a dialogical authoritative discourse in and through negotiation of discursive texts in classrooms offers new ways of meaning to all participants, not only those who are discursively active in negotiation. These conclusions offer some insights for teachers working in internationalised classrooms, and classrooms in general. The findings underline also the value to approaches to learning of language for academic purposes and testing of language for university entry of conceptions of language as repertoires of discursive practices. A number of issues related to the study of spoken interaction in internationalised university classroom and to the discursive practices of NESB international students studying in Australian university classrooms are identified as worthy of further investigation.