Abstract
Working from a large corpus of transcripts from secondary mathematics classrooms, we identify patterns of speech that encode interpersonal positioning. We extend our analysis from a previous article (Herbel-Eisenmann, Wagner & Cortes, Educ Stud Math, 2010, in press), in which we introduced a concept from corpus linguistics—a “lexical bundle,” which has been defined as a group of three or more words that frequently recur together, in a single group, in a particular register. In that article we noted the prevalence of pervasive stance bundles unique to the mathematics classroom register. Because stance bundles communicate personal feelings, attitudes and values, we noted the importance of positioning in mathematics classrooms. In this article, we interpret the stance bundles as they relate to authority in mathematics classrooms by organizing them into groups that relate to the ways in which students are assumed to have choice in the discourse and to have obligations. Gradations of obligation and choice are important because they can help mathematics educators think about the ways in which they might open up or close down discourse in the classroom. We argue that it is important for university researchers, classroom teachers, and even mathematics students to engage in conversations about issues of authority, as they relate to developing mathematical understanding in their classroom discourse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. The Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.
Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Authority and authority relations in mathematics education: A view from an 8th grade classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 145–168.
Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Barlow, M. (2002). MonoConcPro (version 2.0): Computer software. Houston: Athelstan.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Borland Delphi Professional. (1998). Imprise Corporation.
Brown, S., & Walter, M. (1990). The art of problem posing (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carter, B., & Sealey, A. (2000). Language, structure, and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 3–20.
Chazan, D., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 2–10.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 32–51). Oxford: Blackwell.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1123.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Fassnacht, C., & Woods, D. (2005). Transana v2.0x. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.
Grant, M., & McGraw, R. (2006). Collaborating to investigate and improve classroom mathematics discourse. In L. Van Zoest (Ed.), Teachers engaged in research: Inquiry into mathematics classrooms, grades 9-12 (pp. 231–251). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Graves, B., & Zack, V. (1997). Collaborative mathematical reasoning in an inquiry classroom. In E. Pehkonnen (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-first Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 17–24). Lahti, Finland.
Halliday, M. (1978). Sociolinguistic aspects of mathematics education. In Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Negotiation of the “presence of the text”: How might teachers’ language choices influence the positioning of the textbook? In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 134–151). New York: Routledge.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Cirillo, M. (Eds.). (2009). Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher research in mathematics classrooms. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Wagner, D., & Cortes, V. (2010). Lexical bundle analysis in mathematics classroom discourse: The significance of stance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, (in press).
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Houssart, J. (2001). Rival classroom discourses and inquiry mathematics: 'The whisperers'. For the Learning of Mathematics, 21(3), 2–8.
Lee, C. (2006). Language for learning mathematics: Assessment for learning in practice. New York: Open University Press.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Appraisal: Negotiating attitudes. In Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (pp. 22-65). London: Continuum.
Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.
Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219–245.
Moschkovich, J. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.
O'Connor, M. C., Godfrey, L., & Moses, R. P. (1998). The missing data point: Negotiating purposes in classroom mathematics and science. In J. G. Greeno (Ed.), Thinking practice in mathematics and science (pp. 89–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oyler, C. (1996). Making room for students: Sharing teacher authority in room 104. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory, ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 4–27.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Powell, A. (2004). The diversity backlash and the mathematical agency of students of color. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-eighth conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 37–54). Bergen, Norway.
Rotman, B. (1988). Towards a semiotics of mathematics. Semiotica, 72(1/2), 1–35.
Rowland, T. (1992). Pointing with pronouns. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(2), 44–48.
Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. New York: Falmer Press.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Earlbaum Associates.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Metacognitive and epistemological issues in mathematical understanding. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 245–361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Towards a modal grammar of English: A matter of prolonged fieldwork. In Text and corpus analysis (pp. 196-229). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wagner, D. (2007). Students' critical awareness of voice and agency in mathematics classroom discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 31–50.
Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Re-mythologizing mathematics through attention to classroom positioning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 1–15.
Wetherell, M. (2003). Paranoia, ambivalence, and discursive practices: Concepts of position and positioning in psychoanalysis and discursive psychology. In R. Harré & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts (pp. 99–120). London: Praeger.
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284.
Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Mathematics, social class, and linguistic capital: An analysis of mathematics classroom interactions. In B. Atweh, H. J. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education (pp. 201–215). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the teacher-researchers for allowing us to work in their classrooms and for the time and feedback they offer us. We would also like to thank David Pimm, Sam Otten, Jeffrey Shih, three anonymous reviewers, and Candia Morgan for feedback on an earlier draft of this article. We recognize the contributions of Michelle Cirillo, Sam Otten, Lorraine Males, and Rachel Goeb for their assistance in the data collection and coding processes. The research reported in this article was supported with funding from the National Science Foundation ([NSF], Grant No. 0347906). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Wagner, D. Appraising lexical bundles in mathematics classroom discourse: obligation and choice. Educ Stud Math 75, 43–63 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9240-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9240-y