Framing University Small Group Talk: Knowledge Construction Through Lexical Concepts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FRAMING UNIVERSITY SMALL GROUP TALK: KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION THROUGH LEXICAL CONCEPTS YUN PAN Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Integrated PhD in Educational and Applied Linguistics Newcastle University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences November 2017 i ii DECLARATION I hereby certify that this thesis is based on my original work. All the quotations and citations have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that this thesis has not been previously or currently submitted for any other degree at Newcastle University or other institutions. Name: Yun PAN Signature: Date: 22/11/2017 iii ABSTRACT Knowledge construction in educational discourse continues to interest practitioners and researchers due to the conceptually “natural” connection between knowledge and learning for professional development. Frames have conceptual and practical advantages over other units of inquiry concerning meaning negotiation for knowledge construction. They are relatively stable data-structures representing prototypical situations retrieved from real world experiences, cover larger units of meaning beyond the immediate sequential mechanism at interaction, and have been inherently placed at the semantic-pragmatic interface for empirical observation. Framing in a particular context – university small group talk has been an under- researched field, while the relationship between talk and knowledge through collaborative work has been identified below/at the Higher Educational level. Involving higher level cognitive activities and distinct interactional patterns, university small group talk is worth close examination and systematic investigation. This study applies Corpus Linguistics and Interactional Linguistics approaches to examine a subset of a one-million-word corpus of university small group talk at a UK university. Specifically, it provides a detailed examination of the participants’ framing behaviours for knowledge construction through their talk of disciplinary lexical concepts. Analysis reveals how the participants draw upon schematized knowledge structures evoked by particular lexical choices and how they invoke expanded scenarios via pragmatic mappings in the ongoing interaction. Additionally, it is demonstrated how the framing moves are related to the structural uniqueness of university small group talk, the contextualized speaker roles and the institutional procedures and routines. This study deepens the understanding of the relationship between linguistically constructed knowledge and the way interlocutors conceptualize the world through institutionalized collaboration, building upon the existing research on human reliance upon structures to interpret reality at both the conceptual and the action levels. The study also addresses interaction research in Higher Educational settings, by discussing how the cognitive- communicative duality of framing is sensitive to various contextual resources, distinct discourse structures and task procedures through the group dynamics. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Adam Brandt and Dr Christopher Leyland. I am grateful to have had their guidance and support. Thanks too to Professor Steve Walsh, Dr Dawn Knight and Dr Rachelle Vessey for their academic guidance. My thanks also go to the NUCASE research group in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences. Thanks to the group members Qi Chen, Kazuki Hata, Khadija El-Wakai, Cihat Atar and Michael Grez for their warm support and precious friendship. Thanks are due to Professor Paul Seedhouse, Dr Peter Sercombe and Professor Sue Robson for their constructive feedback in my panel sessions which has been a great help to refine my research design and evaluate the research findings. Special thanks are also due to Dr Muge Satar Coen and Dr Jane Evison for examining this thesis and for offering very constructive feedback and suggestions in the viva. Huge thanks are due to the teaching/research staff at Lancaster University for holding the Summer School for Corpus Linguistics research during the academic year 2015/16. Thanks to Professor Tony McEnery and Professor Paul Baker for the interesting discussions on the Corpus Linguistics methodology through personal communication. Special thanks to Dr Paul Rayson for generously sacrificing his weekend time to help me deal with the data cleaning issues through the interface of Wmatrix. I am grateful to my fellow students in the PGR research suite 2.41. Special thanks are due to Yuzhu Peng, Rui Zhang, Miaomiao Zuo and Yuqi Xiao for their trust, understanding and support to help me get through all the tough days. Thanks to all my good friends in China. Final thanks go to my beloved family and particularly to my parents, Jing Ji and Hongjiang Pan, for their endless support and encouragement. I will never be able to express how lucky and proud I am to be their daughter. This piece of work is dedicated to them, as a tiny tribute to their sacrifice and love. v vi Table of Contents DECLARATION.................................................................................................................................. iii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. v Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Setting the scene .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research overview ................................................................................................................ 3 1.2.1 Knowledge construction ........................................................................................................ 3 1.2.2 University small group talk ................................................................................................... 8 1.2.3 Frame and framing ............................................................................................................. 11 1.3 Research aims and research questions .............................................................................. 14 1.4 Thesis structure ................................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 16 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Three dimensions of knowledge construction................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Linguistic dimension: knowledge, language, and meaning-making ................................ 18 2.2.2 Discourse dimension: knowledge forms and discourse structures .................................... 24 2.2.3 Social dimension: knowledge construction and academic disciplines .............................. 31 2.3 Frame and framing for knowledge construction.................................................................... 39 2.3.1 Frame and framing in Frame Semantics ........................................................................... 42 2.3.2 Frame and framing in motivating contexts ........................................................................ 52 2.3.3 Frame and framing in social interaction ........................................................................... 55 2.4 Knowledge construction in university small group talk .................................................. 61 2.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 70 Chapter 3. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 72 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 72 3.2 Corpus Linguistics .............................................................................................................. 73 3.2.1 Corpus-based methods to approach knowledge construction............................................ 73 3.2.2 Overview of the Corpus Linguistic approach ..................................................................... 77 3.2.3 From keywords to key semantic domains ........................................................................... 80 3.2.4 USAS: the semantic tagging system ................................................................................... 83 3.2.5 WordSmith Tools: concordance lines and collocational patterns ..................................... 88 3.3 Interactional Linguistics ..................................................................................................... 91 3.3.1 Overview of the Interactional Linguistics approach .......................................................... 91 3.3.2 Ethnomethodology to approach knowledge construction .................................................. 94 3.4 Towards a methodological synergy ..................................................................................