Peter French

Getting the right answer and getting the answer right

Asking and answering questions-on the part of teachers and pupils respectively-constitutes one of the central mechanisms of classroom interaction. This paper identifies two general interactive strategies, termed preformulating and reformulating, which, it is argued, are used by infant school teachers in the attempt to facilitate such question-answer exchanges, and hence to get the ‘right answers’ by which, from the teachers point of view, pupil-competence and teacher-effectivity are reciprocally manifested.

Learning through interaction: Language as interaction

‘Not to let a word get in the way of its sentence Nor to let a sentence get in the way of its intention, But to send your mind out to meet the intention as a guest; THAT is understanding.’ Chinese proverb, fourth century b.c. Most people, if asked what a language is, would almost certainly answer in terms of ‘sounds’, ‘words’ and ‘sentences’. They would probably also refer to something less clearly defined which they might call ‘meaning’. And they might just possibly add something about the purposes that language – both spoken and written – serves in the interpersonal transactions that constitute so large a part of everyday life. Such an ordering of priorities no doubt owes much to the way in which ‘language’ is encountered during the process of education: in dictionaries, in the form of comprehension exercises, and in lessons on grammar and spelling. It also corresponds quite closely to the relative emphasis that has been given to the various aspects of language in the long tradition of serious study that goes back as far as Aristotle and even earlier. The same emphasis on sounds, words and sentences, treated as units within a formal system, has also characterised the greater part of the work carried out in the present century by linguists and others who have attempted to study language ‘scientifically’.

Analysing Children's Talk: a response to Joan Tough's review of Learning Through Interaction

As collaborative authors of the volume, we are prompted to respond to Joan Toughs contribution to the review symposium, firstly to correct a series of infelicities and inaccuracies in her commentary on our chapter, and secondly to take issue with some of her cditicisms, particularly of the chapter for which we were responsible, but also of the volume as a whole. Some of Toughs remarks are in our view highly contentious and should not go unremarked, as they bear upon issues of central importance for the study of conversations involving children. We should emphasise that while some of our comments concern the volume as a whole, the views presented are our own; we make no claim to speak for any of the other contributors.