Hierarchy and Power

Power and hierarchy are central concepts in the work place and the transcript given is a good example of this. I am going to examine the way in which power and hierarchy are shown in the transcript between a primary school teacher and her pupils. The teacher initiates what the audience see as the beginning of the discussion, starting with "he had some (. )".

Here the teacher evidently wishes the students to finish her sentence off, meaning that the teacher would have to have said this in a very encouraging and friendly manner, so the children would answer willingly, which, referring to the transcript, shows us the children are obviously eager to answer the question, since two of them answer with different responses.

This is the first indicator that the teacher has more power in the classroom than the children - she is the topic marker and the topic shifter.

When the pupil answers the second question referring to what the zoologist was trying to make the pupils think about, the inaudible answer evokes the teacher to correct it and then steer the discussion in the way that she wants the discussion to go.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Linguistics

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Again, the phonology of this (the way that the teacher would say this) is important when the teacher answers "no he didn't really ask you to think about when he went to the zoo.

" If the teacher was to say this abruptly, it would discourage the students to continue offering their answers and what they were discussing and so yet again, it is necessary for the teacher to say this in a friendly manner whilst remaining in authority, telling the pupil the correct answer.

This is another indicator to the pupil that the teacher is in power in the classroom; she knows the answers to her own questions whereas they do not know the answers for definite - this puts the pupils at a disadvantage in the classroom.

The lexis which is used in the extract is also an important factor to the hierarchy of the classroom. The language used is quite simple and without context one could easily denote that the conversation was taking place with children for this reason. This type of language is used to keep the children on track with what is going on, with the teacher questioning the students on their specialist language use; T: "He needed to have very sharp", P: "Wings".

Although this wasn't the question's correct answer, it shows that the children are on the right tracks with trying to name parts of the animals correctly - an example of early learns field specific vocabulary. Also, the teacher makes her mark by ensuring that although her language is simplified for her students, she makes it slightly more advanced than the stage they are already at, so that the pupils improve on their literacy skills and broaden their vocabulary range.

This goes tongue in cheek with Howard Giles' accommodation theory, where the teacher accommodates her speech to that of her pupils so they understand more. The teacher also uses interrogative sentences in the transcript; "what do all birds have? " Here the teacher asks a question, not giving the students the chance to finish what she is going to say, rendering the question more difficult, but this still evokes a lot of response from the children - they are eager to answer this question, and seem to take over the discussion here, which is the whole point of an open ended question which has been asked.

However, it seems the children take it that the teacher wants them to mention every part of the body common to all birds, with no fewer than seven different body parts named by the teacher's pupils. She endeavours to answer every pupil's answer with a note of correction or commendation, but then it seems that the teacher senses that the discussion is becoming manic by prompting another question, provoking the answer "Feathers" to help the students calm down with their answers.

The grammar used as the teacher speaks is very basic. This is because it would be difficult to understand the teacher (on the pupils' behalf) if she were to use complex grammar and grammatical structures. She only uses the present tense and the past tense - the two easiest tenses. This therefore shows a lack in the more complex grammar structures such as the conditional and the indicative mood; "were". Similarly, the teacher uses generalisations by using "all" a lot which makes the questions much easier to answer.

That said, I believe the most difficult example of grammar which the teacher uses in this transcript is through anaphoric references; she often repeats the answers of her pupils by saying "its" and then the answer, meaning that that pupils may get lost as to what is being discussed if they haven't been listening to the teacher and the other pupils. This flouts one of H. P. Grice's maxims - the maxim of manner, which states that you should render your meaning as clear as possible, to avoid ambiguity, even if this ambiguity caused is due to the student's own fault by not listening.

Semantically, the teacher is aiming for her pupils to use their short term memory by remembering what happened at school the day before, when the zoologist visited them, but pragmatically, she is endeavouring to do a number of things: engage each of her students in discussion, helping them to communicate better, allowing them to express what we as adults believe to be 'general knowledge' and to help them build their logical skills by making inferred references to what all birds have in common. It also cements some field specific lexis into the pupils' minds. The conversation follows a simplistic fashion, common of a primary school discussion.

The teacher converges her language downwards to that of her pupils so that her meaning is made clear, and so the pupils so not wander off-track, allowing all the students to be included in what is being talked about, and excluding very few. The pupils respond well to this, as well as they respond eagerly, trying to please their teacher by responding intelligently. Since the teacher is the topic marker and the topic shifter, the conversation follows her lead, with her using the students answers to move on, shown once by "teeth and claws (. ) all right (.. ) now(. ) birds also have (. )" This discretely shows the progression of the discussion.

The fact that the teacher is in a higher and more powerful position in the classroom than the pupils is also shown by the way that the teacher 'holds the floor' more than the pupils. The teacher evokes answers which are short, conveying the meaning which she wishes, but she can overpower the students by talking over the top of them and moving the conversation on. This is perhaps the most prominent factor which is to be noted in any transcript and not just the transcript given to me. This is one of the only situations when you can freely flout one of Grice's maxims - the maxim of quantity.