Teacher discourse from the perspective of rapport-management theory: a case study of an authoritative teacher in a Chinese EFL classroom
-
Li Tao
Li Tao is Associate Professor in the Department of English at Soochow University. She earned her PhD degree in English Linguistics and Literature from Soochow University. Her research interests include L2 education and teacher development. Her articles have been published in
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications ,Foreign Language World , andForeign Language Research .
,
Yifan Ren
Yifan Ren is an English teacher at No. 1 Middle School of Jiaxiang. She graduated from Soochow University with a Master of Literature degree. Her research interests include teacher discourse and Applied Linguistics.
Ningyang Chen is a researcher in applied linguistics in the Department of English, Soochow University, China. She is currently working on a project investigating additional language development of learners in nonconventional, low-pressure learning settings.
Abstract
While the instructional significance of teacher discourse is widely recognized, its interpersonal functions remain underexplored. This study employs Rapport-Management Theory (RMT) to analyze how a Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher, characterized by an authoritative teaching style, strategically utilized discourse strategies across illocutionary, discourse, participation, stylistic, and nonverbal domains to cultivate and sustain teacher–student rapport. The findings reveal that the teacher’s purposeful selection and integration of these strategies significantly enhanced classroom dynamics, effectively balancing authoritative instruction with student participation. This study extends RMT by identifying two key discourse strategies in EFL contexts: code-switching and collective turn-taking, which are particularly effective in fostering a supportive and inclusive classroom environment. Additionally, it underscores the interdependence between social and instructional dimensions in teacher discourse. Theoretically, this study bridges semiotics and educational practice, offering insights into how the symbolic nature of language shapes social interactions. Practically, it provides valuable insights for teacher training and professional development, equipping educators with the knowledge and tools necessary to adopt adaptive discourse strategies.
1 Introduction
Teacher discourse is widely recognized as the primary semiotic system through which educators communicate instructional content and manage classroom interactions (Norton 2000). However, the interpersonal functions of teacher discourse – especially in fostering and managing teacher–student rapport – have received limited attention. This oversight is particularly evident in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms, where the nuances of teacher talk can significantly influence learning dynamics (Lloyd et al. 2016). Furthermore, existing research often generalizes findings about teacher talk without examining the specific discourse behaviors associated with different teaching styles. For example, studies have shown that an authoritative teaching style, characterized by a balance between teacher authority and student autonomy, effectively supports students’ holistic development (Uibu and Kikas 2012). Nonetheless, the specific ways in which authoritative teachers utilize discourse to manage relationships with their students remain largely unexplored.
In response to these gaps, this study employs the framework of Rapport-Management Theory (Spencer-Oatey 2000, 2005, 2008) to investigate how an authoritative teacher strategically utilized discourse to manage and maintain teacher–student relationships. The central research question guiding this inquiry is: In what ways did an authoritative teacher use discourse to manage teacher–student relationships? By shifting the focus from language as a mere linguistic construct to its role in social meaning-making, this study aims to illuminate the nuanced ways in which teacher discourse contributes to the construction and maintenance of classroom rapport. This approach enhances our understanding of the social dimensions of teacher discourse as a complex semiotic system within educational settings (Leone 2021; Wells 2007).
2 Literature review
2.1 Teacher discourse
Teacher discourse, often referred to as teacher talk, is a specialized linguistic variety used in instructional settings, which encompasses the adjustments teachers make in a wide range of verbal and multimodal activities (Rosborough 2014). As a critical semiotic system in educational contexts, teacher discourse involves the language(s), symbols, and communication strategies that educators employ to improve instructional effectiveness and build rapport with their students (Shi 2022; Tai and Wei 2021).
As the primary medium for interaction in the classroom, teacher discourse has garnered significant attention in the fields of semiotics and education in recent years, particularly with an interest in exploring the types and properties of semiotics-informed teaching practices (Reda 2020). For instance, Cazden’s (2001) Initiate-Respond-Evaluate (IRE) pattern illustrates the teacher’s role in interaction and assessment within the classroom, whereas Lloyd et al. (2016) introduce the Facilitate–Listen–Engage (FLE) model, which advocates for a discourse-intensive community of learners.
In EFL contexts, studies have also explored characteristics of teacher discourse. For example, Skinner’s study (2017) examines teacher talk as a threshold concept in TESOL and reveals EFL teachers’ different understandings of effective teacher talk. Yang and Tao (2018) compare the discourse behaviors of a high-rated and a low-rated EFL teacher from a systemic functional perspective. Yang and Wang (2022) report differences in how teacher talk is structured to foster a dialogic environment across different schools and grades in secondary English classrooms. Brooke (2019) investigates the use of semantic gravity principles within teacher discourse in an academic English language program, while Davidson (2021) explores the semiotics of classrooms in the virtual space.
Moreover, the functional aspects of teacher discourse have been thoroughly examined. It serves not only as a linguistic repertoire but also as a scaffold for learners’ cognitive and affective development. For instance, Thompson et al. (2024) demonstrate the significance of teacher talk as a crucial pedagogical practice in classrooms, which shapes student responses and learning outcomes. Walshaw and Anthony (2008) emphasize its significance in developing students’ thinking skills. Chen et al. (2020) point out the correlation between productive teacher talk and positive student emotions. Furthermore, studies suggest that teacher discourse can significantly affect interactional dynamics in the classroom. For example, Webb et al. (2006) find that variations in teacher discourse are directly linked to different degrees of student participation and collaboration. Kiemer et al. (2015) report that effective teacher discourse fosters a supportive and inclusive classroom community, which enhances students’ positive views of the class environment.
Despite recognizing the significant impact of teacher discourse on student learning and classroom interactions, existing literature has not thoroughly examined the mechanisms through which teachers employ discourse. While some studies have explored specific discourse strategies, such as humor (Tsukawaki et al. 2020) and the use of referential questions (Li 2011), a holistic understanding of the strategies used in teachers’ interactive practices remains lacking. This limitation is particularly evident in university EFL classrooms, where the interpersonal dimension of teacher discourse in managing teacher–student relationships has largely gone unexplored. Consequently, a more nuanced examination of the discourse strategies utilized by university EFL teachers is essential to bridge this gap and enhance our understanding of their roles in shaping educational experiences.
2.2 Authoritative teacher
Originating from literature on parenting styles (e.g., Baumrind 1971), authoritative teachers are defined as those characterized by high academic pressure and care for students, balancing teacher authority on one hand and student autonomy on the other (Dever and Karabenick 2011). Studies suggest that these teachers effectively contribute to student learning process and outcomes. For instance, Walker (2008) reports that authoritative teaching is associated with the highest levels of student achievement and motivation compared to authoritarian and permissive styles. Wentzel (2002) finds that authoritative teaching strongly predicts positive academic outcomes, such as goal setting, interest in schoolwork, grades, and prosocial behaviors.
While studies highlight the critical role of teachers in enabling classroom interaction (Vrikki et al. 2019), few empirical studies have examined authoritative teachers’ talk behaviors. Nevertheless, two types of studies may offer insights as they focus on dimensions closely associated with authoritative teachers: teacher authority and dialogic exchanges. On one hand, studies suggest that teacher authority is generally exercised through discourse choices as their expertise and institutional position transition from symbolic authority to actual social influence and control (Cazden 2001). For example, Xing (2014) examine the discursive resources that teachers use to construct authoritative identity in relation to their students, while Ng et al. (2021) find that teachers’ specific discourse moves influence authority structures in the classroom. On the other hand, studies emphasizing dialogic or interactive exchanges between teachers and students indicate they promote student participation, aligning with the other dimension of authoritative teaching. Teachers who adopt a dialogic approach engage students in a cooperative process of meaning-making and foster a sense of shared responsibility for classroom interaction (Reznitskaya and Gregory 2013) and contribute to a structured yet dynamic classroom environment that optimizes learning outcomes (Al-Adeimi and O’Connor 2021). For instance, Kim and Wilkinson (2019) find that when teachers build collective understanding with their students through dialogic talk, they enhance students’ thinking, learning, and problem-solving skills.
Despite these insights, the narrow focus of current literature – either on teacher authority or dialogic exchanges – fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of authoritative teachers’ discourse behaviors, particularly in managing classroom interactions and constructing rapport with students. A fine-grained analysis of how authoritative teachers integrate both authoritative and dialogic elements to shape educational experiences and foster effective teacher–student interactions warrants further investigation.
2.3 Rapport-management theory
This study is grounded in Rapport-Management Theory (RMT), as proposed by Spencer-Oatey (2000, 2005, 2008). This theory is closely linked to the broader field of semiotics, emphasizing the role of signs in creating meaning within social contexts. According to RMT, communicators manage relationships by making discourse choices across five domains: illocutionary, discourse, participation, stylistic, and nonverbal. Each of these domains encompasses various strategies that can significantly impact communication in diverse settings.
Illocutionary Domain: This domain focuses on the implementation of speech acts that can either threaten or enhance rapport. Strategies within this domain include the selection of speech act components, the degree of directness or indirectness, and the use of upgraders or downgraders.
Discourse Domain: This domain primarily encompasses the content and structure of exchanges, such as topic choice, topic management, and the organization and sequencing of information.
Participation Domain: This domain involves procedural aspects of communication, including turn-taking dynamics, rights and obligations related to turn-taking, and the inclusion or exclusion of participants.
Stylistic Domain: This domain relates to choices of tone, genre-appropriate language, and terms of address.
Nonverbal Domain: This domain pertains to nonverbal communication, including gestures, body language, eye contact, and proxemics.
Despite its significant contributions to understanding interpersonal dynamics, RMT has been primarily utilized in studying social interactions (e.g., Spencer-Oatey 2002, 2005) and intercultural communication (e.g., Spencer-Oatey 2008; Spencer-Oatey and Jiang 2003), with less application in educational discourse. This gap represents an important area for exploration, as managing rapport in educational settings is crucial for effective teaching and learning. By applying a semiotic perspective to RMT, we can deepen our understanding of the nuanced ways in which teachers use language to manage the social dynamics of the classroom.
3 Methodology
This study employs a case study method, providing a rich, detailed account of phenomena within their contextual parameters (Hyett et al. 2014). The flexibility and adaptability of this method enable a thorough examination of real-life scenarios through “detailed, in-depth data collection” (Creswell 2013: 97). This approach is particularly suited for exploring the dynamics of teacher discourse in a Chinese EFL classroom, as the intricate and varied characteristics of teacher discourse in this setting necessitate an in-depth analysis to uncover how language is utilized to manage classroom rapport, thereby revealing hidden dynamics that are often overlooked in broader research methodologies. Specifically, this method allows for a thorough analysis of an authoritative teacher’s language choices across the five domains of RMT, thus capturing complexities of teacher discourse. By extracting findings from rich contextual data collected through the case study method, this research aims to contribute significantly to our understanding of EFL classroom dynamics and offer insights into informed pedagogical practices to support teachers in effectively managing rapport to enhance learning outcomes in EFL contexts.
3.1 Context and participant
The study was conducted in a class of first-year students at a comprehensive university in China, comprising 30 students – 27 females and 3 males – all of whom were native Chinese speakers majoring in English Education. This research context was chosen due to the unique characteristics of university freshmen, who often undergo significant adjustments to different circumstances, including changing power dynamics in the classroom (Li et al. 2021). The nature of the teacher’s interactions with students can provide valuable insights into educators’ discourse strategies and their impact on classroom dynamics.
The participant in this study was a university English teacher who taught the aforementioned class three times a week in a course titled Integrated English, totaling six class hours. She held the position of associate professor and possessed a doctorate in Foreign Linguistics and Literature and had 18 years of teaching experience at the university level. The selection of this participant was based on purposeful sampling, a method that deliberately selects specific settings, individuals, or events, which reveal issues of central importance to the purpose of the research (Suri 2011). Prior to the research, classroom observations were conducted to determine the teacher’s teaching style (with informed consent obtained from both the teacher and the students). It was noted that the teacher played a dominant role in designing, organizing, and evaluating classroom activities, serving primarily as the provider of instruction and feedback. Her dominance was evident in the frequency of turn-taking and the number of words per turn (see Table 1). Observations indicated that the teacher exhibited a higher frequency and greater volume of speech, reinforcing her dominant role in the classroom.
Turn-taking frequency and words per turn.
| Turn-taking frequency | Words per turn | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | Students | ||
| Less than 5 times | 105 (46.8 %) | 355 (34.5 %) | 801 (89 %) |
| 5-20 times | 31 (13.8 %) | 432 (41.9 %) | 60 (6.6 %) |
| More than 20 times | 88 (39.2 %) | 243 (23.6 %) | 39 (4.3 %) |
| Total | 224 | 1,030 | 900 |
On the other hand, the high frequency of conversational turn-shifts indicates students’ active involvement in classroom interactions. Although the teacher often initiated these turns, she consistently created opportunities for student engagement, ensuring that learners remained active participants rather than passive recipients.
In summary, the teacher exemplified a balance between authority and student participation, making her an ideal candidate for this study as an authoritative teacher. The numerous opportunities for teacher–student interactions in her class would provide essential insights into her discourse choices made to maintain classroom rapport.
3.2 Data collection
Data for this study were primarily collected through classroom observations conducted during the first semester of the 2022–2023 academic year. Three rounds of observations took place in a natural teaching environment at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester, each lasting 3 to 4 h. The focus of these observations included the teacher’s verbal and nonverbal expressions, as well as the students’ responses. The data were subsequently transcribed verbatim, totaling 169,139 words. This extensive dataset enabled an in-depth analysis of the teacher’s discourse strategies and their impact on teacher–student interactions.
In addition to classroom observations, interviews were conducted with the teacher and selected students to gain insights into their perceptions of the teacher’s discourse choices, which facilitated triangulation of the research findings (Meijer et al. 2002). The teacher was interviewed at the end of the semester, while students who experienced significant events in class – such as receiving positive or negative feedback – were interviewed immediately after those relevant classes.
3.3 Data analysis
In this study, a top-down approach to thematic analysis, grounded in RMT, was employed to analyze the classroom observation data (Braun and Clarke 2006). This method involved systematically identifying and classifying the teacher’s discourse choices according to the five domains established by RMT. These broad categories were further refined into more specific strategies that reflected the teacher’s discourse practices within the RMT framework.
Instances where the teacher’s discourse strategies diverged from the established RMT framework were analyzed separately to explore potential discrepancies or extensions of the theory. This dual approach – adhering to the theoretical framework while remaining open to novel findings – enriches the analysis, providing a comprehensive understanding of teacher discourse within the educational context. Such a method underscores the value of qualitative research, facilitating a deeper exploration of the complexities and nuances of educational phenomena and contributing to a more comprehensive theoretical understanding (Maxwell 2013).
Regarding the interviews, significant quotes were analyzed to reveal how the teacher and her students perceived her discourse strategies and their impact on teacher–student relationships. For example, when explaining her decision to criticize a student openly, the teacher stated that she prioritized “efficiency” over rapport. Such quotes elucidated her pedagogical rationale for specific discourse strategies. Additionally, students’ quotes highlighted their perceptions of the teacher’s discourse patterns and the effects on their learning experiences. This dual perspective enriched the analysis by emphasizing the interplay between the teacher’s intentions and the students’ responses.
4 Findings
This section presents the study’s findings, highlighting how the teacher managed teacher–student relationships by employing various rapport-management strategies across multiple domains: illocutionary, discourse, participation, stylistic, and nonverbal.
4.1 Illocutionary domain
In the illocutionary domain, the teacher primarily employed three strategies: selecting specific speech act components, varying the degree of directness, and utilizing downgraders.
4.1.1 Selection of speech act components
In the classroom, the teacher selected various speech act components to maintain interaction with her students. Speech acts typically consist of a range of semantic components, with the head act conveying the main illocutionary force of the utterance. Additionally, there may be other components that occur before and/or after the head act.
Extract 1:
T: I’m going to ask some other students and check your homework. XX, please.
S: … (recited the text)
T: Okay, thank you. So, XX, I think you did work on the task, but you should be more careful. Here are some of your problems. … I’ll just give you one example, Okay? The mechanical teacher had been giving her test after test in geography and she…?
S: And she had been doing.
T: Exactly. We should say she had been doing. You cannot take away “been”. Just now you said she had doing. That was wrong. All right? She had been doing worse and worse until her mother…?
S: Had shaken.
T: Exactly. Had shaken. It’s not shaking. 可能你自己也知道这个, (但是)背的时候可能会紧张或者怎么样, 你会漏掉, 那这个其实是一个明显的一个语法错误。
In this dialogue, the teacher employed a head act along with two additional speech act components. Her head act was to assess the student’s performance by pointing out issues in the student’s recitation, which posed a potential threat to the student’s face and, consequently, to class rapport. However, she mitigated this threat by incorporating additional components: acknowledging the student’s effort (“I think you did work on the task”) and attributing the error to nervousness rather than a lack of effort. This choice in discourse reflected her authoritative teaching style, as she maintained her role as an assessor while encouraging student participation and preserving the student’s dignity. Such an approach fostered a more harmonious teacher–student relationship while effectively addressing the student’s needs.
4.1.2 Variation of degree of directness
The teacher’s decision to adjust her degree of directness or indirectness had a significant impact on classroom relationships.
Extract 2:
S1: The report was highly technical, and only professionals could read it.
T: Yes, technical means…?
S1: 技术的。
T: 你自己说我要不要批评你了?
S1: eh, technical means a… technical means a… somebody can use… skillful, skillful.
T: No, it’s not skillful. XXX (S2), what is technical?
S2: Technical … Technical is professions… somebody cannot read it easily.
T: Yes, 勉勉强强算解释出来了吧。Technical means … (T explained “technical”). 你们两位都不是让我太满意, 我希望的是效率更高一点, 速度更快一点。你们这样的话, 上课速度又慢下来了。
The teacher varied her degree of directness in response to the students’ performance. Initially, her indirect criticism encouraged the first student (S1) to reflect on her answer without feeling dismissed, thereby fostering a supportive environment. By contrast, she shifted to a more direct approach with the second student (S2), emphasizing accountability. This transition aimed to communicate academic expectations and motivate learning, but it also created tension and pressure, as one student noted in the interview.
If I’m not prepared in advance, I will be criticized by the teacher, and I think it is quite stressful.
The teacher, on the other hand, justified her direct discourse approach with her focus on instructional efficiency.
If you ask me whether I worry that my teaching method will affect students’ perceptions of me, I must admit that such worries do exist. However, this concern will be overwhelmed by other considerations. My primary goal is to foster student progress through my way.
The teacher’s deliberate choice to disrupt harmony reflected the intricate balance she sought to achieve between fostering a supportive environment and enhance student learning. However, it also highlights the potential pitfalls of her authoritative approach, as such criticism could undermine the positive relationships she was expected to cultivate.
4.1.3 Use of downgraders
The teacher’s use of downgraders to modulate the intensity of her language was another strategy that influenced her relationship with students.
Extract 3:
T: I suppose you were using more of your own words, right?
S1: Yeah.
T: So, you gave me more of your own ideas, whereas XXX (S2) took more words from the book. Now XXX (S2), do you agree that XXX (S1) tried to use more of her own words whereas you tried to take words from the book?
S2: I think both are ok.
T: Both are okay, but if we want to practice our English, which one is suggested?
S2: Use your own words.
T: Exactly. So this is what I want to tell you: retelling means trying to use your own words. So next time you can also try it. All right?
S2: Okay.
In this dialogue, the teacher reduced her sense of dominance through the use of two downgraders. After listening to S1, she addressed S2, suggesting that the student could incorporate more of her own words in retelling the text. To mitigate the forcefulness of this request, she prefaced it with “I suppose” and asked S2 whether she agreed with the teacher’s point of view. When S2 responded that either approach was acceptable, the teacher used the personal pronoun “we,” framing herself and the student as a community while continuing to guide S2 in improving her understanding. By providing feedback in a less confrontational manner, the teacher not only diminished the potential threat to the students’ self-esteem but also bridged the psychological gap between herself and the students, fostering a sense of mutual respect that is essential for a harmonious teacher–student relationship.
4.2 Discourse domain
In the discourse domain, the teacher employed four strategies: topic choice, topic management, organization and sequencing of information, and code-switching. Each of these strategies contributed to positive educational dynamics.
4.2.1 Topic choice
The selection of topics significantly influenced teacher–student relationship by fostering engagement and encouraging student language output. By choosing familiar subjects related to the students’ experiences, the teacher created a comfortable environment for discussion.
Extract 4:
(T and Ss discussing a passage about love between a father and a daughter):
T: Do you think your parents can easily accept the fact that now they are empty nesters? Yes or no?
Ss: No.
T: Okay, most of you are shaking your head. So how do they deal with their new identity as empty nesters now? Discuss with your partner. How do your parents deal with it?
(Discussion)
T: XXX (S1), do your parents do it easily?
S1: No.
T: How do you usually respond?
S1: Just talk about what I’m doing now.
T: Okay. Sometimes you feel impatient. I mean, they keep doing that every day, asking the same questions.
S1: Yes
T: Okay. And?
S1: I just say I’m busy now.
T: Okay, I’m busy now. So don’t worry. One day you will become a parent, and you will know how it feels to be taken for granted by your own children. (laugh)
In this dialogue, the teacher initiated a discussion about “empty nesting,” a topic closely tied to the students’ personal experiences. This choice served two vital functions: it created a relaxed environment conducive to language practice and fostered a deeper connection between the teacher and students through mutual understanding. The teacher’s ability to relate classroom discussions to real-world contexts not only engaged students but also reaffirmed respect and empathy, ultimately enriching the learning experience and strengthening rapport. Students expressed a preference for such an atmosphere:
The teacher’s lectures are very interesting and often extend to other topics, which I personally prefer as it makes the class very engaging and participatory.
4.2.2 Topic management
Beyond topic selection, the teacher effectively managed classroom conversations by initiating, shifting, and concluding discussions.
Extract 5:
T: And what is a popularity contest? Okay, back then, in primary school or middle school, did you have such a kind of a popularity contest, yes or no?
Ss: No.
T: I did. Okay. I remember back in middle school. Oh, we didn’t say it, but you know we gave each other cards, and eventually my best friend would ask me the question and I would ask her, “ Hey, how many cards did you receive?” Okay. You received 6. Oh, I got 7. Okay. When I heard that, how did I feel?
Ss: Happy.
T: No, no-no. She got 7. Well, I only got 6. So how did I feel?
Ss: Frustrated.
T: Yes, frustrated. How come you got 7 and I only got 6? I should be more popular. Okay, so you see, that is why the popularity contest was…?
Ss: Marked.
T: Was marked. What was the criteria to measure to judge your popularity? It will be judged by the number of cards you receive.
The teacher’s management of classroom conversations was characterized by her strategic guidance. She initiated the dialogue on “popularity contests” using thought-provoking questions to engage the students. When students hesitated to share, she deftly steered the conversation by sharing her own experiences, providing relatable prompts that encouraged their participation. This approach not only sustained engagement but also fostered an emotional bond with the students, making them feel valued and empowered to express their thoughts. The teacher’s strategic management of topic transitions significantly contributed to trust and mutual understanding, creating a classroom environment conducive to open dialogue and collaborative learning.
Extract 6:
T: Tommy started to talk with Margie. Now here is the question for S1. Okay. Have you ever read a novel? I mean, either Chinese or English?
…
S1: The Great Gatsby.
T: 了不起的盖茨比. Do you like the story?
S1: I like it.
T: Okay. Thank you. …Now, why do you think a conversation or conversations are necessary in the novel?
S1: Maybe it can enrich some characters.
T: Very good. So, conversations can enrich characters. We can better understand their characters, right? Yes. Okay. Thank you. … Please look at paragraph 5. From paragraph 5 to paragraph 30. Focus on the conversation and then try to think about how the conversation tells us about the two characters.
In this dialogue, the teacher initiated a topic and invited the student to reflect on their reading experiences, connecting them to the broader theme of character development through dialogue. This approach allowed both parties to shape the conversation, with the teacher providing direction while giving the student the opportunity to influence its trajectory. The teacher’s role as a facilitator, combined with the student’s active participation, not only demonstrated a supportive learning environment but also strengthened the teacher–student relationship. By genuinely acknowledging and building upon the student’s input, the teacher fostered a sense of mutual respect and collaboration, which was crucial for nurturing a positive educational dynamic.
4.2.3 Organization and sequencing of information
The teacher also ensured that her explanations were logically structured, with clear organization and sequencing of information. This strategy played a significant role in managing classroom dynamics.
Extract 7:
T: What is the difference between “estimate” and “calculate”? For example, I want to know the number of the students here. Do I calculate it here, or do I estimate here?
Ss: Calculate.
T: No, I estimate. If I calculate, I do it this way. There are 10 boys and 10 girls, and then I put them together. That’s called calculation. But if I estimate it, this is just a rough number. It may not be very accurate. For example, there are 22 students. But roughly speaking, I can say there are about 20 students. So, if I estimate it, it may not be very…?
Ss: Accurate.
T: Accurate, yes. So, to calculate something is to find something out by using mathematics.
In this dialogue, the teacher’s clear structure and interactive questioning helped clarify the difference between “estimate” and “calculate.” By using relatable examples from the classroom, she eased the cognitive load on students, encouraging their participation and understanding. This approach fostered a collaborative atmosphere that allowed all students to take ownership of their learning by actively engaging in the discussion, thereby positively influencing teacher–student relationship.
4.2.4 Code-switching
A pivotal strategy frequently employed by the teacher, not included in the framework of RMT, was code-switching, which involved alternating between English and Chinese to enhance comprehension and engagement. This bilingual approach was particularly effective in an EFL context, where students may struggle with a second language.
Extract 8:
T: There is a very interesting sentence, which causes ambiguity. XXX, let me give you one example of what ambiguity means, all right?
S: Yeah,
T: Ok. So suppose someone is asking you about me, and he wants to know what kind of person I am, right?
S: Yeah,
T: You can say “T老师还行吧”. When people hear something like this, how do they understand it?
S: Well, it is not bad.
T: Okay, but there are two ways to understand it. It can be okay. The teacher is kind of OK. The teacher is good. But it can also mean the teacher is bad. 还行吧,勉强还行吧, 是不是有两种意思?
S: Yeah.
T: This is what we call ambiguous, which means it’s not very clear. 所以它会造成意思上的什么?
S: 模糊.
T: 模糊或者歧义。知道了吧。
S: 嗯.
In this dialogue, the teacher illustrated her code-switching strategy by clarifying the concept of ambiguity with her students. Her use of Chinese allowed them to grasp the concept clearly, reducing cognitive load and enhancing comprehension. This approach was well-received by some students who indicated that they often struggled with an entirely English-based instruction.
The teacher talks fast and all in English, which makes it difficult for me to keep up sometimes.
By offering translations and explanations in their native language, the teacher demonstrated sensitivity to the students’ linguistic backgrounds, fostering an inclusive and supportive learning environment. Reflecting on her earlier teaching experiences, she explained her use of code-switching:
When I first started teaching, I spoke English all the time. However, I gradually realized that sometimes my students didn’t quite understand what I was saying. So now I use more Chinese when I notice they don’t understand.
This bilingual approach cultivated a positive learning atmosphere by allowing the teacher to adjust her instruction to match the students’ proficiency levels, thereby strengthening teacher–student rapport and enhancing engagement and motivation.
4.3 Participation domain
In the participation domain, the teacher primarily utilized various turn-taking strategies and included all participants to effectively manage classroom interactions.
4.3.1 Turn-taking
The teacher skillfully navigated classroom interactions using a variety of turn-taking strategies. These included directing questions to specific students, shifting the turn to the entire class, and employing discourse interruptions to guide conversations.
Extract 9:
T: How to read 一又二分之一?
S: …
T: 会读吗?
S: …
T: 记住啊, 来, 先读1/2怎么读?
S: …
T: 1/2, 如果按照读分数的方式, 大家会觉得是 one second, 其实我们不是这么读的, 我们是读…? (type “ a half”)
S: a half
T: 对的, 1/4, 比如说我们会读 a quarter, 3/4, 我们是读 three quarters, 这些是常用的, 记住。所以1又1/2呢, 一定要注意下, 今天给大家写一下以后不要读错 (输入one and a half) 。So, XXX, try it.
S: One and a half.
T: Yes.
In this dialogue, the teacher initiated a conversation by asking an individual student to read an improper fraction in English. The student’s initial hesitation prompted the teacher to provide additional cues and guidance, effectively preventing the student from feeling overwhelmed by prolonged silence and maintaining a supportive, nonthreatening learning environment. The teacher’s management of turn-taking was strategic; she ensured that each student had an opportunity to participate without feeling undue pressure. This approach not only facilitated a more inclusive classroom atmosphere but also encouraged active student engagement. By intervening at appropriate moments, the teacher helped students build confidence and reinforced correct learning outcomes.
Extract 10:
T: You can use the word “façade”. Be careful with the word, especially the pronunciation. Some of you may pronounce as /fɜ:keɪd/. It’s not /fɜ:keɪd/. /f ɜ: sɑ: d/.
Ss: /f ɜ: sɑ: d/
T: Facade is a deceptive appearance. So, for example. Okay, suppose I’m in the contest. I’m competing with others. And I feel very…?
Ss: Nervous.
T: Of course, I feel very nervous, right? But I do not want to show my nervousness. So, I pretend to be calm. Then you can say I put on the facade of…? facade of…?
Ss: calmness.
T: Of calmness, of course.
In this dialogue, the teacher’s use of collective turn-taking alleviated individual student pressure while enhancing classroom cohesion. Rather than assigning a specific student to answer her question, she provided everyone the opportunity to respond together. By guiding the class through the pronunciation of “façade” and illustrating its meaning with a relatable scenario, the teacher supported language learning and fostered a low-stress environment that encouraged participation. Several students mentioned in their interviews that the teacher loved to ask questions, which could pose a potential threat to students’ faces. One student, for instance, reported:
I’m anxious that she might point at me next and ask me to stand up and answer a question, which makes me a bit nervous.
However, by employing collective turn-taking, the teacher effectively reduced this apprehension, allowing students to engage more freely without the fear of being singled out, ultimately strengthening teacher–student relationship.
Extract 11:
T: Multiple choice questions. Sentence one.
S: He was working on a children’s book entitled Limericks.
T: So, we use entitled for what?
S: To name a book.
T: Or a film, right? Okay, then what about tag and label? What is a tag?
S: It’s a piece… A small piece of paper to …
T: A very small label. It’s a small label.
S: To… It’s a small label to identify something or give some … (hesitated)
T: XXX, you can simply say, it’s a small label. That’s enough. …So, for example, a tag is a small label. XXX. Do you drink tea? Yes, or no?
S: Yes.
T: Okay, so I sometimes use tea bags. And each tea bag has a tag. Right? And also, if you go to the supermarket, you can find the items may have a.…?
S: Price tag.
T: Right.
In this dialogue, the teacher’s management of conversational turns through strategic interruptions became evident. Her goal in interrupting the student’s response was to streamline the explanation and maintain the lesson’s pace. On the other hand, however, this method raised concerns about the student’s opportunity to fully participate as it could also be perceived as a lack of respect for the student’s right to complete his thoughts, potentially impacting his engagement and the overall interactive climate of the classroom. This highlighted the delicate balance the teacher had to consider between efficiency and allowing students to express their ideas in her discourse management.
4.3.2 Inclusion of people present
The teacher also employed strategies to include third-party communicators, fostering multi-party communication.
Extract 12:
T: XXX (S1) 啊, 你这是一个大的错误是不是? 所以你的同学都在笑你啊 A letter…? Try again, XXX.
S1: address to me.
T: No. Hey, stand up. Hey, everybody, listen to him. A letter…?
S1: A letter. A letter.
T: Go on.
S1: Stressed to me.
T: Not stress.
S1: Addressed to me. Addressed to me.
T: Now listen carefully. Did he do it right?
S1: [ə’drest tu miː]
T: Is that correct?
T & Ss: No.
T: S2, 来。 What is the role here?
S2: [ə’drest tu miː].
T: [ə’dres tu miː]. XXX (S1)好像不太懂什么意思。Look at “what time”, you can never hear the first /t/ because they are from the same position. [wɔ taim]. Similarly. This is written here as “d”. But actually, it’s pronounced as?
T&Ss: /t/.
T: So?
Ss: [ə’dres tu miː].
T: [ə’dres tu miː].
S1: [ə’dres tu miː].
T: Thank you. Okay, take your seat.
In this dialogue, the teacher’s strategy of involving the entire class to address a student’s pronunciation error exemplified multi-party communication. By publicly correcting S1 and drawing attention to the class’s reaction, the teacher aimed to reinforce the correct pronunciation. However, this approach might have inadvertently undermined S1’s self-esteem by exposing his mistake to his peers, potentially threatening his social standing or “face” within the classroom community. The public nature of the correction, especially when coupled with laughter from classmates, could have made S1 feel embarrassed or singled out.
Although both strategies involved the teacher’s interaction with students, turn-taking primarily focused on managing the order and flow of conversation, ensuring that students had equitable opportunities to participate. This approach was procedural, concentrating on the sequence in which students were given the floor to speak. In contrast, the strategic inclusion of learners represented a more strategic approach, where the teacher intentionally selected students to involve in discussions or activities based on immediate pedagogical goals. This method not only optimized learning outcomes but also nurtured teacher–student relationship by ensuring that each student’s contributions were valued and that the classroom environment remained inclusive and responsive to diverse learning needs. The positive impact of this atmosphere was reflected in a student’s feedback during her interview, highlighting the students’ awareness and appreciation of the classroom dynamics.
In this class, the teacher attaches great importance to questions, and the teacher and students are highly engaged and the class atmosphere is active.
4.4 Stylistic domain
In the stylistic domain, the teacher primarily made choices regarding her tone, genre-appropriate lexis and syntax, and the use of honorifics.
4.4.1 Choice of tone
While teacher discourse is typically serious, the teacher varied her tone choices to convey different interpersonal meanings.
Extract 13:
T: Just read the sentences.
S: Funny jokes kept coming in through email messages. Funny, 第一个填的funny.
T: Yes, go on.
S: This tour will give you an interesting insight into the life of the… 这个是 …
T: 对啊, 你知不知道你一读就露馅啦。所以你现在就在很慌的在想这是什么啊。所以这个不是你现在慌的理由啊, 应该什么时候慌啊?还有前面的 insight 也是在那边乱读。有没有去查这个词?
S: …
T: 有没有去查这个词?
S: 它是领悟。Can get something quickly.
T: Insight means a particular way, a unique way of looking at something, understanding of something. Okay. And the word is Mongolian. We know Mongolia, and the people living there are called the Mongolians.下次这些词早点查好, OK? 课上在那边急急慌慌地去查啊, 也不敢回答老师的问题。功夫要花在前面, 不要这个(上课查)。我可不希望你们一边在讲练习的时候, 一边拿个手机在那边查单词, OK?
In this dialogue, the teacher managed teacher–student relationship using a serious tone. After assigning a student to explain an exercise, she noticed the student’s lack of preparation. The subsequent silence from the student when asked whether she had looked up the words prompted the teacher to raise her voice for emphasis. Such changes in tone may exert psychological pressure on the student and could potentially damage her face, which was not conducive to a harmonious teacher–student relationship. However, this approach also communicated the teacher’s commitment to academic excellence and her expectation that students take their studies seriously, as she indicated in the interview.
Some students may say that they always feel very nervous in my class. Actually, I did it on purpose. I always want to maintain a reasonable level of pressure in my class. I won’t let my students feel that they can slack off in my class, which is something I firmly dislike.
This idea was echoed by her students, as one student noted in her interview.
I initially thought that college courses would be free-ranged, but it seems like this class is more like high school and the teacher is very strict.
In such cases, the teacher’s stern response conveyed a clear message about the necessity of commitment in pursuit of long-term learning benefits, even if it temporarily disrupted the harmony of teacher–student relationship.
Extract 14:
T: Confucius is what? which one?
S: wise.
T: Exactly, and what about smart? Smart means you respond to things very quickly, but it doesn’t mean you are truly intelligent. I’ll just give you one example: suppose a child who is six or seven. Em, there is a better example. 来, XXX (S), 司马光砸光或者司马缸砸缸, 最容易修饰他的是哪个?
S: Smart.
T: Exactly. so smart means he is clever, he is quick to respond. But it doesn’t mean he learns things quickly, or he has a lot of wisdom.
playful confusion in the phrase “司马光砸光或者司马缸砸缸,” which could be seen as a deliberate or humorous mix-up of names. This twist on the familiar story adds a layer of humor and makes the lesson more engaging.
In this dialogue, the teacher’s use of a humorous tone fostered a positive and comfortable classroom environment. When discussing the word “smart,” she cited the story of Sima Guang breaking the vat with a deliberate mix-up of names to add a layer of humor. This witty expression significantly enhanced teacher–student relationship by demonstrating the teacher’s approachability and creating a shared understanding, which was essential for establishing trust and rapport. The teacher’s strategy of correcting misunderstandings in a humorous, nonthreatening manner reflected a discourse approach that prioritized student comfort and comprehension over strict formality, thereby strengthening teacher–student relationship through effective communication. Several students expressed a particular fondness for the teacher’s humor, especially when used to convey negative feedback:
Actually, the teacher always points out our mistakes in a funny way, which I really appreciate because it helps me learn better.
I really enjoy hearing criticism in a humorous way; it feels easy to accept and helps us realize the seriousness of the matter.
4.4.2 Lexis and syntax
The teacher’s choice of lexis and syntax also influenced her relationship management.
Extract 15:
T: So the rooster …?
Ss: lied.
T: That means he wasn’t telling the truth, right? So, the rooster lied that he laid…. Hey, come on. Laid an egg, right? Okay, next one?
Ss: Lying.
T: Exactly. Lying. Lying on the ground. Okay. Because you find this is the post modifier. 这里做什么?后置…?
Ss:状语。
T: 后置 … 状语什么啦。后置什么? (laughter)
…
T: …So suppose here is a book, right? The book is here. Do I say a book lying on the desk or a book laid on the desk? Which one is preferable, lying or laid? Grammatically, both. But usually, we choose the first one, because we don’t need to emphasize somebody did it. If you use laid, that means you emphasize it’s not naturally there. Somebody put it there. But usually, we just want to describe the position, the location. Okay, so we prefer lying.
In this dialogue, the teacher’s choice of lexis and syntax played a pivotal role in maintaining teacher–student relationship. Lexically, the teacher employed colloquial language, as demonstrated by the playful correction “zhuangyushenmela” (not adverbial). This casual language use fostered a relaxed environment that encouraged student participation by reducing the fear of judgment and helped the teacher connect with students on a more personal level, which was crucial for building rapport. Syntactically, the teacher utilized a mix of declarative and interrogative sentences to actively engage the class. The declarative sentences provided clear explanations, while the interrogative sentences invited students to think critically and participate in discussions, both essential for fostering interactive learning.
4.4.3 Forms of address
The teacher also managed interactions through various forms of address. She primarily used formal address terms, such as directly calling students by their names, to maintain a structured classroom environment. However, she occasionally employed informal or humorous forms of address to bridge the formality gap and foster a more egalitarian and relaxed learning environment.
Extract 16:
T: Okay, last festival for discussion. It would be the moon festival or mid-autumn festival. 来,手手手(举起手), 应该有好几个啊, 大家现在都学聪明了啊, 你们看只有亲爱的 XX 同学肯给我一个面子啊, 来, go.
S: The Moon Festival … (student talked about the Moon Festival)
T: Okay, thank you.
In this dialogue, the teacher employed a humorous and informal form of address by referring to a student as “Dear XXX” during a discussion about the Mid-Autumn Festival. This choice of address, typically reserved for closer relationships, diminished the teacher’s authority and fostered a sense of equality among students, creating a relaxed atmosphere that encouraged participation. By jokingly acknowledging that students had become “smarter,” she engaged them in a light-hearted manner, alleviating their apprehension about speaking in front of the class. Such strategies effectively promoted a harmonious classroom environment and strengthened teacher–student relationship, encouraging students to engage more openly while maintaining high expectations for their contributions.
4.5 Nonverbal domain
In addition to verbal strategies, the teacher effectively employed various nonverbal techniques to manage rapport, including body movements, eye contact, and proxemics. These techniques complemented verbal communication in the classroom, enhancing teacher–student interactions, fostering a vibrant classroom atmosphere, and improving the effectiveness of teaching activities.
4.5.1 Body movements
The teacher used body movements, including gestures from her whole body or specific parts, in her communication with the students.
Extract 17:
T: Okay, like glass. 看到没有 ? 张开一张血盆大口, 吃人的样子, gla-,/ɑː/, okay 站起来, 给大家看一下你的嘴巴。大家真的可以看到她的嘴巴很小。ok, glass.
S: Glass.
T: 看到没有? (她) 还是很矜持的, 还要在这边(含着), glass.
S: glass.
T: (gently opened the student’s mouth) 读.
Ss: (laugh)
S: Glass.
T: 对, 看见没有?所以我再说一遍, 很锻炼你的口部肌肉的, glass。(含着嘴)这很奇怪。
In this conversation, the teacher corrected the student’s vowel pronunciation by engaging her physically – gently opening the student’s mouth to illustrate proper articulation. This action not only provided immediate feedback but also elicited laughter from the class, lightening the mood and fostering a sense of camaraderie. Through such gestures, the teacher effectively narrowed the distance between herself and her students, promoting a more relaxed and interactive classroom atmosphere that is conducive to developing a harmonious teacher–student relationship.
Extract 18:
T: Intransitive: work slowed. That means work became slow. But if you want to make something slow, you can say slow something. And you should use the phrase, slow …?
T& Ss: slow down.
T: Slow something down. And again, slow down can be used both as transitive and intransitive. So now I feel tired, and I must…?
Ss: Slow down.
T: Okay. Hey, come on. You cannot walk so fast. You need to slow down your…?
S: Pace.
T: (pointed to the student) Pace. Exactly. You need to slow down your pace. Okay. Slow down your pace. The speed at which you walk. So, both transitive or intransitive.
In this dialogue, the teacher used gestures to promote a positive teacher–student relationship. After explaining the phrase “slow down,” the teacher aimed to extend this to the expression “slow down the pace,” providing relevant context with the sentence, “You cannot work so fast.” However, most students failed to comprehend the teacher’s intention, except for one who responded correctly. At that moment, the teacher pointed toward that particular student, signifying approval for his response. This gesture allowed the teacher to promptly convey her recognition, thereby fostering the student’s self-confidence and encouraging active engagement in classroom activities.
4.5.2 Eye contact
Eye contact was another critical nonverbal strategy that the teacher used to manage relationships within the classroom, providing essential information, mediating interactions, and expressing intimacy.
Extract 19:
T: (looked at the class) Do these 3 pictures tell you enough details about action films?
T& Ss: No.
T: …Now, tell me, what do you think would be suitable pictures to put on this page? Not only pictures about the movie names, but also…?
T & Ss: Fighting things,
T: (looked at the presenter) People actually fighting each other, right? Then you immediately realize what action means. All right? For example, you can put Jackie Chan movies. Exactly. People actually fighting.
In this dialogue, the teacher’s use of eye contact played a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics of the classroom. As she discussed broader topics, her sustained eye contact with the entire class created an inclusive atmosphere where all students felt acknowledged. However, when addressing specific suggestions related to a student’s presentation, she shifted her focus to the presenter. This deliberate alteration of eye contact not only underscored the importance of the individual’s contribution but also conveyed recognition and respect. This targeted eye contact served as a nonverbal affirmation of the student’s ideas, fostering a sense of validation and inclusion. This nuanced approach to eye contact acted as a bridge between the collective and the individual, ensuring that while the class was engaged as a whole, each student felt seen and appreciated as a unique contributor to the community.
4.5.3 Proxemics
The teacher also adjusted proxemics – the physical distance between individuals during communication – to convey different meanings, elicit distinct psychological responses in students, and produce various outcomes.
Extract 20:
T: All right, and also XXX, I’m going to talk about some of your problems. In one sentence you talk about those studio chiefs were tyrants. Okay, they would use whatever the means no matter how unscrupulous or unethical they were, right? What is your next sentence?
S: They will, they would in….
T: (stepped down from the platform) No. You used “because”. Probably you forget it now, but then after this sentence, you used because. …Do you think you should use because here?
Ss: No.
T: You already give up the keywords, unscrupulous and unethical means. So those are the details. Do you think you need to use “because” to link them?
S: No.
T: Okay. So be careful with the linking.
In this dialogue, the teacher employed proxemics to enhance the teacher–student relationship. By descending from the platform to address a student’s confusion regarding the use of “because,” the teacher effectively minimized both the physical and psychological distance, creating an environment of equality and mutual respect. This deliberate reduction in distance not only heightened the student’s attention but also fostered a more dynamic and interactive learning atmosphere. The teacher’s nonverbal strategy of adjusting proxemics underscored the importance of interaction – a key aspect of authoritative teaching – and demonstrated her skill in using nonverbal cues to cultivate a harmonious classroom environment. This approach reflected the teacher’s commitment to engaging with students as equals, thereby promoting positive relationships between herself and the students.
4.6 Cross-domain strategies
The above extracts illustrate how the teacher selected discourse strategies from various domains to manage rapport. It is important to note that these strategies did not operate in isolation; rather, the teacher integrated them in a complex and dynamic manner. This intricate interweaving of different cross-domain tactics was essential for enhancing student engagement, fostering understanding, and nurturing constructive teacher–student relationships.
Extract 21:
T: The first one, XXX(S1).
S1: C.
T:你们现在应该已经很熟悉我讲题的逻辑了, 我肯定不会让你报个答案的, 我一定会让你解释的。你不应该是很惊讶的现场做准备。
S1: …我在找我的笔记 … The first one refers to … 尖利刺耳的声音。
T: (laugh)你觉得我会满意吗? 你懂了没有用, 你还得解释出来, in English of course.
S1: …
T: XX(S1)下次能不能做到?
S1: Okay.
T: Ok, XXX (S2), now what’s the difference between screech and scream?
S2: Screaming, someone shout because he was afraid or hurt.
T: Okay, very good, yes, because he’s frightened, out of fear, what about screech?
S2: Which means just simple crying or shouting.
T: I just give you one example. Suppose one day you’re walking on the street, right? And you hear two people shouting at each other. Do they scream or do they screech?
S2: Scream.
T: Exactly. 两个人吵架嘛, 光在那边叫的声音, 尖叫, 所以我们就会用scream. Ok, here is also another difference. If you talk about, for example, a machine. Suppose the machine isn’t working well, and the machine is giving strange sounds. Now we can say the machine is screeching or screaming?
S2: Screeching.
T: Good, thank you.
In this dialogue, the teacher adeptly applied a range of strategies across multiple domains, including rapport management through code-switching, humor, turn-taking, strategic sequencing and organization of information, and the deliberate selection of speech acts. These strategies were not only pedagogically effective but also played a significant role in shaping the teacher–student relationship.
The teacher’s use of code-switching was a strategic approach to manage rapport. By addressing the student in Chinese when expressing dissatisfaction, she made the student acutely aware of expectations and the need for improvement. Additionally, using Chinese to explain the nuances between “screech” and “scream” increased linguistic accessibility, showing respect for the student’s linguistic background and facilitating a deeper connection essential for a strong teacher–student relationship.
Incorporating humor – signaled by her laughter – when challenging a student’s response helped the teacher lighten the mood and reduce potential discomfort. This powerful tool for rapport management created a more relaxed and open atmosphere, encouraging students to engage more freely and take risks in their learning. Such strategies contributed to a positive and supportive teacher–student dynamic.
The teacher’s turn-taking strategy, which moved the conversation from one student to another, ensured that all students had an opportunity to participate. This inclusive approach was vital for fostering a sense of belonging and community within the classroom, a key component of a healthy teacher–student relationship. By involving multiple students, the teacher promoted an environment where everyone’s voice was valued, enhancing the overall classroom climate.
The teacher’s sequencing and organization of information – using concrete examples to differentiate between “screech” and “scream” – not only clarified the learning content but also demonstrated a thoughtful teaching approach. This strategy helped students understand complex concepts more effectively, which was crucial for building a teacher–student relationship founded on mutual respect and understanding.
Finally, the teacher’s selection of speech acts, such as asking questions and providing feedback, guided the learning process and managed classroom interactions. These speech acts were not merely instructional; they also fostered relationships. By encouraging student participation and reflection through questions, and reinforcing learning through feedback, the teacher showed care for the students’ progress.
Through these strategies, the teacher enhanced the learning experience while cultivating a positive teacher–student relationship, where students felt valued, respected, and motivated to learn.
Extract 22:
T: Okay, 我们来看一下 XX (S)的一句话。Zhang Wei failed the college entrance examination last year, but he wasn’t disappointed. He continued to work hard and was admitted to a famous university. 来XX, “失败” 和“ 感到”之间是怎么连接的?
S: But.
T: 对, but是一个什么词?
S: 呃,关系代词。哦, 不对。
T: 不要胡说八道哦… conjunction, 连词
S: 嗯, 转折连词。
T: Ok, 看看什么叫连词呢?因为它是连词, 所以它可以把两个句子连接在一起, 听懂了吗?
S: 听懂了。
T: 我们慢慢的来补这些小洞, 原来不是很清楚, 那么今天补一点, 明天补一点, 我们最后就可以把它补得完美一点。然后一二两句解决了,那么三是怎么解决的?
S: And.
T: 你没有and呀, 你第三句是重新开句了。
S: 嗯,对。
T: 然后三和四之间应该是and对不对?
S: 对。
T: 对于整个句子翻译还是很好的。首先好几个句子之间时态使用的很一致, 然后也没有太大结构问题。Ok, here, 沮丧, 用的 disappointed. I’ll give you another alternative, another choice. You can use the word frustrated. Frustrated means disappointed. Or you can use the word depressed, all right? I suppose maybe we are familiar with depression, because as college, sorry as high school students, maybe you had huge pressure. A lot of you might feel depressed, okay? Sometimes if it was serious enough, it might become a disease, 所以大家注意下它可以指忧郁的情绪, 那么如果比较严重的话, 可能是指忧郁症。现在忧郁症呢, 是比较普遍的, 大家可能平时都会经常会有一些负面情绪, 特别是大家经常会被比如说像我这样的老师压迫压迫,比较容易有负面情绪啊 (laugh), 不过尽量这个自己调节调节。生活很苦,大家自己努力努力, 不要最后搞一个忧郁症出来。搞成忧郁症的话, 也不是什么世界末日, 大家关注关注自己。我们尽量互相彼此鼓励一下, 不要生病。
In this dialogue, the teacher effectively combined four strategies from various domains while providing feedback on a student’s translation: humor, turn-taking, topic familiarity, and code-switching.
The teacher’s use of humor was a subtle yet effective strategy. When the student incorrectly identified “but” as a relative pronoun, the teacher responded with a light-hearted correction that not only clarified the mistake but also eased tension and maintained the student’s confidence. By fostering a laid-back and open atmosphere, the teacher’s method inspired students to participate more openly and embrace challenges in their learning.
The teacher also employed familiar topic to enhance the learning experience. By connecting the translation of a word to the students’ own experiences with academic pressure and feelings of frustration or depression, the teacher made the lesson more relatable and emotionally resonant. This strategy allowed students to link abstract concepts to their own lives, increasing their engagement and understanding of the term.
The teacher’s management of conversational turns was another key strategy. By ensuring that each student had a chance to contribute, the teacher demonstrated respect for every student’s input and created a dynamic learning space. This approach facilitated a collaborative atmosphere where each student’s voice was valued and heard, promoting a sense of community within the classroom.
Finally, code-switching between English and Chinese was also a strategic choice by the teacher. It made the instruction accessible to all students, regardless of their language proficiency, and underscored the cultural and linguistic diversity within the classroom. This bilingual approach ensured clarity and relatability, fostering a safe space for dialogue.
By integrating these four strategies, the teacher adeptly enhanced the learning experience and fostered a positive and supportive teacher–student dynamic.
5 Discussion
This study provides an in-depth examination of the discourse strategies employed by an authoritative teacher in managing teacher–student relationships in a university EFL classroom, revealing the significant social dimension of teacher discourse as a complex semiotic system (Johnston et al. 2001; Komarawan 2019). While previous studies have acknowledged the importance of teacher discourse, they have not thoroughly explored the underlying mechanisms (Bieg et al. 2019; Shvidko 2018). In contrast, the comprehensive analysis presented here highlights how an authoritative teacher, characterized by a balance of authority and student participation, manipulates a diverse array of discourse strategies to navigate the intricate interplay between linguistic choices and power dynamics within the classroom environment (Shepard-Carey 2022; Xing 2014). Specifically, this analysis demonstrates how the teacher skillfully combined authoritative and dialogic elements to create an interactive classroom atmosphere that supports both guidance and collaboration. Teacher discourse is not a static set of practices but rather a flexible and context-sensitive semiotic repertoire, carefully attuned to student needs and the educational environment (Martin and Mulvihill 2022). By skillfully blending various strategies across different domains, the teacher exemplifies a multifaceted approach to classroom interaction that recognizes the transformative potential of signs in fostering meaningful educational experiences (Gee 2014).
This study identifies two additional strategies for managing teacher–student relationships in EFL classrooms, alongside those proposed by Spencer-Oatey (2000, 2005, 2008) in Rapport-Management Theory: code-switching in the discourse domain and collective turn-taking in the participation domain. Code-switching was particularly effective for EFL teachers to employ different languages and semiotic resources to bridge students’ knowledge gap, fostering an environment conducive to academic growth and strengthening relationships (Cahyani et al. 2018). Meanwhile, turn-taking that involved multiple students enhanced participation and ensured equitable opportunities for expression, cultivating a dynamic learning environment and harmonious teacher–student interactions (Hu and Chen 2021; Ryan and Forrest 2019). The discovery of these strategies enriches Rapport-Management Theory, enhancing its explanatory power and broadening its applicability in educational contexts.
While this study focuses on the significance of teacher discourse in managing classroom rapport, the findings indicate that its interpersonal function is inseparable from instructional concerns (Hoi Yee Lo 2019; Xie and Derakhshan 2021). This close connection is evident in teachers’ strategic use of language, which conveys academic content while shaping the social dynamics of the classroom. Teachers, including those with an authoritative teaching approach, often face the complex task of balancing the need for instructional efficiency with the maintenance of positive teacher–student relationships, juggling multiple roles as both instructor and relationship manager (Nguyen 2007). In some instances, these roles can harmonize, allowing teachers to teach effectively while maintaining positive relationships with students (Lavy and Bocker 2018). For example, the teacher in this study frequently employed code-switching to tailor her discourse to the English proficiency levels of her students. This approach not only promoted accessibility and efficiency in teaching but also fostered a positive learning atmosphere that enhanced student engagement and motivation. However, these roles sometimes conflict, forcing teachers to make compromises. For instance, when the teacher in this study opted for direct criticism of her students’ performance, it momentarily disrupted rapport in the interest of instructional effectiveness. This approach was underpinned by the teacher’s commitment to academic rigor and student growth, which might have led to unintended negative consequences for teacher–student relationships. The teacher was aware of such conflicts but justified her choice in the interview, claiming she aimed to be “an excellent teacher” rather than “a nice teacher,” two notions she believed were not interchangeable. In such a case, the teacher prioritized her role as an instructor over that of a relationship manager, reflecting the inevitable trade-offs teachers navigate between upholding academic standards and maintaining interpersonal harmony (Hazel et al. 2014; Khairani et al. 2021).
6 Conclusions
This study, through the lens of Rapport-Management Theory, advocates for a semiotically informed approach to language use in educational settings, highlighting the transformative potential of teacher discourse in the classroom. By examining teacher discourse as a semiotic system, we gain a holistic view of teachers’ strategic use of verbal and nonverbal cues to regulate classroom dynamics. Theoretically, this research bridges the gap between semiotics and educational practice, offering a framework that recognizes the symbolic nature of language in shaping social interactions. Practically, it provides insights for teacher training and professional development programs, equipping educators with the understanding and tools to adopt adaptive discourse strategies. The integration of semiotic principles into educational discourse is expected to empower teachers to navigate the complex social landscape of the classroom more effectively, ultimately enhancing educational outcomes for all students.
While this study carries out an intensive investigation of teacher discourse within an EFL context, the case-study methodology limits the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the focus on an authoritative teacher may not encompass the educational practices of educators with different pedagogical approaches. To address these limitations, future research should strive to include a broader range of teachers and educational settings, which could yield a more thorough understanding of teacher discourse across diverse educational contexts.
About the authors
Li Tao is Associate Professor in the Department of English at Soochow University. She earned her PhD degree in English Linguistics and Literature from Soochow University. Her research interests include L2 education and teacher development. Her articles have been published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Foreign Language World, and Foreign Language Research.
Yifan Ren is an English teacher at No. 1 Middle School of Jiaxiang. She graduated from Soochow University with a Master of Literature degree. Her research interests include teacher discourse and Applied Linguistics.
Ningyang Chen is a researcher in applied linguistics in the Department of English, Soochow University, China. She is currently working on a project investigating additional language development of learners in nonconventional, low-pressure learning settings.
References
Al-Adeimi, Shireen & Catherine O’Connor. 2021. Exploring the relationship between dialogic teacher talk and students’ persuasive writing. Learning and Instruction 71. 101388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101388.Search in Google Scholar
Baumrind, Diana. 1971. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology 4(1). 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372.Search in Google Scholar
Bieg, Sonja, Robert Grassinger & Markus Dresel. 2019. Teacher humor: Longitudinal effects on students’ emotions. European Journal of Psychology of Education 34. 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0402-0.Search in Google Scholar
Braun, Virginia & Clarke Victoria. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2). 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Search in Google Scholar
Brooke, Mark. 2019. Guiding teacher talk in the content and language integrated learning classroom using semantics from legitimation code theory. Teaching in Higher Education 25(7). 812–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1598968.Search in Google Scholar
Cahyani, Hilda, Michele de Courcy & Jenny Barnett. 2018. Teachers’ code-switching in bilingual classrooms: Exploring pedagogical and sociocultural functions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21(4). 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1189509.Search in Google Scholar
Cazden, Courtney. 2001. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning, 2nd edn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Gaowei, Zhang Jiahong, Chan Carol, Michaels Sarah, Resnick Lauren & Huang Xiaorui. 2020. The link between student-perceived teacher talk and student enjoyment, anxiety and discursive engagement in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal 46(3). 1–22.10.1002/berj.3600Search in Google Scholar
Creswell, John. W. 2013. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Davidson, Kyle. 2021. The challenges of the virtual classroom—the semiotics of transmedial literacy in VR education. Language and Semiotic Studies 7(4). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2021-070401.Search in Google Scholar
Dever, Bridget & Stuart Karabenick. 2011. Is authoritative teaching beneficial for all students? A multi-level model of the effects of teaching style on interest and achievement. School Psychology Quarterly 26(2). 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022985.Search in Google Scholar
Gee, James Paul. 2014. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method, 4th edn. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Hazel, Michael, Crandall M. Heather & Caputo S. John. 2014. The influence of instructor social presence and student academic entitlement on teacher misbehaviors in online courses. Southern Communication Journal 79(4). 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2014.914563.Search in Google Scholar
Hoi Yee Lo, Carol. 2019. Wearing two hats: Managing affiliation and instruction when responding to learner-initiated experiences in the adult ESL classroom. Classroom Discourse 11(3). 272–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1602843.Search in Google Scholar
Hyett, Nerida, Amanda Kenny & Virginia Dickson-Swift. 2014. Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 9(1). 23606. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.23606.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Liru & Gaowei Chen. 2021. Exploring turn-taking patterns during dialogic collaborative problem solving. Original Research 50. 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09565-2.Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, Peter, Woodside-Jiron Haley & Day Jeni. 2001. Teaching and learning literate epistemologies. Journal of Educational Psychology 93(1). 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.223.Search in Google Scholar
Khairani, Yunita, Marjohan Marjohan & Riska Ahmad. 2021. The differences of work stress on teachers based on demographic factors. International Journal of Applied Counseling and Social Sciences 3(1). 1–8.10.24036/005443ijaccsSearch in Google Scholar
Kiemer, Katharina, Gröschner Alexander, Schindler Ann-Kathrin & Seidel Tina. 2015. Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and Science. Learning and Instruction 35. 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Min-Young & Ian A. G. Wilkinson. 2019. What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning Culture and Social Interaction 21. 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003.Search in Google Scholar
Komarawan, Yulizar. 2019. Constructing interpersonal meaning in Indonesian science classrooms through language, space and gaze. Kemanusiaan: the Asian Journal of Humanities 26(1). 1–23. https://doi.org/10.21315/kajh2019.26.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Lavy, Shiri & Shira Bocker. 2018. A path to teacher happiness? A sense of meaning affects teacher-student relationships, which affect job satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies 19. 1485–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9883-9.Search in Google Scholar
Leone, Massimo. 2021. Face-to-Face: The semiotics of online teaching (or, in praise of the classroom). Language and Semiotic Studies 7(1). 34–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2021-070102.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Li. 2011. Obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking through interaction in language classrooms. Thinking Skills & Creativity 6(3). 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2011.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
Lloyd, Malinda Hoskins, Nancy J. Kolodziej & Kathy M. Brashears. 2016. Classroom discourse: An essential component in building a classroom community. School Community Journal 26(1). 59–72.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Linda & Thalia Mulvihill. 2022. Voices in education: Successful professional development for educators: What does it look like and who should be involved? The Teacher Educator 58(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2023.2145716.Search in Google Scholar
Maxwell, Joseph. 2013. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Meijer, Paulien C., Nico Verloop & Douwe Beijaard. 2002. Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: An attempt to increase internal validity. Quality & Quantity 36. 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014984232147.10.1023/A:1014984232147Search in Google Scholar
Ng, Oi-Lam, Cheng Wing Kin, Ni Yujing & Shi Lian. 2021. How linguistic features and patterns of discourse moves influence authority structures in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 24(6). 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-020-09475-z.Search in Google Scholar
Nguyen, Hanh Thi. 2007. Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Language and Education 21(4). 284–303. https://doi.org/10.2167/le658.0.Search in Google Scholar
Norton, Bonny. 2000. Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Reda, Ghsoon. 2020. Making meaning through prepositions: A model for teacher trainees. Language and Semiotic Studies 6(4). 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2020-060405.Search in Google Scholar
Reznitskaya, Alina & Maughn Gregory. 2013. Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist 48(2). 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.775898.Search in Google Scholar
Rosborough, Alessandro. 2014. Gesture, meaning-making, and embodiment: Second language learning in an elementary classroom. Journal of Pedagogy 5(2). 227–250. https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2014-0011.Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, Jonathon & Leslie Forrest. 2019. No chance to speak’: Developing a pedagogical response to turn-taking problems. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 15(2). 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1687709.Search in Google Scholar
Shepard-Carey, Leah. 2022. Creating space for translingual sensemaking: A critical discourse analysis of teacher translanguaging during small-group reading. Classroom Discourse 14(4). 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2022.2089704.Search in Google Scholar
Shi, Dan. 2022. Recontextualization as embodied and embedded sense-making activity: An ecosocial semiotic approach to languaging dynamics of teacher talk in university literature classrooms. Linguistics and Education 71. 101102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101102.Search in Google Scholar
Shvidko, Elena. 2018. Writing conference feedback as moment-to-moment affiliative relationship building. Journal of Pragmatics 127. 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.004.Search in Google Scholar
Skinner, Barbara. 2017. Effective teacher talk: A threshold concept in TESOL. ELT Journal 71(2). 150–159.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking. Managing rapport through talk across cultures, vol. 46, 11. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2002. Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)00039-x.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Wenying Jiang. 2003. Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics 35(10). 1633–1650. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(03)00025-0.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking. Culture, communication and politeness theory, 11–47. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Suri, Harsh. 2011. Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal 11(2). 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj1102063.Search in Google Scholar
Tai, Kevin & Li Wei. 2021. Constructing playful talk through translanguaging in English medium instruction mathematics classrooms. Applied Linguistics 42(4). 607–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa043.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Pauline, Paatsch Louise & Nolan Andrea. 2024. Understanding the talk patterns in secondary school classrooms. Language and Education. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2024.2343292.Search in Google Scholar
Tsukawaki, Ryota, Imura Tomoya, Kojima Nanae, Furukawa Yoshiya & Ito Katsuhiro. 2020. The correlation between teachers’ humor and class climate: A study targeting primary and secondary school students. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research 33(3). 405–421.10.1515/humor-2019-0021Search in Google Scholar
Uibu, Krista & Eve Kikas. 2012. Authoritative and authoritarian-inconsistent teachers’ preferences for teaching methods and instructional goals. Education 42(1). 3–13.10.1080/03004279.2011.618808Search in Google Scholar
Vrikki, Maria, Brindley Sue, Abedin Manzoorul & Riga Fran. 2019. Exploring dialogic space: A case study of a religious education classroom. Language and Education 33(5). 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1604741.Search in Google Scholar
Walker, Joan. 2008. Looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting style. Journal of Experimental Education 76(2). 218–240. https://doi.org/10.3200/jexe.76.2.218-240.Search in Google Scholar
Walshaw, Margaret & Glenda Anthony. 2008. The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research 78(3). 516–551. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292.Search in Google Scholar
Webb, Noreen M., Mari Nemer Kariane & Marsha Ing. 2006. Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences 15(1). 63–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_8.Search in Google Scholar
Wells, Gordon. 2007. Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development 50(5). 244–274. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106414.Search in Google Scholar
Wentzel, Kathryn. 2002. Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development 73(1). 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00406.Search in Google Scholar
Xie, Fei & Ali Derakhshan. 2021. A conceptual review of positive teacher interpersonal communication behaviors in the instructional context. Frontiers in Psychology 12. 708490. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708490.Search in Google Scholar
Xing, Wenren. 2014. The construction of the teacher’s authority in pedagogic discourse. English Language Teaching 7(6). 96–108. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n6p96.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Xueyan & Xin Tao. 2018. Comparing discourse behaviors of a high-rated and a low-rated Chinese EFL teacher: A systemic functional perspective. Modern Language Journal 102(3). 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12495.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Zi & Sisi Wang. 2022. Dialogic teaching in secondary classrooms in China: Features, commonalities, and distinctiveness. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 34. 100619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100619.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter on behalf of Soochow University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- One event, many narratives: (mis)representations in Nigerian political discourse
- The Al Jazeera’s visual stance on 30 June revolution: visual appraisal and intertextuality in dialogue
- “What we ordered”: a multimodal framing analysis of the memetic representation of the Obidient movement in Nigeria
- UNESCO and the definition of intangible cultural heritage – proposing some conceptual underpinnings
- Signs and objects in op-ed articles on loneliness in the US and Singapore newspapers: a semiotic interpretation
- Teacher discourse from the perspective of rapport-management theory: a case study of an authoritative teacher in a Chinese EFL classroom
- Cultural interaction and value pursuit: the Shijing in German culture
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- One event, many narratives: (mis)representations in Nigerian political discourse
- The Al Jazeera’s visual stance on 30 June revolution: visual appraisal and intertextuality in dialogue
- “What we ordered”: a multimodal framing analysis of the memetic representation of the Obidient movement in Nigeria
- UNESCO and the definition of intangible cultural heritage – proposing some conceptual underpinnings
- Signs and objects in op-ed articles on loneliness in the US and Singapore newspapers: a semiotic interpretation
- Teacher discourse from the perspective of rapport-management theory: a case study of an authoritative teacher in a Chinese EFL classroom
- Cultural interaction and value pursuit: the Shijing in German culture
