Eddy Spicer, D. (2006). Collective Inquiry in the Context of School-wide
Reform: Exploring Science Curriculum and Instruction through Teambased Professional Development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. p. 230-243.
APPENDIX F-2: SPEECH FUNCTION CODING
230
Speech Function Coding: Collegial Interaction v. 2.2
Rationale
Teacher learning has received increasing attention as a central facet of sustained school
reform and improved student learning. Much recent research has emphasized the
important role of professional collaboration and collegial interaction in teachers’
continuous learning. Relatively little attention has gone towards analyzing collegial
interactions. Moreover, few studies have tried to describe interaction patterns across
different settings of professional development, including those that combine networked
technologies with on-site interaction, to identify the interplay of setting and interaction
that characterizes team communication in particular situations. The coding approach
described below is an effort to fill that gap by elaborating a way of tracing the key social
interaction patterns in professional conversations that are linked with efforts to exchange
meaning among participants around aspects of professional practice. I have developed
this approach for my dissertation research, which looks at one team of science teachers in
an urban high school undergoing broad reform. The study follows their efforts to work
with a pedagogical framework, Teaching for Understanding, identified by the school’s
administration to be the “language of instructional reform.” The study looks at interaction
among members of the same group of teachers in three different settings: an informal
curriculum working group; a professional development “workshop” organized by the
school; and the face-to-face meetings of a subset of these teachers who were taking an
online course.
Describing Collegial Interaction
My take on collegial interaction is informed by sociocultural notions of meaning-making.
I will not go into great detail about that here, but I do want to note that the codes you will
see below are the main approach I use to relate meaning-making through language to the
broader contexts in which people interact. These codes do so by systematically linking
small chunks of interaction (“moves” as explained below) to the larger function served in
structuring an exchange. Because this is meaning-making about teaching among teachers,
I am particularly interested in how language functions to exchange information and how
interpersonal dynamics – power relationships, affective involvement, affiliation—shape
that exchange. These latter are woven tightly into considerations of context.
You will see that many of the codes below focus on information. This is in contrast to the
exchange of goods and services, which shows up less frequently in these transcripts
(unlike in many of the pragmatic situations that make up our everyday interactions).
According to Halliday, information and goods and services are the two purposes served
by language. Informational exchanges negotiate a proposition, so these codes are a way
of systematically describing who does what to that proposition and how they do it as the
exchange unfolds. In terms of how information gets treated in the exchange, I am
particularly interested in two dimensions, both of which play out in the coding structure.
231
The first is around ways that a bit of interaction either pulls the conversation towards
closure or pushes it in other directions, away from tidy conclusion. The second dimension
is around whether interaction supports or contradicts the proposition under discussion.
Reading the Transcripts
Up until now, I have been using the term “exchange” in an informal way, as a substitute
for interaction. But exchange actually has a formal definition in this research. An
exchange begins when one of the participants initiates a new focus and includes all
subsequent interaction that sustains dialogue until someone introduces another focus. An
exchange is made up of speaker turns, and each speaker’s turn may be broken down into
several smaller bits of speech. These are moves, the functional building blocks of
interaction. As you will see, I have already decided for you what constitutes a move, each
of which begins with a speaker’s name and ends with one of several symbols that the
software program I use, CLAN, accepts as a terminator. (These include standard
grammatical symbols—period, exclamation mark, question mark—along with some
special terminators the program uses to track such things as interruptions (“+/.”) or
trailing off (“+…”) or a prosodic terminator (“-.”). 69
One of my fundamental interests lies in looking closely at how different functional moves
come to make up an exchange. For your purposes in coding, however, the move is the
unit of analysis. Your task is to identify one speech function 70 label per move from the
descriptors below. I have decided to assign only one label per move, with reference to the
nearest relevant preceding move. (Note Eggins & Slade on multilogue: p. 215.)
The descriptions of the codes in the codebook include not only a description of the
discourse purpose but also a characterization of the mood in terms of functional grammar
that corresponds to speech function. Moves at the discourse-semantic level are expressed
at the grammatical level by patterns of clause types identified by mood. Mood types
characterize the major grammatical patterns that realize interpersonal meanings through
language. Mood types include such familiar classes of clauses as declarative, imperative,
and interrogative. The system of mood provides a grammatical structure for the
discourse functions below.
My analysis emphasizes interactive function; however, I do rely on Eggins and Slade’s
descriptions of congruent mood as a support for resolving coding conflicts, particularly at
the greatest level of delicacy. Eggins and Slade cautions, “there is not a one-to-one match
between particular mood structures and particular discourse functions,” in that clauses of
69 In using CLAN, I have decided to make moves equivalent to what CLAN calls “utterances”; that is, each
move appears on a unique line with speaker attribution and a terminator (period, question mark, final tonal
inflection). Moves don’t necessarily correspond to clauses, although in many cases they do. The delineation of
moves depends foremost on tonic patterns in speech. Sometimes you will see an uncharacteristically long
move, which indicates “run on”, i.e. a speaker speeding up speech when they arrive at a move boundary so that
s/he won’t be interrupted.
70 The speech function codes have been developed from a typology of the function of conversational moves in
casual conversation elaborated by Eggins & Slade (2004).
232
the same mood types can serve different discourse functions and clauses of different
mood types can serve equivalent functions (Eggins & Slade, 1997, p. 177). Nonetheless,
mood structure serves as an important resource alongside semantic resources for
exploring how meanings are constructed in interaction. Providing this grammatical
resource is among the principal strengths of a functional approach to discourse analysis.
Opening Moves
Opening moves get a new exchange underway. They are clearly assertive, putting
forward a new proposition that is then taken up in succeeding moves of an exchange until
the next opening move. In these texts, you are most likely to find opening moves that are
either statements or questions. Both statements and questions as opening moves don’t
require a lot of additional effort to interpret. That is, the opening move may well build
conceptually on what preceded, but the direction taken is a clear departure from the path
the conversation had taken up to that point.
Both statements and questions as opening moves can either concern themselves with facts
or opinions. Questions have the additional dimension of either demanding a
circumscribed response (closed) or opening the floor to new information. Open questions
leave the completion of a proposition up to the addressee; closed questions present a
complete proposition for the addressee’s agreement or disagreement. Both statements and
questions can concern facts or opinions. A test for opinions is whether they contain
adjectives of appraisal (e.g., “easy, silly”) or modality (e.g., “should, would, could”);
while presentation of facts lacks these. Opinions and facts tend to introduce different
patterns of ensuing interaction, with opinions opening the way to clarification and more
nuanced probing, while fact-initiated exchanges tend to be shorter. Another implication is
that the willingness of participants to put their opinions on the table for discussion
reflects greater affective involvement. Opening moves can be among the most difficult to
assign without access to the audio recording of the event.
All the remaining moves that follow from one opening move and keep the conversation
going until the next opening move fall under the general category of sustaining moves.
Sustaining moves fall into three broad categories—continuing, responses, and rejoinders.
The first group of continuing moves are those that allow a speaker to continue holding
the floor by checking in with her audience (monitor), expanding on a directly preceding
move within the same turn (prolong), or expanding on a prior move after an interruption
(append).
The next two groups of moves play the greatest role in creating the texture of an
exchange. These are the classes of sustaining moves known as responses and rejoinder
moves.
Unlike the continuing moves, the classes of responding and rejoinder moves
characterize what happens when other speakers take the floor, that is, when turn transfer
takes place. Briefly, responding moves serve to pull the conversation towards closure.
Rejoinders tend to push the conversation in different directions, not necessarily towards a
233
neat conclusion.
Responding
Responding moves are like links in a chain. Each move hooks clearly into the preceding
move, getting you closer to the end of the chain. Responding moves can be supportive or
confrontative.
The most important supportive responding moves are develop and three moves that
indicate a positive reply (answer, agree, affirm). Develop moves require a bit of
explanation. These are moves that might have been labeled prolong (a continuing move)
had they been uttered by the original speaker. Develop moves occur when a new speaker
takes up the task of expanding on a previously-introduced proposition in a way that is
closely tied to the original speaker’s move. That is, the speaker shows a great deal of
interpersonal support while volunteering closely-related content.
Confrontative reply moves include a set of negative reply labels (contradict, disagree,
withhold, disavow) that are the opposite of supportive replies. Unlike the “challenging”
moves introduced below, confrontative replies are characteristically “low impact”; that is,
they work towards closing off the exchange without putting a lot at risk or opening the
way to negotiating differences.
For both supportive and confrontative responding moves, the exchange could logically
end once the responding move is made unless a participant introduces a rejoinder move
that serves to extend the exchange, described below.
Rejoinder
Rejoinders function to “interrupt, postpone, abort or suspend” the structure of an
exchange (Eggins & Slade). Rather than wrapping up what’s on the table, rejoinders hold
it up for scrutiny either by calling for a repetition of what’s already been said, introducing
closely-related but new information, or questioning the information that has already been
introduced. In parallel to the responding moves above, there are also two main classes of
rejoinders: the supportive tracking moves and the confrontative challenging moves.
Tracking moves verify information in the prior move. They range from a simple “check”
on what has been said to an expansion of the proposition by asking for clarification or
volunteering additional details. Two of the most commonly appearing tracking moves in
these transcripts are clarify and probe. Tracking clarify moves elicit clarification of what
the speaker assumes to have been implied by a prior move and include requests for
elaboration. Tracking moves that clarify delay a speaker’s reaction to a prior move on the
basis that inadequate information is available.
Tracking probe moves introduce further details or tease out implications of information
in a prior move for ratification by others. Probes, in particular, are a conciliatory way of
introducing new elements to the conversation that are potentially more assertive than
what might be introduced in a responding develop move, explained above. They are not
so assertive as to warrant an opening move label, nor are they introduced in a way that
234
directly challenges a prior speaker. Frequently probe moves include a tag question at the
end (“isn’t it?”) or a tag question might be implied.
Responses to tracking moves include resolve, which provides the clarification sought;
repair, which corrects information presented in either the tracking move or a resolve
move made in response to a tracking move; and unresolve, which rather than clarifying
with additional information actually calls into further question the information previously
presented.
The next group of moves shift the flow of conversation by challenging the preceding
move (which might be any of the above moves). These range from the relatively mild
challenge of questioning a prior move (rebound) to presenting a position that conflicts
with the prior move (counter) to the most extreme—cutting short the exchange (detach).
Responses to challenge moves include the conciliatory acquiesce, that functions to
validate the challenge; refute that contradicts the tenets of the challenge; and rechallenge, that presents an alternative to the original challenge.
Other Codes
In an effort to be comprehensive, I also include two codes for incomplete moves and
those that appear complete but are impossible to code (unclear).
235
Opening Moves
OPE:ST:FA
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
OPE:ST:ON
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
OPE:QU:FA:OP
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
OPE:QU:FA:CL
Purpose:
Example:
[statement:fact]
give factual information, without evaluation.
*HEL: #3 well here's three ideas.
full declarative; no modality; no appraisal
[statement:opinion]
give information that expresses attitude or evaluation
*HEL: man, Mary, you're so damn organized.
full declarative; modality; appraisal
[question:fact:open]
demand factual information
Why didn’t they include the ninth graders?
wh-interrogative; no modality; no appraisal
[question:fact:closed]
demand confirmation of or agreement with factual information
Congruent mood:
Is that today’s lab?
polar interrogative; no modality; no appraisal
OPE:QU:ON:OP
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[question:opinion:open]
demand attitudinal/evaluative information
*MAR:
so does it that feel ok maybe if we all read this?
wh-interrogative; modality; appraisal
OPE:QU:ON:CL
Purpose:
Example:
[question:opinion:closed]
demand attitudinal/evaluative information
Congruent mood:
*ANA: is there some specific way they're telling us
that we need to differentiate it ?
wh-interrogative; modality; appraisal
Other opening moves you may occasionally find include simply seeking attention, attending,
and the moves that negotiate the exchange of goods and services (rather than information),
offer and command.
OPE:AT
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[attending]
Seek attention.
OPE:OF
Purpose:
Example:
[offer]
give goods and services, often in the form of a question
Hey!
minor, formulaic
Do you want any of these lab kits?
236
Congruent mood:
modulated interrogative
OPE:CM
Purpose:
Example:
[command]
demand goods or services.
Could you hand me the salsa?/Hand me the salsa.
Continuing Moves
CO:MO
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
CO:PR
Purpose:
Example:
[continue:monitor]
check engagement of other participants
Right?
elliptical major clause or minor clause with interrogative intonation
[prolong]
expansion of the immediately prior move within the same turn.
JOS: Here’s a radical concept.
It’s the third quarter.
What if they don’t get a day in class to por
[//]assemble their portfolios.
Congruent mood for Continuing:Prolong moves is determined by the system of expansion
at the level of the clause complex in functional grammar. Following Halliday and Matthiesen
(2004), Eggins and Slade (1997)extend the application of the system of expansion from the
lexico-grammatic unit of the clause complex to the discourse-semantic unit of the move.
One move functions to expand a prior move in three ways: elaboration, extension, and
enhancement. Expansion also applies to the Continue:Append class and the
Respond:Develop class of speech function labels.
Elaborate:
full or elliptical declarative, explicitly or implicitly linked by such
phrases as, In other words, For example, You mean, Like.
Extend:
extension of nominal group. Could be made explicit by using
conjunctions such as: and, but, instead, or except.
Enhance:
prepositional or adverbial phrase linked (or linkable) with such
elements as: “as far as”, “where(ver)” [place]; “while”,
“when(ever)”, before, until, after, since, as soon as [time]; thus,
so, like, as, as if [manner]; therefore, consequently, to that end
[cause]; in that case, otherwise, nevertheless, if, unless [condition]
237
CO:AP
Purpose:
[append]
expansion that builds on speaker’s directly preceding turn after
interruption by another speaker (as if that speaker had not
responded).
Example:
LOU: most of them built one circuit.
JOS: are you doing xx?
LOU: maybe they built two.
Congruent mood:
See Continue:Prolong above.
Responding Moves
Among the most common responding labels are respond:register and respond:develop.
RS:RT
Purpose:
[respond:register]
display attention to speaker. repetition of speaker’s words;
paralinguistic expressions of attention; ritual exclamations. I have
been using this code for laughter.
Example:
Congruent mood:
Uhuh, Omigod! Um.
RS:DV
Purpose:
[respond:develop]
restate, exemplify, clarify, qualify the proposition put forward by a
previous speaker in a way that might have been said by that
speaker (i.e., a prolong move, but uttered by another speaker).
Example:
JOS: I mean I feel a full hour of portfolio assembly
is like # generous, really generous.
HEL: well they don’t really use it.
JOS: and they don’t.
minor clause or word: repetition of speaker’s words;
paralinguistic expressions of attention; ritual exclamations.
The following reply codes address information requested by the previous speaker. These
include supportive and confrontative possibilities. Once again, these codes clearly move
the conversation towards closure. Once the reply occurs, the exchange could logically
end, unless a participant introduces a rejoinder move that serves to extend the exchange,
described below.
238
Supportive reply
RS:RY:AF
Purpose:
[respond:reply:affirm]
indicate support of information given (but does not develop
proposition).
Example:
Congruent mood:
We’ve all been through that before.
RS:RY:AG
Purpose:
[respond:reply:agree]
provide positive response to question. (Note that these are typically
“closed” questions or taken by the respondent as a closed
question.) For agreement following Rejoinder Probe, see Resolve.
For affirmation of information or ideas, see affirm.
Example:
Congruent mood:
RS:RY:AN
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
– You bet.
“Yes.”; positive polarity in support of proposition.
Do you like the flavor?
– You bet.
“Yes.”; positive polarity.
[respond:reply:answer]
to complete missing information demanded.
Where’s Jocie?
– In the computer lab.
completion of missing structural elements.
239
Confrontative reply
RS:RY:DW
Purpose:
[respond:reply:disavow]
Deny acknowledgement of information. Expressions of
disclaiming knowledge. Expressions of not knowing.
Example:
*ANA: right # (be)cause it's all based on the critter
yeah. *HEL: um ## but I don't know ## yeah I don't
know.
Congruent mood:
expressions of disclaiming knowledge.
RS:RY:WH
Purpose:
[respond:reply:withhold]
Indicate inability to provide information demanded. Distinct from
disavow in that speaker is responding to request for information.
Example:
Congruent mood:
Are Jocie and Louise joining us?
RS:RY:DG
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[respond:reply:disagree]
provide negative response to question.
RS:RY:CD
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
– I don’t know.
negative elliptical declarative.
Did Jocie talk with you?
– No.
negation of proposition.
[respond:reply:contradict]
negate prior information.
*GAI: they've already done that, they know that.
*LOU: actually, no they don't.
No; switched polarity.
The following two pairs of reply codes address the exchange of goods and services.
RS:RY:AT
Purpose:
[respond:reply:accept]
accept offer of goods and services. non-verbal; expressions of
thanking.
Example:
Congruent mood:
Want one?
RS:RY:DC
Purpose:
[respond:reply:decline]
decline offer of goods and services. Non-verbal or minor
expressions of refusal.
Example:
Congruent mood:
Want one?
– Thanks.
non-verbal; expressions of thanking.
– Not right now.
non-verbal or minor; expressions of refusal.
240
RS:RY:CY
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
RS:RY:NC
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[respond:reply:comply]
carry out demand for goods and services. May be non-verbal or
simple expressions of undertaking (“OK.”) in response to
command.
Pass me the pen.
– OK.
non-verbal; expressions of undertaking (“OK.”) in response to
command.
[respond:reply:non-comply]
indicate inability (not refusal) to comply with command
Hand me that, will you?
– Can’t reach it.
non-verbal or minor; negation.
Other Respond Codes:
RS:EN
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
RS:DE
Purpose:
Example:
[respond:engage]
response to salutation or indication of willingness to interact
Hi. – Hello.
minor clause- typically “yea” or matched response “Hi.”
[respond:disengage]
indication of unwillingness to interact; breaking off
– mmm.
Rejoinder Moves
RJ:TR:CK
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
RJ:TR:CF
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[rejoinder:track:check]
request for a repeat of misheard element or move.
*JOS: sorry, Albert was # +...
*HEL: who?
*JOS: +, Albert xxx.
elliptical polar interrogative.
[rejoinder:track:confirm]
verify information heard.
*HEL: yeah, it's on here.
*HEL: um # this is the old version but I think it has
all the same equations.
*LOU: +^ what, power is on there?
*HEL: yeah, power's on there.
elliptical wh- interrogative, incl. element from prior move.
241
RJ:TR:CL
Purpose:
Example:
*LOU:
RJ:TR:PB
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[rejoinder:track:clarify]
get additional information needed to understand prior move.
*LOU: +^ oh, well I think you can totally do that.
(be)cause that [//] this is basically what I did.
*HEL: which version did you use?
[rejoinder:track:probe]
volunteer further details/implications for confirmation. Note that
clarify may introduce new element but that element stands as a
restatement or interpretation what the speaker believes to have
been implied in the move it seeks to clarify. Probe goes further by
introducing a new element for confirmation. It is close to a develop
move in its addition of new content but isn’t necessarily in such
direct, implied alignment with prior speaker. It is also short of a
challenge in that it’s not meant as a confrontative move. May be
expressed as a question or a statement with an implied question.
*HEL:
but, it leaves us [>] two days to do series and
parallel lab [!] of some kind.
*LOU:
lab [!] -' so that means not including talking about
voltage,current, resistance?
full clause, new subject, etc., but in logico-semantic relation with
moves it’s tracking or tagged declarative.
The following three rejoinder moves are primarily responses to tracking moves.
RJ:RP:RV
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[rejoinder:response:resolve]
provide clarification, acquiesce with information.
*HEL: um # this is the old version but I think it has
all the same equations.
*LOU: +^ what, power is on there?
*HEL: yeah, power's on there.
elliptical declarative; mood adjunct of polarity or modality.
Some notes on RV and its use with other codes: RV brings in new content to the
proposition, puts something new on the table but does so in a more assertive (declarative)
way than does PB, which explicitly or implicitly asks for ratification by others. RV
plunks it down and perhaps should be split into two separate codes for the sake of
keeping the straight RV’s separated from those that do more expansion. RV is also
separated from the DV expansion possibility because of the strength of the assertion. RV
might be introduced by I think or I mean, asserting more of what the speaker intends.
Also, it’s distinguished from either an opening, because new proposition is still in logicosemantic relation to previous turn and from challenge, because it isn’t directly countering
or challenging but bringing together, culminating. See Helen’s turn 421 in
050525ModCn5.
242
RJ:RP:UN
Purpose:
Example:
*LOU:
*JOS:
Congruent mood:
RJ:RP:RR
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[rejoinder:response:unresolve]
refute new information given in probe or clarification.
*JOS: because there's going to be two different
predictions.
I called it short+circuit prediction.
but there's also a short+cir [//] there's also a
light bulb # the unscrewing a lightbulb prediction.
elliptical declarative; negation.
[rejoinder:response:repair]
correct information in clarification or probe.
*HEL: <(be)cause they> [<] only had two lightbulbs,
right?
*LOU: naw they had the little packages that came
with it in the series and parallel kits which had
like three # bulb holders and two batteries.
elliptical declarative; mood adjunct of polarity or modality.
The next group of moves shift the flow of conversation by challenging the preceding
move (which might be any of the above moves). These range from the relatively mild
challenge of questioning relevance (rebound) to dismissal of the speaker (counter) to the
most extreme—cutting short the exchange (detach).
RJ:CH:RB
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
RJ:CH:CT
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
RJ:CH:DT
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[rejoinder:challenge:rebound]
question relevance, legitimacy, veracity of prior move.
I always put out the garbage.
– When was the last time you put out the garbage?
wh- interrogative. Elliptical
[rejoinder:challenge:counter]
To present a position that conflicts with the prior move.
*MAR: <then that would be a social xx> [<] .
*HEL: I was thinking that was numerical.
elliptical declarative. negation.
[rejoinder:challenge:detach]
terminate interaction by silence or expression of termination.
*LOU: but they like hooking the stuff up # so.
*JOS: &=groan .
*JOS: I don't know.
%com: Jocie falls silent for the rest of the
exchange.
silence; expression of termination.
{Pay attention to the moves that introduce new propositional content
into the discussion and the role these play: These
are most emphatically: PB, CT, (sometimes RV – but
need to clarify this),
243
Once a challenge occurs, this final group provides a way to dismiss, accept, or put forth
an alternative.
RJ:RP:RF
Purpose:
Example:
*JOS:
*HEL:
*LOU:
Congruent mood:
RJ:RP:AQ
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
RJ:RP:RC
Purpose:
Example:
Congruent mood:
[rejoinder:response:refute]
to contradict importance of a challenge.
*LOU: +, you can do [///] ## well # <I did [/] # I
did this> [>] .
<you did this> [<].
<but were you able> [<] to do that [!] and this [!!]?
no, I did this [= slapping lab sheet on table] in one
day.
elliptical declarative; negation.
[rejoinder:response:acquiesce]
to accept importance of a challenge.
*LOU: I h(ad) [//] I did not talk about power and
wattage.
*JOS: +^ well, power is here!
*LOU: that's true.
elliptical declarative; positive polarity.
[rejoinder:response:re-challenge]
to offer alternative position to a challenge.
*JOS: +^ now she also has [/] <she has> [>] [/] she
has heavenly children.
*HEL: <but we have four teachers> [<] !
elliptical interrogative.