Abstract
Responding to concerns raised by grade 11 mathematics students, we examined a broad set of mathematics classroom transcripts from multiple teachers to examine how the word just was and could be used to suppress and invite dialogue. We used corpus linguistics tools to process and quantify the large body of text, not to describe the nature of the discourse, but rather, in the tradition of critical discourse analysis, to prompt reflection on a range of possibilities for directing classroom discourse. We found that the word just was one of the most common words to appear in these classrooms. Drawing on Bakhtin’s (The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975/1981) distinctions between monoglossic and heteroglossic utterances, we found that the word just acted as a monoglossic tool, closing down dialogue. We propose, however, that just can also be used as a heteroglossic tool as it can focus attention and thus invite dialogue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is important to note that people who draw on literature related to positioning typically do not use the word “role” in a static way. Roles are always fluid and changing throughout discursive situations.
Discourse particles are words (e.g., well, like, just) that generally do not carry a lot of meaning in terms of content but play important roles in organizing the flow of the conversation and in communicating attitudes and expectations of the speaker.
This data was collected as part of an NSF grant (#0347906) focusing on mathematics classroom discourse (Herbel-Eisenmann, PI). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
Studies of just are especially difficult to locate because it is a ‘stop word’ in many electronic research indices: it is ignored in searches. This demonstrates the lack of serious consideration of the word and its role.
In this example, the distinction between using just for social and mathematical purposes is fairly clear. This is not always the case (Christie 1995).
Where the percents add to 101%, it is because of rounding.
To compile this list, we grouped verbs in their multiple forms. For example we included with go other forms of the word, including going, gonna, goes and went.
The verb have can also be a modal auxiliary verb, as in “you just have to look.” In such cases, just intensifies restriction and have intensifies even further.
References
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bakhtin, M. (1975/1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1953/1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK.
Christie, F. (1995). Pedagogic discourse in the primary school. Linguistics and Education, 7, 221–242.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, B. (1992). Characteristics of classroom mathematics traditions: An interactional analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 573–604.
Ellsworth, E. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of address. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Fassnacht, C., & Woods, D. (2005). Transana v2.12x. The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Madison, Wisconsin.
Gattegno, C. (1984). Curriculum and epistemology. For the Learning of Mathematics, 4(2), 33–38.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Hannula, M., Evans, J., Philippou, G., & Zan, R. (2004). Affect in mathematics education – exploring theoretical frameworks. In M. Johnsen Høines & A. Berit Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 107–136). Norway: Bergen.
Harré, R., & van Lagenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 84–99.
Monaghan, F. (1999). Judging a word by the company it keeps: The use of concordancing software to explore aspects of the mathematics register. Language and Education, 13(1), 59–70.
Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. London: Falmer.
Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219–245.
Mühlhäusler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
NCTM (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rotman, B. (1988). Towards a semiotics of mathematics. Semiotica, 72(1/2), 1–35.
Rowland, T. (1992). Pointing with pronouns. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(2), 44–48.
Rowland, T. (1995). ‘Hedges in mathematics talk: Linguistic pointers to uncertainty’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 327–353.
Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematical talk: Power, vagueness, and generalisation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 19–26.
Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse, New York: Falmer Press.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spruiell, V. (1993). The word ‘just’: An essay on resistance, words, and multiple meanings. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 62, 437–453.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA). Evolving Models of Language, 7(3), 100–116.
Tagliamonte, S. (2005). So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1896–1915.
Wagner, D. (in press). “Just go”: Mathematics students’ critical awareness of routine procedure. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education.
Weltman, D. (2003). The pragmatics of peremptory assertion: An ideological analysis of the use of the word ‘just’ in local politicians’ denials of politics. Discourse & Society, 14(3), 349–373.
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.
Acknowledgments
We thank Lee Gatens for her assistance with the ‘just’ analysis, Michelle Cirillo and Kathryn Skowronski for their assistance in data collection, the participant teachers for allowing us to work in their classrooms, and Sandra Crespo and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback on our earlier drafts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wagner, D., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. “Just don’t”: The suppression and invitation of dialogue in the mathematics classroom. Educ Stud Math 67, 143–157 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9097-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9097-x