In this paper， the interactional function of relexicalisation in classroom discourse is analyzed. The classroom discourse took place in a listening and speaking lesson. The lesson in this study， taught by an experienced senior high school teacher， covered the topic related to “making a wish”.

The interactional function （Brown & Yule， 1983） is concerned with the maintenance of social relationships. Relexicalisation （McCarthy， 1983） is a phenomenon that speakers reiterate their own and take up one anothers vocabulary selections in other forms， and expand topic interactively. In short， relexicalisation means using lexical cohesion in spoken discourse. Reiterating some lexical items provides a sense of “I am with you”， and thus achieves the interactional function. From this aspect， this paper further discusses three interactional functions of the relexicalisation used in classroom discourse.

Firstly， relexicalisation can invite increased participation， and thus establish a more intimate relationship between teacher and students.

In the following segment， the teacher was going to lead in the topic related to “make a wish”.

The teacher initiated the topic with the word “stars” （line 1）， which was familiar to students， and then she reiterated with its hyponym “shooting stars” （line 5）. The context developed by subject-related words prompted students to participate into the ongoing classroom talk about “make a wish”（line 11）.

The relexicalisation in this transaction was used to call students attention and engage more students into the interaction. By using relexicalisation， the teacher not only provided a smooth topic lead-in， but also a context for student to give their responds. A closer relationship between teacher and students can be gradually developed if such participation （Walsh， 2013） can be elicited.

Secondly， relexicalisation also functions as the lubrication （McCarthy， 2002） to “save” students face， and thus to consolidate teacher-students relationship. The following example was taken from the while-listening transaction. Teacher asked student to fill the blank after listening： The man who had been in the accident lay ________ beside the road of sharp pain.

The listening tape suggested that “groaning” should be put in this blank. Student Helen， however， answered it with “painfully”. The teacher took up students use of “painfully” （line 2） and relelxicalised it with its derivation “pain” （line 3）. By saying “here we have got a sharp pain”， the teacher tried to “justify” Helens “wrong answer”. The subject-related word “patients” were also used. By doing so， teacher connected students answer “painfully” closely to the given answer “groaning”. It can be considered as a method of consolidating students understanding of the word “groaning”， as well as showing a sense of agreement to students answer. The video tape showed that the student kept her smile and actively provided another answer later. It suggested that this kind of relexicalisation can build up students confidence and also consolidate the relationship between teacher and students.

Finally， relexicalisation can also serve as a confirmative response to confirming an equal， interactional relationship between speaker and listener.

In this example， student was asked to invent a story based on a picture.

The teacher found a Transition Relevance Place （TRP） when student paused her utterance （line 2）. The teacher took up the word “university” （line 2） and relexicalised it with subject-related word “education” （line 3）. The relexcalisation （line 3） has two functions， one is to improve students expression， the other is to confirm the information from students. But feedback from the teacher is so natural that the student only took the feedback as a confirmation and continued her story telling. According to Cullens analysis， the feedback in I-R-F move has two functions： evaluation and interaction. Positive interactive feedbacks serve as a bond to develop “rapport”. （Cullen， 2002） The teacher performed as a real listener， confirming the message by reiterating. It can reduce the power imbalance between teacher and students， and can prompt more interactional talk in classroom.

In conclusion， relexicalisation in classroom has its interactional function in the way of building on learners participation， reducing the abruptness in corrective feedback， and strengthening the feeling of natural conversation. These all contribute to developing a better relationship between teacher and students.

The result of the study indicates that relexicalisation can be used to give students a natural and coherent feedback. Relexitcalising some words from students， supplying some hyponyms or synonyms， or replacing some expressions of students by using some subject-related words， can not only encourage students to internalize the communicative value of these lexical relations in communication， but also provide signals of “I am with you” to the student， and thus consolidate a natural and friendly relationship between teacher and students.

References：

[1]Brown， G. & Yule， G. Discourse analysis[M]. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1983.

[2]Cullen R. Supportive Teacher Talk： the importance of the F-move [J]. ELT Journal， 2002（26）：23-27.

[3]McCarthy， M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers[M]. Shanghai： Shanghai foreign languages education press， 2002.

[4]Walsh， S. Classroom discourse and teacher development[M] Edinburgh： Edinburgh University Press， 2013.

[5]廣東省教育廳教研室.高中新課程英語優(yōu)秀教學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)與案例[M].廣州： 廣東教育出版社，2005.

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】王羽佩（1999-），女，廣東惠來人，華南師范大學(xué)外國(guó)語言文化學(xué)院，本科在讀，研究方向：英語。