conversational discourse

CA vs. DA

Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 104.12.2006

Conversation Analysis vs.

Discourse Analysis

CA vs. DA

I. IntroductionII. Conversation AnalysisII.1 What is conversation?II.2 What is Conversation Analysis?II.2.1 Turn-Taking II.2.2 Transition Relevance Places II.2.3 Adjacency PairsII.3 ExercisesIII Discourse AnalysisIII.1 Origin of the term DiscourseIII.2 The System of Analysis III.3 Explanation of the SystemIII.4 The structure of classes and movesIV Bibliography

CA vs. DA

I Introduction

• Conversation Analysis (CA) and Discourse Analysis (DA) both

focus on spoken language

• Problem: spoken language needs to be recorded and

transcribed

• CA and DA come from two different fields:

Sociology and Linguistics

→ approaches to the topic are different

CA vs. DA

II.1 What is conversation?

• a way of using language socially, of “doing things with words”

• an interaction of two or more participants

• number of participants and length of contribution to the

conversation can vary

• open-ended, has the potential to develop in any way

planned occasions for speaking, such as meetings or debates

CA vs. DA

II.1 What is conversation?

→ ”…there is no such thing as a ‘correct’ conversation.

Conversation is what happens…” (Mey)

• … yet, conversation is not unruled

→ rules people use are more like those people have developed for

other social activities

CA vs. DA

II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

• Harold Garfinkel, 1960s, ethnomethodological/ sociological

approach

• organization of talk-in-interaction

• empirical approach which avoids premature theory

construction

→ methods are inductive- search for recurring patterns

→ gathering data and analysis of data of actual pieces of

language, real-life-conversations

→ data-driven theorizing

CA vs. DA

• CONTRAST TO DA: immediate categorization of restricted

• in place of theoretical rules: emphasis on the interactional and

inferential consequences of the choice between alternative

utterances

• CONTRAST TO DA: as little appeal as possible to intuitive

judgments; emphasis on what can actually be found to

CA vs. DA

• avoids analyses based on a single text

→ as many instances as possible of some particular phenomenon

examined across texts

→ discover the systematic properties of the sequential

organization of talk and the ways in which utterances are

designed to manage such sequences

CA vs. DA

+ procedures employed have proved themselves capable of

yielding by far the most substantial insight that can be gained

into the organization of conversation

CA vs. DA

II.2.1 Turn-Taking

• turn: basic unit of conversation

→ may contain many illocutions, is everything a speaker

communicates during a unit of conversation

• turn-taking: basic form of organization for conversation

→ speaker-change occurs

→ mostly, one speaker talks at a time

→ transition from one turn to the next without gap or overlap

→ turn order and size not fixed

CA vs. DA

II.2.1 Turn-Taking

→ length and topic of contribution not specified in advance

→ current speaker may select another speaker or parties may

self-select in starting to

→ transition from one turn to the next without gap or overlap

→ turn order and size not fixed

→ repair mechanisms: deal with turn-taking errors and

violations

CA vs. DA

II.2.2 Transition Relevance Places (TRP)

• transition: a relay of the right to speak to the next speaker

→ mechanisms of selection (self- or other-)

→ TRP can be exploited by the speaker holding the floor…

a) directly, for the purpose of allocating the right to speak to a

next speaker of his/her choice

b) indirectly, by throwing the floor wide open to whoever

→ speaker may just ignore the TRP and continue past

CA vs. DA

II.2. Previewing TRPs

• Why are we often able to predict the end of somebody’s

speech?

→ Adjacency Pairs

→ changes of speed delivery

→ intonation

→ word-choice patterns

CA vs. DA

II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

• discovery that became a starting point for a whole new

approach (similar as speech acts to pragmatics)

• two subsequent utterances constituting a conversational

exchange

• distinction between ‘fist pair part’ and ‘second pair part’

CA vs. DA

II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

• Adjacency Pairs are characterized by their type, e.g.

→ greeting-greeting

→ question-answer,

→ complaint-acceptance/denial,

→ invitation-acceptance/denial

→ offer-acceptance/rejection

CA vs. DA

II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs: Examples

• Complaint/denial

Ken : Hey yuh took my chair by the way an’ I don’t think that

was very nice

Al: I didn’t take yer chair, it’s my chair.

• Compliment/rejection

A: I’m glad I have you for a friend.

B: That’s because you don’t have any others.

CA vs. DA

II.3 Exercises

• Can you find Turns, Transition Relevance Places and

Adjacency Pairs?

A : Are you doing anything tonight?

B: Why are you asking?

A: I thought we might see a movie.

B: Well, no, nothing in particular. What do you want to see?

CA vs. DA

Example foran originaltranscript with the

system used in CA

CA vs. DA

III. Discourse Analysis

• “the analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of

language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the

description of linguistic forms independent from the puposes

or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human

affairs.”

(Brown and Yule 1983)

CA vs. DA

III. Discourse Analysis

• ‘Discourse’ ... refers to language in use, as a process which is socially situated. However ... we may go on to discuss the constructive and dynamic role of either spoken or written discourse in structuring areas of knowledge of the social and institutional practices which are associated with them. In the sense, discourse is a means of talking and writing about an acting upon worlds, a means which both constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices within these worlds, and in so doing both repordues and constructs afresh particular social-discursive practices, constraining or encouraged by more macro movements in the overarching social formation.

(Candlin 1997)

CA vs. DA

III. 1 Origin of the term Discourse Analysis

• the term discourse analysis first entered general use as the title

of a paper published by Zellig Harris in 1952

• as a new cross-discipline DA began to develop in the late 1960s

and 1970s in most of the humanities and social sciences, more

or less at the same time, and in relation with, other new (inter-

or sub-) disciplines, such as semiotics, psycholinguistics,

sociolinguistics, and pragmatics

CA vs. DA

III. 1 Origin of the term Discourse Analysis

• whereas earlier studies of discourse, for instance in text linguistics,

often focused on the abstract structures of (written) texts, many

contemporary approaches, especially those influenced by the

social sciences, favor a more dynamic study of (spoken, oral) talk-

in-interaction

CA vs. DA

III. 2 The System of Analysis

• to permit readers to gain an over-all impression, the whole

system is first presented at primary delicacy and then given a

much more discursive treatment

• Ranks:

→ Lesson

→ Transaction

→ Exchange (Boundary/Teaching)

→ Move (Opening/Answering/ Follow-up/Framing/Focusing)

→ link between the ranks = classes realizes an element of

structure

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

→ units at the lowest rank of discourse

→ correspond most nearly to the grammatical unit clause

→ Grammar is concerned with the formal properties of an item.

→ Discourse with the functional properties, with what the

speaker is using the item for.

→ four sentence types: declarative, interrogative, imperative,

moodless

realize 21 discourse acts

CA vs. DA

• Three major acts: probably occur in all forms of spoken

discourse:

→ elicitation, directive, informative = heads of Initiating moves

→ elicitation: is an act the function of which is to request a

linguistic response – linguistic although the response may be a

non-verbal surrogate such as a nod or raised hand

CA vs. DA

→ directive: is an act the function of which is to request a non-

lingustic response is simply an acknowledgement that one is at

the blackboard, writing, listening

→ informative: an act whose function is to pass on ideas, facts,

opinions, information and to which the appropriate response

is simply an acknowledgement that one is listening

CA vs. DA

→ variety arises from the relationship between grammar and

discourse

example:

→ unmarked form of a directive (imperative) ‘Shut the door’

→ many marked versions (interrogative, declarative, moodless)

• can you shut the door

• would you mind shutting the door

• I wonder if I could shut the door

• the door is still open

CA vs. DA

→ situation: includes all relevant factors in the environment,

social conventions, and the shared experience of the

participants

→ tactics: handles the syntagmatic patterns of discourse: the way

in which items precede, follow and are related on each other

CA vs. DA

1. If the clause is interrogative is the addressee also the subject?

2. What actions or activities are physically possible at the time of

utterance?

3. What actions or activities are proscribed at the time of

utterance?

4. What actions or activities have been prescribed at the time of

utterance?

three rules to predict when a declarative or interrogative will

be realizing something other than a statement or question

CA vs. DA

Rule 1

An interrogative clause is to be interpreted as a command to do

if it fulfils all the following conditions:

it contains one of the modals can, could, will, would (and

sometimes going to)

if the subject of the clause is also the addressee

the predicate describes an action which is physically possible at

the time of the utterance

CA vs. DA

1. can you play the piano, John command

® fulfils the three conditions-assuming:

there is a piano in the room

2. can John play the piano question

subject and the addressee are not the same person

3. can you swim a length, John question

because the children are in the classroom, and the activity is

not therefore possible at the time of utterance

CA vs. DA

Tactics

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

CA vs. DA

IV. Bibliography

Crystal,D. (1991)A Dictioanry of Linguistics and PhoneticsBlakwell

Jaworski, Adam/ Coupland Nikolas (ed.) (1999) The Discourse ReaderLondon: Routledge

Kasher, Asa (ed.) (1998)Pragmatics. Critical ConceptsLondon: Routledge

Levinson, S. C. (1983)PragmaticsCambridge University Press

CA vs. DA

IV. Bibliography

Mey, J. L. (1993)Pragmatics. An IntroductionBlackwell

Sacks, H./Schegloff, E.A./Jefferson,G.A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for ConversationLanguage, Vol.50, No.4, Part 1. (Dec.1974), pp. 696-735

Sinclair, J.McH./ Coulthard, R.M. (1975): Towards an Analysis of DiscourseLondon: Oxford University Press

conversational discourse

Documents

conversational maxims

conversational analysis

discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse

quantum-inspired interactive networks for conversational...

document resume ed 322 744 author pearson, bethyl i...

conversational ukrainian

grandchair: conversational collection of grandparents'...

conversational poster

hedging in political discourse taweel, abeer q., saidat...

enclover - sunguardawnings.com...conversational / sectional...

conversational reframing acknowledgements. conversational...

conversational theory

conversational -...

conversational training

ddd.uab.cat file- illocutions and perlocutions. direct and...

conversational implicatures

conversational discourse

estimating conversational styles in conversational

a joint model of conversational discourse and latent topics...

conversational solfege