conversational discourse

04.12.200604.12.2006 Sindy Kermer Sindy Kermer Melanie MüllerMelanie Müller 11

CA vs. DA

Conversation Analysis Conversation Analysis vs. vs.

Discourse AnalysisDiscourse Analysis


CA vs. DA

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


CA vs. DA

I IntroductionI Introduction•• Conversation Analysis (CA) and Discourse Analysis (DA) both Conversation Analysis (CA) and Discourse Analysis (DA) both

focus on spoken languagefocus on spoken language

• • Problem: spoken language needs to be recorded and Problem: spoken language needs to be recorded and

transcribed transcribed

• • CA and DA CA and DA ccome from two different fields: ome from two different fields:

Sociology and Linguistics Sociology and Linguistics

→ → approaches to the topic are differentapproaches to the topic are different


CA vs. DA

II.1 What is conversation?II.1 What is conversation?•• a way of using language socially, of “doing things with words” a way of using language socially, of “doing things with words”

• • an interaction of two or more participantsan interaction of two or more participants

•• number of participants and length of contribution to the number of participants and length of contribution to the

conversation can vary conversation can vary

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

planned occasions for speaking, such as meetings or debatesplanned occasions for speaking, such as meetings or debates


CA vs. DA

II.1 What is conversation? II.1 What is conversation?

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

Conversation is what happens…” (Mey)Conversation is what happens…” (Mey)

•• … … yet, conversation is not unruled yet, conversation is not unruled

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

for other social activities for other social activities


CA vs. DA

II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)• • Harold Garfinkel, 1960s, ethnomethodological/ sociologicalHarold Garfinkel, 1960s, ethnomethodological/ sociological

approach approach

• • organization of talk-in-interactionorganization of talk-in-interaction

• • empirical approach which avoids premature theory empirical approach which avoids premature theory

constructionconstruction

→→ methods are inductive- search for recurring patternsmethods are inductive- search for recurring patterns

→ → gathering data and analysis of data of actual pieces of gathering data and analysis of data of actual pieces of

language, real-life-conversationslanguage, real-life-conversations

→ → data-driven theorizingdata-driven theorizing


CA vs. DA

II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

• • CONTRAST TO DA: immediate categorization of restricted CONTRAST TO DA: immediate categorization of restricted

datadata

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

inferential consequences of the choice between alternative inferential consequences of the choice between alternative

utterancesutterances

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

judgments; emphasis on what can actually be found to judgments; emphasis on what can actually be found to

occuroccur


CA vs. DA


• • avoids analyses based on a single text avoids analyses based on a single text

→ → as many instances as possible of some particular phenomenonas many instances as possible of some particular phenomenon

examined across texts examined across texts

→ → discover the systematic properties of the sequential discover the systematic properties of the sequential

organization of talk and the ways in which utterances are organization of talk and the ways in which utterances are

designed to manage such sequencesdesigned to manage such sequences


CA vs. DA


+ procedures employed have proved themselves capable of + procedures employed have proved themselves capable of

yielding by far the most substantial insight that can be gained yielding by far the most substantial insight that can be gained

into the organization of conversationinto the organization of conversation


CA vs. DA

II.2.1 Turn-TakingII.2.1 Turn-Taking• • turn: basic unit of conversationturn: basic unit of conversation

→→ may contain many illocutions, is everything a speaker may contain many illocutions, is everything a speaker

communicates during a unit of conversationcommunicates during a unit of conversation

• • turn-taking: basic form of organization for conversationturn-taking: basic form of organization for conversation

→→ speaker-change occursspeaker-change occurs

→→ mostly, one speaker talks at a timemostly, one speaker talks at a time

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

→→ turn order and size not fixedturn order and size not fixed


CA vs. DA

II.2.1 Turn-TakingII.2.1 Turn-Taking→→ length and topic of contribution not specified in advancelength and topic of contribution not specified in advance

→→ current speaker may select another speaker or parties may current speaker may select another speaker or parties may

self-select in starting to self-select in starting to

talktalk

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

→→ turn order and size not fixedturn order and size not fixed

→ → repair mechanisms: deal with turn-taking errors and repair mechanisms: deal with turn-taking errors and

violationsviolations


CA vs. DA

II.2.2 Transition Relevance Places (TRP)II.2.2 Transition Relevance Places (TRP)

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

→ → mechanisms of selection (self- or other-)mechanisms of selection (self- or other-)

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

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

next speaker of his/her choicenext speaker of his/her choice

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

→→ speaker may just ignore the TRP and continue pastspeaker may just ignore the TRP and continue past


CA vs. DA

II.2. Previewing TRPsII.2. Previewing TRPs

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

speech?speech?

→ → Adjacency PairsAdjacency Pairs

→ → changes of speed deliverychanges of speed delivery

→ → intonationintonation

→ → word-choice patternsword-choice patterns


CA vs. DA

II.2.3 Adjacency PairsII.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

• • discovery that became a starting point for a whole new discovery that became a starting point for a whole new

approach (similar as speech acts to pragmatics)approach (similar as speech acts to pragmatics)

• • two subsequent utterances constituting a conversational two subsequent utterances constituting a conversational

exchange exchange

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


CA vs. DA

II.2.3 Adjacency PairsII.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

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

→→ greeting-greetinggreeting-greeting

→→ question-answer, question-answer,

→→ complaint-acceptance/denial, complaint-acceptance/denial,

→→ invitation-acceptance/denialinvitation-acceptance/denial

→ → offer-acceptance/rejectionoffer-acceptance/rejection


CA vs. DA

II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs: ExamplesII.2.3 Adjacency Pairs: Examples•• Complaint/denialComplaint/denial

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

was very nice was very nice

Al: Al: II didn’t take yer chair, it’s didn’t take yer chair, it’s mymy chair. chair.

• • Compliment/rejectionCompliment/rejection

A:A: I’m glad I have you for a friend. I’m glad I have you for a friend.

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


CA vs. DA

II.3 ExercisesII.3 Exercises

•• Can you find Turns, Transition Relevance Places and Can you find Turns, Transition Relevance Places and

Adjacency Pairs? Adjacency Pairs?

A : Are you doing anything tonight?A : Are you doing anything tonight?

B: Why are you asking?B: Why are you asking?

A:A: I thought we might see a movie. I thought we might see a movie.

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


CA vs. DA

Example forExample foran originalan originaltranscript transcript with the with the

system used system used in CAin CA


CA vs. DA

III. Discourse AnalysisIII. Discourse Analysis

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

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

description of linguistic forms independent from the puposes description of linguistic forms independent from the puposes

or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human

affairs.”affairs.”

(Brown and Yule 1983)(Brown and Yule 1983)


CA vs. DA

III. Discourse AnalysisIII. Discourse Analysis• ‘• ‘Discourse’ ... refers to language in use, as a process which is Discourse’ ... refers to language in use, as a process which is

socially situated. However ... we may go on to discuss the socially situated. However ... we may go on to discuss the constructive and dynamic role of either spoken or written constructive and dynamic role of either spoken or written discourse in structuring areas of knowledge of the social and discourse in structuring areas of knowledge of the social and institutional practices which are associated with them. In the institutional practices which are associated with them. In the sense, discourse is a means of talking and writing about an sense, discourse is a means of talking and writing about an acting upon worlds, a means which both constructs and is acting upon worlds, a means which both constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices within these worlds, constructed by a set of social practices within these worlds, and in so doing both repordues and constructs afresh and in so doing both repordues and constructs afresh particular social-discursive practices, constraining or particular social-discursive practices, constraining or encouraged by more macro movements in the overarching encouraged by more macro movements in the overarching social formation.social formation. (Candlin 1997)(Candlin 1997)


CA vs. DA

III. 1 III. 1 Origin of the term Origin of the term Discourse Discourse AnalysisAnalysis

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

of a paper published by Zellig Harris in 1952 of a paper published by Zellig Harris in 1952

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

and 1970s in most of the humanities and social sciences, more 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 less at the same time, and in relation with, other new (inter-

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

sociolinguistics, and pragmaticssociolinguistics, and pragmatics


CA vs. DA

III. 1 III. 1 Origin of the term Origin of the term Discourse Discourse AnalysisAnalysis

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

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

contemporary approaches, especially those influenced by the contemporary approaches, especially those influenced by the

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

in-interactionin-interaction


CA vs. DA

III. 2 III. 2 The System ofThe System of AnalysisAnalysis

•• toto permit readers to gain an over-all impression, the whole permit readers to gain an over-all impression, the whole system is first presented at primary delicacy and then given a system is first presented at primary delicacy and then given a much more discursive treatmentmuch more discursive treatment

•• Ranks:Ranks:→→ LessonLesson→→ TransactionTransaction→→ Exchange (Boundary/Teaching)Exchange (Boundary/Teaching)→→ Move (Opening/Answering/ Follow-up/Framing/Focusing)Move (Opening/Answering/ Follow-up/Framing/Focusing)→→ link between the ranks = classes link between the ranks = classes realizes an element of realizes an element of structurestructure


CA vs. DA

III. 3 III. 3 Explanation of the SystemExplanation of the System

ActsActs

→ → units at the lowest rank of discourseunits at the lowest rank of discourse

→→ correspond most nearly to the grammatical unit clausecorrespond most nearly to the grammatical unit clause

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

→→ Discourse with the functional properties, with what theDiscourse with the functional properties, with what the

speaker is using the item for. speaker is using the item for.

→→ four sentence types: declarative, interrogative, imperative,four sentence types: declarative, interrogative, imperative,

moodless moodless

realize 21 discourse actsrealize 21 discourse acts


CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation III. 3 Explanation ofof the System the System

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

discourse:discourse:

→→ elicitation, directive, informative = heads of Initiating moveselicitation, directive, informative = heads of Initiating moves

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

linguistic response – linguistic although the response may be a linguistic response – linguistic although the response may be a

non-verbal surrogate such as a nod or raised handnon-verbal surrogate such as a nod or raised hand


CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of III. 3 Explanation of the System the System

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

lingustic response is simply an acknowledgement that one is at lingustic response is simply an acknowledgement that one is at

the blackboard, writing, listeningthe blackboard, writing, listening

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

opinions, information and to which the appropriate response opinions, information and to which the appropriate response

is simply an acknowledgement that one is listeningis simply an acknowledgement that one is listening


CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of III. 3 Explanation of the Systemthe System

→→ variety arises from the relationship between grammar and variety arises from the relationship between grammar and discoursediscourse

example:example:→→ unmarked form of a directive (imperative) ‘Shut the door’unmarked form of a directive (imperative) ‘Shut the door’→→ many marked versions (interrogative, declarative, moodless)many marked versions (interrogative, declarative, moodless)

•• can you shut the doorcan you shut the door•• would you mind shutting the doorwould you mind shutting the door•• I wonder if I could shut the doorI wonder if I could shut the door•• the door is still openthe door is still open


CA vs. DA


→→ situation: includes all relevant factors in the environment, situation: includes all relevant factors in the environment,

social conventions, and the shared experience of the social conventions, and the shared experience of the

participantsparticipants

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

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


CA vs. DA



CA vs. DA


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

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

utterance?utterance?

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


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


three rules to predict when a declarative or interrogative will three rules to predict when a declarative or interrogative will

be realizing something other than a statement or questionbe realizing something other than a statement or question


CA vs. DA


Rule 1Rule 1

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

if it fulfils all the following conditions:if it fulfils all the following conditions:

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

sometimes going to)sometimes going to)

if the subject of the clause is also the addresseeif the subject of the clause is also the addressee

the predicate describes an action which is physically possible the predicate describes an action which is physically possible

at the time of the utteranceat the time of the utterance


CA vs. DA


1.1. can you play the piano, John commandcan you play the piano, John command fulfils the three conditions-assuming: fulfils the three conditions-assuming:

there is a piano in the roomthere is a piano in the room

2. can John play the piano question2. can John play the piano question

subject and the addressee are not the same personsubject and the addressee are not the same person

3. can you swim a length, John question 3. can you swim a length, John question

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

not therefore possible at the time of utterancenot therefore possible at the time of utterance


CA vs. DA



CA vs. DA


TacticsTactics


CA vs. DA



CA vs. DA

III. 4 III. 4 The structure and classes of movesThe structure and classes of moves


CA vs. DA



CA vs. DA

IV. BibliographyIV. BibliographyCrystal,D. (1991)Crystal,D. (1991)A Dictioanry of Linguistics and PhoneticsA Dictioanry of Linguistics and PhoneticsBlakwellBlakwell

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

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

Levinson, S. C. (1983)Levinson, S. C. (1983)PragmaticsPragmaticsCambridge University PressCambridge University Press


CA vs. DA

IV. BibliographyIV. BibliographyMey, J. L. (1993)Mey, J. L. (1993)Pragmatics. An IntroductionPragmatics. An IntroductionBlackwellBlackwell

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

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

conversational discourse

Documents