Conversational Discourse
-
Upload
maria-isabel-gonzalez-martinez -
Category
Documents
-
view
69 -
download
1
Transcript of Conversational Discourse
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 104.12.2006
Conversation Analysis vs.
Discourse Analysis
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 204.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 304.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 404.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 504.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 604.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 704.12.2006
II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)
• CONTRAST TO DA: immediate categorization of restricted
data
• 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
occur
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 804.12.2006
II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)
• 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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 904.12.2006
II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)
+ 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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1004.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1104.12.2006
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
talk
→ 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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1204.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1304.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1404.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1504.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1604.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1704.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1804.12.2006
Example foran originaltranscript with the
system used in CA
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 1904.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2004.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2104.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2204.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2304.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2404.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
Acts
→ 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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2504.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
• 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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2604.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
→ 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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2704.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
→ 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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2804.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
→ 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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 2904.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3004.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3104.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3204.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3304.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3404.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3504.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
Tactics
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3604.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3704.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3804.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 3904.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4004.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4104.12.2006
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4204.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4304.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4404.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4504.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4604.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4704.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4804.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 4904.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5004.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5104.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5204.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5304.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5404.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5504.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5604.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5704.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5804.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 5904.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6004.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6104.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6204.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6304.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6404.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6504.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6604.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6704.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6804.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 6904.12.2006
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 7004.12.2006
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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller 7104.12.2006
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