Conversation Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis

1. Conversation Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

2. I. Introduction II. 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 Pairs II.3 ExercisesIII Discourse Analysis III.1 Origin of the term Discourse III.2 The System of Analysis III.3 Explanation of the System III.4 The structure of classes and moves IV Bibliography Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

3. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

4. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

5. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

6. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

7. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

8. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

9. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

10. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

11. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

12. 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… directly, for the purpose of allocating the right to speak to a next speaker of his/her choice indirectly, by throwing the floor wide open to whoever →speaker may just ignore the TRP and continue past Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

13. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

14. 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’ Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

15. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

16. II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs: Examples • Complaint/denialKen : Hey yuh took my chair by the way an’ I don’t think that was very niceAl: I didn’t take yer chair, it’s my chair. • Compliment/rejectionA: I’m glad I have you for a friend.B: That’s because you don’t have any others. Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

17. 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? Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

18. Example for an original transcript with the system used in CA Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

19. 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) Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

20. 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) Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

21. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

22. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

23. III. 2 The System ofAnalysis •topermit 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

24. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

25. III. 3 Explanation ofthe 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

26. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

27. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

28. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

29. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

30. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

31. 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

32. III. 3 Explanation of the System • 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 Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

33. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

34. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

35. III. 3 Explanation of the System • Tactics Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

36. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

37. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

38. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

39. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

40. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

41. III. 3 Explanation of the System Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

42. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

43. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

44. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

45. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

46. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

47. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

48. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

49. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller

50. III. 4 The structure and classes of moves Sindy Kermer Melanie Müller