Conversation Analysis of Two Conversation Extracts - Report Example

Part Conversation Analysis of Two Conversation Extracts Learning a new language entails careful analysis of how conversations transpire between two communicators. Usually, this is the application of the things the learner gained as skills and knowledge from a second language learning class. Sometimes, conversations initiated by second language learners may be awkward and inappropriate, that is why they need to learn the proper ways of how to communicate effectively. Most of the time, non-native English speakers become anxious to apply their newly-found skills, however, conversation analysis of some excerpts of everyday conversations can strengthen those skills and keep the learner aware of some rules to follow in conducting conversations. Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) developed a model in the 1960’s of analyzing conversations to study spoken interactions. They identified three basic facts about conversations. First, people take turns speaking and listening. Second, mostly only one person speaks at a time, because more than one person talking would be difficult to understand. Third, turns are taken with few gaps or overlaps. Initially, they were only interested in the organization of interactions, but later on, their work attracted sociologists, linguists, and other scholars who study languages, especially Applied Linguistics (Koester in Hunston & Oakley, 2010). Conversational Analysis is the process of investigating the collaboration or lack of coherence in how speakers converse. It observes excerpts of conversations to analyse its elements such as how it opens and closes, how the conversing parties take turns in the conversation and the general mood and direction of the conversation (Koester in Hunston & Oakley, 2010). Conversation analysis looks into how conversations open and close. Opening sequences may come in many forms, depending on the intention of the person who initiated the conversation. It may be to summon an answer, to ask for identification, to greet somebody or to have initial inquiries before he or she plunges to the first topic. Closing sequences usually go through three stages – closing the topic being discussed, pre-closing of the conversation and terminal exchanges or the final ‘goodbyes’ (Koester in Hunston & Oakley, 2010). CA also checks out the turn-taking mechanisms of the people in the conversation specifically the turn allocation and distribution and how the turn was constructed (Schegloff, 1979). The sequences of turns may be geared towards invitations, requests, announcements, or other directions (Levinson, 1983). Pomeranz (1984) delineated some pairs found in conversation sequences as having preference organization. Termed as ‘adjacency pairs’, these are sequences of two turns in conversations wherein the first turn is called the ‘first pair part’ and the responding turn is the ‘second pair part’ which gives out the expected response of the first turn. These adjacency pairs have specific preference organizations. Once a first pair part initiates a turn, the second pair part may be a ‘preferred’ response or a ‘dispreferred’ response (Pomeranz, 1984). For example the first pair part offers or invites the other party to an event, the second pair part may accept (preferred) or refuse (dispreferred). Preferred responses coincide with the first part pair’s expected offer, invitation, suggestion, request, expressed opinion or blame. To these, the preferred responses are to accept, comply, agree and deny blame (to keep the status quo) accordingly. Dispreferred responses may be associated with a negative response to the first party, although it is not necessarily offensive. These are to refuse, disagree or admit blame (Pomeranz, 1984). Two naturally-occurring conversations recorded in offices shall be analyzed in this paper. The first one is between Jim a senior member of the teaching staff, and Liz, a secretary in the department. The second one involves three co-workers, Susan and Liz, both secretaries in the department and Vicky, a lecturer in the English department. They were engaged in small talk about a motorway accident that happened the day before. The opening sequences of the two extract are very different. In the first one, Jim comes into the office and directly summons Liz for an answer with a pre-request in his pre-sequence. He asks Liz if they can sit down for a meeting on a specified date and time (Thursday at eleven o’clock in the morning) to discuss a particular journal. This was the first part in the adjacency pair of the opening sequence. Liz agrees, and complies with his request, responding with a preferred second part in the adjacent pair. The jump into something significant and the skipping of greetings may be because before this first adjacency pair in the CA, Jim and Liz have already been talking previously about a trip that Jim has been on and the initial greetings may have transpired in that unseen conversation. The second extract’s opening sequence involved greetings and exchange of pleasantries to break the ice because Vicky was recorded to have just come into the office to begin the conversation with Susan and Liz who were already in the office. The opening adjacent pair showed good morning greetings between Vicky and Liz with Susan chiming in to add an initial enquiry asking Vicky how she was. To that, Vicky answered she was fine and in turn asked Liz how her son was. Turn-taking in both conversations was smooth even if there were instances of overlaps. Between Jim and Liz, it seemed they were talking about something private that both of them had previous knowledge about even if such topic was not explicitly discussed. Liz initiated the topic being on her mind and was even dreaming about it, to emphasize how interested she was in it that it is on her mind so much. Jim’s response to Liz’ sharing of information was of agreement that the topic they both know about was likewise in his mind that is why the both need to get on with discussing it in their proposed meeting on Thursday. The realization that they both thought about the topic which they only knew about so much produced some awkward moments in the conversation, with several pauses and forced ‘fillers’ as shown below: 4) I’ve been dreaming about it all night 5) Well I had a dream about it as well 6) So- 7) I’ve got to get i-because it’s on my mind so much I- 8) Its funny a really guilty conscience about it 9) Yes, I am, so I must... get on and do it. So yes, Thursday at eleven 10) Heheheh In the turns 7 and 8, the adjacent pair did not seem to be coherent in conventional understanding, but it seems that Liz and Jim commonly understood what was left unsaid. The rest of the conversation had a lot of pauses, as if they were separately preoccupied, but once one initiates a conversation, the other responds accordingly, so turn taking was not interrupted. In the other conversation extract, turn taking was more challenging because three people were involved in the conversation. Vicky, the one who came into the office last seemed to dominate the conversation regarding the topic on the motorway accident because it was she who was almost affected by it. The other two, Liz and Susan just seemed to fish for information with their turns in the conversation. 9) = Yes. Thank you. I’m so pleased that you didn’t come yesterday 10) /So am I/ 11) So am I 12) That you- 13) With the timing/ I would have been in the middle of that. 14) Really. 15) ‘Cause it was right at the taxis/ right outside the exit where I come onto the motorway 16) (Oh!) 17) Yeah, 18) An it’s just when I go at half past- .. seven 19) Yeah 20) Yeah, 21) (I know,) 22) It’s.. 23) Read More