Sep. 2005, Volume 2, No.9 (Serial No.21)
Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN1539-8072,USA
Conversation Analysis and Its Implications for Teaching Speaking in a Language Classroom Yi Chen* Zhejiang University City College Abstract: This paper discusses some key concepts in Conversation Analysis (CA). Using the transcription symbols mainly developed by Jefferson (1974), the author transcribes an authentic spoken text to further illustrate to the reader how the analysis of the organization of a conversation or talk-in-action could be approached. The paper concludes that as key concepts in CA make possible the micro-level analysis of a conversation, classroom activities deriving from CA can highlight the micro-interactional level of a talk and teachers are able to explore language performance from a microanalytic perspective. Key words: conversation analysis (CA) talk-in-action turn taking adjacency pairs preference organization conversational openings and closings
1. Introduction What is conversation analysis? According to Psathas (1995), “Conversation analysis studies the order/organization/orderliness of social actions, particularly those social actions that are located in everyday interaction, in discursive practices, in the sayings/telling/doings of members of society”(1995: 2). Its interest is in finding the machinery that produce and constitute that orderliness. Such examination requires “the avoidance of preformulated theoretical or conceptual categories and the adoption of open-mindedness and a willingness to be led by the phenomena of study”(ibid). Cameron (2001) states that CA is a markedly “data-centered”form of discourse analysis and the talk itself is treated as containing everything relevant for analysis. As a “microanalytic ” approach, CA takes apparently mundane and unremarkable spoken interactions and finds intricate patterning in the way they are organized (Cameron, 2001). Many CA practitioners label their object of study not “conversation”but “talk-in-interaction”(Psathas, 1995). Although CA can be used to analyze many different kinds of data, it was developed to analyze talk and more specifically the kind of talk that is thoroughly interactive. “The fact that talking is prototypically a joint enterprise involving more than one person, and that people normally take turns at talk, is central to the CA approach” (Cameron, 2001: 87). It is concerned above all to describe sequential patterns that are observable in the data being analyzed.
2. Aspects of Conversational Interactions Aspects of conversational interactions that have been examined in CA include turn taking, adjacency pairs, *
Yi Chen, female, M.A.in TESOL, lecturer of Foreign Language School, Zhejiang University City College; Research field: second language acquisition; Address: 2-2-202, Santang Liuyuan Apartment, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, P.R.China; Postcode: 310004; Tel: 0571-85782522, 13185062289; E-mail: chenyi@zucc.edu.cn. 46
Conversation Analysis and Its Implications for Te aching Speaking in a Language Classroom
preference organization, topic initiation and development, feedback, repairs, conversational openings and closings, discourse markers such as ‘well’and ‘oh’, and response tokens such as ‘uh huh’, and ‘mmm’(Paltridge, 2000). 2.1 The organization of turn taking According to Sacks (1974), the observation is that conversation requires speakers to take turns, and this requirement is managed in a particular way. In addition, Sacks (1974) points out that ‘speaker change recurs’. In other words, the floor is constantly negotiated and renegotiated as a conversation goes along. “In fact this continual negotiation is a general feature of conversational organization”(Cameron, 2001: 90). How do conversationalists manage the organization of the floor in such a way as to produce the pattern that ‘one speaker speaks at a time and speaker change recurs’? Sacks, along with two colleagues, Emmanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, proposed a model of conversationalists’behavior that they presented under the heading of “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation” (Sacks et al. 1974). The model has two main elements. First, it says that speakers are aware that a turn consists of one or more (but not fewer) “turn constructional units”. People who are listening to someone else’s speech can use their knowledge of the possible unit types to project the end-point of the turn currently in progress. The second element of the simplest systematics model is a mechanism for allocating turns to particular participants in a conversation. Some cases of simultaneous speech are classed as ‘overlaps’, but the fact that they occur in only about 5 percent of conversation or less, strongly suggests that speakers somehow know exactly when and where to enter (Cook, 1989). On the other hand, the progressive refinement and enrichment of CA has also come to accommodate “collaborative utterances”(Lerner, 1991, quoted by Heritage, 2003: 5) and “a machinery of overlap management”(Schegloff, 2000, quoted by Heritage, 2003: 5). 2.2 One thing after another: adjacency pairs CA places great emphasis on the idea that “conversation is ‘one thing after another’: it is an activity that unfolds in time, and what I say now must inevitably constrain what you can meaningfully say next”(Cameron, 2001: 94). The two parts of an adjacency pair may become separated (and thus no longer adjacent). This separation is normally brief and the second adjacency pair that is inserted between the two parts of the first one is understood to be necessary for the completion of the original transaction. This is also known as an insertion sequence, which “draws attention to the fact that conversation is discourse mutually constructed and negotiated in time”(Cook, 1989: 55). 2.3 The workings of what CA calls a ‘preference system’ Some first turns present the producer of the second turn with a choice. For instance, invitations, offers, suggestions or proposals may be either accepted or declined. Analysts have noted an interesting pattern in the way the alternative possibilities are typically handled by conversationalists. The ‘preferred’response to a proposal is acceptance, and it can be identified as the preferred option because it is typically performed without hesitation or elaboration. The point is that acceptance can be done without elaboration. Refusal is the ‘dispreferred’response, and is identified as such because it is typically performed with more mitigation. CA has noted the existence of a regular pattern in talk: acceptances and agreements are typically done in one way, while refusals and disagreements are done in a different way. 2.4 Repair As a conversation is constructed and executed as it happens, by two people, feeling their way forward together, there is no going back, crossing out, rewriting and restructuring. This is particularly evident in the phenomenon known as repair, in which “participants correct either their own words or those of another 47
Conversation Analysis and Its Implications for Te aching Speaking in a Language Classroom
participants, edging towards a situation in which maximum communication is achieved”(Cook, 1989: 55). 2.5 Feedback Another important aspect of spoken interaction that CA has examined is the ways speakers provide each other with feedback so that listeners show they are attending to what is being said. 2.6 Openings and closings Openings and closings in conversations are often carried out in typical ways. They are also “context-and speech-event-specific ”(Paltridge, 2000: 86). Openings and closings often make use of adjacency pairs like “Hi”, “How are you?”, “Bye”and “See you later”, whic h are often not intended to be taken literally. Closings are often preceded by pre-closings and an accompanying fall in intonation.
3. Analysis of an Authentic Spoken Text from the Perspective of CA In the following section an authentic spoken text will be analyzed from the viewpoints of Conversation Analysis. The transcribed dialogue is an extract from a talkback radio program “Talk Tonight”hosted by Graham Gilbert on Super Network, Sydney in 2004. The topic in discussion is “Trivia Questions”asked by listeners. In the dialogue, one listener phones in, trying to answer some trivial questions related to some specific words and terms. 3.1 Transcript: G = Graham Gilbert (Program host) M = Margaret (Caller) (1) G: “Talk Tonight”on our number 131269. Now (.), our word. Hello, Margaret. (2) M: Hello, how are you, Graham? (3) G: I’m (.) I’m spiffy. (4) M: Er (laugh) yeah lo-, look, I’m ringing up about spiffy. I don’t know where it came from, but I’ve only ever heard you use it=But I think it’s an absolutely great word and I love it. (Laugh) (5) G: I mu- must admit I’m I’ve stolen it from someone and I’m not sure who::, but um= (6) M: =I’m not quite sure of how you use it, but it has a sort of meaning like someone looking [great or (7) G: [It’ s, yeah, it’s sort of some something is terrific or someone’ s [terrific= (8) M: [Yea:h. (9) G: =or like you look spiffy tonight. (10) M: Yea:h.= (11) G: =Yea:h. (12) M: Graham= it’s a great word. (13) G: You, you and I will share it. [Consider it your word as well, (Marg::). (14) M: [(laugh)] (15) M: O.K., and with “disorgani:ze”, I I’ve always known it as “disorganize”= 16. G: =It’s never been “unorganized”, [has it? (17) M: [No, no.] And um (.), it is as I recall it AIF is Australian Imperial Forces. My dad was in the Second World War and it was always called that then anyway= (18) G: =AIF Australia Imperial [Forces. (19) M: [Ye : s, ye: s] (.) And if you don’t mind me adding, you are the gentlemen of the airwaves. You have a lovely program. (20) G: That’s very spiffy of you [to say that.]
48
Conversation Analysis and Its Implications for Te aching Speaking in a Language Classroom
(21) M: [laugh] (22) G: (laugh) Thank you Margaret= (23) M: =Thank you.= (24) G: =I do appreciate it. (25) M: Thank you.= (26) G: =Thank you. (27) M: [[B(28) G: [[Bye= (29) M: =Bye-bye. 3.2 Analysis of the three main stages of the talk This conversation can be generally divided up into three main stages: turns numbered (1) to (3) belong to Opening Stages, where salutations and greetings are made. Turns numbered (4) to (21) belong to Middle Stages, which involve development of a range of topics with the two interlocutors adopting various conversational strategies for turn taking, keeping a turn, preferred responses, giving feedback, changing a topic, etc. Turns numbered (22) to (29) belong to Closing Stages, which involve pre-closing exchanges signaling the ending of the conversation and closings. 3.2.1 The opening stage At the opening stage there are two adjacency pairs: greeting (1) –greeting (2) and question (2) –answer (3). Through those initial exchanges, not only are social relations established, the host is also quick-minded enough to initiate the topic under discussion and thus invites the other speaker to have a turn when he says, “I’m spiffy”(3). 3.2.2 The middle stage At the middle stage, the caller laughs (4) as a nonverbal feedback to the host’ s witty use of the word “spiffy” and uses signal words “er yeah”and “look”(4) to take the floor. She tries to hold the floor with latches within her talk (4) and uses falling intonation in “and I love it”to indicate she is ready to give the floor (4). But she manages to gain the floor again (6) after the host utters a signal word “um”(5), trying to figure out the correct words to say. The host then edges in the floor by uttering “it’s, yeah”(7), overlapping the caller ’s utterances “great or-”(6). It is obvious that the host’s “interruption”here does not indicate disagreement with what the caller has said, nor lack of interest in what she has said, nor any desire to change the direction of the conversation. On the contrary, it somehow echoes the caller ’s words by using the word “terrific ”(7) and thus functions supportively in the talk. In utterances (8) to (11), interlocutors either overlap (8) or latch (10, 11) onto the preceding speaker when they use the feedback word “yeah”consecutively, which obviously also functions in a very supportive manner in the talk. Utterances (12) and (13) are an adjacency pair, in which the caller gives a general assessment of the word (12) and the host follows by presenting a preferred response –agreement (13). It should be noted that while a preferred response is normally prompt and short as mentioned above, the host here does take the trouble to elaborate on it with a touch of humor rather than just a dry “yes”. This is responded by the caller ’s nonverbal feedback “laugh” (14). The conversation is thus made livelier and interesting to listen to since it is a live radio program aimed for a large number of listeners. The conversation could have been closed in utterance (14), but the caller is quick enough to take the floor by saying “O.K. ”(15), which is a preferred response/agreement to the second part of utterance (13). She also uses “and with… ”to maintain the floor and successfully initiate another topic concerning the word “disorganize”(15), 49
Conversation Analysis and Its Implications for Te aching Speaking in a Language Classroom
where the host latches and provides his feedback (16) by paraphrasing what the caller has just said. The caller edges in the floor again with a preferred response “no, no”(17), overlapping “has it?”in the preceding utterance (16). Then by using “and um” (17), she again succeeds in holding the floor and initiating another topic concerning “AIF”, where the host steals the floor with his utterance (18) latching onto the preceding utterance and provides the caller with his feedback by simply repeating what the caller has said. In utterance 19, the caller again manages to regain the floor with feedback “yes, yes”, overlapping part of the preceding utterance. She then pauses for one second and uses “and if you don’t mind me adding”to introduce a totally different topic in the conversation –a positive comment on the host (19). Utterance 20 made by the host is a preferred response to the caller ’s compliment. As he is quick-witted enough to use the word “spiffy”again, the caller responds with another non-verbal feedback “laugh”(21) to show her understanding of the host’ s humor. 3.2.3 The closing stage Utterances (22) to (29) belong to the closing stage, where the interaction seems to drag on in a number of turns without exchange of any actual information. Utterances (22) to (26) belong to pre-closing, in which both interlocutors seem to be just busy thanking each other in a bit redundant manner. But this “pre-closing” is important, “because it is necessary for telephone interactants to make sure that there is joint agreement to end the exchange” (Cameron, 2001: 100). To cut someone off abruptly on the phone will be regarded as a highly aggravated act of impoliteness. Therefore, before they can actually close, each interlocutor has to signal he/she has no more to say by “passing” on the opportunity to introduce new information. “On the phone, this ‘passing’is signaled by taking a turn but putting no new content into it”(ibid). At turn (24) in the sequence, the host passes; he has an opportunity to go on to some other topics, but he merely repeats what he has said by continuing to thank the caller. This is an indication of an invitation to the caller to pass on her own next turn. At turn (25), the caller does pass with no more new information but just “thank you”, which is echoed by the host at turn (26). With the pre-closing successfully accomplished by the two interlocutors each passing up the opportunity to introduce new matter, the actual closing then begins as is indicated at turns (27) to (29). 3.2.4 Summary of the analysis It should be noted that this piece of talk-in-interaction is a very cooperative one. Both interlocutors use quite a few preferred responses and signals like “yeah”and nonverbal “laugh” as feedback to keep the conversation going. It is also interesting to note that though the host is generally in control of the conversation, it is actually the caller (Margaret) in this conversation who successfully steals the floor with her “er look”, “yeah”, “O.K. ”, “No” responses. And with her effective use of, “and with … ”, “and um… ”, “And if… ”, she manages to maintain the floor and initiates quite a few topics, including her comment on the host. Of course, the host does perform his share of the job successfully by providing quite a few witted responses timely to lubricate the wheel of the conversation and he is also the one who successfully opens and closes the conversation.
4. The Implications of CA for Classroom Language Teaching Through the conversation analysis illustrated above, we can see that conversation is a collaborative process and what is basic to the management of the collaborative process in conversation is the turn-taking management. Participants in conversation are involved in ongoing evaluation of each other ’ s utterances to judge appropriate places and use certain strategies to take up the turn to talk. But as is observed by Slade (1986, quoted by Richards,
50
Conversation Analysis and Its Implications for Te aching Speaking in a Language Classroom
2002: 69), for a second language speaker, turn taking and turn assignment in conversation can be difficult. The skill, which is relatively easy and natural to acquire for native speakers, is not automatically transferred to a second language speaker (Paltridge, 2000). “A learner who mistimes his entry into conversation or who is unfamiliar with the correct formulae can give the impression of being ‘pushy’or, conversely, over-reticent”(Slade, 1986, quoted by Richards, 2002: 69). McCarthy (2002) points out that though more recent trends in classroom organization such as pair and group work attempt to break the very rigid and ordered turn-taking pattern which is normally under the control of the teacher in a traditional classroom, they do not always succeed in recreating more natural patterns. The problem, as he indicates, lies in activity design. “The looser the restrictions on what and when people may speak, the more naturally the turn-taking emerges”(McCarthy, 2002: 128). Therefore, the problem is “to make sure that classroom activities generate the natural sorts of turn taking that occur in the target discourse type and so not inhibit typical turn-taking patterns”(McCarthy, 2002: 128). Cook (1989) also claims that the teacher who constantly interrupts the students’discourse to correct every grammatical mistake not only violates usual turn-taking procedures but may also hinder the students’acquisition of them. McCarthy (2002) further suggests that features of how turns are given and gained in English should prompt specific awareness training where necessary and that specific strategies and lexical realizations of turn management (how to take a turn, hold a turn and relinquish a turn) could also be taught directly. Besides, significant cultural differences regarding norms in turn taking can at least be pointed out so as to warn learners of the possible consequences of transferring L1 convention to the L2 context. It is also indicated by McCarthy (2002) that different roles and settings will generate different structures for adjacency pairs. When using strategies for giving informal invitation, for example, native speakers tend to preface their invitations (e.g. ‘I was wondering, uh, we’re having party … ’) while non-native speaker sometimes too formal or too blunt. This sort of observation has direct implications for the design of role-play and similar activit ies and what particular strategies and linguistic elements need to be pre-taught, “where learners are instructed to behave in ways specified by the activity and where the goal is a simulation of ‘real life discourse’” (McCarthy, 2002: 52). Finally, with regard to topic management, McCarthy (2002) points out that one of the key ways in which topics are developed lies in how speakers take up, repeat and modify the vocabulary selections of others in order to expand, develop or change topics. Therefore, skills in topic development may be improved by giving students tasks that extend understanding of vocabulary patterns such as synonyms, antonyms and other word associations. Burns and Joyce (1997) state that drawing learners’attention to the way native speaker begin, develop or introduce a new topic, and the kind of language structure they use to do this can also be valuable. In addition, as cultural expectations are involved in the choice of topics especially in casual conversations, Burns and Joyce (1997) think that discussing typical topics for casual conversation with learners and developing the associated vocabulary is one way of helping them to extend their interactional skills.
5. Conclusion Key concepts in conversation analysis make possible the micro-level analysis of turn-taking management, adjacency pairs, and the expectations of turn transfer, as realized by preferred and dispreferred responses.
51
Conversation Analysis and Its Implications for Te aching Speaking in a Language Classroom
Classroom activities deriving from conversation analysis highlight the micro-interactional level of talk and teachers are able to explore language performance from a microanalytic perspective. As is stressed by McCarthy (2002), the output of learners shall be evaluated against what we know about natural data and classroom activity design changes shall be effected accordingly. Perhaps most important of all is to try to recreate “the reciprocity that is typical of conversation”(McCarthy, 2002: 136) so as to design activity that will generate output as close as possible to naturally occurring talk. References: 1. Burns, A.. Teaching Speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 1998(18): 102-123. 2. Burns, A., Joyce, H., & Gollin, S.. I See What You Mean: Using Spoken Discourse in the Classroom. Sydney: NCELTR.1996. 3. Bygate, M.. Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987. 4. Cameron, D.. Working with Spoken Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 2001. 5. Cook, G.. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989. 6. Cornbleet, S. & Carter, R.. Language of Speech and Writing. London: Routledge. 2001. 7. Heritage, J.. Presenting Emanuel A. Schegloff. In Discussing Conversation Analysis (The work of Emanuel A. Schegloff), Prevignano, C. L. and Thibault, P. J. (eds.). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 2003: 1-10. 8. McCarthy, M.. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2002. 9. Paltridge, B.. Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Gold Coast: Antipodean Educational Enterprises. 2000. 10. Psathas, G.. Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.1995. 11. Richards, J.C.. The Language Teaching Matrix. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2002. 12. Sacks, S., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G.. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation. Language, 1974, 50(4): 696-753. Appendix: Transcription Symbols The follow transcription symbols are mainly developed by Gail Jefferson (1974) to capture those phenomena relevant to the analysis of the organization of conversation. Because of space limit, only those used in the above transcript are listed below: 1. “[… ”: Beginning of overlap – When utterances overlaps but do not start up simultaneously, the point at which overlap begins is marked by a single left-hand bracket. 2. “… ]” End of overlap –The point where overlapping utterances stop overlapping is marked with a single right-hand bracket. 3. “=” Latching or contiguous utterances –No interval between the end of a prior and the start of a next part of talk. 4. “(.)” Untimed micro-intervals –More or less than a tenth of a second is indicated by a dot within parentheses. 5. “:” Sound stretch –A colon indicates that the prior sound is prolonged. Multiple colons indicate a more prolonged sound. 6. Italics: Emphasis –Emphasis is indicated by italics or underscoring.
(Edited by Zhilu Lv, Yanhong Zuo, Zhimin Jiang and Iris)
52