Conversation Analysis: Brown and Yule, Merrison, Hutchby, Harrington

Language in Interaction: conversation analysis
Name
Institution of Affiliation
Name
Language in Interaction: conversation analysis
Conversation analysis is a study within sociology that began in the 1960s by Harvey Sacks and Emmanuel Schegloff. It was aimed at dissecting socio-linguistics and specifically conducting empirical evaluations of talk-in-interaction. The study takes an in-depth study of the constructs of conversation such as turn-taking, action sequencing, and repairCITATION Hom10 \p 492 \l 1033 (Homberger & McKay, 2010, p. 492). The researchers noted that conversation was and continues to be an important tool in human interaction, and there was a need for a deeper understand of the aspects that shape conversation CITATION Hom10 \l 1033 (Homberger & McKay, 2010). Conversation analysis is unique in that it takes place in a casual settingCITATION Rob08 \p 13 \l 1033 (Wooffitt & Hutchby, 2008, p. 13). The environment is crucial, noting that most human interaction (conversations) is in an informal and social contextCITATION Hom10 \p 492 \l 1033 (Homberger & McKay, 2010, p. 492).
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson were the key researchers involved in creatingCITATION Sac74 \p 696 \l 1033 (Sacks, et al., 1974, p. 696) Conversation analysis as a field of study. They determined that by utilizing the same principles and methods participants in conversation use to produce and comprehend conversation; they could use the same principles to analyzes conversation. Conversation analysis (CA) inspects the intricacies that formulate conversation; asking the questions that allow humanity to understand conversationCITATION Gri89 \p 137 \l 1033 (Grice, 1989, p. 137). As researchers and analysts, we are unable to fully appreciate conversations that we might not be party to. It is essential to note that conversations have multiple nuances and subtleties that only participants can appreciate. As analysts, we apply the skills of conversation analysis to understand better the conversation and the human dynamics behind them CITATION Har95 \l 1033 (Sacks, 1995). Conversations between good friends will often contain coded language, language that those outside the conversation cannot make sense of. CA enables us to understand how seemingly unrelated concepts of culture, tradition, modernity, education, power and gender dynamics all play a crucial role in the conversation. Such an understanding allows us to appreciate the role these elements play in human interaction and how we can utilize the same to have more meaningful and impactful conversations.
Conversation analysis is similar to discourse analysis in that they both analyze conversation. The two, however, differ substantially. Discourse analysis evaluates a broader spectrum of conversationCITATION Geo83 \p 11 \l 1033 (Yule & Brown, 1983, p. 11). It will assess written conversation, vocal conversation, sign (or signal conversation) language and any instances where the conversation is conducted. CA, on the other hand, limits itself to only vocal and non-vocal communication. Discourse analysis is broader in its scope of evaluationCITATION Woo05 \p 101 \l 1033 (Wooffitt, 2005, p. 101). CA, however, is specific and conducts more thorough and minute examinations of conversations at hand. They, however, contain similar elements in that both examine; turn taking, discourse or conversation markers, etc.CITATION Dis12 \l 1033 (Linguistic Society of America, 2012).
Danielle Pillet-Shore notes in her article dissecting the book, "Conversation Analysis: An Introduction," and, Heritage and Clayman’s, "Talk in action: Interaction, Identities and Institutions," that CA provides the typical human with tools to perceive/ understand, describe scientifically and analyze talk-in-interactionCITATION Pil11 \p 514 \l 1033 (Pillet-Shore, 2011, p. 514). To conduct this analysis, there is a need for an understanding of CA.
CA begins by determining a research problem and coming up with the required hypotheses to the problem. Researchers then embark on collecting data in the form of video or audio recordings of conversation. The conversation in this regard must be of interest to the research problem in question. However, data collection does not require that the researcher is involved in an active role. The researcher will simply utilize a recording device to record the conversation. It is essential to note that the presence of a researcher could typically alter a normal exchange between parties. A patient-doctor conversation might not be as frank if the patient knew the researcher was present. The conversation would thus present distorted reality and would alter the findings for the conversation analysis. After collecting conversational data, researchers will transcribe the data in a comprehensive manner, carefully noting all details.
There are three basic structures in conversation analysis; these are; turn taking, action sequencing/sequencing organization and repair. These are critical to an adequate understanding of any conversation. Turn taking refers to the manner in which participants in a conversation allocate speaking opportunities (turns) to themselves and others. There are two types of conversation; two-party and multi-party. As the names suggest; the two party model consists of two participants in a single conversation e.g. patient and doctor. It is a simple model where turn allocation is easy to conduct. Since when one participant speaks, the other listens and where the other speaks the first one listens. This is not to suggest that there are no intricacies and conflicts in the model; rather they occur but in a much more defined manner. Multiparty conversations involve multiple participants. Turn allocation is conducted in a different manner that will be defined shortlyCITATION And14 \p 114 \l 1033 (Merrison, 2014, p. 114).
Turn allocation mechanisms for two party conversations are simple. These could include; eye contact, gestures, body movement (nod), completing a sentence, pause in the conversation or an invitation to speak. The model is especially pronounced for adjacency pairs. An adjacency pair is a facet of conversation that typically involved two participants in a back to back exchange.
Multi-party conversation uses different mechanisms and protocols to allocate turns in conversation, these are; use of 'repeats' (involves repeating the last syllable or phrase the speaker said), the elision of lexical forms (involves utilizing a word form to represent what the speaker has said), the use of temporal regulators (include all right, yeap, ookay) and the use of speech particles (e.g. uh hah). However, the multi-party model may incorporate elements of two party turn allocation protocols. These are, however, inadequate when used singularlyCITATION Sac74 \p 698 \l 1033 (Sacks, et al., 1974, p. 698).
The Turn allocation component is made up of the fundamental turn allocation mechanism. The fundamental or basic units are four and are referred to as Turn Allocation Units (TCU). These units are; lexical (involves use of a lexical word form to take a turn), clausal (participant takes a turn by utilizing a clause to interject), phrasal (use of a phrase), and sentential (use of a sentence)CITATION Sac74 \p 719 \l 1033 (Sacks, et al., 1974, p. 719). The multi-party mechanism utilizes a protocol to allocate turns. The turn allocation mechanism is referred to as the Turn allocation component. There are three elements of the turn allocation component through which a turn is allocated. The speaker can choose to allocate the turn specifically to a participant of their choice. It is the simplest model but is dependent on the discipline and willingness of participants to allow it. It is not tenable where the conversation is on controversial, or participants all wish to speak. The next model involves the speaker self-selecting and speaking. The model often involves overlaps and interjecting into the current speaker's speech. The last model involves the existing speaker continuing to speak. It occurs where a turn is not taken up, the current speaker continues and clarifies on the topic at handCITATION Sac74 \p 722 \l 1033 (Sacks, et al., 1974, p. 722).
Action sequencing or sequencing organization looks at how actions in a conversation are arranged. In instances where there are multiple adjacency pairs, sequence expansion is necessary. In the first adjacency pair there is the First Pair Part (FPP), the initial statement forms the base. The Second adjacency pair will have the Second Pair part (SPP), with the subsequent response forming the base of the SPP. Preference organization is a component of CA that looks into the structural and innate preferences of humans in conversation. Notable in this is our preference for information that reinforces what we believe or hold to be true CITATION Sch77 \l 1033 (Schegloff, 1977). Thus, a turn that occurs after information of such a nature has been presented is often quick. We are, however, a bit slower to respond to information that is contrary to what we believe. The response is often slower, and it is preceded by a pause or silence. The pause or silence is the time it takes to internalize the new information and formulate an adequate response. It is referred to as a marked turn shape while the former is an unmarked turn ...