CA vs.

DA

Conversation Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

CA vs. DA

I. II. II.1 II.2 II.2.1 II.2.2 II.2.3 II.3 III III.1 III.2 III.3 III.4 IV
04.12.2006

Introduction Conversation Analysis What is conversation? What is Conversation Analysis? Turn-Taking Transition Relevance Places Adjacency Pairs Exercises Discourse Analysis Origin of the term Discourse The System of Analysis Explanation of the System The structure of classes and moves Bibliography
Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller 2

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

CA vs. DA

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
04.12.2006 Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller 6

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

CA vs. DA

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
04.12.2006 Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller 10

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

11

CA vs. DA

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

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller 12

04.12.2006

CA vs. DA

II.2. Previewing TRPs

Why are we often able to predict the end of somebodys speech? Adjacency Pairs changes of speed delivery intonation word-choice patterns

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

13

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

14

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

15

CA vs. DA

II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs: Examples

Complaint/denial Ken : Hey yuh took my chair by the way an I dont think that was very nice Al: I didnt take yer chair, its my chair.

Compliment/rejection A: B: Im glad I have you for a friend. Thats because you dont have any others.
Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

04.12.2006

16

CA vs. DA

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?

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

17

CA vs. DA

Example for an original transcript with the system used in CA

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

18

CA vs. DA

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)

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

19

CA vs. DA

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)
04.12.2006 Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller 20

CA vs. DA

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 (interor sub-) disciplines, such as semiotics, psycholinguistics,

sociolinguistics, and pragmatics

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

21

CA vs. DA

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) talkin-interaction

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

22

CA vs. DA

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 Move link

(Boundary/Teaching)

(Opening/Answering/ Follow-up/Framing/Focusing)

between the ranks = classes realizes an element of structure

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller 23

04.12.2006

CA vs. DA

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
04.12.2006 Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller 24

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

25

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

directive: is an act the function of which is to request a nonlingustic 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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

26

CA vs. DA

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 Mller

04.12.2006

27

CA vs. DA

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

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

28

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

29

CA vs. DA

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
04.12.2006 Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller 30

CA vs. DA

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 Mller

04.12.2006

31

CA vs. DA

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
Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

04.12.2006

32

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

33

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

34

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

Tactics

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

35

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

36

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

37

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

38

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

39

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

40

CA vs. DA

III. 3 Explanation of the System

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

41

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

42

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

43

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

44

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

45

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

46

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

47

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

48

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

49

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

50

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

51

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

52

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

53

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

54

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

55

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

56

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

57

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

58

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

59

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

60

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

61

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

62

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

63

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

64

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

65

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

66

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

67

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

68

CA vs. DA

III. 4 The structure and classes of moves

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

69

CA vs. DA

IV. Bibliography
Crystal,D. (1991) A Dictioanry of Linguistics and Phonetics Blakwell Jaworski, Adam/ Coupland Nikolas (ed.) (1999) The Discourse Reader London: Routledge Kasher, Asa (ed.) (1998) Pragmatics. Critical Concepts London: Routledge Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge University Press

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

70

CA vs. DA

IV. Bibliography
Mey, J. L. (1993) Pragmatics. An Introduction Blackwell Sacks, H./Schegloff, E.A./Jefferson,G. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation Language, Vol.50, No.4, Part 1. (Dec.1974), pp. 696-735

Sinclair, J.McH./ Coulthard, R.M. (1975): Towards an Analysis of Discourse London: Oxford University Press

04.12.2006

Sindy Kermer Melanie Mller

71