Scribd
Upload
9 views23 pages

2 CA Interactive Methods 2024

Uploaded by

amatesx
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views23 pages

2 CA Interactive Methods 2024

Uploaded by

amatesx
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 23

2 CA & interactive methods

Dr Carsten Roever
Linguistics & Applied Linguistics
School of Languages & Linguistics
The University of Melbourne
[email protected]

1
The Big Questions

1. How does Conversation Analysis


(CA) related to IC?
2. What is preference organization?
3. Which research methods generate
data for investigating IC by means of
CA?

2
How to collect and analyze data

• To investigate IC, interactional data is essential


– Role plays
– Elicited conversations
– Natural data
• Data analysis by means of conversation analysis (CA)

3
IC and Conversation Analysis (CA)

• CA is the analytic and theoretical framework for IC


• Founded by Harvey Sacks in the early 1960s
• Not L2 oriented, but rather sociology
• Goal:
– Describe mechanisms of talk
– Show orientation to shared social norms through talk
• Radically empirical, bottom-up
• Analytically rigorous: only base claims on data
• Originally not interested in mind, cognition, learning =>
adapted for L2 learning as CA for SLA
4
Very short introduction to CA

• Analytic principles
• Key concepts:
– Turn-taking
– Repair
– Adjacency
– Sequence organization
– Preference organization
– Topic management
• Key question: how do interlocutors achieve
mutual understanding by linguistic and sequential
means?
5
Analytic principles

• Glossing—what action is being done in this turn?


– Members knowledge: what does it look like?
– Next-turn proof procedure: how does the recipient take it?
• Why that now? => what does the action accomplish?

6
CA: Turntaking

• Turns are the basic unit of analysis


• Participants follow normative rules in managing turns
• How do they know when a turn ends? => Transition-
relevance place (TRP)

7
CA: Repair

• Ensuring intersubjectivity
• Clarifying misunderstanding, m
• Making sure interlocutors are “on the same page”

Alex: Just I have pr- ehhh (0.4) a


little problem with my assignment

Schegloff, 1988, p. 59
8
CA: Adjacency

• Basic unit of sequence organization


• Adjacency pairs consist of a first pair part (FPP)
and second pair part (SPP), e.g., question-
response, greeting-greeting, request-refusal
 Find adjacency pairs:

• Absence of an SPP creates an “accountable silence”

9
CA: Sequence organization

• Sequences are made up of a series of related turns


• Adjacency typically ties turns together
• Larger organizing principles:
– Preference
– Topical talk

10
CA: Preference

• Certain SPPs are “preferred”, e.g.,


– FPP: request
– Possible SPPs: grant, refusal; not equal, refusal might
threaten social harmony
• “preferred” turn shapes: immediate, direct

• Aligning move, conducive to social harmony

11
Preference cont’d

• “dispreferred” turn shapes: delayed, mitigated,


indirect, hesitations, explanations / accounts

• Manage disalignment, potential disruption to


social harmony
• Note that FPPs can also be done as dispreferred
12
Topic management
• Opening a topic
• Topic extension
• Topic shift (stepwise)

13
CA: Sequence organization

• Sequences are made up of a series of related


utterances
• They can be arranged around a core adjacency pair
with possible pre-, post-, or insert expansions
• Sequence:
– Pre-expansion => background, delay, leading up to..
– Core adjacency pair: FPP => request, suggestion, complaint…
– Insert expansion => further information (optional)
– Core adjacency pair: SPP => refusal, acceptance, apology...
– Post-expansion => thanking, further negotiation
• Typical / common organization, not compulsory
14
Data elicitation

• Tools for researching, teaching and testing


pragmatics can be receptive or productive
• To investigate IC by means of CA, data needs to
be productive and interactional
• Two common methods: role play and elicited
conversation

15
Role play

• Participant with trained interlocutor or participant


• Imaginary situation and roles
• Role play cards with instructions, can contain
complications (Gass & Houck, 1999; Ross &
O’Connell, 2013)
• Common data collection technique (Al-Gahtani &
Roever, 2012, 2014; Bella, 2014; Felix-Brasdefer,
2008; Okada, 2010…)

16
Role plays: Prompt / scenario design

• Prompts provide background for the talk


• They need to be designed to elicit the desired
action (request, refusal…)
• Prompts need to specify
– the physical context (where – when – how),
– the social context (who to whom), and
– the goal of the interaction (why or for what purpose).
• About one paragraph in length
• Both role play participants need a prompt card

17
Prompt A

General You are traveling overseas and need


backgroun
d
to leave for the airport now. A friend
promised to drive you but she just Problem
cancelled at the last minute. You
Motivation
decide to ask for a lift from your
Relationshi
housemate, who is also your good p
friend. Your housemate is in the
living room reading on the phone as
you walk in.
Physical
context
18
Analyzing interactive production data

• Most commonly with CA


• Unmotivated looking but often pre-existing research
question (but can change)
• Transcription
• Close reading of the data
• Make a collection of target features
• Identify similarities / differences in practices
• Relate to background differences (e.g., proficiency)
[not CA]

19
Transcription

• Transcription is analysis
• “First pass”: rough, orthographic transcription or
machine transcription (e.g., via Zoom)
• Identify possible target features
• “Second pass”: careful transcription, especially of
target features
• One minute of data takes 6-10 minutes of
transcription (up to one hour if done carefully)
• Jefferson, 2004, for conventions (
http://www.liso.ucsb.edu/liso_archives/Jefferson/Transcript.pdf)

20
Elicited Conversation

• Research situation, task set


• Conversation itself is between participants and
unguided
• For example:
– Svennevig (2000): get to know each other
– Baumgarten & House (2010), Galaczi (2014): discuss a topic
– Hanafi (2015): plan a weekend trip together
– Zhang (2016): rank people (heart transplant, scholarship)
– Abe (2018): plan a café, define “success” (via text chat)
– Wu & Roever (2024): elicited conversation vs. role play

21
Natural data
• Unelicited, not from a research situation
 Advantages
 Disadvantages
 Logistics
 Research design
 Comparability
• L2 Pragmatics research: service encounter
(Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993, 1996; Shively,
2011; Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2014); case studies
(Ishida, 2009; Kim, 2009); classroom data (Pekarek
Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2011)
22
The Big Questions

1. How does Conversation Analysis


(CA) related to IC?
2. What is preference organization?
3. Which research methods generate
data for investigating IC by means of
CA?

23

You might also like