CMN 457: CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS (CA)

Notation (developed by someone called Gail Jefferson):

Number the lines so that you can refer to them in your commentary.

Square brackets mark overlap between utterances. Mostly, just the beginning of an overlap, although we can mark to end too, e.g.:

01 A: Right [so you

02 B: [I'm not sure

An equals sign at the end of a speaker's utterance and at the start of the next utterance indicates the absence of a discernable gap between speakers utterances (can also be used to mark a continuous utterance by a single speaker if it has to be broken up for various reasons, e.g., by an overlap or whatever), e.g.:

03 A: Anyway Brian=

04 B: =Okay, okay

07 X: Yuh know [half the grou]p thet =

08 Y: [Oh ::::: ]

09 X: = we had last term wz there

Numbers in brackets indicate pauses timed to the nearest tenth of a second. A full stop in brackets indicates a "micropause" pause that is noticeable but too short to measure, e.g.:

36 A: I went (3.6) a lot further (.) than I intended

One or more colons indicate an extension of the preceding vowel sound, e.g.:

37 A: Yea::h, I see::

Underlining indicates that words are uttered with added emphasis; words in capitals are uttered louder than the surrounding talk, e.g.:

22 A: It's not right, not right AT ALL

A full stop before a word or sound indicates an audible intake of breath, e.g.:

13 A: I think .hh I need more

Round brackets indicate that material in the brackets is either inaudible or there is doubt as to its accuracy, e.g.:

27 A: I (couldn't tell you) that

Material in double round brackets indicates other relevant noises or happenings.

((ring, ring)) ((A picks up paper and looks at it))

Square brackets indicate that some typescript has been deliberately omitted. Material in square brackets is clarificatory information, e.g.:

47 A: Brian [the speaker's brother] said [ ] its okay

Conversational analysts study the 'production' and 'management' of the conversational processes within which we create and maintain our social worlds.

1. Central concepts: "adjacency pairs" and "preference structures"

1.i). Talk works in terms of expectations and commitments, and in an adjacency pair, one speaker formulates a situation in an other feels required to do something:

• -In studying how an utterance 'works', what it does in the conversation, they pay attention to its sequential position in the conversation - for speakers reveal in their turn (i.e., in their response) what they took a previous speaker to be saying.
• -The major units of CA are: adjacency pairs (often with a presequence); preference structures (with preferred and dispreferred parts)..
• -A first-pair part (FPP) sets up a conditional relevance which is (or can be) satisfied by the second-pair part (SPP): Here are some types of adjacency pairs that have been extensively studied: assertion-assent/dissent; question-answer; summons-answer; greeting-greeting; apology-acceptance/refusal; compliment-acceptance/rejection; threat-response; challenge-response; accusation-denial/confession; telling-assessment (good, awful, interesting, discouraging, etc.); boasting-appreciation/derision.
• -Many important meanings are revealed in our pauses, intakes of breath, intonation, and emphases in our utterances. Thus is it useful to have some way of notating the character of these features.

1.ii). Sometimes, adjacency pairs involve what is called a presequence, (pre-offers, pre-announcements) as well as a preference structure - which merely indicates the requirement that a certain kind of response is expected or preferred.

2.i.) But let's look at adjacency pairs first (and then 'insertion sequences'): e.g., greetings and return of greetings; openings and closings; questions and answers; offers and acceptances; assessments and second assessments, and so on.

The "first pair-part" (FPP) establishes a conditional relevance, and whatever comes to be said in response to it, will be inspected to see how it can possibly serve as the "second pair-part" (SPP).

1. 01 a: Hello. 01 a: How are you?

02 b: Hi. 02 b: Fine.

(greeting-greeting) (question-answer)

This is how certain 'answers' with a very strange surface structures can be perfectly well understood. "What is 'said' is obscure; what is 'meant' is obvious and clear":

2. 12 A: Who can see whom? ('question')

13 B: The man the boy. (this must be an 'answer')

'Insertion sequences' can be used to hold off proper completion until an appropriate moment:

3. a1: Can I borrow your water hose?

b1: Do you need it at this very moment?

a2: No.

b2: Yes.

Or even more complicated (to a stationmaster):

4. a1: Have you got the time?

b1: Standard or daylight saving?

a2: What are you running on?

b2: Standard.

a3: Standard then

b3: It's five o'clock.

2. Presequences: an adjacency pair whose meaning depends upon another series of speech acts (utterances) that have not yet been uttered:

5. A: Have you washed your hands?

B: No, why?

A: 'Cause dinner's ready (this cannot be understood as a request without first adjacency pair)

B: Okay, I'll do it.

3. Preference structures: the normative (ethical) expectations set up by the first pair-parts can be ranked into what can be called 'preference structures' - if expected answer produced, without delay, then no problem.

But, if not, then justifications must be given :

3.1 Assessment-Agreement (dispreferred part - Disagreement):

Hanna: 1. "There's no point in going then at all."

2. (1.0) - delay

Alan: 3. "Well - increase delay

4. not uh I mean - disagreement

5. the major shops will probably be closed." - justification.

First, there is the delay component (2) - Alan only starts to respond after a pause; then the response is prefaced with "Well" (3) - this both marks the dispreferred status of the response, and increases the delay before the disagreement is uttered; then when the disagreement is formulated, it is done so rather weakly - contrast 'not uh I mean' (4) with 'no, certainly not'; but then (5) Alan justifies his disagreement.

He accounts for his disagreement with Hanna by the claim that the major shops will probably be closed.

3.2 Question-Answer (dispreferred part - Refusal to answer):

Notice that interesting things happen at points of uncertainty - as in the Justice for all example. See if you can find an example where someone answers using a "dispreferred part."

Dave: 1. What's in Justice for = All.

2. (0.3)

Paul: 3. Its (.) ah (.) its about (...pauses here)

4. (1.0)

5. Well

6. you've got na:h I'm not going to tell you (... a refusal)

7. (1.0) (... delay, with vowel lengthening)

8. 'cos you won:n't belie:ve the reason I like the film

(... justification)

Paul's response is only initiated after a delay (2-4); it marked as a dispreferred second-part by his use of "Well" (5); his refusal to answer is hesitant and soften (6); and finally he offers an account ('accounts' are to do with justifications) of his non-answering (8).

Normative expectations: In the long delay (7), no one cuts in - indicating that the speakers all expect an account to be offered.

3.3 Suggestions-Acceptance (dispreferred part - Refusal):

a: 1. C'mon down he:re=it's okay (= no gap)

b: 2. (0.2)

3. I got lotta stuff=I got be:er en stuff

The very short silence from b. after the offered invitation is sufficient to 'motivate' a. to offer further information in an attempt to make the invitation more attractive.

3.4 Offers (invitations)-Acceptance (Refusals):

Refusal of invitation: delay; marking; and an account (often in terms of lack of ability) -

Mark: 1. We w're wondering if you wanted to come over Saturday, f'r dinner.

2. (0.4) - delay

Jane: 3. Well (.) .hh it'd be great but we promised Carol already - delay, and intake of breath.

This kind of account achieves a number of different goals: it 'does' the refusal while avoiding making negative or critical comments.

4. Contrast structures:

The positive statement was made contingent upon certain conditions and contrasts - (see below):

2b.res. A1 If [they're willing to get on and be like us]

A2 then [I'm not anti them] but

B1 if [they're just going...to use our social welfares]

B2 then [why don't they stay home]

Contrast structures are very important: a 'descriptive statement' is preceded by an 'instruction' as to how the behavior is contrasting, i.e., as abnormal or anomalous. E.g., "(When casually asked to help in a friend's garden), she went at it for hours, never stopping, barely looking up."

"a) She was terrified of men getting close to her, and yet, b) she continually told us about all the men who where interested in her."

- Contrasts and differences: language works in terms of differences which normally are never made explicit; by making the contrast explicit, the fact that abnormal circumstances are meant.

5. Extreme case formulations:

"...[if] they are just going to come here, just to be able to use our social welfares and stuff like that, [then]..."

The provision of an effective (i.e., uncriticizable) warrant - a supporting 'ground' for a claim, a uncriticizable justification - by making claims which are definitive, which are unmodifiable, which are normative.

Example: Q: "Why are they carrying a gun?" A: "Everybody here carries a gun." Carrying a gun is not a notable, unusual, distinctive, or restricted activity, but is a normative activity, something everybody does.

6. Disclaimers: an attempt to PREEMPT negative interpretations.

Thus, disclaimers (try) to define the future in the present - a device to ward off potential negative attribution or evaluation, something which will have to be justified.

"I'm not racist, but... I think these people would be happier back home."

If you then still go ahead and say: "I think that that is a very racialist attitude to take." They could say in an aggrieved tone: "But I said I'm not a racialist."