CONVERSATION

ANALYSIS
LISTENING IN A
SECOND LANGUAGE
Presented By: Tiffany

Presented By: Rizki Dian Retno

 LISTENING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE
INTRODUCTION

01
02 05
LISTENING AS ‘INPUT’
BOTTOM-UP TO SECOND LANGUAGE
INTERPRETATION LEARNING

INTERPRETATION
AND INFERENCE
03 04 THE CONTEXT OF
UTTERANCE
 INTRODUCTION
WILGA RIVERS (1968: 135)
HENRY SWEET AND HAROLD PALMER 1. language teaching had hitherto been
placed on students’ production of the
the aspect of the spoken
language, disregarding the fact that
language actually taught was its communication takes place between (at
pronunciation least) two people
2..the primary difficulty for a traveler in
a foreign country was not the problem

(BROWN AND YULE, 1983: 60)

of making himself understood but of
being unable to ‘‘understand what is
being said to him and around him’’
1. treat all spoken language as primarily
intended for transference of facts ...
listen with a sustained level of attention,
over several minutes to spoken
language ... interpret all of it ... commit Since the 1960s, the challenge has
that interpretation to memory ... answer been to guide students in identifying
random, unmotivated questions on any words in the stream of speech and to
of it provide them with tools for
2. Sophisticated adult native speakers interpreting the meaning of
often had difficulty in recalling some of utterances in the proper context.of
the trivial detail that such speech and determining what
‘comprehension questions’ addressed speakers intend by what they have to
say
 BOTTOM-UP INTERPRETATION
structuralists were correct in claiming
IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY WORDS IN THE STREAM
OF SPEECH
that being able to identify words in the
stream of speech is fundamental to
understanding what a speaker is  it is necessary to be able to identify all the
saying. consonantal and vocalic oppositions that occur in
the accent of the target language that students are
being exposed to.
 We should remember that in any accent of English,
There is obviously a significant difference some of the oppositions found in other accents will
between encountering words in the not occur
written and spoken forms of the  standard American English does not distinguish
language between the words balm and bomb; young speakers
of southern British English (‘RP’) do not distinguish
between the words paw, pore, and poor; Scottish
Much more generalizable across accents than English does not distinguish between the words cot
these palatal/velar subtleties is information and caught, cam and calm, or pull and pool;
about those phonotactic constraints that are Yorkshire English does not distinguish between the
helpful in identifying syllable and word words put and putt; and London Cockney English
boundaries, information that is sadly does not distinguish between the words sin and
underexploited in the teaching of second sing, thin and fin, or that and vat.
language listening.
 CONT…
Where spoken language differs dramatically
from written language is in the scale of
interruptions, modifications, and use of
interpersonal markers in its production and
in its reliance on the present context of
utterance to constrain possible
interpretations by the listener

As speech plays such an important role in

interpersonal relationships, its production is
often modified by paralinguistic features that
express the attitude of the speaker toward
the listener and/or toward what is being said
 INTERPRETATION AND INFERENCE
GOFFMAN (1981: 28)
CLARK AND CLARK (1977: 45
‘the mental set required to make sense of these
‘constructing an interpretation’ and ‘utilizing little orphans is that of someone with linguistic
an interpretation,’ drawing attention to the
interests’’ rather than someone who is using
fact that, in everyday life, we use language
to get things done language purposefully

the listener may need to infer the

identity of words not clearly
heard but which would make

To arrive at an interpretation, the

sense of the utterance The listener must infer
which of a wide range of

listener needs to make inferences

senses is appropriate in a
the effect of the immediate given verbal context.

at many levels
verbal context on the sense
(meaning) of words must be
taken into account
 The issues of syntax, of combining words in one syntactic structure rather than
another, and of the choice of syntactic structure having any effect on
interpretation have been curiously neglected in cognitive models of comprehension
Brown, (1994); Levinson (2000))
insisted on the significance of syntactic
structure in determining how the semantic
Halliday (1978) content of an utterance is understood

the disruptive effect on the listener’s Davison (1980)

pre suppositional coherence of using
inappropriate syntactic structures
(consider which is the most
appropriate radio commentary on a
ceremony: The sun’s shining. The
day’s perfect. versus It’s the sun
that’s shining and the day that’s
perfect).
noted the effect on
interpretation of using passive
rather than active constructions
in some circumstances
Sanford and Moxey (1995)
have drawn attention to the
inadequacies of any account of
interpretation based solely on
propositional representation
 THE CONTEXT OF UTTERANCE

01
Johnson-Laird (1983: 187)
‘the notion of the context
overlooks the fact that an (Brown, 1998)
utterance generally has two
contexts: one for the external context of
speaker and one for the situation, social context,
listener. The differences and textual/discoursal

02
between them are not context. Each of these
merely contingent but...a aspects of context
crucial datum for interacts and overlaps
communication with the others, more or
less obviously in
different genres
 The External Context (Brown, 1998)
• Utterances are produced in a particular place

The Context of Discourse

and at a particular time
• A concept of ‘appropriate behavior,’ which
may differ in different cultures, will set limits
on what it is appropriate to say and how it is
appropriate to say it in particular places and • The discourse context is created by
at particular times. whatever the conversational
participants are currently paying

The Social Context

attention to and by what has already
been said on the topic.
Clark called ‘‘communal lexicons’’
(1998: 60–87)
Communal lexicons, Clark suggested, narratives can be simplified if events are
are built on such social features as narrated in the order of occurrence
shared nationality, education, (‘ordo naturalis’), if the number of
occupation, hobbies, language, participants is limited, and each
religion, age cohort, and gender participant is physically clearly
distinguished from the other participants
listeners will often make stereotypical judgments
(Brown, 1995)
about the speaker on the basis of the speaker’s
self-presentation in terms of dress, hair, posture,
and what the listener knows about the speaker’s
occupation.
 LISTENING AS ‘INPUT’ TO SECOND LANGUAGE
LEARNING
• to a greater or lesser extent, in different contexts of acquisition, some learners do successfully
learn to control a second language to an impressive extent, largely from absorbing aspects of
spoken input while simultaneously putting that input to use in constructing an interpretation of
what a particular speaker intends to convey on a particular occasion of use.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
Presented by: Tiffany
 INTRODUCTION OF CA

01 04 03 04 05

Schegloff Concern of
(1986) Talk has its Applied
CA approach:
CA research mentions privilege in linguistics: study certain
concerns on how modes of language use in aspects
talk importance communicati communication (Interaction &
on and in talk temporality)
talk is
 FOUNDATIONS OF CA
Historical foundation Methodological Issues in CA
It has two main issues discussed here;
CA was promoted by Harvey Sacks and Macro-social assumption and micro-
Emanuel Schegloff in 1960s. level.
It is based on Garfinkel’s work and
Goffman’s work. Macro level: the approach in CA was
conducted by Psathas (1990).

Micro level: CA requires some

Garfinkel
explication (Context-shaped and
context renewing)
investigated how the ordinary person
interactively and reflexively achieves an
understanding of practical life.

Goffman (59, 67):

looked in close detail at people
interacting
 PRINCIPAL FINDINGS IN CA
01
TURN TAKING
A type of organization in conversation and
discourse where participants speak one at a time
in alternating turns.
Turn-taking has two rules set out by Sacks,
Schegloff, and Jefferson. A TPR is transition
relevance place, which is the place in the turn at
which it becomes relevant or legitimate for
another party conversation to begin speaking.
02
ADJACENCY PAIRS
A pair of conversational turns by two different
speakers such that the production of the first turn
(FPP) make a response (SPP) of a particular relevant.
In the phenomena of adjacency pairs:
Invitation/ acceptance-rejection. The acceptance is
straightforward, immediate, and brief. Meanwhile the
rejection is delayed, has longer silence such as well,
uhmm, oooo.
 PRINCIPAL FINDINGS IN CA
03
PROSODY
It is one of aspects in conversation
analysis.
It is related to those elements in
interactional settings and properties
of speech.
Interactional settings: indirect
speech, questions, subordinate
clause, the beginning of stories,
emphatic speech.
Features : pitch level, the level of
onset, terminal pitch, direction, and
rhythm.
A call between Katherine and her mother Leslie.
Les: Oh hello
Kat : Hello
Les : I thought you were police we had a burglar, last
night.
04
Kat: Really,….did he take anything?
Les: hhh, no. Uhmm, you see we were in bed. It was
about three twenty a.m.
REPAIR 05
It is the process by which a speaker
recognizes a speech error and repeat
what has been said with some sort of TURN DESIGN
correction.
The strong focus of CA is when
A: Oh Sibbie’s sister had a baby. particular aspects of gramm
grammarar or the way in which a
B: who?
turn at talk or TCU is put together.
A: Sibbie’s sister
How a speaker construct a turn-at-
Anna: Oh, so then he is coming back talk.
on Thur [pause] onThuesday
 CA AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS
Subject matter of CA becomes interest for Applied
linguistics (i.e. language teaching, the nature of
language as communication or language use).

A concern to understanding
How people use language- how people communicate
as-talk to accomplish in with each other.
certain actions.
 APPLICATIONS OF CA
Drew & Heritage (1992): basic
methodological and theoretical of CA
has been to examine how
Institutional Talk participants talk manifest their
This kind of talk is the means that
activities and tasks are performed in institutional conduct through the
organizations. talk they produce. Three
manifestations:
For example: talk with clients,
patients, or customers

Constraints are An observable

The way
placed on orientation of
participants participants to the
think or make participants
institutional goals
inference
 CA AND MEDIA, MEDICAL, AND LEGAL TALK
01 Talk in media, medical, and legal institution seem to be constrained.
Interviewers ask questions
Doctors in a phase of consultation give answer but rarely complain
Witnesses just give factual answer and do not ask questions

02 Unlike ordinary conversation, this talk is

really structured. Interviewees go along
with the situation where they won’t begin
their turn until a questions has been
asked.
 CA AND EDUCATION SETTINGS
01 McHoul (1990) found that a talk in the classroom is same as
ordinary conversation but they prefer do self-repair rather than
other-repair.

02 Some CA researchers (Wong, 1984 & Gardner 1999) have focused

their intention to the evaluation in teaching materials (authenticity
of dialogue).
CA AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING AND SECOND LANGUAGE
TALK
01 First, CA just used monolingual speakers as its data.
CA then see the point where the basic conversation can possibly be done with non-
native speakers.

02 Then, a series of paper from Denmark set out a challenge to SLA, say that there
is no sophistication in the conceptualization of interaction in SLA studies and it
becomes a challenge.
 FUTURE DIRECTIONS
01 For future direction, in Applied linguistics, it will increase studies of second
language talk and learning, classroom language, language in testing and
environment.
 Q&A SESSION

ADDITION QUESTION ANSWER

1. 1.
1. 2. 2.
2.