CONVERSATION

Abstract

In this unit, we examine two approaches to looking at the structure of discourse. One analyses the
exchange structure or the conventional overall patterns that occur when people are talking. The other is
conversation analysis, studying the way that what speakers say dictates the type of answer expected,
and that speakers take turns when they interact.The scope of this written report will be the
understanding of Exchange structurse and IRF. Such as Exchange structure is an approach taken by
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) and the Birmingham School of discourse analysis. The structure is structure
into teacher initiation, students response, and teacher follow-up which is abreviated into IRF. The
Conversational Analysis look at discourse as predetermined sequence;common structures to be defined
such as,turn-taking,adjacency,and sequence.The interactional sociolinguistics takes into account the
pragmatic and sociolinguistics aspects of interaction, as well as adjacency pairs, turn-taking and
sequences, giving importance to the way that language is situated in particular circumstances in social
life.

CONVERSATION

Understanding concepts

* exchange moves and IRF

* conversation analvsis

* interactional sociolinguistics

In this unit, we examine two approaches to looking at the structure of discourse. One analyses the
exchange structure or the conventional overall patterns that occur when people are talking. The other is
conversation analysis, studying the way that what speakers say dictates the type of answer expected,
and that speakers take turns when they interact. The two approaches are radically ditterent in that
exchange structure starts with a model and sees how real data fits it, whereas conversation analysis
starts by observing real data and describes what patterns emerge.

Exchange structure is an approach taken by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975 )and the Birmingham
school of discourse analysis. In this approach there is an unequal power balance. The teacher does all
the asking and the student does all the answering,and it is the teacher who expresses the
directive,ordering and the commissive, expressing intention. according to the Birmingham School the
lesson can be broken down into five levels of structure, or ranks such as the "act" is the lowest rank.
Sinclair and Coulthard's acts are more general and they are define by there interactive function. It covers
the messiness of spoken discourse such as fillers and blackchannels. Their category include for example
the marker and the acknowledge which is also called blackchannels.More importantantly, their category
also include acts such as "Cue".

Sinclair and Coulthard's said that these acts tend to be carried out in a fixed order of "moves" such as
"initiation from the teacher, response from the student, and follow-up which the teacher comment on
the student's answer. The three move is being abbreviated to "IRF".

Limitations of IRF

The IRF model has certain limitations as a model of classroom transactions. It does not
accommodate easily to the real life pressure and unruliness of the classroom. It also reflects the
traditional teacher-centered classroom. IRF approach is also described as rarely used today. It was
explicitly restricted to classroom discourse and there have been adaptation of framework according to
Sternstorm 1994.

CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS

The exchange structure approach looked at discourse as a predetermined sequence. It started with
the theory of a patterning of units, and showed how what people say fits the model, thus viewing
conversation as a product. Conversation analysis (CA),on the other hand, takes a 'bottom-up' approach:
starting with the conversation itself, it lets the data dictate its own structure. CA looks at conversation as
a linear ongoing event, that unfolds little by little and implies the negotiation of cooperation between
speakers along the way, thus viewing conversation as a process. CA differs too, in its methodology, from
discourse analysis. Whereas discourse analysis takes the concepts and terms of linguistics and then
examines their role in real data, conversation analysis takes real data and then examines the language
and demonstrates that conversation is systematically structured. Unlike exchange structure, both CA
and discourse analysis are approaches that have evolved over the last decades and are very much alive
today.

Many linguists would contend Cook's property of 'not primarily necessitated by a practical task', and
say that most of what we say is outcome oriented. Even the most casual of conversations have an
interactional function (see Unit D3). Casual conversations in parties can have the practical task of
ascertaining whether future social cohesion is possible and desirable and, for some, whether
establishing an intimate relationship is going to be feasible. Chats between old friends over coffee
canhave the goal of establishing nor