ENG111 MTH 9:00-10:30

Chapter 26: Analysing Conversation

Christian M. I.M. Matthiessen and Diana Slade
Reporters: Darish, Beatrix
Moquia, Sharidyll S.

26.1 Introduction

According to Halliday (1984), the magical power of talk derives from the fact that it is, in every
instance, the manifestation of a systematic resource, a resource which has been built up through acts of
conversation in the first place, and which goes on being modified in each of us as we talk our way through
life. Talking is a fundamental way humans connect and build societies. It's been around since the
beginning and helps us learn together. We talk to create and show who we are, with our families, friends,
and even at work. Because talking is so important, studying conversations helps us understand how
people and societies function. Through talking, we share ideas and experiences, sometimes agreeing and
sometimes disagreeing, but figuring things out together. We even start talking very young, as babies learn
to communicate with their caregivers. Conversation is the most basic way we use language, and by
studying it, we can learn more about how people interact with each other.

● Halliday (1984) highlights the systematic resource inherent in talk, shaped and modified
through conversation.
● Conversation is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, crucial for creating and
maintaining social relations across societies.
● It influences the formation and reflection of social identities and plays a key role in
various societal institutions.
● Sociolinguistics emphasizes the centrality of analyzing conversation to understand the
language-social system relationship.
● In conversation, participants construct shared understandings, negotiate meanings, and
enact social roles.
● Berger and Luckman (1966) emphasize the effectiveness of conversation due to its
spontaneity and informality.
● Early childhood, as highlighted by Halliday (1975, 1984, and 2004) and others, is when
conversation begins and shapes language acquisition and socialization.
● Understanding conversation requires acknowledging its complexity and investigating it
from various angles to gain a comprehensive understanding.
26.2 Types of Conversation
● Technical uses of the term "conversation" may differ from everyday usage, with
researchers in conversation analysis preferring the term "talk-in-interaction" to clarify
their focus (Schegloff, Psathas, Hutchby, Wooffitt, 1988; 1995; 1998).
● "Conversation" in this context refers to dialogic text with relatively low turn-taking
control, contrasting with more formal dialogues (Halliday and Plum, 1983).
● Thornbury and Slade (2006) describe conversation as interactive text with high freedom
in turn allocation, unfolding spontaneously in real time with an interpersonal orientation.
● Conversations vary along a continuum from casual interactions to task-oriented
discussions (Thornbury, Slade, 2006).
● They are primarily concerned with interpersonal relationships and can occur in various
institutional settings, including academic lectures, workplace meetings, and medical
consultations (Thornbury, Slade, 2006).
● Conversation is not limited to spoken language but can also occur in written or signed
forms (Thornbury, Slade, 2006).
● The advent of technology has expanded the channels and mediums through which
conversation takes place, influencing social dynamics (Thornbury, Slade, 2006).
● Conversations can involve varying numbers of participants and cover a wide range of
topics and activities (Thornbury, Slade, Ruhlemann, 2006; 2007).
26.3 Different Approaches to Analysing Conversation

Conversations can be studied from many angles, like language, culture, or even how computers
understand them. For example, it is possible to survey such approaches in disciplinary terms, taking note
of work in linguistics, anthropology, sociology and social psychology, philosophy and artificial
intelligence (AI), human computer interaction (HCI) and natural language processing (NLP). This can be
helpful in identifying relevant work that might otherwise be overlooked simply because of the boundaries
between disciplines.

Conversation analysis: a sociological approach to the analysis of conversation

Conversation analysis (CA) is a way of studying conversations to understand how people make
everyday interactions work. It emerged from a field of sociology that focused on how people use common
sense to understand each other. In Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, it was developed partly as reaction
against the mainstream macro sociology that was current at the time; and CA researchers have been very
careful to work only with categories that emerge from the study of conversation and which interactants
can be shown to orient towards. Sacks also worked in collaboration with Schegloff and Jefferson to
develop this field of sociological enquiry further (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973, Jefferson, Sacks and
Schegloff, 1987; Schegloff, 2006; Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974).

Turn-taking

Sacks (1974) describes how turn-taking works in English. The current speaker can either select
the next speaker by, for example, naming them, looking at them, directing a question to them – or the next
speaker can self-select, with many possible strategies, such as ‘that reminds me of’ or ‘have you heard
what Bron did yesterday’. In trying to explain how it is that speakers keep taking turns, Sacks (1974)
argued that it is because interactants in the conversation recognize points of potential speaker change,
these being indicated by linguistic units which he calls turn constructional units (TCUs). A TCU is the
minimal unit that can constitute one complete turn of talk. For example:

Friend 1: Magquiz daw ta next meeting?

Friend 2: Nag-announce man si sir sa GC,.

In this invented example, each of these turns is a TCU. However, in the following example, there
are two TCU within one speaker turn:

+ A: Let's go to the cinema tonight? We could have dinner beforehand

Here each utterance could constitute a complete turn in its own right so there are two TCUs. The
turn-constructional unit is a central concept in the CA explanation of how it is that in conversation:
(i) only one speaker speaks at a time
(ii) speaker change recurs (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: 700)
Adjacency pairs

Another significant contribution of CA is the concept of the adjacency pair (cf. Taylor and
Cameron, 1987). An adjacency pair is composed of two turns produced by different speakers which are
placed adjacently. Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 239) defined the rules of adjacency pair production as:
Given the recognisable production of a first pair part, at its first possible completion, its speaker should
stop, a next speaker should start, and should produce a second pair part of the same pair type. Adjacency
pairs in simple terms are sequences of moves in an exchange with paired speech functions such as:
question/answer; complaint/denial; compliment/rejection; request/grant; and offer/ accept. As Heritage
(1984: 247) points out, an adjacency pair is a structural organization to which speakers orient, expecting
an appropriate second pair part to follow the first pair part.

A sequence is an adjacency pair and any expansions of that adjacency. There are three types of
expansions – pre-sequences, insertion sequences and post-sequences – where the sequence is the base
adjacency (Adj.) pair and its expansions. For example:

Systemic functional linguistics

In SFL, the focus on conversation is on the way that language is organized to enable conversation
to work and to have the power it does. By contrast, in CA, the focus is on social life and conversation is
seen as a key to that. However, the two approaches are similar in that they are both concerned with
describing the dialectic between language and its social context; both are concerned with describing ways
in which conversation socializes individuals and regulates the social order. These systemic orders and
instantiation SFL has made many contributions to the study of conversation since around 1960,
including the study of intonation and the study of mood (Halliday, 1970b), the study of speech function
and exchange (Halliday, 1984) and the study of tenor relations (Halliday, 1978); but the most important
contribution it has made, and can make, is arguably that it provides us with a comprehensive account of
language in context that we can use as a resource in investigating conversation. The following are the
systems of orders in locating conversation:

1. Hierarchy of systemic orders. A conversation can be simultaneously in physical

activity, biological activity, social activity and semiotic activity (see Halliday and
Matthiessen, 1999; Halliday, 2006; Matthiessen, 2007). Why? In terms of orders of
systems, we can observe and analyse a given conversation as sound waves, in its physical
order of manifestation, as we do in acoustic phonetics.Taking one step up the ordered
typology of systems, one more step up the ordered typology of systems, and a final step
up the ordered typology of systems, we can observe and analyse a given conversation as
exchanges of meanings, in its semiotic order of manifestation. All these orders of
 analyses are relevant to our understanding of conversation, but in the context of
‘sociolinguistics’, we are likely to focus on the relationship between the two ‘immaterial’
orders of the system – the social and semiotic orders.

2. Cline of instantiation. In terms of the cline of instantiation, a given conversation in its

context of situation unfolds as an instance. We may investigate this conversation purely
as an instance, without trying to relate it to any more general patterns further towards the
potential pole of the cline of instantiation. However, for most purposes in
sociolinguistics, we would analyse the conversation by relating it to a description of the
system that lies behind it.

The article also provide an overview of the system of language in context by intersecting two
‘semiotic dimensions’, the hierarchy of stratification and the spectrum of metafunctions, as shown in
Table 26.1. This overview identifies systems such as SPEECH FUNCTION that are likely to be important
in the analysis of conversation.

1. Hierarchy of stratification. In terms of the hierarchy of stratification, conversation unfolds in

context as patterns of meaning (semantics), wordings (lexicogrammar) and sounding
(phonology). A stratally-comprehensive analysis of conversation thus involves contextual,
semantic, lexicogrammatical and phonological analysis (cf. Halliday, 1984; Matthiessen et al.,
2005):
1. Context- Involves understanding the contextual parameters of a conversation, including the field,
tenor, and mode, and how they reflect the situation type or genre.
2. Semantics- Focuses on tracking the meanings generated during conversation and relating them
to the language's meaning potential, analyzing both whole conversations and local elements of
meaning.
3. Lexicogrammar- Involves analyzing the linguistic structures and patterns used in conversation,
ranging from clauses to morphemes, and detecting cohesion beyond the domain of grammatical
units.
4. Phonology- Concerns the analysis of the soundings that realize the linguistic content in
conversation, from tone groups to phonemes, with a focus on higher-ranking aspects such as
intonation and rhythm.

2. Spectrum of metafunction. The spectrum of metafunction is the organization of language,

according to the functions it has evolved to serve, into three simultaneous strands of meaning (see
e.g. Halliday, 1978):

1. Ideational Metafunction- Focuses on the activities and topics discussed in conversation, along
with transitions and closure, to understand the shared world view constructed by interactants.
 2. Interpersonal Metafunction- Involves examining role relations, expressed attitudes, humor,
turn-taking negotiations, and appraisals within conversation, analyzed through mood, speech
function, exchange, and appraisal.

3. Textual Metafunction- Concerns the ways interactants manage the flow of information
through cohesion, salience, and foregrounding, guiding each other's processes of analysis and
interpretation.

● Conversational analysis can focus on either contextual or linguistic systems, with

linguistic analysis examining semantics, lexicogrammar, and phonology in terms of their
ideational, interpersonal, or textual systems.

24.4 ANALYTICAL TOOLS

● Context: genre (situation type) Any conversation operates in a context of communication – a
context of situation; thus, we can the conversation ‘from above’, exploring it in terms of the
contextual parameters of field, tenor and mode and in terms of the contextual structure
they jointly determine.
● Semantics: moves and exchanges Semantics is the highest stratum of language; it is the
interface between language and context, and between language and other semiotic
system. It covers the three modes of meaning outlined in the discussion – ideational,
interpersonal and textual meanings. In the interactive development of conversation, each
utterance serves as a moveIn a move, by selecting a speech function from the system of SPEECH
FUNCTION, the speaker takes on a speech role (e.g. questioner), and assigns a complementary
speech role to the addressee (e.g. answerer). The primary initiating speech functions are
command, statement, offer, and question.
● Lexicogrammar consists of both grammar (grammatical items and structures, including
both ‘syntax’ and ‘morphology’) and lexis (lexical items, or ‘vocabulary’).
● Phonology. Conversation can also be analysed phonologically and phonetically; and a
well-rounded comprehensive analysis of conversation needs to take these levels of
expression into account. Patterns of sounding are analysed in abstract terms, with an
orientation towards patterns of wording: phonology is, as it were, an interface between linguistic
content and the material manifestation.
● Language and other semiotic systems Other semiotic systems may also play an
important role in accompanying language. Conversation must have evolved as
face-to-face conversation, and conversational language must therefore have evolved
together with paralanguage, gestures and other forms of ‘body language’ (cf. Thibault’s
(2004) notion of the signifying body).
 Conclusion
This chapter explored conversation analysis. It argued that analyzing conversations
effectively requires using multiple approaches, not just one. The chapter then explained
different techniques for examining conversation structure, from broad categories (genre) to
specific details (pronunciation). The main point is that understanding conversation requires
looking at it from many angles. While the chapter uses English as an example, ideally
conversation analysis should consider all languages. Studying every language is difficult, but
valuable resources exist for exploring conversation in various languages.

Annotated Bibliography

Abstract: In this paper we use Twitter data to assess customers' early reactions to the launch of two
new products by Apple and Samsung by analyzing the streams generated in a 72 h window around the
two events. We present a methodology based on conversational analysis to extract concept maps from
Twitter streams and use semantic and topological metrics to compare the conversations. Our findings
show that there are significant differences in the structural patterns of the two conversations and that
the analysis of these differences can be highly informative about early customers perceptions and value
judgments associated with the competing products.

Title: Extracting and evaluating conversational patterns in social media: A socio-semantic

analysis of customers’ reactions to the launch of new products using Twitter streams
Authors:Terry S. H. Au-Yeung and Richard Fitzgerald
Copyright year: 13 May 2015
Statement of the Problem: Compare conversations generated by products characterized by different
degrees of novelty and expected market success.
Methods: (1) Selection of a triggering event.
(2) Data collection.
(3) Pre-processing.
(4) Concept map extraction from the conversation.
(5) Analysis of the map.
Data analysis: The method to extract data from online conversations depends on the type of source. In
the case of Twitter, there are two options: “stream” – tapping to the Twitter main pipeline and getting
the real time traffic- and “search” – downloading both older tweets (up to a few days) and more recent
ones on a given subject and eventually in a given geographical location.
Findings: Findings show that there are significant differences in the structural patterns of the two
conversations and that the analysis of these differences can be highly informative about early customers
perceptions and value judgments associated with the competing products.

Recommendation:
Source: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt
Abstract: The conversational analysis and gender difference is a fundamental area of research in
sociolinguistics dealing with gendered difference of language, identity, diversity of relations, patterns and
practices (Lakoff 1975, 2004, Spender 1980, Freeman & McElhinny 1996, Coats 2004). The present
research examined the gender differences with reference to turn taking phenomena in more detail. The
aim of the research is to provide empirical evidence regarding gender difference stereotypes; to what
extent these stereotypes and assumptions are accurate. According to Victoria De Francisco (1977; Coats
1998: 120-121) females have more curiosity to take turns in conversation while men stick to their own
point, remain silent, and rejected the offer of turn taking. This supports the assumption that women are
more talkative then men. However, resent research opposed this assumption that women are more
talkative (Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramírez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. 2007). Different
models have been used in turn-taking including homogenous and heterogeneous conversation, some
researchers appreciated these models and few of them criticized these models regarding their
methodology. The present study analyzed turn taking in three types of conversational models: male to
male conversation, female to female conversation and in cross-sex conversation, and further compared
the difference in radio, TV and casual conversational models. Results indicate that women are more likely
to take turns in conversation which supports the proposal that women’s greater turn taking rates can be
attributed to interpersonal sensitivity rather than lack of assertiveness (Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D.
2011).

Title: Conversational Analysis of Turn taking Behavior and Gender Differences in Multimodal
Conversation

SOP: which one of the both genders is dominant in the conversation and which one influence more in
conversation

Methods: The data was collected from 3 radio programs , The Mani Show (3 episodes, 20 minutes each),
Jagtee Subha (3 episodes, 20 minutes each) and Live @101(3 episodes, 20 minutes each).

Data Analysis:This study investigated turn-taking in conversations between males and females. The
researchers analyzed conversations from TV shows, radio programs, and casual discussions among
university students.
Findings: Results indicate that women are more likely to take turns in conversation which supports the
proposal that women’s greater turn taking rates can be attributed to interpersonal sensitivity rather than
lack of assertiveness (Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D. 2011). The findings are in line with the assertions of
Victoria De Francisco (1998). De Francisco, V. (1977; Coats 1998: 120-121) observed turn taking
violations and non cooperative speech by analysing the daily conversation of seven couples. Victoria De
Francisco found that females have more curiosity to take turn in conversation while men stick to their
own point, remain silent, and rejected the offer of turn taking. This supports the assumption that women
are more talkative then men.