Conversation Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis

CA vs.
DA
Conversation Analysis
vs.
Discourse Analysis
Sindy Kermer Mel

04.12.2006 anie Müller 1
CA vs. DA
I. Introduction
II. Conversation Analysis
II.1 What is conversation?
II.2 What is Conversation Analysis?
II.2.1 Turn-Taking
II.2.2 Transition Relevance Places
II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs
II.3 Exercises
III Discourse Analysis
III.1 Origin of the term Discourse
III.2 The System of Analysis
III.3 Explanation of the System
III.4 The structure of classes and moves
IV Bibliography
Sindy Kermer Mel
CA vs. DA
I Introduction
• Conversation Analysis (CA) and Discourse Analysis (DA) both
focus on spoken language
• Problem: spoken language needs to be recorded and
transcribed
• CA and DA come from two different fields:
Sociology and Linguistics
→ approaches to the topic are different
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA

• a way of using language socially, of “doing things with words”
• an interaction of two or more participants
• number of participants and length of contribution to the
conversation can vary
• open-ended, has the potential to develop in any way
 planned occasions for speaking, such as meetings or debates
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
→ ”…there is no such thing as a ‘correct’ conversation.

Conversation is what happens…” (Mey)
• … yet, conversation is not unruled
→ rules people use are more like those people have developed
for other social activities
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

• Harold Garfinkel, 1960s, ethnomethodological/ sociological
approach
• organization of talk-in-interaction
• empirical approach which avoids premature theory
construction
→ methods are inductive- search for recurring patterns
→ gathering data and analysis of data of actual pieces of
language, real-life-conversations
→ data-driven theorizing
Sindy Kermer Mel
CA vs. DA
• CONTRAST TO DA: immediate categorization of restricted

data
• in place of theoretical rules: emphasis on the interactional and
inferential consequences of the choice between alternative
utterances
• CONTRAST TO DA: as little appeal as possible to intuitive
judgments; emphasis on what can actually be found to
occur
Sindy Kermer Mel
CA vs. DA
• avoids analyses based on a single text

→ as many instances as possible of some particular phenomenon
examined across texts
→ discover the systematic properties of the sequential
organization of talk and the ways in which utterances are
designed to manage such sequences
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
+ procedures employed have proved themselves capable of

yielding by far the most substantial insight that can be gained
into the organization of conversation
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
II.2.1 Turn-Taking
• turn: basic unit of conversation
→ may contain many illocutions, is everything a speaker
communicates during a unit of conversation
• turn-taking: basic form of organization for conversation
→ speaker-change occurs
→ mostly, one speaker talks at a time
→ transition from one turn to the next without gap or overlap
→ turn order and size not fixed
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
II.2.1 Turn-Taking
→ length and topic of contribution not specified in advance
→ current speaker may select another speaker or parties may
self-select in starting to
talk
→ transition from one turn to the next without gap or overlap
→ turn order and size not fixed
→ repair mechanisms: deal with turn-taking errors and
violations
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
II.2.2 Transition Relevance Places (TRP)

• transition: a relay of the right to speak to the next speaker
→ mechanisms of selection (self- or other-)
→ TRP can be exploited by the speaker holding the floor…
a) directly, for the purpose of allocating the right to speak to a

next speaker of his/her choice
b) indirectly, by throwing the floor wide open to whoever
→ speaker may just ignore the TRP and continue past
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
II.2. Previewing TRPs

• Why are we often able to predict the end of somebody’s
speech?
→ Adjacency Pairs
→ changes of speed delivery
→ intonation
→ word-choice patterns
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
• discovery that became a starting point for a whole new

approach (similar as speech acts to pragmatics)
• two subsequent utterances constituting a conversational
exchange
• distinction between ‘fist pair part’ and ‘second pair part’
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
• Adjacency Pairs are characterized by their type, e.g.

→ greeting-greeting
→ question-answer,
→ complaint-acceptance/denial,
→ invitation-acceptance/denial
→ offer-acceptance/rejection
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs: Examples

• Complaint/denial
Ken : Hey yuh took my chair by the way an’ I don’t think that
was very nice
Al: I didn’t take yer chair, it’s my chair.
• Compliment/rejection
A: I’m glad I have you for a friend.
B: That’s because you don’t have any others.
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
II.3 Exercises
• Can you find Turns, Transition Relevance Places and

Adjacency Pairs?
A : Are you doing anything tonight?

B: Why are you asking?
A: I thought we might see a movie.
B: Well, no, nothing in particular. What do you want to see?
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Example for
an original
transcript
with the
system used
in CA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
III. Discourse Analysis
• “the analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of

language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the
description of linguistic forms independent from the puposes
or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human
affairs.”
(Brown and Yule 1983)
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
III. Discourse Analysis

• ‘Discourse’ ... refers to language in use, as a process which is
socially situated. However ... we may go on to discuss the
constructive and dynamic role of either spoken or written
discourse in structuring areas of knowledge of the social and
institutional practices which are associated with them. In the
sense, discourse is a means of talking and writing about an
acting upon worlds, a means which both constructs and is
constructed by a set of social practices within these worlds,
and in so doing both repordues and constructs afresh
particular social-discursive practices, constraining or
encouraged by more macro movements in the overarching
social formation. (Candlin 1997)
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
III. 1 Origin of the term Discourse Analysis
• the term discourse analysis first entered general use as the title
of a paper published by Zellig Harris in 1952
• as a new cross-discipline DA began to develop in the late 1960s
and 1970s in most of the humanities and social sciences, more
or less at the same time, and in relation with, other new (inter-
or sub-) disciplines, such as semiotics, psycholinguistics,
sociolinguistics, and pragmatics
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
III. 1 Origin of the term Discourse Analysis
• whereas earlier studies of discourse, for instance in text linguistics,

often focused on the abstract structures of (written) texts, many
contemporary approaches, especially those influenced by the
social sciences, favor a more dynamic study of (spoken, oral) talk-
in-interaction
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
III. 2 The System of Analysis

• to permit readers to gain an over-all impression, the whole
system is first presented at primary delicacy and then given a
much more discursive treatment
• Ranks:
→ Lesson
→ Transaction
→ Exchange (Boundary/Teaching)
→ Move (Opening/Answering/ Follow-up/Framing/Focusing)
→ link between the ranks = classes  realizes an element of

structure
Sindy Kermer Mel
CA vs. DA
III. 3 Explanation of the System

Acts
→ units at the lowest rank of discourse
→ correspond most nearly to the grammatical unit clause
→ Grammar is concerned with the formal properties of an item.
→ Discourse with the functional properties, with what the
speaker is using the item for.
→ four sentence types: declarative, interrogative, imperative,
moodless
 realize 21 discourse acts
Sindy Kermer Mel
CA vs. DA
• Three major acts: probably occur in all forms of spoken

discourse:
→ elicitation, directive, informative = heads of Initiating moves
→ elicitation: is an act the function of which is to request a

linguistic response – linguistic although the response may be a
non-verbal surrogate such as a nod or raised hand
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
→ directive: is an act the function of which is to request a non-

lingustic response is simply an acknowledgement that one is at
the blackboard, writing, listening
→ informative: an act whose function is to pass on ideas, facts,

opinions, information and to which the appropriate response
is simply an acknowledgement that one is listening
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
→ variety arises from the relationship between grammar and

discourse
example:
→ unmarked form of a directive (imperative) ‘Shut the door’
→ many marked versions (interrogative, declarative, moodless)
• can you shut the door

• would you mind shutting the door
• I wonder if I could shut the door
• the door is still open
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
→ situation: includes all relevant factors in the environment,
social conventions, and the shared experience of the

participants
→ tactics: handles the syntagmatic patterns of discourse: the way
in which items precede, follow and are related on each other
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
1. If the clause is interrogative is the addressee also the subject?

2. What actions or activities are physically possible at the time of
utterance?
3. What actions or activities are proscribed at the time of
utterance?
4. What actions or activities have been prescribed at the time of
utterance?
 three rules to predict when a declarative or interrogative will
be realizing something other than a statement or question
Sindy Kermer Mel
CA vs. DA
Rule 1
An interrogative clause is to be interpreted as a command to do
if it fulfils all the following conditions:
 it contains one of the modals can, could, will, would (and
sometimes going to)
 if the subject of the clause is also the addressee
 the predicate describes an action which is physically possible
at the time of the utterance
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
1. can you play the piano, John command

 fulfils the three conditions-assuming:
there is a piano in the room
2. can John play the piano question
 subject and the addressee are not the same person
3. can you swim a length, John question
 because the children are in the classroom, and the activity is
not therefore possible at the time of utterance
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Tactics
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
IV. Bibliography
Crystal,D. (1991)
A Dictioanry of Linguistics and Phonetics
Blakwell
Jaworski, Adam/ Coupland Nikolas (ed.) (1999)

The Discourse Reader
London: Routledge
Kasher, Asa (ed.) (1998)

Pragmatics. Critical Concepts
London: Routledge
Levinson, S. C. (1983)
Pragmatics
Cambridge University Press
Sindy Kermer Mel

CA vs. DA
IV. Bibliography
Mey, J. L. (1993)
Pragmatics. An Introduction
Blackwell
Sacks, H./Schegloff, E.A./Jefferson,G.

A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation
Language, Vol.50, No.4, Part 1. (Dec.1974), pp. 696-735
Sinclair, J.McH./ Coulthard, R.M. (1975):
Towards an Analysis of Discourse
London: Oxford University Press
Sindy Kermer Mel


Conversation Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conversation Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CA vs.

Sindy Kermer Mel

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.1 What is conversation?

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.1 What is conversation?

→ ”…there is no such thing as a ‘correct’ conversation.

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

• CONTRAST TO DA: immediate categorization of restricted

II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

• avoids analyses based on a single text

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

+ procedures employed have proved themselves capable of

Sindy Kermer Mel

Sindy Kermer Mel

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.2.2 Transition Relevance Places (TRP)

→ TRP can be exploited by the speaker holding the floor…

a) directly, for the purpose of allocating the right to speak to a

→ speaker may just ignore the TRP and continue past

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.2. Previewing TRPs

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

• discovery that became a starting point for a whole new

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

• Adjacency Pairs are characterized by their type, e.g.

Sindy Kermer Mel

II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs: Examples

Sindy Kermer Mel

• Can you find Turns, Transition Relevance Places and

A : Are you doing anything tonight?

Sindy Kermer Mel

Sindy Kermer Mel

III. Discourse Analysis

• “the analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of

Sindy Kermer Mel

III. Discourse Analysis

Sindy Kermer Mel

III. 1 Origin of the term Discourse Analysis

Sindy Kermer Mel

III. 1 Origin of the term Discourse Analysis

• whereas earlier studies of discourse, for instance in text linguistics,

Sindy Kermer Mel

III. 2 The System of Analysis

→ Move (Opening/Answering/ Follow-up/Framing/Focusing)

→ link between the ranks = classes  realizes an element of

III. 3 Explanation of the System

III. 3 Explanation of the System

• Three major acts: probably occur in all forms of spoken

→ elicitation: is an act the function of which is to request a

Sindy Kermer Mel

III. 3 Explanation of the System

→ directive: is an act the function of which is to request a non-

→ informative: an act whose function is to pass on ideas, facts,

Sindy Kermer Mel

III. 3 Explanation of the System

→ variety arises from the relationship between grammar and