대화적 상호작용 I 대화의 구조 2011 년 2 학기 음성언어커뮤니케이션 담당교수 : 홍우평

Intro 대화 conversation 는 … – 명시적 (explicit) 규칙의 지배를 받지 않는 입말 담화 (oral discourse) – 형식적 구조 대신 언어의 사회적 사용에 관련 된 암묵적 관습 (implicit convention) 에 의해 통 제 순서 잡기 taking turns 화제 전환 changing topics

Intro – 대화 환경 (conversational settings) 에 따라 상 이한 방식 / 절차로 진행 친구 사이 낯선 사이 성별의 차이 – 사회적 환경 (social setting) 에 따라 상이한 방 식 / 절차로 진행 기관적 (institutional) 개인적 (personal)

Intro –not simply two monologues side by side or in alternating order but rather a special form of social interaction with its own rules and dynamics → how is conversation organized? 대화의 규칙 (tacit knowledge) –( 예컨대 토론의 규칙 보다는 ) 느슨 – 사회 / 문화적 맥락으로부터 강한 영향을 받음

Intro – 가장 근본적인 규칙 : joint action (Herbert Clark) an ensemble of people acting in coordination with one another (e.g. waltzing, different from the sum of individual actions) –If we jointly follow rules when conversing, what kind of rules are they? Do these rules the same for different people and for different speech situation, or do we see variations?

Intro some of the implicit conversational rules → different types of conversational participants → how different participants may shape the conversational process → different conversational situations (institutional vs. personal)

대화의 구조 conversations vs. other types of discourse –“The language of face-to-face conversation is the basic and primary use of language, all others being best described in terms of their deviation from that base” (Charles Fillmore) –debates 미리 정해진 특정의 주제 발언권, 발언시간에 관련된 미리 정해진 규칙

대화의 구조 –ceremonies (e.g. 시상식을 겸한 저녁 식사 ) 미리 정해진 주제 발언 시간에 대한 제약은 특별히 없음 명확한 발언 순서, 개별 발언자에 대한 형식적 소개 –meetings debate 나 ceremony 보다는 비 형식적 discussion 의 진행을 위한 최소한의 보편 규칙 (e.g. Robert’s rules of Order) 참여인원, 참여자의 기여도 등의 변화폭이 debate 보다 큰 편 한 사람이 주도 (dominate) 하는 것이 보통

대화의 구조 –in the absence of formal rules we have implicit communicative conventions that help organize everyday conversation! –5 types of conventions that are related to conversation opening conversations closing conversations taking turns negotiating topics identifying participants & nonparticipants

대화의 구조 Opening conversations –Theoretically: infinite possibilities –In practice Addressing another person (Hey, Carl) Requesting information (Do you know what time it is? ) Offering information (Are you looking for someone?) Using some form of stereotyped expression (Hello) / topic (Strange weather lately, eh?)

대화의 구조 Closing conversations –To present a preclosing statement we-ell, so-o-o, okay, etc. → yeah, okay / To bring up another topic (e.g. p 225) –Summarizing the content of the conversation –Justifying ending contact at this time I have another meeting –Expressing pleasure about each other –Making reference to the ongoing relationship and planning for future contact (see you later)

대화의 구조 –Wishing each other well (take care) – 표현들 간에 순서 존재 – 표현들의 상호성 (reciprocal) – 대화 참여자들간의 암묵적 협상 과정

대화의 구조 Taking turns –How do speakers avoid “bumping into” one another in the course of conversation? –3 implicit rules (1) 현재 발화자가 다음 발화자를 선택하도록 허용됨 (2) 자기 선택 : 위의 규칙이 적용되지 않는 경우 (3) 현재 발화자가 발화를 계속할 수 있음 ( 의무사항은 아님 ) * 우선 순위 : (1) – (2) – (3)

대화의 구조 –Turn-yielding signals: 6 behavioral cues A drop of pitch A drawl of on the final syllable or final stressed syllable of a final clause The termination of hand gestures The use of stereotyped expressions (you know, something, but uh, etc.) A drop in loudness Completion of a grammatical clause

대화의 구조 –Attempt-suppressing signals The continued use of hand gestures in conjunction with one or more of the turn-yielding cues 화자가 말을 끊고 청자가 아닌 다른 곳을 보는 경우 (vs. 화자가 청자를 보면서 말을 중지한 경우 )

대화의 구조 Negotiating topics of conversation –It is not enough, merely to take turns with others in conversation; there is a strong social convention to “be relevant” –How does one person stick to another’s topic (=be relevant)? Are there rules that determine what is an acceptable response to another’s statement in a conversation? → rules which govern rather than severely restrict our responses

대화의 구조 –While some responses are clearly odd, a wide range of “acceptable” responses to any statement is possible I just bought a new hat. →→ Fred eat hamburgers. (absurd) I just bought a new car. (at least odd) There is supposed to be a recession. (relevant but too polite) My hat is in good shape. (marginally relevant) What color? (reasonable) –Oh, where did you get it? –How much did you pay?

대화의 구조 –Is it possible to identify the entire class of “reasonable” responses? – Topics in conversation can be defined in terms of the intersection of propositions across sentences A: John bought a red car in Baltimore yesterday (Propositions: John bought a car, the car is red, John bought it in Baltimore, John bought it yesterday) B: I think a red car would be ugly

대화의 구조 –Any statement provides multiple opportunities for topic shifts ∽∽ “How did we get from there to here?” – Usually, the paths can be reconstructed! –More on topics and topic shifts in conversations An example of children playing a game Conversational story-telling Layers of conversation

대화의 구조 Identifying participants and nonparticipants –Conversations often take place in a context in which various types of nonparticipants are also present Participants Side participants Overhearers –Bystanders –Eavesdroppers

대화 참여자 A great many attributes of participants would conceivably influence the nature of conversational process –Age, gender, social status, ethnic background, degree of friendship, etc. –Friendship / gender

대화 참여자 Friends and acquaintances –Relatively little work has been undertaken to determine how friendship influences conversational processes –Common ground (Clark) The shared understanding of those involved in the conversation 어떤 지식이 common ground 가 되기 위한 조건 : A must know a given information X, and B must know X, and A must know that B knows, and B knows that A knows, and so on – Both parties are aware that they share the information

대화 참여자 –Cultural values, commonly held beliefs, culturally prescribed rolls, etc. –Other types of common ground – more personal –Friends operate on the basis of implicit assumption more than strangers or acquaintances