Unit 10. Discourse analysis Key terms discourse: ‘any reasonably self-contained stretch of spoken or written language that is longer than one sentence’ discourse analysis: ‘the area of linguistics that concerns itself with the study of these multi-utterance acts of communication’ (Hoey, 1991, p. 65). Task: Think of various types of discourse from your everyday life. Can you categorise them in any way? How do you think language teachers could benefit from observing naturally occurring discourse? © 2015 Veljanovszki

Text (discourse) analysis 1: The basics of conversation analysis in EFL Lead-in discussion through practical task: Do natural and classroom conversations follow the same pattern? To find out, in pairs, simulate first a naturally occuring dialogue about some typical trivia (e.g. the weather) and then a classroom dialogue on the same topic. Subsequently, perform both kinds of dialogue to the group. While listening to your peers’ performance, note down any differences in the two types of conversation. Hogyan nem fog ez meghalni az előadáson? Úgy érzem, nem tudjuk tőlük csak egyszerűen azt kérni, hogy szimuláljanak… Ha kivennénk a ‘classroom dialogue’ és a ‘performing to the group’ részeket…? Szerintem a páros rész működik, néhány visszajelzéssel (Szabina) ©2015 Veljanovszki

Text (discourse) analysis 1: The basics of conversation analysis in EFL (cont.) The importance of discourse: a. Based on Hoey’s (1991) model, what practical recommendations could be made for a communicative classroom? b. How would you design a speaking task that helps learners approximate natural conversation? c. What features of spoken interaction should teachers be particularly attentive to while monitoring/providing feedback on classroom dialogues? 3 a. Real-life contexts with as few formulaic expressions, frozen pairs as possible. b. Interactional dialogues (info-gap, opinion-gap, value-gap) rather than transactional ones. c. Elaboration (extended turns), flexibility, thinking ahead in the conversation, ©2015 Veljanovszki

Two major traditions The American Conversation Analists (CA) Sociologists Masses of transcriptions of conversation The British tradition (Birmingham) Linguists Interaction at schools

Conversation Analysis Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974): Turn-taking organisation. Basic unit: turn construction unit (TCU): a.Lexical b.Clausal c.Phrasal d.Sentential Turn allocation at a transition relevance place (TRP)- ranked choices: a. Current speaker selects next speaker b. Next speaker self-selects c. Current speaker continues ©2015 Veljanovszki

Sequence organisation a. Adjacency pairs: 'first pair parts‘ (FPP) + 'second pair parts‘ (SPP) = 'pair type' (Questions-Answers, Offer-Acceptance/Refusal and Compliment-Response) b. Sequence expansion: 1. Pre-expansion: "Mary?"/ "Yes?""Guess what!"/"What?""What are you doing?"/"Nothing" 2. Insert expansion: Customer: I would like a turkey sandwich, please. (FPP base) Server: White or wholegrain? (Insert FPP) Customer: Wholegrain. (Insert SPP) Server: Okay. (SPP base) 3. Post-expansion: ‘sequence closing thirds’ (SCT) ("oh", "I see", "okay”). ©2015 Veljanovszki

Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson’s 14 features of conv. Speaker change recurs. Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time. Overlaps in speech are common, but brief. The vast majority of transitions (from one turn to a next) are with no gap or overlap or with a slight gap or overlap. In interaction for more than two speakers turn order is not fixed, but varies. Turn size varies. Length of conversation is not specified in advance. What parties say is not specified in advance. In interaction for more than two speakers the distribution of turns is not specified in advance. Number of parties can vary. Talk can be continuous or discontinuous. Turn allocation techniques are obviously used. Various ‘turn constructional units’ are employed; e.g., turns can be projectedly ‘one word long’, or they can be sentential in length. Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with errors and violations. In line with the terminology used by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) to identify units in conversational interaction, Tsui (1994) employs the categories ‘act’, ‘move’ and ‘exchange’. ©2015 Dávid and Veljanovszki

Text (discourse) or interaction analysis Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) to identified units in conversational interaction. Tsui (1994) adopted an exploratory approach to describe natural conversation evolving as a result of real-life situations and spontaneity as opposed to solicited role-play utterances. She proposes 3 main units (i.e. ‘acts’ ‘moves’ and ‘exchanges’). In line with the terminology used by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) to identify units in conversational interaction, Tsui (1994) employs the categories ‘act’, Lee (1987): continues the tradition started by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) Lee (1987) used interaction data as illustartions to already existing hypotheses in CA. ©2015 Veljanovszki

Text (discourse) analysis 2: Conversation analysis in empirical contexts (cont.) Initiating acts (e.g. elicitations, requestives, directives, informatives) Responding acts (e.g. positive, negatives, temporisation) Follow-up acts (e.g. endorsements, concessions, acknowledgements). For more details of the taxonomy, see Tsui (1994, pp. 52-61). For the foundations of the model, see Halliday (1984, p. 43). ©2015 Veljanovszki

Native and non-native speakers The main differences between native speaker dialogue and learner dialogue Hoey (1991): a.Natives differentiate between frozen (i.e. ritualised formulas such as greetings and confirmations) and free pairs (containing at least one novel utterance) b.Natives do not always respond as the interlocutor might expect (giving dispreferred responses) c.Natives may not use simple pairs exclusively Written discourse more accessible, easily analysed. Spoken discourse, unless recorded, „flies away”, consequently it is less often analysed. This is a drawback for classroom-based research. ©2015 Veljanovszki

Native and non-native speakers (cont.) d. Natives prefer extended topics involving several exchanges e. Natives aim for greater complexity and flexibility f. Natives may interrupt exchanges to contradict the interlocutor g. Natives have greater freedom in choosing what to do next h. Natives usually communicate real messages ©2015 Veljanovszki

Task 1 From an intermediate-level course book, choose a simulated dialogue task which is intended to give learners the opportunity to practice their conversation skills in everyday situations with realistic communicative goals. Ask two students in the group to act out the dialogue and make an audio-recording of their performance. Play the recording in class and transcribe it. Study the transcript and identify any structural units contained in Tsui’s (1994) taxonomy. Ss look for initiating acts, responding acts and follow-up acts. For subtypes, see slide 94. ©2015 Veljanovszki

Text (discourse) analysis 2: Conversation analysis in empirical contexts (cont.) Task: a.Browsing through an intermediate-level course book, choose a simulated dialogue task which is intended to give learners the opportunity to practice their conversation skills in everyday situations with realistic communicative goals. Ask two students in the group to act out the dialogue and make an audio-recording of their performance. Once the recording is done, play it in class and transcribe it. Student A: Study the transcript and identify any structural units contained in Tsui’s (1994) taxonomy. Student B: Study the transcript and identify any structural units contained in Sacks, Schegloff, Emanuel & Jefferson’s (1974): taxonomy. ©2015 Veljanovszki

Text (discourse) analysis 2: Conversation analysis in empirical contexts (cont.) Repeat the same procedure with similar dialogues from other course books for intermediate learners. Compile an inventory of the structural elements you identify. Do any acts or any of their particular subclasses appear to be under-represented in your sample? Would the ratios be any different in natural conversations? To find out, watch a British soap opera episode on-line (e.g. East-Enders or Coronation Street) and observe the characters’ utterances in comparable dialogues. (You may limit your focus to two or three dialogues.) ©2015 Veljanovszki