CA vs.

DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
1
Conversation Analysis
vs.
Discourse Analysis
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
2
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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
3
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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
4
II.1 What is conversation?
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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
5
II.1 What is conversation?

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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
6
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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
7
II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
8
II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
9
II.2 Conversation Analysis (CA)

+ procedures employed have proved themselves capable of
yielding by far the most substantial insight that can be gained
into the organization of conversation


CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
10
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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
11
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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
12
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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
13
II.2. Previewing TRPs
Why are we often able to predict the end of somebodys speech?

Adjacency Pairs
changes of speed delivery
intonation
word-choice patterns
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
14
II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
15
II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs

Adjacency Pairs are characterized by their type, e.g.
greeting-greeting
question-answer,
complaint-acceptance/denial,
invitation-acceptance/denial
offer-acceptance/rejection
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
16
II.2.3 Adjacency Pairs: Examples
Complaint/denial
Ken : Hey yuh took my chair by the way an I dont think that
was very nice
Al: I didnt take yer chair, its my chair.

Compliment/rejection
A: Im glad I have you for a friend.
B: Thats because you dont have any others.


CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
17
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?


CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
18
Example for
an original
transcript
with the
system used
in CA
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
19
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)
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
20
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)
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
21
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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
22
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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
23
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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
24
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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
25
III. 3 Explanation of the System

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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
26
III. 3 Explanation of the System

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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
27
III. 3 Explanation of the System

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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
28
III. 3 Explanation of the System

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

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
29
III. 3 Explanation of the System

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
30
III. 3 Explanation of the System

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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
31
III. 3 Explanation of the System

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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
32
III. 3 Explanation of the System

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
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
33
III. 3 Explanation of the System

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
34
III. 3 Explanation of the System



CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
35
III. 3 Explanation of the System


Tactics

CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
36
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
37
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
38
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
39
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
40
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
41
III. 3 Explanation of the System
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
42
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
43
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
44
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
45
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
46
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
47
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
48
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
49
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
50
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
51
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
52
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
53
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
54
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
55
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
56
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
57
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
58
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
59
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
60
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
61
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
62
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
63
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
64
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
65
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
66
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
67
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
68
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
69
III. 4 The structure and classes of moves
CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
70
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


CA vs. DA
04.12.2006
Sindy Kermer
Melanie Mller
71
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