Casual Conversation between Non-Native Speakers - Essay Example

Casual Conversation: Discourse Analysis Introduction: Conversation like any epic poetic performance derives its impact from processes of identification between audience and speaker to similar ends (Tannen, 2005). This would mean therefore that a face-to-face conversation like literature seeks primarily to move an audience by means of an involvement as opposed to expository prose which seeks to convince an audience while maintaining distance between a speaker or writer and listeners or speakers (Tannen, 2005). The various attempts made over the years have focused on an analysis of the style and the essential elements of a conversation particularly that of a casual conversation (Eggins and Slade, 2005). This discussion will focus on the essentials of a casual conversation as an informal discussion between two non native speakers focusing especially on the functions of the conversation linkage words like ‘ahh’, ‘mmhmm’ ‘erm’ and ‘yeah’. These are all the more important in conversations that are characterized by participation from non native interactants given their difficulties with sentence formation. Literature Review: Understanding dynamics of Casual Conversations: The first very basic point that has been presented is that casual conversations are largely non threatening in nature. There is no adversarial quality to the nature of the topic that is chosen and overall the flow of the conversation is smooth non aggressive and non-defensive (Mears, 2009). This would not necessarily mean that the conversation is non-challenging. The idea is that most casual conversations are hinged on a delicate balance. There is also the scope for alternative interpretations and the conversation promotes discussion and dialogue rather than a domination flow of talk from one individual (Settlage and Sutherland, 2007). This would therefore imply that a causal conversation would be made up of many overlapping dialogue scenarios where in there would be more than one person talking at the same time. A casual conversation also has a dash of humor and camaraderie between the ones making the conversation. Yet other studies suggest that casual conversations could be divided into four generic structures (Burns and Coffin, 2001)- 1. narrative- an entertaining story involving the resolution of a crisis 2. anecdote- similar to narrative but crisis is reacted to-amazement 3. exemplum-the incident is told in order to make some kind of moral point and 4. recount-a retelling of facts and factual events usually concluding with an appraisal of the events in question. It has been found that more often than not the story telling genres of casual conversations account for about 43.4 per cent of the casual conversations that occur at the workplace coffee breaks. It must also be remembered that the analyzable generic chunks of language are interspersed with highly interactive sequence of ‘chat’ that as unanalyzable as genres. Finally it would have to be remembered that exchanges in casual conversations ate open ended and do not follow the polite consensus-collaborative model which underpins pragmatic discourse.(Burton, 1978). Burton in fact also note that causal conversation thrives on keeping exchanges open; thus interactants select challenging moves that result in further talk without being threatening or aggressive. It would therefore seem that interactants would not choose supportive statements that would ultimately encourage closure. The discussion would therefore make one assume that the best manner of defining casual conversation would indeed be through the usage of the term inter personal given the fact that they thrive on the interaction that takes place between individuals and become meaningless in individually dominated discussion equations. Grammar and Elements of Casual Conversation: Eggins and Slade (1997) have identified the style and elements of a casual conversation. They suggest that there is a impact of cultural preferences or conventions on the nature and style of a casual conversation. The idea they suggest is a step toward the goal of understanding conversational interactions; they ask questions on what accounts for the impressions made when speakers use specific language devices and the factors that account for mutual understanding in a conversation or the lack of thereof? They then draw on the work done by Tannen stating that she identifies a number of stylistic devices as an indication of alternative strategies in creating rapport relating the stylistic variation to Lakoff’s “Rules of Rapport”. 1. Don’t Impose 2. Give Options 3. Be friendly (camaraderie) The topics that one could identify are topic choice pacing, narrative, strategies and expressive paralinguistic such as pitch and voice quality. This would therefore amount to a conclusion tat a casual conversation takes place not in order to kill time but rather to clarify and extend the interpersonal ties that have brought the interactionists together. Each of the given speaker has a given social role that they need to play. The talk overall is uneven and the best example of this is found in the unevenness of the conversational clauses. Use of yeah as gambit in casual conversations: Casual conversation is also characterized by the presence and usage of gambits. The term gambit is widespread. A gambit has been defined as discourse lubricants or elements which enhance fluency. These are terms that are used to establish, maintain and end contact (Muller, 2001). These are typical in oral interactions and help cement the segments of a talk into a discourse. These can be used in the introduction of semantic frames, signal social context or a person’s state of consciousness, serve an explicitly communications control function or assume any combination of the above mentioned qualities. So at the starting of the conversation assigned here for example, when at the end of 01, A’s first pause in the line of thought that she was verbalizing, 02 (yeah) when uttered by B was a conversational lubricant in the sense that it helped in ensuring that there was a bridge between the 01 and the 03 utterances that were made by A. the pattern was repeated in the in the 04 yes/yeah utterance wherein again, the word was used primarily in order to show that she was attentive and in agreement thereby providing the bridge along with the encouragement required so that A could complete what she had been saying: (Excerpt: 1) 01. A: So I think (..) am I going to pick? (hhhhh) I think they are investigate (..) another learning strategy [about Engli- erm Japanese speaker, and then that people they areworking in 02. B:            [Yeh 03. A: oversea [like Malaysia], Singapore in erm in kind of different English context. [yeh:] 04. B:         [A:::          ]                                                     [Yes ] 05. B: So this: ah also want to observing erm:= There would also be gaps in any given casual conversation. A gap is simply a pause in the flow of talk, sometimes occurring within turns, sometimes between turns. Such silences are a natural part of any interaction and have no particular significance in themselves (Heritage, 1997). Occasionally, though, the talk itself will stop only to be resumed later, in which case the resulting silence is defined as a lapse. Lapses tend to be longer than gaps (although this is not necessarily the case) and can be constructed in various ways. Often there is an obvious topic termination or fading out, followed by a long silence and then by the initiation of a new topic (occasionally by a re-initiation of the same topic). In fact, there are no specific criteria which would allow us to distinguish a gap from a lapse definitively, but a change of topic following a period of silence or an extremely long silence is good guides. The gap need not necessarily express itself in the form of a pause, it could be expressed in terms of the gambit or agreement expressions like ‘ah’, mmhh, and hmm. These give the speaker and the listener time to gather thoughts and take the conversation forward. (Excerpt 2) 13. A: =but erm- but the first part just explains the (.) when they use the language= 14. C: =yeh:= 11. A: =attitude towa- toward (xxx) regularly and then they have the: follow-up interview right?= 12. B: =uhm= 13. A: =and then interview two people and then: they talk about the strategy 14. C: (xxx) like research leads:: (hhh) maybe I think: (I’m not sure) 15. A: The situation I've just mentioned right? Oh they they work there quite in a [long in a]= 16. B:                                                                           [I'm I'm ]= 17. A: =long term At the clause levels the major patterns which enact roles and role relations are those of mood with the associated sub systems of polarity and modality. Mood refers to patterns of clause types, such as interrogative imperative and declarative. These patterns have to do with the presence and configuration of certain negotiable elements of clause structure. Polarity is concerned with whether clause elements are asserted or negated, while modality covers the range of options open to interactants to temper or qualify their contributions. The example given below would demonstrate that not all nominal groups consist of only a single word. While there may be two or more nominal groups in a single clause, there will only be one Subject per clause. The nominal group that is Subject would determine whether the first verbal element would be singular or plural. (Excerpt 3) 26. A: =then erm ¯conditions= 27. B: =yeh but >I I< think maybe the situation you said erm::::: >in in< what in what situation 28.    that this (.) article come come from >I I< mean erm: maybe >there there< existence 29.    some: some opinions on these topics but erm:: based on (.) their erm: int- erm: inter 30.    interview, so (.) the author doing this (.) research [.hhh so: (hhh)] 31. C:                                                 [so, why don't ] you get it= 32. A: =yeh: I don't get it. 33. B: ¯erm: 34. C: The research was carried out and research was carried on that's= 35. B: =oh >I I I< mean I mean this situation means that (.) erm: (....) based on what situation 36.     the author wanted to (.) make (.) this result= 37. A: =>no no no< they just [they may be motivation to do research]= 38. B:                        [just: arrr:::                            ] Conclusion: In conclusion therefore it may be stated that a given casual conversation would have many facets of humor and camaraderie and despite all this the idea would be to arrive at a conclusion based on discussion that is friendly. There is a constant overlap of clauses and the use of gambits is liberal along with oft repeated pauses and linking phrases that binds the conversation together as a whole. References: Tannen D, 2005, Conversational style: analyzing talk among friends, pub, Oxford Books, p193 Mears M, 2009, Leadership Elements: A Guide to Building Trust, pub, iUniverse, p94 Settlage J and Sutherland S A, Teaching science to every child: using culture as a starting point, pub, CRC Press, p151 Burton, D. (1978), Towards an analysis of casual conversation', Nottingham. Linguistic Circular, vol 7, no. 2, pp. 131-64 Burns A and Coffin C, 2001, Analysing English in a global context: a reader, pub, Routledge, p132 Eggins S and Slade D, Analysing casual conversation, pub, 1997, Equinox Publishing, pp61-72 Muller S, 2001, Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse, pub, John Benjamins, pp22-26 Heritage, J. 1997. Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In D. Silverman (ed), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method, Practice, pp.161-82. London: Sage. Read More