Interactional Analysis of Language, Communication and Social Interaction - Research Proposal Example

Running Head: Interactional analysis Name Lecturer Date Introduction Conversation is a form of archetypal language by which people ensure social interactions. Sidnell (2010) points out that conversation manifest individuals` sense of the general social order and a social activity that must involve a minimum of two people. Moreover, it acts as the pre-dominant type of interactional discourse that involves participants who freely alternate to speak by taking turns. When analyzing a conversation the approach used must identify the most appropriate and main features contained in conversation under investigation. As Liddicoat (2007), observes, what matters in analyzing a conversation is the main concept behind the specific terminology. In this case, whilst taking turns is engaged for any conversation to proceed, it also involves highly coordinated and collaborative activities. In general, conversation analysis attempts to demonstrate the logic and rationality underlining human practice, as well as how language plays a significant role in organizing of talk. When analyzing a conversation it exhibits a broad range of linguistic strategies, styles and nuances. This paper explores a significant area of focus in any conversation- turn taking. In this discussion turn-taking is taken from a theoretical point of view and then analyzed from a concrete excerpt. Literature review Turn taking is basically referred to as a cyclical process (Jones, 2009), with one participant speaking and later gives the control to the next person, who when finishes gives conversational floor to another speaker, thus creating a cycle (Sidnell, 2010). Turn taking involves two central aspects namely; frequency and control of contribution (Schegloff, 2000). Frequency component depicts the quantity of turn taking employed within a conversation. For instance, a conversation involving two participant has a high frequency compared to one with more than two people. As regard to control of contribution, it is the extent of control that an individual has in regard to what and the much to say (Jones, 2009; Schegloff, 2000). According to Goffman (2005); Liddicoat (2007), a conversation only proceeds by means of turn taking. Conversations are collaborative events, highly coordinated, and generally do not have more than one individual speaking at a time but on the basis of turn by turn. Conversation is therefore managed through a turn-by-turn basis by use of adjacency pair (Lerner, 2004; Sidnell, 2010). In this case, the roles of speaker and listener are continually alternated. This means that a participant takes a turn to talk at one time and while the other person is speaking, they act the role of a listener. In other words, turn taking involves being a listener and a speaker in the same conversation but at different times (Lerner, 2004). Liddicoat (2007) asserts that turn taking varies through gender, cross-culture and technology. Culture plays a vital role in a conversation whereby by it may make it succeed or fail. It is argued that when participants from of different cultural aspects engage in taking a conversation, it’s very likely to have miscommunication and confusion (Goffman, 2005; Lerner, 2004; Liddicoat (2007). Considering gender, turn taking strategies employed by men and women differ, whether in mixed or same gender conversations. Technology on the hand helps multi tasking in turn taking. Turn taking does not only happen in oral communication but also via live chats and other technological programs. For instance, a participant can be typing one message as they await another from a different person (Goffman, 2005). Basically, turn taking in a conversation constitutes various aspects of conversation such as high coordination, promotes collaborative achievement and each person talks at time. In other words, turn taking ensures a highly coordinated conversation. Stivers et al. (2009); Sidnell (2010), points out that when one person stops talking the other one takes over which is preceded by little overlap as well as an extremely short pause in between turns. Schegloff (2000) expresses the same opinion regarding the inter-turn gap by terming it imperceptible such that it is extremely short to only be measured in microseconds. Turn taking helps in ensuring a conversation is collaboratively achieved (Goffman, 2005). Every conversation needs active participation of a minimum of two attentive persons, who perform intentional acts that are designed to cause considerable effects to the other. This implies the role of turn taking in creating collaboration, which is in turn, is used in ensuring a rational and cohesive conversation (Goffman, 2005; Lerner, 2004). Interactional Analysis Report In the given conversation, there are many instances of turn-taking that are evident throughout the conversation. It is evident from how the conversation begins. 2. L: s:o what are you doin? 3. (1.2) 4. H: I don’t know (McLeod, 2010). From the above conversation when Lara speaks the question is directly directed to Helen who immediately responds. From the response, it automatically comes back to Lara presenting a chance or turn for another question (Mullins, 2012). 6 L: You don’t know? (McLeod, 2010). This question is automatically suggested by the answer that Helen gives. Helen is slow to respond, she just clears her throat. Before answering the question, another person David comes into the discussion breaking the chain when he asks. 9. D: So wha.t happened?(McLeod, 2010). From the progress of the conversation, two basic features of turn-taking are manifested. The first one is the local management of the conversation where it is begun by an individual. The second one is the administration by parties meaning that the course of the conversation is determined by next speakers (Sidnell, 2010). During the conversation, there can be turn allocation or self-selecting. Self-selecting involves a participant (David) involving in the next turn when it wasn’t directed to him/her. This is the contrary of turn allocation where a person is selected to enter the conversation (Helen). In that case, the chain of turn-taking is broken by David when he overlaps before Helen can answer. Another example self-selecting is at the end of the conversation: 227 H: But [then I’:m just thinking should I] go and talk = 228 D: [ because that way she ha:s ] 229 H: =to her tomorrow as we:ll. (McLeod, 2010). David again breaks the chain when he speaks to before Helen can finish her sentence. It makes the conversation a little irrelevant because he does not connect with the last part of Helens sentence. Announcement of trouble is evident in the conversation where, Helen, when asked about what happened responds, “a lot of stuff”. This in itself is an indication of trouble. “A lot of stuff” means it is not something easy to be spoken right away. 8 H: ((clears throat)) 9 D: s:o what happened? 10 (1.3) 11 H: ◦a lot of stuff◦ 12 (0.5) 13 M: sounds like she’s being a righ:t- (McLeod, 2010) In a trouble-teller determines how the advice will be taken by a person. From the progress of the conversation, it takes a good deal of time for Helen to explain fully what happened and also taking the advice to move out. In the conversation, there also other important elements of turn-taking that are displayed. They indicate how the change of speaker occurs during conversations. The first one is turn constructional element and the turn allocation unit (Sidnell, 2010). The turn constructional element consists of turn constructional units or TCU which are dependent on the conversational context. They can be a single word, a phrase, a clause or a whole sentence always sensitive of the context(Goffman, 2005). 11. H: a lot/ of stuff/ (McLeod, 2010) In this case a lot/ is a turn constructional unit, /of stuff/ is another, and even /a lot/ of stuff/ is another turn constructional unit. The turn constructional units can be projected because predictability is made possible as to the completion of the unit. They also allow a participant or participants to know the talk direction and what is required to make them complete. 29 M: but lara heard it too? 30 H: [LAra heard i:t] SHAnnon heard i:t 31 L: [shannon heard it] 32 (.) 33 M: ‘t Sounds to me:: that’s she’s giving you a hard time 34 to get you out before you turn twenty. (McLeod, 2010). Taking the whole of “but Lara heard it too?” It is not phrased in form of a question yet Helen understands and answers. The same can be seen in Mary when she says that “t sounds to me:: that’s she’s giving you a hard time”. “t sounds to me” informs that Mary is going is going to give an opinion. “she is giving you hard time” this is the predictability nature of turn constructional units. These units make it possible to notice the direction so that a participant can know if he/she is going to take a turn or not (McLeod, 2010). Knowing the direction and being able to predict the direction of a conversation is derived from getting what a clause or a word means or where it points. For example; 33 M: ‘t Sounds to me:: that’s she’s giving you a hard time /t sounds to me:/ and /that’s she’s giving you a hard time/ are sub units of a turn constructional unit. (McLeod, 2010) /t sounds to me:/ is a transition-relevance place or simply TRP (Sidnell, 2012). A transition-relevance place is a point where the transfer of speaker is detected even though the speaker does not stop at that point. The following can indicate better what the conversation is all about. 84 L: are you qui:tting? 85 (0.8) 86 H: well that’s what I wanna: do. 87 (1.0) 88 D: just do it he:len 89 H: I kno:w but I don’t want mum and dad to have to support me. hh 90 D: Read More

Basically, turn taking in a conversation constitutes various aspects of conversation such as high coordination, promotes collaborative achievement and each person talks at time. In other words, turn taking ensures a highly coordinated conversation. Stivers et al. (2009); Sidnell (2010), points out that when one person stops talking the other one takes over which is preceded by little overlap as well as an extremely short pause in between turns. Schegloff (2000) expresses the same opinion regarding the inter-turn gap by terming it imperceptible such that it is extremely short to only be measured in microseconds.

Turn taking helps in ensuring a conversation is collaboratively achieved (Goffman, 2005). Every conversation needs active participation of a minimum of two attentive persons, who perform intentional acts that are designed to cause considerable effects to the other. This implies the role of turn taking in creating collaboration, which is in turn, is used in ensuring a rational and cohesive conversation (Goffman, 2005; Lerner, 2004). Interactional Analysis Report In the given conversation, there are many instances of turn-taking that are evident throughout the conversation.

It is evident from how the conversation begins. 2. L: s:o what are you doin? 3. (1.2) 4. H: I don’t know (McLeod, 2010). From the above conversation when Lara speaks the question is directly directed to Helen who immediately responds. From the response, it automatically comes back to Lara presenting a chance or turn for another question (Mullins, 2012). 6 L: You don’t know? (McLeod, 2010). This question is automatically suggested by the answer that Helen gives. Helen is slow to respond, she just clears her throat.

Before answering the question, another person David comes into the discussion breaking the chain when he asks. 9. D: So wha.t happened?(McLeod, 2010). From the progress of the conversation, two basic features of turn-taking are manifested. The first one is the local management of the conversation where it is begun by an individual. The second one is the administration by parties meaning that the course of the conversation is determined by next speakers (Sidnell, 2010). During the conversation, there can be turn allocation or self-selecting.

Self-selecting involves a participant (David) involving in the next turn when it wasn’t directed to him/her. This is the contrary of turn allocation where a person is selected to enter the conversation (Helen). In that case, the chain of turn-taking is broken by David when he overlaps before Helen can answer. Another example self-selecting is at the end of the conversation: 227 H: But [then I’:m just thinking should I] go and talk = 228 D: [ because that way she ha:s ] 229 H: =to her tomorrow as we:ll.

(McLeod, 2010). David again breaks the chain when he speaks to before Helen can finish her sentence. It makes the conversation a little irrelevant because he does not connect with the last part of Helens sentence. Announcement of trouble is evident in the conversation where, Helen, when asked about what happened responds, “a lot of stuff”. This in itself is an indication of trouble. “A lot of stuff” means it is not something easy to be spoken right away. 8 H: ((clears throat)) 9 D: s:o what happened? 10 (1.3) 11 H: ◦a lot of stuff◦ 12 (0.5) 13 M: sounds like she’s being a righ:t- (McLeod, 2010) In a trouble-teller determines how the advice will be taken by a person.

From the progress of the conversation, it takes a good deal of time for Helen to explain fully what happened and also taking the advice to move out. In the conversation, there also other important elements of turn-taking that are displayed. They indicate how the change of speaker occurs during conversations. The first one is turn constructional element and the turn allocation unit (Sidnell, 2010). The turn constructional element consists of turn constructional units or TCU which are dependent on the conversational context.

Read More