Conversational Interaction

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    1/60

    Conversational Interaction

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    2/60

    A conversation requires at least two parties.

    It is not simply two monologues side by side orin alternating order, but rather an interaction

    with its own rules and dynamics.

    The rules of conversation are certainly morerelaxed than those of a debate, and they showpowerful influences of social and culturalcontext.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    3/60

    These rules have been internalized to the pointthat people need not think of them to have aconversation.

    Joint action an action that is carried out by anensemble of people acting in coordination withone another (Clark, 1996; 2002)

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    4/60

    The Structure of Conversation

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    5/60

    The Structure of Conversation

    The language of face-to-face conversation isthe basic and primary use of language.(Fillmore, 1981)

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    6/60

    The Structure of Conversation

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    7/60

    Opening Conversations

    Only one person speaks at a time.

    There are times when two (or more) speakersare talking.

    True points of overlap are most common at turnexchanges.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    8/60

    Opening Conversations

    There is considerable individual variation in thenumber of turns a given speaker will take andthe length of each turn.

    The length of a speakers turn was a stable

    individual characteristic (Jaffe & Feldstein,1970). The pauses between vocalizations duringa speakers turn tended to match the pauses ofother participants in the conversation.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    9/60

    Opening Conversations

    The number of possibilities for openingconversations is infinite, but in practice, peopledo so in a limited number of ways (Schegloff,1972). Addressing another person

    Requesting or offering information

    Using a stereotyped expression or topic

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    10/60

    Closing Conversations

    One way to end a conversation is to present apre-closing statement which signals a readinessto end the conversation (Schegloff & Sacks,1973).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    11/60

    Closing Conversations

    Several ways to end a conversation, according toAlbert and Kessler (1978), are: Summarizing the conversation

    Justifying ending contact at this time

    Expressing pleasure about each other

    Making reference to the ongoing relationship andplanning for future contact

    Wishing each other well

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    12/60

    Closing Conversations

    Use of closing sequences is reciprocal. Theconversationalists are implicitly negotiating anend to the conversation.

    When children are done with a particular

    conversation, they simply walk away (Umiker-Sebeok, 1979).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    13/60

    Taking Turns

    Conversations become more complicated whenmore than two people are present, but they run

    so smoothly in the absence of formal rules.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    14/60

    Taking Turns

    According to Sacks and colleagues (1974), turntaking during conversations operates by three

    implicit rules:1. The current speaker is allowed to select the next

    speaker.

    2. Self-selection: If the first rule is not used, another

    person must speak up.

    3. The current speaker can continue although she/he isnot obligated to do so.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    15/60

    Taking Turns

    This simple set of rules accomplishes a good dealof the organization of conversations. It ensures that most of the conversation takes place

    with one speaker.

    The gaps between speaker to speaker will tend to beshorter.

    It produces an orderly shift from speaker to speaker.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    16/60

    Taking Turns

    Nonverbal behavior between conversationpartners also facilitates an orderly transition

    from one speaker to another.

    Duncan (1972) analyzed the signals given to

    regulate turns in conversation.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    17/60

    Taking Turns

    Turn-yielding signal a display of one or moreof six behavioral cues that appear to indicate a

    willingness to conclude ones turn1. A drop of pitch

    2. A drawl in the final syllable or final stressed syllableof a final clause

    3. The termination of hand gestures

    4. The use of stereotyped expressions

    5. A drop in loudness

    6. Completion of a grammatical clause

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    18/60

    Taking Turns

    At times, we wish to continue speaking but fail tofind the right word or expression.

    Duncan (1972) found that speakers resort to anattempt-suppressing signal, the continued use of

    hand gestures in conjunction with one or moreof the turn-yielding cues.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    19/60

    Taking Turns Cook (1977) found that speakers who were silent

    but looked away from listeners were seldom

    interrupted.

    Although face-to-face encounters enables us toattend to all of these nonverbal behaviors, they

    are not required for a successful conversation.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    20/60

    Taking Turns

    We do not need facial or gestural information toanticipate when a speaker is completing a turn

    (Beattie, Cutler, & Pearson, 1982).

    Duncan (1972) suggests, then we presumably

    only need some of the cues to identify the turncompletion.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    21/60

    Negotiating Topics of Conversation

    Grice (1975) noted, there is a strong socialconvention to be relevant.

    With conversations, the notion of coherencebecomes a more complex process.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    22/60

    Schank (1977) argues that there are, indeed,rules of this kind, governing rather than

    restricting our responses.

    While some responses are clearly odd, a wide

    range of acceptable responses to any statementis possible.

    Negotiating Topic of Conversation

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    23/60

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    24/60

    Negotiating Topics of Discussion

    Because any statement provides multipleopportunities for topic shifts, it can sometimes

    seem that the flow of conversation is hardlygoverned by rules at all.

    A close examination of the transcript of aconversation, for example, would reveal thekinds of connections between topics we havebeen discussing.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    25/60

    Negotiating Topics of Discussion

    Even childrens conversations appear to operateon more than a single level at a time.

    Polanyi (1989) has analyzed conversationalstorytelling and has found that it differs in

    interesting ways from conversational discoursein general.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    26/60

    Negotiating Topics of Discussion

    Clark (1996) talked about layers of conversation

    Layer 1 is the primary layer of conversational

    activity. Layer 2 is built on top of layer 1 and represents a

    different domain or world.

    Conversational participants shift layers duringthe course of conversations, creating variousproblems related to coherence.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    27/60

    Identifying Participants andNonparticipants Clark (1996) pointed out, conversations often

    take place in context in which various types of

    nonparticipants are also present. Participants speaker and addressee

    Side participant present but is indirectly involved

    Overhearers people within earshot

    Bystanders present but do not participate

    Eavesdroppers those who listen in without thespeakers awareness

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    28/60

    Identifying Participants andNonparticipants We resort to a variety strategies when dealing

    with overhearers, including disclosure,

    concealment, and indifference (Clark & Schaefer,1992).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    29/60

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    30/60

    Conversational Participants

    Many attributes of participants couldconceivably influence the nature of the

    conversational processes.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    31/60

    Friends and Acquaintances

    Common ground the shared understanding ofthose involved in the conversation

    For the knowledge to qualify as commonground:

    A must know a given information x, B must know X, and

    A must know that B knows, and B must know that Aknow.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    32/60

    Friends and Acquaintances

    Some of these common ground is culturallybased. Other types of common ground are more

    personal.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    33/60

    Friends and Acquaintances

    Conversation proceeds more smoothly when wealso have the ability to monitor others.

    Friends have a great deal more common groundthan acquaintances, and were found to be more

    likely to use profanity, laugh more often, expressnegative judgment, argue with one another, andmake joint references to themselves (Planalp,1993).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    34/60

    Friends and Acquaintances Friends were also more likely to refer to other

    people and events without explaining who or

    what they were, make reference to pastencounters, talk about habits and plans, and soforth.

    Friends used more implicit openings, talkedabout more topics, asked more questions andused more complex closings.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    35/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Sacks and colleagues (1974) claim that we haveseveral rules for holding conversations.

    These rules minimize the degree of conflictbetween participants.

    Zimmerman and West (1975) examined whetherthese rules hold equally well for conversationsbetween men and women.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    36/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Overlaps periods of simultaneous speech during thelast word of the speakers projected closing

    Interruptions periods of simultaneous speech morethan one word before the speakers projected completionpoint; violations of the speakers turn

    Minimal responses a listeners display of interest in aspeakers topic

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    37/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    96% of the interruptions were by male speakers

    10 out of 11 males interrupted at least once

    Interruptions were less frequent and weresymmetrically distributed in same-sex

    conversations. Many of the responses by male to female topics

    were delayed minimal responses.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    38/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Men deny equal status to women asconversational partners with respect to the

    rights to the full utilization of their turns andsupport for the development of topics.(Zimmerman & West, 1975)

    Children are treated by parents in ways that aresimilar to the ways women are treated by men(West & Zimmerman, 1977).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    39/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Men deny equal status to women asconversational partners with respect to the

    rights to the full utilization of their turns andsupport for the development of topics.(Zimmerman & West, 1975)

    Children are treated by parents in ways that aresimilar to the ways women are treated by men(West & Zimmerman, 1977).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    40/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Womens speech contains more linguisticexpressions of uncertainty than mens speech

    does. (Lakoff, 1975) Tag questions

    Hedges

    Question intonation patters in declarative sentences

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    41/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Women use more questions, attention-gettingdevices, and minimal responses than men.

    (Fishman, 1978)

    Women do the bulk of the interactional work in

    conversations with men.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    42/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    There are no differences in the use of questionsand minimal responses between intimate

    couples (McMullen, Vernon, & Murton, 1995).

    These linguistic differences do not always

    differentiate women and men because couplesdiffer in the ways that they share power.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    43/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    In couples in which one partner had morepower, the more powerful partner interrupted

    more and the less powerful partner used moreminimal responses and tag questions. (Kollock,Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1985).

    Few differences in conversational behaviorexisted between partners in balanced couples.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    44/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    The features ascribed to womens speech onlysometimes appear to be more common in women

    than in men.

    Men and women come to mixed-sex conversationswith different assumptions and expectations

    (Tannen, 1990, 1993).

    Womens language is simply different than menslanguage.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    45/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Holmes (1984) distinguishes between twofunctions of tag questions:

    Modal tags request reassurance or confirmation ofinformation of which the speaker is uncertain

    Affective tags indicate concern for the addressee oran attempt to facilitate conversation

    Women use more tentative language whendiscussing conversational topics are more likelyto influence mens opinions (Carli, 1990).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    46/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    There is a distinction between interruptions thatare dominance related and those that are

    supportive or cooperative.

    It is possible that women use interruptions to

    support the speaker, where as men are morelikely to use them in an attempt to dominate theconversation.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    47/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Another factor that could be important is thespeech context.

    There is some indication that males tend tointerrupt more and talk more in formal tasks

    (James & Clarke, 1993; James & Drakich, 1993).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    48/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    It is possible that increased awareness of theseconversational patterns may change the patterns

    themselves.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    49/60

    Gender Differences in Conversation

    Regarding conversational rules, there appear tobe some areas of difference between men and

    women.

    The study of gender differences enlarges our

    understanding of conversational processes andforces us to rethink and redefine fundamentalconversational concepts.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    50/60

    Conversational Settings

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    51/60

    Personal and Institutional Settings Clark (1996; see also Drew and Heritage, 1992)

    has proposed a distinction between personal and

    institutional settings.

    In personal settings, a free exchange of turns

    takes place among two or more participants.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    52/60

    Personal and Institutional Settings In institutional settings, the participants engage

    in speech exchanges that resemble ordinary

    conversation, but are limited by institutionalrules (Clark, 1996), and one participant isconsidered the authority figure.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    53/60

    Therapeutic Discourse The primary means of achieving therapeutic

    results is through language.

    Three main tasks during therapy: The therapist listens carefully as the client reports

    experiences, issues, and concerns.

    The therapist interprets the clients experiences andsymptoms.

    The therapist collaborates with the client regardingpotential courses of action.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    54/60

    Therapeutic Discourse The therapist does not challenge the clients

    reporting of experiences, for these statements

    provide the raw data for the therapeuticsession.

    It is acceptable, and sometimes useful, for thetherapist to challenge the clients interpretationof another persons experiences.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    55/60

    Therapeutic Discourse Therapists interpret client experiences,

    transforming clients discourse into a problem

    by means of a process of reformulation (Grossen& Apotheloz, 1996).

    Identifying an utterance that is to be reformulated

    Marking or indicating the presence of areformulation

    The actual reformulation

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    56/60

    Therapeutic Discourse Therapists use a number of linguistic techniques

    to encourage clients to look at their problems in

    a new light.

    Therapists make suggestions from time to time

    during the course of therapy. They must besensitive to the fact that this cannot be done in away that is too threatening (Labov & Fanshel,1977).

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    57/60

    Therapeutic Discourse When therapy involves more than two persons,

    managing the conversation can be demanding

    for the therapist.

    A range of responses is available to the therapist. Completely ignoring the intrusion

    Responding to the unsolicited responder but steeringthe conversation back to the intended addressee

    Allowing the unsolicited comment to open up a newconversational topic

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    58/60

    Therapeutic Discourse Therapeutic discourse can fairly be described as

    similar to ordinary conversational speech but

    with some special provisions.

    Although the participants do what otherconversationalists do, they do so in the contextof particular social roles.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    59/60

    Other Forms of Institutional Discourse

    Most institutional settings identify a particularindividual as the authority figure.

    Psychotherapists are authority figures but they arecareful in the ways that they exercise authority.

    Judges are not as timid as therapists.

    Physicians probably occupy an intermediate positionon a continuum on how strictly or loosely institutionalauthority is wielded.

  • 8/12/2019 Conversational Interaction

    60/60

    Other Forms of Institutional Discourse Institutional talk draws on principles of

    conversational behavior that are used in

    everyday speech.

    We see differences related to asymmetries ofpower that are present in institutional speech.

    To speak effectively on institutional settings onemust master rules that are specific to particular