Upload
lysander-james-anderson
View
235
Download
0
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