Conversation analysis (C.A), in general, is characterized by a vast diversity of theoretical beliefs, research practices and findings. Sociologists, sociolinguists, social psychologists, anthropologists, discourse analysts, educators, and many others have come to recognize the relevance of conversation for their respective disciplines. Natural conversation has, thus, become a research site for different explorations, not only because social interaction is to a large extent verbal interaction but also because talk exhibits “orderly” features, which upon analysis, turn out not be features of language but features of interaction.
Table of Contents
Introduction
I- The Ethnomethodological origin
II- Conversation analysis: views and tasks
III- The definitional problem.
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this work is to explore the theoretical foundations, methodologies, and conceptual challenges inherent in Conversation Analysis (C.A), specifically focusing on how conversation is structured as an organized social activity rather than mere incidental talk.
- The ethnomethodological roots of conversation analysis.
- Structural mechanisms of interaction, such as turn-taking and sequential organization.
- The distinction between conversational activity and broader definitions of conversation.
- Critical perspectives on conversation as a data-driven, non-intuitive social achievement.
- The challenges of defining conversation within linguistic and sociological discourse.
Excerpt from the Book
II- Conversation analysis: views and tasks
Conversation analysis is the most productive and prolific form of analysis which has been developed with Ethnomethodological concerns in mind. It is primarily interested in tracing and describing “the locally managed structures of conversation” and not “in using interaction as a basis for making claims as to the development of attributes among participants” (Wooton (1981:166). Conversation analysis, for Bilmes (1988:161) aims to provide a model of analysis that is neither statistical nor inter-psychological. Instead, it is structural, done by reference to contextual features, especially sequencing, and to conventional understandings and procedures. It looks for mechanisms that produce and explain behaviour, but for social rather than psychic mechanisms.
Therefore, conversation is characterized by fundamental structural mechanisms of turn-taking (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974, 1978); Duncan (1974, 1985), Sudnow (1972) regulating joint action, by preference organisation (Pomerantz (1984 b), Bilmes( 1988)); by adjacent positioning of turns at talk (Schegloff (1972)); by sequence of silence (Jefferson (1989, Edelsky (1981); by an enormous variety of prosodic and Kinetic features (Labov and Fanshel (1977), Argyle (1983), (1981));and interruptive behaviour (Zimmerman and west (1975), Schegloff (1977,1988)).
These structural mechanisms, however, are not analysts’ categories imposed on the data, but rather categories emerging from the structural details of conversational data. The conversation analyst, then, does not have to worry about imposing his analysis on the conversational data, for conversation, itself, to use Taylor and Cameron’s words, “wears its own inherent analysis on its own sleeve” (see Taylor and Cameron (1987)).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter introduces the diversity of theoretical approaches to conversation and highlights the importance of analyzing talk as a structured, orderly interactional phenomenon.
I- The Ethnomethodological origin: This chapter traces the connection between Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, emphasizing that social knowledge is created through the interactants' own methods of production and interpretation.
II- Conversation analysis: views and tasks: This chapter details the structural mechanisms of conversation—such as turn-taking and sequencing—and explains how C.A operates as a data-driven enterprise that avoids imposing external categories.
III- The definitional problem.: This chapter addresses the ambiguity surrounding the term "conversation" in academic literature, arguing that it should be treated as a technical term for spontaneous social interaction rather than trivial chit-chat.
Keywords
Conversation Analysis, Ethnomethodology, Social Interaction, Turn-taking, Sequential Organization, Intersubjectivity, Discourse Analysis, Structural Mechanisms, Communicative Competence, Pragmatics, Contextual Orientation, Interactional Patterns, Verbal Behaviour, Social Knowledge.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this work?
This work examines Conversation Analysis (C.A) as a specialized field that investigates the orderly, structural nature of everyday verbal interaction.
What are the primary thematic areas?
The main themes include ethnomethodological origins, structural mechanisms like turn-taking, the distinction between conversation and other forms of discourse, and the challenges of defining conversational interaction.
What is the central research question?
The work seeks to uncover how conversation functions as an organized social activity and why it requires a structural, data-driven analytical approach.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The study utilizes an ethnomethodological and structural approach, focusing on "naturally occurring conversations" and analyzing inherent, emergent patterns rather than applying predefined categories.
What is addressed in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical history of C.A, the specific structural devices that participants use to sustain conversation, and a critical analysis of current academic definitions of conversation.
Which keywords characterize this research?
Key terms include Conversation Analysis, Ethnomethodology, Turn-taking, Sequential Organization, and Social Interaction.
Why does the author argue that conversation is an "achievement"?
The author highlights that participants actively perform the work of maintaining conversation through collaborative structural management, making it an ongoing, coordinated accomplishment rather than a static product.
How does Conversation Analysis differ from traditional Speech Act Theory?
Unlike Speech Act Theory, which often relies on intuitions of well-formedness, C.A avoids imposing external norms and instead treats conversation as a data-driven resource where participants' inherent logic is the primary focus.
What is the significance of the "turn-taking" system?
The turn-taking system is presented as the fundamental organizational device that regulates the change of speakers, ensuring interaction remains orderly and collaborative.
Why is there a "definitional problem" regarding conversation?
The term is used ambiguously in existing literature, ranging from trivial chit-chat to complex semiotic exchanges, necessitating its classification as a technical term for spontaneous social interaction.
- Citar trabajo
- Nor-eddine Bourima (Autor), 2016, Conversation Analysis. The Ethnomethodological Origin, Issues and Concerns, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/318971
