In this paper I present two transcripts that I have taken out of a dinner conversation I had with my boyfriend. My objectives are twofold. The first is to analyze the data linguistically with methods that were introduced by conversational analysis, and the second is to interpret the findings from a pragmatic point of view, thus employing an approach that is close to interactional sociolinguistics. Therefore, the approach to discourse analysis by Gee (2005), which he called “D/discourse analysis”, is taken into account. He established the notions “discourse” as “language-in-use”, and “Discourse” with a “big D” that is the “discourse” together with non-linguistic devices in order to perform specific identities and activities. In the beginning of this paper, the terms of conversational analysis will be defined, with a concentration on the definitions given by the classical article “Systematics for the organization of turn-taking” by Sacks, Schleghoff & Jefferson, as well as the more recent and differentiated article by Ford & Thompson. The next part is devoted to the application of the theory to my data. The defined notions of conversational analysis will be applied, while the pragmatic point of view will be taken into consideration for the interpretation. Furthermore, each of the transcripts will be analyzed individually, and the discourses that they feature will be examined. That is for the first transcript the discourse of corrections, and for the second one, the narrative strategies. [...]
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2.1 Definition of Turn-taking
2.2 Speaker changes at non-CTRP, interruption, overlap and simultaneous speech
2.3 Conversational gaps
2.5 Repair mechanism
2.6 Notes on narrative strategies
3. Analysis of the data
3.1 Turn-taking
3.2 First transcript
3.3 Second transcript
4. Summary
5. Literature
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to provide a linguistic and pragmatic analysis of two conversation transcripts recorded during a dinner interaction. The primary objective is to investigate how turn-taking mechanisms, discourse strategies, and the construction of identity and relationship are manifested within a natural, dyadic conversational setting.
- Application of conversational analysis to real-life dialogue data.
- Interpretation of utterances through a pragmatic and sociolinguistic lens.
- Examination of specific discourse types, including grammar correction and narrative strategies.
- Exploration of "Big D" discourse (Gee, 2005) in the context of identity-building.
- Analysis of emotional involvement and relational dynamics in interpersonal communication.
Excerpt from the Book
3.3 Second transcript
The second transcript has more a character of a narrative: there is one party, R, talking overwhelmingly, while the other party for the most of the time only gives backchannels (L.73, 85, 87, 92) or short comments; and the “story-teller” R tells about an occurrence in the past, and therefore uses the past-tense, such as “…I have wrote down in notes…”(L.94), “I like stopped paying attention…”(L.95), “…and I put a reminder on this/ so in the end of the class it popped up” (L.98/99), “…when you weren’t there”(L.100).
The frame of the story is that R had promised to call S the night before, but he did not, whereupon S left him a message on his voicemail, saying that he should call her. The next day, the same day when the transcribed conversation was recorded, R wrote S a message, asking if she is at home. S, however, was at Lake Tuscaloosa, called him after receiving the message, and went later on to R’s house.
The transcript starts with a statement toward the affection R has towards S, and after a long hesitation break (four seconds), R indicates the end of the story that he is going to tell (“you weren’t at home”, L.67). In the beginning each of the both parties has a different concern: S tries to convey that R did not call, and therefore repeats that matter of fact three times (“You only wrote a message”, L.71; “I called you”, L.75; “…but I told you to call me”, L.77), upon which R reacts with not giving importance to that fact (“Maybe you called me”, L.74; “…that’s not the point”, L.78).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the objective of analyzing dinner conversation transcripts through conversational analysis and sociolinguistic discourse theory.
2.1 Definition of Turn-taking: This section defines the fundamental organization of conversation, focusing on Sacks et al.'s turn-taking model and transition-relevant places.
2.2 Speaker changes at non-CTRP, interruption, overlap and simultaneous speech: This chapter explores deviations from standard turn-taking, specifically discussing how interruptions and overlaps occur outside formal transition points.
2.3 Conversational gaps: This section discusses the structural role of silence, distinguishing between hesitation pauses and switching pauses within the flow of talk.
2.5 Repair mechanism: This chapter explains how participants resolve errors or misunderstandings caused by overlapping speech or communication breakdowns.
2.6 Notes on narrative strategies: This section outlines how storytelling functions as a social event and how the narrator manages the floor during past-tense recounts.
3. Analysis of the data: This chapter applies the previously defined theoretical framework to the empirical data collected during the restaurant dinner.
3.1 Turn-taking: This section presents a detailed look at floor-taking and non-floor-taking speaker changes found in the transcripts.
3.2 First transcript: This chapter analyzes the discourse of corrections, focusing on linguistic superiority and the dynamics of identity construction.
3.3 Second transcript: This section examines the narrative strategies used in the second transcript, emphasizing emotional involvement and relationship management.
4. Summary: This concluding chapter synthesizes the findings from the linguistic and pragmatic analysis of the two transcripts.
5. Literature: This chapter provides the full bibliographic references for the cited academic sources.
Keywords
Conversational Analysis, Turn-taking, Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Narrative Strategies, Identity Construction, Interpersonal Communication, Repair Mechanism, Reactive Tokens, Dyadic Conversation, Linguistic Corrections
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the linguistic and pragmatic analysis of dinner conversations to understand how social interaction is organized and how relationships are constructed through talk.
What are the core thematic fields addressed in the study?
The core themes include turn-taking systematics, the role of discourse in identity formation, narrative construction, and the pragmatic interpretation of non-linguistic conversational devices.
What is the main research question of the work?
The research explores how conversational theory and "Big D" discourse analysis can explain the dynamics of interpersonal communication and identity-building in a real-life, informal setting.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses classical conversational analysis—specifically the work of Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson—combined with Ford and Thompson’s model of transition-relevant places and Gee’s approach to discourse analysis.
What topics are covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body covers the theoretical definition of turn-taking, the analysis of specific speaker behaviors like interruptions and overlaps, and a detailed examination of two transcripts featuring correction and narrative discourses.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include Conversational Analysis, Turn-taking, Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Identity Construction, and Interpersonal Communication.
How does the author define the difference between "discourse" and "Discourse" (Big D)?
Drawing on Gee (2005), the author defines "discourse" as language-in-use, whereas "Discourse" with a big D refers to language combined with non-linguistic tools used to perform specific identities and social activities.
What role do "reactive tokens" play in the analyzed conversations?
Reactive tokens (like "yeah" or "oh") serve as non-floor-taking turns that indicate backchanneling or emotional response without the participant necessarily attempting to take control of the conversation floor.
How do the two transcripts differ in their conversational character?
The first transcript is characterized by a discourse of correction regarding grammar and academic identity, whereas the second transcript functions primarily as a narrative where one speaker recounts a past event to express emotional disappointment and intimacy.
- Quote paper
- Steffi Kny (Author), 2006, Linguistic and discourse analysis of a dinner-conversation, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/68419
