Conversation Analysis of an Everyday Interaction

Introduction Conversations occur every single day between millions of people with different backgrounds, conversational styles, and relationships with one another. In each interaction, there are a set of unwritten rules at play, and by studying the obeying or flouting of these rules, it is possible to deduce how formal an exchange is, and what type of relationship the participants are likely to have. This study looks to analyse an everyday conversation and highlight the features which can tell us a bit more about the relationships between the interlocutors.

Research Background Turn-taking is the fundamental process always in play in a conversation between two or more people. A turn is one or more streams of speech bounded by speech of another (Crookes, 1990). Each turn consists of turn constructional units or TCUs, which can be any of the following: a sentence, clause, phrase, or word. At the end of one of these turns, there is potential for a legitimate transition to allow a different speaker to begin talking. These moments are known as transition relevance places or TRPs, and can be indicated by pauses, intonation, nomination or a question. A speaker can make it obvious that they are giving the floor to someone else by way of turn yielding signals, such as gaze or falling intonation, or alternatively, can make it clear that they want to continue speaking through turn keeping strategies. Here a speaker may pause at a non-transition relevance point (mid-sentence) or utter a filled pause at a TRP to ensure other potential speakers are aware that they intend to continue. At a TRP, the current speaker may either select the next speaker by nomination, the next speaker may self-allocate, or the current speaker may continue (Sacks et al, 1974).

It is not an all-encompassing ideology to think that speech works harmoniously simply because speakers take turns. The content of the utterances between speakers in an interaction must also be co-ordinated in order for the interaction to function as it should. Like Grices maxims, conversation analysis sees an utterance which would be considered to have flouted the maxim of relevance as irrelevant, but more specifically, irrelevant as a response to the immediately preceding contribution (Cameron, 2001). Conversation analysis sees an interaction between interlocutors as being formed by adjacency pairs. An adjacency pair is two utterances produced successively by different speakers, and are related to one another. These pairs can take many different forms, such as question/answer, or request/confirmation. In typical cases, these pairs will come one after the other in a conversation, immediately after the initial utterance has been completed. This is not always the case however, and sometimes other utterances can occur before the initial utterance is responded to and an adjacency pair is formed. Say for instance a question is answered with another question, but the question is relevant, then the question will be answered in order for the initial adjacency pair to be completed afterwards. The spontaneity of casual conversation also sometimes allows side sequences to occur. This is when an interactant has more to say on a subject, so they will add to the conversation on a somewhat related topic before the conversation returns to the ongoing sequence. Speakers may also make a comment about a completely unrelated topic between utterances, which is known as an insertion sequence. This spontaneity of speech can also lead to overlapping. According to West & Zimmerman (1983), an overlap is an instance either at or very near a TRP where simultaneous speech occurs. An overlap is not seen as a hostile act violating the speakers turn, as it may well have been mistaken for a legitimate TRP, and therefore the person who overlapped with the current speaker is likely to merely have mistaken this point in the conversation as a valid opportunity to take the floor. An interruption however is another case entirely. Sacks original work on turn-taking (1974) implies that it is always a mistake and that

standard conversation obeys the one speaker speaks at a time rule. West and Zimmerman (1983) concur, arguing that this is a direct and intentional violation of the speakers turn. Other theorists have argued otherwise, saying that this particular mindset does not account for instances of speakers supporting one another, or another interlocutor raising a valid point to further the conversation. Tannen (1990) proposed the idea of different styles of conversation, namely the high involvement and high considerateness styles respectively. The high involvement style consists of little to no pauses, supportive tags such as hmm, yes and ok, overlapping questions and fast-paced latching to elaborate on a topic. Conversation is not disrupted and interest and rapport are shown. The high considerateness style on the other hand favours longer pauses, is averse to overlaps, and speakers await TRPs. There are no sudden topic shifts apparent in this style.

Methodology To obtain a body of naturally occurring speech I will use the voice memo feature on my phone to record a conversation between four participants in a relaxed and informal setting. Written consent has been obtained, but individuals were asked to take part in the study several days before the recording will be taken, allowing them to relax and not be as aware of their language use during the recording. This is an attempt to mitigate the observers paradox, as proposed by Labov (1972), as if speakers are not aware the recording is taking place they will have no reason to monitor their language use, either lexically or syntactically. The section of the recording being used for this analysis is also several minutes in to the current discussion, which is yet another tactic aimed at capturing the most natural and spontaneous conversation available. Pseudonyms or acronyms will be used whenever someones name is mentioned within the transcript to enable complete anonymity to all those participating, and for the purposes of the transcript and the analysis, speakers will be referred to as speaker 1, 2, 3 and 4. The transcript will be written out using an adapted version of Jeffersons (cited in Lerner, 2004) transcription conventions, which are

explained in the key in the appendices, along with an exhaustive list of the instances of different phenomena. These have been sub-categorized into adjacency pairs, overlaps, interruptions and repairs.

Analysis

Overlapping The text in question is rife with overlaps, happening almost as frequently as utterances. Even in the first line, the last part of the sentence from S2, says either is overlapped by S3 saying its just, before continuing to take over the floor. This sets a precedent which is upheld throughout the conversation, with all four interlocutors overlapping with one another at some point. Certain examples, such as lines 6 and 7, show two speakers trying to answer the same question posed by speaker 1. This is also the case in lines 18 and 19, where both S2 and S4 are trying to give clarity on the topic at hand, and due to the spontaneous nature of the interaction, have attempted to do so at the same time. In lines 42, 43 and 44, an instance of 3 speakers all voicing an utterance simultaneously can be seen. This also happens later in the conversation between speakers 1, 2 and 4 in lines 95-97. S1 offers feedback to the topic at hand in the form of elaboration through personal experience, whilst speakers 2 and 4 both show that they understand and remember the instance speaker 3 is referring to. In line 64, S1 asks the question where from?, misjudging a TRP, as S2 and S3 continue to talk about the previous point in lines 65 and 66 before addressing S1s enquiry.

Interruptions Interruptions are another feature which appears quite frequently throughout the transcript. In line 17, speaker 2 attempts to explain why you dont get a cheaper price if

youre buying four anyway, but by the time S2 gets to saying thats on the ticket, it is overlapped by S4 saying they price them up at the till, so S1 already knows the answer to the question before S2 has completed their utterance, and so interrupts with yeah yeah and cuts speaker 2 short, before changing the topic. In line 56, speaker 3 is trying to recall the events of a past occasion, and asks the rhetorical question what was it? to them self before pausing to think, which S4 mistakes as a TRP and attempts to answer with you had like a whole chicken, to which S3 responds no it wasnt before continuing to try and remember. An interesting example can be seen in lines 78-80, in which S2 finishes an utterance at what could be construed by S1 as a legitimate TRP, so S1 says yeah in agreement with the comment speaker 2 has made before continuing to talk about the subject, when seconds later S2 proceeds to elaborate on their earlier point, saying which is hard to come by these days. As speaker 1 mistakenly self-allocated, upon hearing that S2 was not finished talking, they stopped mid-sentence, and waited for S2 to finish, before continuing with not being able to choose what we wanted.

Repair The spontaneous nature of casual, everyday conversation means that occasionally a speaker will say something unintended, or mid-utterance may discard their original sentence for what they consider to be a better lexical or syntactical choice. Usually this will follow the format of a speaker beginning an utterance, followed by a small pause immediately after the mistake, and then a correction. A clear example of this can be seen in line 7, when speaker 2 says well its do (.) its a bag of doughnuts. Here, the intended utterance is well its a bag of doughnuts, but as the conversation is not scripted or rehearsed, S2 has inadvertently begun with well its do, likely to have been well its doughnuts, instead of the corrected a bag of doughnuts. Speaker 2 repairs again in line 11, when they initially say i only, before pausing and changing to we only, because they realise they are referring to the rest of the group as well as themselves. A standout example of this phenome-

non is line 15, where in response to S1s question, speaker 2 says yeah almost automatically, before realising what speaker 1 was actually asking, and changing their answer to well no (1) no no no. It can be interpreted that the original concurrence was actually feedback, and the yeah was simply showing that S2 was listening and understood, before realising that it could be construed as a response to the question, and then hyper-correcting with several negatives. In line 63, speaker 3 goes to say huge, but halfway through, decides to pause and correct with the intensifier bloody. This particular lexical choice is interesting because we would not expect this from a formal conversation, giving certain implications as to the context of this discussion.

Adjacency Pairs A standard example of an adjacency pair can be seen in lines 5 and 6. A question is asked; what?, to which speaker 4 replies well my doughnut didnt taste like that. Speaker 1 asks a question, and speaker 4 answers it. This is not however the case a couple of lines later, when S2 says actually normally the doughnut bags are white arent they? and gets ignored. This question goes unanswered, as S1 takes the floor and asks oh did you not put them in the bag yourself?, to which S2 and S4 simultaneously respond no. This may be interpreted as rudeness from the other members of the conversation, as speaker 2 has clearly asked a question and none of the other participants have attempted to answer it, but again this may also purely be down to the spontaneous nature of the interaction, or even the relationship of the speakers. A side sequence can be seen in lines 64-67, beginning with speaker 1 asking where from? This question is seemingly ignored by other interactants, as they continue to discuss the previous point, speaker 2 saying with some crusty bread, and S3 saying yeah (1) and we had one each. The reason this part of the conversation continues after speaker 1s question is because S1 misjudged a TRP, as when the question was asked, it overlapped with S2 saying with some, which they then repeated before continuing their

utterance. Once this mishap has been rectified, speaker 2 then addresses the issue of the question asked by speaker 1, and continues with was that from tescos? One more of the many examples of adjacency pairs within the transcript which is particularly worth mentioning is towards the end of the text, from line 123 onwards. What would usually be considered a pair, and therefore has been referred to as such throughout this investigation, at this point takes on a different form. Because there are 4 active participants in this conversation, there is potential for the first part of an adjacency pair to be responded to by more than one interactant. Speaker 1 saying that mushrooms dont taste like mushrooms when theyre raw is a prime example of this. Whilst S1 is still finishing this utterance, S2 has already said they taste completely different, which is then repeated once S1 has finished with they all taste different, at which point S4 also responds with no they dont, agreeing with speaker 1s earlier statement about mushrooms. So here, the initial statement from speaker 1 is the root of two adjacency pairs, one with speaker 2 and another with speaker 4.

Discussion The vast amount of overlaps present, which can be seen exhaustively in the table affixed in the appendices, are a clear indication that this particular conversation is one of a low level of formality. Had the participants of the interaction been unfamiliar with one another, or subject to a particularly dense hierarchy of power relations, the conversation would have been more sparse, and interlocutors would have been more careful to ensure that the previous speaker had finished talking before attempting to take the floor, as to not offend anyone. In this case, all speakers feel free to overlap and even to interrupt as they see fit, which suggests that the participants are very comfortable with one another. Interruptions here are not seen as rude or as some form of attack, but merely an indication of just how familiar interactants are with each other. Even when interrupted, speakers do not

seem offended or even taken aback by these happenings, and more often than not will either continue regardless, or simply stop and allow the other person to speak without refrain. The presence of repairs is again a nod to spontaneity, as speakers have not practiced their utterances and in certain examples, are literally saying what comes into their minds without thinking, and having to self-repair halfway through a sentence. The fact that they feel comfortable doing this shows again that the participants must have a close relationship with one another, as in a situation with a higher level of formality, speakers would ensure they knew clearly what they were going to say before saying it. Interlocutors seem at ease to self-nominate, to partake in side sequences, and at one point mentioned earlier, to even ignore an outright question. This type of behaviour would not be acceptable had the person in question been a stranger, as this would be inferred as rudeness. The frequent use of fillers and repetition which is noted in the aforementioned table in the appendices simply reinforces the sense of spontaneity and low formality. It is reasonable to deduce from this transcript that the participants have adopted what Tannen (1990) referred to as a high involvement style, which again supports the idea that speakers are comfortable around one another.

Conclusion Traditional conversation analysis suggests that investigations should be data-centred, and should be approached with an open mind, not allowing pre-conceived ideas formed by contextual information to inform decisions. Many determinants such as culture, subculture, individual style and predisposition can have an effect on the outcome of an interaction, along with situation, and the hierarchy or relationship between the individual speakers, but a traditional CA approach would have us ignore these entirely. As a style of analysis, Conversation Analysis seems to lend itself better to an interaction with a high

considerateness approach. Casual conversation happens between all kinds of people on a daily basis, with different relationships to one another, and this will have a vast effect on the phenomena seen in the transcript of a conversation and the reasoning behind them. With the sheer amount of low formality markers seen in this instance - overlaps and interruptions alone - it would be reasonable to assume that the conversation which took place had been between a family or set of closely knit friends, but without contextual background which traditional CA does not permit us to disclose, we can only surmise.

References Cameron, D. (2001). Working With Spoken Discourse. Sage: London. Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance, and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11, 189-199. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell. Lerner, G. H. (2004). Conversation Analysis: Studies From The First Generation. John Benjamin: Amsterdam. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organisation of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53, 361-382. Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Dont Understand: Women & Men in Conversation. Harper Collins: London. West, C. and D. H. Zimmerman. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in crosssex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.) Language, gender and society. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Appendices

Overlaps 1/2, 6/7, 10/11, 15/16, 16/17, 30/31, 38/39, 42/43/44, 50/51, 58/59, 61/62, 68/69, 72/73, 79/80, 83/84, 86/87, 89/90, 91/92, 95/96/97, 101/102, 123/125, 126/127

Interruptions 18/19/20, 56/57, 64/65, 78/79/80, 117/118, 123/125

Adjacency Pairs

Repair

5/6, 9/10/11, 14/15, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20, 21, 16/17/19, 22/24, 63 26/27, 43/45, 51/52, 56/57/58/59, 61/62, 64/65/66/67, 74/75, 90/91, 106/107, 109/110/111, 114/115, 121/122, 123/125/127

Transcription Key 1 S1: [] // (.) (1) ? - line number - speaker - overlap - interruption - micropause - timed pause - rising intonation