Speaking When You’re Spoken To

Author(s):  
Oliver Morgan

This chapter is concerned with what Harvey Sacks has called ‘the speaker sequencing problem’—how a group of people (or fictional characters) is able to decide which of them should speak next. It examines the model of speaker-sequencing now standard in conversation analysis and asks what this model has to offer for the student of dialogue. For literary critical purposes, it concludes, we will need a radically simplified approach. Happily, this is not difficult to achieve. We need only make a single, very reasonable, assumption—that the basic rule which underpins all conversational sequencing is ‘speak when you’re spoken to’. The implications of this assumption for the analysis dramatic dialogue are explored in Chapter 2.

لارك ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (32) ◽  
pp. 21-34
Author(s):  
Mohammed Abed Saleh Albadri ◽  
Salah Hadi Shuker

From a sociolinguistic perspective, greetings and farewells are part of what Goffman (1963) calls the ethnography of encounter. These encounters are not randomly made. They are governed by a set of strategies which enable participants to enter and exit conversations in a socially accepted manner. Such strategies are tackled within the scope of conversation analysis, henceforth CA, which is an approach that studies talk in interaction. It grew out of the ethnomethodological tradition in sociology, embracing both verbal and non-verbal conduct. This approach is initiated during the late 1950s of the last century by the works of Harold Garfinkel and Erving Goffman, then, developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the sociologists Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Today CA is an established method used in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology. This study is going to detect entry and exit strategies in English and Arabic by analyzing two episodes of ‘The Doctors’ show in its American and Arabic versions. The study conveys this topic on two interrelated scales as it employs sociolinguistic and discourse perspectives altogether, discussing how the two approaches cooperate to give a comprehensible view of the nature of entering and exiting conversation. Meanwhile, the data to be analyzed does not convey an ordinary type of conversation but a special kind of conversation, that is called institutional talk. This involves some specialization and re-specification of the interactional relevance. It refers to conversations that take place under focused and specialized conditions like media, courts, educational institutions and health establishments (Gumperz, 2001: 218). For the most of our knowledge, such type of conversation is not expected to show everything about talk in interaction, yet, it shows a big deal of conformity to the premises of conversation analysis, and it appears to have a good amount of flexibility.


2000 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 590-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas W. Maynard

In his Introduction to Volume I of Sacks's Lectures on conversation (1992), Emmanuel Schegloff observes (1992:lviii) that his own effort at overview was “truly daunting,” mostly because of “the extraordinary richness and multi-facetedness of Sacks's corpus … In its variety, depth, and freshness of vision it defies domestication into convenient guidelines to a reader.” Such a statement – indeed, any reading of the two-volume set of Lectures – should give pause to someone attempting a textbook rendering of Sacks and his work. But such a text is precisely what Silverman has produced, and the effort is remarkably successful on its own terms.


Paragrana ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 202-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. Buchholz

AbstractAs shown in my text in Part I of this volume, the Boston theory, Goffman, and some parts of mentalization theory all address the phenomenon of special “moments”. These theories value the role of conversation very differently. Goffman’s theory comprises most; conversation is what makes “moments” possible but “moments” are not the goal of every “talk-in-interaction”. More specified conditions of “moments” will be described with the goal to apply them to a transcribed interviewed with a Holocaust survivor. Conversation analysis in the future will have to develop concepts for what has been termed “noticeable absence” (Harvey Sacks). After analysis of what is said and (interactively) done, there remains the question how to deal with what is silenced.


2020 ◽  
pp. 235-262
Author(s):  
Salvatore Attardo

As the title indicates this is the first part of the discussion of humor in conversation. The focus is on Conversation Analysis (CA). The chapter starts with a discussion of CA methodology, which is quite different from that used in previous chapters, and then focuses on the analysis of laughter in conversation and on the definition of laughable. The foundational analysis of a canned joke telling by Harvey Sacks is presented and several issues related to CA analyses of humor are discussed, including that humor and laughter are not an adjacency pair, the non-humorous laughter is common, and that humor is not often a test of understanding and that the tellability of humor does not only come from its being funny, but may come also from its being a shared experience.


Author(s):  
Jan P. de Ruiter

In their informal verbal exchanges people tend to follow the ‘one speaker at the time’ rule posited by Emanuel Schegloff. The use of the term ‘turn-taking’ to describe the process in which this rule operates in human conversation is relatively recent. Especially since the famous 1974 paper by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, & Gail Jefferson in the journal Language, which marks the birth of the sociological discipline now called Conversation Analysis (CA), turn-taking in conversation has attracted attention from a variety of disciplines. This chapter briefly summarizes the main theoretical approaches and controversies regarding turn-taking, followed by some reflections on different ways it can be studied experimentally.


2000 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-419
Author(s):  
Andrew L. Roth

In 1964 the late Harvey Sacks began to present his now-famous lectures on conversation at UCLA (Sacks 1992, vol. 1). By the decade's end, as he continued his lectures at UC Irvine (Sacks 1992, vol. 2), the first published instance of the work that had come to be known as Conversation Analysis (Schegloff 1968) introduced this developing perspective to a broader public. In the early 1970s Sacks and Schegloff, along with their colleague Gail Jefferson, pursued their research on the organization of talk-in-interaction and published a number of articles that remain foundational (e.g. Schegloff & Sacks 1973, Sacks et al. 1974).


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 4573-4585
Author(s):  
Hanifah Nur Zulkifly ◽  
Nizaita Omar ◽  
Zulkifly Muda ◽  
Nabilah [email protected] ◽  
Farah Diana Mohmad Zali ◽  
...  

In this study, classroom discourse is chosen as the subject to be analysed in terms of the basic structures of conversation analysis (CA) which are turn-taking organisation, sequence organisation, repair and action formation, as developed principally by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. As a form of educational talk, classroom interaction should be scrutinised not only in a conversational perspective, but also from an institutional view. Many controversies and debates regarding this particular discourse are present from the conversation analytic point of view, indicating that it is indeed an important subject that need extended studies on. This study analyses learner-learner interaction in task-oriented, learner-centred classrooms, instead of traditional classroom interaction, from the conversation analytic perspective. It helps expanding the research on this subject to a new focus, which is modern classroom interaction.


Author(s):  
Paul Seedhouse

The history of the development of ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (CA) may be found in Heritage (1984). The principal originator of CA was Harvey Sacks. His most important idea was that there is “order at all points” in interaction—that talk in interaction is systematically organized, and deeply ordered and methodical. This chapter explains why CA methodology proceeds as it does and why it is a suitable methodology for sociolinguists to use. The applicability of CA to sociolinguistics is limited to the study of naturally occurring spoken interaction. Its perspective on interaction, as social action that is expressed by means of linguistic forms in a developing sequence, is in general very compatible with sociolinguistic approaches. Its current stage of growth is marked by linguistic and cultural diversity, and by multimodality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document