Conversation analysis examines how people structure and organize everyday talk. It focuses on uncovering the underlying rules and practices speakers use to create meaningful social interactions. This method analyzes naturally occurring conversations to understand how participants manage turn-taking, repair misunderstandings, and accomplish social actions.
Rooted in ethnomethodology, conversation analysis studies talk-in-interaction from the participants' perspective. It explores how people use linguistic and interactional resources like turn-taking and sequencing to achieve their goals. By examining these micro-level details, conversation analysis reveals the complex ways we navigate social interactions.
Fundamentals of conversation analysis
Conversation analysis (CA) is a qualitative research method that examines the structure and organization of everyday talk-in-interaction
CA focuses on how participants in a conversation create and maintain social order through their verbal and non-verbal communication
The goal of CA is to uncover the underlying rules, practices, and procedures that speakers use to engage in meaningful social interaction
Ethnomethodological roots
Top images from around the web for Ethnomethodological roots
Vol 1 No 2 (2018) | International Linguistics Research View original
CA has its roots in ethnomethodology, a sociological approach that studies how people make sense of their everyday activities and social interactions
Ethnomethodology emphasizes the importance of studying social phenomena from the perspective of the participants involved
CA adopts this perspective by analyzing how participants themselves orient to and make sense of the conversation as it unfolds
Focus on talk-in-interaction
CA is primarily concerned with the study of talk-in-interaction, which refers to the verbal and non-verbal communication that occurs in face-to-face conversations
Talk-in-interaction is seen as a fundamental aspect of social life, as it is through conversation that people establish and maintain social relationships, exchange information, and coordinate their actions
CA examines how participants use various linguistic and interactional resources (such as turn-taking, sequencing, and repair) to accomplish social actions and achieve interactional goals
Naturally occurring conversations
CA focuses on the analysis of naturally occurring conversations, as opposed to interviews or experimentally elicited data
Naturally occurring conversations are those that take place in real-life settings, without the influence of researchers or predetermined topics
By studying naturally occurring conversations, CA aims to capture the authentic, moment-by-moment unfolding of social interaction and the ways in which participants themselves orient to and make sense of the conversation
Conversational organization
Conversational organization refers to the various structural features and interactional practices that participants use to manage and coordinate their talk-in-interaction
CA has identified several key aspects of conversational organization, including turn-taking, adjacency pairs, preference organization, and repair mechanisms
These organizational features are seen as fundamental to the orderly and meaningful production of social interaction
Turn-taking system
The turn-taking system refers to the ways in which participants manage the allocation of speaking turns in a conversation
Participants use various techniques to project the end of a turn (syntactic completion, intonation) and to select the next speaker (gaze, address terms)
The turn-taking system is locally managed, with participants continuously monitoring the conversation for opportunities to take a turn or to yield the floor to others
Adjacency pairs
Adjacency pairs are two-part sequences in which the first part (first pair part) sets up an expectation for a particular type of response in the second part (second pair part)
Examples of adjacency pairs include question-answer, greeting-greeting, and request-acceptance/refusal
The production of a first pair part creates a normative obligation for the recipient to produce a relevant second pair part
Adjacency pairs are a key resource for establishing and maintaining intersubjectivity, as they allow participants to display their understanding of the previous turn and to align (or disalign) with the proposed course of action
Preference organization
Preference organization refers to the ways in which participants design their turns to favor certain types of responses over others
Preferred responses (acceptances, agreements) are typically produced without delay and in a straightforward manner, while dispreferred responses (refusals, disagreements) are often delayed, mitigated, or accompanied by explanations
Preference organization is not a psychological concept but rather a structural feature of conversation that reflects the social norms and expectations surrounding particular types of actions
Repair mechanisms
Repair mechanisms are the practices that participants use to address problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding during a conversation
Repair can be initiated by the speaker of the problematic turn (self-initiated repair) or by the recipient (other-initiated repair)
Repair can target various aspects of the turn, including word choice, pronunciation, or meaning
The organization of repair reflects the participants' orientation to maintaining intersubjectivity and resolving potential sources of trouble in the conversation
Sequence organization
Sequence organization refers to the ways in which participants arrange their talk into coherent and meaningful sequences of actions
CA has identified several types of sequences that participants use to manage the overall structure of the conversation and to accomplish specific interactional goals
These sequences include pre-sequences, insertion sequences, side sequences, and closing sequences
Pre-sequences
Pre-sequences are preliminary exchanges that participants use to establish the conditions for a subsequent main action
Examples of pre-sequences include pre-invitations ("Are you free tonight?"), pre-requests ("Can I ask you a favor?"), and pre-announcements ("Guess what happened to me today?")
Pre-sequences allow participants to gauge the likelihood of a favorable response to the main action and to adjust their approach accordingly
Insertion sequences
Insertion sequences are sequences that intervene between the first and second parts of an adjacency pair
Insertion sequences are used to address contingencies or prerequisites related to the main action, such as clarifying a misunderstanding or securing a necessary piece of information
Once the insertion sequence is complete, participants typically return to the main sequence and produce the relevant second pair part
Side sequences
Side sequences are temporary departures from the main topic or activity of the conversation
Side sequences can be initiated by either participant and may involve a range of actions, such as seeking clarification, making a joke, or attending to a momentary distraction
After the side sequence is complete, participants typically resume the main conversational activity
Closing sequences
Closing sequences are the practices that participants use to bring a conversation to a close
Closing sequences often involve pre-closing devices (such as "okay" or "alright"), which signal the potential end of the conversation and allow participants to raise any unmentioned topics
If no new topics are raised, participants may proceed to terminal exchanges (such as "goodbye" or "see you later") to finalize the closing of the conversation
Institutional talk vs ordinary conversation
Institutional talk refers to conversations that take place within specific institutional contexts, such as doctor-patient interactions, classroom discourse, or legal proceedings
CA has identified several key differences between institutional talk and ordinary conversation, including asymmetrical turn-taking, goal-oriented interactions, and specific conversational practices
Asymmetrical turn-taking
In institutional settings, the turn-taking system is often more structured and asymmetrical than in ordinary conversation
Institutional roles (doctor-patient, teacher-student) may grant certain participants greater control over the allocation of turns and the overall direction of the conversation
This asymmetry can be reflected in the distribution of question-answer sequences, with the institutional representative typically asking more questions and the client providing responses
Goal-oriented interactions
Institutional interactions are typically oriented towards the achievement of specific institutional goals or tasks (diagnosing an illness, imparting knowledge)
Participants' contributions to the conversation are often shaped by these goals, with the institutional representative guiding the interaction towards a particular outcome
The goal-oriented nature of institutional talk can lead to a more structured and focused conversation, with less room for tangential or unrelated topics
Specific conversational practices
Institutional contexts may give rise to specific conversational practices that are distinct from those found in ordinary conversation
These practices can include specialized vocabulary, particular question formats, or ritualized sequences of actions
For example, in medical interactions, doctors may use a "review of systems" sequence to systematically gather information about the patient's symptoms, while in legal settings, lawyers may use a series of "examination" questions to elicit testimony from witnesses
Transcription in conversation analysis
Transcription plays a central role in CA, as it allows researchers to capture and represent the fine details of talk-in-interaction
CA transcripts aim to provide a detailed and accessible record of the verbal and non-verbal aspects of the conversation, including prosodic features, pauses, overlaps, and gestures
The Jeffersonian transcription system is the most widely used transcription method in CA
Jeffersonian transcription system
The Jeffersonian transcription system, developed by Gail Jefferson, uses a set of symbols and conventions to represent the various features of talk-in-interaction
Some key features of the Jeffersonian system include:
Overlapping speech is indicated by square brackets []
Pauses are timed in tenths of a second and represented by numbers in parentheses (0.5)
Prosodic features, such as intonation, volume, and emphasis, are marked using punctuation symbols and other conventions
The Jeffersonian system aims to provide a balance between readability and the accurate representation of the interactional details
Capturing prosodic features
Prosodic features, such as intonation, pitch, and volume, play a crucial role in conveying meaning and managing interaction in conversation
The Jeffersonian system uses various symbols to represent these features, such as:
Upward and downward arrows (↑↓) for shifts in pitch
Underlining for emphasis
Capital letters for loud speech (WORD)
By capturing prosodic features, CA transcripts allow researchers to analyze how participants use these resources to design their turns and to convey their stances and attitudes
Representing non-verbal behavior
Non-verbal behavior, such as gaze, gestures, and body posture, is an integral part of face-to-face interaction and can significantly contribute to the meaning and organization of the conversation
CA transcripts often include descriptions of relevant non-verbal behavior in double parentheses ((gesture))
These descriptions are typically placed at the point in the transcript where the non-verbal behavior occurs and are synchronized with the verbal content
By representing non-verbal behavior, CA transcripts provide a more comprehensive account of the multimodal nature of talk-in-interaction
Applied conversation analysis
Applied conversation analysis refers to the use of CA methods and findings to investigate and address practical issues in various institutional and social settings
CA insights have been applied to a wide range of domains, including language learning and teaching, medical interactions, legal contexts, and human-computer interaction
Applied CA aims to generate practical recommendations and interventions based on a detailed understanding of the interactional practices in these settings
Institutional settings
CA has been extensively applied to the study of institutional settings, such as doctor-patient interactions, classroom discourse, and service encounters
By analyzing the specific interactional practices and challenges in these settings, CA can inform the development of training programs, communication guidelines, and institutional policies
For example, CA research on doctor-patient communication has identified practices that can enhance patient participation and understanding, such as the use of open-ended questions and the explicit signposting of the consultation's agenda
Language learning and teaching
CA has made significant contributions to the field of second language acquisition and language teaching
CA-informed studies have investigated the interactional practices and challenges that learners face in classroom and everyday settings, such as managing participation, dealing with understanding problems, and acquiring interactional competence
CA findings have been used to develop teaching materials and activities that focus on the interactional dimensions of language use, such as turn-taking, repair, and sequence organization
Medical interactions
CA has been widely applied to the study of medical interactions, including doctor-patient consultations, nursing handovers, and emergency calls
CA research has identified various interactional practices that can impact the quality of medical communication, such as the use of jargon, the management of patient concerns, and the coordination of multiple participants
CA findings have been used to develop communication skills training programs for healthcare professionals, aimed at improving patient-centered care and reducing medical errors
Legal contexts
CA has been applied to the study of various legal settings, such as courtroom interactions, police interviews, and mediation sessions
CA research has examined how the interactional practices in these settings can shape the outcome of legal proceedings, such as the elicitation of testimony, the construction of narratives, and the negotiation of agreements
CA findings have been used to inform the training of legal professionals, such as lawyers and judges, and to develop guidelines for conducting fair and effective legal interactions
Critiques and limitations
While CA has made significant contributions to the study of talk-in-interaction, it has also faced several critiques and limitations
These critiques have focused on CA's methodological assumptions, its scope of analysis, and its potential for generalization
Neglect of larger social context
Some critics have argued that CA's focus on the micro-level details of interaction may neglect the larger social, cultural, and historical contexts in which conversations take place
This critique suggests that CA's emphasis on the local management of interaction may overlook the ways in which broader social structures and power relations shape and constrain participants' actions
However, CA researchers have increasingly recognized the importance of considering the wider social context and have developed approaches that integrate micro-level analysis with ethnographic and historical perspectives
Focus on micro-level details
Another critique of CA is that its detailed analysis of micro-level interactional features may not always be relevant or meaningful for understanding the broader purposes and outcomes of the conversation
This critique suggests that CA's emphasis on the moment-by-moment unfolding of interaction may sometimes lead to a loss of the "bigger picture" and the overall significance of the conversation
However, CA researchers argue that the micro-level details of interaction are crucial for understanding how participants themselves make sense of and navigate the conversation, and that these details can provide valuable insights into the larger interactional and social processes at play
Generalizability of findings
Some critics have questioned the generalizability of CA findings, arguing that the detailed analysis of specific conversations may not necessarily apply to other contexts or populations
This critique highlights the potential limitations of CA's focus on naturally occurring, context-specific data, and suggests that the findings may not always be transferable to other settings or cultures
However, CA researchers have emphasized the importance of "analytic generalization," where the findings are generalized to the underlying interactional principles and practices rather than to specific populations or settings
Moreover, the growing body of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural CA research has demonstrated the robustness and adaptability of CA methods and findings across different contexts
Future directions in conversation analysis
As CA continues to evolve and expand, several future directions have been identified that aim to address some of the critiques and limitations of the approach and to explore new avenues for research and application
Integration with other approaches
One promising direction for CA is the integration with other linguistic, sociological, and anthropological approaches, such as interactional linguistics, discourse analysis, and linguistic ethnography
This integration can help to situate CA findings within a broader theoretical and methodological framework and to explore the connections between micro-level interactional practices and macro-level social processes
For example, the integration of CA with interactional linguistics can provide insights into the linguistic resources and practices that participants use to manage interaction, while the integration with linguistic ethnography can help to contextualize CA findings within the wider social and cultural context
Multimodal conversation analysis
Another emerging direction in CA is the growing focus on multimodal aspects of interaction, such as gaze, gestures, and the use of objects and technology
Multimodal CA aims to capture and analyze the complex interplay between verbal and non-verbal resources in face-to-face interaction and to explore how these resources are coordinated and synchronized to achieve interactional goals
This approach requires the development of new transcription methods and analytical tools that can adequately represent and analyze the multimodal nature of interaction
Multimodal CA has the potential to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the embodied and material dimensions of social interaction and to inform the design of multimodal communication systems and interfaces
Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies
CA has increasingly been applied to the study of talk-in-interaction across different languages and cultures, aiming to identify both universal and language-specific interactional practices and to explore the cultural variability of conversational norms and expectations
Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural CA can contribute to the development of a more diverse and inclusive understanding of human interaction and can inform the teaching and learning of interactional competence in different cultural contexts
This direction also requires the development of new methodological approaches and collaborations that can address the challenges of analyzing and comparing interactional data from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds
Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural CA has the potential to enrich the theoretical and empirical foundations of the field and to contribute to the broader understanding of human communication and social interaction