WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY

Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

Unit 2. Interaction, Style and Discourse

2.1 Conversation and interaction
2.2 Pragmatics and Discourse
2.3The sociolinguistics of styles

7 Conversation and interaction Cynthia Gordon

In recent years, there has been a surge in research on conversation and interaction,

attracting scholars from various disciplines. This multidisciplinary approach allows for a

diverse range of perspectives to be incorporated into the study of conversational discourse.

Research in this field covers a wide range of topics, including the structure of conversation,

linguistic expressions of power and solidarity, intercultural miscommunication, the role of

repetition and intertextuality in meaning-making, and the construction of identities and

social realities through language.

Scholars in this field draw from multiple research traditions, such as conversation

analysis, the ethnography of communication, and interactional sociolinguistics. These

traditions involve collecting and analyzing actual talk-in-interaction. While there may be

differences in data collection methods and analytical approaches, researchers are united in

exploring key themes that stem from sociologist Erving Goffman's earlier work on the self,

interaction, and social life.

This chapter provides an overview of different approaches to conversation, including

conversation analysis, the ethnography of communication, and interactional sociolinguistics.

It discusses major themes in research on conversational discourse, such as its structure,

collaborative nature, interpersonal and social rituals, cultural aspects, and its role as a locus

of action. The chapter also outlines major techniques for collecting and analyzing data.

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

Overall, the study of conversational discourse is an interdisciplinary field that aims to

understand the complexities of human interaction through the analysis of real-life

conversations.

7.2 Approaches to conversational discourse

The chapter discusses three primary approaches to the study of conversational

discourse: Conversation Analysis (CA), Ethnography of Communication, and Interactional

Sociolinguistics (IS).

7.2.1 Conversation Analysis (CA): This approach, rooted in the sociological perspective

of ethnomethodology, investigates conversational structure and explores how this

structure recreates social organization. It focuses on how social order is lived and

recreated in talk, serving as a bridge between linguistic analysis and sociological

investigation. CA researchers have investigated various issues related to

conversational structure, such as the collaborative production of talk, the structure of

triadic exchanges, and the various alignments a speaker takes up to what they say.

7.2.2 Ethnography of Communication: This approach, with roots in anthropology and

linguistics, views language as constitutive of some portion of social and cultural life.

It seeks to understand diversity across cultures and communities in terms of

language use and the nature of speech events. Researchers in this tradition have

examined numerous intersections of language and cultural life, including cultural

performances, reported speech in ritual contexts, and the poetics of discourse. An

important concept in this approach is communicative competence, which goes

beyond grammatical rules to include appropriate language use across various

contexts.

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

7.2.3 Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS): This approach, which developed at the

intersection of linguistics, anthropology, and sociology, pays attention to linguistic

structure as well as social and cultural contexts of talk. It emphasizes diversity and

investigates how people use linguistic and paralinguistic features, or

"contextualization cues," to indicate how they mean what they say. IS has been used

to investigate various kinds of intercultural miscommunication, gender and

communication, the negotiation of power and solidarity, and the discursive

construction of identities.

These approaches study many aspects of conversational structure, power dynamics,

intercultural communication, repetition, and identity building through the examination of

actual talk-in-interaction. This topic also addresses the fundamental issues and research

methodologies in the area, with an emphasis on sociologist Erving Goffman's influence on

the inquiry of self, interaction, and social life.

7.3 Conversation and interaction: key themes

Contemporary research on conversational discourse draws from Conversation Analysis,

Ethnography of Communication, and Interactional Sociolinguistics, inspired by Goffman's

theories on social interaction. These approaches analyze language, self-presentation,

identity, talk production, gender, and social realities, extending Goffman's work.

The themes covered include:

1. Conversation as a structured and emergent phenomenon: Research on

conversational discourse recognizes conversation as structured and emergent. Goffman

highlights the role of practices, conventions, and rules in guiding and organizing

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

messages. Turn-taking, sequentiality, and adjacency pairs contribute to conversation's

organization. Assessments shape conversation, build relationships, and display identities.

They structure social relationships and contribute to participants' orientations.

2. Conversation As A Collaborative Phenomenon: Scholars in Conversation Analysis,

Ethnography of Communication, and Interactional Sociolinguistics emphasize the

interactive and interlaced nature of discourse, where collaboration between speakers

and listeners is essential. The concept of framing, as explored by Goffman, highlights the

collaborative nature of defining a situation. Additionally, studies examine collusion,

participation frameworks, and interactional teams as examples of collaborative processes

in conversation. Co-constructed storytelling and the use of coordinated linguistic

strategies further demonstrate the collaborative nature of talk

3. Interaction as an interpersonal and social ritual: Interaction is seen as an

interpersonal and social ritual, where conversation goes beyond information exchange to

create relationships and negotiate identities. Goffman's concept of "face and the study of

face-saving in interaction highlight the social value and structure of conversation.

Politeness theory further explores the role of face and politeness in understanding

conversational style differences and intercultural communication. These concepts

connect the social nature of talk to its cultural context.

4. Conversation as a cultural phenomenon: Researchers in the ethnography of

communication and Interactional Sociolinguistics view conversation as a cultural

phenomenon. Language and culture are interconnected, and patterns of communication

are part of cultural knowledge. Understanding culturally appropriate ways of acting and

interacting is crucial for effective participation in interactions. The ethnography of

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

communication and IS emphasize the interplay between culture and discourse,

examining intercultural encounters and the creation of distinctive family "cultures"

through language use.

5. Conversation as a locus of action: Conversation and interaction are seen as forms of

action, where language is not only used to talk about the world but also to do things in

the world. Speech act theory and mediated discourse analysis explore how language is

used to socialize, exert dominance, show solidarity, and address societal issues. Critical

discourse analysis examines how power, abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted

and resisted through language. Research also focuses on how language is used to

present, repair, and negotiate identities in interaction, drawing on theories of alignment,

indexing, positioning, and sociocultural linguistics.

7.4 Techniques of data collection and analysis

Researchers studying conversation in the Goffmanian tradition use various methods to

gather and analyze data, including ethnography, observation, reading autobiographies, and

collecting artifacts. However, Goffman did not focus on the specifics of talk like

contemporary linguistics research does. Researchers must make choices in data collection

and analysis processes.

1. Data and Data Collection: In studies of interaction, researchers prefer "naturally

occurring" data but also examine other types of encounters. Data sources range from

casual conversations among friends to formal institutional interactions. Researchers face

challenges in capturing natural language use while being observed and obtaining

informed consent. Strategies like audio or video recording, long-term observation, and

ethnographic components are used to gather rich data for analysis. The amount of data

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

collected depends on the research focus, and ethnography provides insights into cultural

beliefs and contextual factors. Some studies combine conversation analysis with

ethnography to examine conversational organization and sociocultural context.

2. Transcription and Analysis: In the Goffmanian tradition of analyzing interaction,

primary data typically consist of conversations that need to be transcribed for systematic

study. Transcription is a methodological and analytical step that involves making choices

about what to transcribe, how to transcribe it, and how to arrange the transcribed

material. Different research traditions have varying levels of detail in their transcription

systems. The layout of turns in transcripts can also vary, giving different impressions of

the talk. Qualitative analysis is common in the Goffmanian tradition, but quantitative

analysis may also be used. Discourse analysis involves identifying patterns, connecting

form and function, and interpreting meaning. Some researchers perform "playback" to

check their interpretations with participants and gain multiple perspectives on

interaction, especially in cross-cultural communication.

Conclusion:

Research on conversation and interaction is diverse and covers a wide range

of topics, from linguistic features to intercultural miscommunication. It employs

various methods and approaches to gain insights into the structure, nature, and role

of conversation in our social and cultural lives. Different theoretical orientations,

such as Conversation Analysis (CA), Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS), and the

ethnography of communication, provide unique perspectives on the collaborative

and emergent nature of conversation. By integrating insights from these disciplines,

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

researchers have significantly enhanced our understanding of conversational

dynamics and their significance in human interaction.

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

8 Pragmatics and Discourse Jan Blommaert

The field of discourse analysis has evolved from its initial focus on linguistic utterances to

encompass various disciplines such as rhetoric, semiotics, narrative analysis, and cultural

theory. Pragmatics played a significant role in integrating these approaches and viewing

language as a dynamic and social phenomenon. This article discusses the integrative effect

of pragmatics in discourse analysis and explores the relationship between critical discourse

analysis, multi-modal discourse analysis, and pragmatics. The integration of sociolinguistics

and discourse analysis is also examined.

8. 2 The integrative effect of pragmatics

Pragmatics is a diverse field that encompasses various scholarly orientations and

interests. It is not limited to a specific school or level of linguistics. The early impact of

philosophers like Austin, Searle, and Grice is recognized in shaping the perspective of

pragmatics. Austin and Searle emphasized the importance of speech acts and the meaning

derived from the use of language in specific ways. They highlighted the role of context,

human activity, and interaction in understanding meaning. Grice focused on intentionality

and rationality in human meaning-making, introducing the concept of implicature to describe

the process of inferring implicit meanings from utterances. These early contributions

expanded the understanding of language beyond grammar and syntax, emphasizing the role

of human activity and shared codes in establishing meaning.

Grice's maxims are principles that guide effective communication and are subordinate to

the Cooperative Principle.

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

1. The maxim of Quality emphasizes speaking the truth and providing adequate

evidence.

For example, if someone asks, "Did you enjoy the movie?" and you didn't like it,

following the maxim of Quality, you would respond truthfully by saying, "No, I didn't

enjoy it." This adheres to the principle of speaking the truth.

2. The maxim of Quantity focuses on providing the necessary amount of information

without being excessive.

Ex.: If someone asks for directions, you would provide the necessary information

without overwhelming them with unnecessary details. For instance, you might say, "Turn

left at the next intersection and it will be on your right." This adheres to the principle of

providing the required information without being excessive.

3. The maxim of Relation emphasizes relevance in contributions.

Ex.: The maxim of Relation can be observed when someone contributes relevant information

to a discussion. For example, if a group is discussing their favorite books, and someone

shares a relevant book recommendation, they are adhering to this maxim by contributing

something that is on-topic and related to the discussion.

4. The maxim of Manner emphasizes clarity by avoiding obscure expressions,

ambiguities, and being concise and orderly.

Lastly, the maxim of Manner can be seen in the way people communicate. By using clear

and concise language, avoiding ambiguous expressions, and organizing their thoughts in a

logical order, individuals adhere to this maxim. For instance, when giving a presentation, a

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

speaker who uses clear language, avoids jargon, and presents information in a structured

manner is following the maxim of Manner.

These maxims provide guidelines for effective communication, promoting clarity, relevance,

and truthfulness in conversations.

Grice's Cooperative Principle states that adherence to the maxims of Quality,

Quantity, Relation, and Manner in conversation allows for the appropriate inference of

implicit meanings. However, this interpretation of the maxims as a cultural archetype of

normal conversational behavior proved untenable. Despite critiques, Grice's influence shaped

the interactional paradigm in pragmatics, emphasizing the cooperative nature of

communication. The work of Austin, Searle, and Grice provided a foundation for

understanding language as an interactional object that goes beyond linguistic meanings,

contributing to the development of a dynamic and layered concept of discourse.

8. 3 Linguistic bias versus cultural models

The scope of modern discourse analysis is often limited to textual material and formal

linguistic aspects, which restricts the object of analysis to existing textual artifacts. This

linguistic orientation is evident in the focus on discourse markers, coherence, cohesion, and

the use of corpora. However, cultural models of text and the process of entextualization,

where texts are decontextualized and recontextualized, are peripheral in discourse analysis.

Cultural approaches emphasize the performance and metapragmatic aspects of texts, which

shape their meaning. Ethnopoetics and cultural discourse analysis highlight the cultural

organization of narratives and the implicit patterns that create narrative effects. These

approaches challenge the linguistic bias in discourse analysis and emphasize the cultural and

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

performative aspects of texts. However, these traditions have had little influence on

mainstream discourse analysis.

8.4 Critical discourse analysis

The mainstream discourse analysis, particularly critical discourse analysis (CDA), is

heavily influenced by a textual and linguistic bias. CDA emerged as a formalized domain of

inquiry within discourse analysis, originating from linguistics. The "critical linguists" of the

University of East Anglia in the 1970s played a significant role in shaping CDA, focusing on

language use in social institutions, power relations, and ideology. The works of Kress,

Hodge, and Fowler were influential in this regard. CDA draws on the systemic-functional and

social-semiotic linguistics of Michael Halliday, which provide linguistic categories for

analyzing the relationship between discourse and social meaning. British cultural studies,

particularly the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, also influenced CDA

by addressing social, cultural, and political issues in late capitalist society. French post-

structuralist theory was incorporated into CDA analyses. While Halliday's influence is

acknowledged, references to other discourse analytic precursors are less common. CDA aims

to analyze the relationships between language and society, uncovering power dynamics,

ideological effects, and social structures. It seeks to make these relationships more visible

and transparent, empowering the powerless and exposing power abuse. CDA focuses on

topics such as political discourse, ideology, racism, immigration, economics, media

language, gender representation, institutional discourse, and education. It draws on theories

of power, ideology, and discourse, including those of Foucault, Gramsci, Althusser, Laclau,

Mouffe, and Giddens. CDA engages with various social scientific angles but remains primarily

grounded in linguistics and linguistically oriented pragmatics and discourse analysis.

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

8.5 Multi-modal analysis

Multi-modal discourse analysis (MDA) is a recent approach that recognizes the impact of

new technologies, such as the Internet and mobile phones, on traditional patterns of

textuality. MDA acknowledges that contemporary texts are not solely linguistic but also

incorporate visual, acoustic, and other forms of structure, referred to as "modes." This shift

from a linguistic to a semiotic approach emphasizes the materiality of signs and the

importance of design in creating meaning. MDA considers discourse as socially constructed

bodies of knowledge that are transformed into semiotic artifacts through design practices

involving different modes. MDA expands the scope of discourse analysis to include non-

verbal elements of communication, such as gesture and visual tactics in spoken interaction.

It also broadens the range of data by including material processes and aspects of

communication, such as writing style, layout, illustrations, and body posture. The

interpretation of multi-modal artifacts requires attention to a richer field of semiotic

elements, making the analysis labor-intensive but rewarding. MDA offers new perspectives

on communicative resources, going beyond linguistic resources to consider the features,

functions, affordances, and constraints of different modes. While MDA is still in its early

stages, it holds great promise for empirical research and presents theoretical challenges to

other branches of discourse analysis.

8.6 Toward a sociolinguistic discourse analysis

The author argues that a fully sociolinguistic theory of discourse does not yet exist and

highlights the absence of attention to sociolinguistic variation in discourse analysis. They

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

emphasize the need to incorporate sociolinguistic micro-variation into discourse analysis,

considering the meaning and implications of language varieties used in specific discourses.

The increasing globalization and multilingualism in society make it crucial to address the

phenomenology of non-nativeness in language usage, as it connects with social, political,

and ideological processes. The author suggests that discourse analysis should keep up with

developments in related branches of language studies and pay more attention to

sociolinguistic variation in discourse. They acknowledge that sociolinguistics, particularly

interactional sociolinguistics, has utilized discourse-analytic techniques to demonstrate how

linguistic variation influences discourse. However, mainstream discourse analysis often

avoids sociolinguistically complex data and favors transcription systems that eliminate

sociolinguistic features. This linguistic bias and blindness to sociolinguistics hinder the

accuracy and realism of discourse analysis. The author also highlights the influence of

sociolinguistic "accent" in writing, which can be influenced by various social factors. They

suggest that exploring sociolinguistic variation in written discourses, such as graffiti and Hip-

hop, presents a rich area for future research.

8.7 Conclusions

The different approaches to discourse discussed in this chapter share a pragmatic

perspective, emphasizing contextual connections, interactional features, and the active

nature of discourse. However, mainstream discourse analysis still predominantly views

discourse as a linguistic-textual object, focusing on linguistic structures and displaying

continuity with older text linguistics. Alternative traditions that view texts as cultural objects

have not been fully integrated into discourse analysis. Another major problem is the limited

attention paid to sociolinguistic features in mainstream discourse analysis, which favors

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite

 WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Calinog campus
Calinog, Iloilo
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate School

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN LANGUAGE TEACHING ENGLISH

pristine, monolingual discourse objects. These problems hinder theoretical innovation and

prevent the full implementation of the pragmatic agenda in discourse analysis. On the other

hand, multi-modal discourse analysis (MDA) shows theoretical and methodological

dynamism, challenging the linguistic bias and replacing it with a semiotic perspective that

recognizes language as one mode of production for signs. MDA addresses the linguistic bias

and raises critical methodological questions about data, corpus, and interpretation. While

sociolinguistic variation is absorbed into the data analyzed in (interactional) sociolinguistics,

there is still a disconnect between this work and discourse analysis. The pragmatic

movement's agenda has not yet been fully implemented in the field of discourse analysis.

References

 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16411795/

 The Longitudinal Relationship Between Conversational Turn ‐Taking and Vocabulary

Growth in Early Language Development - Donnelly - 2021 - Child Development - Wiley

Online Library

 Frontiers | Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language

 Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: methods or paradigms? on JSTOR

 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED408578.pdf

 (PDF) Theories and Approaches to the Study of Conversation and Interactive Discourse

Reporter: Nevelle Grace V. Alite