Topic 36: Interaction or Dialogic Texts

Content
INTRODUCTION
1. Common features to all text types
1.1 Connection between text types & macro-functions
1.2 Rhetorical strategies and classification
2. Dialogic texts and Interaction Schemata
3. Linguistic resources used in dialogues
3.1 Following the politeness principle
3.2 Adjacency Pairs
3.3 Stock expressions
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION
The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) states that functional, discourse and
design competences are all subcomponents of Pragmatic Competence, which itself is a part of
the Communicative Language Competence. Therefore, Pragmatic Competence involves
knowledge of:
1. Organizing, structuring, and arranging messages (Discourse competence)
2. Performing communicative functions (Functional competence)
3. Sequencing messages according to schemata (Design competence)
In topic 3, we saw the term macro-function from different perspectives. To explain the
connection between the definition put forward by the CEFR and topic 36, first I am going to deal
with macro-function and texts and then I am going to explain the different connections between
macro-function, rhetorical strategies and the various types of text classification. The second part
deals with dialogic texts and interaction schemata, and the third section is devoted to its
linguistic resources considering the politeness principle, adjacency pairs and stock expressions.
The topic is then summarized in a conclusion to which I have added a bibliography that has
helped me draft out the essay.

1. Common Features to all Text Types

1.1 Connection between Text Type and Macro-function
The main function of language is to communicate and since text or discourse are a combination
of grammatical units, they have a social or communicative purpose (Eggins & Martin, 1997).
At its most basic level of organization, a text is a syntagma of grammatical defined units. These
micro-units serve a particular micro-function, e.g., apologize. On a higher level, these micro-
units combine into larger units which have coherence by means of rhetorical relations. The
function they perform here is what is called macro-function, e.g., describing, narrating, etc. At
the highest level of textual organization is the genre of the text or the discourse, which may be
a letter, report, article, etc. These complete texts will feature one of the macro-functions
abovementioned. Therefore, a letter may contain descriptions, narration, explanations, etc.
Genres therefore often contain a mix of macro-functions.

1.2 Rhetorical strategies and classification

The main criterion to classify texts derives from Aristotle’s rhetoric: the traditional classification
refers to models of discourse as rhetorical strategies realized through text types:
Texts however can also be classified according to:
1. The channel: Oral discourse is interactive and takes the form of a dialogue (alternating
sender - receiver), or a monologue, e.g., conferences, lectures.
 Written texts may also represent dialogue, but they are generally related to genre or
rhetorical strategies and can be classified according to the type of document produced,
typically called genre.
2. The Addresser and Addressee: texts can be specialized and non-specialized. Specialized
texts have specialized lexis and are subdivided into scientific, technical, legal, etc. Non-
specialized texts contain simple lexis and can be subdivided into illustrative,
instructional, etc. This criterion is very important to know what kind of lexicon to expect
and produce in a text.
3. The message: Here we find two possible sub-criteria: either focusing on the intention of
the sender (i.e., communicative function), texts can be informative, expressive,
persuasive, etc. Or focusing on the type of message or mode (i.e., rhetorical strategies)
texts may be narrative, descriptive, dialogic, etc.

2. Dialogic texts and Interaction Schemata

When two or more speakers interact, they bring into play their linguistic competence in that
language. However, this linguistic competence needs to be complemented with Pragmatic and
Discourse competence, which involves knowledge on how the information is ordered (typically
theme-rheme-theme-rheme).
Nevertheless, for the listener to understand the message and the exchange to be successful,
he/she needs to be able to understand the speaker’s intended meaning by making use of
schemata. According to the definition of the term, the listener needs to understand the literal
meaning (locution) and make inferences (illocution) to interpret the intended meaning
(perlocution). To do so, the speaker and the listener need to share knowledge of the language
(to understand puns, slang, double-speak, etc.) and knowledge of the world (to understand
hyperboles, metaphors, irony, etc.). Moreover, this shared knowledge will allow the receiver to
understand the politeness principle to perceive the familiarity, rudeness, bluntness, etc. in a
message.
According to Brown and Levinson, the politeness principle is common to all cultures.
Nevertheless, the linguistic forms it takes in different languages and cultures vary greatly and,
depending on the situation, it follows different schemata:
In oral exchanges or dialogues, interaction schemata will involve knowledge of:
1. Contextual situation: Where the interaction takes place will govern the elements in an
exchange e.g. Having a chat with a friend will be different to talking to someone we have
just met.
2. Register appropriacy: Based on the situation: formal/ informal, colloquial, specialized.
3. Adjacency pairs: They are the expected responses to a given prompt e.g., question –
answer; compliments – thanks; request – acceptance / refusal, etc. Failure to produce
the second part will be interpreted as a breakage in communication because the first
part was not understood, is not interested, not willing to answer, etc.
4. Turn taking mechanisms.

3. Linguistic Resources used in dialogues

As abovementioned interactions follow certain schemata which make use of linguistic resources
that vary depending on the context and the register appropriacy. These will be marked by the
relative status of the participants in the interaction. Moreover, the maxims governing the
politeness principle will also be important in the choice of language.
3.1 Following the politeness principle
To explain how this principle works, Brown and Levinson suggested a typical set of options to
ask or offer something:
o The person gives a hint of his/her need hoping that the other person will recognize the
need.
 o The person says something:
o Off the record: making a statement e.g. I’ve run out of paper.
o On the record:
(1) Bold on record: use of imperatives; directly e.g. Lend me some paper; Have some
cake. It may be softened by a mitigating device like “please” or “do” Do have
some cake; Lend me some paper, please.
(2) Face saving act: Positive politeness – Both participants want the same thing e.g.
How about lending me some paper; Why don’t we have some cake? Negative
politeness emphasizes the other speaker’s freedom and may include apology
for the bother e.g. I’m sorry to bother you but could you lend me some paper.
As we can see, negative politeness is more frequently used in English as opposed to Spanish
where it is more common to use bold on record with mitigating devices. However, apart from
these linguistic devices there are others that are typical in conversation and include: adjacency
pairs and stock expressions.
3.2 Adjacency pairs
They always have a preferred response but allow for a second choice. Some of the most common
are to:
• Request about availability: A. Excuse me, can I ask you something? B. Yes, go ahead /
Sorry, I’m busy at the moment.
• Invitation about availability: A. Are you doing anything tonight? B. No, nothing much /
I’m going away for the weekend.
• Announcement A. You know what? B. Hmm / Not now, I’m busy.
• Offer: A. Would you like to…? B. Oh yes that would be great! / I’d love to but..
• Blame: A. Have you been using my razor, Nick? / B. No, I haven’t / Sorry Tom. Yes, I have.
3.3 Stock expressions
Typical words or expressions to:
• Open a conversation: Hi, Hello there, How’s things, etc.
• Mark change of subject: Well anyway, by the way, incidentally, etc.
• Clarify: What I mean is… / Do you mean…?
• Confirm that what the other person is saying is of interest: Oh, I see; No! You didn’t
say! Really?
• Close a conversation: Right, so, Ok then, bye!
Lastly, typical turn taking expressions to:
• Take a turn: well, yes but…, surely
• Hold a turn: Anyway, errr, ummm, I mean, sort of, kind of
• Pass a turn: What do you think? How about you? + question tags.

CONCLUSION
All in all, this topic deals with dialogic texts, which are a type of text or macro-function attending
to the definition given by the CEFR. This essay has aimed to give a general overview by first
making a connection between macro-function and text types focusing then on dialogic texts and
its linguistic resources.
Promoting dialogic practice beyond standard assignments should be a priority in lesson
planning. Digital initiatives, such as eTwinning projects and tools like Flipgrid, where students
record and respond to each other’s messages, make developing these skills engaging and
collaborative. If we can inspire students to communicate confidently outside the classroom, we
foster a generation of active listeners and articulate speakers who value meaningful dialogue.
These students will become well-prepared individuals who feel at ease in both structured and
spontaneous exchanges, appreciate the power of conversation, and confidently navigate social
interactions across various contexts.
We may observe that dealing with dialogic texts in classroom may not be as efficient as
establishing actual interactional exchanges. In any case, dealing with dialogue in secondary
education is of great importance since, depending on the focus of the activity, it may contribute
to the development of non-verbal communication, turn-taking, vocabulary, register, etc., which
will make them competent language users and prepare them for present society, allowing them
to carry out everyday performances.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse: Language as Social Interaction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage Publications.
Tannen, D. (2007). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Webography
British Council: Learn English https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/
BBC Learning English https://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish