Main Theme

Spoken discourse is a conversation form, which includes interaction of common type amongst people in their regular life (Matthews & Heinemann, 2012). Social interactions are developed by means of spoken discourse, which entails looking at a conversation in great detail so that it can be analysed. Sociologists Harvey Sacks founded the sociolinguistics, as study of talks in ordinary human interactions while Jack Sidnell, reflects it to be a set of methods used for video and audio recordings of social interaction and talks (Joseph & Taylor, 2014). Conversation Analysis (CA) aims at expanding the nonverbal aspects of interaction, it aims at shift from social scientific inquiry to inferential process into social interaction structures. In the current analysis, a transcript between Ed and Les is analysed focusing on a central theme.       

The current CA aims at sequential organization to understand embedded instructions, obligations and so on. CA is focused on action; structure and intersubjectivity of the conversation on explicate action to understand interaction (Liddicoat, 2011). The main theme of the conversation is “Catching-Up”. As the friends were seen to interact as if they are talking after a long period of time. This theme is decided as it can be seen from the entire conversation that two friends are interacting with each other regarding a period in which they were probably not in touch with one another. They are heard to discuss regarding their various recent engagements and they are also updating one another regarding various whereabouts of their family. They are planning to meet one another as well, which is seen after the opening of the initial phase of the conversation, which reflects that they are planning to catch-up with one another.     

 The Conversation Analysis includes convention in the transcription symbols, in the spoken discourse (Gardner & Forrester, 2009). Language includes an interactional phenomenon as well as cognitive process; hence its organization should reflect this. When speakers interact with one another, they are trying to grasp attention of each other, which is reflected in this conversation as well. Each of the speaker, Ed as well as Les tries to update one another regarding their whereabouts. As Goffman rightly pointed out that interaction includes a normative organisation structure of attention and this can be seen through the entire conversation, especially in the opening and closing verse of the conversation.

The opening and closing of the conversation is analysed in and not the entire conversation for the purpose of CA. The current conversation has been analysed using the symbols and sequence in the conversation. It is most common in opening of a telephone conversation; there is generally utterance of summons, which is noted in the conversation here also. As Ed says”….lo:”. Les: “.h Oh hello I’ve managed to catch you at ho:me…hhh”. In this opening conversation (.) refers to a pause in talk within less than two tenth of a second. (.hh) is referred to the speaker in-breath and (hh) implies the speaker being out of breath. When the notation (:) is given then the speaker stretches preceding letter or the sound.

Analysis

In the closing conversation, generally a parting phrase is said. Analysing this transcript, it can be seen that, Les says, “[Bah bye the, ] and Ed: “Bye:,” . The closing implicative of topic arrangement is seen in this conversation. Both the parties are seen to be taking turns in pre-closing items and with presence of terminal elements.

The most grounded rule within this conversation is seen that the participants is taking turns and respect the other. They knows when they have to share their turns and in the conversation it can be seen that one speaker, speaks at a time, then giving turn to the next speaker. This conversation follows rules by Schegloff and Jefferson for taking turns. As Ed speaks, Les is obliged to take the next turn to speak. This conversation reveals self-selection of next turn, or letting the current speaker continue. The allocational mechanism of turn-taking is responsible for distributing a turn along with its lexical components (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). Both the parties are seen to be filling a turn, which remains concurrently sequentially implicative in order that the contingency in the process will yield subsequent turn allocation.  

In constructing of turn component, various unit-types the speakers go onto construct. The unit types area sentential, phrasal, clausal and lexical construction. Linguistic objects are analysed through value pairs. Construction Grammar (CXG) and HPSG include that syntactic and semantic aspects of linguistic objects need to be described through representation of the linguistic object. Making use of type hierarchy, linguistic objects generalizations are analysed. As one speaker is seen to respond to another speaker’s conversation and then reply to it. As Les says”Fi:ne? .hhh Uhm .h I’ve got you a couple a’ bottles so when you[‘re passing some time:” and Ed replies to it saying [Yes.].

The turn allocational components reveal ways in which participants are interacting and organizing their interaction by distribution of turns to speakers. Analysing opening conversation reflects that conversation does not begin and end in a simplistic manner. Rather conversations are organized, as speaker (Ed) make use of adjacency pair to open a conversation in form of greetings over the telephone. The first topic, which is the Les having a bottle for them to celebrate, is held back until the conversation is seen to develop. During initial phase of the conversation, they first greet and get to know regarding each other through a brief introduction. The entire conversation has kept pace with the central theme, which are friends catching up with each other after a short period of time. From the conversation, it can be understood that the friends are in conversation with each other, trying to know regarding a period in which they were probably not in touch with one another. The first topic is introduced only when the conversation develops a little bit to a point where the topic can easily be introduced.

In opening of a telephone conversation in the transcript a certain conversation sequence is seen to be followed as included below;

1. Summoning/ Answer:
2. Identification/ Recognition
3. Greeting
4. How are you
5. Reason for the call     

In the closing of the conversation, pre-closing links are seen to be developing. There are two units ‘Ok’ and ‘right’ is seen to be the falling intonation. Then the closing of the conversation comes from ‘bye bye’. Pre-closing sequences can be seen to be developing before the closing of the conversation, Ed says, “Hm: . hn-[Okay the. [Right [well [so- [ Yes) I[‘ll see you on- on Thursday at six thirty then.”. The aphorism is used to bring the topic to a close. The above sequence in the conversation can be regarded as a pre-closing technique for closing the conversation and bringing it to an end. The CA depicts that the conversation is not foreshortened or extended, rather after thorough discussion; the conversation is brought about to an end. There are no difference in between cultural background and no misunderstanding, so no scope for wrong illocutionary reading to the pre-closing formula.

The conversation progresses through both the friends taking turns to speak. The signaling end of turn and holding on to a turn, reveals way in which the conversation progresses. Turn allocations are distributed through the speakers, with possible phenomena, which include gaps (silence) and overlaps. Gaps (silence) are lengthened transition space, which are silence in between the conversation. Silences are functioning in different manner and in different context in the opening and closing of the conversation transcript. These gaps have separate implications and interpretation as when silence is attributed at the end of a completed action in the talk and silence is answering to question of a speaker is different. Silence in this conversation is regarded as distance, absence of familiarity, ignorance and so on. Analysing the conversation it can be seen that, in the opening and closing phrases, there are various gaps indicating silence. In the opening as well as in the closing conversation analysis, it can be seen that there is presence of silence and gasp in between conversations. These gaps in the current conversation indicate, waiting for response and positive feedback (Reed, 2010). It reflects acceptance of the progress of the conversation, where both the speakers makes use of gaps in their conversation. As each of the speaker, tells regarding their personal engagements and other aspects of life in which they are busy, they wait to get confirmation from the other to acknowledge the same. The speakers Ed and Les introduce their whereabouts and regarding their day-to-day life with each other in opening as well as in closing of the transcript as well. This conforms to the way in which the conversation progresses focus on the central or main theme, which is detailing each other regarding and catching up from the past. Each of the speaker aims at briefing all the past details, which the other speaker might have missed.

Overlaps are presence of both the speaker, speaking at the same time. Overlap is not present in the entire conversation, which represents that both speakers are well synchronized with one another in order to initiate talks. As overlaps in treated as point where interruptions takes place and it is absent in the current conversation, it can be said that it is a well regulated and smooth conversation. The speakers know each other well and there is a sequence of conversation that follows, leading to the flow of the conversation. End of turn is referring to signaling end of turn for a speaker when completing of a syntactic unit. The conversation can be seen making use of several syntactic units and also there is use of falling intonation. The symbols along with syntactic unit provide chance or opportunity for the other speaker to speak. The conversation progresses with each speaker allowing plentiful opportunity to the other speaker to express his or her point of view and opportunity to speak. Pausing at several instances is seen in Ed’s speaking which allows opportunity for Les to speak. This can be seen in the following part of the transcript;

Ed:      …lo:,

Les:     .h Oh hello I’ve managed to catch you at ­ho:me..hhhh

         Uh:m Leslie Field ¯he:re,

Ed:      He¯llo: ho[w’re ¯you.]

Les:               [H e l l o.]

Moreover, analysing the conversation from the transcript, it can be seen use of Fillers such as umm and anyway, this provides again opportunity for the other person to speak. The language used by the speakers reflects plentiful places where each one can express opinion and the other one can respond to it. Taking turns during a conversation varies depending upon the situation, topic, relationship and rank. As the conversation progresses amongst friends, who are seen to be out of touch for quite some time, there is plentiful of topic as can be seen from the discussion. Taking turns in this conversation goes on easily as each one provides and talks something and then the other one converses. The relationship is also seen to be deep in between the friends as one friend has purchased a bottle and waiting for the other person to drop at her place. So, taking turns is seen here dependent upon not only situation or topic but also upon the relationship that is seen shared amongst the friends.

While taking turns to speak, there has been plentiful opportunity to hold on to a turn. There is seen to be no pausing at the end of an utterance or starting away in a straight manner. Each of the opening verse or closing one is seen to a continued one, where one speaker picks up the conversation, wherever left by the other speaker. The opening conversation below can depict the way utterance is taking place by holding on for turns to speak.                            

Les:     Fi:ne?.hhhh Uhm .h I’ve ­got you a couple a’ bottles so

         when you[‘re passing ¯some time: [w p- pop i:n.

Ed:              [(Yes.)                  [Yes.

Ed:      I will[do

Les:           [Will you­:?

              (0.3)

Ed:      u-How ‘bout (.) how ’bout Wednesda:y, Wednesday

afternoo[n.

There is seen to be an increasing volume through extension of syllable or use of vowel. At several instances, Ed and Les make use of extending of a syllable just to await a response from the other. There is no attempt made to speak over another.

In completion of utterance, the transition relevance needs to depict a terminal exchange. The conversation in opening as well as closing can be seen to be making use of adjacent positions for component utterance. Both the speakers are producing different utterance, making use of adjacent pairs consisting of sequence. The operation of typology can be seen as the speaker produces sequences. The typology is segregated into first pair parts and second pair parts to form a pair-type. The adjacency sequence reveals relative ordering of parts where first pair is seen to precede second pair. As Les gives proposal of coming over to Ed, he accepts it which is shown later in adjacent pairs. There is also present discriminative relation, where first pair part is a member for selecting of second pair parts. Adjacency pair is generally noted in opening as well as in closing conversation. In such pairs, there could arise two possibilities of pairs, where one provides an expected response and the other one dispreferred or preferred. The below conversation from transcript reveals some adjacency of pair parts, where one speaker progress to another speaker.  

Les:       [­Bah bye then,]

Ed:      Bye:

Topic shading includes no attention been given to the topic but rather to being differently focused to the last topic’s utterance. A topic boundary needs to be developed to reach analyzable ends to a topic. In the conversation, it is seen that the topic flows develops from the friends discussing regarding their whereabouts and then finally ending in deciding upon a time and day to meet. Conducting the CA for the current topic it can be said that the topic shading has been effectively achieved. The friends are effectively able to bring the topic to a suitable ending.  Feedback is a way to depict that the speaker is attending to whatever that is being said. It is an indication of listening, understanding or by allowing of speaker’s utterance through a response. In the current conversation, each utterance is seen to progress by way of responding to one another, in an interactive manner. Response tokens can be seen as;

Les:     Hm:. hn-[O­kay then.[ Right [well

Ed:              [So-        [(Yes) I[‘ll see you on- on Thursday

There has been not much usage of repairs as the speakers does not correct things said by another speaker.     

Conclusion

The Conversation analysis reveals presence of smooth flowing transcript where each speaker waits for turn. The opening and closing of the conversation is analysed in and not the entire conversation for the purpose of CA. The current conversation has been analysed using the symbols and sequence in the conversation. It is most common in opening of a telephone conversation; there is generally utterance of summons, which is noted in the conversation here also. Thus, the conversation transcript is analysed using theories and practices as entailed.  

References

Gardner, H. and Forrester, M. eds., 2009. Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis. John Wiley & Sons. Accessed from https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Thpspvdk3-cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=analysing+conversation&ots=d2jOT7OmSp&sig=uc4kPzf6CaXrwPX1-AqVPzqDBTY#v=onepage&q=analysing%20conversation&f=false

Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R., 2008. Conversation analysis. Polity. Accessed from https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1L1uzitHDnsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=analysing+conversation&ots=VYLmhXY5G7&sig=xMJDqYFmI4KXInV859pffi6G-1M#v=onepage&q=analysing%20conversation&f=false

Joseph, J.E. and Taylor, T.J., 2014. Ideologies of Language (RLE Linguistics A: General Linguistics). Routledge. Accessed from https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2013-0-19676-8&isbn=9781134741397&format=googlePreviewPdf

Liddicoat, A.J., 2011. An introduction to conversation analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing. Accessed from https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZqFpDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=analysing+conversation&ots=150d4P1ag9&sig=lOfB4hnPW8LHs_MSfRza8APm8So#v=onepage&q=analysing%20conversation&f=false

Matthews, B. and Heinemann, T., 2012. Analysing conversation: Studying design as social action. Design Studies, 33(6), pp.649-672. Accessed from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X12000452

Reed, B.S., 2010. Analysing conversation: An introduction to prosody. Macmillan International Higher Education. Accessed from https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7P0cBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=analysing+conversation&ots=M4wV-4JXKt&sig=Lztvq_WgJcHMQWj-_hxOyZX9if0#v=onepage&q=analysing%20conversation&f=false