Essay telling

Write a 500 word literature review on the nature and purpose of Conversation Analysis. You should consider what Conversation Analysis is, its key features, and why it is used.

Why study conversation ?

        The area of the conversation analysis has been largely explored since few years. During a long period of time, researches had been concentrated on the written analysis but some researchers claimed that discourse had been put apart during too many time and that it is part of everyday life so it justifies his study, it is important to understand what it is and how it is ruled. Gillian Brown in Speakers, listeners and communication declares that discourse is governed by rules and principles that we unconsciously everyday while communicating with an external individual. He explains that words are basically sounds that we produce that the listener decodes and then the latter can produce an answer. But, in An Introduction to Spoken Discourse, Anna Brita Stenstorm declares that talking is much more than just pronouncing words. When a speaker pronounces words, this is for a particular reason that can vary as per the context and the circumstances. Depending on the choice of the words, the intonation, how they are combined in the sentence, the listener has to understand the meaning of the sentence, if it a question or a reproach per example.  

“ It is the presumption that everyday participants in social life are operating under the same principles, playing the same game, that is critical ” – Circourcel (1973:87)

Here, the author explains that oral communication is more that words pronounced in a certain order, a discussion implies that the listener has the adequate knowledge and values to understand the real meaning or the non-say behind the words. Anna Brita Stenstrom adds that there is a “unit of language beyond the sentence”.

Moreover, the context has also a noticeable place in the analysis of a conversation. “Discourse analysis examines how stretches of language, considered in their full textual, social and psychological context, become meaningful and unified for their users” (Cook, 1989). It implies that the participants of the conversation share the same values and the same social knowledge. Per example, it may happen that two people that come from different social classes or that did not receive the same education have problems to communicate. It is our experience that help us determine whether our language or the topic is acceptable. For instance, a conversation between someone coming from a rich family using a high level of language and someone using a more formal language, using words like “yeah” instead of “yes”, or “cheers” instead of “thank you”, could be difficult to manage for both of them.  

Finally, the conversation analysis is necessary because a conversation has its own structure that differs from a written discourse. This is due to the spontaneity, the speaker has only few seconds to think about what he must say and order his ideas. There is no conscious plan, but conversations are separated into turns that help understand the dynamic of a speech.  

A priori, l’un ne semble pas avoir plus de pouvoir que l’autre. Ils se partagent la parole équitablement mais la conversation est séparée en deux parties distinctes, voire 3. 1)  présentatrice 2) madeleine 3) bill

Vu qu’il fait sa demande à la radio peut etre qu’il reste en rentrait parce qu’il est stressé et quil y refléchit ?

J’aurais plutôt penché pour équitabilité mais après chonomètre des conversation +/- 52s pour madeleine, 83s pour Bill mais bill beaucoup d’hésitations et de répétitions donc compense ? et de pause

In this extract, on the face of it, nobody seems to have more power or control than the other. It seems that they fairly share the speech, but the discourse is clearly separated in 3 distinct parts. The first one consists in the interviewer to introduce during the first minute of the podcast, Madeleine and Bill, and their out of the ordinary history. They met when they were teenagers, Madeleine was 16 and Bill was 21. He proposed her to go out with him, but she was young, so she had to ask permission to her parents and her father found that she was to young and Bill too irresponsible given that he was studying the art and drama scene, considered like an instable field. They lived their respective lives and finally their paths crossed again 40 years later, he asked her to go out again and she said yes. During the interview they explain their stories, what were their reactions to the refusal of Madeleine’s father, and finally Bill propose Madeleine to marry her at the end of the program. Her surprise and the embarrassment are palpable. She answers that she would rather think about it and give him a response later, in private.