Conversation Analysis PDF

2ND EXAM UNIT 5. Conversation Analysis There are two main schools: Birmingham which is centered in exchange-structure, they look at how classes have an internal structure. It is a top-down approach where they look at how the theory is used in the practice. Then there is the conversation analysis wh...

2ND EXAM UNIT 5. Conversation Analysis There are two main schools: Birmingham which is centered in exchange-structure, they look at how classes have an internal structure. It is a top-down approach where they look at how the theory is used in the practice. Then there is the conversation analysis which is from another school. They collect data and see what patterns emerge. 1. Introduction There are different types of speech: telephone calls; service encounters (shops, ticket offices, etc.); classroom (classes, seminars…), etc. However, casual conversation is the most frequent for most people. 2. Spoken discourse: classroom conversation One influential approach: University of Birmingham initially concerned with the structure of discourse in school classrooms (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). They observed a rigid pattern in the language of traditional school classroom: - Tr and SS_ spoke according to very fixed perceptions of their roles. - Talk conformed to highly structured sequences. The question-answer sequence between the teacher and pupils has any internal structure: 1. Ask T 2. Answer P 3. Comment T We have a regular sequence of TPT-TPT-TPT-TPT, etc. A typical segment is called TPT. We obtain a unit called EXCHANGE (Sinclair and Coulthard). This unit (TPT)_ is a three-part exchange. Each of the parts is called MOVE. Example: 1) A: What time is it? Question B: Six thirty. An answer A: Thanks. To be polite These three moves are called: 1) Initiation (I): an opening move. 2) Response (R): answering move. 3) Follow-up (F): follow-up move. 1) I: Every exchange has to be initiated with: 1) a statement, 2) a question or 3) a command 2) R: Someone has to respond whether in words or action. 3) F: The follow-up move is slightly different: an act of politeness, etc. It may be extended further. The patterns of such exchanges vary from culture to culture and even from setting to setting. 3. Conversations outside the classroom The Sinclair-Coulthard ‘Birmingham’ model offers a hierarchical model were smaller units combine to form larger ones. TRANSACTION EXCHANGE MOVE ACT (Speech acts). 51 The model is useful for analysing tightly structured patterns of interaction (i.e. doctorpatient). But all sorts of complications arise when applied to talk in more informal, casual contexts. 4. Talk as a social activity Ethnomethodologists areas of interest: how pairs of utterances relate to one another (adjacency pairs); how turn-taking is managed; how conversational openings and closings are affected; how topics enter and disappear from conversation; how speakers engage in strategic acts of politeness, face-preservation, and so on. The emphasis is always on real data. Ethnomethodologists examine large amounts of data to observe regular patterns of behavior. The ethnomethodologist perspective: - Interest in every day social activities: carefully transcribed natural conversations. - Conversation= as an activity in its own right CONVERSATION used restrictedly to mean talk occurring: - between a small number of participants - cut off from instrumental tasks (an end in itself) - everyone is accorded the right to talk and to listen - …………………………………. According to them, a true conversation has to be cooperative, a natural conversation among equals and how this precedes with interruptions, etc. 5. Structure of conversations. 5.1. Adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs: utterances produced by 2 successive speakers such that the second utterance is identified as related to the first as an expected follow-up. They are mutually dependent. (i.e. a question predicts an answer; an answer presupposes a question). Mutual dependency = we can only be sure of the function of the initiating utterance when it is contextualised with the response it gets, and vice versa (i.e. hello; greeting/request to identify oneself over the phone…). → We need the two parts in order to understand its function. There are preferred and dispreferred answers. The preferred responses are the ones that we can anticipate and the dispreferred ones are the ones that we do not expect, these can be refusals, disagreements among others. The 2 utterances form a pair: - The first_ constitutes the first pair part. - The next_ constitutes a second pair part. Adjacency pairs = the basic structural unit in conversation. Examples: Utterance function Expected response Greeting Greeting Congratulation Thanks Apology Acceptance Inform Acknowledge Leave-taking Leave-taking Examples: 1. A: Hello B: Hi This is a greeting 2. A: Jimmy! B: Coming mother It is a summon. A expects B to answer. 52  3. A: Is that what you mean? B: Yes This is a question-answer 4. A: Ok see ya. B: So long It is a leave-taking Adjacency pairs are of different types: - Ritualised close-sets (identical second pair-part): hello-hello; happy new year-happy new year. - Different second-part (more open-ended pairs): congratulations-thanks. Equally, a second pair´part such as thanks - will presuppose a wide range of first pair-parts: offers, apologies, invitation (with or without condition…), etc. Conversation is organized into sequences – provide structure and coherence to conversations. Key Aspects of Sequence Organization Adjacency Pairs: - Composed of 2 related utterances produced by different speakers, where the first part creates an expectation for the second. - Examples include: - Question-Answer: “How are you?” → “I’m fine” - Greeting-Greeting: “Hi!” → “Hello!” - Request-Grant/Refusal: “Can you help me?” → “Sure” / Sorry, I can’t Preferred and Dispreferred Responses: - preferred: e.g., agreement in response to an invitation - dispreferred: e.g., rejection. They often include delays, hedges or explanations. Expanded Sequences: Conversations often go beyond simple adjacency pairs through expansions, such as: - Pre-expansions: Preliminary moves before the main sequence, e.g., “Can I ask you something?” - Insertions: Side sequences within a main sequence, e.g., a clarification before answering a question. - Post-expansions: Additional moves after the main sequence, e.g., “Thanks for helping!” → “No problem” When a speaker fails to provide the proper second pair part, this is often noticed: Mother to her daughter: You know you’re supposed to greet someone, don’t you? For other adjacency pairs there’s much freedom to respond to first pair parts: a. Compliment - Acceptance A: That’s a nice shirt - Rejection B: Well, I think it makes me look old - Shift B: Judy found it for me - Return B: Thanks, I like yours too b. Complaint - Apology - Denial: - Excuse - Justify - Challenge c. Offer - Accept A: Like a lift? B: You saved my life - Reject B: Thanks, but I’m waiting for my friend. 53  d. Request: - Grant A: Can you mail these for me, please? B: Sure - Put off B: Sure, but I won’t have time today - Challenge B: Why do you always ask me to mail them for you? - Refusal B: Sorry but I won’t be near the Post Office. EXAMPLE: Giving informal invitations - NS prefaced their invitations: ‘I was wondering, uh, we’re having a party…’ - NNS: - too formal: I would like to invite you to a party. - too blunt: I want you to come to my party. Similarly, - NS preface disagreement second pair-parts with: - partial agreement (‘Yes, but…’) - with softeners (‘I’m afraid’) Different roles and settings will generate different structures for such adjacency pairs. Observing natural data helps us discover patterns that occur in particular settings. 5.2. Openings and closings. How do speakers manage longer stretches of talk?: We usually signal the beginning and the end of a conversation. Transaction boundary markers for marking out openings and closings They mark the beginning and the end of a conversation. They do not have to be spoken signals. For example, when we are in class we start packing or bags to indicate that we should finish. Openings and closings of conversations and other speech events = are organized and orderly accomplishments by conversationalists. Conversations are structured, they are not random. We use different clauses to structure conversation. 5.2.1. Openings (Good morning, How are you?...) become the basis for an occasion of social interaction and possible further conversation. Openings and closings are speech event-specific. In different situations, these are going to be different as they are event-specific. - Initial summons ( a church bell) - specified setting (church, courtroom, etc) - specific category members (members of the family, as bride, groom…) - For ethnomethodologists, a conversation ≠ from many other speech events since: - No specified setting, no time or place - No required roles - No specified agenda or quorum. Why? Because if they are acting as equals there might be interruptions, sentences that are not finished, not proper answers, etc. In these situations, rules are not very well established. Conversations must be opened. How? Through the use of adjacency pairs such as: Greeting-Greeting, Request-Grant; Question-Answer, Statement- response. Examples: (a) A: Good morning B: Hi 54  (b) A: Got a match? B: Sure (c)A: How do you like our show? B: You have a beautiful voice. Such adjacency pairs are pre-conversational. By means of additional turns a conversation may or may not get built. - the immediate participation of both parties - allow for the possibility of further talk, they’re pre-conversational. 5.2.2. Closings: must be made to occur by coordinated activities of the conversationalists. We have to cooperate to finish the conversation completely. Real conversations must be closed in such a way that: One speaker’s completion will not occasion another speaker’s talk, and that will not be heard as some speaker’s silence. This varies from culture to culture. There are cultures which are very intolerant of silence and they need to fill this gap because they feel uncomfortable win this silence. How? Adjacency pair: Goodbye, Thank you, you’re welcome, Ok… But: Considerable prior work is required for a proper closing. Closings preceded by possible pre-closings: ‘well’, ‘ok’, ‘Soo’ to: - indicate that only a topic is being closed - or lead to a terminal exchange EXAMPLE CLOSINGS AND PRE-CLOSINGS A: Uh, you know, it’s just like bringing the blood up B: Yeah, well, things always work out for the best. A: Oh certainly. All right. B: Uh uh A: Okay. B: G’bye A: Goodnight Closing sections may include: - Reference to speaker’s interests: ‘Well, I gotta go’. - OR to other party’s interests: ‘Well, I don’t want to keep you longer’. - Routines at the beginning (‘What are you doing?’: ‘So, I guess I’ll let you get back to your books’. - Reinvoking the reasons for entering a conversation: ‘So, well, I just wanted to know how you were doing’. - And making arrangements for future conversation: ‘Yeah, Ok, so we should get together soon’. Openings and closings can present difficulties for L2 learners: Why? Transference of rules and expectations from one language to another: Example: L2 learners may: A:’ Well, I guess you have got lots of things to do’. B: Not really A: ‘I have nothing more to say, so goodbye’ (end of conversation) 55  5.3. Turn-taking Conversations = involve two or more people. Distribution of talking among speakers is not random. It is governed by turn-taking norms. - Turn-taking norms - Conversations: who talks, when and how long. In any piece of natural English discourse: - Turs will occur smoothly - There’ll be little overlap and interruption - Only very brief silence between turns (less than a second.) Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson(1974): Basic Rule: Only one person speaks at a time. NOTE: - Length of a pause between 2 turns (3s.) → attributable silence (meaningful). - People may have ≠ senses of how long pauses should be. - Longer pausers. They tend to speak sooner. - Shorter pausers. The other person doesn’t contribute and it becomes very irritating. How do people take turns?: - When they are selected or nominated by the current speaker. By means of an adjacency pair: A: You look tired. B: I feel fine - or they may speak of their own accord (self-selection). If neither of these condition applies: - The person who is currently speaking may continue. Listeners attentive to the syntactic completeness of the speaker’s contribution : clues in the pitch level. >>>> ongoing evaluation of each other’s utterances - to take up the turn to talk Rules for turn-taking differ according to the type of speech event (classroom, a debate, informal conversations, etc) Turn taking is affected by rank (power or status of the speaker). There are specific linguistic devices for getting the turn (formality and appropriacy.) - ‘If I may, Mr. Chairman’ → formal - ‘I wonder if I might say something’. → formal - ‘Can I just come in here?’ → informal - ‘Hang on a minute’ → informal - ‘Shut up will you, I can’t get a word in edgewise’. → informal There are also linguistic means for not taking the turn or indicating that we are attending to the message. >>> Backchannel responses consist of vocalizations (mm, ah-ha…) and short words and phrases such as yeah, no, right, sure…. These responses encourage the speaker to keep talking, and reflect that you are following what is being said. Back-channel realizations vary from culture to culture. For instance, Japanese people make some type of noises that are unfamiliar to us. Spanish people, on the other hand, are known for doing “ehh…” between words or sentences. 56 Another feature of turn-taking is: - The way speakers predict one another’s utterances and often complete them for them or overlap with them as they complete. EXERCISE: Break the conversation down into its adjacency pairs. Point out where expansions occur (pre-, post-, and insertions). Label and explain any preferred or dispreferred responses you find. Scenario: Two friends, Lisa and Mark, are discussing weekend plans and a recent event they attended. CONVERSATION: Lisa: Hey Mark, are you free this weekend? Question Mark: Hmm, I might have something on Saturday, but Sunday should be fine. Response. Why? Pre-expansion Lisa: I was thinking we could check out that new coffee shop downtown. Proposing Mark: Oh, that sounds great! Acceptance of the proposal. Preferred response Mark: Actually, wait... is it the one with the rooftop seating? (Insertion sequence) Lisa: Yeah, the one right near the art gallery. Insertion sequence → Completing the insertion Mark: Perfect. I’ve been wanting to go there! Post-expansion. Lisa: Awesome. Shall we meet around 11? Suggestion Mark: 11 might be a bit early for me…(pre-expansion) can we make it noon? Proposing Lisa: Sure, noon works! Response Mark: By the way, how was the charity gala on Friday? You mentioned you were going. Lisa: Oh, it was amazing! The food was great, and they raised so much money. Lisa: Actually, you would’ve loved it. The band played your favorite song! (Insertion) Mark: No way! Which one? Lisa: "Bohemian Rhapsody." They even did a guitar solo! Mark: Ugh, now I really regret not going. Lisa: Don’t worry, I recorded part of it. I’ll show you when we meet! Mark: You’re the best, Lisa. Thanks! The next speaker may select a turn: A: I must tell you what happened to me yesterday. B: I’ll call you back. I’ve got a visitor. If neither of these conditions applies: - The person who is currently speaking may continue. There might be culture-specific conventions for turn-taking: - Role of silence: more acceptable in some cultures (Finnish, Japanese). It can be called “acceptable silence”, where for instance you stay silent for 2-3 seconds to create expectatives on what you are about to say (Guess what? … ).. - Rule conflicts: the tendency of transferring L1 conventions to the L2 context. It interferes in a negative way. 57 Turn-taking is closely related to topic nomination: - People want to contribute to the topic or change the topic. 5.4. Topics Topics are stretches of talk bounded by transactional markers (=used to mark that you are going to bring up a new topic in the conversation) such as: - lexical ones: by the way, to change the subject… you clearly specify that you are changing the topic. - other transaction markers such as: right, now, so, OK; - phonological ones: changes in pitch. Usually downtown intonation means that you are trying to finish a topic. Topics can be the reason for talk or can arise because people are already talking. This is part of interpersonal communication in order to maintain the social rules. Remember that: Conversation has a restricted and repetitive repertoire. Speakers often repeat partially or exactly what has just been said, relieving online planning pressure. This is called: local repetition. We use this local repetition to show that we are listening to the speaker, to soften the tone, to show enthusiasm, etc. It is related to the interpersonal relationship, that we are bound to the relation. A: Let’s serve this damn chilli, B: Ok, let’s serve the chilli. Conversation is repetitive in a more global sense (if we deeply analyze a conversation that lasted, for instance, an hour, we can see that not that much information has been shared because we tend to repeat ourselves all the time: topics, words, sentences..): - It relies more on stereotyped, prefabricated sequences of words: lexical bundles: Can I have, Do you know…? These lexical bundles give us time to think about what is coming next. - It shows a low type-token ratio (TTR) (more repetition) = the relationship between the number of different words forms, or types, and the number of running words, or tokens.: TTR = (types / tokens) x 100. Most frequent verbs: give, think, be, etc. 5.5. Repairs Conversation is typically spontaneous. Speakers are faced with the need both to plan and execute their utterances in real time ‘online’. We talk about normal disfluency (it’s called normal because it happens very often) when the speaker’s flow is impaired by: - pauses, - hesitations (er, um), and - repetitions (I-I-I …) at points where the need to keep talking threatens to run ahead of mental planning. Dysfluency is a pervasive feature of ordinary speech. The process of conversation involves monitoring to ensure that intended messages have been communicated and understood. Repair refers to efforts made by the speaker (if the person correct their own mistake) or the hearer (if the person listening tries to help the speaker) to correct trouble spots in conversation. Speaker-initiated repairs are termed self-repairs: - Is a dollar all right or will I need more than that for the p…to cover the postage? This one is called Retrace-and-repair sequences (false stars): the speaker retraces what has just been said, and starts again with a different word or sequence of words. Other examples are: 58  - So before we issue- before we hand over the B one what do we do? This is a repair made by the speaker himself. - - Dad, I don’t think you sh-, I think you should leave Chris home Saturday. Other-initiated repairs are carried out by the hearer. (1) A: She married that guy from Australia… what was his name?...Wilson …Williams B: Don Wilson A: Yeah, Don WIlson (2) A: I played, I played against em… B: Southend (3) A: She plays a certain amount, but erm- you get erm B: Subsidised? A: That’s right, Yeah In conversation between L2 learners and L1 speakers, there may be request for other repairs when something is not understood. Echoing = the speaker repeats a word or phrase which is not understood and the conversational partner explains it or replaces it with an easier item: B: We’re going mountaineering tomorrow. A: Mountain…ee…? B: Mountaineering. You know, to climb up the mountain. The concept of repair in L2 communication can be extended to include communication strategies (Tarone, 1977). Self-initiated repairs and request for assistance when TL vocabulary is lacking: Communication strategies include: a) Approximation. Lacking a word in the TL. The speaker may choose an approximate word (a synonym). Eg: ‘shop’ instead of ‘department store’. b) Word coinage. A word is made up in an attempt to fill out a gap in knowledge of a target language item. Example: Helsinki produces a lot of ice crushing ships (ice breaker). c) Circumlocution. A paraphrase or description of a word may be used when a word is unknown. E.g.Does the place have… a place for books? (bookshelf). d) Borrowing. A word from L1 is used when the TL word cannot be remembered. A: I felt very … “malu”…you know? B: You felt very shy? A: Yes, shy. e) Mime. The speaker may act out a word. A: Then the plane… (mimes a plane taking off). B: It took off? 59  f) Topic shift. The speaker changes the topic due to lack of vocabulary to discuss it. g) Topic avoidance. The speaker avoids introducing certain topics because of lack of sufficient vocabulary to discuss them. 5. 6. Interactional and transactional talk A distinction is often made between: - Transactional talk = is for getting business done in the world: to effect the purchase of something, to get someone to do something… - Interactional talk = confirming and consolidating relationships, expressing solidarity… (chatting, enjoying social drinks, etc…). Talk is rarely one thing or the other. Even in the most strictly ‘transactional’ of settings, people engage in interactional talk. UNIT 6. The Cooperative Principle (No hi ha power, reading a sa copisteria) In order to communicate, you need to cooperate. 1. The cooperative Principle. Engaging in conversation → Shared assumptions and expectations about: - What conversation is → how to open or close a conversation. - How conversation develops → we are aware of turn-taking, how we start a conversation and how we end it… - Sort of contribution to make. → We have to take turns in a conversation, we can’t talk all over and over. Each other’s utterances are perceived as contributing to conversation. Is this a conversation? (3) A: Where did you buy that shirt? B: And he shouldn’t say it anyway because that’s what he does. It is very difficult to make sense of this. As the answer for the question doesn’t relate to it. The B person is not being cooperative as he is not sticking to the conversation, Exchange: uninterpretable Assumption: If I ask a question, whatever you say will be interpreted as an answer to my question. (4) A: How much did you pay for that blouse? B: Do you like it? I got it at Metro We can understand this conversation, although he doesn’t provide an exact answer. The answer is more coherent, as speaker B states it is from Metro, we could guess the price point. Exchange: coherent Why? Avoidance of the requested answer = I don’t want to tell you These are our assumptions, whatever the person says we try to interpret it. 60 (5) A: Smith doesn’t seem to have a girlfriend these days. B: He has been paying a lot of visits to New York lately. It is implied that he is seeing someone in New York. Speaker B manages to communicate more of what is literally stated: → Implications: Smith may have a girlfriend in NY. The speaker implies something and we infer the intending meaning. The speaker implies and the hearer infers the intended meaning. Speaker → IMPLIES Hearer → INFERS → The intended meaning Key notion: Implicature Implicature = inferences that are drawn from an utterance and that are perceived by the hearer as being intended by the speaker. Inferences are very context dependent. Recovery of implicated information guided by: Principles of conversation: The Cooperative Principle (Grice 1975) The 4 maxims or principles of the Cooperative behaviour (Grice, 1925): 1) Maxim of Quantity - Make your contribution as informative as is required. - Do not make your contribution more informative than is required 2) Maxim of Quality - It is related to being sincere and truthful. - Try to make your contribution on that is TRUE. - Do not say what you believe to be false. - Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. This is present in many utterances. If I want to defend myself, When we say “As far as I know”, we are trying to be truthful but we only say what we believe to be true. Other expressions: I believe, I think, etc. 3) Maxim of Relation The most important maxim as it is related to relevance. It is more related to coherence. - Be relevant 4) Maxim of Manner It is related to being coherent. - Be perspicuous: - Avoid obscurity of expression. Be clear. - Avoid ambiguity. Avoid being vague - Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) - Be orderly. You need to talk with structure. Grice → Maxims plus additional principles: - social and aesthetic to explain, for example, polite behaviour. When we use metaphors or euphemisms The maxims tacitly presumed by the interlocutors. Exchange (5): 61 A: Smith doesn't seem to have a girlfriend these days. B: He has been paying a lot of visits to New York lately. B’s answer is inter… Conversational implicature = inference based on the presumption of COOPERATION. The maxims produce inferences beyond the literal content of the utterances - Generate implicatures Example: A: Would you like a burger? B: Answer 1: No, thank you. B: Answer 2: I’m on a diet B: Answer 3: My husband/ wife thinks I’m fat B: Answer 4: I’m a vegan. 2-4 do not give a direct answer to the questions, but the answer is implied. Implicature (exchange 5): Smith may have a girlfriend in NY. Why? Maxim of relation. It makes the Addressee search for a relevant interpretation of what may seem an irrelevant piece of information. Examples of the maxims: 1) Maxim of Quality: Make your conversation just as informative as required If a speaker has access to information required by the hearer - s/he is expected to communicate that information to the hearer. (1) A: Where is your mother? B: She is either in the house or at the market. She is providing the right amount of information if she doesn’t know where her mother is. But, if she knew where she was it would not be informative B’s utterance: Implication: the child only knows that the mother is in one of the two places. Otherwise the maxim would have been violated (not providing the information required 2) Maxim of Quantity (2) A: What did you have for lunch today? B: I had cottage cheese We can say that in order to emphasize something new. B’s utterance flouted or violated - if the speaker also had had pizza and banana split This violation can carry an implicature = the speaker does not want to reveal X’s precise location: (2) A: Where does Maria live? B: Somewhere in the South of France. The answer is very broad. You are not being meaningful. What’s the implication? If you know the exact location and you provide this answer, you are leaving out the required information. If the maxims are breached, the hearer infers that the speaker have meant something else. Flouting the maxims also leads to implicatures: (3) If he comes, he comes (this is what is called tautology) 62 Sentence (3) is uninformative: The maxim of quantity is flouted. A possible explanation could be that you don’t care if he comes or not. The thing is that you are going to look for an explanation. You might miss something of the information. It is always placed in the function that the maxim has to be rich. You never know if he is going to turn up so there is no point worrying about it. The maxim of QUantity also accounts for giving sufficient, but not more information that is required. Compare: (4) A: Where are you going? B: I’m going to the bathroom. We can understand this perfectly. (5) A: Where are you going? B: I’m going to the bathroom to do a wee wee. The child has not acquired the conventions, so he is providing more information of the expected. There are also adults that provide more information than is expected. In (5) Child gives more information of the expected. Maxim of Quality: Make your contribution one that is TRUE. Assumption: Our partner is not being untruthful or trying to deceive us. Otherwise, it is extremely difficult to maintain a conversation. Exemple: (6) Tom has wooden ears. Sentence (6) is obviously false: flouting quality. This sentence is a metaphor. When we violate a maxim we don’t know if the person does not give the information because he or she doesn’t want to or does not know. Hence, the hearer may infer something informative as: Tom does not appreciate classical music so we should not invite him to the concert. Metaphor and irony: Standard examples of the flouting of the maxim of quality. Examples: Metaphor - ‘My house is a refrigerator in January’ = a very cold house. Euphemism: - I’m going to wash my hands = ‘I’m going to urinate’ - ‘He kicked the bucket’ = He died Hyperbole: - ‘I could eat a horse’ = I’m starving. Irony: a positive sentiment. Implication: a negative one (mock politeness) - ‘Don’t worry, I love being waken up at 4am’. The form is positive but the meaning is negative. Banter: offensive way of being friendly (mock impoliteness). Note: It can offend the hearers if they do not recover the conversational implicature. Implicature is always related to the utterance. We imply something linked to the utterance. The inferences are supposed to be intended by the speaker. 63  3) Maxim of relation. Make your contribution relevant. We have to stick to the topic. (7) A: I’m out of writing paper B: There’s a shop around the corner. It seems to be coherent and cohesive. B is being relevant. Assumption: B’s reply is relevant. A will assume that 1) the shop is open and 2) it sells writing paper. Imagine that A went round the corner and found that the shop was a clothing shop, and so confronted B: (8) A: You said I could get paper at the shop around the corner. B: No, I didn’t. All I said was that there was a shop around the corner. I didn’t say what shop it was. B is not playing the rules of conversational game: not observing the maxim of relation Manipulation of the 4 maxims can be to express sarcasm, irony, criticism, etc. Example: exchange between 2 university lecturers: (9) A: How did you find Jone’s thesis? B: It was well typed. B is still being relevant but he mentions things that are not relevant for a thesis. B chooses NOT to be as informative as required. Suggestion = the other qualities of the thesis were not worth commenting on. A distinction is often made between: FLOUTING the maxims: the speaker expects the hearer to infer the meaning implied (implicit meaning). It is an open violation. For example, by using metaphors. It is an open violation that leads to the additional meaning. VIOLATING the maxims: the speaker knows that the heart will not know the truth and will only understand the surface meaning of the words. They intentionally generate misleading implicatures. Examples: Violation of the maxim of quantity the speaker intentionally doesn’t give enough information. Tell lies. Violation of the maxim of quality the speaker gives the hearer the wrong information: being insincere. Notice here: - white lies: lies with good intentions. (e.g. a surprise party, etc) - Politeness in certain cultures (polite behaviour) Violation of the maxim of relevance: A: How much did that new dress cost, darling? B: I know, let’s go out tonight. Now, where would you like to go’ Intention: distract A’s attention and change the topic. Violation of the maxim of manner: use of obscure references A: How much did that new dress cost, darling? B: Other forms of non-observance of the maxims: - Infringing: failure to observe a maxim due to their imperfect linguistic performance (nervousness, excitement, drunkenness, etc) Example: Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so we are. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, - Opting out: unwillingness to cooperate for: - legal or ethical reasons (priests, counsellors, police officers, etc) - e.g.: I’m afraid I can’t give you that information. 64 CONVERSATION is more than a series of exchanges. It consists of: - Exchanges initiated and interpreted accordingly to socially acquired rules of conversational cooperation. Conversational inferences work when interlocutors share some background knowledge. The distinction between: - invited implicatures and - implicatures arising unintentionally are difficult to draw. Miscommunication due to implicatures that the speaker did not intend to communicate. Are Grice’s maxims universal or language specific? Conversation in any language dependent upon these maxims BUT - the specific forms they take may vary across cultures. - Maxim of Quantity: Malagasy society Different ways of observing and expressing the maxims. Post-Gricean developments: Grice’s theory claimed to be weak since: - it allowed for deriving all the possible —----------- Post-Gricean developments fall into 2 categories: 1) Those that rearrange Grice’s maxims remain close to the spirit of the original theory of implicature: Horn’s and Levinson’s proposals. 2) The one that replaces the maxims with one, general cognitive principle: Sperber and Wilson’s theory of relevance (1986): - All the maxims are subsumed under the one cognitive principle, the principle of relevance. Human central cognitive system works by preserving the balance between: - the EFFORT and - the EFFECT in conversation That is, by: - minimizing the processing effort - maximizing the gain, the contextual implication or cognitive effect. This principle operates without exceptions ↓ To understand an utterance is to prove its relevance. Main drawbacks: - Applying optimal relevance in concrete situations. - Too encompassing notion, loses its explanatory force - It does not include cultural or social dimensions (age, gender, status, etc). 65 Unit 7. The representation of discourse structure: Theme-Rheme 1. Theme: the linearisation problem. How to choose a beginning point of a text? This beginning point will: - influence the hearer/reader’s interpretation of everything that follows in the discourse. - constitute the initial textual context for everything that follows. (a) - She married and became pregnant. - She became pregnant and married. (b) - He got drunk and crashed the car He crashed the car and got drunk Ordo naturalis: The first-mentioned event happened first and the second-mentioned event followed it. >>> We will draw implicatures from that ordering. Constraints: - the content of what is said - stereotypical expectations based on previous experiences (‘analogy’). 1.1. Theme Thematic organisation of a sentence. Messages = organised units of information. Several syntactic alternatives exist for arranging information into a series of alternative messages, which convey the same propositional content. However, the various alternatives are not all equally appropriate at any given point in the discourse: Consider a few syntactic forms available in English: John Kissed Mary a. John kissed Mary. b. Mary was kissed by John. c. It was John who kissed Mary. d. It was Mary who was kissed by John. e. What John did was kiss Mary. f. Who John did was kiss Mary g. Mary, John kissed her. The appropriateness of structured, tested by providing questions. - Alternatives: do not all functions satisfactorily as answers to the same question - Different assumptions about the state of knowledge Pragmatic factors that condition the choice of one: 1) Which element of the proposition represents the main topic, what the clause is about. 2) Which part of the message the speaker considers most important. 3) Which part of the message the speaker treats a known (GIVEN) to the hearer, and which is presented as NEW. The information that is known is the information that we already know. In English, we start with the given information and go towards the new information. Tendency to go from KNOWN to NEW. 4) What information, if any, is presupposed at any given point in the discourse. 5) Which element the speaker chooses as the point of departure of the message. 66 Theme- is an element of thematic structure related to what speakers or writers take as their ‘point of departure’ (left-most constituent) in that clause. The first element I try to put in the sentence first. The rest of the message constitutes the Rheme. It depends on what type of clause is given (declarative, imperative, etc). The Theme is always the first element of the clause. Examples: The choice of Theme: - Represents the angle from which the speaker projects his/her message. It partially conditions how the message develops. - Is conditioned by the speaker’s assumptions regarding what the speaker knows or doesn’t know about the state of affairs described. It’s the noise I can’t stand → I can’t stand something and I identify that entity. - Acts as a signal regarding the structure that is likely to follow: Once upon a time… → This conditions the rest of my message, the type of language I’m going to use… Speakers can choose between a marked (reason, prominent) and an unmarked (natural and expected) option: Unmarked Theme generally coincides with the first constituent of each mood structure, as follows: 1) DECLARATIVES - Subject in declarative clause: Alice went home 2) INTERROGATIVES - Finite + Subject in a polar interrogative clause: Did Alice go home? - WH-element in a WH- interrogative: Where did Alice go? 3) IMPERATIVES - Predicator in an imperative Clause: Go home! Don’t go home Come on in. - let + Subject : Let’s go home When some other element is fronted to initial position it is a marked Theme, and carries some additional significance in the discourse. A theme that is not expected, it is marked for some reason: Home went Alice (Cp. In a declarative clause) You go home (Subject in an imperative) Objects, Complements and Adjuncts can be fronted: What she expected from me I can’t imagine. (Direct Object) And very pretty she is too. (Subject Complement) Only 10 years ago, this coastline was quiet unspoilt (Circumstantial) Whole clauses can be fronted in complex sentences: Examples: 67  Theme Rheme I looked everywhere, but no bag was to be seen (coordination) Whatever you do, don’ forget the plane tickets (subordination) Other items at the beginning of the clause may be considered to be part of the Theme: Conjunctions: and, or, but… Conjuncts: however, that is, anyway… Disjuncts: personally, to my mind, perhaps, initially Vocatives: Doctor! Discourse Markers: Well, Ah, Yes… In this way we can talk of multiple Themes: Theme Rheme Well now Mrs Jones what can I do for you (Theme) No, well, I mean (Rheme) they don’t really know. (Declarative) Subject Discourse markers Well, now, Mr. Jones, what can I do for you? (Interrogative) It is still unmarked because it coincides with the first element. ‘The more marked the construction- the more likely there is an implicated meaning will be that which the utterance is intended to convey’: Example: Did John kiss Mary? a) Yes, John kissed Mary. (unmarked declarative form, the answer is expected). b) Well, Mary was kissed by John. (marked effect: humorous or derogatory). There are preferred thematic sequences in some genres (‘marked’ syntactic forms): A) The Prime Minister stepped off the plane. a) Journalists immediately surrounded her. b) She was immediately surrounded by journalists. A) The Prime Minister stepped off the plane. a) All the journalists were immediately smiled at by her. b) She immediately smiled at all the journalists. Usually, when the construction is marked there is a reason behind. In general, the constituent which is thematized in a sentence is ‘what the sentence is about’ = TOPIC. Examples: a) Fred borrowed a hammer from John. (Topic = Fred) Fred is the main character and that is why he is in an initial position. b) John lent a hammer to Fred. (Topic = John) c) Late that afternoon, Then… (adverbs of time) (Topic = about ‘what happened next’). Theme, has 2 main functions: 1) connecting back and linking in to the previous discourse- cohesion. 2) serving as a point of departure for the further development of the discourse. 1.2. Thematization and ‘staging’. Thematisation = a discoursal rather than a sentencial process: 68  - What the speaker or writer puts first will influence the interpretation of everything that follows: - A title_ will influence the interpretation of the text that follows it. Staging (Grimes 1975: 323) = more inclusive term: It identifies the relative prominence given to various segments of prose discourse. It includes the process of linearisation + rhetorical devices: lexical selection, rhyme, repetition, use of metaphor, markers of emphasis…etc. The way a piece of discourse is staged, must have a significant effect both on: - the process of interpretation. - the process of subsequent recall. 1.2.1. Theme as topic entity. The Theme may coincide with the TOPIC or main character: Remember that Theme, topic and subject are not the same. The theme usually coincides with the topic. - A particular referent is established in the foreground of consciousness. Foregrounding of a referent. - Other discourse referents remain in the background. Examples: Dr. Jones_the doctor_the surgeon_he… One basic organisational method: A thematised referent occurring as syntactic subject- is the better prompt for sentence recall. This explains why one basic organisational method for discourse production involves placing the main referent in subject position. Thematised referents (in subject position) are easier to remember (e.g. encyclopedic entries, children’s reading books, etc) 1.2.2 Titles and thematization Titles→ one possible expression of the topic. Titles = powerful thematization device. By providing different ‘starting points’ (Themes) in the titles, we constrain the way in which the piece of text was interpreted. 1.2.3. Point of view The effect of a particular orientation or ‘angle of vision’ on the way events are presented. Events usually reported by the order in which they were observed: E.g. ‘The light went on. She was standing by the door’. ‘Camera angles’: Have an effect on the syntax and lexis of sentences. The speaker’s point of view leads to a particular choice of lexis that affects the assessment of the character and motivation of the act being portrayed. E.g. (a) Mary, Queen of Scots, was executed by the English Queen. (b) Mary, Queen of Scots was assassinated by the English Queen (c) Mary, Queen of Scots, was murdered by her cousin, Elizabeth. This choices projects your point of view, ‘executed’ is legal, ‘assassinated’ is portrayed as something illegal, ‘murdered’ is staging a violent act, ‘Staging’ speaker’s involves the writer’s overall rhetorical strategy of presentation. Motivation: - create suspense - convince his listener of the truth of what he is saying - persuade his listener to a course of action, or - to shock or surprise. Messages can manipulate people. 69 UNIT 8. Pragmatics across cultures. 1. Understanding culture Human verbal communication: A continuum between 2 ends: Intracultural Intercultural Intracultural = Interactions between members of an L1 speech community COMMON GROUND (shared knowledge). Intercultural = Speakers who have different L1s. Lack of COMMON GROUND: limited access to TL conventions. Speakers cannot rely on TL prefabricated language. 2. Intercultural pragmatics Intercultural pragmatics is the pragmatic differences between different languages. Assumption: Differences in norms, values and beliefs between participants of different cultural backgrounds may affect communication in a negative way. Using a particular language and belonging to a particular speech community is linked to: “preferred ways of saying things and preferred ways of organizing thoughts” (Kecskes, 2007). Reliance on use of pre-fabricated language and formulaic and figurative language_Cultural membership. Problematic inferences_ not sharing the speaker’s cultural membership. Pragmatic failure: Pragmatic norms of the TL and culture_ may be transferred onto another. E.g. Could I have a cup of tea? vs. I want a cup of tea. Differences occur in social situations: common speech acts (apologising, refusing, suggesting, expressing gratitude…) E.g. Use of ‘I’m sorry’ between NS of English and Japanese English speakers can produce cultural misunderstandings. Norms are not universally applicable to all languages: - Western culture: Self: Individualistic notion. Acceptable: be openly critical, confrontational, etc. - Eastern culture: Self: Collectivistic notion. Acceptable: Modesty, humility, formality and avoidance of strong feelings. Pragmatic failure: Pragmatic norms of the TL may be transferred onto another: e.g. ‘Could I have a cup of coffee?’ vs. ‘I want a cup of coffee’. Pragmatic failure is not easily recognizable. Speakers may be judged as impolite or uncooperative. Pragmatic negative transfer: Linguistic elements do not correspond to native forms. Socially inappropriate utterances. Pragmatic competence- understanding communicative intent. Learning speech acts in an L2: Learning the new linguistic elements + new social attitudes to know how these linguistic elements are used. Why? Speakers of different languages use linguistic elements differently. E.g. Clerk: “Oh, you look like you’re ready to go to the beach…” In the last years, transfer and cross-linguistic consider bidirectional relationship between the two languages: The influence of the L1 on the L2 and the influence of the L2 on areas of the L1 = ‘reverse’ or ‘backward’ transfer’. - The intercultural style hypothesis (Blum-Kulka, 1991): The development of an intercultural pattern which reflects bi-directional interaction between the languages. It is the result of the contact of individuals with other languages (individual phenomenon). E.g.: Convergence in trilingual speakers tends to make their languages more similar. 70 EFL Communication: A lack of common experiences, assumptions, etc. may contribute to a greater incidence of misunderstanding and miscommunication in intercultural communication. However, ELF communication is characterized by cooperation. Success approach: ELF participants can successfully accomplish their communicative tasks. Participants in EFL communication tend to be less focussed on cultural differences (“the Cultural Irrelevance Hypothesis”, House 1999) in order to achieve mutual understanding in the lingua franca: ‘Let it pass principle’ everything is acceptable unless it hinders successful communication. 71