CONVERSTATION AND PREFERENCE

STRUCTURE
PRAGMATICS/ S2
2016-2017
 Pragmatics is the study of what speakers mean when they say
somethi9ng, and how hearers understand it.
 Part of the meaning of a sentence is constant, and comes from
the words used in it and how they are arranged, however, there
is more to pragmatics than just understanding the context in
which something is said.
 Pragmatics also refers to the rules, including knowing what
context you need to provide to the listener, the rules that frame
language interactions.
CONVESATIONAL ABILITIES
 An important part of our pragmatic skill set
 Even before we talk , we learn the rules of conversation.
 When parents speak ‘baby-talk’ to their infants, they do it in
a vey structured way. They use exaggerated ‘pitch changes to
attract the infant's interest and highlight these sounds that I’
making now are important
 Parents also articulate more carefully than when they speak
with adults or children to help the baby understand which
sounds are important in their language
 They treat the interaction as a real interaction, keeping up a
turn taking format, even if the baby doesn’t respond
 The pause between the parent’s utterances is exactly what
would be if they were in conversation with an adult.
 This aspect of parentese is an important part of training
children in holding conversations, and indeed, children can
take turns in a conversation making fake words that sound
right before they even speak their first word .
 As we grow older, we learn more rules about the form in a
conversation , like a question must followed by an answer, longer
pauses are demands for more speech on your part, a hundreds
other unspoken rules of the language

 All these are parts of pragmatics

CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS( CA )
 CA is they study of talk in interaction ( both verbal , and non
verbal in situations of everyday life).

 CA attempts to describe the orderliness, structure, and

sequential patterns of interaction, whether institutional, or in
casual conversations.
 CA was developed in late 1960’ and early 1970’ by
sociologist HARVEY SACKS ,and his close associates
EMANUAEL SCHEGLOFF & GAIL JEFFERSON , inspired by
ethno methodology of Goffman & Garfinkel
 Today, conversational analysis is an established method used in
sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and
psychology

 CA is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics,

discourse analysis and discursive psychology.

 Conversation analysis is an approach to the study of social

interaction that focuses on practices of speaking that recur across
a range of contexts and settings.
What is a conversation ?
 Conversation is a discourse type that contains several
discourse strategies that are of interest to pragmatics
 Every piece of conversation consists of some acts that
represent the speaker’s intention .

 Many metaphors have been made to describe conversation

structure . Conversation is like a dance, with the
conversational patterns coordinating their movements
smoothly.
 For others, conversations is like traffic crossing an
intersection, involving lots of alternating movements without
any crashes
 The most widely used analytic approach to conversation, is
based on an analogy with the workings of a market
economy.
How ?
The conversation …a market economy
 In this marker , there is a scarce commodity called the floor
which can be defined as the right to speak
 Having control of this floor at any time is called a turn
 In any situation when control is not fixed in advance, any one
can attempt to take control; this is called turn taking
 Turn taking operates in accordance with a local management
system that is conventionally known by members of a social
group.
 The local management system is set of conventions for
getting turns, keeping them, or giving them away
 This system is need most at those points where there is a
possible change in who has the turn.
 Any possible change of turn point is called a Transition relevance
place TRP

 Within any social group, there will be features of talk (or

absence of talk) typically associated with a TRP
PAUSES, OVERLAPS AND
BACKCHANNELS
 Most of the times, conversation consists of two or more
participants taking turns, and only one participant speaking at any
time.
 Smooth transitions from one speaker to the other seem to be
valued
 Transitions with a long silence between turns or with substantial
overlap(both speakers trying to speak at the same time) are often
felt to be awkward.
 When two people attempt to have a conversation and discover
that there is no ‘flow’, or smooth rhythm to their transitions,
much more is being communicated than what is said
 There is a sense of distance, an absence of familiarity or ease , as
in the interaction show in example (1)
>Mr Strait: what’s your major Dave?
>Dave: English-well I haven’t decided yet
( 3 seconds)
>Mr Strait: so-you want to be a teacher?
>Dave: Non-not really- well not if I can help it
(2.5 seconds)
Mr Strait:What-where do you –go ahead
Dave: I mean it’s a-oh sorry//I em….
 As shown in this examples, very short pauses ( marked with a
dash) are simply hesitations
 The first silence ( 3 seconds) are not attributable to either speaker
because each has completed a turn.
 If one speaker actually turns over the floor to another and the
other does not speak, then the silence attributed to the second
speaker and becomes significant; it’s an attributable silence
 Example(2)
Jan:Dave I’m going to the store
(2 seconds)
Jan: Dave?
(2 seconds)
Jan: Dave-is something wrong?
Dave:What? What’s wrong?
Jan: Never mind
 Silence at a TRP is not as problematic for the local management
system as overlap
 If the expectation is that only one person speaks at a time, then
overlap can be a serious problem.
 The type of overlap shown in example one is simply of a difficult first
conversation with an unfamiliar person.
 There are other types of overlaps that are interpreted differently.
 For many speakers, overlapped talk appears to function like an
expression of solidarity or closeness in expressing similar opinions. But
the effect of the overlapping talk creates a feeling of two voices
collaborating as one , in harmony, see example (3)

> Min: Did you see him in the video?

> Wendy:Yeah– the part of the beach
>Min: Oh my god//he looked so handsome
>wendy: he was so cool
> Min: and the waves// crashing around him
> Wendy Yeah that was really wild

In this example, overlap communicates closeness

 See another example (4) :
> Joe: when were in //power las-
wait CAN I FINISH ?
> Jerry: that’s my point I said--
 In this example, overlap communicates competition. The
speakers may appear to be having a discussion but , in fact, they
are competing for the floor.
 By drawing attention to an expectation that he should be
allowed to finish, the speaker in (4) is appealing to some of the
unstated rule of conversation structure.
 Each speaker is expected to wait until the current speaker
reaches a TRP , to take his turn.
 Normally , those who wish to get the floor will wait for a
possible TRP (transition relevance place), and those holding
the floor in a competitive environment will avoid providing
TRP’s .
 To do so , they must avoid an open pause at the end of a
syntactic unit, the speaker may fill his pauses with (humm ,
or uuhhh), which are placed inside , and not at the end of,
the syntactic units. See example (5)
> I wasn’t talking about him—umm his first book that was--- really
just like a start and so—uh isn’t—count really
 Another type of floor holding device is to indicate that there is a
larger structure to your turn by beginning with expressions like :
there are three points I’d like to make, first…
 Such expressions are used to get the regular exchange of turn
process suspended and allow one speaker to have an extended
turn. Within the extended turn , however speakers will expect
their conversational partners to indicate that they are listening.
 Different ways can be used to do this, like smiles, head nods, and
other facial expressions and gestures. The most common vocal
indications are called ‘backchannel signals’ or simply
‘backchannels
Backchannels
➢ Caller : If you use your long distance then you’ll
➢ Mary: uhh, uhh
➢ Caller: be interested in rthe discount I’m talking about because
➢ Mary: yeah
➢ Caller: it can only save you money to switch to a cheaper service
➢ Mary: mmmm
 These types of signals (mm, uuhh, yeah) provide feedback to
the speaker that the message is being received, they normally
indicated that the listener is following, and not objecting to
what the speaker is saying.
CONVERSATIONAL STYLE
High involvement
style

High considerateness
style
HIGH INVOLVEMENT STYLE

 Some individuals expect that participation in a

conversation will be very active, that speaking rate will
be relatively fast, with almost no between turns, and
with some overlap or even completion of the other’s
turn.
HIGH CONSIDERATENESS STYLE

 It differs substantially from another style in which

speakers use a slower rate, expect longer pauses between
turns, do not overlap, and avoid interruption or
completion of the other’s turn. This non-interrupting,
non imposing style has been called the high
considerateness style.
 When a speaker who typically uses the first style gets into
conversation with a speaker who normally uses the second
style, the talk tends to become one-sided.
 The active participation style will overwhelm the other style.
 Neither speaker will necessarily recognize that it is the
conversational styles that are different, instead the more
rapid-fire speaker may think ,the slower-paced speaker just
doesn’t have much to say, is shy, and perhaps boring or even
stupid. In return, he or she is likely to be viewed as noisy,
pushy, domineering, selfish, and even tiresome.
ADJACENCY PAIRS
 Pairs of utterances in talk are often mutually dependent, a
most obvious example is that a question predicts an answer,
and that an answer presupposes a question.
 It is possible to state the requirements, in a normal
conversational sequence, for many types of utterances, in
terms of what is expected as a response and what certain
responses presuppose.
EXAMPLES OF ADJACENCY PAIRS
Utterance Expected
function response
greeting greeting

congratulations thanks

apology acceptance

Inform acknowledge
 Pairs of utterances such as greeting-greeting, and apology-
acceptance are called adjacency pairs

 The mutual dependence of such utterances is underlined by

the fact that we can only be absolutely sure of the function of
the initiating utterance ) the first pair-part) when it is
contextualized with the response it gets ( the second pair-
part), and vice versa, for example ‘hello’ in English could be
a greeting, a request to a telephone caller ,or an expression
of surprise; Hello, what’s his here?
 The utterance of the first part immediately creates an
expectation of the utterance of a second part of the same
pair. Failure to produce the second part in response will be
treated as a significant absence and hence meaningful.
 There are some forms which are used to fill the slots in
adjacency pairs, but there must always be two parts to the
pair. See examples in the next slide, p 88 in your book
FIRST PART SECOND PART
What’s up ? Nothing much

Just hanging in
How’s it going?
there

How are The usual

things?
How are you Can’t
doing? complain
Insertion sequences
 An insertion sequence is one adjacency pair within another.
See example :
➢ agent: do you want the early flight? Q1
➢ client: what time does it arrive ? Q2
➢ Agent: nine forty-five A2
➢ Client:Yeah-that’s great A1
 The insertion sequence takes the form of Q2-Q2-A2-A1
Although it appears that there is a question (Q2)as an
answer to question 1, the assumption is that once
the second part of the insertion sequence is
provided(A2), the second part of the initial
question (Q1) will follow (A1)
 Adjacency pairs are of different types:

First pair-parts have identical second pair-parts(

hello-hello)

First pair parts expect different second pair-

parts(congratulations-thanks)

A second pair-part may presuppose a wide range of

first-pair parts( thanks-offers, apology, informing,
congratulations…)

First pair-parts have various possibilities and

generate further expectations too(
invitation- reject or accept )
Native Vs Non-natives use of adjacency
pairs
 Scarella&Brunak compared the use of giving informal
invitations between native and non-native users of English,
 It was found that native speakers preface their invitations , for
example ( I was wondering, we are having a party,) while non
native speakers were too formal or too blunt ( I would like to
invite you to a part, I want you to come to a party)
 Similarly , it seems that native speakers usually preface
disagreement second pair-parts in English with partial
agreement like : yes, but …, and with softeners( I’m
afraid…)
WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT?

 This observation had direct implications for the

design of role play and similar activities and
linguistic elements need to be pre-taught, where
learners are instructed to behave in ways
specified by the activity and where the goal is a
simulation of ‘real life’ situations.
PREFERENCE STRUCTURE
 Adjacency pairs are not simply contentless noises in sequences,
they represent social actions, and not all social actions are equal
when they occur as second parts of some pairs.

 Basically, a first part that contains a request or an offer is made

with the expectation that the second part will be an acceptance,
this likelihood is called ‘preference’
 The term ‘preference structure’ is used to indicate a socially
determined structural pattern and does not refer to any
individual’s mental and emotional desires.
 In this technical use of the word, preference is an observed pattern
in talk and not a personal wish.
First part SECOND PART
PREFERRED DISPREFERRED

Assessment Agree Disagree

Invitation Accept Refuse
Offer Accept Decline
Proposal Agree Disagree
Request Accept Refuse

The general patterns of preferred and dispreferred

structure ( S.C.Levinson)
EXAMPLES SEE PAGE 90
SILENCE AS A RESPONSE?...
 Silence as a response often leads the speaker to revise the firt
part to get a second part that is not silence from the other
speaker.
See example :
Sandy: But I’m sure they’ll have good food there
(1.6 seconds)
Sandy: humm , I guess the food is not great there
Jack: Nah- people mostly go for the food.
 However, silence is an extreme case, almost risking the
impression of non-participation in the conversational
structure.

 In expressing dispreffered second-parts speakers use

hesitations , pauses, and prefaces. For example:
➢ Becky: come over for some coffee later
➢ Wally: Oh-eh-hum-but you see-I-I’m supposed to get this
finished – you know
 The expression of a refusal can often be accomplished without
actually saying ‘no’. Something that isn’t said nevertheless gets
communicated.
 In the previous example; after a preface like : uhh, emm, Oh ,
ehh , the second speaker produces a kind of appreciation to the
invitation, then produces (you see-) to invoke another
understanding , and then the account is presented ,that she has to
finish some work, to explain what prevented her from accepting
the invitation.
 There is also a meaning conveyed here that the speaker’s
circumstances are not at his/her control because of an obligation
to finish the work( I am supposed) , and once again expecting the
inviter’s understanding by saying (you know)
The effect of dispreffered second parts
 More time and language are used than in a preferred.
 More language essentially represents more distance between
the end of the first part , and the end of the second part.
 From a pragmatic perspective, the expression of a preferred (
in response to an invitation for example, clearly represents
closeness and quick connection.
 From a social perspective, it is easy to see why participants in
a conversation may try to avoid creating contexts for
dispreferred.
 The best way to avoid dispreferred is not to get to the point
where a first part of the pair is uttered.
 As a conclusion, we can say that the amount of
talk employed to accomplish a particular social
action in conversation is a pragmatic indicator
of the relative distance between the
participants.