Conversation Analysis

Questions on this topic? Just ask!

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics

An area of empirical research developed from ethnomethodology, conversation analysis is represented primarily in the studies of H.Sacks, E.Schegloff, and G.Jefferson. Sacks’ earlier studies emphasized the properties of practical reasoning (see Garfinkel and Sacks 1970), i.e. devices and techniques used by participants in producing and interpreting social events like telling a story or a joke (see Sacks 1972, 1978; Sacks et al. 1974). Later studies concerned with reconstructing the ‘orderliness’ of conversations as participants’ accomplishments have been most influential on discourse analysis. Of interest are recurring patterns and their structural properties in the overall organization of conversations. The most dominant and effective device in organizing interaction is seen in the local, turn-by-turn management ( sequential organization) of turn-taking which reflects the participation of all parties in structuring the interaction. In the way they handle turn-taking and turns, participants display their under-standing of the evolving activities: their interpretation of the preceding turn and their expectations for the following turn(s) ( adjacency pair, conditional relevance, preference, recipient design). Thus, conversations are considered to be products of participants’ work over time. This basic assumption constitutes one of the main differences between conversation analysis and other approaches in discourse analysis, in particular that of discourse grammar and speech act theory (see Streeck 1980; Levinson 1983).

Atkinson, J.M. and J.Heritage (eds) 1984. The structure of social actions. Cambridge.

Drew, P. and J.Heritage (eds) 1993. Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge.

Garfinkel, H. and H.Sacks. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In J.C.McKinney and E.A.Tiryakian (eds), Theoretical sociology. New York. 337–66.

Goodwin, C. and M.H.Goodwin. 1991. Interstitial argument. In A.Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk. Cambridge. 85–117.

Goodwin, C. and J.Heritage. 1990. Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19. 283–307.

Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge.

Maynard, D. and S.Clayman. 1991. The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Anthropology 17. 285–418.

McLaughlin, M.L. 1984. Conversation: how talk is organized. London.

Nofsinger, R.E. 1991. The conduct of everyday conversation. London.

Sacks, H.

1972. On the analyzability of stories by children. In J.J.Gumperz and D.Hymes (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York. 325–45.

——1978. An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In J.Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. London. 249–69.

——1992. Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Oxford.

Sacks, H., E.Schegloff, and G.Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversations. Lg 50. 696–735.

Schegloff, E. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. AA 70. 1075–95. (Repr. in J.J.Gumperz and D.Hymes (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York, 1972. 346–80.)

——1992. Repair after next turn. American Journal of Sociology 97. 1295–345.

——and H.Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8. 289–327.

Schenkein, J. (ed.) 1978. Studies in the organization of interaction. New York.

Stenström, A.-B. 1994. An introduction to spoken interaction. London.

Streeck, J. 1980. Speech acts in interaction: a critique of Searle. DPr 3. 133–54.

Sudnow, D. (ed.) 1972. Studies in interaction. New York.

ethnomethodology

This is the complete article, containing 490 words (approx. 2 pages at 300 words per page).

View More Summaries on Conversation analysis