1.4 Conversational analysis approach

1.4 Conversational analysis approach

As far as conversational analysis is concerned, we have already mentioned that an ultimate empirical analysis is necessary within the scope of pragmatics; therefore, it is not a surprise to see the impact of ethno-methodology on pragmatics (32), for the pragmatic empirical way to study conversational organization is via empirical techniques (33).

1.4.1 Conversational sections

A- Question-Answer sequences

The conversational organization is composed of various parts. Obviously, the first remark, that can be intelligibly noticed, is that tow party conversational sequences are seen via “ABAB” order where “A” and “B” are participants (34). Basically, minimal pair of conversations consists of “Question-Answer” sequences (36).

B-Summon-Answer sequences

For a conversation to start, there must be “a culturally standard beginning” and a “proper end” (37).Indeed, Schegloff (1986), based on telephone conversational studies, called the items that occur at the beginning “Summons” (38). A summon may be a courtesy phrase such as names , interjections ,like “huh” , or a physical device such as gestures (39).Summons are called “attention getting device” (40),they may occur at the beginning of an utterance ,at the end or inserted within it (41).


C-Summon-Answer probabilities

A summon-answer sequence is not repeatable. Once a Summon is answered a summoner may not begin another Summon-Answer sequence (42).Furthermore, the summon-answer sequences are relevant to further speaking (43); and Schegloff (1986) observed that the caller is obliged to offer the first topic (44). In this regard, Schegloff said that:

In such a formulation we treat the S A sequence for which further talk becomes the second item expectable upon the occurrence of the first. (45)

Thus the summon- answer formula is a complementary unit to the “chaining rule” sequences

Apart from this , the possibility that no response to the summon may be returned can happen .Though ,in this case , the first summon may be repeated , and there is an empirical observation indicating that summons are repeated until a response returned (46).Relatively, this problem may be explained the availability processes that are based on the presence versus absence or readiness versus non-readiness of the interlocutor .This process adheres to the social restrictions of rights to talk (47); for instance, sub-sequences like “huh” or “yes” signifies availability (48). While the non-readiness can be shown in Levinson’s (1983) comment:

Thus dispreferred seconds are typically delivered :(a) after some significant delay ;(b) with some preface marking their dispreferred status ,often the particle WELL;(c) with some account of why the preferred second cannot be performed.(49)

Subsequently, such intimacy or familiarity of relationship can explain easy recognitions or readiness for talk (50). On the other side, the closing manners are pre-closing summon-answer sub-sequences that check the readiness of the interlocutor for closing the conversation (51), indicate the “passing turn” or check the recipient state (52).

Finally, in case there are many interlocutors, if A selects B, it is only B who got the right to answer; otherwise another one may do so (53). In spite of this, overlap happens, but one speaker usually drops easily in anyway





1.4.2 Summary

As a summary, we have investigated the different theoretical, empirical and sociolinguistic approaches, which have dealt with speech events analysis .On the one hand, we considered the theory of SPEECH ACT ,which have introduced linguistic pragmatics ; furthermore, we have referred to the necessity of an empirical research . On the other one ,we have explained the major directions in sociolinguistics that have contributed in the establishment of a practical empirical analysis of speech events such as the ethnography of speaking , which is based on social and contextual features in speech analysis . Finally we have investigated the ethno-methodological approach as an independent direction that combines the analysis of speakers’ internal competence with data of conversations of everyday life, which is adopted in linguistic pragmatics.