PSYC358: Midterm #1 Flashcards
Discourse analysis
Approach to studying psychological phenomena (developed in 70s and 80s)
Developed out of social psych + social constructionism
Examines language in use (not psychological factors like attitudes, memory, emotions etc which underlie talk)
Looks at text, convo, visual communication
How language organizes the world/behaviour/identity
Two parts of discourse analysis examination
1- CONSTRUCTION: language is constructing (not mirroring) reality
2- FUNCTION + SOCIAL ACTION: people use language to achieve goals in specific contexts
Discourses (discourse analysis)
Systems of meaning that are related to the intersectional and wider sociocultural context; operate regardless of the speakers intentions
Other parts of discourse analysis
- variability in people’s accounts
- rhetorical aspects/functions of talk
- context of interaction
- subject positions (has consequences for sense of self and experiences of subjects)
- institutions (legitimize and maintain social practices)
- power
Common views of discourse theorists
Social constructionism (reality/identity systematically constructed and maintained through systems of meaning and through social practices) Relativist view (no objective grounds on which truth of claims can be proven; value of knowledge should be evaluated through criteria like applicability, usefulness, clarity) OR critical realist view bc other view social critique (knowledge mediated by social processes but propose underlying enduring structures do exist and can be known through their effects)
Language as a mirror (metaphor)
Language = reflecting reality
Language as a construction yard (metaphor)
Language = used to construct versions of things, people, ideas and events
Words aren’t neutral
Category entitlement (tools for building a speaker’s credibility)
When you give certain categories more credibility with what they say because of their title (ex: believing everything a doctor says about health)
Concession (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Provided by speakers when they outwardly acknowledge potential counter-claims
This makes what they say sound more reasonable and robust because they considered both sides
Consensus (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Transforming a description into a “fact” by producing agreement of reliable witnesses
Disclaimer (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Explicitly denying a stance or opinion a speaker subsequently advocates (I’m not racist but… I’m not sexist but…)
Footing (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A speaker can either put themselves as the source of info that they are presenting or relay it as someone else’s message to shift responsibility
Stake management (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A version of events could be undermined of the speaker can be shown to have a vested interest in the particular account they provide (parent says their kid is gifted - other parent says of course because all parents think their kids are gifted!)
Stake confession (tools for building a speakers credibility)
A speaker acknowledges their vested interest (I know I’m his dad and all dads are proud but he really was special today)
Stake inoculation (tools for building a speakers credibility)
Speaker rebuts the potential claim that they have a stake even before they are challenged on it (at first, I was sceptical about the new cream bc it seemed too good to be true, but it actually works!)
Active voicing (tools for building the case)
Use of a direct quote from another source to make the reporting of their words seem more reliable
Categorization (tools for building the case)
When a speaker offers a description, choices are available to them about how to name or categorize their subject and their choice can make a difference on how they’re perceived (terrorist vs freedom fighter)
Detail (tools for building the case)
Builds specificity and presents an account as informed, reliable and accurate
Vagueness (tools for building the case)
Supports broad claims and it’s difficult to ‘pin down’ or undermine
Generalizations (tools for building the case)
Allows a speaker to stretch a particular interpretation across an indefinite number of instances (girls used to fall for him and then he would just dump them)
Gerrymanding (tools for building the case)
Means offering selective description of something that includes particular details as relevant while ignoring others that don’t support your argument
Intention-promoting verbs (tools for building the case)
Certain verbs can be chosen to make intention explicit (James tripped so his team lost VS James helped the team lose)
Making evidence ‘speak for itself’ (tools for building the case)
A speaker can increase the credibility of their evidence by presenting it as obvious; downplays their role in collecting/interpreting it and personifies the evidence as though it makes the case (ex: it’s obvious that… The facts show… Etc)
Maximization and minimization (tools for building the case)
Used for emphasis or de-emphasis (to establish blame or to downplay accountability)
Extreme case formulation (tools for building the case)
Extreme version of maximization and minimization; exaggerates (ex: she never listens to me)
Nominalisation (tools for building the case)
Changing of verbs into nouns in a sentence (goal: avoid mentioning those who performed the action, avoid enabling responsibility)
Ex: police killed rioters -> the killing was sad
Passive voice
Like nominalisation, used to avoid mentioning subject of verb (ex: the rioters were killed instead of the police killed the rioters)
Pronoun selection (tools for building the case)
Pronouns are words that stand in the place of nouns, and careful selection of these can be an easy way for speakers to include or exclude themselves or others from what they’re saying (calling aboriginals “them” shows them as different than “us”)
Rhetorically self-sufficient arguments (tools for building the case)
Common sense arguments that are acceptable to a listener without further justification; safe ground for a speaker cause the audience will usually agree
Ex: injustices should be righted
Statistics (tools for building the case)
Using numerical representations is not neutral process
Statistics may be selected to support particular arguments
Ex: presenting a number like “284,000 jobs” instead of “2.5% increase in jobs”
Repetition (tools for rousing audience emotion)
Used to emphasize and evoke emotion
Rhetorical questions (tools for rousing audience emotion)
Used to make a point which is so obvious it does not require an answer (sarcastic), raise an issue which the speaker will answer themselves or to encourage the listener to reflect on the question in their own mind
Three-part list (tools for rousing audience emotion)
Lists of three sound complete, satisfying and convincing
Three reasons to study language
1- practical reasons (help people with speech pathologies, problems with learning, reading)
2- window on larger theoretical questions (explain nature of language and its acquisition for example)
3- from an analytical view: to describe what is usually ignored regarding everyday use of lang, to see how people co-construct meaning in their everyday lives, what implicit rules we use are often unexamined
Formal vs communication language view groups
Formal: linguists, psycholinguists, neuro-linguists
Communicative: sociolinguists, social psych, sociology
Definition of language from linguists, psycholinguists and sociolinguists
Linguists: look at structure or mechanics; definition=a system of symbols or rules for combining these symbols in a potentially infinite number of ways
Psycholinguists (cog psych, neuro-linguistics): how people understand, produce and acquire language (some overlap with sociolinguistics)
Sociolinguists/pragmatists: definition=coordination of meaning between different people, focus on use and what people mean inexplicitly (before grammar)
Five main levels of analysis recognized in linguistics
Grammar: systematic characterization of all the rules and principles that govern language
Phonetics/phonology: set of sounds and sound patterns a language makes use of
Syntax: arrangement of words in a sentence and the study of the rules that govern the formation of a proper sentence
Semantics: all about meaning
Morphology: study of the principles governing the construction of complex words and how words are formed
Five pragmatic aspects of language
1- PROSODY: audible qualities of speech; patterns of intonation, stress, tone can change meanings
2- PHATIC: social functions of talk
3- GESTURE: how gesture and speech work together
4- PHOXEMICS: distance and how it factors into social interaction
5- RELATIONSHIPS: changes in the words we use, the structure of our talk
Discourse analysis: micro level vs larger level
Micro level: includes aspects like style, rhythm, stress, intonation, phatic expressions (you’re welcome, politeness, small talk), discourse markers (expressions like well, but, y’know), speech acts, pauses, raised voice, etc
Larger level: political discourse (ex: discourse of racism and denial), media discourse, family discourse, etc
What is the social psych/discourse analysis view on people’s intentions?
People’s intentions/cognitions are secondary because we can intend all we want, but unless we say the right thing to the right person on the right occasion, intentions don’t matter; successful discourse is jointly produced
Rhetoric
Another example of language in use (focus on how, but also issues of who, why (intention), where)
Definitions of rhetoric reflect its uneasy history
Means speech/discourse that pretends significance but lacks true meaning; undue use of exaggeration or display versus the art and skill of using speech and writing to persuade and influence; purposeful effective argumentation
Platonic vs sophist definition of rhetoric
Platonic: negative -> mere artifice, artificial, decorative
Sophists: positive -> the art of persuasion separates us from wild animals
**no single definition (performance or practice)
The three appeals that rhetor makes to audience
1- LOGOS: reasoning, use of logic
2- ETHOS: credibility of author/narrator, ethical knowledgable, believable
3- PATHOS: emotions, creates sympathy for rhetor’s idea
Three parts to understanding persona
1- VOICE: rhetoricians tone/attitude affects if and how the audience will believe what is being communicated- word choice, syntax, choice of ideas and details
2- PURPOSE: intention of rhetorician, what do they want to change in the audience?
3- EXIGENCE: what situation is demanding the rhetorician to speak/write
What are aristotle’s three divisions of rhetoric?
Aristotle’s three divisions of rhetoric:
1- FORENSIC: court; arguments require verdicts on past action
2- DELIBERATIVE: political; seeks judgement on future action
3- EPIDEITIC: praise of the dead/ceremonial; concerns values associated with praise or blame and seeks no specific decisions
11 forms of denial
1- positive self presentation (I may be this but I am not that)
2- act denial (I did not do or say that)
3- control denial (I didn’t do that on purpose, it was an accident)
4- intention denial (I didn’t mean to say that, you got me wrong)
5- goal denial (I did not say that in order to…)
6- topics (focus on difference, deviation)
7- story telling (I worked with black people so I’m not a racist)
8- focus on difference (pointing out the difference between two groups)
9- justifications (multiculturalism brought us all the problems)
10- positive/negative comparisons
11- reversal (we have to learn to be intolerant to those who are intolerant of us)
The first attempt to raise a chimpanzee as a human to invoke language
WINTHROP KELLOGG + GUA
- raised 7 and a half month old chimp with his son Donald (10 mos)
- controversial
- at one year old: could respond to verbal commands
- never learned to speak
- experiment abandoned after 9 mos
Anatomical diffs between apes and humans that effect speech
Humans:
- more tongue flexibility
- larynx lower in our throats
First research attempt at teaching apes sign language
WASHOE
- chimpanzee born in west Africa then brought to the USA
- Allen and Beatrix Gardner (psychologists) adopted her in the 60s
- raised as a child
- learned 250+ signs and reportedly coined new words (water bird for swan)
Koko the gorilla
Loaned to a grad student for her dissertation and ended up keeping her
- has a book
- celebrity meetings
- sad about robin Williams’s death
Kanzi the bonobo
Born in a primate center
- dominant female adopted him
- took interest in learning lexigrams when his adopted mom didn’t (lexigrams=symbols on a keyboard)
- lexigram vocabulary of 400 symbols
- invents new words by combining symbols, refers to past/present events and understands other POV (apparently)
Differences between the way humans use language and apes use language
1- different motivation (apes=less convo, more using language to get what they want)
2- apes language could be elicited by researchers
3- abilities are exaggerated
Chomsky’s perspective on language
NATIVIST: language is unique to humans bc linguistic structure maps onto the way the human brain works; animals using language makes no biological sense
Hocket’s (1960) 12 design features of language
1- creative, novel, open, productive
2- generative (finite set of rules can be used to create an infinite number of sentences)
3- duality of patterning (single sounds have no meaning but together have meaning)
4- embedded in tradition (passed down thru cultures)
5- rule bound
6- arbitrary (words don’t matter but syntax does)
7- auditory channel
8- semantics
9- spontaneous
10- involves turn taking
11- displacement (ability to refer to things from different times or places)
12- discreetness (sounds can be categorized and differ)
Viki (language experiment)
1940-50s
Hayseed tried to raise Viki in their home
6 years=words mama, papa, cup, up
Is chimp signing actually language?
- can combine words in new ways to convey meaning (Washoe)
- chimps don’t pick up words as easily as human kids do
- chimp word production lacks syntax
- bonobo can understand “make the dog bite the snake”
Nim Chimsky
ASL Actively molded Nim's hands Learned about 100 signs and combos Could only put together short utterances which were usually to do with food Repeated himself a lot Imitations Syntax was different than humans Lacked turn taking
Sarah (language to apes)
Metal chips on a board with colour, shape, meanings, and rules for ordering chips
After training could produce “Mary give apple Sarah”
Lana (teaching apes language)
Used lexigram (abstract symbols that can be combined according to a grammar that operates over semantically based categories) She could produce rote learned sequences related to eating, etc followed by reward
What did Rambaugh argue about Kanzi?
Rambaugh argues that Kanzi has referential ability
Based on many contexts
Ex: used lexigram strawberry when he wanted to go where they are picked, wanted one to eat, and when shown a photo
Argument against lexigrams (seindenberg and petito)
Argued that whenever Kanzi used any of the utterances he was taught, when not tested, he got to eat
Lexigrams function as a way to achieve goals rather than as symbols (therefore not symbolic use of language, representational use)
Test: can bonobos learn language with no training?
Ali (2 years old) Kenzi (8 year old bonobo) Blind and nonblind trials Tested their understanding on same novel 660 sentences Tested understanding of word order Results: Kanzi=88% correct and Ali=66%
Why can’t apes produce language ?
- larynx and vocal cords differ
- they can perceive and process human language but in a limited way (mostly requests and things they we motivated to pay attention to)
- ape communication resembles the way we communicate but their sign systems are not human language because they don’t make unique meanings
- lack cognitive capacity to use words in creative ways to convey complex meanings
- lack culture (socially transmitted behaviour)
- lack of a theory of mind (need to be able to assign and understand mental states and communicative intentions of others)
Rambaugh’s explanation for why apes can’t produce language
Their communication in the wild could possibly have a syntax; maybe if they had the anatomy/human sounds they would produce syntactic utterances
Seindenberg and petito’ explanation for why apes can’t produce language
Not just syntax but reference and apes can’t use reference; can’t use or create a grammatical language because they can’t understand that things have names
What do researchers believe about birds and language ?
Birds=better model of human language than chimps or bonobos
Specific bird types have different dialects because they live in different areas and have different needs
Sounds have linguistic structure, meaning, birds generate meaningful words
Can also learn from humans
Their social life is complex (migration, adaptation, identification)
How do parrots produce language?
Don’t have vocal cords but move air over their trachea
Don’t have large cerebral cortex and basis of their intelligence is the medio-rostral (lower part of the brain is functionally similar to humans)
Parrots are social and communicate
Do a lot of social learning in early life
Can use tools and solve puzzles
Alex the parrot
Knew about 100 words (another African grey had more than 1000)
Can identify and label objects and there is creativity
Responds with emotion
Can reason that a key is a key no matter the size, colour and why it’s different than another object
Understood turn taking, used syntactical speech, creativity
What is the importance of pointing?
- link to cognitive and language development
- infants skills with sharing attention correlated with later social competence
- based on similar ways of interaction that become more complex later in life
- pointing=early example of a Triadic form of interaction, coordinating attention between self, others and aspects of the world
- understanding this would help us to learn about what it means to become human
Do we know how gestures like pointing develop ?
No, lots of controversy
-currently researching 12 month old infants
What is the paper’s view on pointing ?
That it develops from an infant’s first self-orientation towards aspects of the world, which is responded to by others
Pointing gestures with an extended index finger
- typically emerge between 8 and 13 mos
- common but considered rude in some cultures (use other body parts to refer to people)
Pointing to make a request
Protoimperative
Pointing to direct another person’s attention
Protodeclarative
Third unnamed use of pointing gestures
To inform; point out a lost object etc
Problem with three categories of pointing gestures
Restrictive; underestimate the ways in which infants use pointing gestures
-other functions like asking and answering questions
Canonical pointing gesture
Extended index finger with remaining fingers curled and the arm extended
-has been observed in infants as young as 3 mos
Groupings of theories of how pointing develops
1- pointing in social to begin with (social-cognitive competencies underly and make pointing possible)
2- infants first point as part of their own activity and gradually realize the social significance of their action for others (social-cognitive competency develops within interaction)
**other argument pointed out by tomasello: learn pointing gesture through social shaping/learning (like chimps) VS achieving insight that others are intentional agents (or some infants learning one way and others the other way)
When pointing first emerges in infants, what foundational components of mature pointing does it already have? (tomasello)
- infants depend on both comprehension and production of pointing on a joint attention all frame with whoever they’re communicating with to identify aspects of things referred to and even refer to absent things
- mental level: understanding of attention, intentions and knowledge of their partner
Tomasello’s prediction about pointing
The functions of pointing as well as producing/understanding pointing + other forms of joint attention = should ALL develop at the SAME TIME
Because all based on same UNDERLYING INSIGHT about other people
Support: some evidence for aspects of joint attention developing in a closely linked matter (but many studies show lack of motivation)
Paper author’s idea of how pointing develops
Lack of correlation between various forms of joint attention interaction -> forms of interaction with joint attention are SEPARATE SKILLS, which, when coordinated, begin to look as if they are based on a single insight (not all linked through single underlying insight about other people)
Past ideas about pointing
Vygotsky: nonsocial orienting action
Warner and Kaplan: linked to reference, related to touch/grabbing
Bates: begins with nonsocial, self-involved activity
First approach: pointing is made possible by an insight regarding other people. Based on what?
Based on the individualistic assumption that infant is “split” from the other
Achieving understanding of others = based on self knowledge applied to others to bridge the gap
Individuals mind=starting point
Second approach: infant’s understanding of pointing emerges gradually within interaction. Based on what? (Perspective of paper authors)
Social process=starting point; minds emerge through this interaction
Relational perspective: infants gestures not assumed to be because of infants “pre-existing mind” but actually communication and mind emerge through social interaction
Why does the paper’s relational approach NOT suggest the problematic split of mental states from physical movement?
Assumes social process of interactivity as a starting point, and that infant development involves a gradual differentiation of the physical enviro from the social enviro as infants learn to interact with each
Conclusion of pointing paper
- parents think of their infants interactions as social so they treat it that way, and they gradually become social as the child realizes this
- various forms of interaction referred to as joint attention develop as social skills, and these skills can become interrelated
- infant in study used pointing to direct attention, make a request, and respond to a question (first used for himself/directedness towards aspects of the world, slowly to social)
- this is one route of many different possible ones
How does the paper explain variability between infants pointing usage and development?
- variability between infants and also within infants on diff days
- each parent and infant may develop different ways of interacting
- role of imitation (effect)
Nativist view of child’s language development
Children born with structure of language
Critical period
Naming explosion
Pinker
At 2 years old
When language begins and his view is that what happened before isn’t significant
Social cognitive/developmental view of language acquisition
No innate grammar
Language use changes throughout the lifespan and and children’s facility with language is part of that trajectory
Develop language skills gradually from enviro and parents
Children’s language ability progresses alongside neurological, cognitive and social development
Evidence for social cognitive/developmental (learning) view
Early social vocalizations like cooing, crying, babbling, etc
Infants are exposed and surrounded by language in their first years of life, they’re not taught or corrected
7 steps of preverbal and verbal production
1- crying and smiling
2- receptive skills (listening and understanding)
3- cooing (1-2 mos; vowel like sounds/ quasi-vowels)
4- simple gaze following (simultaneous looking)
5- babbling (6 mos)
6- gesture (8 mos; infants begin to point but don’t understand or follow the index point of someone else until 1 year; Protodeclarative and Protoimperative pointing)
7- patterned speech (1 year; sounds like words but are not)
**same sequence for most kids=suggests function of motor cortex and vocal tract
What can infants do speech wise?
- very young infants can distinguish between sets of phonemes when presented in isolation (from any language)
- take longer in naturally occurring speech and recognizing words
- segmentation: boundaries between words -> critical to learning words and need experience with language to do this
- one year olds can pick up some words but by two years old they’re pretty good
- use cues like the rhythmic properties of speech
Dyadic interaction
Bonding
Eye contact
Exposure to facial expressions
Early rhythmic structure that helps teach turn taking
Infants are conversational partners from birth in many cultures
Reciprocal interaction between infants and caregivers
Infants are very responsive to the emotions and reactions to the world around them
Mother and baby work to coordinate their emotions and intentions of what they want to do in the world (point, look, react), monitor for signs of commitment
Evidence = still face experiment
Coordinated interpersonal timing
Evident from 7 weeks
Infants initiate and maintain eye contact in response to what their caregivers say
Caregivers time their vocalizations to be in response to their infants gaze
What kind of language do children hear?
Parents modification of speech=child-directed speech (short simple sentences referring to concrete objects and events, slower and higher tone)
What’s the point of child-directed speech?
helps children learn the relations between words and objects and helps understanding the rules of segmentation (how speech is divided)
- elicits more positive emotions in babies
- can increase chances of child understanding the message
- complexity should be just ahead of child
Ways that caregivers support language
- picture books, games, peek a boo = rituals
- scaffolding (challenges that are one step ahead, prompting for relevant info at each point in convo)
- responding promptly, warm, repetition, praise, reformulation and expansion, questions (we treat infants utterances as significant)
- language directed at infants focuses on the here and now, is repetitive and this helps the child anticipate what will happen next
Imitation from infants
Infants try to copy what they hear from others
Studies show that 21 mos=able to imitate facial expressions and some vowel sounds
Other studies found that infants can form sounds based on what they hear
Older infants can copy something that they heard in the past
How to parents encourage imitation?
- mothers change imitative sounds to the target language over time
- parents act as if infants can imitate and by doing so, teach infants to imitate!
- imitation of vowel sounds=foundation for later acquisition of other speech sounds
- infants imitate actions/gestures -> helps them to learn about objects
Cooing and social shaping
Infant cooing/babbling= elicit adult attention + increase positive emotional interactions
- infants vocalizations= vary between being alone and being with others (suggests early pre-linguistic communication)
- social shaping= caregivers selectively reinforce certain vocalizations over others (cooing over crying for example, or native sounds before nonnative sounds)
- social shaping increases babbling and quality of babbling
Joint attention
10 mos: infant can engage in adult-led joint attention
Parents draw infants attention to objects of interest or shift their own attention to what infant is looking at
Transformation of mono-focus to joint focus
Referential communication
Begins when infants start perceiving gaze as social cue to draw attention to an object (around 10 mos)
Gaze has communicative intent and infants get it
Intersubjectivity
Child gains this, aka mutual understanding, to learn how to direct attention of others often using gestures to indicate point of interest
Epistemic triangle (carpendale and Louis)
The social context of referential communication for shared meanings to be established
Both infant and other person must be mutually paying attention to something in the external world (three points of triangle)
What predicts the timing of first words and other communication skills?
Amount of time spent in joint attention + caregivers talking about the focus of the child’s attention
10 month old infants who have what, have better language abilities at 14 and 18 mos?
Establish joint attention well
Four types of pointing
1- Protoimperative= “get me that” (requests)
2- Protodeclarative= “look at that” (direct attention)
3- informative= “let me tell you” (it’s over there)
4- to question= “what is that” (tell me)
Difference between pointing at 3 mos and 8-11 mos?
3 mos= simply extended index finger, nonsocial
8-11 mos= points to pick out interesting things, establish joint attention
Relationship between gesture and speech
- we use verbal and body together to communicate
- coordination of hands and mouth = same motor control system
- infants almost always vocalize when they gesture (when gestures present, vocalizations are more speech like)
Gestures and babbling
Babbling occurs with rhythmic hand and arm movements
Suggested that hand/arm movements synchronize the rhythmic and temporal patterns of speech and gesture
Patterned speech
Sounds like language but isn’t
Tone and emotion there, but not the words
Different types of gestures
Emotive: hand and body movements that expresses emotion
Symbolic: finger to lips meaning be quiet
Emphatic: used to stress a particular word or idea
GESTURES USED TO GET SPECIFIC RESPONSES:
-ritualization
-iconic gestures
-conventional (nodding to say yes)
-deictic (pointing, showing, offering)
-gestural labels (12 mos, gesture to indicate object like a telephone)
Time line of speech production
5 mos: recognize a few words
8 mos: start to form word-referent associations
12-18 mos: production; consonant-vowel words like mama or dada + use of appropriate tones, holophrases (one word used to convey a whole sentence like water meaning I want water), use gesture, two and three word utterances
36-48 mos: embedded clauses, complex question forms, speech registers, conversational maxims, pragmatic understanding
After age 5: 30,000 words; increasing understanding of verbal ambiguity and forms of speech like sarcasm
What’s the great appeal of the Code Model?
Gives a clear and straightforward explanation of how Intersubjectivity occurs + how people can understand what other people say
Relationship between words and meaning in the Code model
Each word in a language -> corresponds with a specific thought or bit of info
Grammatical combo of words has meaning (literal) that must be decoded
Words and their sentences stand in one to one relation with info/thoughts therefore language and meaning have a very close relation
What’s the most important issue about meaning according to the Code Model?
Whether it’s true or not to the world it describes
Central reason for rejecting code model
Participants meaning does not always correspond to the meaning of the words in the utterances participants produce
Two concerns that must be addressed by any model of talk
1- relation between set of words/an utterance and what speakers use them to mean
2- how do addressees understand the meaning a speaker attempts to accomplish by producing words/utterances
Two orderly methods for doing talk
1- social (tools or resources provided by a culture)
2- structural (adjacent positioning of utterances and of turns)
Explain this: talk is context-shaped and context-shaping
A turn is influenced by 1- the context in which it occurs and 2- once it’s produced, it influences the context
**the person must construct a turn that responds to the other persons prior turn and projects forward to their next turn
Five methodological bases of conversational analysis
1- natural talk 2- transcription 3- structural analysis 4- participants meanings 5- ignore exogenous features of talk
Adjacency pairs
In a turn of talk, speaker orients to the prior turn and makes relevant some set of potential actions in the next turn
Speakers project backwards and forwards = connections established between adjacency turns (the side by side placement of turns)
Definition: sequences of two utterances that are adjacent, produced by diff speakers, first and second parts, typed with diff actions (offer -> acceptance for example)
Pre vs pre-sequences
Pre=turn that projects a production of the first pair-part of an adjacency pair (S produces pre and A responds with uptake, S then produces the first pair-part of the projected adjacency pair)
Pre-sequence= the whole sequence described above
Ex: oh a couple other things…mhmm…when do you need this for, is it for today’s class…yep
Insertion sequence
Happens when B responds to A’s first pair-part with something other than an expected second pair-part so B’s response becomes the first pair-part of an embedded sequence that delays the completion of the initial adjacency pair
Ex: person talking to employee about buying a cellphone, asks question that isn’t answered right away as employer needs to ask about relevant details before they can answer primary question
Post-expansion sequences
Happens as an elaboration, follow-up, or ratification of a second pair-part
Ex: is there anything else that automatically rules them out…ahh, a criminal record…criminal record. Ok (completes adjacency pair and ratifies the answer)
What is CA’s view of not following the ideal definition of adjacency pairs? (Person A says both first and second parts, or nobody says the second pair-part, etc)
Rules of social interaction=templates for interpretation (standards against which actions are made intelligible or found lacking in some way)
Knowing how an action will be interpreted influences what action is done
Main use=interpretation of action
Conditional relevance
Constitutive rule of interaction that specifies what counts in an interaction
In order to interact, every turn=speaker responding to prior turn + project forward to new turn
Consequence: production of turn by S constrains both A’s response and S and A’s interpretation of A’s response
Fail to follow this=fail to produce interaction
How does conditional relevance shift the rules for production?
For the second pair-part of an adjacency pair, it’s not that it has to immediately follow the first pair-part, it’s more that the second pair-part becomes relevant and expected (failing to produce this could have consequences for meaning and judgement of person)
Influence of conditional relevance on interpretation of actions (where second pair-part is expectable)
Second pair-part strongly influenced by status as second pair-part to the specific first pair-part
Influence of conditional relevance on interpretation of sequences where an expectable second pair-part does not occur right away after second pair-part
Because it’s expected, it’s highly noticeable if it’s missing which leads to an interpretation
Space can be occupied by unfilled or filled pause
How is conditional relevance morally charged?
Aspect of trust that the person will fulfill their conversational role
Obligation to demonstrate involvement by demonstrating understanding
Inferences drawn about persons character
Violating strong vs weak constitutive rules
Strong: saying something ungrammatical and incomprehensible
Weak: breaking something like conditional relevance which is understandable but also noticeable and accountable (could be ignored though)
Preference structure
No psychological connotations
Constitutive rule that production of a first pair-part makes relevant the production of the second pair-part (about action itself, makes it more relevant than any other action)
Dis preferred structure: utterance is delayed, filled pauses and accounts, goal to weaken and push the response to the first pair part back into the turn
Repair sequences
When something goes wrong and an interactional problem happens (ex: producing, hearing, understanding something in the turns)=REPAIRABLE occurs
Uses repair sequence to restore Intersubjectivity
Participant initiates repair, participant performs repair (either self or other)
Codes: S/S, S/O, O/S, O/O in T1/2/3/4 (turns)
First person self initiated repair
Correcting yourself in the same first utterance
Ex: did they have any of tho- that cookie or whatever it is
Other initiated at T2/ other repair at T2
Mom corrects son when he counts wrong by repeated with correction
How does preference structure extend into repair
Preference for self repair over other repair
Structure of repair provides earlier and more opportunities for self repair than for other repair
Participants act to delay and weaken other repair (I think it’s this…not said super strongly and confidently)
Focus of discourse analysis?
Focus on talk/utterance and not language/sentences
Interested in who uses language, how why and when
How meaning is co-constructed through talk
General communication model (Shannon-Weaver)
Based on encoding and decoding, but the determination of meaning is an inferential process
GCM reduces communication to a process of ‘transmitting info’
If message transmitted accurately and meaning conveyed literally = effects of message successful
Sentence meaning (code models)
Rely on literal meaning
1:1 relationship between what the speaker intends to mean, the words the speaker uses to encode that meaning, and the decoded meaning by an addressee
Coding models = no ambiguity (no inferences necessary)
Robotic talk
What’s the alternative perspective to the code model ?
Interpretive-inferential model
Meaning is co-constructed by simultaneous interaction (thoughts are not packaged into words and unpackaged by listeners)
Intended meaning figured out using inferential abilities which rely on context/body language
Process of turn taking allows speakers to adjust their talk to the needs and responses of their addressees in real time (not a transmission model)
Four problems with the code model
1- we use non literal language and gestures to construct meaning
2- we use interpretive and inferential abilities, context as resources to figure out what was said
3- John Austin called these resources the total speech situation (context)
4- misinterpretation and misunderstanding happens without resources like context and body language
Austin’s speech act model (book: how to do things with words)
Language has force and effect
Communication is active not passive
Words are actions because they push us to act and behave in certain ways
Illocutionary acts and perlocutionary effects
Illocutionary acts vs perlocutionary effects
Illocutionary acts=actions performed in talk; ex: commands, requests, denials, etc (require following actions)
Perlocutionary effects=intended and unintended effects on the addressee (your words hurt another person by accident)
Actions in talk
Greetings Assessments (you seem to be in a bad mood, it's nice weather isn't it) Confirmation Complaining Compliments-responses Apologies, refusals, requests, etc
Focus of conversation analysis
Data driven
Descriptive research
Looks at speech acts but main purpose of the research is to analyze the procedures of interaction (how it’s organized)
Looks at how talk is coordinated and patterned
Naturally occurring convos, places where talk is routinized like the doctor, teacher-students, customer service
Participant meaning (CA)
Restrict analysis to what those in the conversation orient to (how they co-construct meaning)
Membership categories (CA)
How people use and create their own and others identities (ex: how a doctor go about constructing their identity as a doctor)
Three situations where overlap occurs (CA)
1- next speaker mistakenly self-selects too soon during a pause
2- back channeling (saying uhmm, yes, ohh when listening to a narrative)
3- interruptions/violations of social norms
