Language, Culture, and Society by JAMES STANLAW NOBUKO ADACHI & ZDENEK SALZMANN

Author:JAMES STANLAW, NOBUKO ADACHI & ZDENEK SALZMANN
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Routledge

Deriving Meaning from Conversations and Discourse

We might define conversations as linguistic structures and patterns beyond the sentence. Conversational structure is often examined in two ways, by conversational analysis and discourse analysis. Both approaches strive to explain how the coherence and sequential organization of conversations are produced and understood (Levinson 1983:286, Brown and Yule 1983, Sacks 1992a and 1992b). Levinson (1983:286–287) claims that conversational analysis is characterized by the following:

1. Methodologically, conversational analysis examines conversations minutely in great detail; it is rigorous and empirical, and avoids grandiose theory construction.

2. The method is highly inductive.

3. A search is made for recurring patterns in large numbers of naturally occurring conversations (and not just based on single texts).

4. Instead of positing a set of rules that all conversations must theoretically follow, emphasis is placed on the choices and alternatives available to speakers in differing types of conversations, and their interactional and inferential consequences.

5. Emphasis is placed on what is actually in the data rather than on what intuition might tell us about what is or is not acceptable.

6. As many instances as possible of some phenomena under consideration are found across texts. These examples are used to discover the systemic properties of conversations, their structure and organization, and the ways in which utterances are designed and used to manage the sequences of talk.

On the other hand, discourse analysis is typified by adherence to the following:

1. Methodologically, in discourse analysis you (a) isolate the set of basic categories or units of discourse, (b) form rules concatenating and linking these basic categories, and (c) determine the well-formed sequences (coherent discourse) from the ill- formed sequences (incoherent discourse).

2. Discourse analysis attempts to adopt the methods of autonomous linguistics to levels beyond the sentence and employs its theoretical principles and concepts (e.g., rules, well-formedness).

3. An appeal to intuition determines what constitutes a well-formed sequence.

4. Only a few texts are analyzed in depth (or perhaps only a single one), examining all the interesting features of this limited sample.

Both discourse analysis and conversational analysis have had major impacts on linguistic anthropology (e.g., Wortham and Reyes 2015; Enfield, Kockelman, and Sidnell 2014; Duranti 2006). Both approaches offer different ways of examining a conversation, and each has its own strengths and insights. However, we also need a way to draw inferences during a conversation about what is meant, but not really said. This unspoken information is called conversational implicature, and the philosopher Paul Grice (1975, 1991) has done much work in this area. Grice posits a set of rules that he believes people use to regulate and structure conversations:

1. Maxim of cooperation.

a. You should speak at the appropriate time, in the appropriate order.

b. You should follow the general direction of the talk.

2. Maxims of quantity.

a. Make your contribution as informative as needed, but …

b. Do not make your contribution more informative than needed.

3. Maxims of quality.

a. Do not say anything you know to be false.

b. Do not say things for which you lack evidence.

4. Maxims of manner.

a. You should avoid being too obscure.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.