CONVERSATION ANALYSIS- ITS APPLICATIONS IN LANGUAGE

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Nguyen Thi Tu
It can be said that interactive activity connects linguistic and sociocultural knowledge.
Interactional sociolinguistics and conversation analysis are clearly stated that social
interaction is the main crucial condition of language use- our knowledge and
understanding of interaction completes our ability of using a language. This essay will
evaluate the approach of conversation analysis to discourse, text, interaction and its
applications in language teaching as well as learning. The essay also focuses on the
strengths and weaknesses of the approach.

1. Introduction
Every day we communicate together, exchange information, maintain social relations…
with the approaches of discourse analysis such as speech act, cooperative principle,
ethnography of communication, critical discourse analysis, conversation analysis… In the
extent, conversation analysis (CA) is called the approach to the analysis of spoken
interactions. CA was developed with a framework that analyzes interactions by Harvey
Sacks, Gail Jefferson and Emmanuel Schegloff in the early 1960s at the University of
California. Conversation analysts not only focus on how participants produce and
respond to make social contexts but also emphasize what the conversations reveal about
social and cultural interactions and practices. In discourse analysis, CA is the most
prominent in the research circle in which it has been examined through the following
aspects: adjacency pairs, preference organization, turn-taking, overlap, repair,
conversational openings, closings and sequences.
2. Procedures
2. 1. The theory
2.1.1. Turn-taking
Firstly, conversation is characterized by turn- taking. The aim of this analytic tool
provides a good way of carrying out spoken interaction. In other words, there are norms
for who talks and time duration for their talk and they alternate with the duration of
speaking as a distribution problem- “How do speakers allocate turns at talk? How do they
know during what period of time one will be expected to speak and the other will keep
silence? How do they know when to end speaking and, another, when to begin speaking,
with minimal gap and minimal overlap between turns?” (Deborah Schiffrin, 1994).
According to Sacks et al. (1978), turns are constructed based on four different-sized units
of talk: words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. The following example is illustrated for
the construction.
1. A: Was last night the first time you met Missiz Kelly?
2. B: Met whom?
3. A: Missiz Kelly.
4. B: Yes.
(Sacks et al., 1978, p.51)
The first turn is constructed using a sentence (line 1), the second and the third turn using
phrases (line 3-4) and the last turn using a single word (line 5).
On the other hand, the TRP (transition relevance place) can be projected by participants
who are current speakers select next, any listener self-selects and current speakers
continue. How is the next turn allocated if the current speaker does not select the next
one? Sacks et al. (1978) say, at the TRP any listener may begin a turn; that means he or
she may self-select.
The transfer of speakership occurs at the TRP, so the turn system operates the way it does
because participants treat it as normative- they lead to certain rules and treat certain
behaviors as departures from those rules. When such departures occur, participants work
toward restoring orderliness. The operation of this turn system generates several patterns
in turn-taking behavior. Because of failing to get the next turn, it cannot produce one’s
utterance when it is the most relevant, some competition for turns appear at TRPs
(transition relevance place). Thus, we have overlaps and interruption. Overlaps refer to
simultaneous talk that arises from the normal operation of the conversational turn system
and when the turn system makes clear, this can arises in different ways: a listener can
self-select prematurely, more than one listener could self- select at the same moment and
a listener could self-select at the same moment that the current speaker begins to
continue. Interruption refers to simultaneous talk that does not occur at a TRP when one
participant begins to talk at a point where another (the current speaker) is taking a turn
but not yet approaching a TRP.
2.2.2. Adjacency pairs
Secondly, one of the most powerful concepts for understanding conversation is the idea
of adjacency pair. Sacks et al (1973) consider this concept as a way to discuss paired
actions. An adjacency pair requires the following characteristics: a sequence of two
communicative actions which occur adjacent to each other and the two actions are made
by different speakers in which one action is a first pair part and the other is the second
pair part. We have pairs of utterances such as invitation- acceptance (refusal), greeting-
greeting, apology- acceptance, question- answer...
A: Should we go out and have something to eat this evening?
B: Okay! That’s a good idea.
We have two actions: A’s suggestion (invitation) and B’s acceptance. The two actions are
adjacent and produced by two different speakers. The actions are ordered in which the
suggestion is the first pair part and the acceptance is the second pair part. Adjacency pairs
are also used to precede and prepare for conversational actions- they are called
presequences.
A: Are you busy Saturday night?
B: Uh…yeah, I think so. Why?
A: We can go out for a drink and have a talk about the project.
Before making an invitation, A checks out the recipient’s willingness and availability for
participation “Are you busy Saturday night”. Moreover, accepting and rejecting an
invitation do not have the same value for participants. Responses for first part of
adjacency pairs are organized by a preference system in which some second actions are
treated as preferred and others as dispreferred.
On the other aspect, openings and closings are performed in different contexts and
specific events- How we open a conversation in a meeting is very different from how we
do it on the telephone. Openings and closings also apply adjacency pairs, such as
“Hello”, “How are you?” and “Bye” “See you later”. (Paltridge. Br., p.86). In
conversation openings, participants establish that they are ready to communicate and that
they have some appropriate relationship with each other. In conversation closings,
participants would need to negotiate that their conversation is coming to a close.
Another common presequence is the preannouncement- a speaker wants to give news;
there is a constraint on what is telltable to the recipient or the speaker want to check
whether the recipient is appropriate of some telling. (Did you hear what happened to
Mary?”) or (Guess what happened in the class today”).
c. Repairs
Thirdly, repair is an important strategy speakers use in conversation. Conversation, like
other forms of human behavior is not perfect. Everyone has experienced forgetting a
word or using the wrong word, starting a sentence and then having to start over, realizing
that what has been said is unclear, and the like. Repair is a major source of alignment
between participants. When the speaker produces a trouble source, he also produces a
self- repair and when other participant gives a correct, we call it other –repair. (Schegloff
et al., 1977, p.362-365). The following examples indicate some of the variety of
conversational practices that constitute repair:
1. A: She bought it? Is it a second h- uh an old car?
B: ye:s
A breaks off the sentence after the “second-h” and change into “old”. This
is a self-repair.
2. A: Do you remember the park where we used to play football? It is near
the White Dove theatre.
B: You mean the White Pigeon theatre?
A: yes, White Pigeon.
B corrects “White pigeon” for A instead of “White Dove”. This is other-
repair.
Thus, successful repair is often a joint accomplishment either by the speaker of the
trouble source (self-repair) or by another (other-repair). Self-repair is very common in
conversation and keeps participants updated on what meanings they are conveying, what
actions taking toward each other.
2. 2. The aims
CA looks at “talk in interaction” and is the most prominent in the research circles. The
aim of CA is to examine the methods and procedures participants use in talk to produce
their behavior and interpret other people’s behavior. These methods mainly are collecting
data which naturally occur interactions and emphasis on interview talk. CA is “a first step
towards achieving a ‘naturalistic observational discipline’ to deal with details of social
interaction, in ‘a rigorous, empirical and formal way’” (Coulthard. M, 1977, p. 60).
Besides, “CA examines how the turns are organized with a means of finding patterns in
conversation about how people talk”. However, “CA is reluctant to assign either meaning
or function to a form apart from a thorough investigation of how that form is sequentially
embedded in actual talk”. (Schriffrin p. 279).
2. 3. View of context
It is important to understand about view of context in CA which based on varying social
contexts and in particular with interaction or conversation. ‘Conversation analysis’ is a
term used by scholars with an ethnomethodological orientation; interactional approaches
refer to “interactional sociolinguistics”, (Schriffrin 1994, p.15). The view of context in
CA focuses on how text is as a means of displaying “situation” and on how text creates
knowledge including, but not limited to, knowledge of “situation” (Deborah, 1994,
p.365). In addition, CA displays the sequential progression of interaction which is critical
to member’s display of their knowledge of situation through language- the position of
utterances. Each utterance is formed by a context and provides the other context for a
next utterance. In other words, the feature of speaker’s communication is doubly
contextual in context-shaped and context-renewing (based on Heritage’s, p.242).
According to Deborah Schiffrin, CA view of context is based on the ethnomethodological
view of language, action, knowledge and situation. CA indicates the sequential
progression of interaction through language. However, through Schriffin’s view, although
CA considers that utterances have contextual relationship for one another, there are not all
aspects of situation-as-context which have constant relevance. Moreover, CA of talk
discusses a great attention to the productive details of utterances (pauses, overlaps,
sequences, repairs…); it does not focus much on components of situation such as
participants, circumstances.
2. 4. View of language
In CA, the view of language considers “language as social interaction” in which social
interaction is a process whereby one person has an effect on another. It can be said that
interactive activity connects linguistic and sociocultural knowledge. Interactional
sociolinguistics and conversation analysis are clearly stated that social interaction is the
main crucial condition of language use- our knowledge and understanding of interaction
completes our ability of using language. According to Leech, discourse analysts study the
language of utterances in relation to its function in social interaction- “formalists study
language as an autonomous system, whereas functionalist study it in relation to its social
function” (Deborah, p. 415).
2.5. Principles
Analyzing the theory, the aims, view of context and view of language in CA, we can
draw out the principles of CA: In CA, interaction is structurally organized, conversation
is orderly. That means the structures, meanings, and actions of everyday conversation are
interactively achieved. This approach is influenced by speech act theory which
emphasizes the participants’ actions through language. Besides, the analysis of language
based on turn by turn basis with the important analysis tools. In brief, it is important to
understand that CA is empirical and theoretically motivated because data extracted from
people’s communication and using language; utterances are produced and understood
which rely on the real contexts and circumstances.
2.6. Teaching applications
2.6.1. Turn-taking
The strength of turn-taking is a major source of orderliness in everyday talk. In teaching
application, especially for EFL or ESL, it provides students of conversation with an
analytical framework with which to examine how conversation unfolds, how it is shaped
and organized, how mistakes and other problems are dealt with. Besides, students have a
chance to practice their spoken English and they know how to response, how to begin a
conversation and when to select their turn in conversation. However, the weakness of turn
taking system is considered through overlaps. If the current speaker does not select the
next speaker, another speaker may self select and at TRP, the current speaker continues,
overlap will happen. If participants in a conversation consider themselves as a main role,
they may feel interrupted by overlap. In teaching application, students feel confused
when overlap happens; it is not effective for them to continue their practicing because
they become passive and lose their controlling of the conversation. Turn- taking can be
applied in EFL or ESL class with different cultures. For instance, in Vietnam, learners
have the tendencies of being controlled in their speaking learning, they often are timid
and shy when it is their turn to speak so they have slow-response and wait for their turn in
a mechanical way. According to Sinclair and Coulthard (1977), in the traditional
classroom, the turn taking is controlled by teachers; learners rarely speak out of turn.
Consequently, students cannot be very creative in their roles and they pay little attention
to the contributions of the others. Moreover, the natural patterns of back- channel,
utterance completion do not occur. There are some problems with turn- taking; the
problem of dominant speakers and the problem of culture-specific conventions. The
dominate speakers often control too many turns so the quieter speaker does not have a
chance to participate in the conversation. Thus, the teacher has to control students’ role in
activities so that the more passive students can contribute to the activities and role play.
The culture specific problems are very complicated. Because of the different norms in
each culture, for example, between Japanese and American cultures. The length of silence
between two cultures is different and “thinking time” is also different. It is not simple for
teachers to solve this problem except they must be very flexible. In particular situations,
turn-taking also changes. For example, in a lecture, the lecturer can take a turn and the
audience can ask permission to take their turn. Similarly, in a classroom, students cannot
always take their turns to conversation, they are controlled by the teacher in giving a
speech and wait for their turn with the permission of the teacher.
2.6.2. Adjacency pairs
What is the strength of adjacency pair in conversation analysis? In teaching application,
the learners have the chance to practice the range of utterance functions, they know how
to formulate the pair of conversation and they can play their role perfectly as well as they
obtain the way of good communication in presequences such as face-saving. However, in
real life, learners of EFL often encounter with the lack of ability of quick response in
conversation. They cannot always apply the stereotype of adjacency pairs because they
may not understand the speaker of first pair part so they cannot answer directly and
correctly, producing the wrong second pair part. What do teachers apply adjacency pairs
as a tool in conversation teaching? Obviously, they have a very effective application in
the way of holding a speaking–listening class with role play activities among the learners.
In spoken teaching application, teachers often teach learners how to open and close their
conversation in communication with authentic texts and the real situation (real context).
Therefore, learners can apply this characteristic in their interactional and transactional
communication.
2.6.3. Repairs
In teaching, repair is very useful for both teachers and learners. It is a tool of correcting
mistakes and adjusting the content of conversation. Learners have habits to make
different kinds of errors and then either revise what they have said or have the problems
adjusted by other participants (the other learners or teachers). Learners can be more
active and self-confident when they use this tool as a self-repair. Teachers use other-repair
to correct for their learners under the system of turn- taking. Generally, repair is a very
common application in language teaching as well as helpful as a tool in adjusting
communication and interaction in EFL classrooms.
Therefore, it is very important to apply CA in teaching and learning, especially in EFL
and ESL classes because conversational competence involves more than grammatical
competence. Besides, it is necessary for learners to know how authentic conversations
work and what their characteristics are to avoid misunderstandings, embarrassment and
confusion. It is also vital to know how telephone conversations work in changing topics,
taking turn, how sequences work, invitations, offers, adjacency pairs and repairs in
interaction and communication. According to Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000),
language teachers need to understand that CA is interactive and realize that the roles of
all the participants in any act of spoken or written communication are very important. It
also applies in useful ways to curriculum design, materials development and language
assessment. To learners, effective applications of CA help them to take advantage of
social contacts, avoid confusing errors which result in miscommunication. Relating to
traditional language teaching methodology, this methodology includes activities that
encourage learners in developing awareness of the nature of spoken and written
discourse: illustration, interaction and induction.

3. Conclusion
In summary, being derived from ethnomethodology, CA is interactional sociolinguistics
concerning the problem of social order and considers the way participants construct
systematic solutions to recurrent organizational problems of conversation. (Deborah,
p.273). CA examines the methods and procedures participants use in talk to produce their
behavior and interpret other people’s behavior with the analytic tools such as turn-taking,
adjacency pairs, repair, sequences… Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the
approach of conversation analysis through teaching and learning application, we can
improve the method of teaching and learning in interaction and communication.

References
Blackemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Great Britain: T.J. Press Ltd,
Padstow.
Brown, G and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Celce- Murcia, M and Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and Context in Language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, M. (1977). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. New York: Longman
Singapore Publishers.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mc Cathy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Paltridge, B. (2000). Making sense of Discourse Analysis. Brisbane: Merino
Lithographics.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., &Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. New York: Irvington.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G & Sacks, H (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289,
327.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G & Sacks, H (1977). The preference for self-correction in
the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53,361, 382.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
Petraki, E. (2005). Discourse Studies Vietnam 2005. Ho Chi Minh City.
Retrieved from: https://docutek.canberra.edu.au/eres/coursepage.aspx?
cid=54&page=docs