NYU Contrasting Discourse Genealogical Narrative & Conversation Analysis Discussion Respond in around 500 words, cite all relevant readings. Remember the S

NYU Contrasting Discourse Genealogical Narrative & Conversation Analysis Discussion Respond in around 500 words, cite all relevant readings. Remember the Stokoe(chapter3), Shrikant, Kiesling, Goodwin/Alim and Bailey (use APA)

Call in someone on their ableist racist or homophobic use of language, for micro aggressions (or an act of racism) towards a person of color, homophobia against LGBTQI+ or ableism against a disabled person.

Do so in a safe way. Provide a brief orthographic (just the words, no symbols) transcript of what was said AND of your callout. You may NOT call someone in for something they say on FB, it must be in response to something in real life.

A guide to calling someone in (Links to an external site.)

Watch this video. Practice what you intend to say to your friend and record yourself practicing it and getting feedback.

You must also record calling them in, in order to get credit. Seek permission to record them before the discussion and check with them after you have called them in that it is okay that your professor hear it. Clarify that audio or names won’t be shared with the class (ensure you includes the permission part in your recording)

Remember to say you know they mean well and are a good person. That you care about them and that is why you care that they are expressing their real values, not accidentally being hurtful.

Give them an alternate way of expressing themselves that doesn’t marginalise or oppress. Research your proposed alternative to make certain its not oppressive itself!! You will fail if you tell someone to say something racist or sexist or homophobic. So google it, research it, get advice. No you may not check with me, it’s your responsibility to research it and learn how to find these things out.

You will provide

1) A transcript of the original micro aggression/racism/homophobia directed towards a member of a minority that your friend did.

2) Your recording of your calling in.

3) An orthographic transcript of what they said in the conversation after you call them in and how you replied to them to help your friend learn (and show your friend you care)

In your analysis discuss

1) What part of what they said assumed something negative about a group of people? Was what they said a micro-aggression or flat out racist/sexist/homophobic?

2) Relating to the readings, how does what they said constitute the structure of inequality?

Do not be sexist, racist, homophobic or any other ism in what you say your example. If you are you will receive 0 for this assignment and you will not be allowed a reset.

The call in must be REAL. Recall week 2 on naturalism. Scripted or faked call ins will be treated as intentional plagiarism (because it is academic dishonesty)

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/goodwin/Whatever_Situated_CoProduction.pdf Talk: The Science of
Conversation
Elizabeth Stokoe
1
ROBINSON
First published in Great Britain in 2018 by Robinson
Copyright © Elizabeth Stokoe, 2018
The moral right of the author has been asserted.
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form, or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of
the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than
that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition
being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
A CIP catalogue record for this book
is available from the British Library.
ISBN: 978-1-47214-082-1
Robinson
An imprint of
Little, Brown Book Group
Carmelite House
50 Victoria Embankment
London EC4Y 0DZ
An Hachette UK Company
www.hachette.co.uk
www.littlebrown.co.uk
2
For Eunice
3
To hear some of the recorded conversations that feature in the book, and
other bonus content, visit www.carmtraining.org/talk/extras
4
CONTENTS
1: The conversational racetrack
‘Hello!’
‘Um, hello . . . ?’
The conversational racetrack
2: Here comes the science
Scriptwriters are conversation analysts
The building blocks of talk
How to build a successful invitation
Interruptions, dating, and a roll-on deodorant
The science of conversation
3: You are the turns you take
First moves and ‘first movers’
How turns build people
You are the words you say you are
Conversation Analytic Personality Diagnostic
5
Talk builds people
4: Sticks, stones, and . . . talk
Do actions speak louder than words?
Is communication 93 per cent body language?
Do women and men talk differently?
Do different ‘cultures’ talk differently?
Are ‘ums’ errors?
Why are there so many myths about talk?
5: Every word matters
Word selection matters
The trouble with ‘women’
How words change outcomes
‘Some’ or ‘any’?
Getting people to donate to charity
‘Talk’ or ‘speak’?
‘Are you willing?’
Talk matters
6: Are you being served?
How to get help
Service in seconds
Service burden
6
Recruiters and the recruited
Thank you for not helping
7: How to have better conversations
The problem with communication skills
The future of talk
Five ways to have better conversations
Appendix
Acknowledgements
References
Index
7
1
THE CONVERSATIONAL
RACETRACK
This book will change the way you think about talk. It will show you how
to lift the lid on the engine that drives our everyday lives. It will show you
why there is a big pay-off to understanding talk scientifically.
Of course, when we try to understand something like talk
scientifically, it is not the same as trying to understand something like a
black hole. Talk, as a phenomenon of social life, exists only to be
understood.1 It is designed by humans for humans to get every facet of
life accomplished. We build, maintain and end our personal and
professional relationships through talk. We buy and sell. We get and give
help. We are excited, persuaded, irritated, embarrassed and consoled in
response to things others say to us. Talk is the tool we have to do all of
these things.
Talk is also our resource for fixing things that go wrong. When we
characterise some aspect of our talk as ‘communication breakdown’, we
are probably referring to feeling trapped in a conversation, or that we are
8
struggling to get heard, or as though we are on the back foot. This book
will show you how to unpack and understand talk and what to say to
anticipate, resist, avoid – or further aggravate – these problems.
Scientists strive to understand black holes, even though they do not
exist in the first place to be understood by humans. Talk, on the other
hand, exists only to be understood by humans. In that sense, a book about
the science of talk should be an easy read; the conceptual gap between the
audience and the phenomenon is small. On the other hand, it might be a
challenge to convince you that we need a scientific approach to the study
of something that seems, on the surface, so easy to understand. Can we
really gain anything by analysing something that we ‘just do’? The
chapters in this book will show you that the answer is ‘yes’. And it will
show you that the science of conversation is not just interesting, or fun. It
is crucial.
Along with many other academic colleagues around the world, I have
spent the last twenty years working as a conversation analyst, studying
recordings of real talk from real people talking to each other in real time.
While the linguist Noam Chomsky once described conversation as a
‘disorderly phenomenon’, it is, in fact, highly organised. And we are quite
unaware of how systematic our talk is, and how different words lead to
different outcomes. So while we all keep talking, we are not good at
understanding precisely what went wrong in an encounter, or what went
right. Analysing real talk in the wild – and in slow motion – shows us the
incredible power talk has to shape our daily lives.
Think about the last time you went on a rollercoaster.2 You might have
seen – even if you did not purchase it – the snapshot of yourself as you
zoomed down the steepest incline. Rollercoaster snapshots reveal how
you looked at a particular moment, even though you are unable to
remember or reproduce it later. Similarly, we are not capable of recalling
and reproducing – with the exact words, the exact intonation and the
exact facial expression – what we said at, say, thirty-three seconds into a
particular conversation. Studying talk scientifically allows us to freezeframe that moment and scrutinise it to see how it worked, what worked
and what did not work.
In this opening chapter, we investigate what happens at the start of
encounters. Talk can run smoothly or awkwardly from the very first
9
‘hello’. We can predict what is likely to happen next from the first words
uttered. This is because all conversations have a landscape; a
conversational racetrack. We start at the beginning of an encounter with
another person or people and, along the way, complete projects. We
anticipate and avoid or crash into hurdles. Conversations become tense,
difficult or all-out war. An opening ‘hello’ can even be, quite simply, a
matter of life and death.
‘Hello!’
The discipline of conversation analysis was invented by three academics
in the 1960s: Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson.3
Sacks was killed in a car crash in 1975 and, like celebrities who die
young or in mysterious circumstances, there is something of a rock ’n’
roll mystique about him. There are also many arguments over his legacy
and competitive in-groups and sub-camps typical of any academic field.
This book is not the place for lengthy accounts of the discipline, but it
is worth knowing that each of these three figures holds a special position
in the hearts and minds of conversation analysts around the world. And,
as an advocate for conversation analysis to a likely non-specialist
audience, and for context, you might be surprised to learn that
conversation analytic research is among the most cited in academia, even
compared to ‘hard science’ disciplines.4
Before we see our first example of two people starting to talk, let me
explain briefly how their talk will be presented. As with all the other data
analysed in this book, recordings of real (generally anonymised)
interactions are transcribed using a technical system developed by
Jefferson.5 The system is the first stage of analysis and cannot be
reproduced by a machine – even though speech-to-text software will
produce reasonably accurate verbatim transcripts (see ‘The future of talk’,
in Chapter 7).
The ‘Jefferson system’ is designed to represent not just what is said
but how it is produced, placed, timed and so on. It includes information
about intonation, lengths of pauses and gaps within and between turns at
talk, the onset and end of overlapping talk, and the precise moment when
10
who is speaking changes. It also tells us how speakers build actions
through talk – the component activities that comprise complete
encounters. At first, the transcripts might seem overly technical. But this
is how people talk – keeping in the detail of how talk works, rather than
stripping it away to the words alone. It’s what actually happened.
For the first few extracts in this chapter, though, I will present a
verbatim version of the transcript alongside the technical version, to
enable you to become familiar with the system. A key to all of the
symbols appears at the end of the book. You can also listen to some of the
examples I present online,6 where they feature as part of a lecture or
presentation.
Our first example is an ordinary domestic telephone call between two
American friends, Hyla and Nancy. Hyla is calling Nancy; this is a
telephone line without caller ID.7 Her dialling is the summons that starts
the conversational ball rolling. It is the first action that must be completed
for any further talk to happen.
Example 1: Hyla and Nancy
Take a look at Nancy’s answering turn, ‘H’llo:?’ The punctuation marks
help researchers, and you, understand exactly how she said it. For
instance, the colon indicates that the ‘o’ sound is slightly elongated. The
question mark indicates ‘questioning intonation’. You might be surprised
to learn that ‘questioning intonation’ does not always accompany the
spoken production of a question. In fact, questions are more often
delivered with falling or ‘closing’ intonation, indicated by a full stop.
This is one of many communication myths that we will bust in this book.
11
Systematic patterns exist in the way conversation starts, and not just
on the telephone. This is because although the means of communication
might be different (e.g., language choice, modality, gesture, sign
language, written, spoken), and the exact words used also vary (e.g.,
‘hello’, ‘hiya’, ‘yo!’), the actions being done remain the same.
Watch how Hyla and Nancy’s conversation unfolds.
When Hyla says, ‘Hi:,’ she delivers a greeting but also communicates
recognition of her friend’s voice. The comma indicates what conversation
analysts call ‘continuing intonation’ – think how it sounds to read items
on a shopping list or the digits in a telephone number.
At line 04, Nancy gives a second greeting, but it sounds very different
to her answering-the-phone ‘H’llo:?’. This time, the ‘HI::.’ is louder,
brighter, and more animated. It conveys recognition of Hyla’s voice.
Next, Hyla and Nancy exchange ‘how-are-yous’.
Hyla and Nancy exchange ‘how-are-yous’ rapidly, and reciprocally. The
speed of exchange is represented by the equals signs (‘=’), which indicate
that the two turns are ‘latched’ together. The quick pace of their turntaking is also indicated implicitly, because when gaps occur between turns
– as we will see in later examples – they are measured and included in the
transcript.
On the face of it, this is utterly mundane. There’s no science here!
Well, actually there is. Conversation analysts have shown that, across
12
settings including phone calls, face-to-face encounters, Skype calls and
even instant messaging, conversations recurrently open with three rapid,
reciprocal, component pairs of actions:
1. The summons and answer (the opening at lines 01–02).
2. The greetings and identification (for Hyla and Nancy, just the sound of the
voice is enough for identification at lines 03–04).
3. The initial enquiries (the ‘how-are-yous’ at lines 05–06).
This sequence of actions is pretty robust across opening sequences,
whether on the telephone or face to face. In Example 2, Dad and Liz are
Skyping. The pound signs indicate ‘smile-voice’ – how people sound
when they smile as they talk. You can watch this clip online.8
Example 2: Dad and Liz
In Skype conversations, the ‘summons and answer’ sequence still occurs
because someone still has to ‘go first’ in any interaction. However, the
identification part may be redundant, because we generally know who we
will talk to when we initiate a video chat. Of course, I can use my
partner’s mobile phone or Skype account to make a call, and the recipient
may not expect to see or hear me when they answer the summons.
Example 3 comes from a written exchange between two friends on a
social media messaging app.9
Example 3: Isla and Joe
13
The same components are in place: ‘summons and answer’; ‘greetings
and identification’, and the reciprocal ‘how-are-yous’. They take a bit
longer, because writing is slower than talking. But otherwise, the same
actions happen.
Example 4 is from a conversation between two office workers from
different departments of the local council.
Example 4: Katy and Darcy
In this recording, the square brackets at lines 05 and 06 represent
overlapping talk. So as Darcy says ‘m’duck’ – one of many terms of
14
endearment used in the UK, such as ‘love’, ‘hen’ or ‘pet’ – Katy begins to
respond to Darcy’s ‘how-are-you’.
There are several features that you may not initially notice in this
example, but that are important when it comes to understanding the more
complex conversational openings we come to later. So, first, note that the
way Katy answers the phone tells us that this is not a domestic setting, but
a workplace. Second, Katy’s next turn, at line 04, is delivered with ‘smilevoice’, after she knows who she is speaking to. She does not smile when
she answers the phone.
Third, Darcy and Katy do not know each other well enough for Darcy
to simply respond ‘Hi’ at line 03, as we have seen in previous examples:
she returns Katy’s greeting fully and identifies herself explicitly. But
Darcy and Katy do know each other well enough to now move into a
reciprocal ‘how-are-you’ sequence.
The equals signs at lines 03, 04 and 05 indicate when speakers rapidly
add another part to a turn that is potentially already complete.
Conversation analysts refer to the ‘point of possible completion’ that
happens when a speaker has done something that can be responded to by
the next speaker, such as asking a question. These are usually
grammatically complete, too. Points of completion are also indicated
strongly by intonation. As you read this book, read out loud, if you can.
Each time a full stop happens, your intonation should fall. In the Jefferson
system, full stops indicate ‘closing intonation’ and that a ‘unit’ of a turn
has been completed.
It is worth pausing here, to point out that in everyday written text, full
stops (‘periods’ in the USA) are not, however, intonation markers! They
are grammatical markers, placed at the end of grammatical sentences.
That is something that all readers of this book will know, whether
intuitively or explicitly. Jefferson borrowed and reassigned the full stop
and other conventions of written text (colons, commas, question marks,
etc.) to talk’s intonational patterns. Of course, both transcription and
everyday written punctuation are technical and precise – we are just more
used to the conventions for written text.
Returning to Darcy and Katy’s conversation, at line 03, Darcy’s turn is
complete as she says ‘good morning t’you.’ but she rapidly adds a second
‘unit’ to the end of her turn: ‘.=it’s Darcy:.’ What a simplified verbatim
15
transcript would not show is Darcy’s tacit analysis of her response to
Katy. The rapid addition of a second unit reveals Darcy’s ongoing
monitoring of the unfolding interaction. She needs to identify herself.
This is not my analysis of what Katy and Darcy are doing, it is Darcy’s.
My job is to reveal their analysis to you.
Think about when a friend invites you for dinner. They may say
something like, ‘Do you fancy dinner on Friday? Or Saturday?’ The
addition of ‘Or Saturday’ shows their ongoing monitoring of your lack of
immediate response. The idea that taking a turn in a conversation requires
‘processing time’, producing pauses, is another myth about talk that we
will bust in this book. In fact, we can and do respond very quickly within
milliseconds. Indeed, speakers are actually monitoring reactions while
their own turn is in progress, which is what enables such rapid
interchange to take place. And the fact that we (can) respond quickly
provides us with the evidence that delays, gaps, silences indicate an
upcoming problem. Of course, we can respond quickly with turns that
start with built-in delay-tactics (e.g., ‘Um:::::’). But a delay in responding
to an invitation indicates an upcoming turndown. Because they are fast to
recognise a possible turndown, your friend quickly adds another option,
to which you can hopefully say ‘yes’ . . .!
This is the tacit knowledge that people have for interacting. We reveal
it as we construct our turns, word by word, turn by turn, although we
cannot articulate what we are doing. But, without knowing it, we
anticipate hurdles on the racetrack of conversation, and try to avoid them.
Finally, look closely at the overlapping talk at lines 05 and 06. The
overlap shows that Katy has heard enough of the second unit of Darcy’s
turn to know what action Darcy is doing even though it is not complete:
she is doing a reciprocal ‘how-are-you’. This sort of overlap is very
common in interaction: people can sufficiently anticipate the action that is
coming to begin to respond without leaving any gap between turns.
You might be thinking that everything you have read so far is worthy
of an entry in a Private Eye ‘Pseud’s Corner’ jibe – and, in fact, an early
observation from Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, that ‘one speaker speaks
at a time and speaker change recurs’, actually was! It is certainly common
to hear people describe or reflect on conversational components like
‘how-are-you’ sequences critically, as a bit of pointless ‘filler’, said ‘just
16
to be polite’, in a meaningless and ‘non-genuine’ way. I will show that
these sorts of comments misunderstand the importance of starting to
unpack the basic machinery of talk as a precursor to persuading you of
some crucial insights into how talk works.
You might also be thinking that there are numerous instances where
conversation openings are quite different. And, of course, they are. Here
are four quick examples.
Example 5: Calling the doctor’s
Example 6: Salesperson calling a business
In Example 5, a patient phones her local surgery. The parties greet each
other (‘>Good< mornin:g,’ and ‘Hello’), but, in this opening moment, 17 only the receptionist provides identification of both the surgery and her first name. Who the patient is becomes relevant later; for now, the main action is requesting an appointment. There are no ‘how-are-yous’ – potentially tricky in this setting! Example 6 has two people at work calling each other, but, unlike Katy and Darcy, they do not know each other. Example 7 is a domestic phone call, but Lesley, who answers the ringing phone, is being called by someone who wants to make a delivery to Lesley’s house. Example 8 is another of Katy’s calls, but this one is to her daughter at home. As with all our examples, use the transcription key presented in the Appendix to unpack the technical aspects about which you want to learn. Example 7: Lesley and Mr Harris (simplified transcript) Example 8: Katy and her daughter 18 There are reciprocal greetings – spot Lesley’s second one at line 06 in which she also shows she recognises Mr Harris and has expected him to call. See also that Mr Harris recognises Lesley from her answering ‘hello’. As the caller, he is in a position to know who is likely to answer the phone. However, he identifies himself using his own name and the name of the business. He does not expect Lesley to recognise him from... Purchase answer to see full attachment