The nature of discourse Spoken discourse

The nature of discourse

Spoken discourse

Lesson 3Thu 3 March, 2016

The nature of spoken discourse

The mode of a text (a subcategory of register) also includes its channel: speaking vs writing.

What makes speaking different from writing?


Speaking tends to be…

Transient, time-bound, dynamic (face-to-face, phone, etc.)Interactive/close, as it involves feedback and back channels (also through facial expression and body language).Phatic, that is, suitable for establishing and maintaining social relationships.Spontaneous/fast, which makes planning difficult.Informal, as speech is usually employed to convey less important messages (as compared to writing).


But is it always the case?

Institutional speeches are often planned and rehearsed (hence not spontaneous), not interactive, and their register tends to be formal.


Spoken discourse: stereotype vs reality

“When we investigate how dialogues actually work [...] we are often

in for a surprise. [...] The stereotype is that people speak in complete

sentences, taking well-defined turns, carefully listening to each other,

and producing balanced amounts of speech. The reality is that people

often share in the sentences they produce, interrupt each other, do

not pay attention to everything that is said, and produce a discourse

where the contributions of the participants are wildly asymmetrical.

Yet all of this produces a perfectly normal, successful conversation”

(Crystal, 2003).

Analysing spoken discourse

Let us now consider the language of spoken discourse.

Take a look at Handout C: conversation. What appear to be the distinctive features of speech?

Blah blah blah

Blah blah blah


Features of speech: fragmentation.

We tend to speak in short stretches, called utterances. Utterances may be, but frequently are not, accurate or complete sentences. In fact, many utterances are comprised of incomplete, fragmented segments. Boundaries are often unclear, also due to overlaps between participants.


Features of speech: non-fluency features.

- Unfilled (silent) pauses- Filled pauses (fillers: er, erm, mm, a-ha, like…)- Repetition, rephrasing- Response tokens (minimal or supportive comments)- Hesitation, false starts


Features of speech: ellipsis, fronting/tails, deixis.

Ellipsis is the omission of words, both grammatical and lexical (“Can you call him?” - “Will do”)

Fronting/tails (“Mike, he’s so nice”; “Great place, Rome”)

Deixis denotes words whose meaning is only clear in relation to the specific context in which the conversation is taking place (e.g. “Put this over there”; “I told her!”; “See you tomorrow”).


Features of speech: vague language and lexical creativity

- Vague expressions (“We should go there or something”)- Invented or non-sense expressions- Obscenity


Features of speech: prosody

The main prosodic features are:

- Intonation (e.g. rising or falling)- Rhythm (which depends on stresses: “What did you say?” vs

“What did you say?”)- Pitch (louder or softer speech)- Pace (slower or faster speech)

* Prosodic features are quite difficult to convey in writing.

Conversation analysis: transcription

The study of verbal interaction requires a method of written representation, i.e. a transcription system, in order to convey the specific features of spoken discourse.

The standard transcription systems are score notation and dramaturgical notation. Dramaturgical notation is more commonly used than score notation.


Score notation is inspired by the written representation of music:


Dramaturgical notation, on the other hand, is inspired by the written representation of stage discourse:


Be careful! Any method of transcription is more or less subjective, not only in the encoding of pauses and prosody, but also in the interpretation of non-verbal aspects.

Also, in spoken discourse the function of an utterance often differs from its grammatical form, e.g. what reads like a declarative statement on the page may actually be a question or an expression of surprise.

Conversation analysis: turn-taking

Whether we are speaking face-to-face or over the telephone, to one person or a small group, the wheels of conversation usually turn smoothly, with participants offering contributions at appropriate moments, with no undue gaps or everyone talking over each other.

Turn-taking is an unconscious part of normal conversations.

In order to describe and analyse the tendency to speak in orderly turns, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) have developed the turn-taking model.


According to this model, turn-taking occurs at specific points, called transition-relevance places, These are points at which a transfer of turn becomes possible, and are usually signalled by the speaker through intonation or other discourse elements.

Speaker A to speaker B: “That was horrible, you know…”

A transition-relevance place is reached: 3 options

a) Speaker A continues (“And that’s not all!”)b) Speaker B takes up the next turn (“Yeah, I can imagine”)c) Speaker C self-selects and takes up the next turn


Successions of turns are called conversational sequences. Some sequences have a quite conventional structure (e.g. phone calls). These are called conversational routines.

Tutor: hello

Student: hi Steve (.) it’s John

Tutor: hello John (.) hi

Student: how are you

Tutor: I’m alright thanks

Student: glad to hear that

Tutor: yeah (.) anyway what can I do for you John

Student: …


Conversational routines are often based on adjacency pairs, i.e. pairs of utterances that normally occur together. Examples: greetings/ summons, questions, complaints, introductions.

For every kind of adjacency pair there are preferred and dispreferred responses.

A: Hello.B: Hi.

A: Nice day, isn’t it?B: Yeah, beautiful.

A: This is unacceptable!B: I’m sorry.

A: Mike, this is Linda.B: So what?


In an adjacency pair, the second utterance makes full sense only if it fulfils the expectations raised by the first one. When this does not happen (e.g. in the case of a dispreferred response), this is a significant absence and conclusions can be drawn. Look at the example:

A: So how do you like college?

B: (0.4) Want to grab something to eat?

What conclusion can be drawn from B’s response?

Do the same with the examples in Handout C: turn-taking.


The designation adjacency pair is a bit misleading. Take a look at these examples:

A: Can I have a bottle of whiskey? A: How about eating together?

B: Are you twenty-one? B: Yes, good idea!

A: No. A: Okay, let’s go then.

B: No.

The first dialogue contains an insertion sequence. Longer insertion sequences are called side sequences.

The second dialogue is an example of three-part sequence (offer > agreement > affirmation).

Conversation analysis: discourse markers

Look at this brief conversation:

A: So, in the end you have decided to join us then.

B: Well, yeah, after all I had to be here anyway.

Most conversations include words such as okay, so, yeah, well, but, anyway, you know, etc. which are not part of the propositional content (i.e. they do not add much to the meaning of the utterance). These are called discourse markers.

What is their function then?

Conversation analysis: discourse markers

The function of discourse markers is mainly pragmatic. In fact, speakers may use them for three practical purposes:

1. To denote their attitude towards what is being uttered2. To help the listener follow the conversation 3. To mark turn-taking

Take a look at Handout C: discourse markers. Try to identify the discourse markers and work out their specific functions in the conversation.

The nature of discourse Spoken discourse

Documents

Transcript of The nature of discourse Spoken discourse