Conversation analysis

Order Description
The aim of this assessment is to give you an opportunity to learn how to use the tools of CA for analysis, starting from transcribing data, to identifying practices within your selected section, and discussing these in the light of extant CA research findings.
Word limit:2000 maximum excluding your selected text transcribed conventionally and in Jeffersonian style, and list of references. Please also note that extracts from your selected text should be excluded from your word count. Due to the nature of this work, your assignment should contain several extracts. In order to facilitate your management of the word count, use of textboxes, inverted commas or at least different font is recommended. So, to be clear, the 2000 words is for your own analysis and discussion.
TRANSCRIPTION:
Using the two minutes of the philosophy tutorial recording available , select two minutes to transcribe using Jeffersonian CA conventions
. Negotiate with the tutor which section you have chosen. Each student will transcribe and analyse a different section.Please give the minute and second timings from the audio file. Briefly state why you selected this section to analyse on the WOLF forum & note your choice there:eg from 3 minutes 30 seconds to 5 minutes 30 seconds.
* I recommend that you use the recording provided. The class will work on different sections, the aim being to share knowledge of the practices occurring throughout this particular institutional interaction. However, if you have a strong case for using alternative data, please negotiate with me and let me hear your sound clip before I agree.
• Create a conventional transcript of your selected extract= your Appendix 1
• Then develop a Jeffersonian transcript= your Appendix 2 (see CA textbooks egSidnell 2010 for conventions)
Within the 2000 word allowance, devote 75-100 words to reflecting on what the Jeffersonian transcription process enabled you to “see” and “hear” in the data, compared to your initial transcription.(very important)
The remainder of the assignment is as follows:
ANALYSIS:
a. Discuss evidence of the “institutional fingerprint” in terms of participant orientation to inferential frameworks, specific goals, roles and restrictions on what can be said, when, and by whom in your section of text. What asymmetries can you find? (200 words).

b. Identify and explicate practices you find in your extract. (1200 words)These may include:

a. Action formation
b. Turn-taking
c. Turn design (eg speakers continuing past a possible utterance completion)
d. Recipient design (eg choice of turn design for the recipient)
e. Intersubjectivity “understandings emerge in the course of interaction and are revisable in the light of what subsequently happens” (Sidnell 2010:13).
f. Overlap
g. Repair
h. Accounts
i. Preference-organisation
j. Epistemics/ deontics, (particularly related to tutor/student agency in the Philosophy tutorial recording)
k. Normativity versus optionality and contingency
l. Advice formulations (egYou should)
Discuss ONE/SOME of these practices in the light of CA research. It is your task to “see” and “hear” what practices occur in your section. You can then negotiate with the tutor which practice(s) to focus on. Please see worked examples from other data on separate documents.
Assessment Criteria
1) Accuracy of conventional and Jeffersonian transcription
2) Analysis of conversational practices
3) Engagement with CA literature
4) Academic writing:
a. Organisation and Coherence of argument
b. Accuracy and range of expression
c. Adherence to academic conventions including referencing
Selected bibliography (see Module Guide, Session 1 notes etc as well)
Institutional talk
Drew, P. & J. Heritage (Eds.) Talk at Work (pp. 521-548). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

I want
Childs, C. (2012). ‘I’m not X, I just want Y’: formulating ‘wants’ in interaction. Discourse
Studies, 14 (2): 181-196.

I mean
Maynard, D. W (2011/13?)Defensive mechanisms: ‘I mean’ prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences

epistemics/deontics
Heritage, J. (2013b).Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds.Discourse Studies 15 (5) 551-578.

Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective Journal of Pragmatics 88:88-104

Ekberg and Lecouteur (2015) Clients’ resistance to therapists’ proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic statusJournal of Pragmatics
Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics 44 2194-2210.

Repair
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1977
Accounts
Angell, B. and Bolden, G. (2015) Justifying medical decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists’ accounts for treatment recommendation: Social Science and Medicine.
Identity work
Benwell, B. (1999). The organization of knowledge in British University tutorial discourse: Issues, pedagogic strategies and disciplinary identity. Pragmatics 9 (4), 535–565
Benwell, B. M. &Stokoe, E. (2006).Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.

Membership categorisation work between students and tutors

Mayes, P. (2015). Becoming an ‘autonomous writer’: Epistemic stance displays and membership categorization in the writing conferenceDiscourse Studies 2015 17: 752-769

Tutorial interaction

Svinhufvud, K. and Vehviläinen, S. (2013). Papers, documents, and the opening of an academic supervision encounter. Text and Talk 33: 1 139-166.