A Comparative Analysis of Casual Conversation and Institutional Talk[文档资料]

A Comparative Analysis of Casual Conversation and Institutional Talk 本文档格式为 WORD,感谢你的阅读。 Abstract： This article reflects on the process of transcribing spoken interaction and makes a comparative analysis of two different varieties of spoken interaction （ casual conversation and institutional talk） . By doing so， it reveals how the different purposes of speech result in their distinctive characteristics， and shows how language is structured to construct ideational meanings （ Field） and interpersonal meanings （ Tenor） that define each context. Key words： transcription； comparative analysis； casual conversation； institutional talk H030 A 1006-2831（ 2014） 02-0139-9 doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-2831.2014.01.037 Transcription is a valuable tool to “freezeframe a moment” （ Rex Schiller， 2009： 10） . It offers “previously invisible choices” （ Rex Schiller， 2009： 10） to probe into conversations， which would otherwise be evanescent in its original form. Transcription examines both how interactants employ different grammatical， lexical， discourse-organizational， prosodic， and paralinguistic features to negotiate meanings and achieve particular purposes in different domains of life， and how the interpersonal relationship is established， maintained or changed through the conversation. Despite the great value of transcription， it is not a faithful or objective way in which talk can be written. Influenced by the purpose of transcribing， personal language ideology， and the tension between readability and accuracy， transcribers may have different decisions in “what to transcribe and in how much detail” （ Eggins， 2000： 148） . Therefore， transcription itself is a kind of interpretation and representation （ Green， Franquiz Dixon， 1997） . A comparison of institutional talk with casual conversation would in particular makes salient their distinctive linguistic and non-linguistic features， showing how these choices enact different social rights and obligations of each role of the interactants. In addition， a close examination of the characteristics of the two types of interaction helps reveal the different purposes of interaction， as “the linguistic forms and patterns of interaction between the teacher and students will be linked in some way to the pedagogical purposes which the teacher introduces” （ Seedhouse， 1996： 21）， while casual talk usually is not for a certain end， but sustaining interpersonal relationship. This article is based on the transcription of a casual conversation and an institutional talk. The casual talk is recorded when three friends are chatting on campus. The participants include one male native speaker （ Dan） and two female non-native speakers （ Karen and Helen）， whose English proficiency is high and near native. The institutional talk is an episode of a tutorial on teaching oral skills given to fourthyear student teachers in Singapore. A reflection on the process of transcribing constitutes the first part of the article， mainly focusing on how the purposes of transcription affect the authors transcribing process； then a detailed comparative analysis of the casual conversation and teacher-and-student talk follows， showing how their distinctive interactional purposes are enacted. However， characteristics and purposes of the two talks cannot be generalized to all casual conversations and classroom talks because transcription captures only one instance of each type of speech on the one hand， and the recorded classroom talk is just a sub-variety （ seminar） of teacher-and-student talk in the educational setting on the other hand. Transcription is an effective way to“bring into focus the characteristics of spoken discourse， which are surprisingly obscure to most people” （ Cameron， 2001： 33） . In other words， analysts attention is constantly drawn to particular characteristics of spoken discourse during transcribing， and this enables them to notice what they might have neglected in the interaction， thus opening for them opportunities to see how one can communicate with others more productively and get things done more smoothly. However， it is generally agreed that transcription cannot faithfully reproduce every aspect of talk （ Eggins， 2000； Green， Franquiz Dixon， 1997； Roberts， 1997） . It is possible for a transcript to be delicate in one way but not in another （ Eggins， 2000） . For example， one transcript might be very delicate in showing exact points of overlap， but much less delicate in capturing paralinguistic information. Thus， the transcriber needs to decide what degree of delicacy in what areas is necessary depending on the analytic purpose. 2.1 Stress in the transcription The inclusion of stress in the authors transcription tries to demonstrate that words alone are far from enough to reveal the hidden meaning and interpersonal relationship in interaction. Compared with the initial transcript（ Excerpt 1）， stress in the final transcript （ Excerpt 1） of the same segment helps construct the content of interaction by highlighting some issues. The stressed and elongated word“lo ： t” highlights the amount of Karens cry， the stressed phrase “felt sad” highlights Karens sorrowful psychological state ， and the stressed word “first” highlights how long this state has lasted. Thus， the final transcript with stress is better at showing Karens reaction to her husbands leaving. Stress also helps represent participants attitudes and uncover the interpersonal relationship： Dans elongation of the exclamation “oh ： ” indicates his sympathy towards Karen； and Helens purpos eful stressing and elongating the words “ba ： ck” and“cry ： ” at the end of her turns suggests that she seems to know more than what Karen is saying and she is inviting more explanation， which displays an intimate relationship with Karen. 2.2 Laughter in the transcription Laughter， as a meaningful non-linguistic behavior， helps contextualize interaction and construct the Tenor. In the initial transcript， Karen and Helen appear to be arguing about Karens reaction to her temporary separation with her husband， with Helen interrogating Karen， and Karen defending for herself. The impression might be that Karen and Helen are not on good terms with each other. However， in the final transcript， Helens talking of Karens cry is accompanied by laughter （ turn 23）， and again her reaction to Karens self -defense is laughter without words （ turn 31） . She seems to be mocking at Karens immaturity as a newlymarried woman without worrying that Karen might get embarrassed. Laughter in the final transcript contextualizes the merry and relaxing atmosphere of the casual conversation， and helps reveal the intimate relationship and equal social status between Karen and Helen. The contextualizing effect of laughter is also presented in the teacher-and-student talk. Reading through Excerpt 2， a segment of the teacher-and-student talk， without the laughter we might simply understand the reason why the teacher asks the student to repeat her answer as the student speaking not loud enough. However， the students laugher seems to tell us that she speaks in low voice because she thinks the answer sounds simple and childish； then the teachers laughter seems to suggest that the answer is really simple and out of expectation， but it is just this simple instruction that is exactly what is needed in real teaching practice. In this sense， the laughter does promote understanding of the context of interaction. 2.3 Pauses in transcription Pauses are employed in the authors transcription to show the different purposes of the casual conversation and teacher-andstudent talk. While no pauses are timed in the casual conversation， pauses longer than 1.35 seconds are timed in the teacher-and-student talk. The pauses in the casual conversation are rather short and few， while the number and the length of the pauses in the teacher-andstudent talk are especially conspicuous. In the casual conversation， there are pauses when Dan doesnt know how to express his idea as shown in Excerpt 3， and when he looks like to be wondering the appropriateness of the word“resolve” as shown in Excerpt 4. The limited number of pauses in casual conversation is related to its nature and purpose. Casual conversation is usually fluid and goes at a faster pace than the classroom talk， because， first of all， its purpose is not for any deep understanding but exchanging information， additionally， if any misunderstanding comes out， interactants could cut in at any time to require clarification or further explanation. On the contrary， for the purpose of academic instruction， the teacher must resort to various devices， including pauses， to make sure that students understand and follow him all the time. Excerpt 5 shows that the teacher purposefully makes a pause before the lesson moves to the next topic. By announcing that students will learn more about Adam Pig story on another day， the teacher is indicating that they have finished one task and will immediately move to the next. Then the long pause allows students time to digest what has been learned and get ready for what is coming. Or the teacher may pause so that students can have some time thinking about the questions given by the teacher， which seems to be the case in Excerpt 6. Sometimes， teachers pause to achieve special pedagogical effect， which is usually emergent. For example， in Excerpt 7 the teacher deliberately pauses a short while instead of announcing the end of the short story immediately after he finishes reading the story possibly because he wants to amuse students and， what is more important， remind students that the seemingly short story is long enough for primary one students. 2.4 Limitations of the transcription Admittedly， the authors transcription is an imperfect record of taped speech. Rhythm， for example， is not represented in transcript of the teacher-and-student talk. When the teacher is reading Adam Pig story to the student teachers， partially modeling how they can read this kind of story to children， he pays attention to the rhythm. However， not marking it out in the transcription is due to two reasons： first of all， this feature of rhythm is not salient in the rest part of the teacher-and-student talk； secondly， the focus of the authors comparative study is on the differences between casual conversation and classroom talk and how these distinctive features serve their own social purpose rather than simply displaying every detail in the speech.Though not a faithful or objective representation due to selection of certain aspects with more or less details， the authors transcription tries to represent the important linguistic and non-linguistic features which are useful for the analytic goal. Unlike classroom talk， which is “for the institutional purpose of learning” （ Seedhouse， 1996： 23）， causal talk， most of the time， is simply for the sake of talking itself （ Eggins， 2000） . A comparative analysis of ordinary， spontaneous interactions and classroom talk allows us to see not only how the different purposes of the two types of speech result in their distinctive characteristics， but also how language is structured to construct ideational meanings （ Field） and interpersonal meanings（ Tenor） that define each context. Unable to cover every difference， it focuses on only three major aspectsmicro interactional features， the organizational structure， and stability of Field and Tenor. 3.1 Micro interactional features： Spontaneity phenomena As two varieties of spoken discourse， both the everyday casual conversation and classroom teacher-and-student talk contain spontaneity phenomena， like repetition and hesitation with examples given in Table 1. Nevertheless， the number of these two features in the casual conversation surpasses that in the teacher-and-student talk in the transcripts and throughout the whole stretches of discourse， which suggests that classroom talk might be more carefully planned and processed， while casual conversation is more spontaneous. What is interesting is that fillers only appear in the casual conversation. Fillers allow speakers time to think about what to say next or modify what has been said in the rapid flow of speech. For instance， in the excerpted casual conversation below， Dan adopts “you know” ， “what may be say” and “like” when he tentatively expresses the idea that Chinese dont cry as much as Austr alians on trivial matters. Fillers enable him to think about how to express himself， and at the same time soften the assertiveness of his statement as it sounds a bit general， just as Dan acknowledges later in the conversation. 3.2 Micro interactional features： Mood choice Mood is one of the grammatical resources for expressing interpersonal meanings. Mood choice is related to the cultural expectation for a particular social role， and it enacts the different social rights and obligations of each role （ Eggins， 2000） . A close examination of the mood choices helps to display their interpersonal relationship in terms of power and status. In the casual conversation interactants use only declaratives and interrogatives， suggesting an equal status among them， which is in accordance with Eggins observation that causal talk is often based on social equality（ 2000） . However， probing into certain part of the conversation， one will find that interactantssocial status is not stable throughout the whole talk but constantly negotiated. Excerpt 8 is centered on Karens wedding and honeymoon ， which means Karen holds the needed information for the exchange to prolong. Dans interrogative “How was your wedding” initiates the topic ； then “Oh is he？ ” either encour ages Helen to say more or invites Karen to clarify the truth， thus prolonging the conversation； and finally “Do you have a photo you cant show me yeah ？ ” continues engaging Karen and Helen in the conversation. By responding to Dans interrogatives， Karen provides necessary information in the mood of declarative for the conversation to move on. In this episode Karen takes a higher status than Dan and Helen as an information-provider. In the teacher-and-student talk， the teacher and students take the same number of turns， but students turns are contributed by more than seven students （ sometimes a groups of students answer simultaneously in one turn） . In addition， the teacher produces far more clauses， most of which are full clauses， than students. In other words， the teacher dominates the classroom talk， doing more work to initiate and prolong exchanges， while the students just play a responsive role. This does not suggest the teacher is in a low status to“serve” students， on the contrary， the teacher has the obligation to transmit knowledge by initiating more talk. Another sharp contrast between teacher talk and student talk in this classroom is that the teacher uses declaratives， full interrogatives， and imperatives， but students only use declaratives. Interrogatives like “how did they organize it what did they do” are mainly used to initiate students responses， and imperatives such as “But remember this is for primary one” and “Start small” are to remind students some important points. This contrast indicates that the teacher has greater social power than students， which just meets the expectation of the local culture that teachers assume a higher position promised by his expertise. 3.3 Micro interactional features： Appraisal choice In casual conversation people are likely to express personal attitudes with appraisal words but tend to act in a restrained， non-attitudinal way in institutional contexts （ Eggins， 2000） . The interactants in the casual conversation and teacher-and-student talk the author observed display the same features. Table 2， in which appraisals are in bold， displays the use of appraisal words in the casual talk to express feelings， like “I felt sad” ， to make evaluation of behaviors， like “its crazy” ， and also to assess the value of things as in “Yeah its just the stupid stereotype”. The high affective involvement， in other words， the presence of these appraisal words， suggests a close relationship and equal status among interactants， as they feel free to reveal their personal feelings and attitudes. While the relative absence of appraisal in the teacher-and-student talk might be explained in the way that this enables the teacher and students to establish a detached relationship， not showing much affiliation with each other， so that it is useful to maintain the teachers authority. 3.4 Organizational structure： Turntaking Controlled by different interactional contexts， turn-taking unfolds differently in casual conversation and classroom talk， respectively displaying a more dynamic structure and a discernible orgranizational structure， different degrees of participants rights， and more or less responsibility shared by interactants for the progress of the discourse. There is a competition for turns in the casual conversation， as evidenced by 15 overlaps between two interactants and 2 overlaps among three interactants in the 3-minute transcript. It suggests the equal status among interactants， whose participation rights are unrestricted and responsibility for the managing the progress of the discourse is almost equally shared. Excerpt 9 shows that three participants always rush to speak and they all contribute to the flow of the conversation. From turn 45 to 47， when Karen is seeking confirmation from David whether he just assumes a conception （ it）， Helen cuts in to state her opinion that “And we think the Eastern peoplere more sentimental” ， which happens to partly overlap with both Karens （ “assume it” ） and Dans turn （ “its just the stupid stereotype” ） . And this competition for turns appears again between turn 48 and 52： Karen tries to cut in （ “I think” ） when Dan is still in the middle of responding to Helen （ “Yeah so you see your stereotype clashes with mine anyway” ）； after waiting for quite a short moment and assuming that Dan has finished， Karen manages to cut in by saying “It depends on it depends on individual” ， which immediately gets Dans response. Then turn 53 shows that Helen once again cuts in to inquiry about Dans stereotypes when Danis responding to Karen. In this segment， Karen and Helen competes for turns to talk to Dan， while Dan successfully copes with them， making the conversation go smoothly and flow rapidly. The unexpected cutting-ins initiated by any interactant indicates the relative equality among them. The turn-taking in the classroom talk unfolds in a discernible IRF pattern： teacher initiation， student response， and teacher feedback. As a typical university class， turntaking is organized by the teacher throughout the whole classroom interaction， who does most of the talking and asks all the questions. The teacher takes more responsibility in monitoring the direction of the conversation， and the students participation rights ， to a certain extent， rely on the teachers initiation of questions， which suggests a hierarchical social status between the teacher and students. When probing into the interaction， one would find that the teacher tries to motivate students to talk and enlarge studentsparticipation by relating questions to studentsown experiences. Most questions initiated by teachers （ except those questions between turn 7 and 17 are used to model asking questions when checking primary studentsunderstanding of a short story ） are somewhat in between known-answer questions and openended questions. For example， in Excerpt 10， although when the teacher asks the question“how did they organize it what did they do” ， he seems to have got a predetermined answer， his question that invites students to draw on their own experiences （ by reminding them of their practicum with Dr. Salong） will possibly illicit alternative answers. Thus， even the teacher is still powerful than students due to his expertise， students are expected to take more responsibility and given more participation rights in co-constructing the classroom interaction when they are asked to bring their own experiences into classroom talk. 3.5 Stability of Field and Tenor： Topicshift Topic-shift， what topics interactants negotiate and who initiates a new topic， not only shows the subject matter of the speech， but also reveals whether the interpersonal relationship is stable or constantly negotiated throughout the interaction. To compare the topic-shift of the