Parties, persons, and one-at-a-time: conversation analysis and ELF

Anita Santner-Wolfartsberger

doi:10.1515/jelf-2015-0020

Article

Parties, persons, and one-at-a-time: conversation analysis and ELF

Anita Santner-Wolfartsberger
Anita Santner-Wolfartsberger is a sociolinguist working at the Department of English at the University of Vienna. Following her undergraduate education at the University of Vienna, at University College London, and the NYU in London, she spent several years working at the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business before she joined the English Department at the University of Vienna in October 2009. Her main research interest lies in interactional pragmatics in English as a lingua franca workplace communication.

Published/Copyright: August 14, 2015

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of English as a Lingua Franca Volume 4 Issue 2

Abstract

Drawing on an analysis of ELF data, this article deals with the characteristics and complexities of turn-taking in interactions involving three or more participants. Sacks et al.’s (1974) often quoted framework for turn-taking in conversations, which can still be regarded canonical reading in the conversation analytic literature, serves as a starting point for this investigation. The aim of this paper is to scrutinize the applicability of the turn-taking model for group interactions. A key concept in this regard is the notion of a party: the conversation analytic model for turn-taking posits that turn-taking does not take place between individual speakers, but between parties (hence the term multi-party conversation) which can potentially consist of several speakers (cf. Schegloff 1995: 32–33). In group interactions it is thus possible that overlap occurs among co-incumbents of the same party. This kind of simultaneous speech, however, has not yet been subject of systematic empirical analysis. The present paper offers a preliminary account of this aspect of turn-taking in multi-participant interaction by discussing data extracts from an ELF workplace meeting of seven speakers and suggests possible avenues for further research on the phenomenon.

Zusammenfassung

Anhand einer Analyse von ELF Daten beschäftigt sich dieser Artikel mit den spezifischen Charakteristika und Komplexitäten die sich für Turn-taking ergeben, sobald drei oder mehr TeilnehmerInnen an einem Gespräch beteiligt sind. Ausgangspunkt hierfür ist Sacks, Schegloff und Jeffersons (1974) Modell des Turn-taking in Konversationen, das bis heute einen oft zitierten Referenzpunkt in der linguistischen Forschung zu gesprochener Sprache darstellt und mit Recht als ein Standardwerk der konversationsanalytischen Literatur bezeichnet werden kann. Ziel dieses Artikels ist, die Anwendbarkeit des Modells auf Gruppengespräche zu diskutieren. Eine Schlüsselrolle kommt dabei dem Konzept der “party” zu: Die Konversationsanalyse geht generell davon aus, dass Turn-taking nicht zwischen Individuen stattfindet, sondern zwischen “parties”, die potentiell auch mehrere SprecherInnen umfassen können (vgl. Schegloff 1995: 32–33). In Gruppengesprächen kann es daher zu Simultansequenzen zwischen den einzelnen SprecherInnen einer „party“kommen. Diese Art des Simultansprechens war bislang allerdings noch nicht Gegenstand systematischer empirischer Untersuchung. Anhand von Datenbeispielen aus einer Arbeitsbesprechung mit sieben SprecherInnen, die ELF als Verkehrssprache nutzen, soll in diesem Artikel die Komplexität von Turn-taking in Gruppengesprächen illustriert, die Anwendbarkeit des Konzeptes von “party” in der Analyse diskutiert und mögliche Wege für zukünftige Forschung auf dem Gebiet aufgezeigt werden.

Keywords: English as a lingua franca; conversation analysis; turn-taking; multi-participant interaction; “party”

Schlagworte: Englisch als Lingua Franca; Konversationsanalyse; Turn-taking; Gruppengespräche; “party”

About the author

Anita Santner-Wolfartsberger

Anita Santner-Wolfartsberger is a sociolinguist working at the Department of English at the University of Vienna. Following her undergraduate education at the University of Vienna, at University College London, and the NYU in London, she spent several years working at the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business before she joined the English Department at the University of Vienna in October 2009. Her main research interest lies in interactional pragmatics in English as a lingua franca workplace communication.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the two reviewers of this paper for their valuable feedback on earlier versions of this article and helping to sharpen the focus of the theoretical argument as well as the empirical discussion of data extracts by posing the right questions.

References

Asmuß, Birte & Jan Svennevig. 2009. Meeting talk – An introduction. Journal of Business Communication 46(1). 3–22.10.1177/0021943608326761Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805226Search in Google Scholar

Bruxelles, Silvie & Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 75–113.10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00037-7Search in Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary. 2000. The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 1439–1465.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00094-6Search in Google Scholar

Dausendschön-Gay, Ulrich & Ulrich Krafft. 1991. Tâche conversationnelle et organisation du discours. In Ulrich Dausenschön-Gay, Elisabeth Gülich & Ulrich Krafft (eds.), Linguistische Interaktionsanalysen, 131–154. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111346649.131Search in Google Scholar

Edelsky, Carole. 1981. Who’s got the floor? Language in Society 10. 383–421.10.1017/S004740450000885XSearch in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversations: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Introduction. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 3–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195124897.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face work: An analysis of ritual elements of social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18(3). 213–231.10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization. Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gramkow Andersen, Karsten. 2001. The joint production of conversation. Turn-sharing and collaborative overlap in encounters between non-native speakers of English. Aalborg: Centre for Languages and Intercultural Studies, Aalborg University.Search in Google Scholar

Handford, Michael. 2010. The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139525329Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet & Maria Stubbe. 2003. Power and politeness in the workplace. A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar

House, Juliane. 2008. (Im)politeness in English as Lingua Franca discourse. In Miriam A. Locher & Jürg Strässler (eds.), Standards and norms in the English language, 351–366. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110206982.3.351Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1983a. On a failed hypothesis: “Conjunctionals” as overlap-vulnerable. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature (28). 1–33. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1983b. Another failed hypothesis: Pitch/loudness as relevant to overlap resolution. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature (38). 1–24. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. In V. D’Urso & P. Leonardi (eds.), Discourse analysis and natural rhetoric, 11–38. Padua: Cleup Editore.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1986. Notes on “latency” in overlap onset. Human Studies 9(2/3). 153–183.10.1007/BF00148125Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004a. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004b. A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In G. H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 43–59. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.05jefSearch in Google Scholar

Kangasharju, Helena. 1991. Neuvottelu keskusteluna [Negotiation as conversation]. Publications of the Helsinki School of Economics, No. B–112.Search in Google Scholar

Kangasharju, Helena. 1996. Aligning as a team in multiparty conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 26. 291–319.10.1016/0378-2166(95)00051-8Search in Google Scholar

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 1–24.10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00034-1Search in Google Scholar

Knoblauch, Hubert. 1991. The taming of foes: The avoidance of asymmetry in informal discussions. In Ivana Markova & Klaus Foppa (eds.), Asymmetries on dialogue, 166–195. Hertfordshire: Harvester Whitsheaf.Search in Google Scholar

Kotthoff, Helga. 1992. Die konversationelle Konstruktion von Ungleichheit in Fernsehgesprächen. Zur Produktion von kulturellem Geschlecht. In Susanne Günthner & Helga Kotthoff (eds.), Die Geschlechter im Gespräch. Kommunikation in Institutionen, 251–287. Stuttgart: Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-03400-7_12Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene H. 1993. Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text 13. 213–245.10.1515/text.1.1993.13.2.213Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene H. 1996. On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 238–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene H. 2002. Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 225–256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195124897.003.0009Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene H. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 225–256. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.12lerSearch in Google Scholar

Markee, Numa. 2000. Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410606471Search in Google Scholar

Meierkord, Christiane. 2000. Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of non-native/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online 5(1/00).10.13092/lo.5.1013Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Frank E. 1995. Interaction et syntaxe. Structures de participation et structures syntaxiques dans la conversation à plusieurs participants. In Daniel Véronique & Robert Vion (eds.), Modèles de l’interaction verbale, 331–343. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.Search in Google Scholar

Oreström, Bengt. 1983. Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Search in Google Scholar

Osimk-Teasdale, Ruth. 2014. “I just wanted to give a partly answer”: Capturing and exploring word class variation in ELF data. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1). 109–143.10.1515/jelf-2014-0005Search in Google Scholar

Pullin, Patricia. 2010. Small talk, rapport, and international communicative competence: Lessons to learn from BELF. Journal of Business Communication 47(4). 455–476.10.1177/0021943610377307Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992 [1967]. Next-speaker selection techniques; paired utterances. In Gail Jefferson (ed.), Harvey Sacks. Lectures on conversation. Vol. 1, 665–674. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1995 [1967]. Turn-taking; collaborative utterances via appendor questions: Instructions; directed utterances. In Gail Jefferson (ed.), Lectures on conversation, 523–534. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010Search in Google Scholar

Santner-Wolfartsberger, Anita. 2012. Parties, persons and one-at-a-time: Some fundamental concepts of conversation analysis revisited. VIEWS – Vienna English Working Papers 21. http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/research/views/ (accessed 1 May 2015).10.1515/jelf-2015-0020Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1995. Parties and talking together: Two ways in which numbers are significant for talk-in-interaction. In Paul ten Have & George Psathas (eds.), Situated order, 31–42. Boston: University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In Eduard H. Hovy & Donia R. Scott (eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues? An interdisciplinary account, 3–35. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_1Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29. 1–63.10.1017/S0047404500001019Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2002. Accounts of conduct in interaction. Interruption, overlap and turn-taking. In Jonathan H. Turner (ed.), Handbook of sociological theory, 287–321. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.10.1007/0-387-36274-6_15Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica VIII (4). 289–327.10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A., Irene Koshik, Sally Jacoby & David Olsher. 2002. Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22. 3–31.10.1017/S0267190502000016Search in Google Scholar

Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Seedhouse, Paul. 2005. Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching 38(4). 165–187.10.1017/S0261444805003010Search in Google Scholar

Seidlhofer, Barbara, Nora Dorn, Claudio Schekulin & Anita Santner-Wolfartsberger. Forthcoming. Research perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. In Sabine Coelsch-Foisner, Gabriella Mazzon & Herbert Schendl (eds.), Contact and conflict in English studies (Austrian Studies in English 105). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Silverman, David. 2006. Interpreting qualitative data, 3rd edn. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 2005. Conversational style. Analyzing talk among friends, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195221817.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

VOICE Project. 2007. VOICE transcription conventions [2.1]. http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/voice.php?page=transcription_general_information (accessed 21 April 2015).Search in Google Scholar

VOICE website. Frequently asked questions. https://www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/faq (accessed 17 March 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1991. Power in family discourse. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110854787Search in Google Scholar

Widdowson, Henry. 2004. Text, context, pretext. Critical issues in discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758427Search in Google Scholar

Wolfartsberger, Anita. 2011a. ELF Business/Business ELF: Form and function in simultaneous speech. In Archibald Alasdair, Alessia Cogo & Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Latest trends in ELF research, 169–183. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Search in Google Scholar

Wolfartsberger, Anita. 2011b. Studying turn-taking in ELF: Raising the issues. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, Hong Kong Institute of Education, 26–28 May.Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Jean & David Olsher. 2000. Reflections on conversation analysis and nonnative speaker talk. An interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11(1). 111–128.10.5070/L4111005026Search in Google Scholar

Note

The paper is based partly on an earlier version published in the Vienna English Working Papers (view[z]) series of the University of Vienna’s English Department (Santner-Wolfartsberger 2012).

Published Online: 2015-8-14

Published in Print: 2015-9-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2015-0020

Keywords for this article

English as a lingua franca; conversation analysis; turn-taking; multi-participant interaction; “party”