Compare Two Articles in Terms of Their Use of Conversation Analysis

2952 Words6 Pages

Introduction: Conversation Analysis (CA) was defined by Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008) as ‘the systematic analysis of the talk produced in everyday situations of human interaction: talk-in-interaction’ (p. 11). This suggests that only what is observed during an interaction, the talk produced will be taken into consideration in the data analysis done by conversation analysts. This view was echoed by many conversation analysts including ten Have (2006) who highlighted that CA focuses on ‘emic categories [which] are ‘discovered’ during [an] investigation’ (p. 36), with no pre-conception or predictions done before the analysis. This is a strong position for CA, where according to Stubbe, Lane, Hilder, Vine, Vine, Marra, Holmes and Weatherall (2003) contexts will only be included in analyses when it is made relevant in the interaction. Otherwise, it will not even be mentioned. One of the criticisms subjected to CA accounted by Hutchby et al. (2008) is that CA ‘lack adequate sense of the contextualisation of utterances within a wider set of social relations and practices’ (p. 208). Contextualisation or inclusion of external context in this sense would comprise of information such as gender, age, occupation, ideology and other information that defines an individual in a particular society. It is true that interactions do take place in a social context, and many studies use contextualisation in their analyses. However, as this paper progresses, it will be clear that context is made by the participants themselves and this is adequate for analyses (Stubbe et al., 2003). The second criticism also noted by Hutchby et al. (2008) stated that ‘conversation analysts in general are thought to be unwilling to make links between the ‘micro’ details of ... ... middle of paper ... ...nversation analysis: comparative perspectives (pp. 357-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis as research methodology. In: Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.) Applying conversation analysis (pp. 251-266). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Segerdahl, P. (2003). Conversation analysis as a rigorous science. In: Previgiano, C. L., & Thibault, P. J. (Eds.). Discussing conversation analysis (pp. 91-108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Silverman, D. (1998). Social science and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, E., Vine, B., Marra, M., Holmes, J. & Weatherall, A. (2003). Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction. Discourse Studies. 5(1), 351-388. Ten Have, P. (2006). Doing conversation analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Open Document