Pre-reading Questions
1. How important are conversational skills in relation to other skills needed in language learning?
2. Think of someone easy to talk with and list 3â5 qualities of his/her way of speaking.
3. Think of someone difficult to communicate with and list 3â5 qualities of his/her way of speaking.
4. If you were asked to teach a conversation class, what would you include in your lesson plans?
5. Imagine that an alien from outer space will be living with you. Give this alien a name. As an extremely considerate, sensitive, and culturally attuned host, think about this alienâs total well-being and answer these questions:
(a) What will you tell the alien about how to interact in English?
(b) What will you say about the ways in which speakers take turns?
(c) What will you say about the ways in which speakers open and close conversations?
(d) What kinds of sample utterances would you give, if any?
(e) What will you tell the alien about our ways of correcting the talk that we produce in conversation?
(f) What other aspects of talking and participating in a conversation would you teach your warm and fuzzy friend?
(g) How will you know whether your alien is ready to interact with other human beings?
Teaching Conversation
Learning to engage in ordinary conversation is one of the most difficult tasks for second language learners. As Hatch (1978) suggests, one learns how to âdoâ conversation, and out of conversation syntactic structures develop. In other words, conversation is the medium through which we do language learning. Clearly, then, knowing how to teach conversation is of critical importance for language teachers; this knowledge begins with a solid understanding of what constitutes conversation or talk-in-interaction.
Over the past three decades, discourse analysts have made great contributions to our understanding of interaction (e.g., Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; Hatch, 1992; McCarthy, 1991). In fact, resource books for teachers often emphasize that learners need instruction on features of conversation, and applied linguists have worked to describe those features in relation to pedagogy (Lazaraton, 2001). Thornbury and Slade (2006), for example, discuss the vocabulary, grammar, and discourse features of conversation. However, the descriptions of language or discourse may not yet sufficiently reflect language use. Consider the following from a widely used teacher-training textbook:
Although the examples that Brown provides in his teacher-training book (not shown here) illustrate that people donât actually talk by stringing sentences together, the general characterization of âsentences spokenâ can be misleading (Schegloff, 1979a). As leading conversation analysts Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) have shown early on, the âsentenceâ is not the basic unit of conversation (cf. âreal grammarâ in Biber & Conrad, 2009; for a much broader definition of grammar, also see Purpura, 2004). Accurate understandings of how conversation works take hours of investigations into minute details of recorded interactions, a hallmark of conversation analysis (CA).
The suggestion that ESL/EFL textbook writers use authentic spoken language data for the design of language instructional materials is gaining increasing prominence (Burns, 1998; Carter & McCarthy, 1997; McCarthy, 1991; Scotton & Bernsten, 1988; Thornbury, 2005). Nonetheless, as Burns (1998) notes, even though communicative language teaching (CLT) has been promoted for a number of years now, there is always room for improvement in terms of instructional materials and teaching techniques. Applied linguists have recognized the contribution of CA over the years with an increasing interest in a merger between the two disciplines (Bowles & Seedhouse, 2007; Richards & Seedhouse, 2005; Schegloff, Koshik, Jacoby, & Olsher, 2002; Seedhouse, 2005a). The nod to CA, however, often lacks sufficient details to be of direct pedagogical usefulness for language teachers. For instance, the importance of turn-taking is frequently mentioned in various teacher training books, but instructors are given minimal, if any, information regarding how the turn-taking system operates. Just as a novelist has the ability to help readers zoom in on an aspect of daily life that they might not have noticed or thought about as important, a CA outlook on talk-in-interaction can help ESL/EFL teachers reach a similar kind of heightened awareness and understanding of oral language.
This book brings the core findings of conversation analysis to language teachers. It provides a comprehensive and systematic introduction to the basic features of conversation. It is designed to invigorate teachersâ interest in the structures of interaction. Teachers can translate this awareness into pedagogy, using the suggested teaching activities provided in subsequent chapters as a guide. Our goal is to equip language teachers with a new kind of tool kit for teaching conversation.
Conversation Analysis
Each of us engages in talk-in-interaction on a daily basis. Ordinary conversation is the most basic mode of interaction or âprimordial site of socialityâ (Schegloff, 1986, p. 112). It is the means by which we handle our daily lives and get things done, from mundane matters such as chatting with a friend to critical ones such as planning a wedding, a divorce, a business partnership, and so on. Conversation analysis is a unique way of analyzing language and social interaction. It originated in sociology in the 1960s with the work of Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. During the course of its forty-year history, CA has spread rapidly beyond the walls of sociology, shaping the work of scholars and practitioners in a variety of disciplines, including but not limited to: applied linguistics, anthropology, psychology, and communication studies.
One of CAâs fundamental concerns is: what do people do in order to have a conversation? What are the commonsense practices by which we engage in conversation? Remember the times when someone was angry with you and gave the cold shoulder, not answering your hello or how are you? No matter how hard you tried, the other party did not say a word. If you think about those cold-shouldered moments in social interaction, you realize that it takes two people to do the talk. What does it mean to keep a conversation going? From a CA perspective, having a conversation is the product of much joint effort (Schegloff, 1997a).
CA researchers analyze actual instances of talk, ranging from casual conversation between friends, acquaintances, co-workers or strangers to talk in more formal settings such as classrooms, doctorâpatient consultations, courtroom proceedings, radio talk programs, interviews, and so on. The latter falls within the domain of institutional talk (Drew & Heritage, 1992). Thus, an umbrella term for CAâs research object is talk-in-interaction. In what follows, we introduce the principles of CA in three broad categories: (1) collecting data; (2) transcribing data; (3) analyzing data.
Collecting Data
CA requires naturally occurring data that has been recorded and transcribed.
Artificial or contrived conversations in experimental settings (e.g., asking two strangers to talk and record their conversation) should not be taken as the representative of what goes on in naturally occurring talk.
The naturally occurring data must be audio- or video-recorded for the following reasons (Pomerantz and Fehr, 1997, p. 70):
(1) certain features are not recoverable in any other way;
(2) playing and replaying...