Cover not available
Part of
Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
Edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305] 2019
► pp. 93–130

Chapter 4
A preliminary typology of interactional figures based on a tool for visualizing conversational structure

| Val.Es.Co. Group (Valencia, Español Coloquial)
| University of Valencia
The aim of this paper is to study interactional structure based on the connections between interventions (or turns) in a dialogue. Dialogic discourse is understood as an organization that connects each intervention to other interventions on both sides of it. We use a visualization tool to connect interventions based on the types of reactive and initiative relations between them. The result is a visual representation of the whole conversation, which can be used for the systematic analysis of structural phenomena and the detection of phenomena which might have been previously unnoticed.
Keywords: linguistic visualization tools, interactional structure, figures, Val.Es.Co. segmentation model
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Val.Es.Co segmentation model
    • 1.2Visualization tools for linguistic data: Val.Es.Co. Visualization Tool
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.A preliminary typology of interactional figures
    • 3.1Peak: Independent exchange
    • 3.2Zipper: Consecutive reactive-initiative interventions
    • 3.3Rake: Discontinuous intervention
    • 3.4Sticks: Parallel discontinuous interventions
    • 3.5Fence: Frame exchange
      • 3.5.1Closed fence
      • 3.5.2Open fence
      • 3.5.3Free fence
    • 3.6Line: Independent intervention
    • 3.7Comb: Series of independent interventions
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
    • 4.1Some thoughts on the notion of figure
    • 4.2Our figures versus previously studied phenomena at the level of interactional structure
    • 4.3Partial and global descriptions of structural interactional phenomena
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.04esp
References (37)
References
Briz, Antonio. 2004. “El análisis de las conversaciones: órdenes y unidades.” Interlingüística 15: 3–20.Google Scholar
. 2006. “La segmentación de una conversación en diálogos.” Oralia 9: 45–71.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Lo coloquial y lo formal, el eje de la variedad lingüística.” In De moneda nunca usada. Estudios dedicados a José María Enguita, ed. by Rosa María Castañer, and Vicente Lagüens, 125–133. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico.Google Scholar
. 2013. “El relato coloquial.” In Comunicación presentada en el XXVIII Congreso de hispanistas italianos, November 27th-30th, Pisa, Italia.Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio, and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002. “Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales”. Anejo de la Revista Oralia, Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar
Cabedo, Adrián, and Salvador Pons (eds.). Corpus Val.Es.Co 2.0. [online: [URL]]. Accessed September 18th, 2017.
Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne-Catherine Simon. 2009. “Minimal Discourse Units in Spoken French: On the Role of Syntactic and Prosodic Units in Discourse Segmentation.” In Discourse 4. [[URL]]. Accessed September 18th, 2017.
Donath, Judith, Karrie Karahalios, and Fernanda Viegas. 1999. “Visualizing Conversation.” Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences vol. 2: 20–23.Google Scholar
Espinosa-Guerri, Guadalupe. 2015. “Hacia una visualización sistemática de la conversación coloquial.” In Nuevas investigaciones lingüísticas, ed. by Ágela Benito, Pedro Espino, and Bruno Revenga, 341–406. Cantabria: Editorial Universidad Cantabria.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Los dientes de sierra: una herramienta para el estudio de la estructura interactiva del discurso dialógico.” Normas 6: 13–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinosa-Guerri, Guadalupe, and Amparo García-Ramón. 2017. “Conversational Structure and Discourse Genres: A Contrastive Study of Informal Conversations, Sociolinguistic Interviews and Broadcast Interviews.” In 15th International Pragmatics Conference , July, 16th-21st, Belfast, Ireland.
. Forthcoming. “Deixis extrema, intervenciones independientes y los límites de la conversación coloquial.”
Friendly, Michael. 2009. Milestones in the History of Thematic Cartography, Statistical Graphics, and Data Visualization [online: [URL]]. Accessed September 18th, 2017.
García-Ramón, Amparo. 2019. Epistemicidad en interacción: (a)simetrías epistémicas en secuencias de acuerdo y su relación con la construcción de roles funcionales en conversaciones y entrevistas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Valencia.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1983. “The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review 48: 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2009. “Conversation Analysis as Social Theory”. In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. by Brian S. Turner, 300–320. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and David Greatbatch. 1991. “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews”. In Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. by Deirdre Boden, and Don H. Zimmerman, 93–137. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gale. 1972. “Side Sequences”. In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David N. Sudnow, 294–333. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
. 1978. “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation”. In J. Schenkein, Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 219–248. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, and Christian Plantin. 1995. Le trilogue. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. “Recursion in Pragmatics.” Language 89: 149–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes. 2001. “Dutch ‘but’ as a Sequential Conjunction. Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1978. “Compliment Responses: Notes of the Co-operations of Multiple Constraints.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schekein, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pons, Salvador. 2014. Models of Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
PRESEEA. 2014. Corpus del Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América. Alcalá de Henares: University of Alcalá [online: [URL]]. Accessed September 18, 2017.
Roulet, Eddy, Laurent Filliettaz, Anne Grobet, and Marcel Burger. 2001. Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gale Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1968. “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70 (6), 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1972. “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: MacMillan, The Free Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of ‘Coherence’ in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Conversational Organization and its Development, ed. by Bruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 2002. “On ‘Opening Sequencing’: A Framing Statement.” In Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, ed. by James E. Katz and Mark Aakhus, 321–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “A Practice for (Re-)Exiting a Sequence: and/but/so + uh(m) + Silence.” In Language in Life, and a Life in Language: Jacob Mey – A Festschrift, ed. by Bruce Fraser, and Ken Turner, 365–374. Bingly: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Val.Es.Co. 2003. “Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial.” Oralia 6: 7–61.Google Scholar
2014. “Las unidades del discurso oral.” Estudios de Lingüística del Español 35: 13–73.Google Scholar
Zhao, Jian, Fanny Chevalier, Christopher Collins, and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2012. “Facilitating Discourse Analysis with Interactive Visualization.” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18(12): 2639–2648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1984. “Talk and Its Occasion: The Case of Calling the Police.” In Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 210–228. Washington: University Press.Google Scholar