Conversation analysis

Rebecca Clift, Paul Drew & Ian Hutchby
Table of contents

Conversation analysis (CA) has come to be the recognised term for what is in fact the study of talk-in-interaction (henceforth ‘talk’) in general; while it is not restricted to the study of conversation, it recognises that ordinary conversation is the basic environment for language use. In studying conversation and its adaptations, CA contributes to the development of a naturalistic, observation-based empirical science of actual verbal behavior alongside work in related fields within pragmatics (e.g., sociolinguistics and discourse analysis). What makes this approach distinctive is both its analytical focus and its treatment of interactional data. The focus of CA research is talk as a vehicle for action and its concern with how participants collaborate in constructing recognisable and coherent courses of action. To that end, recordings of naturally-occurring interaction are transcribed in such a way as to capture the temporal production of utterances in turns-at-talk and thus make available for analysis how participants understand and respond to one another. We shall see in due course a sample of data transcribed according to conversation analytic conventions and establish what this transcription makes possible, but we first turn to its emergence as a distinct field of inquiry.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Atkinson, J.M.
1984 Our masters’ voices. Methuen.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J.M. & P. Drew
1979 Order in court. Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J.M. & J. Heritage
1984 Structures of social action. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Button, G. & J.R.E. Lee
1987 Talk and social organization. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. & J. Heritage
2002 The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clift, R.
2001 Meaning in interaction: The case of “actually”. Language 77: 245–291. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2005 Discovering order. Lingua 115: 1641–1665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
2001 Interactional prosody: High onsets in reason-for-the-call turns. Language in Society 30: 29–53. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting
1996 Prosody in conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen E. & C.E. Ford
(eds.) 2004 Sound Patterns in Interaction. Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J.
1984 Subsequent versions of invitations offers, requests and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 102–128.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Drew, P.
1984 Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 129–151.Google Scholar
1987 Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25: 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 295–325. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. & J. Heritage
1992 Talk at work. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. & E. Holt
1988 Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35: 398–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P.E. Holt.
1998 Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society 27: 495–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, M.
1997a Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Language in Society 25: 587–612. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1997b Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multi-person conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 611–634. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ford, C.E., B.A. Fox & S.A. Thompson
2002 The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, R.
1997 The conversation object Mm: a weak and variable acknowledging token. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30: 131–156. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H.
1967 Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
1963 Behavior in public places. Free Press.Google Scholar
1964 The neglected situation. American Anthropologist 66: 133–136. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
1981 Conversational organization. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1995 Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28: 233–260. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2000 Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2003 Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M.H.
1990 He-said-she-said. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Building power asymmetries in girls’ interaction. Discourse & Society 13: 715–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greatbatch, D.
1988 A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language In Society 17: 401–430. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M.
1999 Where grammar and interaction meet: A study of co-participant completion in Japanese conversation. Human Studies 22: 475–499. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M., J. Mori & T. Takagi
2002 Contingent achievement of co-tellership in a Japanese conversation. In C.E. Ford, B.A. Fox & S.A. Thompson (eds.): 81–122.Google Scholar
Heritage, J.
1984 A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 299–345.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1998  Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27: 291–334. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2002 “Oh”- prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C.E. Ford, B.A. Fox & S.A. Thompson (eds.): 196–224.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & G. Raymond
2005 The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & D. Maynard
2006 Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Holt, E. & P. Drew
2005 Figurative pivots: The use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 35–61. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.
1978 Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the organization of conversational interaction: 219–248. Academic Press.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980 On trouble-premonitory response to inquiry. Sociological Inquiry 50: 153–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984a On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 191–222.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1984b On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds): Cambridge University Press. 346–369.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1986 Notes on latency in overlap onset. Human Studies 9: 153–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 1–30. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. H. Sacks & E.A. Schegloff
1987 Notes on laughter in pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (eds.): 152–205.Google Scholar
Kim, K.
1999 Other-initiated repair sequences in Korean conversation as interactional resources. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3: 3–18.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C.
2005 Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems 52: 477–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, C. & S. Wilkinson
2006 Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69: 150–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, I.
2005 Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G.H.
1991 On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Assisted storytelling: deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology 15: 247–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, I.
1996 On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker!! In Ochs et al. (eds.): 238–276.Google Scholar
Lerner, G.H. & T. Takagi
1999 On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 49–75. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G.H. & D.H. Zimmerman
2003 Action and the appearance of action in the conduct of very young children. In P. Glenn, C.D. Lebaron & J. Mandelbaum (eds.) Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper: 441–457. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, A.
1994 Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Language in Society 23: 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J.
2005 On the interactional and phonetic design of collaborative completions. In W. Hardcastle & J. Beck (eds.) A Figure of Speech: a Festschrift for John Laver: 263–282. Lawrence Erbaum.Google Scholar
Local, J. & J. Kelly
1986 Projection and “silences”: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9: 185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J. & G. Walker
2004 Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1375–1403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D.
1984 Inside plea bargaining. Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H. & M. Huiskes
2001 Dutch ‘But’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Studies in Interactional Linguistics: 141–169. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H.
1979 Learning lessons. Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moerman, M.
1988 Talking culture. University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson
1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R.
2004 Non-modal voice quality and turn-taking in Finnish. In Couper-Kuhlen E. & C.E. Ford (eds.): 29–62: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, T. & S. Thompson
1996 Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse. In E. Hovy & D. Scott (eds.) Discourse processing: An interdisciplinary perspective: 67–96. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Park, Y-Y.
1998 A discourse analysis of contrasting connectives in English, Korean and Japanese conversation: With special reference to the context of dispreferred responses. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.): 277–300: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): 57–101.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G.
2003 Grammar and social organization: Yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 185–218. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
1987 On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (eds.): 54–69.Google Scholar
1992 Lectures on conversation ,2 vols. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A.
1979 The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Giv (ed.) Syntax and semantics, volume 12: Discourse and Syntax: 261–286. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1980 Preliminaries to preliminaries. Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 Discourse as an interactional achievement. In D. Tannen (ed.) Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics: 71–93. Georgetown University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1986 The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9: 111–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988a On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news. Social Problems 35: 442–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988b Presequences and indirection. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55–62. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1990 On the organization of sequences as a source of ‘coherence’ in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (ed.) Conversational organization and its development: 51–77. Ablex.Google Scholar
1992 Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97: 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 99–128. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1996 Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of social action. American Journal of Sociology 102: 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23: 499–545. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2000 Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29: 1–63. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2006 Sequence Organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., G. Jefferson & H. Sacks
1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M-L.
1996 On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (eds.). 277–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Recipient activities: The particle no as a go-ahead response in Finnish conversations. In C.E. Ford, B.A. Fox & S.A. Thompson (eds.): 165–195.Google Scholar
Stivers, T.
2005 Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38: 131–158. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & J. Heritage
2001 Breaking the sequential mould: Narrative and other methods of answering “more than the question” during medical history taking. Text 21: 151–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H.
1999 Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation. A Study in Grammar and Interaction. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A.
1976 Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. Social Science Working Paper 99 University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Wu, R-J.R.
2004 Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D.H.
1992 Achieving context: openings in emergency calls. In G. Watson & R.M. Seiler (eds.) Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology: 35–51. Sage.Google Scholar
1998 Identity context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (eds.) Identity in Talk: 87–106. Sage.Google Scholar