Adjacency pairs Adjacency pairs • There is a relation between acts , and that conversation contains frequently occurring patterns . • The utterance of one speaker makes a certain response of the next speaker . • The acts categorized as question-answer , offer- accept , blame-deny and so on. • The first part creating an expectation of a particular second part. • Preference structure Preference structure • Each first part has a preferred response . • The pairs are endless .
Transcript
Adjacency pairsAdjacency pairs• There is a relation between acts , and that
conversation contains frequently occurring patterns .• The utterance of one speaker makes a certain
response of the next speaker .• The acts categorized as question-answer , offer-accept , blame-
deny and so on.
• The first part creating an expectation of a particular second part.
• Preference structurePreference structure• Each first part has a preferred response .
• The pairs are endless .
ExamplesExamples
A question has the preferred response of an answerAn offer an acceptance An invitation an acceptance An assessment an agreementA proposal an agreement A greeting a greetingA complaint an apology
DispreferredDispreferred responses responsesThe dispreferred responses tend to be refusals and disagreement ,This are the unusual response, meaningful or rude
An An absenceabsence of response of response
An absence of response can be taken as the hearer not having heard, not paying attention or simply refuse to cooperate .
SequenceSequenceSpeakers are mutually constructing and negotiating their conversation in time ,certain sequences.
PresequencesPresequencesPrepare the ground for further sequence and signal the type of utterance to follow.
PresequencesPresequencesExampleExample
A:A: You know that French film that’s on in the Odeon ?
B:B: Yes ?
A:A: Do you want to go and see
it tonight ?
B:B: Yeah , why not .
Here the speaker prepares the ground for further sequence and signal the type of utterance to follow.
Insertion sequence Insertion sequence
In the case of Insertion sequence Insertion sequence ,the pairs occur& fixed within other adjacency pairs which act as macro –sequences, functions as ……
ExampleExampleA:A: You know this French film that’s on in the Odeon ?
B:B: Yes ?
A:A: Do you want to go and see it tonight ?
B:B: What time does it start?
A:A: Eight thirty-five.
B:B: Yeah , why not .
‘What time does it start ?’‘Eight thirty –five ‘ constitute the insertion sequence
Openings tend to contain a greeting , an inquiry after health and past reference(as in ‘How did it go last night?’)
ExampleExampleBrenda, a 34-year-old house wifewife , greets Lee , a15-year old studentstudent ,,with a formulaic health enquiry.
ExampleExample
BrendaBrenda : Hi Lee.
LeeLee : Hi. Hi , Jean
JeanJean : Hi. Hi
BrendaBrenda : How are you ?
LeeLee : Not bad I’ll be in , in a minute
Limitations of CALimitations of CACriticismCriticism
•A lack of systematicity in the sense that there is no complete list of all adjacency pairs . (Eggins and Slade 1997)
•No precise description of how far adjacency pairs.•CA sets out to be a qualitative not a quantitative approach.•CA does not take into account pragmatic or sociolinguistic aspects of interaction , the background context of why and how people say what they say, the components of situation ,the features of the social world and social identity such as occupation and gender of participants.•For CA analysts, context is context
CA analysts focus onCA analysts focus on
* The sequential progression of interaction .
* The way that each utterance is shaped by previous text and shapes the following text .* Context is something created in talk, rather than talk as something created by context.
Interactional sociolinguistics
“social groups have their own ways of expressing meaning with their language . Gumperz (1986)
* Language relates to context through ‘contextualization cues’.The main goal is not to describe the structure of discourse.
* The main goal is the conversation analysis. The two approaches are coming together now (Ochs , Schegloff and Thompson 1996).
* Looking at the relationship between grammar and social interaction.
TNETNE COOPERATIVECOOPERATIVE PRINCIPLEPRINCIPLE
Understanding conceptsUnderstanding concepts
Observing maximsObserving maxims
Flouting and violatingFlouting and violating
Relevance theoryRelevance theory
Observing maximsObserving maxims
1-The maxim of quantity :•The first maxim of the cooperative principals .•The speaker should be as formative as informative as is required.•They should give neither too little information nor too much .•Giving too little information the hearer ability to recognize what are they talking about, the lose of explicitly . •Giving too much information make the hearer feel boring
Observing maximsObserving maxims
2- The maxim of quality :•Speakers are expected to be sincere .•Say authentic things that corresponds to reality.•Always say the true, not false, with evidence
ExampleExampleA : I’ll ring you tomorrow afternoon then .B: Erm, I shall be there as far as I know ,and in the main time have a word with Mum and Dad if they’re free. Right, bye-bye then sweetheart .A: Bye-bye, bye . BNC:kc8 Gillian,1991
Observing maximsObserving maxims
3 - The maxim of relation :•Speakers are assumed to be saying something relevant to what has been said before .
•Example 1Example 1
•“The baby cried .The Mommy picked it up”.(Garfinkel 1967)
•We assume that the ‘Mommy’ was his mother & she picked him up because he was crying .
• Example 2 Example 2 •A : There’s somebody at the door .A : There’s somebody at the door .•B: I’m at the bath.B: I’m at the bath.
Observing maximsObserving maxims4 - The maxim of manner :
•Be brief and orderly. •Avoid obscurity.•Avoid ambiguity.
ExampleExampleThank you chairman .jus- just to clarify one point just to clarify one point . .
There is one meaning of the police There is one meaning of the police committee ,there is something not clear in their committee ,there is something not clear in their budget .budget .
(BNC,J44West Sussex council Highways(BNC,J44West Sussex council Highways committee committee Meeting ,1994 )Meeting ,1994 )
Flouting the maximsFlouting the maximsIn many cultures ,it can be socially unacceptable to always say exactly what is in one’s mind unless one knows the hearers very well.
ExampleExampleWe might prefer to not to say to a shop assistant , as we hand back a dress ,”This looks awful on ; I don’t want it after all ‘, But rather you say ‘ I’ll go away and think about it and may be come back later.
Flouting the maximsFlouting the maxims
• Flouting quantity Flouting quantity • Giving too much or too little information .Giving too much or too little information .• A : Well , how do I look ?A : Well , how do I look ?• B : Your shoes are nice……B : Your shoes are nice……
• (B)(B) does not say that the rest of does not say that the rest of (A)(A) clothes clothes does not look good ,but does not look good ,but (A)(A) will understand the will understand the implication .implication .
• Why ?Why ?• Because he asks about the Because he asks about the wholewhole appearance appearance
but got an answer about but got an answer about partpart of it of it
Flouting the maximsFlouting the maxims• Flouting qualityFlouting quality• Saying something simply does not represent what
they think.• The exaggerating as the hyperbolehyperbole • ‘ I could eat a horseI could eat a horse’. Or • A : Yes I’m starvingI’m starving too.• B : Hurry up girl .• A : Oh dear stop eating rubbish .You won’t
eat any dinner . (Leobowitz 1985 :368)
• The speaker won’t expect someone to say • “What ,you could eat a whole horse .
The hearer would expect that the speaker is very hungry .
