Language Flashcards
(29 cards)
How is language structured?
In turns and sequences
What methods analyse language as an action?
*Qualitative methods
*Discursive psychology
*Conversation analysis
What is the focus of natural settings and qualitative methods ?
Naturally occurring interactions, both verbal and textual
This approach emphasizes real-life communication rather than artificial scenarios.
What are the data sources used in qualitative methods?
- Audio/video recordings (transcribed using Jefferson Transcript Conventions)
- Textual interactions (social media posts, they don’t need a transcript)
These sources provide rich data for analysis.
What is the goal of analyzing language in qualitative research?
Understand what people are doing when they use language
This involves exploring the intentions and meanings behind spoken or written words.
How are overlaps, pauses, emphasis and laughter transcribed?
*Overlaps- Shown with square brackets
*Pauses- Noted with exact durations
*Emphasis- Underlining to all caps
*Laughter- Transcribed as “hh” or ”.hh”
The manner of expression can change the interpretation of the message.
What are adjacency pairs in ordinary interactions?
*Basic conversational units consisting of a pair of actions made by different people
*Each first part requires a second part that can be constrained (question –> answer) or open to variation (e.g. invitation –> acceptance/rejection)
Examples include question-answer and greeting-return greeting.
What is the preference structure in adjacency pairs?
*Certain second parts are preferred, making them easier or more socially acceptable
*Dispreferred responses (e.g. rejection) are delayed, hedged or come with explanations
For example, accepting an invitation is preferred over rejecting it.
What is an example of an open conversation and it’s components?
- ((telephone rings))
- Nancy: H’llo?
- Hyla: Hi:,
- Nancy: HI::.
- Hyla: How are yuhh.=
- Nancy: =Fine how’re you.
Components:
*Summons- Ringing phone
*Answer- Hello
*Greetings and Identification- “Hi” and voice recognition
*Initial Inquiries- “How are you?”
An example includes the ringing phone as a summons and ‘How are you?’ as an initial inquiry.
What is another example of open conversations and it’s trouble signs?
- ((ring))
- Gordon: Hello:,
- (0.7)
- Dana: Hello where you’ve been all morning
- Gordon: .hh HELLO! Uhm (0.6) .pt I’ve been at a music workshop
- How are you.
- (0.5)
- Dana: I’m okay,
- Gordon: Good
Trouble Signs:
*Pause after Gordons hello- breach from norm
*Dana skips return greeting, jumps, to a challenging question
*Gordon pushes back with empathic “HELLO!” and resumes expected script
*Dana doesn’t reciprocate “How are you?” – sign of interactional trouble
*Gordon avoids conflict, doesn’t engage with the tension
For instance, a pause after ‘Hello’ may indicate a breach from norm.
How can affiliation or disagreement be identified in language according to Pomerantz?
*First speaker makes an evaluation (“She was nice, I liked her.”)
*Preferred Response- Immediate second assessment, often upgraded (“I liked her too, she was really lovely!”)
*Lack of response or silence can indicate disagreement
Silence or lack of response can indicate disagreement.
According to Antaki what prompts explanations in conversations? Provide an exampl
- Noticing or questioning by another
Example:
S: You didn’t get an ice-cream sandwich
C: I know, hh I decided that my body didn’t need it
Noticing –> Explanation- Carol offers an account even though no question was asked
For example, someone might explain their choice even without a direct question.
According to Antaki what else promots explanations in conversations? Provide an example
- Self-initiated, especially when declining an invitation
Example:
M: We were wondering if you wanted to come over Saturday, for dinner. (0.4)
J: Well (.) .hh it’d be great but we promised Carol already
Signs of dispreferred turn:
*Delay
*Preface (“well”)
*Token appreciation (“it’d be great”)
*Explanation/excuse
An example includes saying ‘Well, it’d be great but we promised Carol already.’
What is extreme case formulation in complaints? Provide an example
*In complaints, people often use extreme case formulation (e.g. “all day”, “everyone”, “always”)
*These strengthen the legitimacy of the complaint
Example:
“He spent all day with her on Mother’s Day”
Use of specific timing and extreme case (“all”) supports the legitimacy of the complaint
For instance, ‘He spent all day with her on Mother’s Day’ emphasizes the complaint.
What type of interaction patterns do institutional interactions have?
*More rigid, role-driven interactional patterns
*They still follow adjacency pairs, but are shaped by power dynamics, rules and institutional goals
These patterns are shaped by power dynamics, rules, and institutional goals.
What are some examples of institutional interactions?
- Counselling sessions
- Police interviews
- Courtroom interactions
- News interviews
- Diplomatic letters
These interactions often follow adjacency pairs but are influenced by institutional contexts.
What was the focus of Stokoe’s (2018) analysis of institutional phone calls?
Understanding interactional rules/patterns and their breaches by comparing business to business cold call and emergency (dispatch) call
Stokoe compared business to business cold calls and emergency (dispatch) calls.
What is the typical structure of a business cold call? And how does it contrast with ordinary calls
- Hello + self-identification + ‘How can I help?’
- Other party responds with hello, own name, organization, then asks ‘how are you?’
Contrast:
*No affiliative ‘how are yous’ at the start
*Norms emphasize efficiency and formality
This structure emphasizes efficiency and formality.
What is unique about the structure of an emergency call?
- No greetings at all
- Dispatcher answers with ‘Fire department’
- Caller immediately requests urgent information
*Therefore, it goal oriented, skips pleasantries for urgent info exchange
The focus is on goal-oriented interaction that skips pleasantries.
What was the focus of Edwards’ (1998) case study on couples counselling? What key interactional features did he identify?
*How partners minimize or deny accusations in emotionally charged situations
Interactional Features:
1) Husband Denies: “I didn’t leave Connie for another woman” , uses cultural idiom to deny a recognizably serious accusation
2) Minimizes
“A bit of a fling” instead of “affair”
“Moved in” instead of “living with”
Repairs from women to girl, downgrading seriousness
The study involved a married couple in therapy.
What was the focus of Benneworth’s (2012) police interviews? What was the sample?
Focus: Types of questions and their influence on suspect responses (compared closed vs open ended interrogations)
Sample: 11 UK police interrogations with men suspected of sexually abusing children (8–12-year-olds)
What are the characteristics of closed interrogations in police interviews? Provide an example
- Questions: Declarative, factual, accusatory questions
- Suspect Responses: Brief denials, limited elaboration
Example:
PI: …held them behind her head, got hold of her legs…
S: No ‘cos Simon was next door…
PI: She’s alleging you had sex with her.
S: No, it didn’t happen.
*Suspect denies, even when not directly questioned
*PI ignores the denial, repeats accusation in a sexual/factual way
*No confession is achieved
These interrogations often lead to no confession.
What are the characteristics of open ended interrogations in police interviews? Provide an example
*Questions- Informal and conversational tone
Example:
PI opens with “How did you view your relationship with Sam?”
S: I was attracted to Sam, I think Sam was attracted to me… We would kiss… I made it clear we weren’t going further… Until it happened in ’84… he was about twelve
*Normalization- Claims of mutual attraction
*Minimizing Responsibility- “Tried to keep it at arm’s length”
*Minimizing Gravity- “It then happened” (passive voice
*Self-Incrimination- Admits relationship with 12-year-old
*PI Reformulates- “How old’s Sam” to clarify timeline and draw out admissions
The suspect responds with a denial, even when not directly questioned.
What was Drew (1992) focus when analysing courtroom examinations in a rape trial? What were the observations he made?
Focus: Competing descriptions by defense lawyer and alleged victim
Observations:
*Defense Lawyer- Presents events as emotionally intimate and aims to undermine credibility of alleged victim
*Witness- Doesn’t directly contest, but provides as alternative version, frames relationship as non-intimate
*These are not neutral, they serve opposing legal goals, blame vs exoneration
This helps in obtaining more detailed admissions from suspects.
