Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T11:13:18.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conversation Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Deborah Schiffrin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discourse analysis is widely recognized as one of the most far-reaching, but also one of the least well defined, areas in linguistic. One reason for this is that discourse itself has has often been defined in two different ways: as a unit of language that is larger than the sentence, and as the use of language. Whereas the former definition focuses attention mostly on the linguistic regularities characterizing texts, the latter definition focuses attention mostly on the social and cultural functions underlying ways of speaking. Despite these two different foci, many who analyze discourse combine the two concerns, analyzing how the linguistic regularities found in ways of speaking are constrained not only by the structures and patterns inherent in the language, but also by the social and cultural meanings which frame the production and interpretation of messages.

Type
Foundations of Discourse
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 11 , March 1990 , pp. 3 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Austin, J. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B.. 1982. A functionalist approach to grammar. In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. (eds.) Language acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Academic Press. 167–214.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speaking and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 1988. The organization of discourse. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, 4 Vols. Language: The socio–cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4.229–250.Google Scholar
Brown, G. and Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, G. and Casey, N.. 1984. Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 167–190.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. 1983. Patterns of encounter management, Language in society. 12.4.459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. and Tracy, K.. 1983. Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Van, Dijk T.. 1985. Introdution: Discourse analysis as a new cross–discipline. In van Dijk, T. (eds.) Handbook of discourse analysis. 4 Vols. Disciplines of discourse. New York: Academic Press. 1.1–10.Google Scholar
Dines, E. 1980. Variation in discourse: ‘And stuff like that.’ Language in society. 9.1.13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubuisson, C., Emirkanian, L. and Sankoff, D.. 1989. The development of syntactic complexity in narrative, informative and argumentative discourse. In Fa/d, R. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.) Language change and variation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, J. 1987. Meaning without intention: Lessons from divination. Papers in pragmatics. 1.2.80–122.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. 1984. Intentions, self, and local theories of meaning: Words and social action in a Samoan context. San Diego, CA: Center for Human Information Processing, UC San Diego. [Technical Report No. 122.]Google Scholar
Ferrera, A. 1985. Pragmatics. In van Dijk, T. (eds.) Handbook of discourse analysis. 4 Vols. Dimensions of discourse. New York: Academic Press. 137–157.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1981. Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 143–166.Google Scholar
Ford, C. and Thompson, S.. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text–based study from English. In Traugott, E. et al. , (eds.) On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. 1987. Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. and Thompson, S.. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language. 66.2.297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: Quantified cross–language studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. The nature of deference and demeanor. In Goffman, E. (ed.) Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor Books. 49–95.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.. 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Greatbatch, D. 1988. A turn taking system for British news interviews. Language in society. 17.3.401–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. 1981. The linguistic bases of communicative competence. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 323–334. [Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981.]Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. 1984. Communicative competence revisited. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form and use: Linguistic applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 278–289. [Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984.]Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as a social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. 1952. Discourse analysis. Language. 28.1.1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, R. 1990. Sex based differences in compliment behavior. Language in society. 19.2.201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984a. A change–of–state taken and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984b. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1989. Current developments in conversation analysis. In Roger, D. and Bull, P. (eds.) Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 21–47.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Atkinson, J.. 1984. Introduction. In Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–16.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in society. 19.2.155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. 1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 117–134.Google Scholar
Horvath, B. 1987. Text in conversation: Variability in storytelling texts. In Denning, K. et al. , (eds.) Variation in language: NWAV-XV at Stanford. Stanford, California: Stanford University, Linguistics Department. 212–223.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1984. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 346–369.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1989. Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘standard maximum silence’ of approximately one second in conversation. In Roger, D. and Bull, P. (eds.) Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 166–196.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. 1989. Conversation: Stucture or process. In Searle, J. (eds.) (On) Searle on conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Katriel, T. 1986. Dugri speech: Talking straight in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1978. Where does the linguistic variable stop? A reply to Beatriz Lavandera. In Working papers in sociolinguistics. 44. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D.. 1977. Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic stop? Language in society. 7.171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C. 1989. Some problems in determining syntactic variables: The case of WH questians in Montreal French. In Fa/d, R. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.) Language change and variation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. and Talbot, M.. 1988. Computation and the soul. Review article on Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: Communication and cognition. Semiotica. 72.3/4.291–339.Google Scholar
Myhill, J. 1988. A Quantitative study of future tense marking in Spanish. In Ferrara, K. et al. , (eds.) Linguistic change and contact. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, Linguistics Department. 263–272.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 1983. Grammatical theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Keenan E. 1975. The universality of conversational implicature. In Fa/d, R. and Shuy, R. (eds.) Studies in langage variation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 234–247.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1984. Clarification and culture. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form and use: Linguistic applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 325–341. [Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984.]Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1988. Culture and language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, L. 1988. A formal model of the Structure of discourse. Journal of pragmatics. 12.601–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57–101.Google Scholar
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M.. 1987 Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. London: Saga Publications.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1981. On the problem of syntactic variation: A reply to B. Lavandera and W. Labov. Working papers in sociolinguistics, 82. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G.. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language. 50.696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, G. and Brown, P.. 1976. The origins of syntax in discourse. Language. 52.631–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. 1972. Sequencing in conversational openings. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 346–380.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. 1981. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Analyzing discours: Text and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 71–93. [Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981.]Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. 1984. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 28–52.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.. 1988. Description in the social sciences: Talk-in-interaction. Papers in pragmatics. 2.1.2.1/24.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H.. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language. 53.361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H.. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica. 7.3/4.289–327.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1981. Tense variation in narrative. Language. 57.1. 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.. 1985. Multiple constraints on discourse options: A quantitative analysis of causal sequences. Discourse processes. 8.281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.. 1987a. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.. 1987b. Toward an empirical base in pragmatics. Review article of Stephen Levinson, Pragmatics. Language in society. 16.381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.. 1988. Sociolinguistic approaches to discourse: Topic and reference in narrative. In Ferrara, K. et al. , (eds.) Linguistic change and contact. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas, Linguistics Department. 1–17.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1990a. The principle of intersubjectivity in communication and conversation. Review article of T. Taylor and D. Cameron, Analyzing conversation, and Carlson, L., ‘Well’ in dialogue games. Semiotica. 80.1/2:121–151.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1990b. The management of a cooperative self during argument: The role of opinions and stories. In Grimshaw, A. (ed.) Conflict talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 241–259.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1990c. Variation in the clause position of then. Paper presented at NWAVE-XIX. Philadelphia, PA, 10.1990.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. Forthcoming. Language as social interaction: Sociolinguistic approcaches to discourse. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Speech acts. new York: Academic Press. 59–82. [Syntax and Semantics 3.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1979. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Searle, J. (ed.) Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1989. On conversation in Searle, J. (ed.) (On) Searle on conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sherzer, J. 1983. Kuna ways of speaking. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalan, C. 1983. Tense and aspect in oral Spanish narrative. Language. 59.760–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmel, G. 1961 [1911]. The sociology of sociability. In Parsons, T. et al. , (eds.) Theories of society. New York: Free Press. 157–162.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., 1986. Relevance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational style. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (ed.) In preparation. The linguistic framing of participation structures in conversation.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. and Cameron, D.. 1987. Analyzing conversation. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. et al. , (eds.) 1986. On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, A. 1989. Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. In Roger, D. and Bull, P. (eds.) Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 238–258.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. 1988. On conversation: The conversation analytic perspective. In Anderson, J. A. (ed.) Communication yearbook 11. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 406–432.Google Scholar