1.
C: I think uh we should have
the do:ctor to
2. (H)
[if] if you go to an an
3. J:
[a:h]
4. C:
new space
5. J:
mm hm
6. C: yeah but if you sick or
illness
7. J: mm hm
8. C: then
9. you
might be die/ @@[@@ yeah]
10. J: [@ah yeah]
11. J: @@[@]
12.
C: [@]@@@
13. J: .yeah it’s a little bit
14. Very
15.
Basic and important
16.
^compo:nent
17. The
18. A:ah
19. Al:so
20.
..Mm:mm
2.1 (0.9)
(H) (1.4)
22. I think ah
23. .u:h
24. ^person wh:o
25. Build
the houses
26. Is
al[s:o]
27. C: [Oh ye<@ah@> @]
28. J: important
29. (H) becau[se] ^we cannot live if we
30. C:
[(H)]
31, J:
it doesn’t have the (/ha:da/)
32. …places
33. C: ye[ah]/
34. J: [or] buildings
35. C:
yeah/
36. J:
yeah\
37. C:
..if w:e
38. U:h
39. Stay:ed outside
40. Every-if-ah everyone
stays
41. ..outside (H)
42. S:o that: we have to
show the privacy [actu<@ally@>@@]
43. C: @[@@@]
44. C:
45. J: that’s a little bit problem
46. C:
(H) ]
47. J: [ye]ah\
48. C: (H)
49. J: so we need a person who build the houses @
50. C:
yeah?/
51. J:
ye:ah\
Transcriber’s
notes: There have been some technical difficulties in formatting when using
this file in different versions of Microsoft word. Depending on which version is used to open
this file, it is possible indenting of lines might be slightly off, or that the
backslash mark might read as the Japanese Yen symbol.
Part 3: Spoken Text
Analysis
In this section, I will analyze the conversation
transcribed in part 2. I will start by
looking at the participants and the setting, and theorize what effect they
might have had on the conversational structure.
Then I will do a brief analysis of the conversation itself, and finally
I will look at the role of laughter in this conversation.
Participants and Setting
This
conversation takes place between two non-native speakers of English. Both are apparently classmates in the same
school, and therefore we can assume that under normal circumstances they are of
equal status.
(According to
the speech event form, one of them is five years older than the other, which
might theoretically result in a dominant status (at least in Japanese culture),
but this does not come through in the conversation.)
In
an ESL classroom setting, the primary marker of status might be English
fluency. And although both women appear
to be very fluent, the first one starts out at a very fast, almost native like
rate. This is something the second
speaker has difficulty matching, and in this way the first speaker might be
thought of as the more dominant one.
The
most obvious thing about this conversation is of course that it takes place in
the L2 of both participants. This is
evident not only from the accent, but from the many ungrammatical features such
as “that’s a little bit problem,” or “if you sick or illness.”
And
the limited knowledge of vocabulary (and perhaps grammar structures) also seems
to set limits on the scope of the conversation.
For example, after the first speaker’s turn ended, speaker two spent
several lines where she appeared to be trying to think of the appropriate
English vocabulary. Unable to locate a
word like carpenter in her L2 vocabulary, she then settled for circumlocution: “person
who build the houses.”
It
is possible that if the conversation had taken place in her L1, the wider range
of vocabulary options readily available to her would not only have speeded up
the process, but might have even changed the utterance. (She might have opted to say something with a
much more complex meaning instead.)
Although
this recording was made outside of actual class time, it was recorded on campus
in the presence of the teacher. This may
have caused the participants to think (or perhaps subconsciously feel) that
their English skills were being evaluated, and therefore caused them to speak
not in a natural way, but in a way similar to structured classroom language
practice. Indeed, the conversation does
bear some hallmarks of a structured conversation practice that might take place
in an ESL classroom. For example, the
topic has already been selected for the speakers, and they dutifully stick to
it.
The
preselected topic results in a conversation that is unnatural in a couple of
ways. For one thing, this means there is
no instances of new topic selection occurring in the recording. Secondly, the
speakers are under pressure to stick to the topic even when it appears they do
not have anything ready to say about it.
Another
unnatural feature of this conversation is that the participants show a
reluctance to allow pauses or silences, perhaps because they fear that silence
will be taken as a sign of lack of proficiency in English. There are some periods of silence in the
conversation, but they are not natural silences that might occur between
topics. Instead they are silences where
one speaker is desperately trying to think of something to say next.
The
structure of the conversation also perhaps produces an artificial sense of turn
taking similar to structured classroom language practice. Once one speaker has identified a passenger
for the spaceship, and given a reason why, it seems to be understood that the
next person should select another passenger rather than carry on with the topic
of the previous passenger. And so a new
speaker seems to signify not only a new turn, but a new topic. (Or that is, a new subtopic (the next passenger)
within the broader preselected topic of the conversation.)
Within
the selected minute (which admittedly may or may not be representative of the
longer conversation) both participants stick to this structure rigidly. And, also as with a structured language
conversation, both seem to be aware of the unwritten rule that they are
supposed to share the conversation time equally, instead of having one
participant dominate the conversation.
The different speakers provide forms of back channeling when another
speaker is holding the floor, but there is no attempt to take over the turn or
provide additional information until one speaker has finished a thought.
Conversation Analysis
The
selected recording begins midway through the conversation. The first speaker is expressing an idea, and
for the initial few lines the second speaker only provides back channeling
responses such as “a:h” and “mmm hmm.”
However
the first speaker ends her turn with the phrase, “you might be die.” Semantically, not only does this represent
the conclusion of the line of argument (the reason why a doctor is needed) but
the upward intonation on the end of the word die clearly indicates a turn
finishing. The laughter immediately
following provides further evidence the turn has finished.
After
the shared laughter finishes, the second speaker then picks up on these cues
and begins her turn.
It
appears that she knows it is her turn, and is well aware she is supposed to say
something, but is unsure of what to say.
She seems eager to talk, as is evident that her first few words come out
almost as soon as the previous speaker has finished her last beat of
laughter. Furthermore her first phrase
is spoken at a rapid natural speed (which is impressive for an ESL student).
However
the content of what she says is essential gibberish. “Yeah, it’s a little bit, very, basic and
important component.”
Making
allowances for the fact that she is speaking her L2, we could possibly
reinterpret this to mean, “Yes, I agree, that’s very important.” But even with this interpretation, the meaning
doesn’t come out until the last few lines.
The first couple lines seem to be meaningless, and even contradictory,
such as “it’s a little bit, very.”
This
indicates she might have started speaking before she had fully formulated what
she was going to say. She simply
realized that it was her turn, and felt that she had to say something.
Once
she has expressed agreement with the previous idea, she then knows that she
must then identify another candidate passenger, under the unwritten rules that
seem to be operating for this conversation on a preselected topic.
This
does not come easy to her however.
It
appears that either she does not have a candidate readily in mind, or else she
is struggling to put her thoughts into her L2.
Or perhaps a little bit of both.
This is evident by the fact that it takes her about 10 seconds to say
anything of substance (a long time by conversational standards).
With
the exception of one long pause (which either can be counted as slightly over
two seconds, or as two different one second pauses separated by an intake of
breath) she does not remain silent during this time. Instead she fills the space with several
utterances: “the, ah, also, mmmm, I think ah, uh.”
Some
of these can possibly be identified as false starts, specifically utterances
that form actual words with semantic meanings like “the,” “also,” and “I think.” (Or, even though they are separated from the
main utterance by several filler words, you could consider “also” and “I think”
not as false starts but continuous with the main clause, as in “Also, I think a
person who builds….”)
However
the other words, “ah,” “uh,” and “mmmm,” are simply being used as place holders
without any semantic meaning.
These
place holders can hold one of two purposes depending on what assumptions we
make about the speaker’s motivation. It
is possible she is using them simply as a sign of politeness to acknowledge
that she knows it’s her turn to speak, and to indicate to the other speaker
that she intends to perform her conversational obligations.
However
if we assume that she is speaking not just out of a sense of obligation, but
that she actually wants to speak, then these place holders serve to prevent her
from losing her turn.
(And
again, here the fact that this is an ESL conversation taking place in a
classroom-like setting maybe influencing things. In a normal conversation, a speaker who did
not have anything to say might have been perfectly happy to let the
conversation revert back to another speaker who did. In this case, the speaker might have felt
some pressure to demonstrate her English abilities, and would have regarded the
loss of a turn as a defeat in this regard.)
Speaker
two also has several false starts later on in her utterance. She starts out with everyone (truncated into “every-“),
switches to “if”, goes to a place holder “ah” and then returns to
everyone. All of this happens in quick
succession and she makes all the corrections herself.
The Use of Laughter
One
of the interesting things about this conversation is the use of laughter to
mark a turn ending. Again, without
knowing the minds of the participants it is difficult to be certain what it
exactly signifies. A certain amount of
it may be just a result of nervousness (perhaps the result of speaking in a
foreign language on a restricted topic in front of their teacher and a
recording device) or relief at finishing their turn.
Or,
if participants feel insecure about their English abilities, this might be a
face saving way of turning their embarrassment into humor by allowing them to
laugh at themselves. It is notable that
the sustained laughter always occurs after obviously ungrammatical English: “you
might be die,” and “we have to show the privacy.”
On
the other hand, it is clear the participants are approaching this topic in a
bit of a playful way. Each candidate for
the spaceship is argued for in primarily negative instead of positive
terms. That is, they are regarded as
essential members not so much in terms of the benefits they would bring, but
because of the bad situation that would result from their absence. And the humor comes from the contrast between
the horrors of the hypothetical situation, and the casualness with which the
participants describe it. “You might be die,” is a particularly unsympathetic
way to describe the thought of one’s own death by treatable diseases in the
absence of a qualified physician, and the contrast between the event being
described and the tenor of language used is probably intentionally playful
here.
In
the same way, “we have to show the privacy,” is a bit of a ridiculous way of describing
the hardships that would result from lack of adequate shelter.
Viewed
in this way, the purpose of each turn is not only to complete an argument, but
also to build up to a humorous punch line.
When one or both participants start laughing, it is a cue that the punch
line has been reached, and the purpose of the utterance has been
concluded. In this way laughter can be
seen as an agreement by both speakers that one turn has ended.
When
the speaker starts laughing first (as in the “you might be die”) it may be to
cue the listener in that the utterance has been completed.
When
the listener starts laughing first (as in “we have to show the privacy”) it
sends a signal back to the speaker that the humor of the utterance has been
understood, and the joke was successful.
In
almost all cases were laughter occurs, the participants have a strong tendency
to overlap. Particularly if there is a
longer period of laughter by one participant, it is always joined by the other
one. This maybe a way for participants
to show solidarity with each other, although what they are showing solidarity
on (relief, nervousness, being able to laugh at one’s L2 shortcomings, or the
conclusion of a humorous idea) may depend on what motivations we ascribe to the
laughter.
No comments:
Post a Comment