SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 27
Conversation analysis for geeks
Saul Albert
02/07/13
People seem complex and erratic
People seem complex and erratic
Conversation analysis is a systematic method for
explaining our practical reasoning and actions.
People seem complex and erratic
Conversation analysis is a systematic method for
explaining our practical reasoning and actions.
●
Everyday chat is a unique empirical resource
People seem complex and erratic
Conversation analysis is a systematic method for
explaining our practical reasoning and actions.
●
Everyday chat is a unique empirical resource
●
How interaction gives us proof procedures
People seem complex and erratic
Conversation analysis is a systematic method for
explaining our practical reasoning and actions.
●
Everyday chat is a unique empirical resource
●
How interaction gives us proof procedures
●
Why CA should be easy and useful for geeks
Conversation as evidence is:
Conversation as evidence is:
●
A naturally occuring empirical resource
Conversation as evidence is:
●
A naturally occuring empirical resource
●
Sequential
Conversation as evidence is:
●
A naturally occuring empirical resource
●
Sequential
1.D: Police desk
2.C: Hello/
(Schegloff, 2004)
Conversation as evidence is:
●
A naturally occuring empirical resource
●
Sequential, systematic
1.D: Police desk
2.C: Hello/
3.D: Hello.
(Schegloff, 2004)
Conversation as evidence is:
●
A naturally occuring empirical resource
●
Sequential, systematic, situated
1.D: Police desk
2.C: Hello/
3.D: Hello.
4.C: I come down here to see my wife jill, I'm from
Missouri?
5.D: Yes.
(Schegloff, 2004)
Conversation as evidence is:
●
A naturally occuring empirical resource
●
Sequential, systematic, situated
1.D: Police desk
2.C: Hello/
3.D: Hello.
4.C: I come down here to see my wife jill, I'm from
Missouri?
5.D: Yes.
6.C: And uh they ain't down here now, they moved.
(Schegloff, 2004)
Conversation as evidence is:
●
A naturally occuring empirical resource
●
Sequential, systematic, situated social action
1.D: Police desk
2.C: Hello/
3.D: Hello.
4.C: I come down here to see my wife jill, I'm from
Missouri?
5.D: Yes.
6.C: And uh they ain't down here now, they moved.
7. (Pause)
8.D: Well, what do you want me to do?
(Schegloff, 2004)
Conversation as evidence is:
●
A naturally occuring empirical resource
●
Sequential
●
Very different from other kinds of evidence
, systematic, situated social action
Talk-in-interaction's proof practices:
Talk-in-interaction's proof practices:
●
Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning
Talk-in-interaction's proof practices:
●
Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning
●
In revealing and resolving problems in talk
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
Talk-in-interaction's proof practices:
●
Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning
●
In revealing and resolving problems in talk
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
Talk-in-interaction's proof practices:
●
Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning
●
In revealing and resolving problems in talk
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
Talk-in-interaction's proof practices:
●
Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning
●
In revealing and resolving problems in talk
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this?
2. Kat: No Samu made that
3. Fda: Who?
4. Kat: Samu
5. (0.1)
6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ]
7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu
8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia?
9. Fda: [Yyeeah
10.Fda: Oh she’s really something
11.Kat: Yeah
(Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
Talk-in-interaction's proof practices:
●
Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning
●
In revealing and resolving problems in talk
●
Can show us when our theories are wrong
Coders should be good at CA since:
●
They are comfortable with recursion and state
Coders should be good at CA since:
●
They are comfortable with recursion and state
●
They use the constraints of typed variables
Coders should be good at CA since:
●
They are comfortable with recursion and state
●
They use the constraints of typed variables
●
They get the idea of bootstrapping systems
Coders should be good at CA since:
●
They are comfortable with recursion and state
●
They use the constraints of typed variables
●
They get the idea of bootstrapping systems
●
It treats conversation as a practical technology
Thank you for any questions/comments
saul.albert@eecs.qmul.ac.uk
References:
Schegloff, E. (2004). Answering the Phone. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.),
Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 63–109).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Schegloff, E. a., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to Respond: Well
-Prefaced Responses to Wh -Questions. Research on Language & Social
Interaction, 42(2), 91–115.

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Pragmatics: Conversation and Preference Structure
Pragmatics: Conversation and Preference StructurePragmatics: Conversation and Preference Structure
Pragmatics: Conversation and Preference StructureEko Alreza
 
Pragmatics implicature
Pragmatics implicaturePragmatics implicature
Pragmatics implicaturephannguyen161
 
Pragmatic and Speech act.ppt
Pragmatic and Speech act.pptPragmatic and Speech act.ppt
Pragmatic and Speech act.pptEny Chan
 
Speech acts theory in sociolinguistics
Speech acts theory in sociolinguistics Speech acts theory in sociolinguistics
Speech acts theory in sociolinguistics Aseel K. Mahmood
 
Week 4 illocutionary acts
Week 4 illocutionary actsWeek 4 illocutionary acts
Week 4 illocutionary actszouhirgabsi
 
Presentation pragmatics from doing pragmatics chapter nine talk
Presentation pragmatics from doing pragmatics chapter nine talkPresentation pragmatics from doing pragmatics chapter nine talk
Presentation pragmatics from doing pragmatics chapter nine talkIjaz Ahmed
 
Conversation Analysid
Conversation AnalysidConversation Analysid
Conversation Analysidemanomari
 
Conversation Analysis presentation
Conversation Analysis presentationConversation Analysis presentation
Conversation Analysis presentationKomal Kazmi
 
Pragmatics intro to linguistic
Pragmatics intro to linguisticPragmatics intro to linguistic
Pragmatics intro to linguisticUlil Fauziyah
 
A study of conversational implicatures in titanic film
A study of conversational implicatures in titanic filmA study of conversational implicatures in titanic film
A study of conversational implicatures in titanic filmAzam Almubarki
 
Speech act theory for language teaching
Speech act theory for language teachingSpeech act theory for language teaching
Speech act theory for language teachingRichard Pinner
 

Mais procurados (20)

Pragmatics: Conversation and Preference Structure
Pragmatics: Conversation and Preference StructurePragmatics: Conversation and Preference Structure
Pragmatics: Conversation and Preference Structure
 
Conversation analysis
Conversation analysisConversation analysis
Conversation analysis
 
Pragmatics implicature
Pragmatics implicaturePragmatics implicature
Pragmatics implicature
 
Turn taking
Turn takingTurn taking
Turn taking
 
Pragmatic and Speech act.ppt
Pragmatic and Speech act.pptPragmatic and Speech act.ppt
Pragmatic and Speech act.ppt
 
Speech acts theory in sociolinguistics
Speech acts theory in sociolinguistics Speech acts theory in sociolinguistics
Speech acts theory in sociolinguistics
 
Week 4 illocutionary acts
Week 4 illocutionary actsWeek 4 illocutionary acts
Week 4 illocutionary acts
 
Speech acts
Speech actsSpeech acts
Speech acts
 
Presentation pragmatics from doing pragmatics chapter nine talk
Presentation pragmatics from doing pragmatics chapter nine talkPresentation pragmatics from doing pragmatics chapter nine talk
Presentation pragmatics from doing pragmatics chapter nine talk
 
Conversation Analysid
Conversation AnalysidConversation Analysid
Conversation Analysid
 
Conversational Structure
Conversational StructureConversational Structure
Conversational Structure
 
illocutionary act
illocutionary actillocutionary act
illocutionary act
 
Hxe302 speech acts (1)
Hxe302 speech acts (1)Hxe302 speech acts (1)
Hxe302 speech acts (1)
 
Conversation Analysis presentation
Conversation Analysis presentationConversation Analysis presentation
Conversation Analysis presentation
 
Pragmatics
PragmaticsPragmatics
Pragmatics
 
Presentasi skripsi
Presentasi skripsiPresentasi skripsi
Presentasi skripsi
 
Pragmatics intro to linguistic
Pragmatics intro to linguisticPragmatics intro to linguistic
Pragmatics intro to linguistic
 
A study of conversational implicatures in titanic film
A study of conversational implicatures in titanic filmA study of conversational implicatures in titanic film
A study of conversational implicatures in titanic film
 
DISCOURSE AND PRAGMATICS
DISCOURSE AND PRAGMATICSDISCOURSE AND PRAGMATICS
DISCOURSE AND PRAGMATICS
 
Speech act theory for language teaching
Speech act theory for language teachingSpeech act theory for language teaching
Speech act theory for language teaching
 

Destaque (7)

ART100Sp16Module6.2
ART100Sp16Module6.2ART100Sp16Module6.2
ART100Sp16Module6.2
 
Sequence organization in conversation analysis
Sequence organization in conversation analysisSequence organization in conversation analysis
Sequence organization in conversation analysis
 
Conversation Analysis original
Conversation Analysis originalConversation Analysis original
Conversation Analysis original
 
Semiotic analysis
Semiotic analysisSemiotic analysis
Semiotic analysis
 
What is Semiotic analysis?
What is Semiotic analysis?What is Semiotic analysis?
What is Semiotic analysis?
 
Qualitative Research Methods
Qualitative Research MethodsQualitative Research Methods
Qualitative Research Methods
 
Qualitative data analysis
Qualitative data analysisQualitative data analysis
Qualitative data analysis
 

Semelhante a Conversation analysis for geeks

Bright SMP Chapter 1.pptx
Bright SMP Chapter 1.pptxBright SMP Chapter 1.pptx
Bright SMP Chapter 1.pptxNiniMartini1
 
AILA Creating spaces for autonomous learning in an EST course
AILA Creating spaces for autonomous learning in an EST courseAILA Creating spaces for autonomous learning in an EST course
AILA Creating spaces for autonomous learning in an EST coursecahafner
 
English easy grammar in pashto language
English easy grammar in pashto languageEnglish easy grammar in pashto language
English easy grammar in pashto languageLaghman University
 
English easy grammar in pashto language
English easy grammar in pashto languageEnglish easy grammar in pashto language
English easy grammar in pashto languageLaghman University
 
Work book
Work bookWork book
Work bookSkyEdge
 
Qualitative methods in audience analysis
Qualitative methods in audience analysisQualitative methods in audience analysis
Qualitative methods in audience analysisJenna Condie
 
Anglijska-mova-10-klas-Kuchma-2018.pdf
Anglijska-mova-10-klas-Kuchma-2018.pdfAnglijska-mova-10-klas-Kuchma-2018.pdf
Anglijska-mova-10-klas-Kuchma-2018.pdfssuser59c0a2
 
Anglijska mova-10-klas-kuchma-2018
Anglijska mova-10-klas-kuchma-2018Anglijska mova-10-klas-kuchma-2018
Anglijska mova-10-klas-kuchma-2018kreidaros1
 
How to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlyHow to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlydry1
 
How to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlyHow to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlyekayuni3
 
How to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlyHow to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlydry1
 
Raport evaluare intrunire Bulgaria-35 raspunsuri
Raport evaluare intrunire Bulgaria-35 raspunsuriRaport evaluare intrunire Bulgaria-35 raspunsuri
Raport evaluare intrunire Bulgaria-35 raspunsuriGeorgeta Manafu
 
Topic 4 leisure 2021
Topic 4   leisure 2021Topic 4   leisure 2021
Topic 4 leisure 2021PremLearn
 
English file 3e_pre-int_sb_answer_key
English file 3e_pre-int_sb_answer_keyEnglish file 3e_pre-int_sb_answer_key
English file 3e_pre-int_sb_answer_keyCarla Soares
 
Dap an-tong-hop-de-thi-tuyen-sinh-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-cac-tinh
Dap an-tong-hop-de-thi-tuyen-sinh-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-cac-tinhDap an-tong-hop-de-thi-tuyen-sinh-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-cac-tinh
Dap an-tong-hop-de-thi-tuyen-sinh-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-cac-tinhAnAuCoeur
 
EF4PI Unit 1B- Present simple.pptx
EF4PI Unit 1B- Present simple.pptxEF4PI Unit 1B- Present simple.pptx
EF4PI Unit 1B- Present simple.pptxPremLearn
 
Story board listening
Story board listeningStory board listening
Story board listeningIkarukmana123
 

Semelhante a Conversation analysis for geeks (20)

PPT MODUL 1.pptx
PPT MODUL 1.pptxPPT MODUL 1.pptx
PPT MODUL 1.pptx
 
Bright SMP Chapter 1.pptx
Bright SMP Chapter 1.pptxBright SMP Chapter 1.pptx
Bright SMP Chapter 1.pptx
 
AILA Creating spaces for autonomous learning in an EST course
AILA Creating spaces for autonomous learning in an EST courseAILA Creating spaces for autonomous learning in an EST course
AILA Creating spaces for autonomous learning in an EST course
 
English easy grammar in pashto language
English easy grammar in pashto languageEnglish easy grammar in pashto language
English easy grammar in pashto language
 
English easy grammar in pashto language
English easy grammar in pashto languageEnglish easy grammar in pashto language
English easy grammar in pashto language
 
Work book
Work bookWork book
Work book
 
Kate Beeching
Kate BeechingKate Beeching
Kate Beeching
 
Qualitative methods in audience analysis
Qualitative methods in audience analysisQualitative methods in audience analysis
Qualitative methods in audience analysis
 
Anglijska-mova-10-klas-Kuchma-2018.pdf
Anglijska-mova-10-klas-Kuchma-2018.pdfAnglijska-mova-10-klas-Kuchma-2018.pdf
Anglijska-mova-10-klas-Kuchma-2018.pdf
 
Anglijska mova-10-klas-kuchma-2018
Anglijska mova-10-klas-kuchma-2018Anglijska mova-10-klas-kuchma-2018
Anglijska mova-10-klas-kuchma-2018
 
How to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlyHow to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidently
 
How to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlyHow to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidently
 
How to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidentlyHow to learn english confidently
How to learn english confidently
 
Raport evaluare intrunire Bulgaria-35 raspunsuri
Raport evaluare intrunire Bulgaria-35 raspunsuriRaport evaluare intrunire Bulgaria-35 raspunsuri
Raport evaluare intrunire Bulgaria-35 raspunsuri
 
Topic 4 leisure 2021
Topic 4   leisure 2021Topic 4   leisure 2021
Topic 4 leisure 2021
 
English file 3e_pre-int_sb_answer_key
English file 3e_pre-int_sb_answer_keyEnglish file 3e_pre-int_sb_answer_key
English file 3e_pre-int_sb_answer_key
 
Dap an-tong-hop-de-thi-tuyen-sinh-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-cac-tinh
Dap an-tong-hop-de-thi-tuyen-sinh-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-cac-tinhDap an-tong-hop-de-thi-tuyen-sinh-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-cac-tinh
Dap an-tong-hop-de-thi-tuyen-sinh-vao-lop-10-mon-tieng-anh-cac-tinh
 
EF4PI Unit 1B- Present simple.pptx
EF4PI Unit 1B- Present simple.pptxEF4PI Unit 1B- Present simple.pptx
EF4PI Unit 1B- Present simple.pptx
 
Story board listening
Story board listeningStory board listening
Story board listening
 
English 1 Unit 1
English 1 Unit 1 English 1 Unit 1
English 1 Unit 1
 

Último

Google I/O Extended 2024 Warsaw
Google I/O Extended 2024 WarsawGoogle I/O Extended 2024 Warsaw
Google I/O Extended 2024 WarsawGDSC PJATK
 
Top 10 Symfony Development Companies 2024
Top 10 Symfony Development Companies 2024Top 10 Symfony Development Companies 2024
Top 10 Symfony Development Companies 2024TopCSSGallery
 
The UX of Automation by AJ King, Senior UX Researcher, Ocado
The UX of Automation by AJ King, Senior UX Researcher, OcadoThe UX of Automation by AJ King, Senior UX Researcher, Ocado
The UX of Automation by AJ King, Senior UX Researcher, OcadoUXDXConf
 
The Value of Certifying Products for FDO _ Paul at FIDO Alliance.pdf
The Value of Certifying Products for FDO _ Paul at FIDO Alliance.pdfThe Value of Certifying Products for FDO _ Paul at FIDO Alliance.pdf
The Value of Certifying Products for FDO _ Paul at FIDO Alliance.pdfFIDO Alliance
 
Choosing the Right FDO Deployment Model for Your Application _ Geoffrey at In...
Choosing the Right FDO Deployment Model for Your Application _ Geoffrey at In...Choosing the Right FDO Deployment Model for Your Application _ Geoffrey at In...
Choosing the Right FDO Deployment Model for Your Application _ Geoffrey at In...FIDO Alliance
 
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara Laskowska
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara LaskowskaPowerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara Laskowska
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara LaskowskaCzechDreamin
 
IoT Analytics Company Presentation May 2024
IoT Analytics Company Presentation May 2024IoT Analytics Company Presentation May 2024
IoT Analytics Company Presentation May 2024IoTAnalytics
 
How we scaled to 80K users by doing nothing!.pdf
How we scaled to 80K users by doing nothing!.pdfHow we scaled to 80K users by doing nothing!.pdf
How we scaled to 80K users by doing nothing!.pdfSrushith Repakula
 
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...CzechDreamin
 
Where to Learn More About FDO _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
Where to Learn More About FDO _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdfWhere to Learn More About FDO _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
Where to Learn More About FDO _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdfFIDO Alliance
 
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...CzechDreamin
 
ASRock Industrial FDO Solutions in Action for Industrial Edge AI _ Kenny at A...
ASRock Industrial FDO Solutions in Action for Industrial Edge AI _ Kenny at A...ASRock Industrial FDO Solutions in Action for Industrial Edge AI _ Kenny at A...
ASRock Industrial FDO Solutions in Action for Industrial Edge AI _ Kenny at A...FIDO Alliance
 
The Metaverse: Are We There Yet?
The  Metaverse:    Are   We  There  Yet?The  Metaverse:    Are   We  There  Yet?
The Metaverse: Are We There Yet?Mark Billinghurst
 
Optimizing NoSQL Performance Through Observability
Optimizing NoSQL Performance Through ObservabilityOptimizing NoSQL Performance Through Observability
Optimizing NoSQL Performance Through ObservabilityScyllaDB
 
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka DoktorováCzechDreamin
 
Enterprise Knowledge Graphs - Data Summit 2024
Enterprise Knowledge Graphs - Data Summit 2024Enterprise Knowledge Graphs - Data Summit 2024
Enterprise Knowledge Graphs - Data Summit 2024Enterprise Knowledge
 
Introduction to FDO and How It works Applications _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
Introduction to FDO and How It works Applications _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdfIntroduction to FDO and How It works Applications _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
Introduction to FDO and How It works Applications _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdfFIDO Alliance
 
TEST BANK For, Information Technology Project Management 9th Edition Kathy Sc...
TEST BANK For, Information Technology Project Management 9th Edition Kathy Sc...TEST BANK For, Information Technology Project Management 9th Edition Kathy Sc...
TEST BANK For, Information Technology Project Management 9th Edition Kathy Sc...marcuskenyatta275
 
Speed Wins: From Kafka to APIs in Minutes
Speed Wins: From Kafka to APIs in MinutesSpeed Wins: From Kafka to APIs in Minutes
Speed Wins: From Kafka to APIs in Minutesconfluent
 
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at Comcast
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at ComcastDesigning for Hardware Accessibility at Comcast
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at ComcastUXDXConf
 

Último (20)

Google I/O Extended 2024 Warsaw
Google I/O Extended 2024 WarsawGoogle I/O Extended 2024 Warsaw
Google I/O Extended 2024 Warsaw
 
Top 10 Symfony Development Companies 2024
Top 10 Symfony Development Companies 2024Top 10 Symfony Development Companies 2024
Top 10 Symfony Development Companies 2024
 
The UX of Automation by AJ King, Senior UX Researcher, Ocado
The UX of Automation by AJ King, Senior UX Researcher, OcadoThe UX of Automation by AJ King, Senior UX Researcher, Ocado
The UX of Automation by AJ King, Senior UX Researcher, Ocado
 
The Value of Certifying Products for FDO _ Paul at FIDO Alliance.pdf
The Value of Certifying Products for FDO _ Paul at FIDO Alliance.pdfThe Value of Certifying Products for FDO _ Paul at FIDO Alliance.pdf
The Value of Certifying Products for FDO _ Paul at FIDO Alliance.pdf
 
Choosing the Right FDO Deployment Model for Your Application _ Geoffrey at In...
Choosing the Right FDO Deployment Model for Your Application _ Geoffrey at In...Choosing the Right FDO Deployment Model for Your Application _ Geoffrey at In...
Choosing the Right FDO Deployment Model for Your Application _ Geoffrey at In...
 
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara Laskowska
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara LaskowskaPowerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara Laskowska
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara Laskowska
 
IoT Analytics Company Presentation May 2024
IoT Analytics Company Presentation May 2024IoT Analytics Company Presentation May 2024
IoT Analytics Company Presentation May 2024
 
How we scaled to 80K users by doing nothing!.pdf
How we scaled to 80K users by doing nothing!.pdfHow we scaled to 80K users by doing nothing!.pdf
How we scaled to 80K users by doing nothing!.pdf
 
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...
 
Where to Learn More About FDO _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
Where to Learn More About FDO _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdfWhere to Learn More About FDO _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
Where to Learn More About FDO _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
 
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...
 
ASRock Industrial FDO Solutions in Action for Industrial Edge AI _ Kenny at A...
ASRock Industrial FDO Solutions in Action for Industrial Edge AI _ Kenny at A...ASRock Industrial FDO Solutions in Action for Industrial Edge AI _ Kenny at A...
ASRock Industrial FDO Solutions in Action for Industrial Edge AI _ Kenny at A...
 
The Metaverse: Are We There Yet?
The  Metaverse:    Are   We  There  Yet?The  Metaverse:    Are   We  There  Yet?
The Metaverse: Are We There Yet?
 
Optimizing NoSQL Performance Through Observability
Optimizing NoSQL Performance Through ObservabilityOptimizing NoSQL Performance Through Observability
Optimizing NoSQL Performance Through Observability
 
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová
 
Enterprise Knowledge Graphs - Data Summit 2024
Enterprise Knowledge Graphs - Data Summit 2024Enterprise Knowledge Graphs - Data Summit 2024
Enterprise Knowledge Graphs - Data Summit 2024
 
Introduction to FDO and How It works Applications _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
Introduction to FDO and How It works Applications _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdfIntroduction to FDO and How It works Applications _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
Introduction to FDO and How It works Applications _ Richard at FIDO Alliance.pdf
 
TEST BANK For, Information Technology Project Management 9th Edition Kathy Sc...
TEST BANK For, Information Technology Project Management 9th Edition Kathy Sc...TEST BANK For, Information Technology Project Management 9th Edition Kathy Sc...
TEST BANK For, Information Technology Project Management 9th Edition Kathy Sc...
 
Speed Wins: From Kafka to APIs in Minutes
Speed Wins: From Kafka to APIs in MinutesSpeed Wins: From Kafka to APIs in Minutes
Speed Wins: From Kafka to APIs in Minutes
 
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at Comcast
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at ComcastDesigning for Hardware Accessibility at Comcast
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at Comcast
 

Conversation analysis for geeks

  • 1. Conversation analysis for geeks Saul Albert 02/07/13
  • 2. People seem complex and erratic
  • 3. People seem complex and erratic Conversation analysis is a systematic method for explaining our practical reasoning and actions.
  • 4. People seem complex and erratic Conversation analysis is a systematic method for explaining our practical reasoning and actions. ● Everyday chat is a unique empirical resource
  • 5. People seem complex and erratic Conversation analysis is a systematic method for explaining our practical reasoning and actions. ● Everyday chat is a unique empirical resource ● How interaction gives us proof procedures
  • 6. People seem complex and erratic Conversation analysis is a systematic method for explaining our practical reasoning and actions. ● Everyday chat is a unique empirical resource ● How interaction gives us proof procedures ● Why CA should be easy and useful for geeks
  • 8. Conversation as evidence is: ● A naturally occuring empirical resource
  • 9. Conversation as evidence is: ● A naturally occuring empirical resource ● Sequential
  • 10. Conversation as evidence is: ● A naturally occuring empirical resource ● Sequential 1.D: Police desk 2.C: Hello/ (Schegloff, 2004)
  • 11. Conversation as evidence is: ● A naturally occuring empirical resource ● Sequential, systematic 1.D: Police desk 2.C: Hello/ 3.D: Hello. (Schegloff, 2004)
  • 12. Conversation as evidence is: ● A naturally occuring empirical resource ● Sequential, systematic, situated 1.D: Police desk 2.C: Hello/ 3.D: Hello. 4.C: I come down here to see my wife jill, I'm from Missouri? 5.D: Yes. (Schegloff, 2004)
  • 13. Conversation as evidence is: ● A naturally occuring empirical resource ● Sequential, systematic, situated 1.D: Police desk 2.C: Hello/ 3.D: Hello. 4.C: I come down here to see my wife jill, I'm from Missouri? 5.D: Yes. 6.C: And uh they ain't down here now, they moved. (Schegloff, 2004)
  • 14. Conversation as evidence is: ● A naturally occuring empirical resource ● Sequential, systematic, situated social action 1.D: Police desk 2.C: Hello/ 3.D: Hello. 4.C: I come down here to see my wife jill, I'm from Missouri? 5.D: Yes. 6.C: And uh they ain't down here now, they moved. 7. (Pause) 8.D: Well, what do you want me to do? (Schegloff, 2004)
  • 15. Conversation as evidence is: ● A naturally occuring empirical resource ● Sequential ● Very different from other kinds of evidence , systematic, situated social action
  • 17. Talk-in-interaction's proof practices: ● Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning
  • 18. Talk-in-interaction's proof practices: ● Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning ● In revealing and resolving problems in talk 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
  • 19. Talk-in-interaction's proof practices: ● Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning ● In revealing and resolving problems in talk 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009) 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
  • 20. Talk-in-interaction's proof practices: ● Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning ● In revealing and resolving problems in talk 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009) 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009) 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
  • 21. Talk-in-interaction's proof practices: ● Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning ● In revealing and resolving problems in talk 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009) 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009) 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009) 1. Fda: =This is nice did you make this? 2. Kat: No Samu made that 3. Fda: Who? 4. Kat: Samu 5. (0.1) 6. Kat: (Sh) You remember my [aunt? ] 7. Dav: [Aunt S ]amu 8. Kat: [From Czechoslovakia? 9. Fda: [Yyeeah 10.Fda: Oh she’s really something 11.Kat: Yeah (Schegloff & Lerner, 2009)
  • 22. Talk-in-interaction's proof practices: ● Enlist participants' own methods of reasoning ● In revealing and resolving problems in talk ● Can show us when our theories are wrong
  • 23. Coders should be good at CA since: ● They are comfortable with recursion and state
  • 24. Coders should be good at CA since: ● They are comfortable with recursion and state ● They use the constraints of typed variables
  • 25. Coders should be good at CA since: ● They are comfortable with recursion and state ● They use the constraints of typed variables ● They get the idea of bootstrapping systems
  • 26. Coders should be good at CA since: ● They are comfortable with recursion and state ● They use the constraints of typed variables ● They get the idea of bootstrapping systems ● It treats conversation as a practical technology
  • 27. Thank you for any questions/comments saul.albert@eecs.qmul.ac.uk References: Schegloff, E. (2004). Answering the Phone. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 63–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Schegloff, E. a., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to Respond: Well -Prefaced Responses to Wh -Questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115.

Notas do Editor

  1. 1. Introduction 2. conversation important / unique / effective in any research area 3. honne my method preamble down to a few minutes 4. help me sharpen it up 5. promote conversational data enough that you'll join a data session
  2. Everyday talk provides researchers of human cognition and action with naturally occuring data and methods for analysing it in participants own terms. Recordings of conversation can be recorded treated as a natural resource, like a wild plant for a botanist or weather data for a meteorologogist. By analysing people’s conversational interactions, we can harness the same mechanisms of reasoning that they are using to make themselves understood to one another. Why this is unique to conversation, and why it's especially easy & relevant for EECS people.
  3. Everyday talk provides researchers of human cognition and action with naturally occuring data and methods for analysing it in participants own terms. Recordings of conversation can be recorded treated as a natural resource, like a wild plant for a botanist or weather data for a meteorologogist. By analysing people’s conversational interactions, we can harness the same mechanisms of reasoning that they are using to make themselves understood to one another. Why this is unique to conversation, and why it's especially easy & relevant for EECS people.
  4. Everyday talk provides researchers of human cognition and action with naturally occuring data and methods for analysing it in participants own terms. Recordings of conversation can be recorded treated as a natural resource, like a wild plant for a botanist or weather data for a meteorologogist. By analysing people’s conversational interactions, we can harness the same mechanisms of reasoning that they are using to make themselves understood to one another. Why this is unique to conversation, and why it's especially easy & relevant for EECS people.
  5. Everyday talk provides researchers of human cognition and action with naturally occuring data and methods for analysing it in participants own terms. Recordings of conversation can be recorded treated as a natural resource, like a wild plant for a botanist or weather data for a meteorologogist. By analysing people’s conversational interactions, we can harness the same mechanisms of reasoning that they are using to make themselves understood to one another. Why this is unique to conversation, and why it's especially easy & relevant for EECS people.
  6. Everyday talk provides researchers of human cognition and action with naturally occuring data and methods for analysing it in participants own terms. Recordings of conversation can be recorded treated as a natural resource, like a wild plant for a botanist or weather data for a meteorologogist. By analysing people’s conversational interactions, we can harness the same mechanisms of reasoning that they are using to make themselves understood to one another. Why this is unique to conversation, and why it's especially easy & relevant for EECS people.
  7. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  8. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  9. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  10. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  11. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  12. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  13. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  14. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  15. 0. Conversation is often seen as messy – fragmentary, fleeting, not useful because it's difficult to use in a controlled study. 1. However, whereas in an interview environment or experimental scenario it's didfficult to maneuver people around context, conversation is pervasive – you'll find your phenomenon in the wild. 2. It's messy, not grammatically consistent, fragmentary, incomplete. But that means that participants solve that problem themselves in specific ways that make conversation particularly useful. I will present these as the 3 ses of conversational evidence: 2.1: Seqentially organised: layed out turn-by-turn “why that now?” 2.2: Eg: this initial opening from Schegloff is simple. Given available evidence, what can we say about how and where this takes place? 2.3: Right: we can tell so much: that there's a missing phone ring. What happens next? 2.4: Right: So D's and C's (and our) analysis is systematic enough to tell us that following call/identification/greeting, a greeting is relevant. NB: this is normative, not deterministic. D could say other things (like what? What analysis would that entail for D and us? This is subtle). mention transcription: punctuation use. So if C's hello is analysed by D and by us as a greeting, what kind of thing is D's hello – what's it hearable as – what comes next? 2.5: Situated: right. An explanation for the call – not because D's “hello” asked a question as such, but because of it's local situation with a sequence. Similarly – the 'Yes'. Is hearable as a request for more information. There are two senses in which conversational evidence is 'sitauted' here: a). the position or 'slot' in which the talk appears is evidence for the recipient to monitor what kind of thing is relevant next. b). it mobilises various aspects of its local context: it's phone call-ness, place, time, relationships are “talked into being” (Heritage) 2.6. One more S: Social Action: D's pause first resists then explicitly acknowledges that C's last turn is hearable as a request for D to do something. 3. This aspect of social action makes conversation very different from perfectly valid statistical distributions or rigorously coded interview data. Only by observing how the saying and doing of participants is produced, analysed and responded to turn-by-turn sequence can we gain access to and harness the participants own methods of reasoning.
  16. By 'proof practices' I'm caricaturing conversation as on-the-fly analysis, but that's what CA does tries to 1. Enlist participants own methods. Recording technologies slow it down, lay it out turn-by-turn, we can see the ways participants check and cross-check for mutual comprehension. In order to understand and be understood they must shape their utterances to accommodate each other's comprehension needs. This is RECIPIENT DESIGN and it's really cool. EG: there are many ways we can refer to people in conversation: 'you', 'that man', 'my supervisor' – these choices are highly consequential for both speaker and recipient – and for overhearing analysts who get to listen in on their reasoning as they solve problems step-by-step. 2. DO ANALYSIS 2.1 mishearing 2.2: simultaneous response renders pause as fda's non-recognition 2.3: fda's overlap and assessment deal with awkwardness of b). Not only do we see what is invoked and MADE RELEVANT – we also get a turn-by-turn cross check of each stage of reasoning. When I talked about testing abstractions rigorously, empirically and systematically – it was the participants own methods and materials of reasoning that I was talking about. Finding talk that implicates your research abstractions and phenomena is a rigorous test because... 3. It can prove you wrong: very useful in the study of human cognition and action. If you can come up with creative ways or contexts – you get to see everday collission testing of interactional relevance Can be high level: how they might themselves use words like 'incentive' or 'background', or more low-level formulation of their activity: you get to see how they make your abstractions concrete by designing talk and action for each other's understanding. If your phenomena don't show up at all, or show up in ways that show you that your abstractions are based on false assumptions, you save yourself pain and toil.
  17. By 'proof practices' I'm caricaturing conversation as on-the-fly analysis, but that's what CA does tries to 1. Enlist participants own methods. Recording technologies slow it down, lay it out turn-by-turn, we can see the ways participants check and cross-check for mutual comprehension. In order to understand and be understood they must shape their utterances to accommodate each other's comprehension needs. This is RECIPIENT DESIGN and it's really cool. EG: there are many ways we can refer to people in conversation: 'you', 'that man', 'my supervisor' – these choices are highly consequential for both speaker and recipient – and for overhearing analysts who get to listen in on their reasoning as they solve problems step-by-step. 2. DO ANALYSIS 2.1 mishearing 2.2: simultaneous response renders pause as fda's non-recognition 2.3: fda's overlap and assessment deal with awkwardness of b). Not only do we see what is invoked and MADE RELEVANT – we also get a turn-by-turn cross check of each stage of reasoning. When I talked about testing abstractions rigorously, empirically and systematically – it was the participants own methods and materials of reasoning that I was talking about. Finding talk that implicates your research abstractions and phenomena is a rigorous test because... 3. It can prove you wrong: very useful in the study of human cognition and action. If you can come up with creative ways or contexts – you get to see everday collission testing of interactional relevance Can be high level: how they might themselves use words like 'incentive' or 'background', or more low-level formulation of their activity: you get to see how they make your abstractions concrete by designing talk and action for each other's understanding. If your phenomena don't show up at all, or show up in ways that show you that your abstractions are based on false assumptions, you save yourself pain and toil.
  18. By 'proof practices' I'm caricaturing conversation as on-the-fly analysis, but that's what CA does tries to 1. Enlist participants own methods. Recording technologies slow it down, lay it out turn-by-turn, we can see the ways participants check and cross-check for mutual comprehension. In order to understand and be understood they must shape their utterances to accommodate each other's comprehension needs. This is RECIPIENT DESIGN and it's really cool. EG: there are many ways we can refer to people in conversation: 'you', 'that man', 'my supervisor' – these choices are highly consequential for both speaker and recipient – and for overhearing analysts who get to listen in on their reasoning as they solve problems step-by-step. 2. DO ANALYSIS 2.1 mishearing 2.2: simultaneous response renders pause as fda's non-recognition 2.3: fda's overlap and assessment deal with awkwardness of b). Not only do we see what is invoked and MADE RELEVANT – we also get a turn-by-turn cross check of each stage of reasoning. When I talked about testing abstractions rigorously, empirically and systematically – it was the participants own methods and materials of reasoning that I was talking about. Finding talk that implicates your research abstractions and phenomena is a rigorous test because... 3. It can prove you wrong: very useful in the study of human cognition and action. If you can come up with creative ways or contexts – you get to see everday collission testing of interactional relevance Can be high level: how they might themselves use words like 'incentive' or 'background', or more low-level formulation of their activity: you get to see how they make your abstractions concrete by designing talk and action for each other's understanding. If your phenomena don't show up at all, or show up in ways that show you that your abstractions are based on false assumptions, you save yourself pain and toil.
  19. By 'proof practices' I'm caricaturing conversation as on-the-fly analysis, but that's what CA does tries to 1. Enlist participants own methods. Recording technologies slow it down, lay it out turn-by-turn, we can see the ways participants check and cross-check for mutual comprehension. In order to understand and be understood they must shape their utterances to accommodate each other's comprehension needs. This is RECIPIENT DESIGN and it's really cool. EG: there are many ways we can refer to people in conversation: 'you', 'that man', 'my supervisor' – these choices are highly consequential for both speaker and recipient – and for overhearing analysts who get to listen in on their reasoning as they solve problems step-by-step. 2. DO ANALYSIS 2.1 mishearing 2.2: simultaneous response renders pause as fda's non-recognition 2.3: fda's overlap and assessment deal with awkwardness of b). Not only do we see what is invoked and MADE RELEVANT – we also get a turn-by-turn cross check of each stage of reasoning. When I talked about testing abstractions rigorously, empirically and systematically – it was the participants own methods and materials of reasoning that I was talking about. Finding talk that implicates your research abstractions and phenomena is a rigorous test because... 3. It can prove you wrong: very useful in the study of human cognition and action. If you can come up with creative ways or contexts – you get to see everday collission testing of interactional relevance Can be high level: how they might themselves use words like 'incentive' or 'background', or more low-level formulation of their activity: you get to see how they make your abstractions concrete by designing talk and action for each other's understanding. If your phenomena don't show up at all, or show up in ways that show you that your abstractions are based on false assumptions, you save yourself pain and toil.
  20. By 'proof practices' I'm caricaturing conversation as on-the-fly analysis, but that's what CA does tries to 1. Enlist participants own methods. Recording technologies slow it down, lay it out turn-by-turn, we can see the ways participants check and cross-check for mutual comprehension. In order to understand and be understood they must shape their utterances to accommodate each other's comprehension needs. This is RECIPIENT DESIGN and it's really cool. EG: there are many ways we can refer to people in conversation: 'you', 'that man', 'my supervisor' – these choices are highly consequential for both speaker and recipient – and for overhearing analysts who get to listen in on their reasoning as they solve problems step-by-step. 2. DO ANALYSIS 2.1 mishearing 2.2: simultaneous response renders pause as fda's non-recognition 2.3: fda's overlap and assessment deal with awkwardness of b). Not only do we see what is invoked and MADE RELEVANT – we also get a turn-by-turn cross check of each stage of reasoning. When I talked about testing abstractions rigorously, empirically and systematically – it was the participants own methods and materials of reasoning that I was talking about. Finding talk that implicates your research abstractions and phenomena is a rigorous test because... 3. It can prove you wrong: very useful in the study of human cognition and action. If you can come up with creative ways or contexts – you get to see everday collission testing of interactional relevance Can be high level: how they might themselves use words like 'incentive' or 'background', or more low-level formulation of their activity: you get to see how they make your abstractions concrete by designing talk and action for each other's understanding. If your phenomena don't show up at all, or show up in ways that show you that your abstractions are based on false assumptions, you save yourself pain and toil.
  21. By 'proof practices' I'm caricaturing conversation as on-the-fly analysis, but that's what CA does tries to 1. Enlist participants own methods. Recording technologies slow it down, lay it out turn-by-turn, we can see the ways participants check and cross-check for mutual comprehension. In order to understand and be understood they must shape their utterances to accommodate each other's comprehension needs. This is RECIPIENT DESIGN and it's really cool. EG: there are many ways we can refer to people in conversation: 'you', 'that man', 'my supervisor' – these choices are highly consequential for both speaker and recipient – and for overhearing analysts who get to listen in on their reasoning as they solve problems step-by-step. 2. DO ANALYSIS 2.1 mishearing 2.2: simultaneous response renders pause as fda's non-recognition 2.3: fda's overlap and assessment deal with awkwardness of b). Not only do we see what is invoked and MADE RELEVANT – we also get a turn-by-turn cross check of each stage of reasoning. When I talked about testing abstractions rigorously, empirically and systematically – it was the participants own methods and materials of reasoning that I was talking about. Finding talk that implicates your research abstractions and phenomena is a rigorous test because... 3. It can prove you wrong: very useful in the study of human cognition and action. If you can come up with creative ways or contexts – you get to see everday collission testing of interactional relevance Can be high level: how they might themselves use words like 'incentive' or 'background', or more low-level formulation of their activity: you get to see how they make your abstractions concrete by designing talk and action for each other's understanding. If your phenomena don't show up at all, or show up in ways that show you that your abstractions are based on false assumptions, you save yourself pain and toil.
  22. By 'proof practices' I'm caricaturing conversation as on-the-fly analysis, but that's what CA does tries to 1. Enlist participants own methods. Recording technologies slow it down, lay it out turn-by-turn, we can see the ways participants check and cross-check for mutual comprehension. In order to understand and be understood they must shape their utterances to accommodate each other's comprehension needs. This is RECIPIENT DESIGN and it's really cool. EG: there are many ways we can refer to people in conversation: 'you', 'that man', 'my supervisor' – these choices are highly consequential for both speaker and recipient – and for overhearing analysts who get to listen in on their reasoning as they solve problems step-by-step. 2. DO ANALYSIS 2.1 mishearing 2.2: simultaneous response renders pause as fda's non-recognition 2.3: fda's overlap and assessment deal with awkwardness of b). Not only do we see what is invoked and MADE RELEVANT – we also get a turn-by-turn cross check of each stage of reasoning. When I talked about testing abstractions rigorously, empirically and systematically – it was the participants own methods and materials of reasoning that I was talking about. Finding talk that implicates your research abstractions and phenomena is a rigorous test because... 3. It can prove you wrong: very useful in the study of human cognition and action. If you can come up with creative ways or contexts – you get to see everday collission testing of interactional relevance Can be high level: how they might themselves use words like 'incentive' or 'background', or more low-level formulation of their activity: you get to see how they make your abstractions concrete by designing talk and action for each other's understanding. If your phenomena don't show up at all, or show up in ways that show you that your abstractions are based on false assumptions, you save yourself pain and toil.
  23. To conclude, I want to suggest several reasons that CA is particularly suited to and easy to understand for CS and EE people: far more so than the sociologists who came up with it: 1. Fundamental principle is that each turn introduces new information which is available for participants to analyse and respond to – so each turn recursively modifies the conversation state. That's curiously hard to explain in non-coder terms. 2. The idea that word, thought of as a variable can not only have changing values, but may also change type from string, to array, to floating point and so constrain subsequent uses and interactions is beautifully simple to explain to coders. 3. Pub conversation starter: If you think of conversation as a technology (seems obvious if you don't have a very limited view), and you read Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson's rules of conversational turn taking, you get the sense of conversation being a kind of universal set of communicative norms, and everything else that formalises communication, from CB radio to diagnostic consultations, to PMQs, to Foursquare as a set of – often rather awkward constraints on conversation. So if we're going to understand or attempt to build communications technologies, conversation is probably a good place to start and a good place to return to frequently.
  24. To conclude, I want to suggest several reasons that CA is particularly suited to and easy to understand for CS and EE people: far more so than the sociologists who came up with it: 1. Fundamental principle is that each turn introduces new information which is available for participants to analyse and respond to – so each turn recursively modifies the conversation state. That's curiously hard to explain in non-coder terms. 2. The idea that word, thought of as a variable can not only have changing values, but may also change type from string, to array, to floating point and so constrain subsequent uses and interactions is beautifully simple to explain to coders. 3. Pub conversation starter: If you think of conversation as a technology (seems obvious if you don't have a very limited view), and you read Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson's rules of conversational turn taking, you get the sense of conversation being a kind of universal set of communicative norms, and everything else that formalises communication, from CB radio to diagnostic consultations, to PMQs, to Foursquare as a set of – often rather awkward constraints on conversation. So if we're going to understand or attempt to build communications technologies, conversation is probably a good place to start and a good place to return to frequently.
  25. To conclude, I want to suggest several reasons that CA is particularly suited to and easy to understand for CS and EE people: far more so than the sociologists who came up with it: 1. Fundamental principle is that each turn introduces new information which is available for participants to analyse and respond to – so each turn recursively modifies the conversation state. That's curiously hard to explain in non-coder terms. 2. The idea that word, thought of as a variable can not only have changing values, but may also change type from string, to array, to floating point and so constrain subsequent uses and interactions is beautifully simple to explain to coders. 3. Pub conversation starter: If you think of conversation as a technology (seems obvious if you don't have a very limited view), and you read Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson's rules of conversational turn taking, you get the sense of conversation being a kind of universal set of communicative norms, and everything else that formalises communication, from CB radio to diagnostic consultations, to PMQs, to Foursquare as a set of – often rather awkward constraints on conversation. So if we're going to understand or attempt to build communications technologies, conversation is probably a good place to start and a good place to return to frequently.
  26. To conclude, I want to suggest several reasons that CA is particularly suited to and easy to understand for CS and EE people: far more so than the sociologists who came up with it: 1. Fundamental principle is that each turn introduces new information which is available for participants to analyse and respond to – so each turn recursively modifies the conversation state. That's curiously hard to explain in non-coder terms. 2. The idea that word, thought of as a variable can not only have changing values, but may also change type from string, to array, to floating point and so constrain subsequent uses and interactions is beautifully simple to explain to coders. 3. Pub conversation starter: If you think of conversation as a technology (seems obvious if you don't have a very limited view), and you read Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson's rules of conversational turn taking, you get the sense of conversation being a kind of universal set of communicative norms, and everything else that formalises communication, from CB radio to diagnostic consultations, to PMQs, to Foursquare as a set of – often rather awkward constraints on conversation. So if we're going to understand or attempt to build communications technologies, conversation is probably a good place to start and a good place to return to frequently.