Cover not available

In:Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
Edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305] 2019
► pp. 93–130

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 4
A preliminary typology of interactional figures based on a tool for visualizing conversational structure

 | Val.Es.Co. Group (Valencia, Español Coloquial)
 | University of Valencia
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.04esp
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to study interactional structure based on the connections between interventions (or turns) in a dialogue. Dialogic discourse is understood as an organization that connects each intervention to other interventions on both sides of it. We use a visualization tool to connect interventions based on the types of reactive and initiative relations between them. The result is a visual representation of the whole conversation, which can be used for the systematic analysis of structural phenomena and the detection of phenomena which might have been previously unnoticed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Val.Es.Co segmentation model
    • 1.2Visualization tools for linguistic data: Val.Es.Co. Visualization Tool
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.A preliminary typology of interactional figures
    • 3.1Peak: Independent exchange
    • 3.2Zipper: Consecutive reactive-initiative interventions
    • 3.3Rake: Discontinuous intervention
    • 3.4Sticks: Parallel discontinuous interventions
    • 3.5Fence: Frame exchange
      • 3.5.1Closed fence
      • 3.5.2Open fence
      • 3.5.3Free fence
    • 3.6Line: Independent intervention
    • 3.7Comb: Series of independent interventions
  • 4.Discussion and conclusions
    • 4.1Some thoughts on the notion of figure
    • 4.2Our figures versus previously studied phenomena at the level of interactional structure
    • 4.3Partial and global descriptions of structural interactional phenomena
  • Notes
  • References
References (37)
References
Briz, Antonio. 2004. “El análisis de las conversaciones: órdenes y unidades.” Interlingüística 15: 3–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “La segmentación de una conversación en diálogos.” Oralia 9: 45–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Lo coloquial y lo formal, el eje de la variedad lingüística.” In De moneda nunca usada. Estudios dedicados a José María Enguita, ed. by Rosa María Castañer, and Vicente Lagüens, 125–133. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “El relato coloquial.” In Comunicación presentada en el XXVIII Congreso de hispanistas italianos, November 27th-30th, Pisa, Italia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio, and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002. “Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales”. Anejo de la Revista Oralia, Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cabedo, Adrián, and Salvador Pons (eds.). Corpus Val.Es.Co 2.0. [online: [URL]]. Accessed September 18th, 2017.
Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne-Catherine Simon. 2009. “Minimal Discourse Units in Spoken French: On the Role of Syntactic and Prosodic Units in Discourse Segmentation.” In Discourse 4. [[URL]]. Accessed September 18th, 2017.
Donath, Judith, Karrie Karahalios, and Fernanda Viegas. 1999. “Visualizing Conversation.” Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences vol. 2: 20–23.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Espinosa-Guerri, Guadalupe. 2015. “Hacia una visualización sistemática de la conversación coloquial.” In Nuevas investigaciones lingüísticas, ed. by Ágela Benito, Pedro Espino, and Bruno Revenga, 341–406. Cantabria: Editorial Universidad Cantabria.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Los dientes de sierra: una herramienta para el estudio de la estructura interactiva del discurso dialógico.” Normas 6: 13–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Espinosa-Guerri, Guadalupe, and Amparo García-Ramón. 2017. “Conversational Structure and Discourse Genres: A Contrastive Study of Informal Conversations, Sociolinguistic Interviews and Broadcast Interviews.” In 15th International Pragmatics Conference, July, 16th-21st, Belfast, Ireland.
. Forthcoming. “Deixis extrema, intervenciones independientes y los límites de la conversación coloquial.”
Friendly, Michael. 2009. Milestones in the History of Thematic Cartography, Statistical Graphics, and Data Visualization [online: [URL]]. Accessed September 18th, 2017.
García-Ramón, Amparo. 2019. Epistemicidad en interacción: (a)simetrías epistémicas en secuencias de acuerdo y su relación con la construcción de roles funcionales en conversaciones y entrevistas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Valencia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1983. “The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review 48: 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2009. “Conversation Analysis as Social Theory”. In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. by Brian S. Turner, 300–320. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and David Greatbatch. 1991. “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews”. In Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. by Deirdre Boden, and Don H. Zimmerman, 93–137. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gale. 1972. “Side Sequences”. In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David N. Sudnow, 294–333. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1978. “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation”. In J. Schenkein, Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 219–248. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, and Christian Plantin. 1995. Le trilogue. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. “Recursion in Pragmatics.” Language 89: 149–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie, and Mike Huiskes. 2001. “Dutch ‘but’ as a Sequential Conjunction. Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1978. “Compliment Responses: Notes of the Co-operations of Multiple Constraints.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schekein, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pons, Salvador. 2014. Models of Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
PRESEEA. 2014. Corpus del Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América. Alcalá de Henares: University of Alcalá [online: [URL]]. Accessed September 18, 2017.
Roulet, Eddy, Laurent Filliettaz, Anne Grobet, and Marcel Burger. 2001. Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gale Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1968. “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70 (6), 1075–1095. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1972. “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: MacMillan, The Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of ‘Coherence’ in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Conversational Organization and its Development, ed. by Bruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “On ‘Opening Sequencing’: A Framing Statement.” In Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, ed. by James E. Katz and Mark Aakhus, 321–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “A Practice for (Re-)Exiting a Sequence: and/but/so + uh(m) + Silence.” In Language in Life, and a Life in Language: Jacob Mey – A Festschrift, ed. by Bruce Fraser, and Ken Turner, 365–374. Bingly: Emerald. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Val.Es.Co. 2003. “Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial.” Oralia 6: 7–61.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. “Las unidades del discurso oral.” Estudios de Lingüística del Español 35: 13–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, Jian, Fanny Chevalier, Christopher Collins, and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2012. “Facilitating Discourse Analysis with Interactive Visualization.” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18(12): 2639–2648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1984. “Talk and Its Occasion: The Case of Calling the Police.” In Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 210–228. Washington: University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue