Subscribe

Subscribe to our Newsletter and get informed about new publication regulary and special discounts for subscribers!

ILSHS > Volume 68 > The Relation between Conversational Strategies...
< Back to Volume

The Relation between Conversational Strategies Used in Hard News Interview to the Roles of Being a Particular Institutional Representative: An Analysis

Full Text PDF

Abstract:

A normal conversation often follows a single transition in which adjacency pair demands co-related and immediate feedback. However, when this synergy is violated to some extent, it is believed that this will lead to unequal turn-taking especially in institutional dialogue. Different social settings could also allow some conversational participants to be dominant or less dominant. This study will investigate the effect of institutional role by using some of the strategy proposed by Heritage (1997). Heritage asserts that these four strategies that will be discussed in this paper namely turn-taking organization, turn design organization, sequence organization and repair organization, enables researcher to determine the institutional field or roles of any speaker in a conversation. Other factor such as lexical choices, which may likely to be associated with the speaker’s institutional representation will also be analyzed.

Info:

Periodical:
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (Volume 68)
Pages:
24-31
Citation:
N. A. F. Nik Azim, "The Relation between Conversational Strategies Used in Hard News Interview to the Roles of Being a Particular Institutional Representative: An Analysis", International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, Vol. 68, pp. 24-31, 2016
Online since:
April 2016
Export:
Distribution:
References:

[1] Cheepan, C. (2000). Small talk in service dialogues: The conversational aspects of transactional telephone talk. In Small Talk. J. Coupland (ed. ), 288-311. London: Longman.

[2] Duncan, S. (1973). Towards a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica 9: 29-46.

[3] Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.

[4] Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed. ), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage Publications.

[5] Norsfinger, R. E. (1991). Everyday conversation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

[6] Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language. 50(4): 696-735.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010

[7] Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. In Studies in the Organisation of Conversational Interaction, J. Schenkein (ed. ), 7-55. New York: Academic Press.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/412243

[8] Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. In G. Jefferson (Ed)., Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

[9] Ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversational analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.

[10] Thornborrow, J. (2002). Power talk: language and interaction in institutional discourse. London: Pearson Education limited.

[11] Tolson, A. (2006). Media talk: spoken discourse on tv and radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231070220030711

[12] Warren, M. (2006). Features of naturalness in conversations. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Show More Hide
Cited By:
This article has no citations.