double spaces, six pages. I attach the file about all instructions for this assignment .and I upload all lectures you can see before you do the assignment.
assignment_3__1.pdf
lecture_10_slides_fpp___spp.pdf
lecture_11_preference_organization.pdf
lecture_12_slides.pdf
lecture_13.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
The Analysis of
Conversational Interaction
(Lecture 10: Preference
Organization 1)
Soc 136A/236
Outline for Today
1. Review: Adjacency Pairs, Expansion,
Sequence Organization, PreSequences
2. Further Implications:
◦ Adjacency Pairs and Relevance Rules
◦ Relationship between Pre-Sequences and
Base Sequence
3. Preference Organization
◦ Introduction and definition
◦ Features of dis/preferred actions
◦ Implications of preference organization
Review: Adjacency Pairs
A sequence of two actions (e.g., questionanswer),
adjacently placed; that is, one after another,
produced by different speakers,
these two turns are relatively ordered (FPPs
and SPPs),
pair-type related (particular FPPs will make
relevant one or more type-related SPPs)
Rule: Given the recognizable production of a
FPP, on its first possible completion its speaker
should stop, and a next speaker (often
someone selected as next by the FPP – see
lecture 7!) should start and should produce a
SPP of the same type.
Review: Expansion
Adjacency pairs can be expanded by “presequences”, “insert sequences” and “post
expansions” – e.g., a request sequence:
FPP(pre)à A:
Excuse me!
SPP(pre)à B:
Yes, what can I do for you?
FPP(base)à A:
Can I have a beer?
FPP(ins)à B:
Do you have an ID?
SPP(ins)à A:
No, I left it at home.
SPP(base)à B:
No, you can’t.
FPP(post)à A:
But I’m twenty five!
SPP(post)à B:
Sorry, no ID, no beer.
Review: Expansion
Adjacency pairs can be expanded by “presequences”, “insert sequences” and “post
expansions”. These expansions themselves
commonly consist of adjacency pairs.
Review: Sequence Organization
Lecture 9: Relationship between pre-sequences
and base sequence
Lectures 10-11: Relationship between FPP and
SPP of base sequence
Lecture 12: Relationship between insert and
post expansions and base sequence
Review: Pre-Sequences
Pre-invitations: Seek to establish whether a
recipient is available to be invited
Pre-offers: Establish whether recipient
needs/is interested in what will be offered
Pre-announcements: Establish whether news
is already known to the recipient; may also
project valence of news (e.g., positive vs
negative)
Pre-Pre: Action projected by pre not
immediately produced after go-ahead –
additional sequence inserted to do further
“work” prior to base FPP
Adjacency Pairs and Relevance
Rules
At any given moment a literally infinite number of
things is not happening – in order to make nontrivial claims about absences, we need “relevance
rules” that provide for their relevant absence (i.e.,
“official” or “noticeable” absence)
Turn-taking is a major locus of relevance rules –
enables us to notice that someone is (relevantly)
not talking
Adjacency pairs are another major locus of
relevance rules – can specify what someone is
(relevantly) not doing
If a specific SPP is made “conditionally relevant” by
production of a FPP, then its absence will be
noticeable and accountable (ex. 1)
Adjacency Pairs and Relevance
Rules
Relevance rules specify not just how absences
are heard/interpreted, but also for how talk
itself is heard:
◦ They set powerful constraints on what should
happen next
◦ While they can never determine what will get
done next, they set the terms for the
interpretation of whatever does get done
Relevance rules and pre-sequences: Go-ahead
vs. blocking responses provide for relevance
vs. non-relevance of projected base FPP (ex. 2,
3) – pre-sequences are produced by reference
to (in relation to) a base sequence
Pre-Sequences and Base
Sequence
Pre-sequences are designed in various ways
to remove “barriers” to “successful”
resolution of the base sequence they project
Base sequences thus tend only to be
produced when there is evident that a
“positive” response will follow
What counts as a “successful” resolution or a
“positive” response? For whom/what? What is
at stake such that this type of interactional
“work” is done to manage it?
à Social solidarity, alignment, and
“preference”
Preference Organization
For pre-sequences (and most other types of
AP sequences), the FPP provides a choice
between two alternative types of response:
◦ go-ahead vs. block
◦ agree vs. disagree
◦ grant vs. reject, etc.
These alternatives are systematically treated
by participants as asymmetrical – “preferred”
vs. “dispreferred” responses
Preferred responses align SPP to course of
action initiated by FPP, and thus affirm social
solidarity between speakers (ex. 4 vs. 5)
Preference organization thus concerns the
relationship between the FPP and SPP
Preference Organization
Preference organization for some selected
action types:
Action
Preferred
Dispreferred
Request
Granting
Rejection
Offer
Acceptance
Refusal
Invitation
Acceptance
Refusal
Assessment
Agreement
Disagreement
Accusation
Denial
Admission
Self-deprecation Disagreement
Agreement
Preference Organization
NB: “Preference,”
“preferred,” and
“dispreferred” refer
to structural
features of the
relationship between
FPP and SPP, and
systematic features
(“turn shapes”) of
responding actions,
NOT psychological
characteristics or
feelings!
Preference Organization
Features of dis/preferred actions:
Preferred actions are:
Immediate (no delay) or slightly early
Simple/unelaborated or “upgraded”
Dispreferred actions have some or all of the
following features:
Delayed (e.g., by pauses and prefaces)
Mitigated, and/or qualified, and/or indirect
Elaborated (e.g., by appreciations, apologies,
accounts, esp. “inability” and “lack of need” –
i.e., “no fault” accounts)
Preference Organization
Features of dispreferred actions:
Delayed (e.g., by pauses and prefaces)
◦ Ex. 6, 7: Pause before response; preface
(“Well”)
◦ Ex. 8: “Tongue smack” (“tch!”) and preface
(“Well”)
Mitigated, and/or qualified, and/or indirect
◦ Ex. 6: Bud stops to add mitigating “probably”;
“not too early” a mitigated form of “no” or “late”
◦ Ex. 8: “don’ wanna make anything definite” a
qualified form of “not yes”
◦ Ex. 9: Rejection never actually articulated
Preference Organization
Features of dispreferred actions:
Delayed (e.g., by pauses and prefaces)
◦ Ex. 6, 7: Pause before response; preface
(“Well”)
◦ Ex. 8: “Tongue smack” (“tch!”) and preface
(“Well”)
Mitigated, and/or qualified, and/or indirect
◦ Ex. 6: Bud stops to add mitigating “probably”;
“not too early” a mitigated form of “no” or “late”
◦ Ex. 8: “don’ wanna make anything definite” a
qualified form of “not yes”
◦ Ex. 9: Rejection never actually articulated
◦ Ex. 10: Qualified “not right now” recognized by
recipient as “basically no”
Preference Organization
Features of dispreferred actions:
Elaborated (e.g., by appreciations, apologies,
accounts, esp. “inability” and “lack of need”
– i.e., “no fault” accounts)
◦ Ex. 6, 8, 9: Accounts (inability accounts in Ex.
6, 9)
◦ Ex. 7, 11, 12: Appreciations and accounts for
refusal (lack of need account in Ex. 7, inability
accounts in Ex. 11, 12)
Preference Organization
Dispreferred actions can be produced in
preferred formats, but doing this is
normatively heard as ”special” in some
way:
Rude or a put-down/”dis”
Funny/strange
Blunt/uncompromising/unequivocal
Etc.
à Features of preference organization can
be used as resources for doing any of
the above! (ex. 13, 14)
Preference Organization
Features of dispreferred actions
foreshadow incipient response and enable
FPP speaker to pre-emptively reformulate
their action:
Ex. 15, 16, 17: Following silence or other
harbingers of a dispreferred SPP, FPP
speakers may add inducements in pursuit of
a preferred SPP
Preference Organization
Implications of preference organization:
Maximizes the production of preferred
responses:
◦ Pre-sequences
◦ Early responses
Minimizes the occurrence and consequences
of dispreferred actions
◦ Delayed responses
◦ Pre-emptive reformulations
◦ Mitigation, qualifiers, indirectness
◦ Appreciations, apologies, accounts
à Promotes actions that contribute to
social solidarity; averts/mitigates those
that don’t (cf. “the problem of order”)
The Analysis of
Conversational Interaction
(Lecture 11: Preference
Organization 2)
Soc 136A/236
Outline for Today
1. Review: Preference Organization
(action-based preferences)
2. Turn Design-Based Preferences
◦ Polarity in Yes/No Questions
◦ Type-Conformity
3. Multiple Preferences
◦ Double-Barreled Actions
◦ Cross-Cutting Preferences
Review: Preference Organization
For pre-sequences (and most other types of
AP sequences), the FPP provides a choice
between two alternative types of response:
◦ go-ahead vs. block
◦ agree vs. disagree
◦ grant vs. reject, etc.
These alternatives are systematically treated
by participants as asymmetrical – “preferred”
vs. “dispreferred” responses
Preferred responses align SPP to course of
action initiated by FPP, and thus affirm social
solidarity between speakers (ex. 5-6)
Preference organization thus concerns
relationship between FPP and SPP
Review: Sequence Organization
Lecture 9: Relationship between pre-sequences
and base sequence
Lectures 10-11: Relationship between FPP and
SPP of base sequence
Lecture 12: Relationship between insert and
post expansions and base sequence
Review: Preference Organization
Preference organization for some selected
action types:
Action
Preferred
Dispreferred
Request
Granting
Rejection
Offer
Acceptance
Refusal
Invitation
Acceptance
Refusal
Assessment
Agreement
Disagreement
Accusation
Denial
Admission
Self-deprecation Disagreement
Agreement
Review: Preference Organization
Note: “Preference,”
“preferred,” and
“dispreferred” refer
to structural
features of
relationship between
FPP and SPP, and
systematic features
of responding
actions, NOT
psychological
characteristics or
feelings!
Review: Preference Organization
Features of dis/preferred actions:
Preferred actions are:
Immediate (no delay) or slightly early
Simple/unelaborated
Dispreferred actions have some or all of
the following features:
Delayed (e.g., by pauses and prefaces)
Mitigated, and/or qualified, and/or indirect
Elaborated (e.g., by appreciations,
apologies, accounts, esp. “inability” and
“lack of need” – i.e., “no fault” accounts)
Review: Preference Organization
Dispreferred actions can be produced in
preferred formats, but doing this is
normatively heard as ”special” in some
way:
Rude or a put-down/”dis”
Funny/strange
Strong/uncompromising/unequivocal
Etc.
à Features of preference organization can
be used as resources for doing any of
the above!
Review: Preference Organization
Implications of preference organization:
Maximizes the production of preferred
responses:
◦ Pre-sequences
◦ Early responses
Minimizes the occurrence and consequences
of dispreferred actions
◦ Delayed responses
◦ Pre-emptive reformulations
◦ Mitigation, qualifiers, indirectness
◦ Appreciations, apologies, accounts
à Promotes actions that contribute to social
solidarity; averts/mitigates those that don’t
Turn Design-Based Preferences
In the previous lecture we focused on
preference organization with respect to
action types and the sequences associated
with them (requests, offers, invitations,
assessments, etc.)
Features of preference organization are also
evident with respect to aspects of turn design
(grammar, prosody, word selection, etc.) of
the FPP.
We will focus today on features associated
with the grammatical design of, and
responses to, yes/no questions: 1) polarity
and 2) type conformity
Polarity in Yes/No Questions
Yes/No questions (those that project either a
“Yes” or “No” response) are known as “polar”
questions
Polar questions almost unavoidably ”tilt toward”
(prefer) a particular response (either “Yes” or
“No,” depending on the grammatical design of
the question)
(Note: This is, in principle, independent from the
preference organizational features of other
actions such questions may be implementing –
e.g., invitations, offers, etc. – more on this later
today!)
Participants systematically orient to these
grammar-based preferences in responding to
questions of this type
Polarity in Yes/No Questions
Evidence:
Ex. 1: Response affirms what speaker can
affirm, rather than producing negative
(dispreferred) response
Response projected (preferred) by polarity of
question treated as “default”
◦ Ex. 2: Ava begins a “Yes”-type response before
replacing it with a dispreferred one
◦ Ex. 3: B initially produces affirmative response
before progressing toward disalignment
◦ Ex. 4: Nan produces multiple aligning
responses and then a disaligning one
◦ Ex. 5 (what is going on here?)
Polarity in Yes/No Questions
Evidence:
Delay treated as foreshadowing dispreferred
response, with FPP speaker changing the
design of the FPP to reverse its polarity,
thereby allowing for aligning response (ex.
6, 7, 8, 9)
Polarity in Yes/No Questions
Evidence:
Delay treated as foreshadowing dispreferred
response, with FPP speaker changing the
design of the FPP to reverse its polarity,
thereby allowing for aligning response (ex.
6, 7, 8, 9)
Heritage et al. (2007) study of formulation of
doctor’s questions in eliciting additional
medical issues:
◦ “Are there any other concerns you’d like to
address during this visit?” (53% answered “Yes”)
◦ Are there some other concerns you’d like to
address during this visit?” (90% answered “Yes”)
Type-Conformity
Yes/No questions project answers of “Yes” or
“No,” but may be answered with something
other than a “Yes” or “No”
Type-conforming responses are those that
conform to the grammatical constraints of
the FPP – for Yes/No questions, responses
with a “Yes” or “No” (or equivalent token)
Non-conforming responses are those that
depart from grammatical constraints – don’t
include “Yes,” “No,” or equivalent token
Participants systematically orient to typeconforming responses as preferred; treat
non-conforming responses as dispreferred
Type-Conformity
Evidence:
Type-conforming responses treat the terms
(presuppositions, agenda, etc.) set by the
FPP as adequate/appropriate (ex. 12, 13)
Non-conforming responses depart from the
constraints of the FPP’s grammatical form to
address matters not contemplated in it (ex.
14, 15)
SPP speaker treats type-conforming response
as committing him to presupposition
embodied in FPP by subsequently challenging
it (ex. 16)
Type-Conformity
Evidence:
FPP speakers may pursue a type-conforming
response if a non-conforming one is provided
(ex. 17)
Type-Conformity
Evidence:
FPP speakers may pursue a type-conforming
response if a non-conforming one is provided
(ex. 17)
Non-conforming responses can be a way of
resisting the question and/or resisting
answering it on its own terms, i.e., a sign of
trouble! (ex. 18, 19)
Multiple Preferences
The same turn/FPP can bring into play more
than one domain of preference organization,
resulting in multiple preferences and thus
multiple constraints for the SPP speaker
◦ Double-barreled actions – more than one
action implicated by a single FPP
◦ Action and grammatical format – multiple
actions implemented by, e.g., Y/N q. format
Multiple preferences can be aligning/
convergent – e.g., ex. 12: Request (action)
implemented through Y/N question (format);
“Yeh” response is preferred for both action
and format (also cf. ex. 19)
Multiple Preferences
Multiple preferences can also be “crosscutting”:
◦ Double-Barreled Actions – more than one
action implicated by a single FPP, e.g.,
informing/“my-side telling” as self-deprecation
(ex. 20)
Multiple Preferences
Multiple preferences can also be “crosscutting”:
◦ Double-Barreled Actions – more than one
action implicated by a single FPP, e.g.,
informing/“my-side telling” as self-deprecation
(ex. 19)
◦ Action vs. Format – actions (e.g.,
pre/invitation, self-deprecation, etc.)
implemented by particular grammatical format
(e.g., Y/N questions) (ex. 6, 9, 21)
The Analysis of
Conversational Interaction
(Lecture 12: Sequence
Expansion)
Soc 136A/236
Outline for Today
1. Review: Preference Organization
2. Sequence Expansion: Overview
3. Insert Expansion
◦ Post-First Insert
◦ Pre-Second Insert
4. Post-Expansion
◦ Minimal Post-Expansion
◦ Non-Minimal Post-Expansion
Review: Preference Organization
For pre-sequences (and most other types of
AP sequences), the FPP provides a choice
between two alternative types of response:
◦ go-ahead vs. block
◦ agree vs. disagree
◦ grant vs. reject, etc.
These alternatives are systematically treated
by participants as asymmetrical – “preferred”
vs. “dispreferred” responses
Preferred responses align SPP to course of
action initiated by FPP, and thus affirm social
solidarity between speakers
Review: Preference Organization
Preference organization for some selected
action types:
Action
Preferred
Dispreferred
Request
Granting
Rejection
Offer
Acceptance
Refusal
Invitation
Acceptance
Refusal
Assessment
Agreement
Disagreement
Accusation
Denial
Admission
Self-deprecation Disagreement
Agreement
Review: Preference Organization
Other types of preference organization:
1. Turn Design-Based Preferences
◦ Polarity in Yes/No Questions
◦ Type-Conformity
◦ (And others…)
2. Multiple Preferences
◦ Aligning/Convergent Preferences
◦ Cross-Cutting Preferences
Double-Barreled Actions
Action vs. Format
Review: Preference Organization
Implications of preference organization:
Maximizes the production of preferred
responses (measures taken by FPP speakers):
◦ Pre-sequences (Lectures 8, 9)
◦ Pre-emptive reformulations (Lectures 9, 10)
Minimizes the occurrence and consequences
of dispreferred actions (measures taken by
SPP speakers):
◦ Design features of responses (Lectures 9, 10)
◦ Insert expansion (today)
Further measures taken by FPP speakers to
deal with SPPs following their production:
◦ Post-expansion (today)
Review: Sequence Organization
Lecture 8: Relationship between pre-sequences
and base sequence
Lectures 9-10: Relationship between FPP and SPP
of base sequence
Lecture 11: Relationship between insert and
post expansions and base sequence
Sequence Expansion: Overview
Example: An invitation sequence:
FPP(pre)à pre-invitation
SPP(pre)à go-ahead (or block)
FPP(base)à invitation
SPP(base)à accept (or reject)
Insert
expansion
Insert
expansion
FPP(post)à deal with unresolved matters
Insert
SPP(post)à response
expansion
Sequence Expansion: Overview
Example: An invitation sequence (see ex. 1):
FPP(pre)à pre-invitation
SPP(pre)à go-ahead (or block)
FPP(base)à invitation
SPP(base)à accept (or reject)
Insert
expansion
Insert
expansion
FPP(post)à deal with unresolved matters
Insert
SPP(post)à response
expansion
Insert Expansion
Two main types of insert expansion:
FPP
1. Post-first insert expansion:
“looks back” to FPP
2. Pre-second insert expansion:
“looks forward” to SPP
SPP
Insert Expansion
Post-first insert expansion:
Deal with trouble in FPP (ex. 2, 3) (More on
dealing with trouble in Lectures 12-15!)
Can serve as challenge/foreshadow
disagreement (ex. 4, 5)
◦ FPP speaker may project dispreferred
response and modify FPP accordingly (ex. 6,
7)
Pre-second insert expansion:
Remove barriers/address contingencies
relevant to production of SPP (ex. 8, 9)
Pos …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
