 |
Conversational Analysis of Chat Room Talk PHD thesis by Dr. Terrell Neuage University of South Australia National Library of Australia. THESIS COMPLETE .pdf / or
THESIShome ~ Abstract.html/pdf ~ Glossary.html/pdf ~ Introduction.html/pdf ~ methodology.html/pdf ~ literature review.html/pdf ~ Case
Study 1.html/pdf~ 2.html/pdf~ 3.html/pdf~ 4.html/pdf~ 5.html/pdf~ 6.html/pdf~ 7.html/pdf~ discussion.html/pdf ~ conclusion.html~ postscipt.html/pdf~ O*D*A*M.html/pdf~ Bibliography.html/pdf~ 911~ thesis-complete.htm/~ Terrell Neuage Home
Acknowledgements
Return to Chapter two Thursday, 29 November 2001
METHODOLOGY –
approaches to analysing Astrology 'chat'
1.
Development of a protocol of a transcription methodology in
case study 2 .
2.
Discourse structures in Astrology 'chat' using speech
Act (SA) theory
The protocol I will use in this chat
room is similar to what was used in chapter 1.
I will look at words written to discover how a seemingly incoherent
conversation is able to continue. We
use grammar in what is loosely a sentence when we speak to one another. In a chatroom not only do we understand one
another with very few words but we understand and continue the conversation
with misspelt words as well as non-words made up of abbreviations[i],
jargon and symbols. If and when someone
is able to understand what is being said then they are in a position to
respond.
|
A/ |
greetings or salutations |
|
B/ |
statement- open noone in particular, ever who is in the chatroom |
|
C/ |
statement - to someone named or previous (earlier) speaker |
|
D/ |
answer - to someone named or previous (earlier) speaker |
|
E/ |
answer - open - to ever who is in the chatroom |
|
F/ |
question - open - to anyone - ever who is in the chatroom |
|
G/ |
question - to someone specific or previouis (earlier) speaker |
|
?/ |
undetermined or not classifiable by one of the criteris above |
|
** |
uses abbreviations such as lol |
|
**/ |
uses emoticons in places of words or identify |
|
#/ |
new thread (if a particular thread (direction of talk) |
2. Discourse structures in Astrology 'chat' using speech
Act (SA) theory
In my discussion in chapter two I will focus on Speech Act Theory.
Austin's
(1962) famous How to do things with
words showed that we use language to accomplish actions, and not just to
make true or false statements.
His
"performative analysis" identified particular verbs and sentences
which we use to perform acts with social and interactional consequences
Searle
(1969, 1975) developed
Locutionary
acts: referring,
predicating, negating, subordinating
Illocutionary
acts: naming,
promising, apologizing, congratulating
Perlocutionary
acts: persuading,
intimidating, incriminating
Speech
act classification (illocutionary acts)
Declarations are
those kinds of speech acts that change the world via their utterance.
a. Priest:
I now pronounce you husband and wife.
b. Referee:
You're out!
c. Jury
Foreman: We find the defendant guilty.
Representatives
are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker believes to be the
case or not.
a. The
earth is flat.
b. Chomsky
didn't write about peanuts.
c. It was a
warm sunny day.
In using a representative, the speaker makes words fit the
world (of belief).
Expressives are
those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They express
psychological states and can be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes,
joy, or sorrow.
a. I'm
really sorry!
b.
Congratulations!
c. Oh, yes,
great, mmmm, wow!
Directives are speech acts speakers use
to get someone else to do something.
a.
a.
Give me a cup of coffee.
b.
b.
Could you lend me a pen, please?
c.
c.
Don’t touch that.
Commissives are speech acts which
commit speakers to a certain course of action.
In using a commissive, the speaker undertakes to make the world fit the
words.
a.
a.
I’ll be back in a minute.
b.
b.
I’m going to get it right next time.
c.
c.
We won’t ever do that again.
Felicity
conditions on speech acts
Felicity
conditions must be met for speech acts to be successful
Generally: Speaker and addressee must share a
common language
Speaker must make
utterance understandable
For
apologizing: Speaker has caused Addressee
harm or trouble
Speaker feels
sorry about it and seeks exoneration
For
requesting: Some situation to be altered
Addressee can
perform the act
Speaker has
some right to ask Addressee to do it
Felicity
conditions and Indirect Speech Acts
Speakers
can perform speech acts indirectly by mentioning felicity conditions
Thus,
a speaker can apologize indirectly by saying:
I feel sorry for causing you trouble
Please
forgive me for causing you trouble
Or
for minor offenses, just: Sorry.
Excuse
me.
And
a speaker can make an indirect request by saying:
The door is open.
The
door needs to be closed.
Can
you close the door?
I
demand the door be closed.
But
what about:
Were you born in a barn?
There’s
a draft in here
Such
utterances might count as indirect requests to close the door as well, but they
don’t relate to the felicity conditions in any regular way
Aristotle wrote that ‘every
sentence is significant… but not every sentence is a statement-making sentence,
but only those in which there is truth or falsity…’[ii]
interlocutors
in synchronous dialogue
To
analysis of astrotalk
chatroom