Michael and Prinzes Profile and Their Background - Essay Example

?Conversation Analysis Introduction Communication Analysis Communication analysis is defined as describing the important factors influencing communication experience or speech analysis. There are different theories and concepts used to analyse different forms of communication (Larson, 1985, p. 140). This is based on different philosophers, linguists and scientists’ perspectives. According to Littlejohn and Foss, there are several theories all with different concepts. The theories are; theories of the communicator, theories related to the message, conversation, relationship, group, media, organization and culture and society theories (2007, p. 63). Other people such as Stahl (2011, p. 1) and Goldkuhl (2003), among others, have different theories. This essay is an analysis of a telephone conversation between Michael and Prinze, based on communication analysis’ theoretical concepts and features of communication. Michael and Prinze’s Profile and their Background This is a telephone conversation between two close friends; Michael in his early fifties and Prinze in his late forties. One of the participants (Prinze) was observed throughout the recording for body language and gestures. These two interlocutors have known each other for more than ten years and share similar back grounds and interests. Also both interlocutors were born and have spent most of their lives in East London although their cultural and ethnic backgrounds are very different; Prinze is an English speaking cockney born and raised in London with a Pakistani parentage, whilst Michael is a native English speaking cockney. Each conversant is calling from the comfort of their home and from different towns; Mohammed lives in Luton and Michael in East London. Michael is recovering after a shoulder operation, whilst Prinze has just got home after a walk in the park. Both the interlocutors had not spoken or seen each other for more than a couple of months, but there had been regular communication between them by text messaging (SMS). The purpose of the call from Prinze to Michael was to get an update on how Michael was doing and also to discover if he had received the forwarded mail Prinze had sent him earlier. A transcription of the conversation between the two is given in the Appendix. Analysis Based On Theories and Main Communication Features Theories There are different theories of communication and theoretical concepts used in communication analysis. Just as noted Different authors have different views about these theories. Stahl has described nine categories of communication theories as listed by Little John (1999); cybernetics, semiotics, conversational analysis, message reception, socio-cultural approach, message production, symbolic interaction, phenomenological hermeneutics and critical theory (2011, p. 1). Littlejohn and Foss have eight theories; all described in the introduction (2007, p. 63). Goldkuhl (2003), on the other hand, considers the theories in the Language Action Perspective. The author notes that there are two theoretical concepts of communication representation approaches that are within the named perspective. These are; that there are predefined patterns in which communication is always organized as found in conversational analysis, and that language use can be considered as action as found in speech act theory (Goldkuhl, 2003, p. 51). In this case, two of the theoretical concepts will be explained with reference to Prinze and Michael’s conversation. These are; conversational analysis and speech act theory. Conversational Analysis It is the systemic analysis of human talk-in-interactions (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). Conversational analysis’ theoretical concept is based on the view that conversations have predesigned structures. According to Psathas, telephone conversations open with a caller, who in this case, knows whoever he/she is calling. This is then followed by a response from the recipient who may know the caller or not. If the recipient does not know the caller, the next response will be that which questions the identity of the caller (1995, p. 27). In Prinze and Michael’s conversation, the opening clearly indicates that they know each other. It seems Michael identified Prinze’s voice since he did not introduce himself, yet Michael went on to respond to the question asked by his friend. The caller’s first turn should set up the conditional relevance for the speaker’s speech. This is exactly what is observed in the conversation between the two friends (Psathas, 1995, p. 27). Prinze begins with ‘yeah’, followed by a question on how Michael has been doing (line 1). This question or greeting, determined Michael’s answer (line 2). The introductory part of the conversation therefore, has followed the theoretical concept of ‘the caller’s turn determining the recipient’s response’. According to conversation analysis’ concept, conversations have turn-taking organizations characterized by speakers taking turns in talking. Within the turns, there are brief overlaps, transitions that occur smoothly from one turn to the next with no overlapping, and no gaps (Psathas, 1995, p. 34). Relate this to Prinze and Michael’s conversation. Every speaker has his turn to speak. One waits for the other to finish speaking before he replies, asks a question or makes a statement. The conversation is characterized by overlaps although not so many. The overlaps occur at end of a speaker’s turn. An example is line 11 where Prinze’s takes his turn before Michael completes his. This is however short and Michael lets him speak. Another overlap is in line 13; again, Prinze seems to be taking over before Michael completes his turn, but Michael lets the transition go on smoothly. There are also no gaps between the speaker and the caller’s turns. There are two types of turns, the current and the next turn. After the opening statements, the subsequent turns are characterized by the current turn considered a resource for the next turn. It therefore means that understanding of the conversation depends on the utterances (Wong, 2002, 38-39). In the conversation under analysis, it began with Prinze, and it is clear that every Prinze’s turn is followed by Michael’s turn which is a response to the previous utterances. Speech Act Theory: Language use Considered as Action Speech Act Theory explains the use of language by speakers to achieve their intended action(s) and language use by hearers to understand the intended meaning (Jaworowska, n.d,). In communication analysis, in order to determine if a speech act is a linguistic communication, it has to have intent in it. A speech act without intent is not considered a linguistic communication (Mangion, 2011, p. 243). A speech act is the basic unit of communication; it is “the smallest unit of language that carries information about meaning” (Jaworowska, n.d.). Is there linguistic communication in Prinze and Michael’s conversation? For this to be determined, the intentions in the conversation have to be identified. Take examples of; “so how you been doing”, “How is your shoulder /mate yeah I sent ~h by the way the post went out today” and “so it should be there by Monday”, by Prinze. Do these speech acts have intentions? “So how you been doing” is asked to know Michael’s current status considering he had a shoulder operation. There could be different intentions by the caller for example; it could be a way of initiating a conversation. “How is your shoulder /mate yeah I sent ~h by the way the post went out today” is also intended to know how Michael’s shoulder is doing. “The post went out today” is meant to inform Michael about the letters he should receive. Michael had previously sent messages to Prinze about some letters as evidenced in the conversation, and so this is a clear indication of Prinze’s intention to inform Michael about the already posted letters. According to Mangion (2011, p. 244), the intention has to motivate the speech act. From the above, it is clear that the intentions motivate the questions and communications made to Michael. These are just examples of speech acts with intentions, but if the whole conversation were to be analyzed, almost all the speaker’s and the hearer’s speech acts would be considered with intentions, especially because each person’s speech act is determined by a previous speech act. Features of Human Communication How the Features of Human Communication Have Been Illustrated One important feature of communication is that it is oriented towards minimizing the mental processing effort, and maximizing valuable information that an addressee would need, to interpret and act in order to understand the information (Carston, n.d., p. 271). An illustration of this can be seen in lines 35-44 of Prinze and Michael’s conversation. Prinze and Michael have known each other for ten years but, had not seen each other or spoke to each other for more than a couple months. Prinze had a new number and Michael did not know about it. In this conversation, Prinze explains every detail of why Michael should use the new number making it easier for Michael to understand why he should delete the old number. In line 35, Prinze tells Michael not to use his old number suggesting that he has a new one. Michael then responds with a question; “That was your new one/”. In this case, Prinze has used all the valuable information he has to make Michael understand without much mental processing. By saying “don’t use the old number”, he is already passing the message to Michael that, there is a new number, and since he called with a new number, Michael’s only interpretation would be; that is his new number. In line 39 he tells Michael to delete the old number. Michael’s response shows he is not satisfied; he acts like someone with questions in his mind. It also means that Prinze’s statement, did not pass his ‘so what test’ and so needs more clarifications. Prinze then explains why the old number is not the best for communication in line 41. His response in line 42 indicates that he now understood Prinze very well. It is also a way of confirming the bond or the relationship that the two friends have. They had not spoken for some time and Prinze had changed his number. Since Michael was not previously informed about this, (Prinze’s conversation line 35 and 39, and Michael’s line 36 confirms this. Line 35, Prinze says “Don’t send me a text on the old one……….. You know ** new number (1.5)”.) In line 39, Michael is informed about the new number (from the conversation, the assumption is that the new number is that which Prinze has used to call) and told to delete the old one. In line 36, Michael’s unawareness of the new number is revealed when he asks “that was your new one”. Prinze explains everything to make Michael understand that he is still a valued friend. A change of number and not informing a close friend could be interpreted as the ‘uninformed friend’ being a nuisance, no longer a friend, is not valued and so on. To avoid this misinterpretation, Prinze explains everything to his friend and ensures he understands why he was reluctant to inform him. The old number just being in the desk, but still in use means that Prinze still cares and wanted to inform Michael about the new number. He cannot do that unless Michael contact’s him through the old one. One other important feature of communication is that linguistic communication is rich in meaning compared to non-linguistic communication (Carston, n.d., p. 274). The meaning of the words uttered during a conversation can be richer than the assumed meaning. In the above explanation, the conversation between the two people shows that Prinze is telling Michael not to use the old number. Why would Prinze do that? There are different reasons and one of them is explained above, affirming the known feature of communication that linguistic communication is rich in meaning. It could also mean a way of always keeping in touch. There are different interpretations that can be obtained from that conversation, but the real meaning passed to Michael is that ‘Prinze values him’ and he accepted that (line 46 “All right Mate=”. Conclusion This is a telephone conversation between two friends. The main form of analysis therefore should consider the type of communication; a conversation. There are so many communication theories and concepts about communication analysis, but not all these have been used in this essay. The main theoretical concept considered in this case is that it is a conversation and therefore conversational analysis theory was used to analyze it. The results conform to the theoretical concepts which indicate that conversations have predetermined structures. Another theoretical concept considered is the theory of intent of communication. For a speech act to be considered linguistic, it has to have some intentions motivating it. This theory has been used to analyze the conversation under study proving some of the speech acts linguistic; although not all were analyzed. One of the aims of the assignment was to illustrate the main features of communication using the conversation. There are two main features of communication considered and the conversation used to illustrate them. References Carston, R., n.d., A Note on Pragmatic Principles of Least Effort, Retrieved on 3rd December 2011 from: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/publications/WPL/05papers/carston.pdf. Goldkuhl, G., 2003, Conversational Analysis as a Theoretical Foundation for Language Action Approaches? Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2003). Retrieved on 3rd December 2011 from: http://infolab.uvt.nl/research/lap2003/goldkuhl.pdf. Hutchby, I and Wooffitt, R., 2008, Conversation Analysis, 2nd Ed., Cambridge, UK: Polity. Jaworowska, J., n.d., Speech Act Theory, Retrieved on 3rd December 2011 from: http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/lkamhis/tesl565_sp04/troy/spchact.htm. Larson, S., 1985, Communication Analysis: A Survey Research Report, The National Forensic Journal, III, pp. 140-153. http://www.nationalforensics.org/journal/vol3no2-5.pdf. Littlejohn, S. W. and Foss, K. A., 2007, Theories of Human Communication, 9th Ed., Belmont CA: Cengage Learning. Mangion, C., 2011, Philosophical Approaches to Communication, Bristol, UK: Intellect Books. Psathas, G., 1995, Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-In-Interaction, London: SAGE, Stahl, G., 2011, Concepts of Communication in CSCL: Theories Of Communication, Retrieved on 3rd December 2011 from: http://gerrystahl.net/cscl/papers/ch17.pdf. Wong, J., 2002, “Applying” Conversation Analysis in Applied Linguistics: Evaluating Dialogue in English As A Second Language Textbooks1, IRAL 40 (2002), 37–60. Retrieved on 3rd December 2011 from: https://segue.atlas.uiuc.edu/uploads/nppm/Wong2002.pdf. Appendix Transcription of 2 minutes 28 seconds Speech/Conversation Extract Start: minutes?, seconds’ & tenth? of a second 1 P: ~h Yeah (.) so how you been doing/ ` 0? 2 M: ~h well ... not so bad h~ 3?.5? 3 P: yeah I posted = 4?.3? 4 M: = my arm has started to get better, but I’m still in a sling = 4?.7? 5 P: = what’s that?/ yeah (.) __ yeah [how is] your = 7?.0? 6 M: [****] 8?.3? 7 P: = how is your shoulder/ mate yeah I sent ~h by the way the post went out today, I sorry (.) I ** (.) two letters sent out to you (.) one’s a 8?.5? large letter (.) ~h and I had to put a couple of stamps on it and then the other one (..)~h is an A5 letter it’s got like 4 letters inside that’s five letters altogether = 8 M: = alright = 20?.6? 9 P: = coming over to you (..)~h alright/ = 20?.9? 10 M: = Thanks mate, thanks [for that] 22?.5? 11 P: [So it should] be there by Monday I put them first class at twelve midday today its first class post (.)~h 23?.0? 12 M: Oh good (.) __ good (.) __ [good] 26?.9? 13 P: [So I] put (.) # marked on them first class (...) {burp’s} because I put extra stamps on them so they should get 27?.6? there Monday morning (..)~h /?:m/ so how’s your shoulder what’s happened/ 14 M: (...) ~h it __ its /?:m/ slowly-y-y started to-o-o-o (..) get better I think but it’s going to be a long ___ long (..) rehabilitation for it (...) 35?.9? 15 P: really/ [that] = 44?.3? 16 M: = [only] h~ I think it’s gonna come off in three weeks I think (..) 44?.4? 17 P: Yeah-h-h = 47?.6? 18 M: = and then I got to have physio for God knows for how long (.) and I won’t be able to use it properly for a long time (..) 48?.0? 19 P: ~h so-o-o/ = 52?.3? 20 M: = with stitches will still be weak (.) 53?.1? 21 P: so stitches ... coming out in three weeks time are they/ (1) 54?.4? 22 M: no they won’t __ they won’t take the stitches out (.) they’re right inside in __ in the muscle [*********************] 57?.0? 23 P: [Oh what happens to them] they like __ they 1?.00?.9? like sutra’s do they melt/ or do they go away/ 24 M: (1) I suppose they dissolve \ I __ I __ I got no idea mate [**********] 1?.04?.9? 25 P: [they dissolve] / = 1?.07?.5? 26 M: = whatever (.) they’re not going to cut me open just to take the [stitches out] 1?.08?.0? 27 P: [/na:/ __ /na:/] __ /na:/ (..) 1?.10?.1? 28 M: the fucking/ (..) GPs # he’s a fucking/ useless (.) they __ they # he __ he just said rest it (..) 1?.11?.0? 29 P: yeah-h = 1?.15?.2? 30 M: = he just said rest it (..) ~h /?m/ but when I finally got to see the surgeon / (..) he said to me that was absolut # __ that was a huge 1?.15?.7? mistake you know he should of referred (.) __ he should of referred you to a specialist immediately/ (1) 31 P: yeah-h = 1?.26?.7? 32 M: = this fucking stupid \ these GP’s (.) but (.) the surgeon/ really seems like he knows what he’s talking about he __ he’s one of these 1?.26?.9? guys who gives you confidence (.) when you talk to him (..) he seems sharp and on the ball (...) 33 P: yeah-h = 1?.36?.3? 34 M: = and he’s very honest as well and he didn’t try to bullshit me which I really like (..) 1?.36?.5? 35 P: oi mush (.) don’t send me a text message on the old one why you sent ... text message on the old number ... you know ** new 1?.39?.7? number (1.5) you = [***] 36 M: = [That] was your new one/ 1?.45?.5? 37 P: you # yeah you sent it (.) the # well you sent me two text messages regarding sending the post to you = 1?.46?.2? 38 M: = oh ok (..) __ ok (.) right = 1?.49?.7? 39 P: = still the old one you got the new one this is the new one (.) delete the old one (1) 1?.50?.9? 40 M: ok = 1?.54?.9? 41 P: = and I’ve got the old one still here but I don’t use the phone you sent me a message yesterday fourteenth I’ve got two messages on 1?.55?.6? the fourteenth (.) ~h regarding the post but I never saw them until this morning (2) 42 M: oh-h-h right ok = 2?.04?.7? 43 P: = they’re on my other mobile (1.5) 2?.05?.8? 44 M: right = ` 2?.07?.7? 45 P: = I don’t use that mobile so ... just put on [the desk] 2?.07?.9? 46 M: [Ah right] mate = 2?.09?.6? 47 P: = it’s on the desk near the side yeah / (.) ~h I’ll give you a shout on Monday when you get the post (.) I’ll give you a shout on Monday 2?.10?.3? then I’ll come down and give you a nice rub ok/ give you a nice little massage (1) [insi-i-i ___ In] 48 M: [{big sigh} alright mate] = 2?.18?.6? 49 P: = inside thigh = 2?.19?.5? 50 M: = yeah come and see me (.) come se # I’ll love/ to see you\ = 2?.20?.5? 51 P: = yeah now wah # (.) I do [want to see you] 2?.22?.4? 52 M: [actually *******] 2?.23?.1? 53 P: don’t worry (.) I will __ I will come to see you = 2?.23?.8? 54 M: = alright bruv (.) 2?.24?.7? 55 P: alright (.) you take care now = 2?.25?.4? 56 M: = thanks for your call mate [bye] 2?.26?.4? 57 P: [yeah] you take care bye 2?.27?.1? List of Transcription Keys Used: P Prinze M Michael [] overlapping = latching / raising intonation \ falling intonation -- level intonation * unintelligible syllable - unfinished word ~h ingressive oral airflow, an intake of breath h~ egressive oral airflow, pushing air outwards ... ellipsis (.) (..) pause, where as a number of dots within round brackets with each dot representing the time of a single syllable. / / phonemic transcription # false start __ repetition % unfinished phrase < hedge Read More