Conversation between Three People - Essay Example

Dis Analysis This conversation takes place between three people: Khadija who is aged 13, Ayesha aged 10 and Zaynab who is aged 7. The following analysis examines different linguistic patterns appearing in a conversation of about 58 lines which takes place between these three participants and relates to an incident where the movements of one of the speakers is being questioned. Research which has been carried out in reference to textual cohesion in linguistics has identified the principle of lexical chains, wherein the central theme of a piece of text as well s the major elements interlinking them is identified. In this piece of conversation, the major theme is a dispute between three children, with the younger children Ayesha and Zaynad appearing to unite and take sides against the elder Kahlidja. The major issue is whether or not Khalidja went to her aunt’s house to read the evening prayer to her aunt and whether she was doing her school work on her computer or downloading other materials. In the process of arriving at a resolution of what appears to be a simple issue, the conversation in this instance reveals conflicts arising out of the differences between the conveying of a message by a speaker and its interpretation by a listener. Wardaugh (1985) states that conversation is a social activity, the participants must take each others’ feelings and sensitivities into account if communication is to be successful. They need to be conscious of each others’ needs especially the need not to be offended (Wardaugh,1985:2). In this transcript, there are several instances where participants interrupt each other, and also offend each other. For instance, analyzing the conversational trend shows that the confrontational stance seems to have developed because of the lack of sensitivity of the participants about not offending each other. For example, the conflict has developed because both Zaynab and Ayesha have alleged that Khalidja did NOT go to the mosque, whereas a better conversational approach could have been to pose their doubts about her attendance at a mosque in the form of a question. As Wardaugh (1985) states, the social nature of conversation mandates that all participants should get equal opportunities to speak; in this transcript however, some of the linguistic characteristics that may be noted arise out of the lack of sensitivity of the participants. Zaynab in particular, being the youngest, has been interrupted ever so often; hence he does not have the same opportunities for participation that the others demonstrate in this conversation. The chain of continuity is established through certain words, notably phrases such as reading the namaz, or dad saying something, sleeping at home and using the computer. These represent the cyclical elements that spell out the central theme of this linguistic piece, i.e., a dispute about Khalidja’s movements. Since the nature of the conversation is a dispute, the interruptions and repetitions have produced a pattern of parallelism. The underlying tensions associated with a dispute could result in a trend towards parallelism, because syntactic elements become garbled when tension laces a conversation. There are several examples of parallelism which may be noted in this transcript. For example, at line 5, she gave fees and she started saying.....read to aunty now and again, at lines 41 and 42 if you wanna sleep at their house you can or if you wanna sleep...... This trend is especially noticeable in lines 56 to 58 in connection with the phrase ....cross the road[1].....these lot came I cross the road[2]......why did you lot have to.......cross the road[3]. The same thought is reiterated in several different ways. The first time [1] it is a question, the second time [2] the use of the phrase is a statement in answer to the first question and relates to the speaker herself, the third time it is a question yet again and is posed in the context of the other two participants in this conversation. There are also several instances of repetition within the transcript. For instance, words like really (line 1) yeh yeh (line 4). No no (line 5), I was on the computer (line 35) I rang him up (Lines 27 and 30) and even Baji Nabila (line 17) are just some of the specific examples of repetition occurring in the script. The phrase Dad said that occurs almost four times (lines 23, 25, 27 and 29), thereby indicating that substantial parts of this conversation move in cycles where the participants are not communicating effectively, but rather engaging in repetitive speech patterns that could be caused for two reasons (a) the other parties are not really listening or (b) the speaker feels the need to repeat what is being said because s/he is not being allowed to complete what is being said. Apart from these specific repetitions of words, there is also repetition of assertions, claims and rebuttals which occur throughout the textual matter. For instance, the conversation moves through a cyclical pattern, where the initial accusation about Khalidja not attending the mosque moves into a defence of her movements, ending in accusation being levelled against the other two by Khalidja, who is initially the subject of doubt. As Yule (1996) has pointed out, pragmatics is the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker and the context within which the speaking occurs is very important. As a result, applying pragmatics means examining how the scope of actual communication extends far beyond what is actually said. Examples of this may also be noted in the current transcript of the dialogue between the three young participants. The dialogue reveals that the initial contention of the two younger speakers is actually true; however the acrimonious manner in which the third member, Khalidja responds to it, shows that the way the speakers may have intended to convey their message might not necessarily have been received in the spirit it was intended and the way in which the listener would have interpreted it might have communicated a meaning that made her defensive. The context of the speech is also very important. All of the participants are Muslims, therefore their daily prayers are very important to them and could serve to explain why they are so particular about it and why Khalidja is responding in such a defensive manner. Another significant aspect that is noticeable in the transcript is the defective syntax employed by the speakers. Part of the reason for the grammatical mistakes may be the young age of the speakers and their improper knowledge of English. Another reason could be the underlying tension and conflict that is the subject of the conversation, because this tends to produce a muddling up of the linguistic expression with many interruptions, repetitions and grammatical inconsistencies. In conclusion, it may thus be noted that the transcript which has been provided reveals several linguistic patterns such as parallelism, repetition, and lexical chains, with a liberal sprinkling of syntactic errors. This transcript also typically shows how differences in interpretation of the messages that are provided based upon the differences in the context wherein the conversation occurs, could impact upon the process of communication and produce an outcome that is different from what the purely linguistic meaning of the words would suggest. It is therefore clear that words themselves are not the only factor to be taken into consideration in communication, the contextual aspects and difference sin interpretation will also play a significant role, perhaps more significant than the actual meaning of the words. References: Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976. “Cohesion In English”, Longman. Wardaugh, Ronald, 1985. “How conversation works”, Basil Blackwell Yule, George, 1996. “Pragmatics”, Oxford University Press Read More