OBJETIVOS CONCRETOS

Timeline Floor BBC1_MB T_leadtime BBC1_FBS _leadtime BBC1_MB T_gesture BBC1_MBT_Transcript BBC1_FBS _gesture BBC1_FBS_Transcript

00: 17: 05 FBS_F -13 0 HG It's just too difficult for it.

00: 17: 06 -12 1

00: 17: 07 -11 2 +literally erm. HN

00: 17: 08 -10 3 HG Yeah the stuff I've seen it's just two word

erm+

00: 17: 09 -9 4 HG

00: 17: 10 -8 5

00: 17: 11 -7 6 HN Right.

00: 17: 12 -6 7 Right yeah yeah. +metaphors really.

00: 17: 13 -5 8

00: 17: 14 -4 9 So I mean you get like grammatical metaphors

with+

00: 17: 15 -3 10 HG

00: 17: 16 -2 11 HN Yeah yeah yeah. +verbs and stuff.

00: 17: 17 -1 12

00: 17: 18 MBT_F 0 -3 Yeah that's still clever if you can do that. HG

Keys: BBC1_MBT_leadtime =British-British Conversation 1 (British-British conversation) male British tutor‟s leadtime, BBC1_FBS_leadtime =British-British Conversation 1 (British-British conversation) female British student‟s leadtime, BBC1_MBT_gesture=BBC1_MBT‟s gesture, BBC1_MBT_Transcript=BBC1_MBT‟s transcription,

BBC1_FBS_gesture=BBC1_ FBS‟s gesture, BBC1_ FBS _Transcript=BBC1_ FBS‟s transcription, MBT_F=MBT floor-taking, FBS_F=FBS floor-taking,

HN= head nods, HG= hand gestures

Leadtime is displayed as negative numbers when participants are in listener status and as positive numbers when they are in speaker status. Leadtime continues to be incremented until the next floor-taking instance.

4.1.6 Turn-structural episodes

Levison (1992) treats the term episode as a synonym of speech event, which refers to

„socially constituted, bounded, events with “constraints” on participants, setting, and so on‟ (ibid: 69, original author‟s emphasis). In turn, Adolphs (2008) defines an

episode as „the negotiation of a particular discourse function‟ (ibid: 95-96). In this study, episodes refer to recognised patterns in turn management strategies in conversation.

Based on the pilot study in Chapter Three and Ohama (2006), an attempt was made here to establish turn-structural episodes to categorise turn-taking patterns. In the pilot study in Chapter Three, five turn-taking patterns were recognised as shown in Table 4.1.6-1:

173 Table 4.1.6-1 Turn-taking patterns in the pilot study

Pattern A (SS) Pattern B (SS) Pattern C (SS) Pattern D (OS) Pattern E (SS) LS Continuers - Continuers ( Continuers ) -

FG - - - Partner's floor giving -

FS Information receipt tokens

Engaged tokens Information receipt tokens/ Engaged tokens

Convergence tokens Pause/ Discourse markers

LS - - Continuers - -

FT Floor taking Floor taking Floor taking Floor taking Floor taking

Keys: SS=Self-selection, OS=Other-selection, LS=Listenership, FG=Floor giving, FS=Floor seeker, FT=Floor-taking,

These patterns have been defined based on speaker selections and functions of response tokens. In Sacks (1992), two types of speaker selections were noted, namely self-selection (SS) and other-selection (OS) (see Section 2.1.2.1). When a participant chooses himself as a speaker, the case is defined as self-selection. In a case of other- selection, a current speaker nominates the next speaker. In the pilot study, Patterns A, B, C and E are cases of self-selection and only pattern D is other-selection.

Ohama (2006) studied the relationship between turn-structural patterns and response tokens in Japanese conversation, and distinguished seven turn-taking patterns with five variants based on Sacks (1974) and van Lier (1988) as described in Table 4.1.6-2 below:

Table 4.1.6-2 Turn-taking patterns in Ohama (2006) Self-selection Other-selection Turn refusal Turn retaining Turn re-refusal Final turn-taking Cut-in

([+taking], [+direct], [+partner], [+closing], [+self]) ([+taking], [+direct], [+partner], [+closing], [-self]) ([-taking], [+direct], [+partner], [+closing])

([+taking], [-direct], [-partner], [+closing], [+self]) ([-taking], [-direct], [+/-partner], [+closing])

([+taking], [-direct], [+/-partner], [+closing], [+self]) ([+taking], [+direct], [+partner], [-closing], [+self]) (Ohama 2006:46-47, translated by me)

174 for whether the previous turn is a speaker turn or a response token, „partner‟ for whether the previous turn belongs to the partner or not, „closing‟ for whether turn-

taking occurs at TRP, and „self‟ for whether the turn has been self-selection.

From these variables, Ohama identifies seven turn-structural patterns which

have been illustrated in Figure 4.1-1 below. It starts with A‟s turn keeping and one of

the possibilities is the occurrence of B‟s turn-taking after A‟s turn closing, which is

categorised as self-selection. Another possibility is B‟s turn-taking after A‟s turn giving, which is other-selection. The other pattern can be B‟s turn refusal after A‟s turn closing, which is described as turn refusal.

(Ohama 2006:48, translated by me)

Figure 4.1-1 A turn shifting mechanism with seven turn-taking types

When A retains a speaker turn after B‟s turn refusal, this is categorised as turn

175

turn-refusal; and when B takes a speaker turn after A‟s turn refusal, this is described

as final turn-taking. The last type is cut-in, which is described as B‟s cut-in during

A‟s turn keeping in the figure above.

I have revised the turn-taking mechanism and added two other possibilities as

illustrated in Figure 4.1-2 below. One of the additional cases is A‟s turn retaining after

B‟s turn refusal of A‟s turn giving. The other case is B‟s final turn-taking after A‟s

turn giving. These two patterns were derived from the analysis of the current data.

(Adapted from Ohama 2006:48, translated by me)

Figure 4.1-2 A revised version of a turn shifting mechanism

As mentioned above, based on Ohama‟s (2006) model of turn shifting mechanism,

seven turn-structural episodes have been established, placing focus on turn exchanges as shown in Table 4.1.6-3 below:

176 Table 4.1.6-3 Turn-structural episodes

Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Episode 4 Episode 5 Episode 6 Episode 7

A‟s turn closing  B‟s turn-taking A‟s turn keeping  B‟s cut-in

A‟s turn closing  B‟s turn refusal  A‟s turn retaining

A‟s turn closing  B‟s turn refusal  A‟s turn refusal  B‟s final turn-taking A‟s turn giving  B‟s turn-taking

A‟s turn giving  B‟s turn refusal  A‟s turn retaining

A‟s turn giving  B‟s turn refusal  A‟s turn refusal  B‟s final turn-taking

(Adapted from Ohama 2006)

These turn-structural episodes were used in the analysis in the main study, in relation to listenership behaviour recognised in the pilot study.

4.2 Data for the main study

4.2.1 Research data

The data required for the main study was collected at the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University from 2005 to 2007. Two sets of British-British conversation data and two sets of British-Japanese conversation data were video- recorded for the main study. The two British-British conversations were recorded and initially transcribed by the research project members in School of English Studies at the University of Nottingham although annotations including time stamps on these transcriptions were added by me in order to make the transcripts accurate in relation to the use of response tokens. The two British-Japanese conversation data were recorded and transcribed by myself.

There were eight participants, four British tutors, two British students and two Japanese students. The first conversation is referred to as British-British Conversation 1 (BBC1), where a male British tutor (BBC1_MBT) and a female British student (BBC1_FBS) are having a supervision session on her MA dissertation about doctor- patient interactions. The second conversation data is referred to as British-British

177 Conversation 2 (BBC2), where a male British tutor (BBC2_MBT) and a male British student (BBC2_MBS) are having a supervision session on his PhD thesis concerning healthcare language. These two British-British conversations were recorded in the School of English Studies at the University of Nottingham. The third conversation is labelled as British-Japanese Conversation 1 (BJC1), where a female British tutor (BJC1_FBT) and a male Japanese student (BJC1_MJS) are having a tutorial on his assignment essay concerning classroom observation and his MA dissertation on teacher-student interactions in English classes in Japan. BJC1 was recorded during the MA in English Language Teaching course at Nottingham Trent University. The fourth conversation is labelled as British- Japanese conversation 2 (BJC2), where a male British tutor and a male Japanese student (MJS) are having a supervision session on his MA dissertation about English literature in the School of English Studies at the University of Nottingham. The four sets of conversation data are listed in Table 4.2.1- 1 below (also see Table E.1.2-1):

Table 4.2.1-1 Participants for the main study

Participants Supervisions

Tutor Student

British-British Conversation 1 (BBC1) BBC1_MBT BBC1_FBS MA dissertation

British-British Conversation 2 (BBC2) BBC2_MBT BBC2_MBS PhD thesis

British-Japanese Conversation 1 (BJC1) BJC1_FBT BJC1_MJS MA dissertation

British-Japanese Conversation 1 (BJC2) BJC2_MBT BJC2_MJS MA dissertation

The naming rules described here are applied to the report of the analysis and findings in the main study.

178

Four sets of face to face dyad conversation data in the context of „pedagogic-

collaborative idea‟ (Carter 2004), namely MA and PhD supervision at university,

were collected for the main study in the same way as the pilot study.

As shown in Table 4.2.1-2 below, the length of each conversation is about 40 to 60 minutes long. BBC1 and BJC2 are about 40 minutes, and BBC2 is the longest data, which is about 60 minutes. The second longest data is BJC1, which is about 50 minutes. For standardisation of the analysis, the first 39 minutes of data was extracted from each conversation data:

Table 4.2.1-2 The length of the four conversations

The length of time (HH:MM:SS)

Original data Extracted data

British-British Conversation 1 (BBC1) 00:41:37 00:39:00

British-British Conversation 2 (BBC2) 01:00:27 00:39:00

British-Japanese Conversation 1 (BJC1) 00:48:01 00:39:00

British-Japanese Conversation 1 (BJC2) 00:39:01 00:39:00

Limberg (2007) categorised five phases in academic talks: prefacing, opening, outlining, negotiation and closing, and a study can be designed to analyse the use of response tokens depending on these phases. However, the current study does not focus on these conversation phases since all the five phases may not be present in the data since the data comprises excerpts of longer conversations in order to equalize the length. It is therefore not possible to take those into account here. More data of a particular phase in academic talks will be required if the research design is set to examine listenership behaviour in reference to the conversation phases.

179

4.2.2 Data modifications – A review

Data modifications in the main study have been conducted based on the procedures

developed in the pilot study in Section 3.2.2. Firstly, each participant‟s utterances and

gestures were transcribed and time stamped with a multimodal annotation tool, Transana. The annotated data was exported from Transana and combined with the timeline as a primary key by using Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access.

A main table from each conversation with timeline was developed through these processes. A sample of the main table from BBC1 is shown in Transcript 4.2-1 below. Each response token used by participants in the conversation is tagged as either listenership (LS) or floor seeker (FS). Although these terms are from studies by

O‟Keeffe, Carter, McCarthy (McCarthy 2002, O'Keeffe et al. 2007) and Sacks (Sacks

1992), in order to make these definitions simple, I annotated any response tokens used more than 5 seconds before floor-taking as a listenership and less than 5 seconds as a floor seeker.

180