The key interactional structures of CA

As mentioned before, the interactional phenomena of CA have been identified by the

empirically-grounded observations of CA researchers and are at the heart of CA (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). They are basically interactional organisations that interactants rely on in any kind of interaction in order to produce and interpret social actions. Taking turns at talk is about the organisation of switching from one speaker to the next in the talk (Sacks et al, 1974). One or many Turn Constructional Units (TCUs) can be seen in a single turn at talk. A single TCU equals to one single action (e.g., uttering ‘oh’ as a TCU in a single turn might mean that a participant has received new information, thereby implying ‘change of state’ in knowing) (Heritage, 1984a). The completion of a TCU creates a Transition Relevance Place (TRP), which provides a space for another speaker to take a turn. Empirical observations in CA research have revealed that there are three possible options that participants select when a TCU has been completed (Sacks et al, 1974). First, the current speaker continues with holding the floor by producing more TCUs. Second, the current speaker might give a turn to the participant that he selects and nominates in his TCU. Third, someone might jump in and take the turn by self-selecting.

Sequence organisation is also one of the above-mentioned EM principles of CA, which claims that there is ‘accountability’ in any kind of interaction. This notion means that when

participants are asked a question, they provide an answer, thereby ‘one thing leading to another’ or to put it simply, certain actions are followed by others (ten Have, 2007, p.130). For example, an acceptance or decline should occur after an offer. This formulation is called ‘adjacency pair’, which consists of a first pair part (FFP) (e.g., an offer) and a second pair part (SPP) (e.g., an acceptance or decline). Here, we can also talk about the issue of preference. If an offer is accepted, it is a preferred response, whereas if it is declined, it is a dispreferred response. Adjacency pairs, of course, can be expanded, or other pairs can be inserted. Readers

55

are recommended to see Schegloff (2007) for a more detailed discussion of sequence organisation.

Lastly, repair is about the troubles that participants experience regarding speaking, hearing or understanding (Schegloff, 1979). In order to establish mutual understanding in any

conversation, all breakdowns and misunderstandings are repaired by participants (Seedhouse, 2004). This can be done through self-initiation (i.e., self-initiated self-repair or self-initiated other-repair) or other-initiation (i.e., other-initiated self-repair or other-initiated other-repair). It is widely accepted that CA research has always been interested in revealing interactional patterns that occur in ordinary/mundane conversation to examine how the social world is enacted (Drew & Heritage, 1992). However, the investigation of institutional contexts within CA has been drawn attention in the early 1990s and when the interaction in institutional settings have been analyzed, it has been compared to the mundane interaction and as a result, systematic differences regarding the CA interactional phenomena have been observed. For example, turn-taking organisation in a L2 classroom setting has been observed to be different than the one in ordinary conversation (i.e., in classroom talk, it is mostly the teacher who decides who to speak). Repair organisation has also been found to be completely different. That is, in mundane conversation, people mostly perform self-initiated self-repair, but in classroom talk, it is mostly the teacher who initiates repair (i.e., other-initiated self-repair) or who provides the correct answer (i.e., other-initiated other-repair) (Seedhouse, 2004). In addition, the choice of what is repairable in classroom interaction has been found to be completely different when compared to that of ordinary conversation (Seedhouse, 2004). Furthermore, the issue of preference works differently in L2 classrooms, as it is a L2 teacher’s pedagogical agenda guided by the pedagogical goal that determines a preferred or

dispreferred action. Therefore, it can be claimed that applying CA to institutional settings (i.e., applied CA) has revealed that institutions have their “interactional fingerprints” (Heritage, 2004, p.125), which means that particular types of activities within institutions ‘shape’ the organisation of the talk. However, it should be noted that the participants’ talk sequentially unfolds in institutional settings as it does in ordinary conversation. The observed systematic differences stem from the goal-oriented nature of institutional talk (Seedhouse, 2004). As such, it can be claimed that the current study also uncovers the ‘reflexivity’ between the talk-in-interaction and the institutional goal in relation to the phenomena being investigated with an aim to inform the future practice of professional practitioners, as institutional CA studies have this potential to “describe interaction leading to informed action” (Richards, 2005, p.5).

56

In my analysis, the students’ turns were investigated closely by paying special attention to TCUs/TRPs. The teacher’s turn-taking and repair practices and preference organisation were also carefully examined to show the L2 classroom micro-contexts (Seedhouse, 2004). As already mentioned, the data only revealed one micro-context, namely ‘form-and-accuracy’. As such, it should be noted here that the analysis uncovered the ‘reflexivity’ between the talk- in-interaction and the institutional goal in relation to the phenomena being investigated only from one micro-context. This issue will be addressed in details in the Discussion chapter of the thesis and also as a limitation of the study. Another point regarding the context is that the analysis might show different findings regarding the phenomena being investigated when compared to the findings of other studies in different institutional settings (e.g., therapy). This will also be addressed in the Discussion chapter of the thesis.

The previous two sub-sections have summarised the principles and aims of CA and the interactional phenomena of CA explaining how they are related to the current study. The next sub-section will focus on the rationale for choosing CA as the research methodology of the study.