Michael Rosen - Taking Turns in Conversation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06zryhp 
Michael Rosen and linguist Dr Laura Wright discuss how well we judge taking it in turns when we're in conversation. Professor Stephen Levinson has new research on the science behind this, and joins them in the studio for a carefully-calibrated discussion.. He believes that the back-and-forth pattern we instinctively fall into may have evolved before language itself. Levinson's research has found that it takes about 200 milliseconds for us to reply to each other, but it takes about 600 milliseconds to prepare what we're going to say - so we're preparing as we listen. Levinson notes that this is a pattern found across all human languages, and some animal species, and that infants begin taking turns in interactions at about six months of age, before they can even speak. But what's going on when someone seems to get it wrong, to interrupt or talk over the other person?

-'let me finish'; thought it wasn't his dads turn - shows that he didn't like being interrupted
-How adults show people not to interrupt - talking loudly, staring, repeating yourself
-Taking turns in conversation is essential
-Turn taking is actually been around longer than words themselves
-200ms gap between turns - shortest human response (as fast as the blink of an eye)
-Rising intonation is a sign of someone finishing speak - a sign for the next person to speak
-As the first person is speaking, the second person is already thinking about their response (able to do two things at once)
-People turn take around 1500 times a day
-If their is a long pause between turns - their is a problem, can lead to awkwardness etc.
-If their is a negative response, it is harder to reply (takes longer)
-'no' surprises the brain, however after a while, it gets used to it
-Some species turn take gesturally
-Mums and infants (from 3 months) already turn take - vocally or gesturally
-'If you're happy and you know it clap your hands' - response of child is almost instant (clap their hands and laugh for example)
-Collaborative conversation - people share stories and knowledge
-All topics link together
-7,000 different languages, however all turn take

London Transcript Analysis

Three Girls from HullThis conversation is an interview set out with a question and answer structure. The interviewer is asking the interviewees what they think of London. There are 4 participants in the conversation (including the interviewer) – three of which are female. Firstly, the interviewer says ‘Hello’ and all three girls reply by saying ‘Hi!’. This use of colloquial language relaxes all participants as this language is used in everyday language so they are used to hearing it – it sets an informal register for the rest of the conversation. The fact that the ‘Hi’ uses an exclamation also highlights the fact that the girls are perhaps excited to be in London and are enthusiastic about the city; suggesting that the interview will be a good one. The participants use adjacency pairs throughout the conversation – they take it on turns to speak. This suggests that the participants are all fully engaged in the conversation and there are no moments where no one was speaking. This may be due to the fact that the three girls were close friends and also again, because they are excited.

Firstly, the interviewer asks ‘So, where are you all from?’ – the fact that he uses an interrogative sets the conversation and gives the girls no reason not to reply; as he is asking them a question. The interrogative starts with a discourse marker, perhaps to highlight the fact that he was about to ask them a question and he wanted them to reply seriously. The conjunction choice of ‘so’ emphasises the fact that the interviewer does really want to know more about the girls. The interrogative is also an example of phatic talk; perhaps used by the interviewer firstly, to relax the girls and make them feel more comfortable to participate in the conversation. The girls reply to the question with ‘Erm, Hull’. The girls use a voiced pause here, which is a typically female feature of speech. It shows that maybe they feel slightly pressured and maybe they assumed that the question was going to be harder than it turned out to be; so it came across as if they had to think hard about where they lived.

Furthermore, the interviewer moves on and asks, ‘Hull? Ok, so how long have you been in London?’. The blonde girl then replies by saying, ‘We came yesterday’. The fact that she replied for the other girls, suggests that she is the most confident out of them. Also, when watching the transcript, when the interviewer asked the question the other two girls looked at the blonde girl as if to signal to her to answer it; perhaps suggesting that the other girls slightly rely on the blonde girl? This paralinguistic feature plays a big part in analysing how the girls represent themselves in conversation. The brunette girl seems to have the least turns speaking in the whole conversation (2 times in total) and the only times she does really speak are when overlapping the other girls. For example, the blonde girl says ‘It’s really busy’ and the brunette girl overlaps by saying ‘busy’. This suggests that the brunette girl may be insecure and hides behind others slightly in conversation – however, this may only be due to the fact that she is being interviewed and feels slightly pressured.

Carrying on from this, throughout the girls do tend to use overlaps – and very few interruptions. This highlights the fact that the girls know each other well and are sort of in a sense finishing each other’s sentences; strongly showing the relationship between them. Further on in the conversation, the interviewer says, ‘So, it’s better here than it is in Hull, is it?’. The use of a tag question suggests that he was just trying to keep the conversation going and it highlights the fact that he is interested in the girl’s opinions – reassuring them of this also.

Later on in the transcript, the interviewer asks, ‘Why? What’s wrong with the tube?’ and the girls reply with, ‘It’s too stressful’, ‘It’s too hot and busy’ and ‘and grimy’. This sense of taboo language and slang may be an indicator of the age of the participants. The adjective ‘grimy’ suggests the girl’s sociolect and perhaps highlights where they are from – it suggests they have the sociolect of the younger generation.

Finally, the transcript ends with the interviewer asking ‘Anything else to say to the people of the world?’ and the girls reply with ‘Come to London!’ and ‘Hiii! Come to Hull to go out with us’. This suggests the personality of the girls slightly – they come across as excitable and friendly. Overall, the conversation flows fairly well as there are no pauses throughout the whole transcript – the participants continued to turn take throughout. The features the girls use are fairly expected also as voiced pauses and overlaps are seen as typically female.

A Couple from the USAThis conversation is between an interviewer interviewing a couple from New York City in the USA. It is set out with a question and answer structure – with adjacency pairs throughout. The USA man seems quite patriotic and seems to have power over the conversation. Unlike the women who only says two things throughout the whole conversation.

Firstly, the interviewer asks ‘Hello. So, where are you from?’ and the USA man replies with ‘We’re from the good old USA, the biggest city in the world. New York…’. This suggests that the man, much like many other Americans is extremely patriotic. The superlative adjective ‘biggest’ is used by the man to emphasise how big his city which he lives in is, but to also almost show off about it; it highlights how proud he is of his home city. However, after this the interviewer replies and says, ‘oh, amazing’ but the USA man replies with, ‘but it cannot compare to London’ and he continues by saying, ‘I wanna just express our love for England’. The use of elision here with the lexis, ‘wanna’, shows where the couple are from and highlights their American accents. The noun, ‘love’ emphasises not only how enthusiastic the American man is for his own country, but for England too.

Furthermore, throughout the transcript, it is clear to see that the USA man, overpowers his wife in conversation; she sits back and lets him speak. This may be perhaps to do with gender? However, it could also just be about his personality; he comes across as enthusiastic and very friendly. He also uses a first person plural – ‘we’ve’ almost speaking for her in a sense. This contraction is significant as it shows the power the man has over the women. As well as this, later on in the transcript, the woman has a chance to speak so she says, ‘A wonderful experience’. However, a second later the man starts to speak and repeats exactly what she had just said – ‘A wonderful experience’. This suggests that maybe he felt a lack of power at that point and therefore repeated what she said to re-gain that power he originally had. By saying it after her, he had the final say.

Comparing this transcript to the one with the three girls, it is clear to see that interviewer has changed his language and the way in which he speaks. In the first transcript, he seemed more confident as he asks many questions such as ‘So, what do you think? What’s London like?’ and ‘Why? What’s wrong with the tube?’. Where as in this transcript he seems to be just replying to the man – as previously stated the USA man seems as though he likes to be in power. The interviewer in this transcript perhaps has a lack of quantity as he replies mostly with one word answers such as ‘Excellent’ and ‘That’s great’. This may be due to the fact that he feels quite intimidated by the man.

Overall, it is clear to see that the USA man is very confident and therefore he was able to have a sense of power over the conversation throughout – even over the interviewer. Towards the end of the transcript, the man even changes the subject himself with the use of discourse markers such as ‘now’ and ‘well’. The interviewer seems to have a lack of power towards the end shown though the use of his un-fluency features such as, ‘Err… it... it… I’m not sure’ – this use of hesitation highlights the fact that the interviewer perhaps feels slightly intimidated.

Michael Rosen - The Top 20 Words in English

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06z2pmp 

Michael Rosen and Dr Laura Wright guide us through the top 20 words in English. Not the best or most popular (that would include tentacular, ping-pong and sesquipedalian (look it up - it's a cracker). Plus a lot of swearing. No this is the 20 most commonly used. It's actually quite a boring list - full of 'And', 'I', 'of' etc - but look a little closer and it tells you all about the structure of language. The little words you really can't do without that glue all the other ones together.

-No nouns, very few verbs.
-Top 5; the, be, to, of, and

-And is said and comes out as 'n'

-These are the very frequent items that we use, that are entrenched in our brains -you process them faster; don't realise they are happening - they hold our language together.

-Nouns and verbs - content words (words with meanings)
-Grammatical words - 't' 've' 'n' 'that' 'which 'when' (words that hold our language together)- without these grammatical words, there would be no sentences; nothing would make sense

-Google; won't search grammatical words .e.g. 'language and literature' - wouldn't search 'and'

-Context changes meanings

-Pharrel Williams - Happy; sounds weird without grammatical words and only content words (they make sentences make sense)

-50% of our words are nouns, 21% verbs, 15% adjectives 

-Top 20 - exclusively old English (anglo saxons) 

-Blogs - informal - speech-like; 'internet-talk'

-Pop song lyrics - items that come up frequency; top ten - 'i' 'me' 'my' - unlike spoken and written language - very ego-centric - 'love' 'make' 'baby' 'sad' 'alone' 'rain' 

Spoken Language Analysis

In this transcript, the two girls are talking about various different topics, including what subjects they are studying, their pets, what they want to do at university, where they are from and how many siblings they have. As there are only two participants in the conversation, we can see that throughout, the participants are using adjacency pairs – a form of turn taking. This means that the conversation flows nicely and there is no awkward silences or times when a participant doesn’t realise that it was there turn to speak. For example, participant number 2 says ‘I have three step brothers as well’ – followed by a laugh, signalling to participant number 1 to speak, so she reply’s with ‘oh my god, no way!’. Another feature that the girls tend to use throughout is the clever use of intonation – the rise and fall of their voices at the end of an utterance. They tend to rise their tone of voice at the end of what they are saying to signal to the other participant that it is their turn to speak.

Firstly, the conversation starts off with one of the girls asking ‘So, what subjects do you take at college?’. This utterance starts with a discourse marker – to set a new subject of conversation or to kick start the conversation off. It may also be a sign of gender as females tend to use conjunctions such as ‘so’ in conversation to come across as more friendly and also perhaps more relaxed. This utterance is also a form of phatic talk, also known as ‘social gel’, meaning that the participant is only really asking the question as something to talk about. The fact that she uses an interrogative also means that it is easier for the second participant to reply; avoiding any awkwardness – something that females tend to try and avoid in conversation.

Furthermore, throughout the whole conversation, the girls tend to use overlaps; not interruptions. This suggests that the participants are quite relaxed with each other and are genuinely enjoying and are interested in the conversation. For example, participant number 2 says ‘yeah, I have a dog’ and participant number 1 overlaps by saying ‘aww, I love dogs’. Although mostly throughout the conversation it seems to be flowing, at some points there are signs of a lack of quantity from participant number 1. This is shown as she says ‘yeah, yeah’, although this could be seen as a sign of back channelling, after she follows it with a pause, causing participant number 2 to ask an interrogative; ‘so, do you have a job?’. This suggests that perhaps participant number 2 is more confident in taking part in the conversation. As she feels as if she should use a discourse marker followed by an interrogative to help move the conversation along. Although the participants use discourse markers and change the topic of conversation, there is still a sense of chaining throughout– all the topics link and the conversation flows and makes sense; it is all relevant.

Although at this point, participant number 2 seems to come across as more confident in the conversation, she tends to use non-fluency features such as false starts and hesitations. For example, ‘-it- - it was alright I guess’. This may show a sense of insecurity in the participant and perhaps she loses her confidence as the conversation moves along. Perhaps due to participant number 1 using a lot of back channelling and maybe she thinks that she is speaking too much?

Throughout the transcript, it is clear to see that the participants use elision and non-standard grammar. For example, they use lexis such as ‘lotta’, ‘wanna’ and ‘kinda’. This may be a sign of accent and where they are from, however perhaps it may be a sign of sociolect – it is simply the language of teenagers. The fact that the girls use elision in the conversation suggest that they are of the same class and have the same power in the conversation – they don’t feel pressured to speak differently to how they normally do. As well as the use of elision, the participants also use slang and colloquial language; they tend to use an informal use of their lexis. For example, ‘yeah, it was pretty sick’ and ‘yeah duhh’. The lexis ‘sick’ is used for a different meaning than usual – she means that it was good rather than what connotations the word usually has. This also may be a sign of sociolect and also is just a sign that the participants are quite laid back and aren’t really worrying if what they are saying is grammatically correct or not. 

As previously stated, the girls tend to use back channelling throughout, such as ‘yeah, yeah’. As well as this feature, the participants also tend to use tag questions at the end of their utterances. For example, ’36 or something, isn’t there?’. This shows that the participants are female as females typically tend to look for reassurance and agreement in conversation. The use of lexis such as ‘same!’ also shows that the girls are agreeing with each other and this helps the conversation flow nicely throughout. The fact that this participant also uses an exclamation shows that she is enjoying the conversation and is excitable because both participants have the same opinion.

Overall, the conversation flows throughout, despite the lack of quantity in some areas. The participants use features which are typically female, such as back channelling and the use of tag questions which would be expected and also their sociolect shows throughout with their use of informal lexis and colloquial language. The conversation flows with the use of turn-taking and it is clear to see that the participants enjoyed the conversation as they used overlaps throughout. The fact that they used overlaps and not interruptions is also another sign that the participants were females and shows that they are polite; not one of them was over confident. 

Eight things I wish i'd known before starting my A-levels

http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2016/jan/11/eight-things-i-wish-id-known-before-starting-my-a-levels

Interesting Articles and Summaries

1. Step away from your phone: the new rules of conversation-http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/28/step-away-from-your-phone-the-new-rules-of-conversation

In this article it states and creates a debate on the fact that face to face conversation is slowly dying and the use of mobile phones is getting more and more normal in everyday life along with words and phrases such as 'selfie'. Also apparently now teenagers engage in a practice called 'phubbing', where you maintain eye contact with someone whilst texting another. The article states that people don't like to feel sad, awkward, stressed or being put on the spot and therefore instead of confrontation and conversation, people turn to the digital world to hide from the outside world - their mobile phones. This is why therefore, Sherry Turkle suggests that as parents we should have certain times where children have 'no screens allowed' otherwise, the next generation will grow up with minimal social skills and abilities.

“Because we don’t want that first feeling of sad, we push it away with our phones. So you never feel completely happy or completely sad. You just feel kind of satisfied with your products. And then… you die.”

2. How to talk to anyone: the experts' guide- http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/28/how-to-talk-to-anyone-the-experts-guide

In this article Karen Holford expresses how she thinks you should approach and communicate with children and teenagers. She says that you should ask them specific questions so that they believe you're interested as if you just say 'How was your day?' they don't see how you could be possibly interested. Therefore you ask more specific questions like 'What was the best part about your day?'.

Language and Gender Essay

Text C, below and on page 5, is an extract from a conversation between two men, Tony and Pete. They are discussing a friend and what makes people typically English. Table 1, on page 5, reports how many times some words and phrases were used in single-sex conversations of the same length.

- Analyse how Tony and Pete use language in Text C to convey their thoughts and feelings.
- Referring to Text C, Table 1 and your own studies, how far do you agree with the view that men's language use is different from women's?   (Transcript and Table were provided)

Language and gender is an ever increasing hot topic for linguists to study. This topic is very controversial and is the source of many different and interesting debates. The main debate considering language and gender is the theories of dominance, deficit and difference. The dominance theory is an approach whereby females are seen as the subordinate group whose difference in use of language is a result of male power and also possibly the effect of patriarchy, not only through language but also society. The deficit theory is similar to the dominance theory in a sense that males have power over females. This theory defines the male language as the norm and presents females language as deficient. The difference theory is the approach in which males and females belong to different ‘sub-cultures’ as they have been told to do so by society since childhood. The question is do males and females actually speak differently? And if yes, why they do? And is it biologically or socially determined? 
Furthermore, looking at the transcript provided, we can see that the conversation taken part by males is a typically female conversation when taking into consideration the 3D’s theory. This is because the males participating in the conversation are using the politeness features that we would expect females to use, such as; fillers, voiced pauses and back channelling. This contradicts what is stated in the table of data provided as it suggests that women use voiced pauses and fillers such as ‘I mean’ and ‘sort of’ much more than men do. However, looking at the transcript, the two males participating consistently use these features and many other features which are said and have been researched to be typically female.  

Looking at the transcript, if the names of the speakers weren’t provided, we would assume that the participants are female. This is because throughout, Tony and Pete use language features that we would classify as ‘typically female’. For example, throughout the transcript they use voiced pauses and fillers such as ‘er’ and ‘sort of’ suggesting that the speakers are perhaps uncertain of what they are saying or just thinking about what the right thing to say is. However, males are supposedly dominant in conversation yet this would suggest otherwise. As well as using voiced pauses and fillers the participants also tend to use back channelling, for example Pete says ‘yeah, yeah’ overlaying what Tony is saying. Back channelling is seen as a typically female feature of speech as it is said that females look for agreement and reassurance in conversation, whereas males should seem sure in what they are saying – they should dominate. 

The dominance theory states that the difference in the way in which males and females speak is due to female subordination and the male power that exists over language and the whole of society – we live in a patriarchal society; a society run by mainly men. The theory of dominance was explored by Zimmerman and West (1983). Their conclusion was based on a short study of male conversation which showed that in mixed-sex conversations, men are more likely to interrupt than women. They go on to state that from their research it is clear to see that men are dominant and are attempting to show their power through conversation. Geoffrey Beattie however challenges what Zimmerman and West found and questioned; why do interruptions necessarily mean dominance? Beattie stated that interruptions can arise from other sources – such as signs of interest and involvement. From the transcript provided, we can see that Beattie’s theory applies. This is because the way in which the two males are speaking doesn’t suggest that they are competing for power, but they are showing a sense of interest into the conversation and what each other are saying.

Dale Spender is another linguist who studied the dominance theory. She is the author of the book ‘Man Made Language’ (1980). In this book, she refers to language as the norm and her own idea of patriarchal order. She comes to the conclusion that is it very difficult to challenge this power system, since the way we think of the world is part of, and reinforces this male power.

In contrast, Robin Lakoff explored the deficit model approach. In 1975, she brought out a book called ‘Language and Women’s Place’ in which she published a list of controversial basic assumptions which she believes constructs the female language.  Among this list, she claimed that women use politeness features such as hedges, tag questions, super polite forms and back channelling much more often than men. As well as this, she stated that women apologise more and speak less frequently. But isn’t how often someone speaks in conversation to do with their personality rather than their gender? Pamela Fishman challenges Lakoff’s findings in her book ‘Conversational Insecurity’ (1990). Fishman looks at questions as an attribute of interaction, not a sign of insecurity and doubtfulness. Fishman states that women ask questions because of the power of these and not because of their personality weaknesses. 

The difference theory is one that has been explored by Deborah Tannen. Tannen published a book called ‘You Just Don’t Understand’ (1990) which she summarised into a series of six contrasts, such as; ‘Status VS Support’ and ‘Information VS Feelings’. The contrast ‘Status VS Support’ suggests that men have grown up in a world where language is competitive – so they do everything in their power to dominate a conversation. However, for women, conversation is a way to gain confirmation and support for their ideas. The data shown in the table supports this contrast as the way in which the women used voiced pauses and fillers such as ‘I mean’ and ‘Well’ more often suggests that they are looking for agreement.  The contrast ‘Information VS Feelings’ suggests that the male’s viewpoint is taken much more seriously than the females. As well as this, it suggests that men enjoy giving information as it makes them feel more dominant, whereas women prefer to express their feelings based on a viewpoint or certain information they have been given.

Deborah Cameron is another linguist who investigated the topic of language and gender. She says that wherever and whenever the matter has been investigated, men and women face normative expectations about the appropriate mode of speech for their gender. As well as this, she states that women have been taught by society how to speak ‘properly’ and not only this but how to dress properly and other ‘feminine’ kinds of behaviour. Cameron wrote the book ‘Verbal Hygiene’ in 1995. She suggests that Verbal Hygiene is the only way to make sense of the English language and it also represents a symbolic attempt to impose order on the social world.

In conclusion, when we consider all these theories, we can see that there is no right or wrong answer about the way that males and females speak and if they do indeed speak differently. As well as all the linguists that I have explored, there are many linguists who strongly disagree in the fact that males and females speak differently – they believe that there is in fact very little difference in their use of language. For example, we can look at the theory of Janet Hyde. She states that ‘where there are differences, they are due to other contextual factors, such as; education, occupation, age…’. As we know very little about the contextual features of the transcript and the data shown in the table, it is very difficult to come to any conclusion that these language features are completely reliant on gender. Overall, it is very hard to decipher if differences do exist in the language of males and females. Like stated at the start, we need to ask the question - do these differences (if any) exist because of biological or social factors?