This document analyzes conversation analysis of naturally occurring conversations. It examines overlaps and gaps as indicators of turn-taking. Transcripts were created following CA conventions and analyzed turn-by-turn. Results found overlaps occurred without negative effects, disagreeing with prior research. Overlaps stimulated conversation rather than being seen as annoying. Actions in language were found to be universal, though further research is needed on cultural and gender differences in conversational interpretations.

1. OGHENETEGA SYLVIA IDOGHO
UP686679
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
22/04/2013
Conversation
Analysis

2. Content
Intro to ease you in
What was done
Interpretation of findings
What we have learnt
References

3. Introduction/Background
 Conversation analysis has been increasing used in associated
subjects such as sociology, anthropology, psychology etc.
(Smith, 2008) due to its ability to examine social interactions.
 According to Seedhouse (2004), conversation analysis is the
investigation of “how participants analyse and interpret each
others actions and develop a shared understanding”
 Conversation analyst observes conversation as an action, not
just a communication. (Smith, 2008 cites Edwards, 1995).
Therefore, the analysis focuses on how people understand
and respond to one another.
 Varied actions occur which enables a smooth conversation
such as…
 OVERLAPS and GAPS.

4. Introduction/Background
 Overlaps are aspects of conversation when more than one
speaker talks.
 Gaps are silences that occur at Transition Relevant Places
(TRP).
 Overlaps and Gaps occur in conversation to indicate turn
taking. However, founders of CA were confused at how little
these factors occur in conversations.
 Research indicates that turn taking is NOT as precise as it is
assumed, and in a free flowing conversation, overlaps occur
(Heldner & Edlund, 2012). Therefore, I decided to investigate
gaps and overlaps which occur during social interaction.
 This aspects of conversation will be explored by studying
naturally occurring data; focus and examine how interaction
is organised i.e. turn taking.

5. Method
 Sources of data
 Transcription of data
 Procedures for analysis and interpretation

6. Method: Source of data
 The extracts used in this analysis derived from a selection
of recordings of naturally occurring communications.
 The participants involved in the conversation:
 A husband and his wife discussing about wrapping garden
plants.
 A man and woman eating while talking about a shed.
 The aspects of conversation I focused on were Gaps and
Overlaps due to its significant value in conversations.
 I decided on elaborate on fragments and turns that might
mean more than they seem.

7. Method: Transcription of data
 The data collected was transcribed using a
repeated playback method and the standard CA
conventions.
 The transcript also followed the Jefferson
transcription conventions.
 Extracts were repeatedly played and listen to
correct any errors and ensure the transcript was
reliable.
 Pauses and gaps were timed using a stopwatch.

8. Method: Procedures for Analysis and
Interpretation
 After selecting the fragments, and transcribing, each
TCU was identified by a gap or an overlap.
 Data was analysed turn by turn basis after
transcription.
 To ensure validity of analysis, the next turn was
assessed to see how the turn taker responded to what
had been said.

9. Results and Discussion
(4.5)
W: <can you get across> to OWEN and ask for (my money)= ((SPP
question))
M: (.8)(coughs) ((No immediate response))
F: I’ll ring up the:(.)man about the shed? ((FPP Question
elaborated))
(1.2) ((Dispreferred))
M: Yes (.8) I shall: ((SPP Answer))
• Woman uses an instructive style to converse with the man-Adjacency pair.
• Short gap before FPP show how to ask the question.
• Gap before SPP indicate trouble in knowing what answer to provide to
prevent a disagreement.
• Long Pause after SPP answer show uncertainty of acceptance

10. Results/Discussion
M: [flask’n anyway (.5) its (coughs) its in=a box in t’car at
the moment and:
F: [is it in a pot? ((FPP question))
M: [it’s no ((SPP answer))
F: [no?
M: [no=which is why I
got’t(close) those ones that were on offer (.9)
errmm: it’s right here (coughs)they were already in a=a nice
pot but there (things were close) [collection
F: [ well=ah don’t think it
matters th (.) I think its probably as well=its not in a pot
cos I think that plant in the garden they
weren’t=couldn’t=won’t have it in’a pot
Dispreferred
SPP rejection and suggestion
• Man requests for advice as they converse-Adjacency
pairs.
• Overlaps are occurring without any –ve offset however,
it shows that there is indecision if transition should
take place.
• Overlap after FPP indicates answer is being sought out
quickly to enable quick solution to question
• Response to FPP is a Dispreferred response.

11. Results/Discussion
 It doesn’t provide empirical evidence to suggest that
overlapping in a conversation would have a negative
effect. Disagrees with Strivers (2009).
 Supports Heldner et al (2010) who discovered that
overlaps occur in a free-flow conversation.
 Are there cultural differences?
 Strivers (2009) found that there was no cultural
variation in Language actions.
 Further research should explore further if there are
gender differences in the way actions performed
during conversations are interpreted.

12. Summary
 CA is the study of transcriptions of recordings from
everyday life occurrences.
 People listen with the intent to reply to show
interest.
 Overlaps and Gaps occur naturally in conversations
to indicate turn taking
 Gaps might occur less to prevent awkwardness.
 Overlaps are seen as annoying but it stimulates
conversation.
 The actions portrayed by language are universal.

13. References
 Edwards, D. (1995). ‘Sacks and Psychology’. Theory and
Psychology, Vol 15 (3) pp 579-597
 Heldner, M. & Edlund, J. (2010). Pauses, Gaps and Overlaps
in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, Vol 38 (4) pp 555-
568
 Ping, Z. (2007). On Preferred and Dispreferred second turns
in Interaction. Sino-Us English Teaching, Vol 4 pp 38-41
 Seedhouse, P. (2004). Conversation Analysis Methodology.
Language Learning, Vol 54 (1) pp 1-54
 Smith, J.A. (2008). Qualitative psychology: A practical
guide to research methods. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
 Strivers, T. (2009). Universal and Cultural Variation in Turn
taking. PNAS, Vol 106 pp 10587-10592