The document discusses conversational exchange, including adjacency pairs, question-answer sequences, and more complex exchanges. It explains that adjacency pairs involve two strongly linked utterances by different speakers, with the first initiating and the second responding. Questions demand either a yes or no answer and constrain the interpretation of the response. Complex conversations consist of a series of exchanges of varying length and complexity. The document also covers turn-taking, with speakers using cues like intonation, pauses, and expressions to smoothly transition turns, and discusses simultaneous speech and interruption.

1. Conversational exchange
Adjacency Pair
Question and answer
Complex and exchange

2. Adjacency Pair
The exchange initiation – response (IR) forms an
adjacency pair: the two strongly linked utterance are proceduced
successively by different speakers, the first initiating and the
second one responding (sack 1967-72).
•shows some examples of adjacency pairs. For greeting-greeting,
the response is reciprocal: for other pairs such as question –
answer. There is usually only one appropriate responses; for
some, such as accusation, there are several appropriate responses.
After assertion, almost any act, including counterassertion, can
follow:
•I like pizza with mushrooms.
• I like pizza with the works.
• Actually, counter-acts seem appropriate for almost all the acts
listed in table 2-3 and perhaps many others.

3. Question and answer
• The question – answer sequence, the prototypical adjacency pair, merits a
someone of its own. Questions are asked usually but by no means always
using yes and interrogative sentences.
• Yes/no question demands either a yes or no answer:
•
Will you marry me?
• The interpretation of the utterance that follows a yes/no question is
constrained: listeners try to interpret whatever follows, even a lack of
response, as meaning either yes or no. To the above question, answer such
as “if my wife agrees to a divorce” perhaps means” No,” while “Will I?” or
bursting into tears may mean “Yes”.
• A yes answer is commoner than a no answer, because the questioner
hypothesizes about what is likely to be the case and formulates a question
in such a way that yes is likely (bald 1980). Most yes responses form whole
utterances by themselves, whereas most no responses are parts of
utterances, reflecting the convention, even the necessity, that disagrement
has to be explained (see fig. 2-2, below, for examples.) yes confirms a
condition known to both parties, whereas a solitary no rejects that
condition, leaving unclear what is actually the case.

4. Complex and exchange
In the following informative dialogue, A’s main goal is to invite B to a
party, but a begins with a presequence, one or more IR pairs that determine the
likelihood that the invitation (request, question) will be accepted (e.g., jacobs
& jackson 1983):
A (I) : Got any plan for the weekend?
B (R) : Not really.
A (I) : do you like pizza?.
B (R) Sure.
A (I): drop your Saturday for pizza and beer.
B (R) : love to.
A long conversation consist of a series of exchange of varrying lenght
and complexity (see fig. 2-2). Some linguists try to write a “generative”
(explicit) grammar for discourse by drawing a flow chart among several local
exchange structures (Fawcett, van der Mije, & Van Wissen 1988). They begin
by labeling each exchange stucture (e.g., “information exchange”). Move
(“response support”), and act (“give yes/no polarity”). I can only wish them
good luck with this formidable task

5. INTERACTIVE SPEECH : TURN TAKING
• Turn Taking
• Simultaneous Talk and Interruption

6. Turn Taking
At a potential place for exchanging a spaeking turn, called a transition
relevance place, the current speakers gives out trun –yielding signals in the
form of a complated clause, accompained by a falling or rising intonation with
a drawled final stressed syllable and silent pause (a period of silence lasting
longer than about 250 ms or 0,25 sec) (sack at al. 1974).
Speakers can use a variety of formulaic expressions to signal their
conversational strategies, in this case, structuring turn taking (Keller 1981):
• May I interrupt you for a moment? (Requesting a turn)
• Let me finish you. (Keeping it)
• And what about you, jack? (Offering a turn)
• I’ll pass on that. (Avoiding it)
With all these cues, turn normally switch smoothly and quickly. But
disruptions in the form of long (often awkward) silence and simultaneous talk
do occur.

7. Simultaneous Talk and Interruption
Simultaneous talking and intteruption may reflect not only the
personalities of the participants but also heightened involvement. In support of
this hypothesis, in the English conversation by the four chinese speakers a
provocative remark by the one participant elicted a rash of utterance from all
other participants at once.
K: Yeah, the car, the cars go. If you ride (a bysicle) on a side, sidewalk who
cares which direction you ride.
D: Nobody cares?
L: Nobody cares.
D: Policemen cares.
This exchange was folllowed by the overlap interruption between C and K
shown above.
So far we have considered the viewes of linguists, sociolinguists, and
philoshopers on principles, maxim rules, regulaties, speaking turn, exchange,
and speech act of coversation. Now we turn to psycholinguists observational
and experimental data on forms of conversation.