Hubbry Logo
Conversation analysisConversation analysisMain
Open search
Conversation analysis
Community hub
Conversation analysis
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Conversation analysis
Conversation analysis
Conversation analysis
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Sociology
Key themes
Perspectives
Branches
Methods
Major theorists

1800s: Martineau · Tocqueville · Marx · Spencer · Le Bon · Ward · Pareto · Tönnies · Veblen · Simmel · Durkheim · Addams · Mead · Weber · Du Bois · Mannheim · Elias

1900s: Fromm · Adorno · Gehlen · Aron · Merton · Nisbet · Mills · Bell · Schoeck · Goffman · Bauman · Foucault · Luhmann · Habermas · Baudrillard · Bourdieu · Giddens
Lists
Part of a series on
Linguistics
General linguistics
Applied linguistics
Theoretical frameworks
Topics
Portal

Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction that investigates the methods members use to achieve mutual understanding through the transcription of naturally occurring conversations from audio or video.[1] It focuses on both verbal and non-verbal conduct, especially in situations of everyday life. CA originated as a sociological method, but has since spread to other fields. CA began with a focus on casual conversation, but its methods were subsequently adapted to embrace more task- and institution-centered interactions, such as those occurring in doctors' offices, courts, law enforcement, helplines, educational settings, and the mass media, and focus on multimodal and nonverbal activity in interaction, including gaze, body movement and gesture. As a consequence, the term conversation analysis has become something of a misnomer, but it has continued as a term for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of interactions. CA and ethnomethodology are sometimes considered one field and referred to as EMCA.

Conversation analysis should not be confused with other methods of analyzing conversation or interaction, such as other areas of pragmatics and discourse analysis.[2]: 9 

History

[edit]

Conversation analysis was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson.[3]: ix–lxii  Sacks was inspired by Harold Garfinkel's ethnomethodology and Erving Goffman's conception of what came to be known as the interaction order,[4] but also a number of minor sources of contemporary influences such as the generativism of Noam Chomsky and its focus on building an apparatus.[3]: xxi, xxxvi  The speech act theory of John Searle was a parallel development rather than influencing or influenced by CA.[3]: xxiv  Today CA is an established method used in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology, and works alongside related approaches such as interactional sociolinguistics, interactional linguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology.

Method

[edit]

Conversation analysts typically start by gathering audio or video recordings of real life encounters, which they transcribe using a detailed system pioneered by Gail Jefferson. Generalizations are built up through close examination and interpretation of specific encounters with an eye towards trying to uncover the methods the member are using,[5] often from different interactions with different people, but some studies also focus on a single-case analysis.[6] Crucially, the method uses the fact that interaction consists of multiple participants and that they make sense of each other, so the method proceeds by considering e.g. how one turn by a specific participant displays an understanding of the previous turn by another participant (or other earlier interaction). This is commonly referred to as the next-turn proof procedure[7] even though proof is not to be taken literally. Research questions revolve around participants' orientation, that is, what features (linguistic or other) that cues people to respond in certain ways and influence the trajectory of an interaction. A key part of the method are deviant cases in collections, as they show that when a participant does not follow a norm, the interaction is affected in a way that reveals the existence of the norm in focus.[5] Sacks spoke of 'noticeable absences' in his lectures.

The data used in CA is in the form of video- or audio-recorded conversations, collected with or without researchers' involvement, typically from a video camera or other recording device in the space where the conversation takes place (e.g. a living room, picnic, or doctor's office). The researchers construct detailed transcriptions from the recordings, containing as much detail as is possible.[8][9]

The transcription often contains additional information about nonverbal communication and the way people say things. Jeffersonian transcription is a commonly used method of transcription[10] and nonverbal details are often transcribed according to Mondadan conventions by Lorenza Mondada.[11]

After transcription, the researchers perform inductive data-driven analysis aiming to find recurring patterns of interaction. Based on the analysis, the researchers identify regularities, rules or models to describe these patterns, enhancing, modifying or replacing initial hypotheses. While this kind of inductive analysis based on collections of data exhibits is basic to fundamental work in CA, it has been more common in recent years to also use statistical analysis in applications of CA to solve problems in medicine and elsewhere.

While conversation analysis provides a method of analysing conversation, this method is informed by an underlying theory of what features of conversation are meaningful and the meanings that are likely implied by these features. Additionally there is a body of theory about how to interpret conversation.[12]

Basic structures

[edit]

Conversation analysis provides a model that can be used to understand interactions, and offers a number of concepts to describe them. The following section contains important concepts and phenomena identified in the conversation analytical literature, and will refer to articles that are centrally concerned with the phenomenon. A conversation is viewed as a collection of turns of speaking; errors or misunderstandings in speech are addressed with repairs, and turns may be marked by the delay between them or other linguistic features.

Turn-taking organization

[edit]
Main article: Turn-taking

The analysis of turn-taking started with the description in a model in the paper known as the Simplest Systematics,[7] which was very programmatic for the field of Conversation analysis and one of the most cited papers published in the journal Language.[13]

The model is designed to explain that when people talk in conversation, they do not always talk all at the same time, but generally, one person speaks at a time, and then another person can follow.[7] Such a contribution to a conversation by one speaker is then a turn. A turn is created through certain forms or units that listeners can recognize and count on, called turn construction units (TCUs), and speakers and listeners will know that such forms can be a word or a clause, and use that knowledge to predict when a speaker is finished so that others can speak, to avoid or minimize both overlap and silence. A listener will look for the places where they can start speaking - so-called transition relevant places (TRPs) - based on how the units appear over time. Turn construction units can be created or recognized via four methods, i.e. types of unit design:[14]

  • Grammatical methods, i.e. morphosyntactic structures.
  • Prosodic methods, e.g. pitch, speed and changes in pronunciation.
  • Pragmatic methods: turns perform actions, and at the point where listeners have heard enough and know enough, a turn can be pragmatically complete.
  • Visual methods: Gesture, gaze and body movement is also used to indicate that a turn is over. For example, a person speaking looks at the next speaker when their turn is about to end.

Each time a turn is over, speakers also have to decide who can talk next, and this is called turn allocation. The rules for turn allocation is commonly formulated in the same way as in the original Simplest Systematics paper, with 2 parts where the first consists of 3 elements:

    • a. If the current speaker selects a next one to speak at the end of current TCU (by name, gaze or contextual aspects of what is said), the selected speaker has the right and obligation to speak next.
    • b. If the current speaker does not select a next speaker, other potential speakers have the right to self-select (the first starter gets the turn)
    • c. If options 1a and 1b have not been implemented, current speaker may continue with another TCU.
  2. At the end of that TCU, the option system applies again.

Based on the turn-taking system, three types of silence may be distinguished:

  • Pause: A period of silence within a speaker's TCU, i.e. during a speaker's turn when a sentence is not finished.
  • Gap: A period of silence between turns, for example after a question has been asked and not yet answered
  • Lapse: A period of silence when no sequence or other structured activity is in progress: the current speaker stops talking, does not select a next speaker, and no one self selects. Lapses are commonly associated with visual or other forms of disengagement between speakers, even if these periods are brief.

Some types of turns may require extra work before they can successfully take place. Speakers wanting a long turn, for example to tell a story or describe important news, must first establish that others will not intervene during the course of the telling through some form of preface and approval by the listener (a so-called go-ahead). The preface and its associated go-ahead comprise a pre-sequence.[15][16] Conversations cannot be appropriately ended by 'just stopping', but require a special closing sequence.[17]

The model also leaves puzzles to be solved, for example concerning how turn boundaries are identified and projected, and the role played by gaze and body orientation in the management of turn-taking. It also establishes some questions for other disciplines: for example, the split second timing of turn-transition sets up a cognitive 'bottle neck' in which potential speakers must attend to incoming speech while also preparing their own contribution - something which imposes a heavy load of human processing capacity, and which may impact the structure of languages.[18]

However, the original formulation in Sacks et al.1974 is designed to model turn-taking only in ordinary and informal conversation, and not interaction in more specialized, institutional environments such as meetings, courts, news interviews, mediation hearings, which have distinctive turn-taking organizations that depart in various ways from ordinary conversation. Later studies have looked at institutional interaction and turn-taking in institutional contexts. Interruptions have also been examined and analyzed.[19]

Recipient Design

[edit]

In his lectures, Harvey Sacks posited that speakers try to judge what referents their recipients will understand, and design their speech with that in mind, so they will be understood. He called this 'recipient design.' The psychologist Herbert H. Clark called the same concept 'audience design,' while psychologist Howard Giles wrote of 'accommodation.'

Sequence organization

[edit]

Adjacency pairs

[edit]
Main article: Adjacency pairs

Talk tends to occur in responsive pairs; however, the pairs may be split over a sequence of turns. Adjacency pairs divide utterance types into first pair parts and second pair parts to form a pair type. There are many examples of adjacency pairs including Questions-Answers, Offer-Acceptance/Refusal and Compliment-Response.[17]

Sequence expansion

[edit]

Sequence expansion allows talk which is made up of more than a single adjacency pair to be constructed and understood as performing the same basic action and the various additional elements are as doing interactional work related to the basic action underway.
Sequence expansion is constructed in relation to a base sequence of a first pair part (FPP) and a second pair part (SPP) in which the core action underway is achieved. It can occur prior to the base FPP, between the base FPP and SPP, and following the base SPP.

  • Pre-expansion: an adjacency pair that may be understood as preliminary to the main course of action. A generic pre-expansion is a summon-answer adjacency pair, as in "Mary?"/ "Yes?". It is generic in the sense that it does not contribute to any particular types of base adjacency pair, such as request or suggestion. There are other types of pre-sequence that work to prepare the interlocutors for the subsequent speech action. For example, "Guess what!"/"What?" as preliminary to an announcement of some sort, or "What are you doing?"/"Nothing" as preliminary to an invitation or a request.[20]
  • Insert expansion: an adjacency pair that comes between the FPP and SPP of the base adjacency pair. Insert expansions interrupt the activity under way, but are still relevant to that action.[21] Insert expansion allows a possibility for a second speaker, the speaker who must produce the SPP, to do interactional work relevant to the projected SPP. An example of this would be a typical conversation between a customer and a shopkeeper:
Customer: I would like a turkey sandwich, please. (FPP base)
Server: White or wholegrain? (Insert FPP)
Customer: Wholegrain. (Insert SPP)
Server: Okay. (SPP base)
  • Post-expansion: a turn or an adjacency pair that comes after, but is still tied to, the base adjacency pair. There are two types: minimal and non-minimal. Minimal expansion is also termed sequence closing thirds, because it is a single turn after the base SPP (hence third) that does not project any further talk beyond their turn (hence closing). Examples of sequence closing thirds include "oh", "I see", "okay", etc.

Preference organization

[edit]

CA may reveal structural (i.e. practice-underwritten) preferences in conversation for some types of actions (within sequences of action) over others, as responses in certain sequential environments.[22] For example, responsive actions which agree with, or accept, positions taken by a first action tend to be performed more straightforwardly and faster than actions that disagree with, or decline, those positions.[23][24] The former is termed a preferred turn shape, meaning the turn is not preceded by silence nor is it produced with delays, mitigation and accounts. The latter is termed a dispreferred turn shape, which describes a turn with opposite characteristics. One consequence of this is that agreement and acceptance are promoted over their alternatives, and are more likely to be the outcome of the sequence. Pre-sequences are also a component of preference organization and contribute to this outcome.[15]

Repair

[edit]

Repair organization describes how parties in conversation deal with problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding, and there are various mechanisms through which certain "troubles" in interaction are dealt with. Repair segments are classified by who initiates repair (self or other), by who resolves the problem (self or other), and by how it unfolds within a turn or a sequence of turns. The organization of repair is also a self-righting mechanism in social interaction.[25] Participants in conversation seek to correct the trouble source by initiating and preferring self repair, the speaker of the trouble source, over other repair.[25] Self repair initiations can be placed in three locations in relation to the trouble source, in a first turn, a transition space or in a third turn.[25]

Action formation

[edit]

Turns in interaction implement actions, and a specific turn may perform one (or more) specific actions.[26] The study of action focuses on the description of how turns at talk are composed and positioned so as to realize one or more actions. This could include questions, assessments, storytelling, and complaints.[27] Focus is both on how those actions are formed through linguistic or other activity (the formation of action) and how they are understood (the ascription of action to turns). The study of action also concerns the ways in which the participants’ knowledge, relations, and stances towards the ongoing interactional projects are created, maintained, and negotiated, and thus the intersubjectivity of how people interact. The concept of action within CA resembles, but is different from the concept of speech act in other fields of pragmatics.[28]

Jeffersonian transcription

[edit]

Gail Jefferson developed a system of transcription while working with Harvey Sacks. In this system, speakers are introduced with a name followed by a colon, as conventionally used in scripts. It is designed to use typographical and orthographical conventions used elsewhere, rather than a strict phonetic system such as the International Phonetic Alphabet. The transcription conventions take into account overlapping speech, delays between speech, pitch, volume and speed based on research showing that these features matter for the conversation in terms of action, turn-taking and more.[9] Transcripts are typically written in a monospaced font to ease the alignment of overlap symbols.

Partial table of annotations added in Jeffersonian Transcription
Feature Symbol Used Example
Very quietly spoken °°...°° 
Matt: Shoes °°I love shoes°°_
Quietly spoken °...° 
Sue: Have you had any °symptoms°,?
Loudly spoken Capital letters 
Sara: Why can't you JUST STOP?
Falling pitch . 
Fred: That's a good idea.
Unchanging (level) pitch _ 
Matt: That's a good idea_
Slightly rising pitch , 
Matt: We like to shop, and to eat fish,
Intermediately rising pitch ,? 
Alex: We're buying shoes,?
Rising pitch ? 
Bill: Should we open the door?
Stressed syllables Underlined letters 
Dave: That is a good idea.
Absence of normal pauses = 
Lucy:    Perhaps we should leave=
William: =I don't think that's a good idea_
Noticeable pauses (.) 
Lucy: James (.) we need to talk.
Pauses of a specific duration (Duration) 
Lucy: James (1.0) we need to talk.
Rushed speech >< 
Alex: What are you doing?
Jack: >I need to buy the shoes<
Slowed speech <> 
Fred: <That's a good idea,> I think
Overlapping speech [...] 
Dave: Perhaps we should [leave.]
Tom:                    [Go inside,?]
Prolonged sounds (non-phonemic) : 
Dave: O:h wo::w.
Creaky voice *...* 
Lucy:  Do you want to talk?
James: *No* (.) Sorry.

There are various transcription systems based on the jeffersonian conventions with slight differences. Galina Bolden has designed a system for transcribing Russian conversations[29] while Samtalegrammatik.dk uses their own system for Danish.[30] GAT2 (Gesprächsanalytisches Transskriptionssystem 2) was also designed originally for German and to systematize the way some of the prosodic features are handled.[31] The TalkBank also has its own system designed for use with its CLAN (CHILDES Language Analyzer) software.[32]

Different approaches

[edit]

Interactional linguistics

[edit]
Main article: Interactional linguistics

Interactional linguistics (IL) is Conversation analysis when the focus is on linguistic structure.[33] While CA has worked with language in its data since the beginning,[7] the interest in the structure of it, and possible relations to grammatical theory, was sometimes secondary to sociological (or ethnomethodological) research questions. The field developed during the 90's and got its name with the publication of the 2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics[34] and is inspired by West Coast functional grammar which is sometimes considered to have effectively merged with IL since then,[33] but has also gained inspiration from British phoneticians doing prosodic analysis.[35] Levinson's former department on Language and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics has been important in connecting CA and IL with linguistic typology.[36][33]: 11  Interactional linguistics has studied topics within syntax, phonetics and semantics as they relate to e.g. action and turn-taking. There is a journal called Interactional Linguistics.[37]

Discursive psychology

[edit]
Main article: Discursive psychology

Discursive psychology (DP) is the use of CA on psychological themes, and studies how psychological phenomena are attended to, understood and construed in interaction. The subfield formed through studies by Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell, most notably their 1987 book Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour.[38]

Membership categorization analysis

[edit]

Membership categorization analysis (MCA) was influenced by the work of Harvey Sacks and his work on Membership Categorization Devices (MCD). Sacks argues that members' categories comprise part of the central machinery of organization and developed the notion of MCD to explain how categories can be hearably linked together by native speakers of a culture. His example that is taken from a children's storybook (The baby cried. The mommy picked it up) shows how "mommy" is interpreted as the mother of the baby by speakers of the same culture. In light of this, categories are inference rich – a great deal of knowledge that members of a society have about the society is stored in terms of these categories.[39] Emanuel Schegloff fleshed out the concept in his article on the formulation of place. When asked 'where are you from?' the recipient can choose to respond in many different ways, eg. Main St., downtown, Irvine, California, the United States. How they respond shows what identity they hope to claim, and the questioner will decide whether the recipient is indeed a member of the group they claim to be a member of based on how they speak going forward. There is a connection here with the Other (philosophy) in philosophy, social identity theory, and The Social Construction of Reality. Stokoe further contends that members’ practical categorizations form part of ethnomethodology's description of the ongoing production and realization of ‘facts’ about social life and including members’ gendered reality analysis, thus making CA compatible with feminist studies.[40]

Relations to other fields

[edit]

Contrasts to other theories about language

[edit]

In contrast to the use of introspection in linguistics, conversation analysis studies naturally occurring talk in a strongly empirical fashion through the use of recordings[41] Unlike ethnographers, Conversation Analysts tend to focus on transcribing recordings, and usually do not question the people doing the talk nor members of their speech community to ask for their interpretations. A lot of CA research has been done by researchers analyzing encounters in their own native tongue rather than in other languages.

Unlike discourse analysis, Conversation Analysts focus on interaction at a micro level, and usually do not look at written texts nor overarching sociocultural concepts (for example, 'discourses' in the Foucauldian sense). Its method, following Garfinkel and Goffman's initiatives, is aimed at uncovering the methods that the interacting members rely on to make sense of each other. Conversation Analysts look for clues to these methods in the actions of the interlocutors themselves rather than trying to impose some outside analytical framework onto them. The aim is to model the resources and methods by which those understandings are produced.

In considering methods of qualitative analysis, Braun and Clarke distinguish thematic analysis from conversation analysis and discourse analysis, viewing thematic analysis to be theory agnostic while conversation analysis and discourse analysis are considered to be based on theories[42] although Sacks himself argued that researchers should follow the data.

Applied conversation analysis

[edit]

Conversation analysis is used in various contexts leading to a number of different fields benefitting from conversation analytic findings. This includes the study of doctor-patient interactions, media interviews, second-language acquisition, and various institutional settings.[43] For instance, Tanya Stivers studied the pressures that lead to doctors prescribing antibiotics.[44] A focus on interaction in professional contexts was established by the 1992 book Talk at Work by Paul Drew and John Heritage,[45] but earlier studies had also focused on specific institutional contexts, mostly one at a time.[46] More recently, conversation analysis has also been used in the development of conversational user interfaces and chatbots.[47]

Criticism

[edit]

Conversation analysis has been criticized for not being able to address issues of power and inequality in society at large.[48] Another point of critique is the focus on single-case analysis and the generalizability of collection-based descriptions has been questioned.[49]: 1024 

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Conversation analysis

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Conversation analysis (CA) is an interdisciplinary method originating in and that systematically examines the structure and organization of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction, revealing how participants collaboratively accomplish social actions such as questioning, agreeing, or repairing misunderstandings. Developed in the late at the , by Harvey Sacks in collaboration with Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, CA emphasizes the empirical analysis of audio- or video-recorded interactions rather than theoretical speculation or experimental data. At its core, CA identifies key organizational principles of interaction, including turn-taking, where speakers alternate with minimal gaps or overlaps to maintain orderly exchanges; adjacency pairs (e.g., question-answer or greeting-response), which form the building blocks of sequences; and repair mechanisms, through which participants correct troubles in speaking, hearing, or understanding. These principles are analyzed using the Jefferson transcription system, a detailed notation that captures not only words but also prosody, pauses, overlaps, and non-verbal elements to preserve the richness of interactional details. Seminal work, such as Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson's 1974 paper on turn-taking, demonstrates how a simple "systematics" governs speaker transitions across diverse contexts, from casual chats to institutional settings. CA's methods rely on inductive, data-driven analysis: researchers collect corpora of naturally occurring interactions, produce verbatim transcripts, and identify recurrent patterns through repeated close inspection, validating findings internally within the data rather than through external variables. Rooted in ethnomethodology—the study of how people produce the social order in everyday life—CA treats talk as a methodical, accountable practice oriented to by participants themselves. This approach has expanded beyond spoken conversation to include multimodal interactions involving gestures, gaze, and embodiment, particularly in digital and institutional environments. Applications of CA span fields like , , , and politics, informing how communication shapes outcomes—for instance, in consultations where question design influences patient responses, or in classrooms where teacher-student turns affect learning dynamics. Influential scholars such as John Heritage, Douglas Maynard, and Tanya Stivers have advanced CA by applying it to institutional talk, demonstrating its utility in improving interactional practices and revealing power asymmetries in asymmetric settings like doctor-patient encounters. Today, CA remains a of and social interaction studies, with ongoing developments in computational tools for transcription and analysis.

Overview

Definition and Core Concepts

Conversation analysis (CA) is an empirical approach to the study of the sequential organization of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction, examining how participants collaboratively produce and interpret social actions through language. Rooted in , CA investigates the methods by which ordinary members of society make sense of and account for their everyday conduct in interaction. At its core, CA treats talk as a structured and accountable social activity, where every is designed to perform specific actions and is held accountable to the expectations of co-participants. Utterances exhibit , meaning their meaning and import are inherently tied to the immediate context of the ongoing interaction, requiring participants to draw on shared and prior turns for interpretation. Participants routinely orient to normative expectations in interaction, displaying adherence or deviation through their responses, which ensures the orderly progression of talk and reveals underlying social rules. CA rests on several basic assumptions about interaction. Participants publicly display their mutual understanding through their conduct, particularly in how they respond to prior actions, allowing analysts to infer comprehension from observable behaviors rather than internal states. prioritizes how social actions—such as informing, requesting, or assessing—are accomplished and recognized via the sequential placement and design of utterances, emphasizing the collaborative and emergent nature of . Simple examples illustrate these principles in everyday conversation. A greeting like "Hello" functions as the first part of an adjacency pair, expecting a reciprocal greeting such as "Hello" to confirm mutual recognition and open the interaction without further elaboration. Likewise, a question such as "What time is it?" prompts a response like "It's three o'clock," demonstrating the recipient's orientation to the normative expectation of providing an answer, thereby achieving sequential relevance and shared understanding.

Importance and Applications

Conversation analysis (CA) is pivotal in demonstrating how social order emerges through the collaborative and sequential organization of talk-in-interaction, illustrating that everyday interactions are not random but governed by shared practices that participants orient to in real time. By examining the fine details of how turns are allocated, sequences are built, and actions are accomplished, CA reveals the methodical ways in which individuals co-construct meaning, accountability, and social reality without relying on external rules or structures. This approach underscores the interactional achievement of social norms, showing that phenomena like agreement, disagreement, or repair are handled through observable conversational devices rather than presupposed intentions. CA challenges foundational assumptions in by rejecting decontextualized analyses of , instead emphasizing that is dynamically produced and renewed within the interaction itself. Traditional views often treat utterances as isolated or governed by abstract grammars, but CA demonstrates that meaning arises from how speakers respond to prior turns, thereby integrating prosody, timing, and sequential positioning as integral to linguistic practice. This shift highlights talk as a primary site for , influencing fields beyond to include , , and in studying human conduct. In institutional settings, CA offers critical insights into how talk enacts organizational goals, such as in courts where it analyzes questioning sequences to uncover biases in witness interviews; in , where it examines doctor-patient consultations to enhance shared ; and in , where it reveals how teacher-student interactions shape learning opportunities. These applications extend to improving communication practices, enabling professionals to refine protocols for more effective and equitable exchanges. For instance, in , CA identifies how formulations and confirmations facilitate comprehension, informing targeted interventions to reduce misunderstandings. Emerging applications address digital communication, where CA adapts to video calls and social media by exploring multimodal adaptations like delayed turn-taking or emoji use in sequential organization. In AI development post-2020, CA collaborates with engineers to design conversational agents that mimic natural repair and sequence practices, as seen in training models like Dora to handle interruptions and alignments more human-like. Recent studies from 2024-2025 have explored using large language models (LLMs) to automate aspects of CA, such as identifying interactional patterns in large datasets, and applying CA to assess how LLMs simulate human-like talk-in-interaction. Specifically, CA informs therapist training by dissecting session sequences to teach reformulation techniques that foster client progress, and for call center operators, it guides handling of complaint sequences to de-escalate and resolve issues efficiently.

Historical Development

Origins in Ethnomethodology

, founded by sociologist , emerged in the 1960s as a in , emphasizing the study of everyday reasoning and the methods individuals use to produce and account for social actions in mundane settings. Garfinkel's seminal work, Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967), critiqued the of by rejecting top-down theoretical impositions, instead advocating for an "emic" analysis of how people reflexively make sense of their social world through indexical expressions and the documentary method of interpretation. This approach highlighted as a fundamental feature of social interaction, where actions are oriented to and made intelligible within ongoing contexts, drawing heavily from phenomenological influences such as Alfred Schütz's emphasis on the lived experience of . Conversation analysis (CA) developed as a specialized branch of ethnomethodology in the late 1960s and 1970s, narrowing the focus from broad mundane activities to the sequential organization of talk-in-interaction as the primordial site of . Unlike 's wider ethnographic inquiries into practices like jury deliberations or medical consultations, CA prioritized naturally occurring audio recordings of conversations to reveal the rule-governed, accountable methods participants employ in real-time. This emergence was also shaped by , particularly Erving Goffman's conception of the interaction order, which underscored how micro-level encounters constitute the fabric of . Key developments in the 1960s-1970s included Harvey Sacks's early empirical work at the , analyzing telephone calls from a suicide prevention center to uncover patterns in membership categorization and sequential implicativeness. By the early 1970s, initial studies on telephone conversation openings and closings demonstrated how interactants collaboratively manage transitions without explicit rules, laying the groundwork for CA's methodological rigor. Figures such as Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson briefly collaborated on these foundational efforts, culminating in the 1974 publication of their turn-taking model.

Key Figures and Milestones

Harvey Sacks is regarded as the founder of conversation analysis, having laid its theoretical groundwork through lectures delivered from 1964 to 1972 at the , and later at Irvine. In these lectures, Sacks conceptualized as fundamental building blocks of interaction, such as greetings and responses or invitations and acceptances/declinations, emphasizing how ordinary talk is systematically organized. His approach prioritized empirical analysis of naturally occurring conversations, drawing briefly on ethnomethodological roots to examine everyday social actions. Emanuel Schegloff, Sacks's longtime collaborator, advanced CA through his work on interactional structures, most notably co-authoring the 1974 paper "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of for ," which proposed a rule-based model for how participants minimize gaps and overlaps in talk. Schegloff further shaped the field with his contributions to repair mechanisms, detailed in the 1977 publication "The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in ," co-authored with Gail Jefferson and Sacks, which identifies sequences for addressing communicative troubles like mishearings or errors. Schegloff passed away in 2024. Gail Jefferson, a pioneering student of Sacks, developed the Jefferson Transcription System, a detailed notation for capturing prosodic, temporal, and non-verbal features of talk, enabling precise sequential analysis. Her system, refined over decades and formalized in a 2004 glossary, remains the standard for CA transcription, supporting the field's emphasis on fine-grained data examination. Jefferson passed away in 2008. Key milestones include the 1974 paper, which established CA's methodological rigor and attracted interdisciplinary attention. Sacks's Lectures on Conversation, edited by Jefferson and published posthumously in 1992 across two volumes, disseminated his unpublished teachings and solidified foundational principles. The 1977 repair paper similarly marked a breakthrough, highlighting CA's focus on interactional accountability. Post-2000 developments expanded CA to , integrating analyses of , , and embodiment, as exemplified in studies from the that examined how bodily conduct coordinates with talk. Scholars also adapted CA to digital contexts, addressing challenges like asynchronous messaging and use in online interactions to explore evolving interactional norms.

Methodological Foundations

Data Collection and Analysis

Conversation analysis (CA) relies exclusively on naturally occurring interactions as its primary data source, captured through audio or video recordings to preserve the authentic sequential organization of talk-in-interaction. This methodological commitment avoids elicited or experimental data, such as role-plays or interviews, which might impose artificial constraints on participants' natural conduct. Researchers collect recordings from diverse everyday and institutional settings, ensuring that the data reflect how participants themselves orient to and accomplish social actions without external prompting. For instance, video recordings are preferred when possible to capture not only verbal elements but also nonverbal behaviors like and , which are integral to interactional organization. The analysis process in CA involves an iterative, close examination of both original recordings and detailed transcripts, emphasizing sequential implicativeness—how each turn shapes the and trajectory of subsequent actions—and participant orientation, whereby findings are grounded in evidence of how interactants demonstrably respond to one another's conduct. Analysts begin with unmotivated looking, an inductive approach that involves open-ended scrutiny of the without preconceived hypotheses to identify recurring patterns of interaction. This is followed by assembling collections of similar cases, where instances of a particular practice (e.g., transitions) are gathered and compared to discern underlying rules or mechanisms. To refine these observations, deviant case analysis is employed, systematically investigating exceptions or variations that challenge initial patterns, thereby strengthening the robustness of the identified structures by revealing contextual contingencies. Transcripts for this process are typically prepared using the Jeffersonian system to capture prosodic and temporal details. Throughout, analysis prioritizes the endogenous methods participants use to organize their interactions, often validated through data sessions where peers review and debate interpretations. Ethical considerations are paramount in CA due to the intimate nature of recorded interactions, with researchers obligated to secure while minimizing intrusion to maintain naturalism. is rigorously protected in publications by altering identifiers, voices, and visual details in transcripts and excerpts, ensuring participants cannot be recognized. Special care is taken with sensitive institutional data, such as medical consultations, where power imbalances may complicate ; here, protocols often include post-recording and secure data storage to mitigate risks of harm or coercion. Curating and sharing datasets, increasingly encouraged for replicability, must balance with through trusted research environments that restrict sensitive materials. These practices align with broader principles of doing no harm while advancing understanding of interactional practices.

Transcription Systems

The Jeffersonian transcription system, developed by Gail Jefferson in the 1960s as a foundational tool for conversation analysis, employs a set of symbols to capture prosodic, paralinguistic, and interactional features of spoken interaction beyond orthographic representation. This system emerged from early collaborative work with Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff, enabling researchers to document the precise timing, intonation, and overlap in talk that underpin social actions. Jefferson formalized many conventions in her 2004 glossary, which remains the standard reference, emphasizing notations that render audible details visible on the page for analytic scrutiny. The primary purpose of Jeffersonian transcription is to reveal the accountable details of talk-in-interaction—such as pauses, pitch shifts, and simultaneous speech—that audio recordings alone cannot fully convey, allowing analysts to examine how participants orient to these elements in real time. By prioritizing the interactional relevance of delivery features over phonetic precision, the system supports investigations into sequence organization and without imposing external . For instance, it highlights how subtle prosodic cues contribute to action formation, making transcripts a central artifact in conversation analytic methodology. Key symbols in the Jeffersonian system address temporal, prosodic, and vocal aspects of talk. The following table summarizes core notations with descriptions and examples, drawn from Jefferson's conventions:
SymbolDescriptionExample
[ ]Overlapping talk; square brackets aligned across lines mark onset and offset of simultaneous speech.A: [hello]
B: [hi there]
=Latching; no discernible gap between utterances, often within or across speakers.A: okay.=
B: =yeah.
(.)Micropause; brief silence, approximately 0.2 seconds or less.(.) hmmm
(0.5)Timed pause; silence measured in tenths of seconds.(0.5) well,
↑ ↓Pitch movement; arrows indicate marked rise or fall in intonation.that's ↑great↓
CAPSIncreased volume or emphasis.NO WAY
underlineStress or emphasis on a sound or word.reálly
°°Quiet or decreased volume.°sorry°
> <Speeded-up talk.>like this<
< >Slowed-down talk.<oh:: :kay>
:Prolongation; extended sound, with length indicated by colons.y:eah
(h) (hh)Inbreath (h) or outbreath/laugh (hh); number indicates duration.he(hh)llo
. , ?Falling (.), continuing (,), or rising (?) intonation.yes. wait, really?
These symbols, while not exhaustive, form the backbone of transcripts, with full details expandable for specific analytic needs. Since the , the Jeffersonian system has been adapted to incorporate , extending notations to represent embodied conduct such as gaze, , and facial expressions alongside verbal elements. Researchers like Lorenza Mondada have developed complementary conventions, using arrows (→, ←) for gesture trajectories and symbols like (*), (**) for body postures timed to speech, to capture how visual and kinetic resources interweave with talk in video-recorded interactions. These extensions preserve the system's focus on interactional timing while addressing the limitations of audio-only in contexts like embodied repair or gaze-based turn allocation. In practice, analysts often balance full Jeffersonian transcripts—rich in detail for close examination—with simplified versions that omit finer prosodic notations for broader accessibility or initial data screening. Full transcripts support rigorous , whereas simplified ones facilitate teaching or preliminary reviews. Recent evolution includes digital tools like the software suite from TalkBank, which automates symbol insertion, overlap alignment, and timing calculations for Jeffersonian formats; DOTE, a software tailored for transcribing social conduct in CA using Jeffersonian and multimodal conventions; and emerging systems like GailBot, which generate first-pass transcripts using to detect pauses, overlaps, and laughter. These tools enhance efficiency without replacing manual refinement, ensuring transcripts remain attuned to interactional nuances.

Core Structures of Interaction

Turn-Taking Mechanisms

Turn-taking mechanisms form a core aspect of conversation analysis, describing the orderly allocation of speaking opportunities among participants to minimize gaps and overlaps while enabling collaborative interaction. The seminal model, developed by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson, posits that is locally managed, recipient-designed, and governed by a simple yet robust set of rules that operate at specific points in talk. This system treats conversation as a speech-exchange system where participants collaboratively construct and transition turns, revealing the interactional competence inherent in everyday talk. At the heart of the model are turn-constructional units (TCUs), the basic building blocks of turns, which include complete syntactic, prosodic, or pragmatic units such as declaratives, questions, or exclamations that signal their own possible completion. The end of a TCU constitutes a transition-relevance place (TRP), a projected boundary where speaker change becomes relevant and turns can be allocated without disrupting the ongoing unit. Projectability is key: participants anticipate TRPs through syntactic structure, intonation, and pragmatics, allowing preemptive actions like self-selection just before completion. For example, in a greeting sequence, a TCU like "Hello, how are you?" reaches its TRP at the falling intonation, inviting an immediate response. Turn allocation at TRPs follows a hierarchical set of three rules, applied sequentially to determine the next speaker:
  1. If the current speaker selects a next speaker—through , address terms, or questions—that recipient is obliged to take the turn.
  2. If no selection occurs, any participant may self-select, with the first to begin speaking (often via a sharp onset) securing the turn.
  3. If neither selection nor self-selection happens, the current speaker may extend the turn with another TCU.
These rules ensure one speaker at a time, with typical inter-turn gaps around 200 milliseconds, demonstrating the system's efficiency in coordinating talk. While the model prioritizes smooth transitions, variations arise, particularly in overlaps and interruptions, which occur when a potential next speaker anticipates a TRP and begins early. Overlaps are often brief and collaborative, resolved by one speaker yielding or continuing, whereas interruptions—marked as problematic if they disregard selection—may lead to repair or sanctions, highlighting participants' to the rules. In multi-party talk, the system scales by allowing multiple self-selectors to compete, potentially resulting in lapses (extended silences) that open the floor broadly or prompt topic shifts, though pre-allocations like in meetings constrain options. Analysis of TRPs and rule violations underscores the model's normative force: deviations, such as premature intrusions, often elicit displays of orientation to the system, like apologies or restarts, revealing how norms underpin interactional order. affirm the model's universality, with consistent gap minimization across languages despite variations in timing (e.g., 7 ms in Japanese vs. 489 ms in Danish). Overlaps in such examples can be precisely notated using transcription systems to show simultaneity.

Sequence Organization

Sequence organization refers to the structured ways in which turns at talk are linked together to form coherent actions in interaction, building on the basic machinery of to create extended trajectories of social conduct. This organization ensures that utterances are not isolated but positioned to respond to prior actions and project future ones, thereby maintaining the intelligibility and progressivity of conversation. At its core, sequence organization reveals how participants collaboratively construct meaning through the sequential implications of their contributions. The foundational unit of sequence organization is the , a paired structure consisting of a first pair part (FPP) and a second pair part (SPP), where the FPP makes relevant a particular type of response as the SPP. Introduced in early conversation analytic work on conversational openings, adjacency pairs include common formats such as summons-answer, greeting-greeting, question-answer, offer-acceptance, and request-grant/denial. The relevance of the SPP is conditional on the FPP, meaning that the first action generates an expectation for a specifically fitted response; deviations from this expectation can signal trouble or alternative trajectories in the interaction. For instance, a question like "Are you coming to the party?" projects an answer as conditionally relevant, and its absence or replacement with a non-answer (e.g., a question in return) may prompt further accounting. Sequences often expand beyond the minimal two-turn adjacency pair through various mechanisms that insert additional turns to handle contingencies, clarify, or extend the action. Pre-expansions occur before the FPP to prepare the ground or check feasibility, such as a pre-invitation like "What are you doing Friday night?" preceding an actual invitation, allowing the recipient to signal availability without commitment. Insert-expansions arise between the FPP and SPP to address side issues, like a request for clarification (e.g., "What time?" after an invitation), suspending the main sequence until resolved. Post-expansions follow the SPP to pursue further action or confirmation, such as a follow-up question after an answer to elicit more detail. These expansions enable participants to manage the interaction's trajectory, accommodating real-time contingencies while preserving the overall coherence of the sequence. A key feature shaping sequence organization is preference organization, which structures responses to adjacency pairs such that certain SPPs are treated as preferred—typically those that align with or facilitate the FPP's projected action—while others are dispreferred, often marked by delays, hesitations, or mitigations. Preferred responses, like acceptances to invitations or agreements to assessments, tend to be produced promptly and straightforwardly, advancing the sequence efficiently. Dispreferred responses, such as rejections or disagreements, are characteristically delayed (e.g., with pauses or prefaces like "Well..."), designed to soften their impact and sometimes allow for or avoidance of conflict. For example, in response to an offer of help, a preferred "Yes, thanks" might follow immediately, whereas a dispreferred "No, I'm fine" could be prefaced with "Uhm, actually..." to account for the rejection. This organization contributes to the social delicacy of interaction, influencing how sequences unfold and how actions are collaboratively achieved over multiple turns.

Interactional Practices

Repair and Correction

Repair in conversation analysis refers to the organized practices through which participants in interaction detect, initiate, and resolve troubles in speaking, hearing, or understanding, ensuring the ongoing intelligibility and progressivity of talk. These troubles, or "repairables," can arise from production errors, perception difficulties, or comprehension issues, and the repair system operates across various sequential environments to maintain . The foundational work on repair highlights its systematic nature, distinguishing it from corrections by revealing preferences and constraints in how problems are addressed. The organization of repair encompasses four basic types, defined by who detects the trouble (initiator) and who resolves it (repairer): self-initiated self-repair (the speaker identifies and fixes their own trouble-source turn), other-initiated self-repair (another participant signals the problem, but the original speaker provides the repair), self-initiated other-repair (the speaker invites correction from others, who then repair it), and other-initiated other-repair (another participant both signals and provides the repair). Self-initiated self-repair is the most common form, often occurring within the same turn through cut-offs, pauses, or reformulations, while other-initiated forms typically emerge in subsequent turns to minimize disruption. Among these, there is a strong preference for self-repair over other-repair, structured to favor the speaker's autonomy in correcting their own contributions and avoiding the imposition of others' fixes, which could threaten face or sequence progressivity. This preference is evident in the design of repair initiators, which are often formulated to prompt the original speaker rather than directly correct. Repair initiation employs a variety of methods tailored to the type of trouble, including questioning formats like "Huh?" for hearing problems, which serves as a near-universal open-class repair initiator across languages to request repetition without specifying the issue. Partial repeats of the trouble-source—repeating the last word or phrase with rising intonation—signal a specific non-understanding and invite clarification, commonly used for partial hearing or comprehension troubles in casual interaction. These initiators are positioned sequentially to exploit possible repair spaces, such as immediately after the trouble-source in the same turn () or in the next turn's transition space (second position). Schegloff's model of repair , elaborated in his analyses of sequential environments, describes how repair is embedded in the broader structure of interaction, with placements determining whether it forms an embedded repair (intra-turn adjustment without suspending the main ) or a side-sequence (a temporary detour via a full repair initiation-response pair before returning to the base ). Embedded repairs allow seamless integration within ongoing turns, preserving , while side-sequences handle more complex troubles by expanding the interaction temporarily, as seen in cases where a question about a prior delays the response until resolved. This model underscores repair's flexibility in aligning with and sequence to minimize delays. In casual talk, repair frequently addresses mishearings; for instance, a speaker might say "I went to the store," and the recipient responds with "The store?" (partial repeat), prompting the first speaker to clarify "Yeah, the one on Main Street," resolving the ambiguity without derailing the conversation. Such examples illustrate the efficiency of self- and other-initiated self-repair in everyday settings. In institutional contexts like classrooms, repair operates under constraints that alter its preferences and forms; teachers often engage in other-initiated other-repair to correct student errors, but students rarely initiate repairs on teachers' talk due to power asymmetries, leading to restricted self-repair opportunities and heightened use of embedded corrections to maintain instructional sequences. This adaptation highlights how institutional roles shape the repair system's application, prioritizing pedagogical goals over egalitarian correction.

Action Formation and Attribution

In conversation analysis, action formation refers to the ways in which speakers design their utterances—through choices in lexicon, syntax, prosody, and other resources—to project and accomplish specific social actions, such as invitations, requests, or assessments. These design features are not arbitrary but systematically tailored to make the intended action recognizable to recipients, ensuring the interaction proceeds coherently. For instance, the format "Why don't you [verb]?" often projects an invitation or suggestion, as in "Why don't you come over sometime?", where the interrogative structure combined with a positive proposition invites acceptance without overt imposition. This design leverages syntactic openness and prosodic softening to align with the action's social implications, distinguishing it from more direct imperatives. Action attribution, conversely, involves how recipients interpret and ascribe an action to an based on its formation, the surrounding sequential , and multimodal cues, thereby resolving potential ambiguities in real time. Recipients draw on the 's recipient design—the speaker's orientation to the recipient's , perspective, and expectations—to infer the action, as utterances are constructed with the addressee's likely understanding in mind. For example, a statement like "The door is open" might be attributed as a about if delivered with a frowning prosody and averted , or as a request to close it if accompanied by a head nod toward the door and expectant , with the multimodality clarifying the projected response. Such attributions are interactionally achieved, often confirmed or adjusted through subsequent turns that treat the initial as a particular action. Key to both formation and attribution is the resolution of action ambiguity, where the same linguistic material can project multiple actions until contextualized by sequence position or embodied conduct. In distinguishing complaints from requests, for instance, speakers may use lexical hints like "You always..." to ascribe blame in a , while prosodic emphasis on the problem's urgency might reframe it as a request for remedy, with recipients attributing based on how it fits the ongoing activity. Multimodality plays a crucial role here, as bodily positions—such as leaning forward or gesturing—can reinforce or specify the action beyond verbal elements alone. In digital interactions, action formation and attribution have adapted to text-based environments, incorporating emojis and other visuals to compensate for absent prosody and embodiment, particularly since 2020 with increased messaging during remote communication. For example, a message like "Dinner tonight?" might be formed as an invitation with a smiling emoji (😊) to project positivity and affiliation, while recipients attribute it as such based on the emoji's sequential placement and shared context, resolving ambiguities that arise in plain text. This multimodal extension highlights how digital resources enable action ascription through recipient design, mirroring face-to-face practices but leveraging visual semiotics for clarity.

Specialized Approaches

Interactional Linguistics

Interactional linguistics emerged in the 1990s as an approach within conversation analysis that integrates linguistic analysis with the study of social interaction, primarily developed by scholars such as Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting. This field builds on the foundational work of conversation analysis while drawing from functional linguistic traditions, emphasizing how linguistic structures are shaped by and shape ongoing talk-in-interaction. Early developments focused on "online syntax," examining how grammatical forms unfold in real-time conversation rather than in isolation. A core feature of interactional linguistics is the view of grammar as emergent in talk, where syntactic and prosodic resources are deployed flexibly to accomplish interactional goals, rather than adhering to rigid, pre-specified rules. Key concepts include projection, which refers to the anticipatory signaling of a turn's possible completion through linguistic cues like intonational contours or , allowing co-participants to time their responses. For instance, in German conversation, certain prosodic features project the end of a syntactic unit, facilitating smooth turn transitions. Complementing this is incrementation, the practice of extending a turn beyond an initial point of syntactic completion with additional elements that align with interactional needs, as seen in comparative studies of English, German, and Japanese where increments often serve to refine or repair ongoing actions. Methodologically, interactional linguistics combines conversation analysis's sequential focus—analyzing how actions are organized in and larger sequences—with detailed linguistic scrutiny of , , and prosody. Researchers employ naturally occurring data from audio or video recordings, transcribed using systems like Jeffersonian notation to capture multimodal details, and examine participants' orientations to linguistic forms in . A prominent area is the prosody-syntax interface, where intonational patterns interact with grammatical constructions to signal action projections or ascriptions, as explored in early work on how prosodic cues contextualize syntactic choices for interactional purposes. This integration reveals, for example, how syntactic completion points intersect with mechanisms to enable coordinated speaking. Interactional linguistics contributes to by challenging Chomskyan notions of competence, which posit an abstract, idealized knowledge of separate from use, instead prioritizing of how emerges from and is oriented to in social interaction. It shifts focus from decontextualized sentence-level to the production and recognition of linguistic resources in talk. In applied domains, the approach has informed learning by highlighting language-specific interactional practices, such as how learners navigate projection and incrementation in target languages to participate effectively in conversations. This has implications for , emphasizing the development of interactional competence through exposure to authentic sequential contexts.

Discursive Psychology

Discursive psychology represents a specialized application of conversation analysis to psychological phenomena, emerging in the late 1980s and early 1990s through the work of Derek Edwards and Jonathan Potter at . It extends conversation analytic methods to examine how concepts such as attitudes, emotions, and are constructed and managed in everyday talk and interaction, rather than treating them as internal mental states. Building on Potter and Wetherell's (1987) foundational of , Edwards and Potter's 1992 book Discursive Psychology formalized the approach, emphasizing discourse as a medium for accomplishing psychological actions in public settings. At its core, discursive psychology operates on the principle that psychological states are not private cognitive entities but interactional accomplishments oriented to in talk. For instance, in sequences involving , speakers construct attributions of responsibility or through discursive means, making psychological categories like motive or relevant for social accountability. This shifts focus from inferring hidden mental processes to analyzing how such states are invoked, described, and contested sequentially in interaction, often drawing on conversation analysis's sequence organization to reveal how psychological actions are formatted and responded to. Methodologically, discursive psychology employs sequential analysis to unpack how psychological categories—such as "" or ""—are mobilized in specific contexts to perform actions like justifying or excusing . A key technique is stake inoculation, whereby speakers preempt potential accusations of or personal investment by explicitly disavowing such stakes in their accounts, thereby enhancing the perceived neutrality or factuality of their claims. This method highlights the reflexive nature of , where speakers manage their own credibility while attributing psychological states to others. Illustrative examples include analyses of interview data where categories like "racism" are discursively constructed to legitimize exploitation or deny , as shown in Potter and Wetherell's examination of New Zealand Pakeha talk about Maori issues. In such sequences, speakers use rhetorical devices to portray as an individual failing rather than a systemic issue, accomplishing a defense of the status quo. Discursive psychology also critiques cognitivist paradigms in , arguing that they overlook how mental states are publicly managed and oriented to in interaction, rather than merely represented internally. For example, Edwards and Potter demonstrate that descriptions of emotion or memory function rhetorically to build factual versions of events, challenging experimental 's decontextualized models.

Connections to Broader Fields

Conversation analysis (CA) emerged as a key methodological approach within , a sociological perspective developed by that examines how is produced through everyday practices and members' methods for making sense of the world. CA's founders, including Harvey Sacks, drew directly from ethnomethodological principles to study talk-in-interaction as a site where social structures are reflexively accomplished, emphasizing the "unique adequacy" of analysis—requiring researchers to demonstrate competence in the practices they describe. This connection underscores CA's focus on the procedural infrastructure of interaction, treating conversation not as a reflection of pre-existing social facts but as the medium through which they are constituted. While CA shares affinities with —a micro-sociological tradition emphasizing how individuals construct meaning through symbolic exchanges and ongoing negotiations—its ties are more indirect and often contrasted. , rooted in the work of and , views as emerging from interpretive processes in face-to-face encounters, aligning with CA's interest in action formation but differing in its broader psychological orientation versus CA's strict empirical focus on sequential organization. Central to CA's sociological contribution is the view of as an interactional achievement, where social realities—such as identities, norms, and institutions—are not static entities but dynamically produced and oriented to in the details of talk. Emanuel Schegloff's analyses, for instance, illustrate how discourse markers like "uh huh" facilitate mutual understanding, demonstrating that social coordination is accomplished turn by turn rather than assumed a priori. Recent discussions, as of 2024, have further explored the complex relations between CA, , and , highlighting ongoing theoretical integrations. In linguistics, CA contrasts sharply with formal semantics, which abstracts meaning from context using logical models to represent truth conditions and compositionality, often isolating utterances from their interactive embedding. CA, by contrast, prioritizes contextualized meaning, analyzing how interpretations emerge sequentially through participants' orientations, as seen in repair sequences where speakers collaboratively refine understanding without relying on decontextualized rules. This empirical approach has profoundly influenced , providing tools to ground abstract concepts like and speech acts in observable interaction; , in his seminal overview, integrates CA to show how recipient responses reveal pragmatic inferences, bridging theoretical with real-time language use. For example, CA demonstrates that speech acts, such as offers, are not fixed by utterance type but shaped by their position in sequences, challenging formal models' sentence-level focus. CA's broader impacts extend to , where it illuminates power dynamics in talk, revealing how gendered ideologies are enacted and contested through sequential practices rather than overt assertions. In analyses of institutional interactions, such as consultations, CA tracks how hosts and callers orient to gender norms in turn allocation and repair, exposing asymmetries in conversational control that reinforce or challenge power imbalances. Similarly, post-2015 migration studies have updated through CA's examination of multilingual settings, highlighting how speakers translanguage across varieties in asylum interviews to negotiate identities and achieve mutual understanding amid linguistic diversity. These analyses show flexible multilingual strategies as interactional accomplishments, informing sociolinguistic theories of integration in superdiverse contexts. A key contrast with in linguistics lies in CA's treatment of rules: while structural approaches, like those of or early , posit static, underlying systems governing as a closed structure, CA views talk as oriented to rule-like practices that are emergent and accountable in interaction. For instance, is not a rigid grammatical rule but a set of locally managed procedures that participants display adherence to, allowing for deviations that are repaired sequentially, thus emphasizing agency and context over universal, abstract constraints.

Applied Conversation Analysis

Applied conversation analysis (ACA) involves adapting the core methods of conversation analysis to intervene in and improve institutional interactions, often by identifying interactional patterns that lead to misunderstandings or inefficiencies and designing targeted changes. A primary approach is to use detailed transcript analysis of real-world recordings to professionals, such as through workshops where participants replay and dissect their own interactions to recognize sequential implications and adjust practices accordingly. This training is frequently integrated into feedback loops within organizations, where iterative analysis informs policy revisions or protocol updates, enabling sustained improvements in communicative efficacy. In healthcare settings, ACA has been applied to address doctor-patient misunderstandings by examining how questions and responses are formulated during consultations, revealing how asymmetrical can hinder shared understanding and informing communication skills for clinicians. In , it analyzes to optimize teacher-student interactions, such as identifying how repair mechanisms facilitate or impede learning in multilingual environments, leading to pedagogical adjustments that enhance participation. More recently, in technology domains, ACA contributes to design by modeling human-like sequence organization and action formation, ensuring AI systems handle interruptions and clarifications more naturally; for instance, as of 2024, collaborations in have used CA to incorporate speech perturbations like "ums" in chatbots for more natural interactions. Notable case studies demonstrate ACA's practical impact. In emergency call handling, analysis of 999 calls in the UK has shown how call-takers' question design can expedite critical , leading to revised protocols that reduce response times by clarifying caller narratives through sequential prompting. For accessibility among neurodiverse individuals, particularly autistic communicators, CA reveals relational dynamics in interactions, informing interventions that affirm diverse participation styles rather than enforcing neurotypical norms, such as adapting support services to recognize non-standard repair initiations. Despite these successes, ACA faces challenges in balancing rigorous with actionable outcomes, as the depth of sequential can complicate rapid interventions in time-sensitive institutional contexts. Ethical issues are prominent, including obtaining for recording sensitive interactions and ensuring interventions do not pathologize participants' natural talk, requiring researchers to navigate institutional review processes while prioritizing participant agency.

Critiques and Limitations

Theoretical Criticisms

One prominent theoretical critique of conversation analysis (CA) centers on its overemphasis on micro-level interactions, which is said to neglect broader macro-structures such as power inequalities and institutional hierarchies. Critics argue that by prioritizing sequential organization in everyday talk, CA risks isolating interactions from their socio-political contexts, thereby underplaying how systemic inequalities shape . For instance, this approach has been faulted for conflating structure and action, limiting the ability to address how power operates beyond local negotiations. Similarly, CA's agnosticism toward sociological agendas has been seen as a barrier to analyzing ideological influences, such as those perpetuating or class disparities in conversation. Recent developments, such as the emergence of Critical Conversation Analysis (CritCA), address these concerns by applying CA's sequential methods to explicitly examine inequality and in talk-in-interaction. Another key criticism concerns the ethnocentric bias in CA's foundational data, predominantly drawn from English-speaking and Western contexts, which may limit its generalizability and impose culturally specific assumptions on interactional norms. Early CA studies, rooted in , relied heavily on corpora from North American and British settings, potentially overlooking how cultural norms influence , repair, and sequence organization in non-Western societies. This has raised concerns about the field's applicability to diverse global interactions, prompting calls for more inclusive datasets to mitigate such biases. Internal debates within CA further highlight tensions between and cultural variation in conversational sequences. While some scholars emphasize robust universals, such as minimal gap and overlap in across languages, others stress quantitative and qualitative differences shaped by cultural practices, challenging claims of interactional uniformity. These discussions underscore ongoing negotiations about whether CA's sequential model holds transculturally or requires adaptation for local variations. Additionally, CA has faced scrutiny from postmodern perspectives for its perceived positivist leanings, with post-structuralist critiques arguing that it underestimates the instability of meaning and the role of in constructing power relations, rather than merely reflecting them. In the , critiques intensified regarding CA's initial exclusion of and embodiment, as traditional audio-based analyses overlooked how gestures, , and body positioning co-constitute talk-in-interaction. This limitation was seen as reducing the richness of , particularly in contexts where non-verbal cues are integral. Similarly, CA's handling of affect and has been criticized for treating them as secondary to sequential structure, potentially marginalizing how emotions emerge and influence interactional trajectories. Recent developments, however, demonstrate CA's responsiveness through empirical studies showing context-sensitivity in power dynamics, adaptations of sequences, and expanded multimodal frameworks that integrate embodiment without abandoning core principles. These defenses highlight CA's evolution via data-driven refinements, affirming its utility while addressing foundational gaps.

Methodological Challenges

One of the primary methodological challenges in conversation analysis (CA) is gaining access to naturally occurring interactional , as the field prioritizes audio or video recordings of unscripted, everyday conversations over experimental or elicited materials to avoid researcher-induced biases. This reliance on "natural" data often requires researchers to navigate logistical barriers, such as obtaining permissions in institutional settings or capturing spontaneous interactions without disrupting their authenticity. For instance, recordings from spaces like cafes may involve post-hoc consent due to unpredictable participant involvement, complicating while preserving . Transcription in CA is notoriously labor-intensive, demanding meticulous notation of prosodic features, pauses, overlaps, and non-verbal elements using systems like Jefferson's conventions. This process not only strains resources but also introduces selectivity, as analysts must balance exhaustive detail with readability, potentially overlooking subtle multimodal cues if relying solely on audio. Replicability is further challenged by the partial nature of transcripts, which cannot fully convey the richness of original recordings, though CA mitigates this through public data sessions where peers scrutinize raw materials. Ethical issues loom large, particularly around in public versus private settings, where pre-recording approval may alter natural behavior, while public observations raise concerns for bystanders expecting no . Representation of vulnerable participants, such as those in medical or institutional contexts, demands careful and avoidance of stigmatizing labels to prevent harm or misrepresentation in analyses. With the rise of , additional hurdles include obscuring participant identities and the integration of AI-generated talk in human-machine interactions, which strains traditional CA tools designed for human sequentiality. Cross-cultural validity is also problematic, as norms vary across languages and platforms, risking ethnocentric interpretations without contextual adaptation. To address these challenges, the and conversation analysis (EMCA) community has developed guiding principles for ethical data handling, such as verbal consent protocols for spontaneous interactions and repositories that facilitate scrutiny while protecting . with video data offers a practical solution, enabling multimodal analysis that cross-validates audio transcripts with visual cues like gestures, enhancing reliability and replicability in both traditional and digital contexts.

References

  1. https://obssr.od.nih.gov/sites/obssr/files/Conversation-Analysis.pdf
  2. https://methods.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-research-methods/chpt/conversation-analysis
  3. https://soc.ucla.edu/graduate-study/working-groups/conversation-analysis/
  4. https://gbolden.comminfo.rutgers.edu/RussianCA/publications/Hepburn_Bolden_Transcription.pdf
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346836734_Conversation_Analysis_CA
  6. https://monoskop.org/images/0/0c/Garfinkel_Harold_Studies_in_Ethnomethodology.pdf
  7. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/essentials-conversation-analysis-sample-chapter.pdf
  8. https://liso-archives.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/systematics_Schenkein.pdf
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel-Schegloff/publication/227672289_Sequencing_in_Conversational_Openings1/links/548e702d0cf225bf66a5fb4a/Sequencing-in-Conversational-Openings1.pdf
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5060048/
  11. https://www.hawaii.edu/sls/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Kasper-Wagner-2014.pdf
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284829746_Conversation_analysis_An_approach_to_the_analysis_of_social_interaction
  13. https://www.simplypsychology.org/conversation-analysis.html
  14. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/mono/preview/applied-conversation-analysis.pdf
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Heritage/publication/299534503_Conversation_Analysis_and_Institutional_Talk/links/6032b33ca6fdcc37a84246a7/Conversation-Analysis-and-Institutional-Talk.pdf
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8165833/
  17. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/5b2b57be-547f-4cb5-ba0b-a8ce4d0efa7e/conversation-analytic-perspectives-to-digital-interaction.pdf
  18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17504813241267109
  19. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22844
  20. https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1381-1
  21. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190854409.003.0010
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364603959_The_Ethnomethodological_Lineage_of_Conversation_Analysis
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/413026
  24. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-94-015-6853-1.pdf
  25. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444328301
  26. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2024.2368389
  27. https://saulalbert.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Albert_2015_conversation_analysis-ch-handbook-discourse-process.pdf
  28. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2025.2484981
  29. https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-131
  30. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2022.779434/full
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279625000_A_Transcription_System_for_Conversation_Analysis
  32. https://learn.lboro.ac.uk/ludata/cx/ca-tutorials/notation.htm
  33. https://ugc.futurelearn.com/uploads/files/47/8b/478b50f3-890e-4f15-9f6b-b30563b1229d/Jefferson_transcription_symbols.pdf
  34. https://tidsskrift.dk/socialinteraction/article/view/143071
  35. https://www.dote.aau.dk/
  36. https://emcawiki.net/Transcription_Resources
  37. https://sites.tufts.edu/hilab/gailbot/
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360266150_GailBot_An_automatic_transcription_system_for_Conversation_Analysis
  39. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
  40. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/overlapping-talk-and-the-organization-of-turntaking-for-conversation/D12AD4181BEEFB073869BE7C55B07660
  41. https://emcawiki.net/Turn-taking
  42. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/sequence-organization-in-interaction/276CD30E23D3444114A90E5E2B24D55F
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/sequence-organization-in-interaction/adjacency-pair-as-the-unit-for-sequence-construction/9AFC5658125C316C1A0FDE9DE4027C6D
  44. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/413107
  46. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078273
  47. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/organization-of-repair-in-classroom-talk/A739BB52A1F40D45461AD209D5A772F9
  48. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/relevance-of-repair-for-classroom-correction/51C78F90A9F837F1CC3ECF691563EC90
  49. https://gbolden.comminfo.rutgers.edu/RussianCA/publications/Bolden_Robinson11.pdf
  50. https://emcawiki.net/Complaint
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211695818300801
  52. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02221/full
  53. https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/32804/excerpt/9781107032804_excerpt.pdf
  54. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.4.02cou
  55. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/discursive-psychology/book203291
  56. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/mono/conversation-analysis-and-discourse-analysis/chpt/discursive-psychology
  57. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/conversation-and-cognition/discursive-psychology-mental-states-and-descriptions/3115D637504E0F3FE2D660D7AA6D19F8
  58. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/chapter/Discursive_psychology/9478697/1/files/17103485.pdf
  59. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/mono/preview/discursive-psychology-srm.pdf
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49304192_Discursive_Psychology
  61. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/mono/discursive-psychology-srm/chpt/7-discursive-devices
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226688195_Discursive_Psychology_and_the_New_Racism
  63. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98054-000
  64. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21640629.2023.2291252
  65. https://clayman.scholar.ss.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/07/Clayman-and-Maynard-1995-EthnoCA.pdf
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303056565_Symbolic_Interactionism
  67. https://www.conversationanalysis.org/schegloff-publication-archive/
  68. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-98452-007
  69. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sociology/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1466130/full
  70. http://people.umass.edu/partee/MGU_2005/MGU05Lec11.pdf
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313847355_The_Interface_between_Pragmatics_and_Conversation_Analysis
  72. https://uogbooks.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/138865467-pragmatics-levinson-1.pdf
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249713049_Using_Conversation_Analysis_to_Track_Gender_Ideologies_in_Social_Interaction_toward_a_Feminist_Analysis_of_a_Japanese_Phone-in_Consultation_TV_Program
  74. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0957926502013006751
  75. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13556509.2021.1923974
  76. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/download/3730/4821/17052
  77. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/linguistics-the-cambridge-survey/conversation-analysis/B9868D29858F35FE21F0DD68DA7500BD
  78. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230316874
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220531746_Conversation_Analysis_and_Language_Classroom_Discourse
  80. https://www.conversationanalysis.org/8703-2/
  81. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2024/01/29/elizabeth-stokoe-conversation-analysis-has-many-applications-from-silicon-valley-to-medicine/
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277707447_Conversation_Analysis_and_Emergency_Calls
  83. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/abs/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-22-00041
  84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2025.2484988
  85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005
  86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI321&2_11
  87. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017831
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387916534_Review_of_Waring_Tadic_2024_Critical_Conversation_Analysis_Inequality_and_Injustice_in_Talk-in-Interaction
  89. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2025.2484986
  90. http://www.paultenhave.nl/mica.htm
  91. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17470161221116552
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695821000568
  93. https://atlasti.com/guides/qualitative-research-guide-part-2/images-audio-video
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.