Question and answer sequences in conversation
The study in a sentence
Different linguistic features are observed in preferred (or socially affiliative) responses to questions as compared to dispreferred (or socially disaffiliative) responses. We can see this pattern in close reading of naturally occurring data using the tools of Conversation Analysis, and the pattern generalises across a large dataset of phone calls. Words like 'um' and 'well' play an important communicative role in the sequence of conversation as part of a finely-tuned interactional system.
The question
Can you tell what kind of answer someone is going to give to a question?
Alternative potential responses to questions are not treated as equal; generally, one will be the preferred response and the other the dispreferred response.
Preferred responses support social solidarity between the two speakers whereas dispreferred responses threaten social solidarity.
Are preferred responses produced with different linguistic features from dispreferred responses, in terms of speed of response and/or complexity of language structures used?
Key concept
Language as action
In conversation, we use language to perform social actions: ask questions, report good news and bad, complain and compliment, agree and disagree, express surprise, disbelief, or disgust, request assistance or offer it and so on. In conversation, social actions do not occur in isolation; they occur together to form coherent sequences of action.
The most basic and common type of sequence in conversation is an adjacency pair: a pair of two turns/actions, each produced by a different speaker
The first pair-part (FPP) initiates the sequence and makes relevant a specific next turn/action
The second pair-part (SPP) responds to the first and completes the sequence
Examples: greeting-greeting, question-answer, invitation-acceptance/declination
Are preferred responses produced with different linguistic features from dispreferred responses?
Do these patterns generalise across larger samples of data?
Methods
Conversation Analysis gives us tools to draw out the difference between preferred and dispreferred responses to questions (i.e. second pair-parts, SPP):
preferred responses tend to be produced quickly and have simple forms
dispreferred responses tend to be delayed and have complex structures.
In this study the authors examined 185 telephone calls to find 195 responses to requests, offers, invitations, and proposals. They looked at two measures:
the duration of the silence between the first and second pair-parts
a count of three linguistic features at the beginnings of the second pair-parts: in-breaths, hesitation particles (e.g. “um” or “uh") and “well” prefaces.
The answer
Responses to questions can be socially affiliative (preferred) or socially disaffiliative (dispreferred)
The timing and construction of preferred and dispreferred responses differs systematically
This allows listeners to predict whether a response is likely to be preferred or dispreferred
If a noticeable silence occurs before someone responds, chances are the response will be dispreferred
If a response begins with an in-breath, hesitation particle, or “well”, chances are the response will be dispreferred
Fillers are not just fillers
The findings of this study show that words like “um” and “well” are part of a finely-tuned interactional system – banning their use would damage communication, not improve it.
In responses to questions, these words are important signals that allow others to recognize quickly the type of response that will be produced and so plan their next turn at talk.
Efforts to ban words like “um” and “well” are misguided.
Classroom activities
Lead in task
What would you normally say to accept or decline an invitation?
Extension task
Try out some Conversation Analysis for yourself.
In more detail
A longer explanation of the research study
The slides handout from Kobin Kendrick's talk at the 2019 workshop
Meet the author
Kobin teaches modules in Conversation Analysis including the Language of Turn & Sequence, Language as Action and Multimodality.
