Turn-Taking, Preference, and Face in Criticism Responses

Document Type: Research Article

Author

Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran

Abstract

Vivas have multiple functions in academia, but their main goal is completing thesis evaluation. At the heart of this evaluation is a series of criticisms and their responsive turns by which participants talk vivas as institution into being (Heritage, 1997). Turn-taking is one of the many ways vivas are talked into being. This study drew upon conversation analysis to look into the turn allocation mechanism of criticism-response exchanges and their relationship with the notion of preference and dispreference in the context of Iranian English-medium vivas. It further investigated the relationship between turn-taking, preference structure, and the notion of face understood, following Arundale (2010) as the relational connection and separation. Findings and observations suggest a combination of turn preallocation, conciliatory turn negotiation, and adversarial turn competition of dispreference and preference as well as of the interactional achievement of slight connection and considerable separation in the discourse.

Keywords


Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and   interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078-2105.

Arundale, R. B. (2013). Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: relational and emic perspectives, Journal of pragmatics, 58, 108-120.

Baxter, L., & Montgomery, M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interviews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Don, Z. M., & Izadi, A. (2011). Relational connection and separation in dissertation defenses in Iran. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3782-3792.

Don, Z. M., & Izadi, A. (2013). Achieving face in achieving criticism and criticisms response exchanges. Language and Communication, 33, 221-231.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Nueva York: Anchor Books.

Greatbatch, D. L. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society, 17, 401-430.

Have, P. T. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.

Heritage, J. (1997). Conversational analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 161-182). London: Sage.

Izadi, A. (2015). Persian honorifics and im/politeness as social practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 81-91.

Izadi, A. (2016a). Over-politeness in Persian professional interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 102, 13-23.

Izadi, A. (2016b). Culture-generality and culture-specificity of face: Insights from argumentative talk in Iranian dissertation defenses. Pragmatics and Society, 7(3), 90-105.

Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding face in the preference structure of talk-in-Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303-321.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.

Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference of self-correction in the organization of repair. Language, 53(2), 361-382.

Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1554-1564.