DOCSLIB.ORG

Conversation: Linguistic Aspects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conversation: Linguistic Aspects Conersation Analysis: Sociological by anyone who knows how to talk. While large Schegloff E A 1992 Repair after next turn: The last structurally numbers of specimens of such practices are valuable in provided for place for the defense of intersubjectivity determining their nature and function, statistical in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97(5): analysis has played little role in the field, largely 1295–345 Doing Conersation Analysis because in the matter of interactional practices, as in ten Have P 1999 . Sage, London the case of biological species, large numbers are not J. Heritage essential to establishing their existence. In the field of institutional interaction, however, and especially in its applied aspects, where practices of interaction are being linked to tasks, identities, perceptions, expec- tations and outcomes, a more statistically-focused methodology is appropriate and is increasingly used. Conversation: Linguistic Aspects Conversations are social creations. They are produced one step at a time as people carry out certain joint 6. Conclusion activities. A joint activity is one in which two or more CA is a large and diversifying field of study. Its basic people have to coordinate with each other to succeed outlook and methodology have achieved ‘paradig- (Clark 1996). These include not only waltzing, playing matic’ status in Thomas Kuhn’s sense, and is widely a piano duet, playing tennis, but gossiping, planning a accepted across the range of social science disciplines party, and negotiating a contract. In waltzing, duets, to which it has contributed. It seems likely that its and tennis, people coordinate moment by moment by methodology will continue to evolve and that it will means of gesture, touch, and other actions; but in contribute, not only to sociology, communication gossip, planning, and negotiation, they use speech as science and linguistics, but also to medicine, neuro- well—they converse. What people do and say is not science, artificial intelligence and the life sciences with determined beforehand. It emerges as they negotiate which its practitioners are in increasing contact. their way through these activities. Conversations reflect the joint activities they co- See also: Action, Theories of Social; Goffman, Erving ordinate. Every joint activity has participants—the (1921–82); Interactionism: Symbolic; Labor, Division people actually taking part, who are distinct from non- of; Sociology, Epistemology of; Theory: Sociological participants (bystanders, onlookers, overhearers)— and so do the conversations that emerge from them. The participants take particular roles, such as doctor and patient, teacher and student, or friend calling and Bibliography friend called, and the roles constrain what the partici- pants do and say. Every joint activity has public Atkinson J M, Heritage J (eds.) 1984 Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conersation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, goals—mutually agreed-upon purposes for carrying Cambridge, UK them out. The overall goal may be to exchange gossip, Couper-Kuhlen E, Selting M (eds.) 1996 Prosody in Coner- plan an outing, or negotiate a contract, and these have sation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK subgoals. Although some of these goals are set from Drew P, Heritage J (eds.) 1992 Talk at Work. Cambridge the start, most get established as the participants go University Press, Cambridge, UK along. The participants also have private goals—to be Goffman E 1983 The interaction order. American Sociological polite, not to lose face, or to finish quickly, for Reiew 48: 1–17 example—and these, too, constrain what the partici- Goodwin C 1981 Con ersational Organization: Interaction Be- pants do and say. Finally, people often engage in two tween Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press, New York or more joint activities at a time—such as gossiping Goodwin C (ed.) 2002 Conersation Analysis and Communication Disorder. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK and eating dinner together—so their conversation Garfinkel H 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, switches back and forth between them. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Working together in a joint activity takes commit- Heath C, Luff P 2000 Technology in Action. Cambridge ments and actions by all the participants. Joint University Press, Cambridge, UK activities have boundaries—distinct beginnings and Heritage J, Maynard D (eds.) 2002 Practicing Medicine: Struc- ends, and transitions from one part to the next—but ture and Process in Primary Care Encounters. Cambridge these boundaries don’t exist until the participants University Press, Cambridge, UK agree to them. To enter a planning session, for Ochs E, Schegloff E A, Thompson S A (eds.) 1996 Interaction and example, two people must agree on (a) what the joint Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Sacks H 1992 Lectures on Conersation. Blackwell, Oxford, activity is to be, (b) who is to take part, (c) in what UK roles, (d) at what time and (e) at what place, and (f) Sacks H, Schegloff E A, Jefferson G 1974 A simplest systematics whether or not they are each committed to taking part. for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language They must reach these agreements at each transition 50: 696–735 point as well. What is remarkable is that people 2744 Conersation: Linguistic Aspects Table 1 Table 3 An adjacency pair Types of pre-sequences Ann whereabouts are you going, Pre-request Customer Do you have hot Betty I’ve got a job at Columbia University, chocolate? in New York, - Waitress Yes, we do Ann have you, Pre-invitation Man What are you doin’ Woman Nothin.’ What’s up? Pre-narrative June Did I tell you I was Table 2 going to Scotland A pre-question Kenneth No Pre-conversation Caller [rings telephone] Duncan Edgar, I I . may I ask you a question, Recipient Miss Pink’s office Edgar surely, [Duncan and Edgar exchange fifteen turns as Duncan describes an author’s Table 4 claim about Danish usage.] Opening of telephone conversation Duncan it is it it really so, that that is the common usage in Denmark, I don’t know if Karen: (rings Charlie’s telephone) you’ve heard, of that, Charlie: Wintermere speaking? - Edgar - - umm . I’m . I would be surprised, if it Karen: hello? was accepted usage, Charlie: hello Karen: Charlie Charlie: yes accomplish all this locally, turn by turn (Sacks et al. Karen: actually it’s 1974). Charlie: hello Karen One basic unit of conversation is the adjacency pair Karen: it’s me (Schegloff and Sacks 1973), as in the spontaneous Charlie: m example shown in Table 1 (all examples are from Karen: I (- laughs) I couldn’t get back last Svartvik and Quirk 1980). night, [continues] Adjacency pairs each have two parts, by different speakers, where part 2 is conditionally relevant given part 1. Part 1 is a proposal, and part 2 is expected to be project not only the eventual question, but pre- the uptake of that proposal. In Table 1, Ann proposes liminaries to that question. that Betty tell her whereabouts she is going, and Betty Pre-questions and their responses are one of a large takes up the proposal by saying that she’s got a job at family of so-called pre-sequences. Table 3 gives a few Columbia University. In just two turns, Ann and Betty more examples. manage to coordinate on the content, participants, Each pre-sequence prepares the way for another roles, time, place, and commitments of their joint joint action. The pre-request sets up a request (‘I’ll action. They would have failed if Betty had replied have one’); the pre-invitation sets up an invitation ‘What do you mean?’ or ‘You mean me?’ or ‘I don’t (‘Would you like … ’); the pre-narrative sets up a know’ or ‘I won’t tell you.’ narrative; and the pre-conversation sets up an entire Adjacency pairs are available for a wide range of telephone conversation. So pre-sequences are useful in joint actions. These include not only requests for organizing longer sections of conversation. information (as in Ann and Betty’s exchange), but Opening a conversation takes special coordination greetings (‘Hi,’ ‘Hi’), farewells (‘Bye,’ ‘Bye’), offers as two or more people move from not being in a (‘Have some cake,’ ‘Thanks’), orders (‘Sit down,’ ‘Yes, conversation to being in one. Table 4 gives the sir’), and apologies (‘Sorry,’ ‘Oh, that’s okay’) opening of a telephone conversation between (Stenstro$ m 1994). They are used for even the simplest acquaintances. exchanges of information (‘I’ve got a job … ’ ‘Have First, Karen and Charlie coordinate contact you?’). through a proposal to have a conversation (the Adjacency pairs take only two turns, but they can be telephone ring) and its uptake (‘Wintermere speak- used to project larger sections, as in Table 2 (the ing?’). Next, they mutually establish their identities. disfluencies are in the original). Karen tells Charlie that she recognizes him in line 5, Duncan’s first turn is a pre-question (Schegloff but Karen has to say ‘hello?’ ‘Charlie,’ and ‘actually 1980). With it he proposes to ask Edgar a question, it’s’ before he identifies her in line 8. Only then does and Edgar agrees. Duncan now has the freedom to Karen introduce the first topic. It took ten turns for take up preliminaries to his question, and it takes the them to coordinate on the participants, roles, time, two of them fifteen turns to do that. Only then does he place, and commitment to the conversation. ask his question, and Edgar answers it. Pre-questions Closing conversations is no easier (Schegloff and 2745 Conersation: Linguistic Aspects Table 5 Table 8 Closing of telephone conversation A side sequence June and I’ll . I’ll ring again, as soon as Duncan well wha- uhh what shall we do about uh I can on the tenth, uhh to definite this boy then, - - confirm it, Ed Duveen? Kathryn right, Duncan m, Kathryn okay, Ed well I propose to write, [continues] June right, June thanks a lot, Kathryn r .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Six Tips for Teaching Conversation Skills with Visual Strategies
    Six Tips for Teaching Conversation Skills with Visual Strategies Six Tips for Teaching Conversation Skills with Visual Strategies Working with Autism Spectrum Disorders & Related Communication & Social Skill Challenges Linda Hodgdon, M.Ed., CCC-SLP Speech-Language Pathologist Consultant for Autism Spectrum Disorders [email protected] Learning effective conversation skills ranks as one of the most significant social abilities that students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) need to accomplish. Educators and parents list the challenges: “Steve talks too much.” “Shannon doesn’t take her turn.” “Aiden talks when no one is listening.” “Brandon perseverates on inappropriate topics.” “Kim doesn’t respond when people try to communicate with her.” The list goes on and on. Difficulty with conversation prevents these students from successfully taking part in social opportunities. What makes learning conversation skills so difficult? Conversation requires exactly the skills these students have difficulty with, such as: • Attending • Quickly taking in and processing information • Interpreting confusing social cues • Understanding vocabulary • Comprehending abstract language Many of those skills that create skillful conversation are just the ones that are difficult as a result of the core deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Think about it. From the student’s point of view, conversation can be very puzzling. Conversation is dynamic. .fleeting. .changing. .unpredictable. © Linda Hodgdon, 2007 1 All Rights Reserved This article may not be duplicated,
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Distinctive Turn-Taking Systems
    Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Distinctive Turn-Taking Systems John Heritage, UCLA In: S.Cmejrková, J.Hoffmannová, O.Müllerová and J.Svetlá (1998) (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Congresss of IADA (International Association for Dialog Analysis), Tubingen: Niemeyer, pp.3-17. 2 Introduction In the thirty years since its inception, conversation analysis has emerged as a major, and distinctively sociological, contribution to the analysis of discourse. During this time, discourse analysis has acquired considerable prominence as a field of inquiry. Correspondingly, conversation analysis has grown and diversified in many different directions. The sociological origins of conversation analysis are to be found in the work of two great American originators: Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel. With Goffman (1955; 1983), conversation analysts begin with the notion that conversational interaction represents an institutional order sui generis in which interactional rights and obligations are linked not only to personal face and identity, but also to macro-social institutions. With Garfinkel (1967), conversation analysts recognize that analyzing the institution of conversation in terms of rules and practices that impose moral obligations, in the way that Goffman stressed, needs to be supplemented by recognizing the importance of intersubjectivity. In particular, this means focusing on how interactional rules and practices are ceaselessly drawn upon by the participants in constructing shared and specific understandings of 'where they are' within a social interaction. Central to this process is a 'reflexive' dimension in social action: by their actions participants exhibit an analysis or an understanding of the event in which they are engaged, but by acting they also make an interactional contribution that moves the event itself forward on the basis of that analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • "Context" Within Conversation Analysis
    Raclaw: Approaches to "Context" within Conversation Analysis Approaches to "Context" within Conversation Analysis Joshua Raclaw University of Colorado This paper examines the use of "context" as both a participant’s and an analyst’s resource with conversation analytic (CA) research. The discussion focuses on the production and definition of context within two branches of CA, "traditional CA" and "institutional CA". The discussion argues against a single, monolithic understanding of "context" as the term is often used within the CA literature, instead highlighting the various ways that the term is used and understood by analysts working across the different branches of CA. The paper ultimately calls for further reflexive discussions of analytic practice among analysts, similar to those seen in other areas of sociocultural linguistic research. 1. Introduction The concept of context has been a critical one within sociocultural linguistics. The varied approaches to the study of language and social interaction – linguistic, anthropological, sociological, and otherwise – each entail the particulars for how the analyst defines the context in which language is produced. Goodwin and Duranti (1992) note the import of the term within the field of pragmatics (citing Morris 1938; Carnap 1942; Bar-Hillel 1954; Gazdar 1979; Ochs 1979; Levinson 1983; and Leech 1983), anthropological and ethnographic studies of language use (citing Malinowski 1923, 1934; Jakobson 1960; Gumperz and Hymes 1972; Hymes 1972, 1974; and Bauman and Sherzer 1974), and quantitative and variationist sociolinguistics (citing Labov 1966, 1972a, and 1972b).1 To this list we can add a number of frameworks for doing socially-oriented discourse analysis, including conversation analysis (CA), critical discourse analysis (CDA), and discursive psychology (DP).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Communication Skills – the Pragmatics Checklist
    SOCIAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS – THE PRAGMATICS CHECKLIST Child’s Name Date .Completed by . Words Preverbal) Parent: These social communication skills develop over time. Read the behaviors below and place an X - 3 in the appropriate column that describes how your child uses words/language, no words (gestures – - Language preverbal) or does not yet show a behavior. Present Not Uses Complex Uses Complex Gestures Uses Words NO Uses 1 Pragmatic Objective ( INSTRUMENTAL – States needs (I want….) 1. Makes polite requests 2. Makes choices 3. Gives description of an object wanted 4. Expresses a specific personal need 5. Requests help REGULATORY - Gives commands (Do as I tell you…) 6. Gives directions to play a game 7. Gives directions to make something 8. Changes the style of commands or requests depending on who the child is speaking to and what the child wants PERSONAL – Expresses feelings 9. Identifies feelings (I’m happy.) 10. Explains feelings (I’m happy because it’s my birthday) 11. Provides excuses or reasons 12. Offers an opinion with support 13. Complains 14. Blames others 15. Provides pertinent information on request (2 or 3 of the following: name, address, phone, birthdate) INTERACTIONAL - Me and You… 16. Interacts with others in a polite manner 17. Uses appropriate social rules such as greetings, farewells, thank you, getting attention 18. Attends to the speaker 19. Revises/repairs an incomplete message 20. Initiates a topic of conversation (doesn’t just start talking in the middle of a topic) 21. Maintains a conversation (able to keep it going) 22. Ends a conversation (doesn’t just walk away) 23.
    [Show full text]
  • Hierarchy of Social/Pragmatic Skills As Related to the Development of Executive Function Created by Kimberly Peters, Ph.D
    Hierarchy of Social/Pragmatic Skills as Related to the Development of Executive Function created by Kimberly Peters, Ph.D. Age Pragmatic Skills EF Development/Tasks requiring EF Treatment Ideas/Strategies 0-3 Illocutionary—caregiver attributes Development: - face to face interaction months intent to child actions - behavior is designed to meet - vocal-turn-taking with care-providers - smiles/coos in response immediate needs - attends to eyes and mouth - cognitive flexibility not emerged - has preference for faces - exhibits turn-taking 3-6 - laughs while socializing - vocal turn-taking with care-providers months - maintains eye contact appropriately - facial expressions: tongue protrusion, - takes turns by vocalizing “oh”, raspberries. - maintains topic by following gaze - copies facial expressions 6-9 - calls to get attention Development: - peek-a-boo months - demonstrates attachment - Early inhibitory control emerges - place toys slightly out of reach - shows self/acts coy to Peek-a-boo - tolerates longer delays and still - imitative babbling (first true communicative intent) maintains simple, focused attention - imitating actions (waving, covering - reaches/points to request eyes with hands). 9-12 - begins directing others Development: - singing/finger plays/nursery rhymes months - participates in verbal routines - Early inhibitory control emerges - routines (so big! where is baby?), - repeats actions that are laughed at - tolerates longer delays and still peek-a-boo, patta-cake, this little piggy - tries to restart play maintain simple,
    [Show full text]
  • A Communication Aid Which Models Conversational Patterns
    A communication aid which models conversational patterns. Norman Alm, Alan F. Newell & John L. Arnott. Published in: Proc. of the Tenth Annual Conference on Rehabilitation Technology (RESNA ‘87), San Jose, California, USA, 19-23 June 1987, pp. 127-129. A communication aid which models conversational patterns Norman ALM*, Alan F. NEWELL and John L. ARNOTT University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland, U.K. The research reported here was published in: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on Rehabilitation Technology (RESNA ’87), San Jose, California, USA, 19-23 June 1987, pp. 127-129. The RESNA (Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America) site is at: http://www.resna.org/ Abstract: We have developed a prototype communication system that helps non-speakers to perform communication acts competently, rather than concentrating on improving the production efficiency for specific letters, words or phrases. The system, called CHAT, is based on patterns which are found in normal unconstrained dialogue. It contains information about the present conversational move, the next likely move, the person being addressed, and the mood of the interaction. The system can move automatically through a dialogue, or can offer the user a selection of conversational moves on the basis of single keystrokes. The increased communication speed which is thus offered can significantly improve both the flow of the conversation and the disabled person’s control of the dialogue. * Corresponding author: Dr. N. Alm, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland, UK. A communication aid which models conversational patterns INTRODUCTION The slow rate of communication of people using communication aids is a crucial problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation Analysis for Educational Technologists: Theoretical and Methodological Issues for Researching the Structures, Processes, and Meaning of On-Line Talk
    P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-40 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:15 Char Count= 0 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGISTS: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR RESEARCHING THE STRUCTURES, PROCESSES, AND MEANING OF ON-LINE TALK Joan M. Mazur University of Kentucky processes and outcomes. As ever-increasing numbers of people 40.1 INTRODUCTION use on-line chats, listservs, threaded discussions, and video and audio conferencing for educational purposes, questions about Research in education technology encompasses a wide range these on-line conversations arise: of quantitative and qualitative methods (Savenye & Robinson 1996). Methods and approaches formerly applied in the broader r realm of qualitative educational research have become impor- What are characteristics of on-line conversations, and how tant to researchers in educational technology. Conversation does virtual talk-in-interaction relate to instruction, learning, analysis (CA) is one such qualitative approach that has recently and communication? r become highly relevant for examining educational phenonmena What relationships exist between conversation and cognition related to discourse supported by the plethora of tools and re- or the social, distributed construction of knowledge? sources for computer-mediated communication. In this chapter, r To what extent does the type of technology limit or support which focuses on CA situated within the tradition of discourse the discourse required for various modes of instruction? analysis, I make several assumptions. I assume that the reader is r What are these discourses of on-line instruction? acquainted with qualitative inquiry and such terms as grounded r theory, intersubjectivity, participant and nonparticipant obser- How can structures and processes inherent in conversation vation, sampling, and recursion in the analytic phases of inquiry assist in the development of instructional contexts that sup- are familiar.
    [Show full text]
  • 34 Conversation Analysis and Anthropology
    34 Conversation Analysis and Anthropology IGNASI CLEMENTE Hunter College, CUNY 1 Introduction In this chapter, I discuss the relationship between Anthropology and Conversation Analysis (CA). After briefl y describing what Anthropology is and the intellectual history of the relationship between Anthropology and CA, I focus on the ways in which each fi eld has infl uenced the other. Anthropology is the study of the human species in its present and past diversity from a holistic and empirical perspective. With this wide - ranging and inclusive approach to the study of the human experience, North American Anthropology is made up of four subfi elds: sociocultural anthropology, physical anthropology, archeology, and linguistic anthropology. Culture is considered a central aspect of what makes us human, but anthropologists do not share a single defi nition of culture. In fact, defi nitions of and disagreements about culture abound across anthropological subfi elds and theoretical approaches. Duranti (1997a) devotes an entire chapter of his linguistic anthropology textbook to present six defi nitions of culture: culture as (i) distinct from nature, (ii) knowledge, (iii) communication, (iv) a system of mediation, (v) a system of practices, and (vi) systems of participation. Despite the differences, a general understanding exists around a defi nition of culture as the component of human experience that is not biologically transmitted, but rather learned and passed among and between populations across time and space. To study culture, anthropologists often conduct in situ observation and data collection to create an ethnography (Malinowski, 1967 [1922]). Ethnography is “ thick ” description (Geertz, 1973 ) of human social phenomena in the natural and local settings within which they emerge and acquire meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis Organizer & Leader: Virginia Teas Gill, Illinois State University Panelists: Douglas W
    E The Official Newsletter of the American Sociological Association Section on M Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis C Summer 2015 Volume 8, Issue 2, p.1 2014-2015 EMCA Section Officers Dear EMCA Community, A The reviews have been completed, papers Chairs scheduled, and award recipients chosen. Robert Dingwall (Dingwall Enterprises) We are ready for ASA 2015 in Chicago [email protected] next month! Mardi Kidwell (University of New In this issue, you will find a schedule of Hampshire) EMCA sessions, events, and news, along [email protected] with the regular coverage of upcoming conferences, calls for papers, new book announcements, and spotlights on emerging Outgoing Treasurer scholars. Ruth Parry (University of Nottingham) [email protected] This year we have a total of 7 EMCA paper sessions, one conference wide session, and a teaching workshop. ... Outgoing Council Douglas Maynard (University of Wisconsin) [email protected] ASA EMCA Spring Elections New Secretary Treasurer: Tim Berard (Kent State) Bob Moore, IBM, [email protected] [email protected] New Council Members: Waverly Duck, Wayne State University, [email protected] Patrick Watson (University of Waterloo) Morana Alac UC San Diego, [email protected] [email protected] Aug Nishizaka (Chiba University) In This Issue: [email protected] ASA 2015 EMCA Session Info. p.3-5 EMCA Awards 2015 p.6 Former Chairs Dirk vom Lehn (King's College London) Calls for Papers p.7 [email protected] Recent Books p.7, 8, 10 Upcoming Events p.8, 10 Erik Vinkhuyzen (Palo Alto Research Centre) Report on CACE p.9 [email protected] Graduate student biographies p.11-13 E Summer 2015 Volume 8, Issue 2, p.2 M ..
    [Show full text]
  • Difficult Conversations: Authentic Communication Leads to Greater Productivity
    Difficult Conversations: Authentic Communication Leads to Greater Productivity by Martha Lasley Difficult conversations can lead to crisis or harmony. The Chinese word for crisis combines two symbols: danger and opportunity. When it comes to challenging conversations, we usually only remember the first meaning, danger. Real conversations can become highly emotional, trigger old battle wounds, and motivate us to confront, freeze, bolt, or attempt to smooth things over. Or we can choose lively discussions to explore the tension and discover new options. The piano maker Theodore Steinway said, “In one of our concert grand pianos, 243 taut strings exert a pull of 40,000 pounds on an iron frame. It is proof that out of great tension may come great harmony.” Authentic communication can turn tension into creativity and harmony. Imagine yourself at a tense planning meeting where the financial director reports, “To compete profitably, we need to lay off 20% of the workforce.” The marketing director responds, “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. We need to lay you off so we can hire new people who are serious about growing the business.” Are you ready to add fuel to the fire, would you prefer to crawl under your chair, or do you have the skills to facilitate an authentic, productive conversation? How do we develop facilitation skills so that we can embrace challenging conversations rather than avoid them? First, we need an effective process that leads to understanding and productivity. While smoothing things over may look quick and easy, in the long run, radical honesty and directness help teams perform at their highest potential.
    [Show full text]
  • How We Talk About How We Talk: Communication Theory in the Public Interest by Robert T
    20042004 ICA ICAPresidential Presidential Address Address How We Talk About How We Talk: Communication Theory in the Public Interest by Robert T. Craig This article is a revision of the author’s presidential address to the 54th annual conference of the International Communication Association, presented May 29, 2004, in New Orleans, Louisiana. Using recent public discourse on talk and drugs as an example, it reflects on our culture’s preoccupation with communication and the pervasiveness of metadiscourse (talk about talk for practical purposes) in pri- vate, public, and academic discourses. It argues that communication theory can be used to describe and analyze the common vocabularies of public metadiscourse, critique assumptions about communication embedded in those vocabularies, and contribute useful new ways of talking about talk in the public interest. “Talk to your kids.” “Talk to your kids about drugs.” “Talk to your doctor.” “Talk to your doctor about Ambien.” “Ask you doctor if Lipitor is right for you.” “Ask your doctor if Advair is right for you.” “Talk. Know. Ask.” “Questions: The antidrug.” This collage of quotations selected from recent drug company commercials and antidrug public service announcements highlights a well-known irony in the pub- lic discourse on drugs that is not, however, my main point. Yes, the culture that produced these ads is rather obsessed with drugs. That culture is also rather obsessed with talk or, more generally, with communication. Both obsessions are on display in these ads in interesting juxtaposition. Drugs, in this cultural logic, are powerful and therefore as dangerous as they are desirable. They solve problems and they cause problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Obtaining Contents of Communications
    2013 ORS 165.5401 Obtaining contents of communications (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 (Order for interception of communications) or 133.726 (interception of oral communication without order) or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant. (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant. (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained. (d) Obtain the whole or any part of a conversation, telecommunication or radio communication from any person, while knowing or having good reason to believe that the conversation, telecommunication or radio communication was initially obtained in a manner prohibited by this section. (e) Use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, any conversation, telecommunication or radio communication obtained by any means prohibited by this section. (2) (a) The prohibitions in subsection (1 )(a), (b) and (c) of this section do not apply to: (A) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who perform the acts prohibited by subsection (1 )(a), (b) and (c) of this section for the purpose of construction, maintenance or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.
    [Show full text]