Conversation Analysis is, to paraphrase Levinson, an odd duck in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Linguists often consider it either irrelevant because it doesn’t deal with “language proper” or because it’s not rigorous enough (read: we usually don’t do stats), whereas sociologists and psychologists tend to take the position that social interaction is not a particularly interesting subject and its findings are subjective anyway (read: we usually don’t do stats). Nonetheless, CA is a burgeoning field of research as was once again attested during the International Conference for Conversation Analysis, which was held at Loughborough this year. Five days – or seven if we include the pre-conference workshops – in which over 500 people from all over the world came together to discuss their work from sunup to sundown. And while quantity is of course not an argument for quality, the breadth and depth of the work presented was truly inspiring.
Workshops
The fun started before the actual conference got well under way. For three days there were workshops to enjoy on a variety of subjects, ranging from fundamental CA concepts such as Preference and Sequence Organization to practical discussions about quantification and how to write good research proposals. All these workshops were taught by the foremost experts in the field, and they provided a great opportunity to expand your understanding of the subject, or to get a grasp on concepts with which you previously had limited familiarity.
I joined the action on the second day with a great workshop by Merran Toerien on decision making in medical interaction. The workshop addressed the two major themes that any scholar nowadays will have to deal with: on the one hand there’s the actual analysis that we as CA researchers are interested in, and on the other there’s the matter of how to communicate these findings to practitioners who have no knowledge of the field and may be highly skeptical of any conclusion that isn’t supported by numbers or “hard data”.
While one day is obviously never enough to get a good grip on any of these discussions, Merran – who’s enthusiasm makes any workshop all the more inspiring – made great use of the time, starting with a data session, then giving presentations of her own work, and allowing us to get some hands-on experience with actual data, and finally even putting us in the position of practitioners to show how she has in the past gone about trying to convey these findings to physicians themselves. I think we all left with a far better understanding of how to go about analyzing our data, and a renewed vigor to help improve actual medical practice.
My second workshop as on presenting non-English data, taught by Giovanni Rossi. Anybody who’s ever published or presented findings using non-English data knows the struggle: how do you present your recordings and your transcripts in a way that they can easily be understood by scholars who don’t speak the language, without it all taking up so much room that, in case of articles, there is not enough room for the actual analysis. Giovanni focused on best practices from his own experience with Italian.
As a PhD graduate from the MPI for Psycholinguistics, he dealt extensively with the linguistic side of things such as the Leipzig Glossing Rules, but we also got to talk about problems such as how to make sure people focus on the original language, not the English translation. While it’s too early yet for definitive answers, it’s clear that we are moving towards at least some standardization that should make this all a lot easier for all of us.
I joined the action on the second day with a great workshop by Merran Toerien on decision making in medical interaction. The workshop addressed the two major themes that any scholar nowadays will have to deal with: on the one hand there’s the actual analysis that we as CA researchers are interested in, and on the other there’s the matter of how to communicate these findings to practitioners who have no knowledge of the field and may be highly skeptical of any conclusion that isn’t supported by numbers or “hard data”.
While one day is obviously never enough to get a good grip on any of these discussions, Merran – who’s enthusiasm makes any workshop all the more inspiring – made great use of the time, starting with a data session, then giving presentations of her own work, and allowing us to get some hands-on experience with actual data, and finally even putting us in the position of practitioners to show how she has in the past gone about trying to convey these findings to physicians themselves. I think we all left with a far better understanding of how to go about analyzing our data, and a renewed vigor to help improve actual medical practice.
My second workshop as on presenting non-English data, taught by Giovanni Rossi. Anybody who’s ever published or presented findings using non-English data knows the struggle: how do you present your recordings and your transcripts in a way that they can easily be understood by scholars who don’t speak the language, without it all taking up so much room that, in case of articles, there is not enough room for the actual analysis. Giovanni focused on best practices from his own experience with Italian.
As a PhD graduate from the MPI for Psycholinguistics, he dealt extensively with the linguistic side of things such as the Leipzig Glossing Rules, but we also got to talk about problems such as how to make sure people focus on the original language, not the English translation. While it’s too early yet for definitive answers, it’s clear that we are moving towards at least some standardization that should make this all a lot easier for all of us.
Keynote lectures
After the final workshops, we only had a few hours before the conference was officially opened and Jeffrey Robinson got us started with the first plenary lecture. And we couldn’t have gotten off to a better start. Jeff not only tackled one of the bigger questions in CA – Is there a preference for agreement with positively formulated interrogative polar questions? – but he also showed a truly rigorous way of doing analysis. The goal of CA should not just be to compare apples with apples, but Granny Smiths with Granny Smiths. This means that when we build a collection, we need to make sure that there is no unnecessary variation in the data that could influence the findings. One may think that he is taking lessons from experimental methods, and he may well have, but one still has to analyze each case independently, as a single case. He still focused on the normative organization of social interaction.
Jeff’s conclusion: there is no preference for agreement, but a preference for what he called non-conditioned answers, answers that go along with the agendas set in the question. The future will see whether it holds, but one cannot be anything but impressed by the analytic rigor of the methodology and Jeff in doing so demonstrated that there is no reason why CA cannot be considered just has hard a science as any other ground in experimental methods.
The four subsequent days were progressively more exhausting, the unnatural heat not being particularly helpful in rooms without AC and hundreds of hard working academics, but also great fun. The plenary speakers addressed engaging and inspiring topics such as eye rolls in everyday and public interaction (Rebecca Clift), deal making by physicians (Tanya Stivers), and even literary translation of particles using Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland (Marja-Leena Sorjonen). Particularly the latter may have gotten some skeptical looks at the beginning – at least from me – but Marja-Leena demonstrated that even conversation in literature, and indeed conversation wherever it can be found, can be a great source of data. You just have to ask the right questions.
Jeff’s conclusion: there is no preference for agreement, but a preference for what he called non-conditioned answers, answers that go along with the agendas set in the question. The future will see whether it holds, but one cannot be anything but impressed by the analytic rigor of the methodology and Jeff in doing so demonstrated that there is no reason why CA cannot be considered just has hard a science as any other ground in experimental methods.
The four subsequent days were progressively more exhausting, the unnatural heat not being particularly helpful in rooms without AC and hundreds of hard working academics, but also great fun. The plenary speakers addressed engaging and inspiring topics such as eye rolls in everyday and public interaction (Rebecca Clift), deal making by physicians (Tanya Stivers), and even literary translation of particles using Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland (Marja-Leena Sorjonen). Particularly the latter may have gotten some skeptical looks at the beginning – at least from me – but Marja-Leena demonstrated that even conversation in literature, and indeed conversation wherever it can be found, can be a great source of data. You just have to ask the right questions.
Panels and Themes
There was so much to see at the actual conference that there is no way to provide a short discussion of all the interesting talks. But then again, with all the live tweeting that went on, I don’t think there is a reason to. I’ll just say this. It was great to see the diversity in the way people go about presenting their research. There was obviously the classic approach: people starting with a clear outline and going from an introduction, to their method/data, an analysis, and to wrap up with the conclusions. But that was certainly not the only way. Danielle Pillet-Shore must have taken her audience through twenty examples, if not more, taking the data as the heart and soul of her talk about what she called registerings.
I was also surprised by how many people presented completely written oud talks. It’s a practice I have rarely seen at earlier conferences, but at least half the talks, particularly by non-European scholars, were done in this manner. I often found these harder to follow. Presenting has to be engaging, it’s a form of entertainment, and that part often gets lost when a scholar just stands there, reading their presentation aloud. But it guarantees that presenters get to say what they want, exactly how they want to. And of course, presenting is a skill that takes time and practice to master, whether you read aloud, do it entirely from memory, or merely prepare a rough structure.
I was also surprised by how many people presented completely written oud talks. It’s a practice I have rarely seen at earlier conferences, but at least half the talks, particularly by non-European scholars, were done in this manner. I often found these harder to follow. Presenting has to be engaging, it’s a form of entertainment, and that part often gets lost when a scholar just stands there, reading their presentation aloud. But it guarantees that presenters get to say what they want, exactly how they want to. And of course, presenting is a skill that takes time and practice to master, whether you read aloud, do it entirely from memory, or merely prepare a rough structure.
Exhausting
With the pre-conference workshops, long days of talks, and of course the heat, it was no surprise that by the final day everybody was pretty exhausted – the silent disco and karaoke the night before also weren’t conducive to a sharp mind. Nonetheless, plenty of people stuck around until the bitter end. (I skipped the closing to watch the World Cup final – Allez Les Blues!). And whether it was intentional or not, but by planning a number of great speakers, such as Candy Goodwin and Merran Toerien, for the final sessions it was easy to engage with the presentations despite the fatigue. It may not be ideal for the presenters, but I consider it a smart plan.
But exhausting it was nonetheless. Fortunately, none of this will be a problem at ICCA 2022; not only will it take place in winter – or what counts for winter Down Under – but we were promised there will be koalas(!), and they will undoubtedly wash any fatigue away. And they need to in order for the conference to top this one; it was superbly organized by a great committee and supported by a group of outstanding volunteers. And as always, it’s the people who make the conferences: the talks, discussions, lunches, dinners, and conversations with friends and colleagues are what make ICCA into what it is; a holiday for conversation analysts.
But exhausting it was nonetheless. Fortunately, none of this will be a problem at ICCA 2022; not only will it take place in winter – or what counts for winter Down Under – but we were promised there will be koalas(!), and they will undoubtedly wash any fatigue away. And they need to in order for the conference to top this one; it was superbly organized by a great committee and supported by a group of outstanding volunteers. And as always, it’s the people who make the conferences: the talks, discussions, lunches, dinners, and conversations with friends and colleagues are what make ICCA into what it is; a holiday for conversation analysts.
RSS Feed
