I’ve started the courses associated with Discourse Analysis (DA) both of which appear to be related to the SLA classroom with the Seedhouse lesson providing what appears to be a detailed examination of Conversation Analysis (CA). What is interesting from the additional readings (Doelher)is the clear distinction between classic CA (learning) and the Language Development CA (acquisition of a second language). Whilst CA is understood as a continually unfolding development of context, language development is conceptualised as progress made over the long term (a longitudinal study). Alternatively, classic CA is a means of characterising the process of learning in the short term through modes of participation and the associated rules of interaction.

Furthermore, SLA has been conceptualised in 2 forms. The first follows the linguistic/cognitive/psychological paradigm (SLA is achieved through a collection of integrated mental processes) while the alternative is an interactional/social paradigm. CA clearly sits in the interactional paradigm though according to Myles (2010) their is room for a combination of the 2 approaches. Not sure how possible this is as they appear to be along diametrically-opposed research paradigms.

According to Psathas, Conversation analysis contrasts with the linguistic approach in that it is an unmotivated examination of interaction. Whilst CA necessitates a framework of analysis, it doesnt apriori define modes of interaction. The following guidelines (as opposed to rules) for analysis have been proposed by Ten Have (1999):

1. Development an empirical account of interaction
a. actions accomplished (what was achieved)
b. a grounding of the account in the reality of the participants (what was said)
c. an explanation of how an utterance led to social action (the link between a and b)

2. Preparatory Routine (Schegloff)
a.Identify patterns of turn-taking within the spoken episode (interaction). Take particular note of disturbances in fluent operation (deviance)
b. Look for sequences, particularly adjacent pairs
c. Look for repair

3. Analysis
a. Select a sequence where interaction sequence is opened and subsequently closed.
b. Characterise actions in the sequence. Describe actions on a turn-by-turn basis (pairs, repair)
c. Note the packaging of actions in terms of reference and content (form and delivery of action and preferences)
d. Interpret actions in terms of turn-taking and timing
e. Actions implicate identity and roles. Whilst the CA paradigm implies that reality is under continual negotiation and construction (in the moment), interaction can nonetheless be related to the rights, obligations and expectations of the participants within a framework of relatively fixed social notions of identity and role. Examples include institutional relations such as teacher/pupil, employer/employee even parent/child.

According to Ten Have there are 4 types of interactional organisation.
1. Turn Taking Organisation. According to Sacks, Turn-Taking is locally managed (turn by turn), party administered (by the participants themselves) and interactionally managed (subject to recipient design, talk is constructed in ways that are sensitive to the receivers). Turn-Taking itself is orientated around TCU (Turn Construction Unit) and the points at which transition of speakership occurs (or is possible). The principle focus of analysis associated with each TCU is; why that and why now.
2. Sequence Organisation
3. Repair Organisation
4. Organisation of Turn-construction design