Introduction
The way of speaking or writing is important for communication. The message in any literary piece is not just contained in the text only but also the presentation of the text. In the same respect, the message in a verbalized text is not just contained in the words only but also in how the words are verbalized. The analysis of conversations entails the evaluation of the language used by the notion that the use of language by the people involved in the conversation is meant to inform the other person of the intentions that one had in speaking (Heritage 2). Seeing that institutional talk is different from ordinary conversations, the discourse analysis of institutional talks takes a different approach. However, this is predicated on an understanding of what is ‘institutional’ about institutional talk.
Heritage (3) finds that institutional talks have distinctive characteristics that differentiate them from ordinary conversations. One of these characteristics is that the participants in institutional conversations have definite goal orientations which are related to identities that are defined by the institutions (Heritage 3). The second characteristic is that institutional talk is guided by particular boundaries that determine what is to be considered as an allowable contribution (Heritage 4). Finally, there is a correlation between the procedures and inferential frameworks that are unique for different institutional scenarios (Heritage 4).
The discourse analysis of the institutional talk will be based on various concepts. These concepts include the function, relevance, consequences, and interpretation by others, social realities, and the construction process. The concepts are important because they contributed to the decoding of the message in the institutional talk. These concepts are also important because they help one determine how certain interactional practices in institutional talk relate causally to the social context of the institution in question (Heritage 5). The analysis will also be informed by dimensions such as the lexical choices made, sequence organization, epistemic asymmetry, the structural organization, turn design, and turn-taking organization (Heritage 5).
Research Questions
The analysis of the excerpts of the institutional talk will be guided by the following research questions.
What is the function of the institutional talk?
What is the relevance of what each of the participants is saying?
What are the consequences and outcomes of the institutional conversations?
What social realities emanate from the institutional talk?
How do other people interpret what the participants in the institutional talk are saying?
What process do the participants use in constructing their verbalizations?
Discourse Analysis
1 Mom: Hello
2 (0.5)
3 Sch: Hello Mister Wilson?
4 (0.8)
5 Mom:Uh: this is Missus Wilson.
6 Sch: Uh Missus Wilson I’m sorry. This is Miss Matalin
7 from Arroyo High School Calling?
8 Mom: Mmhm
End of Section 1
9 Sch: .hhhhh Was Martin home from school ill today?=
10 Mom: =:::h yes he was in fact I’m sorry I- I didn’ ca:ll
11 because uh::h I slept in late I (.) haven’ been feeling
12 well either. .hhhh And uh .hhh (0.5) u::hhe had uh yih
13 know, uh fever.
14 (0.2)
15 Mom: this morning.
16 Sch: U::h hu:h,
17 (): .hhh=
18 Mom: =And uh I don’ y’know if he’be (.) in
19 tomorrow fer sure er no:t, He’s kina j’st bin laying
20 arou:nd j(hh)uhkno:w,=
End of Section 2
21 Sch: =Okay well I’ll go ahead an:’ u:hm
22 Mom: ()
23 Sch: I won’ call you tomorrow night if we don’ see ‘im
24 tomorrow we’ll just assume he was home ill.
25 (.)
26 Mom: nnRig[ht ()
27 Sch: [A:n-
28 Sch: Send a note with him when he does return
29 Mom: I will.
End of Section 3
30 Sch: O:kay.
31 Mom: Okay=
32 Sch: =Thank you
33 Mom: Uh huh Bye[bye
34 Sch: [Bye
End of Call
The excerpt above adapted from Heritage (228) shows three sections of a call made by Ms. Matalin to Martin’s mother after the teachers notified her that the student was absent from school. The call by Ms. Matalin was primarily mean to determine the whereabouts of Martin. The functioning of this piece of institutional talk is characterized by the pursuit of various objectives throughout the various sections of the phone call. The orientation of the various sections of the talk is influenced by the two participants towards their individual sub-goals.
This is seen in the progression of conversation as aided by turn-taking. Each of the participants gets their turn to contribute to the progression of the talk. In actual sense, each of these participants is pursuing their individual sub-goals by either responding to their interpretation of what the other said, or by introducing new elements into the conversation. The function of the institutional talk allows both the teacher and the mother to meet their sub-goals (Heritage 228).
The relevance of the talk is also another concept that on which the discourse analysis. The two participants involved in the conversation in the excerpt are Martin’s teacher and Martin’s mother. Ideally, an institutional talk can take place between these two people, especially when it is related to the school work or behavior of Martin. The talk is even more relevant as evidenced by the explanation of the teacher of the reasons for calling. Martin’s absence from school was noted by other teachers who thought it wise to follow up with the parent in case something extraordinary had happened.
This is also relevant for this talk because the teacher has responsibility for the student when they are in the school premises. There is an implied knowhow by the parent that when the student leaves home, they go to school. The teacher also expects that the student will report to school all the school days in the week and that the parent will inform the teacher of any developments that might lead to the absence of the student. Given that that the parent had not called ahead to inform the teachers that his son would be absent because of illness, the call by the teacher is not only relevant but also justified (Heritage 228).
The discussion above highlighted the various sub-goals that each of the participants had in participating in the conversation. The continued conversation between Martin’s mother and the teacher led to several consequences. Firstly, the teacher was made aware of the reason that Martin had not attended school. As such the teacher was able to satisfy the official interest in his absence and to rest assured that the student was at their home with his mother. Additionally, the teacher was also informed of the absence of Martin from school the following day because of the fact that Martin was still ill, and the prognosis did not indicate that he would be sick. The two participants expressed their needs, and each of their needs was satisfied as the conversation progressed (Heritage 228).
Various conversations contain different subtle messages that decode different social realities. Social realities are situations that are peculiar to a community or society, and these peculiarities manifest through different types of social contact and expression. One of the social realities expressed in the institutional talk is the fact that students may not always tell the truth regarding their whereabouts, especially when this is likely to land them into problems. This social reality is evidenced by the decision by the teacher to enquire from the mother about the whereabouts of the student rather than wait for the student to report back to school and ask them to account for their whereabouts (Heritage 228).
Additionally, the request by the teacher to request that the mother gives the son a note to bring to school whenever he recovers from the illness and is ready to report back to school further reiterates the argument for the potential for human beings to lie as a social reality. “Hello, Mister Wilson?” is the salutation that the teacher used when she called at Martin’s house (Heritage 228). This indicates her belief that she would be talking to Martin’s father. However, the lady who answered the phone introduced herself as Martin’s mother. Even though the teacher had no reason to doubt that the lady was not his mother, she also had no way of confirming so. It is not inconceivable that he lady with who the teacher held the conversation was not Martin’s mother. In full knowledge of this possibility, the teacher requested to see a note from the mother when Martin had recovered enough to come back to school.
The messages decoded in the institutional talk can be interpreted in different ways depending on their point of view. One interpretation is that the actions belong to a concerned teacher who has taken the initiative to follow up on the absence of a student from the school with the parent. In this interpretation, the call has a double whammy effect; one being to notify the parent in case they are uninformed of the absence of their child from school and other being to get an explanation for the truancy especially because the parent did not call beforehand to notify the school administration that the student would not attend school on such a data, or a call after the fact to explain why the student did not attend school (Heritage 228).
The construction process in the institutional talk assumes the form of four phases. It is in these four phases that the two participants engaging in the institutional talk achieve their individual sub-goals. The first phase is the engagement (Heritage 228). This is done in the first section of the institutional talk over from the first to the eighth line. In this phase, the participants in institutional talk introduce themselves. The second phase is the problem initiation phase which extends from the ninth to the twentieth line. In this phase, the teacher introduces and pursues the aim of making the call to which the mother responds adequately (Heritage 228). The third phase is the disposal phase that extends from the twenty-first line to the twenty-ninth line. In this phase, the teacher outlines the bureaucratic actions that she will commission regarding in the light of the absence of Martin from school. The teacher also recommends that Martin’s mother should take. The final phase is the closing phase which extends from the thirtieth line to the thirty-fourth line. In this phase, the two participants coordinate their exit from their engagement (Heritage 228).
Discussion
The findings of the discourse analysis are in keeping with the arguments made by Lewis and Miller (159). These scholars find that a professional cautiousness usually influences the institutional talk. This is an attribute that has been adequately expressed in the conversation by the teacher with the mother. Even in the phase of her suspicions on various issues, she reserves her suspicions and instead engages in professional approaches to assuage such suspicions. Even though this is not a face-to-face conversation, the rule of considerateness argued by Goffman (301) is seen at play here.
Both participants make deliberate efforts to show consideration to the other person even as they pursue their sub-goals (Arminen 435). This is influenced by a mutual acceptance of the situation and how the other participant in the institutional talk explains the occurrences that characterize the situation. All in all, there is evidence of professionalism in an institutional talk; evidence that the construction of the messages in the institutional talk is done in a manner that communicates official positions to other people; and that even institutional talks are subject to the interpretation of the receivers. This underscores the need for explicit communication where the word choice aids the communication of a given message.
Works Cited
Arminen, Ilkka. On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction. Discourse & Society. 11.4(200): 435-458.
Goffman, Erving. “On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interactions”. In Interaction Ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior, Garolen City. Anchor. 1967. Print.
Heritage, John. Language and Social Institutions: The Conversation Analytic View. Journal of Foreign Languages. 36.4(2013): 2-27.
Heritate, John. Conversation analysis in institutional talk: Analyzing data. University of California Los Angeles. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Lewis, Victoria and Miller, Andy. Institutional talk” in the discourse between an educational psychologist and a parent: a single case study employing mixed research methods. Educational Psychology in Practice: theory, research and practice in educational psychology, 27.3(2011): 195-212.
