Conversational Analysis of Oprah Interview

Conversational Analysis of Oprah Interview

Conversation Analysis of Oprah CBS Interview

The first adjacency pair of the opening sequence has B. saying in a deliberate tone, "Speaking of spending money." This new speech unit initiated by B. In line 1 does not introduce a new topic but signals movement to a new conversational unit through reference to a prior sequence in which the notion of spending money is mentioned. O indicates acknowledgement of an understanding by saying "ye:a:h" in line two before B. can say "I hear there's a story there." B's pause allows O. To insert this marker ("ye:a:h"), which is enthusiastic and eager. As a result of B's deliberately slow speech and pause, B avoids overlap. O's marker does not interrupt B's speech although B's sentence is not finished until after O's interjection. This is an example of the participants' orderly co-creation of the turn beginning. O's responsive marker reflects back to B. that his speech is an intelligible shift. It may function to encourage B's continuation. He does with line 3's "I hear there's a story there." B. could have used a question, but instead selects a declarative statement, which selects O. As the new speaker in the turn-taking sequence. This initial adjacent pair is a pre-sequence to the true opening of the conversational unit.

Schegloff shows how turn beginnings are structurally important because "they project a 'shape' for the turn" (1987: 74). That is, they are critical for the recipient's expectations and they are structurally significant for setting up what follows. When O. says, "It's my favorite spending money story," it allows B. To know that his "question" has been received correctly. O says it quickly on the heels of B's statement. They seem in mutual agreement that B. wants O. To tell a story, but it is not yet clear whether O. will fulfill this expectation. O's following hesitation causes B. To add "ab[out" (line 4). This single word is an intentional prompt for O. To continue the interaction, but it misfires. His word is swallowed up in overlap with O's repetition of "it's my fa:::::vorite spending money story." O's repetition may be a case of repair. Schegloff says that "the recycle begins at precisely the point at which the 'new' turn emerges into the clear" (1987: 75). He believes such repairs through repetition are common in turn beginnings due to overlap. Since there is no overlap here, the repetition is more likely to be a restart. Goodwin concludes about restarts, "In short, rather than providing evidence for the defective performance of speakers in actual conversation, restarts may provide some demonstration of the orientation of speakers to producing sentences that are attended to appropriately by their recipients" (1981: 59). It operates in this case with the obtained gaze and secures B's listening. Here it is not overlap but the pause between B's speech that creates the ambiguity which O. affirms with the repetition. The repeated phrase moves beyond pre-sequence to the start of the new conversational sequence.

The next adjacency pair, which begins with O. saying "And may I preface this by saying" (line 6) may be seen as part of the structure of a story-telling interaction. Studying the sequences organized in the context of story-telling interaction, Schenkein has shown them to have a story preface in which a teller projects a forthcoming story, a next turn in which a co-participant aligns himself as a story recipient, a next in which teller produces the story (a series of segments in which teller's talk can alternate with recipient's) and a next in which the story recipient talks by reference to the story. (1978: 219)

Thus, with story-telling interactions often sentences are inserted prior to the story that let the hearer know that the speaker will take a number of utterances to complete the story. It gives the speaker a right to retain the floor without interruption. Structurally, it has consequences for the story's reception, such as increased silence during the story on the part of the recipient and extended monologue on the speaker's part. Both occur in this conversation. In its own right, this form of interaction can be understood as a coherent conversational unit. With her "preface" material, O stages the context for her story and completes its projection as an extended story.

O deems the information in the preface as relevant for its comprehension. Her "doubt that the story would happen ta::day" functions to preempt a possible criticism. In addition, it shows that she is aware of the unlikely nature of the story given changed economic circumstances ("before the bottom fell out").

"But Tyler had come to my house" says O. In line 6. Here we have the proper beginning of O's projected story. Immediately O. returns to further background information: "this is when he was letting me see the films." Then there's a noticeable pause before O. adds, "ahead of time." This pause does not lead to an interruption or a change in turn-taking. B remains quiet. This is significant in signaling that he has adopted the position of hearer. There is no overlap or pause between O's saying "Now he doesn't care about my opinion" and B's chuckling statement in line 7 that "he's moved on." B. has self-selected to insert this statement into the interaction. B is finishing O's thought or elaborating on it with his own words in a way that is near repetition and occurs without gaps (latching). We can see this as a turn taking mechanism that allows for completion. As such, it may be linked with Bloch's formulation that interlocutors develop "specific routines and patterns of action through talk that form a joint action strategy" (2005: 39). In addition, he smiles as he says it and sweeps his hand. This gesture and the phrase show solidarity with the teller in terms of comprehension. Tannen has shown that latching of utterances "are devices by which some speakers show solidarity, enthusiasm, and interest in others' talk" (2005: 98). B's response can be seen not as a distant or deferential stance, but as an interested ratification of O's statement. B reflects O's saying back to her in different but similar words. The humor maintains cooperation between the interlocutors, as can be seen in O's repetition of B's saying ("He's moved on"). B's brief comment reinforces O's continuation, letting her understand that he is listening and noticing. O accepts this structure and movement. Her repetition of B. is a co-ratification of interactional cooperation. This adjacency pair further indicates the second stage of story-telling structure, in which a co-participant aligns himself as a recipient. B has already aligned himself implicitly, but his speech at this turn makes that alignment explicit. Saying "He's moved on" does not challenge O's speech but moves it on.

What follows is a long sequence of talk by O. She produces the story in multiple utterances. B sinks into the background as it were as an active listener. B uses head nods and smiles to display engagement and to encourage her proceeding without his speaking. He refrains from verbal reactions to her talk with uh-huhs and rights because of the context (see Hutchby, 2006: 126 on the general avoidance of third-position acknowledgements in interviews). O speaks expressively and often looks into the camera, demonstrating awareness of the interview context. She also disengages from her direct interlocutor through removal of gaze, often functioning in the act of remembering or looking at the camera. When such body language occurs, it displays an organization away from the other and non-participation in the collaborative act of talk. Goodwin says, "It may be noted that a display of disengagement treats someone who is physically present as in a certain sense not relevantly present, that is, not the subject of observation or a locus for joint, collaborative activity" (1981: 96). However, O's gaze withdrawal, or her alternation between presence and non-presence, does not seem to dimish B's listening. The institutional context holds him attentive.

B's next interaction is laughter. Laughter is a procedural part of conversational interaction. B's laughter does not break a rule of politeness or act to offend his interlocutor, O. Nor does it operate strictly as a turn since the laughter is overlapping with O's continuous speech. That is, B's laughter does not break the flow of O's story. It is synchronous with it and in a low enough key so as not to create hesitation or pause in the speaker. It is possible that O. expects her story to initiate a humorous response. B fulfills this obligation as part of his interactional co-participation, but maintaining a level of formality, he refuses to engage in banter or teasing.