Analysing one's own speech

[Reuben Woolley]

Recent postings from Seth Kahn-Egan, Randy Eggbert and James Cornish
have discussed the problems of analysing one's own speech. The problem
seems to centre around intentionality - as Randy pointed out, one may
have access to one's intentions but the audience does not. Another
question is how trustworthy one's memory of one's intentions may be; we
risk a certain amount of idealisation.

The question interests me because I am analysing a series of
conversations in the L2 classroom and I am, as teacher, a participant in
nearly all of them. However, I am using Conversation Analysis and I
would suggest that, when applied correctly, intentionality only becomes
relevant if the next speaker's turn makes it relevant. For example, if
the first speaker's intention is misunderstood this may be made obvious
in the following turn(s). The first speaker may decide to repair the
error (attempting to make his/her intention clearer, for example) or let
it pass, in which case the only relevant interpretation is the one to
which the speakers are now orienting. Thus, in analysing my own
utterances, the researcher's objectivity/subjectivity is replaced by the
direction of the interaction.

I wonder if there are any other CAists on the list who have analysed
their own interaction. I would be interested in hearing other opinions
on this subject.

R. Woolley
C/ Almagro, 5, Entlo. Dcha.
50004 Zaragoza
Spain
Tel./Fax: 34 976 222739