Analysing one's own speech

[Cynthia Roy]

Deborah Tannen discussed the benefits/disadvantages of being a participant
in the interaction being analyzed in her 1984 book Conversational Style:
Analyzing Talk Among Friends, published by Ablex...Deborah Schiffrin also
discusses this issue in her 1987? text, Discourse Markers, published by
Cambridge.

Cynthia Roy

Reuben Woolley wrote:

> 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

--
Cynthia B. Roy, Ph.D.
Dept. of English
University of New Orleans
New Orleans LA  70148
504-280-7323; 280-7334 (fax)
cbroy at uno.edu