Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Unmasking The Phantom: An Analysis
Cynthia Ong
Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics
Module 2 Assignment
November 2013
ELAL,
College of Arts & Law
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom
! 2
SD/13/03
Record part of a conversation in English that takes place in one of the following situations
(or similar), as outlined by Francis and Hunston (Francis, G. and Hunston, S., 'Analysing
everyday conversation' in Coulthard, 1992:123-161.):
• casual conversations between friends and family members
• child-adult talk
• commercial transactions
• professional interviews
• radio phone-ins
Transcribe part of your recording, choosing a part in which there are fairly frequent
alterations of speaker.
Make an analysis of the transcribed data, using the categories proposed by Francis and
Hunston (ibid. p. 125 and ff.). Present your analysis as Part I of your assignment.
Comment on how easy it was to fit your data to the categories and the usefulness of this kind
of analysis for understanding the kind of communication you have analysed. Present your
commentary as Part II of your assignment.
(ADVICE: Work like this can be very time-consuming. Attempt only as much data as you
can transcribe in about 2 hours. To allow for the work involved in analysing your transcript,
the total word count for the commentary need not exceed 2,500 words. Your transcription
must be included as an appendix.)
! 3
CONTENTS PAGE page 1. Introduction 4 2. The Francis and Hunston Framework 4 3. Part I: Analysis
3.1 Application to Data
3.2 Data Analysis 3.2.1 Interaction and Transactions 3.2.2 Exchanges 3.2.3 Moves and Acts
7
7
7 7 9 13
4. Part II: Commentary
4.1 Data to Framework: Ease and Challenges 4.1.1 Incomplete Inform Exchanges 4.1.2 Variation in Exchange Structure 4.1.3 Interpretations and Alternatives
4.1.4 Ambiguity 4.1.5 Contextual Factors
4.2 Usefulness and Limitations of Analysis
16
16 16 17 18 21 22
23 5. Conclusion 26 References 27 Appendix: Transcript 29
! 4
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper employs the Francis and Hunston framework (Coulthard 1992) in the analysis of
a professional face-to-face interview. Following from the introduction, developments in
discourse analysis leading to the Francis and Hunston framework will be detailed. Part I
presents the analysis of the data and the characteristics of the interview genre identified in
the process. Part II discusses the ease and difficulties of fit of data to the categories and the
usefulness and limitations of such analysis in providing insight to interview discourse. The
surfacing of incomplete exchanges, exchange structure variation, alternative interpretations
and other contextual factors influencing data fit call for further developments to the
framework.
2. THE FRANCIS AND HUNSTON FRAMEWORK
This section details developments in discourse analysis leading to the Francis and Hunston
framework. The analysis of spoken discourse had been emphasized in acknowledgement of
its contribution to a “better understanding of what language is” (Firth 1935, cited in
Coulthard 1985:1) yet there were difficulties in progress as spoken discourse was perceived
as disorganized. There was no structured analysis system until the adaption of Halliday’s
rank scale from his systemic functional approach to grammar analysis by Sinclair et al., who
proposed a similar five-rank scale for analysing classroom discourse (ibid.:123). The ranks
proposed comprised act, move, exchange, transaction, and lesson, where lower-ranking
items starting from act combined to realize higher-ranking items, ending at lesson.
While lesson could not be assigned a structure, transaction was analysed to comprise a
Boundary exchange that demarcated transactions, and either an Elicit, Inform or Direct
exchange. The Boundary exchange is realized by framing and focusing moves of meta-
! 5
interactive acts marker, metastatement and loop. Elicit, Inform and Direct exchanges have
the structure Initiation (I) – Response (R) – Follow-up (F), realized by interactive acts in
opening, answering and follow-up moves respectively. The framework also includes turn-
taking cue, bid and nomination acts and Bound exchanges that reactivate previous
utterances.
Framework modifications were proposed by Coulthard and Montgomery (1981) when
problems surfaced from applications to non-classroom discourse, cited in Francis and
Hunston (1992). More flexibility was introduced with the abandonment of one-to-one
correspondence between moves and elements of structure. Exchange limits were extended
and exchange structures could then take the form Initiation (I) – Response/Initiation (R/I) –
Response (R) – Follow-up (Fn), R/I and Fn being obligatory while the allowance for multiple
occurrences of F was signalled by n.
Francis and Hunston further enhanced the framework by segmenting the ranks of
transaction and exchange into categories (Francis and Hunston 1992, cited in Coulthard
1992). For transaction, the categories Preliminary (P), Medial (M) and Terminal (T) were
proposed with P and T comprising Organisational exchanges and M realized by
Conversational exchanges. Organisational exchanges are categorized into Boundary,
Structuring, Greet and Summon exchanges, while Conversational exchanges include Elicit,
Re-initiation, Clarify, Repeat, Inform and Direct exchanges in structural variations of I-
(R/I)-R-(Fn). Table 2.1 presents these structural elements of the Francis and Hunston
framework hierarchically, each broken down into its component parts in subsequent rows,
from interaction to act. This framework will be applied to a professional interview in the
next section.
! 6
R
ank
I: I
nter
actio
n (N
o st
ruct
ural
rep
rese
ntat
ion
poss
ible
)
Ran
k II
: Tra
nsac
tion:
(P)
M (M
2 ……
Mn ) (
T)
Ele
men
t of s
truc
ture
:
Cla
ss o
f exc
hang
e:
Stru
ctur
e:
Prel
imin
ary
(P)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
(P)
Med
ial (
M)
Con
vers
atio
nal
M (M
2 ……
Mn )
Ter
min
al (T
) O
rgan
izat
iona
l (T
)
R
ank
III:
Exc
hang
e:
Exch
ange
s:
Bou
ndar
y St
ruct
urin
g, G
reet
, Sum
mon
El
icit
(incl
udin
g R
e-in
itiat
ion,
Cla
rify,
Rep
eat),
Info
rm, D
irect
Sa
me
as fo
r (P
) E
lem
ent o
f str
uctu
re:
Type
of m
ove:
Fram
e (F
r)
Fram
ing
Initi
atio
n (I
), R
espo
nse
(R)
Ope
ning
A
nsw
erin
g
Initi
atio
n (I
) El
iciti
ng
Info
rmin
g D
irect
ing
Res
p/In
itn (R
/I)
Elic
iting
In
form
ing
Res
pons
e (R
) In
form
ing
Ack
now
ledg
ing
Beh
avin
g
Follo
w-u
p (F
) A
ckno
wle
dgin
g
Stru
ctur
e:
Fr
I R
I (R
/I) R
(Fn )
Ran
k IV
: Mov
e:
E
liciti
ng
Info
rmin
g D
irec
ting
Ack
now
ledg
ing
Beh
avin
g
Ele
men
t of s
truc
ture
: si
gnal
(s):
sign
al (s
):
sign
al (s
):
Ty
pe o
f act
: m
arke
r m
arke
r m
arke
r m
arke
r m
arke
r m
arke
r m
arke
r m
arke
r
pr
e-he
ad (p
re-h
):
pre-
head
(pre
-h):
fr
amer
, st
arte
r st
arte
r st
arte
r st
arte
r,
rece
ive
star
ter
rece
ive
star
ter,
rece
ive,
re
ject
he
ad (h
):
head
(h):
he
ad (h
):
fram
er
m
etas
tate
men
t, co
nclu
sion
, gr
eetin
g,
sum
mon
s
acqu
iesc
e,
repl
y-gr
eetin
g,
repl
y-su
mm
ons,
re
ject
inqu
ire,
neut
ral
prop
osal
, m
arke
d pr
opos
al,
retu
rn,
loop
, pr
ompt
info
rmat
ive,
ob
serv
atio
n,
conc
ur,
conf
irm,
qual
ify,
reje
ct,
com
mis
sive
dire
ctiv
e te
rmin
ate,
re
ceiv
e,
reac
t, re
form
ulat
e,
endo
rse,
pr
otes
t
beha
ve
po
st-h
ead
(pos
t-h)
: po
st-h
ead
(pos
t-h)
:
co
mm
ent
com
men
t, qu
alify
co
mm
ent,
prom
pt
conc
ur,
com
men
t, qu
alify
com
men
t, pr
ompt
co
mm
ent,
term
inat
e co
mm
ent,
qual
ify
S
truc
ture
: (s
) h
(s) (
pre-
h) h
(pos
t-h)
(s) (
pre-
h) h
(pos
t-h)
Tabl
e 2.
1: T
he F
ranc
is a
nd H
unst
on F
ram
ewor
k
! 7
3. PART I: ANALYSIS
3.1 APPLICATION TO DATA
The framework was applied to a professional face-to-face television interview
between host Tracy Grimshaw and guest Michael Crawford to obtain a full transcript,
first by identifying Organizational exchanges that demarcated the boundaries between
transactions, then by analysing the exchanges through categorization of utterances
into various acts and moves. The interview was obtained from YouTube, selected for
its frequent alternations of speaker and variety of utterances.
The interview spans 12 minutes 20 seconds, inclusive of two short breaks. The
transcript contains 3284 words, contributed by lengthy turns, and includes selected
paralinguistic descriptors such as head nods and laughter. While analysis of such
items are beyond the scope of the framework, those crucial to lending coherence to
the transcript were included. The coded transcript is found in the Appendix.
3.2 DATA ANALYSIS
3.2.1 INTERACTION AND TRANSACTIONS
The interaction was a face-to-face interview in a studio setting. Initial comparison to
the telephone conversation presented in the Francis and Hunston framework seemed
to differentiate it in terms of availability of physical cues and paralinguistic features
observable from participants. Nonetheless, similarities could be drawn between both
discourse types; the relatively relaxed interview covered general topics and exchange
content led from preceding exchanges, similar to a casual telephone conversation with
a degree of planned agenda.
! 8
Four transactions were delineated, either by identifying Organizational exchanges or
an “obvious ‘topic-change’” (Coulthard 1992:140). The first transaction commenced
with a Structuring exchange by the host to the audience – either studio participants or
home viewers – rather than the interviewee, presenting an interesting example of
Aside exchanges, which will be further discussed in Part II. This immediately
followed with a Greet exchange to the interviewee before progressing to the topic of
the abrupt removal of the cushion from behind the interviewee. The second
transaction began in Greet exchange 6 with a topic change to performance genres that
the interviewee was known for, interspersed with related sub-topics. This transaction
was concluded by a Boundary exchange, but followed with a Direct to the audience.
The third transaction opened with Structuring exchange 27 and revolved around the
topic of the interviewee’s lesser-known works and projects while the fourth
transaction was signalled by a topic change back to music with utterances we were
talking about er classical music before at exchange 36. It ended with Structuring
exchanges directed to the interviewee and audience.
An interesting feature was the existence of additional Preliminary and Terminal
elements, which were due to the presence of third parties such as studio crew or
audience, to whom the host needed to cue or engage with respectively. While it was
necessary for her to explicitly signal the commencement or termination of
transactional segments, this was not required in the telephone conversation scenario in
the Francis and Hunston framework. This surfaced issues of fit of data to framework,
which will be further discussed in Part II.
! 9
3.2.2 EXCHANGES
Out of 50 exchanges, 10 (20%) were Organizational and 40 (80%) were
Conversational, tabulated in Table 3.1 below.
Exchange Type:
Number of Exchanges:
Host-initiated:
Interviewee-initiated:
Third party-initiated:
Organizational
Boundary 1 1 (100%) 0 0
Structuring 5 5 (100%) 0 0
Greet 4 3 (75%) 0 1 (25%)
Conversational
Elicit 14 14 (100%) 0 0
Inform 21 8 (38%) 12 (57%) 1 (5%)
Direct 2 2 (100%) 0 0
Clarify 3 3 (100%) 0 0
TOTAL 50 36 (72%) 12 (24%) 2 (4%)
Table 3.1: Exchanges
From the above table, it is observed that host Tracy Grimshaw initiated 36 out of the
50 exchanges, accounting for 72% of the exchanges, making her the dominant
participant, as predicted of hosts in interviews. Through the employment of
Organizational and Conversational exchanges, the host shaped the structure and
information flow of the interview and determined the occurrences of peripheral
activities like breaks and award presentation, and was central in engaging both
interviewee and audience. Interviewee Michael Crawford initiated only Inform
exchanges - in fact, all the incomplete Informs - accounting for 24% of the exchanges
but making up 57% of the Informs. This reveals another typical characteristic of
interviews where interviewees not only answer interviewer elicitations but may also
volunteer further elaborations. Tony, a third party and possibly studio crew,
interjected at Greet exchange 39 and Inform exchange 40 when he presented the
award to Michael, taking up 4% of the exchanges. Reasonably, such interjections may
! 10
occur in studio settings when planned activities or unplanned technical disruptions
interrupt the actual interview.
The general assumption of interviews comprising primarily of Elicit exchanges
where interviewers question interviewees is refuted by the observation of more
Informs than Elicits in the data. This was accrued to elaboration responses to
preceding exchanges by both interviewee and host such as exchange 4 in Table 3.2
and exchange 12 in Table 3.3 respectively, and introduction of new information by
host as in exchange 15 in Table 3.4, revealing a communicative rather than
interrogative nature to interviews.
Table 3.2: Exchanges 3 and 4
Table 3.3: Exchanges 11 and 12
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 5 T: D’you like your
cushion back? n.pr h eliciting I Elicit 3
6 M: No no no. rej h informing R 7 T: (Laughs) rea h acknowledging F 8 M: I was sitting on the
cushion, er er just before we caved back, yes it was dragged+
i h informing I Inform 4
9 T: +(Laughs)+ rea h acknowledging R 10 M: +from un- beneath
me so I’m now sitting dow-+
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 43 M: +and (laughs) you
don’t, you don’t know your playin- &
i h informing I Inform (Incomplete)
11
44 T: & It’s in the genes! i h informing I Inform 12
! 11
Table 3.4: Exchange 15
Further analysis revealed that the interviewee performed more elaboration Informs
while only the host made Informs containing new information. This is characteristic
of interviews where interviewees tend to elaborate on prior responses perceived as
incomplete with explanations and clarifications, while interviewers typically offer
new information in attempts to trigger interviewee responses. The existence of third
parties in such studio interviews required the host to also address and engage with
them, with two of five Structuring exchanges (40%) and one of two Direct exchanges
(50%) directed to the audience, and the other Direct and an Elicit directed to the crew,
adding another dimension to the discourse.
In Francis and Hunston’s discussion, exchanges with missing predicted elements not
followed by Bound exchanges are coded incomplete (Coulthard 1992:152), resulting
in exchanges 11, 13, 22, 35 and 45 coded as incomplete Informs. Exchanges 11 and
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 57 M: And when I saw
there was gonna be a-a sequel I thought I couldn’t quite imagine him resurrecting himself. As in-in a way that they had in mind.
58 T: (Draws breath) Y-you did mention Frank Spencer and I-I think our viewers would shoot me if we didn’t throw to, you know, a-a brave clip of Frank Spencer, from “Some Mothers Do ‘Ave ‘Em” /+
s
pre-h
informing I Inform
15
59 M: +Okay.+ ter h acknowledging R 60 T: +let’s do that. cve h
! 12
45 were interrupted in mid-sentence with the former continuing in exchange 13. All
above exchanges had no audible acknowledging moves nor was the next speaker
visible on the recording; paralinguistic cues, if any, were lost. In exchange 22 a falling
intonation signalled the end of the utterance it’s not really, but it was short of an
adjective for closure. These concerns will be further discussed in Part II.
Interestingly, verbal interruptions and overlaps were seen to increase as the interview
progressed. These were identified and tabulated in Table 3.5 below.
Exchanges with verbal overlaps (+) or interruptions (&):
Percentage of overlapped or interrupted exchanges:
Tr 1 at Exchange 1: 5+ 20%
Tr 2 at Exchange 6: 12&, 14&, 15+, 17&, 18&, 20+, 21+, 23&, 24&
43%
Tr 3 at Exchange 27: 30&, 32+, 33+ 33%
Tr 4 at Exchange 36: 36&, 39+ (third party), 42+, 44+, 45&, 46+
40%
Table 3.5: Overlaps and Interruptions
From the table, it is observed that conversations in transactions 1 to 3 commenced
with no interruptions or overlapping until a few exchanges into the conversation. It
can be deduced that each transaction segment began formally and politely with proper
turn-taking, but participants likely became more relaxed and involved as conversation
developed, resulting in more frequent interjections. In transaction 4, participants seem
to have become comfortable enough for interruptions to surface right at the onset of
their discussion. Other factors influencing interruptions and overlaps could be
participant interest and topic knowledge, as in transaction 2, where the familiar topic
of the interviewee’s well-known performance genres likely triggered background
knowledge, resulting in more enthusiastic responses from both host and interviewee.
! 13
3.2.3 MOVES AND ACTS
There were 121 moves comprising 162 acts in the interview, presented in Table 3.6,
with significantly more informing than eliciting moves. This is a predictable outcome
explainable through the framework as informing moves can occur in both Elicit and
Inform exchanges but eliciting moves only in Elicits. The higher frequency of Inform
exchanges further increased the occurrences of informing moves. These observations
again reflect the feature of the interview genre that not only questions, but information
may also be used to elicit or trigger responses.
The mode act was the informative in informing moves at 37 instances, followed by 18
eliciting acts comprising inquire, neutral proposal and marked proposal; both host
and interviewee had equal number of turns with the latter performing 27 informative
acts and the former performing 9 and all the 18 eliciting acts (while the crew
performed one), emphasizing the communicative nature of interviews, typically with
host asking and interviewee replying and elaborating. Other informing acts comprised
three reject, two observation and one each of commissive, concur, confirm and
qualify, revealing the depth of information exchange and provided insight into
participant attitudes, opinions and knowledge on topics raised.
! 14
Move: Number of Moves: E.s. (Acts): Act: Number of Acts:
Framing 1 h framer 1
Opening 9
pre-h starter 3
h greeting
meta-statement conclusion
4 4 1
Answering 7 pre-h starter 2
h reply-greeting
acquiesce 4 3
Eliciting 18
pre-h starter marker
6 1
h neutral proposal
inquire marked proposal
10 4 4
post-h comment 1
Informing 46
pre-h starter marker receive
5 1 1
h
informative reject
observation commissive
concur confirm qualify
37 3 2 1 1 1 1
post-h comment 14
Directing 2 pre-h starter 1
h directive 2
Acknowledging 38
pre-h receive 1
h
react terminate endorse
reformulate receive
15 9 7 5 2
post-h comment terminate
4 1
Table 3.6: Moves and Acts
! 15
Acknowledging moves occurred frequently in the data, as in previous examples of
exchanges 3 and 4 where the host laughed in response to the interviewee and
exchange 15 where the interviewee expressed agreement with the host. This suggests
a high level of engagement between both parties, the outcome of participants’ ability
to “directly react on what the other says or does” in face-to-face interviews
(Opdenakker 2006: Section 2.1). The relaxed setting could also have contributed to
the occurrence of the mode react act, mostly by the host in expressing amusement.
Second most frequent was the terminate with the interviewee accounting for six of
nine and expressing agreement in five of his six, similarly the host in all of hers.
Together with the seven endorse, five reformulate and two receive, these acts
revealed the amicable ambience of the interview.
While transactions were demarcated by opening and answering moves by the host and
interviewee respectively, the existence of audience and studio crew required the host
to perform additional opening and directing moves. This reinforced her position as the
dominant speaker, not just in obtaining information from the interviewee, but also in
structuring interview segments and keeping the audience engaged. Pre-heads appeared
in all except the framing move, occurring most frequently in eliciting and informing
moves, comprising mostly starter acts. These contained useful prior information that
led to the actual questions or responses, effectively framing queries and putting forth
replies in a comprehensive manner. The comment was the mode in post-heads,
elaborating on or justifying preceding information. Issues that surfaced in this analysis
will be commented on next in the Commentary.
! 16
4. PART II: COMMENTARY
4.1 DATA TO FRAMEWORK: EASE AND CHALLENGES
The following sub-sections detail difficulties of fit to the categories surfaced in the
analysis.
4.1.1 INCOMPLETE INFORM EXCHANGES
As mentioned in Part I, exchanges are coded incomplete when obligatory elements are
missing. Consequently, five Inform exchanges (11, 13, 22, 35 and 45) were classified
so as the anticipated acknowledging moves at R were absent. Nonetheless, interesting
complications arose with other analysis approaches.
In the implied element approach, missing obligatory exchange elements could be
coded as existing when they are “implied or ‘understood’” (Coulthard 1992:155). In
addition, Halliday (1967), cited in Coulthard (1985:99) suggested that rising and
falling tones indicate uncertain and certain polarity respectively; applied to exchanges
13, 22 and 35, the falling intonation in their final utterances at I would signal finality.
This observation encourages these exchanges to be coded complete Informs with
implied receive in acknowledging moves. In exchange 45, tabulated in Table 4.1, the
problem of double labeling due to data ambiguity was highlighted when the
interviewee’s utterance at line 187 was interrupted. It is unclear what was being
expressed, causing problems in coding following line 188.
! 17
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 187 M: +we’re, we’re,
we’re still & i h informing I Inform
(Incomplete) 45
188 T: & Notoriously insecure+
i h informing I Inform 46
189 M: +Yes+ ter h acknowledging R 190 T: +xxx bunch.
(Laughs)+
191 M: +of course, yes. /
Table 4.1: Exchanges 45 and 46
The solution was to analyse line 188’s “‘dominant’ function” (Coulthard 1992:149),
consequently coding it as I of new Inform exchange 46 rather than R/I of exchange
45. This contrasts with exchange 23, where the host obviously re-initiated with an
informing move by suggesting the sitcom title. Data ambiguity will be discussed later,
as variation in exchange structure will be examined next.
4.1.2 VARIATION IN EXCHANGE STRUCTURE
In the framework, Conversational exchanges exist in the structure I-(R/I)-R-(Fn),
elements in parentheses being non-essential. While this structure was adhered to in
most parts of the data, a variation was found in exchanges 14, 17, 18, 23, 29 and 31,
with the structure I-R-R/I-R-(Fn).
In the first four exchanges above, the host performed I and re-initiated with R/I after
the interviewee’s R. According to Rapley (2001:315), this phenomenon of “producing
a topic-initiating question and following up the interviewee’s answer with a follow-up
question” is a key characteristic of open-ended interviews, as this sample, achieving
the objective of information gathering. In contrast, the framework’s telephone
conversation fulfills casual information needs and would typically not include follow-
up questioning. The existence of R/I after R in the interview can be argued as realistic
and necessary for the genre; the host needed to listen to and understand interviewee
responses and ensure questions were adequately answered (Wengraf 2001, cited in
! 18
Opdenakker 2006: Section 2.1); her follow-up R/I elements invited further elaboration
from the interviewee, ensuring topics were sufficiently covered. In Inform exchange
29 and Elicit exchange 31, R/I was performed by the interviewee, comprising
informing moves rather than elicits. It can be deduced from the above observations
that interviewers typically perform R/I to invite information while interviewees do so
to supply. In the next sub-section, alternative interpretations of the data will be
discussed.
4.1.3 INTERPRETATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Different interpretations of data resulted in alternative coding possibilities.
Representative examples of exchanges with possible alternative interpretations will be
discussed below.
While expressions of emotion were not represented in the categories, they were found
to have contributed to structuring the conversation in the data, thus were included in
the analysis. Back-channel sounds and gestures appeared frequently and were coded
according to their positions in exchanges. Back-channels at the end of exchanges were
coded react in acknowledging moves, such as the laughter concluding exchange 20 in
Table 4.2. In these instances, back-channels were interpreted as affirming previous
utterances and ending exchanges, this interpretation being reinforced by the beginning
of new exchanges after such acts. Those occurring within exchanges were coded
engage, as in exchange 30 in Table 4.3. Gestures such as the head nod at line 125
likely signalled agreement and encouragement to continue, as its occurrences
typically prompted the other speaker to elaborate further.
! 19
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 87 T: Is it because you
can’t get into the, the scope+
n.pr h eliciting Ib Clarify 20
88 M: +No.+ rej h informing R 89 T: +of moment? 90 91
M: No, you do. / But it-it’s-it’s usually… w- if you if you got a child, tha- it prob’ly tha-tha-that’s er puts you in a certain situation or they’ll ask you a question you go, you go “ooooh…”+
com
post-h
92 T: +(Laughs)+ rea h acknowledging F 93 M: +that you can do
but-but it is hard it does feel, /
Table 4.2: Exchange 20
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 122 T: Do you ever see
Barbra Streisand these days?
n.pr h eliciting I Elicit 30
123 124
M: Ah… no / we ma-, we did, she was she enjoy working with me so much that twenty five years later she ask to do a-a duet with me.+
i com
h post-h
informing R
125 T: +(Nods)+ (eng) 126 M: +So (laughs) so,
she waited twenty five years and then we recorded “Music Of The Night” together. &
127 T: & (Nods) (Draws breath) &
rea h acknowledging F
128 M: & Which was great, it was very exciting to do.
Table 4.3: Exchange 30
! 20
Lengthy turns, interruptions and overlaps allowed for interesting alternative
interpretations. In exchange 20, the informing move was analysed as one long
utterance comprising a reject and comment, broken up by the overlap at line 89.
Although the head of the informing move, with its falling tones, could signal a
complete exchange with the previous elicit, the post-head in line 91 was interpreted to
be more of an attempt by the interviewee to justify his stand than to provide new
information. In another instance, the topic change in line 94 signalled exchange
closure at it does feel in line 93, but the missing adjective here, caused by the
speaker’s interruption of his own utterance, could alternatively categorize exchange
20 as incomplete. In exchange 33, multiple overlaps and versatility of utterance
function allowed line 146 to be interpreted differently. Though it has been coded as a
reformulation of line 145 in Table 4.4a, resulting in the speaker’s next utterance at
line 148 to be coded terminate at F, it could alternatively be taken as pre-head receive
leading to terminate at line 148 in Table 4.4b. While subjective interpretation caused
coding difficulties, ambiguity further complicated fit of data, and is examined next.
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 144 145
T: I was watching it on Youtube this afternoon. / It’s great, it’s corny+
i com
h post-h
informing I Inform 33
146 M: +It’s good fun.+ ref h acknowledging R 147 T: +but it’s great! 148 M: Yes. (Laughs) ter h acknowledging F
Table 4.4a: Exchange 33
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 144 145
T: I was watching it on Youtube this afternoon. / It’s great, it’s corny+
i com
h post-h
informing I Inform 33
146 M: +It’s good fun.+ rec pre-h acknowledging R 147 T: +but it’s great! 148 M: Yes. (Laughs) ter h
Table 4.4b: Exchange 33 (Alternative)
! 21
4.1.4 AMBIGUITY
The limited labels available for categorizing acts resulted in the inability to accurately
categorize long utterances. In exchanges 9, 16 and 31, such utterances in post-heads
were labeled comment but could not be examined further. Bearing in mind the
framework was developed around the telephone conversation genre which does not
typically exhibit long utterances, categories for such items had not been developed.
The inclusion of more specific labels such as elaborate, explain or justify would allow
for more in-depth analysis of lengthy speech.
Data ambiguity created additional categorization challenges. In exchange 30 line 127,
the host nodded and drew a sharp breath after the interviewee’s comment, which
appeared to have concluded with a falling tone. According to Yngve (1970), cited in
Duncan and Niederehe (1974:244), audible inhalation likely signals a listener’s wish
to interrupt or indicates intention to speak. Additionally, the host maintained direct
eye contact with the interviewee during her breath intake, forming a vector in the
interviewee’s direction to signal a demand, under multimodal discourse analysis. Thus
it was likely the host had expected the interviewee to end his turn at line 126 and
wanted to start hers with her breath intake, as she previously did in exchange 14.
Consequently, line 127 was coded as an acknowledging move with react rather than
continuing prompt engage. Inaudible elements in exchange 32 line 142 and exchange
36 line 161 were determined by examining their positions and surrounding utterances;
line 142 appeared to continue the comment in line 140 while line 161 was likely a
terminate by the host interrupted by the interviewee, as she reclaimed her turn to
conclude the exchange after that. Besides ambiguities, the context of the interview
created other analysis issues and will be presented next.
! 22
4.1.5 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
The professional interview examined was conducted in a television studio. The
presence of third parties created anomalies in the form of exchanges and acts
addressed to audience and crew. To efficiently code such activities, I would
recommend appending aside to their descriptors. Borrowed from the Sinclair-
Coulthard Rank Scale model, aside was originally applied to classroom acts where the
teacher “withdrew from interaction and produced utterances” not addressed to the
students (Coulthard 1985:126). It has been extended here to describe exchanges and
utterances directed at third parties.
Structuring (Aside) exchanges to the audience at the beginning and end of the
interview cued its commencement and termination and drew their attention to the
interviewee, while Direct (Aside) exchange 26 announced the break, likely to both
audience and crew, following with a directive to the audience to remain on the
programme. Structuring exchange 27 was likely a cue to all present (including the
interviewee), thus not coded as Aside. Out of the two Aside exchanges to Tony the
crew, Elicit (Aside) exchange 5 in Table 4.5 was interestingly hijacked by the
interviewee. This caused an initial confusion in analysis and coding. The exchange
was finally coded Aside with an informing reject by the interviewee, rather than an
incomplete exchange at line 11 and a new Inform exchange at line 14. The aside act at
exchange 36 line 157 had the host interrupting her own utterance to address the
audience, similar to the classroom aside where teachers interrupt their lessons with
think-aloud utterances not addressed to the pupils.
! 23
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex 11 T: +Tony, can you bring+ n.pr h eliciting I Elicit
(Aside) 5
12 M: +trip. /+ 13 T: +Michael’s cushion
back? /+
14 M: +No I don’t need it, I don’t need it, no need.+
rej h informing R
15 16
T: +No need straightaway / okay.+
ref ter
h post-h
acknowledging F
17 M: +(Chuckles)
Table 4.5: Exchange 5
Most of the issues that surfaced when fitting the data were attributable to the data
genre and discourse setting, both of which differ from that in the Francis and Hunston
framework. In the next section, the usefulness and limitations of such analysis for
understanding professional interviews will be discussed.
4.2 USEFULNESS AND LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS
Application of the Francis and Hunston framework surfaced typical characteristics of
professional interviews, particularly participant engagement, elaboration and
spontaneity, traits of both in-person and telephone interviews due to their
“synchronous communication in time” (Opdenakker 2006: Section 2); participants are
focussed on each other’s utterances and give instantaneous responses. It also
highlighted typical patterns of the genre in specific transactional elements and
recurring exchange structures, moves and acts that shaped the interview process and
its basic structure. Of importance were the identification of R/I elements, informing
and eliciting moves, and the informative, inquire, neutral proposal and marked
proposal acts which influenced the discourse structure and shape.
Nonetheless, further analysis highlighted areas of misfit, for which the open-ended
framework provided a broad path for development. While a few recommendations
! 24
have been made with the objective of providing a more accurate tool for describing
professional interviews, the framework is limited in its accountability for other
aspects of the face-to-face interview, specifically the existence of paralinguistic cues,
back-channel items and characteristics that differ from those described in the
framework.
Paralinguistic cues in professional face-to-face interviews enhance the meaning of
utterances and signal the likely opinions, intentions and feelings of speakers. These
are particularly important if the interviewee is an “expert” in the topic being discussed
(Opdenakker 2006: Section 2.1) as his opinions are valuable, as was the interviewee
in my interview sample. Such cues can successfully predict the next speaker’s actions,
thus enhancing the turn-taking system for efficient information flow, an important
objective of interviews. The inability to analyse paralinguistic cues would result in a
limited representation of inherent messages conveyed in face-to-face interviews, how
they are conveyed and the actual success of such events.
Another limitation is the inability to further examine frequently occurring back-
channel items. Back-channel behaviour conveys the listener’s “continuing
attentiveness” to the speaker (Duncan and Niederehe 1974:237), encouraging him to
continue until he perceives turn-yielding signals from the listener. In the framework,
back-channels like laughter and ‘mm’s within turns have been coded engage, but in
the course of analysis, it was observed that these vary in pitch, seemingly to convey
different sentiments. This is similar to the way react, receive and terminate are
differentiated by intonation. It would be beneficial to segment further categories for
classifying back-channels to enhance interpretations of interview data.
! 25
Lengthy utterances could also not be properly dissected for lack of categories. Typical
interviews involve much elaboration, not unlike classroom interaction where the
teacher makes a point and supports it with further examples or opinions, as
exemplified in Coulthard (1985:134). In addition, there may exist underlying
messages that could go unnoticed under this framework. In exchange 14, the
interviewee responded indirectly to the host’s marked proposal; rather than
expressing his opinion of “Love Never Dies”, he replied he had not seen it and
proceeded to explain why. While this was coded informative, it does not account for
underlying hints at the interviewee’s personal opinion (likely disapproving), which
was suppressed out of politeness. These being frequent occurrences render it too
dismissive to not have further sub-classification for examining such interesting long
utterances.
A solution to the above limitations would be complementing the framework with
alternative analysis methods. Duncan (1974) created specific lists of paralinguistic,
grammatical and kinesic cues that transmit turn-yielding, claim-suppressing and
speaker-state signals, which could be employed to enhance transcription under the
framework. Long utterances can be interpreted as a stretch of monologue containing
verbal and non-verbal signals as discussed by Rendle-Short (2006), much like a
narrative. Overlaps, interruptions and acknowledgments may also be further analysed
through interactional sociolinguistics; considering gender as a factor influencing
language use could provide insight to observations such as frequent occurrences of
back-channel sounds by the female host. Finally, adopting a whole-picture perspective
to examining appropriateness of discourse in context using Hymes’ (1971)
‘Ethnography of Speaking’ approach would enable analysis of how factors such as
! 26
setting, participants and purpose influence speech styles. Such complementary
analysis would add depth to our current understanding of the interview genre.
5. CONCLUSION
In this essay, the Francis and Hunston framework was applied to a professional
interview and the resulting data was examined. It was seen to be an effective and
useful model for analysing the interview genre, although differences in characteristics
from the original telephone conversation genre caused some difficulties of fit to the
categories and limitations to coding elements. The direction forward could be the
expansion of categories for more rigorous coding and analysis of other spoken
discourse genres as this, complemented with other approaches, so as to gain deeper
insights into natural speech.
! !
! 27
REFERENCES
Coulthard, M. (1985) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Harlow: Longman.
Coulthard, M. (ed.) (1992) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London:
Routledge.
Coulthard, M. and Montgomery, M. (eds.) (1981) Studies in discourse analysis.
Routledge & Kegan Paul Books.
Duncan, S. (1974) ‘On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking
turns’. Language in society, 3(2), 161-180.
Duncan, S. and Niederehe, G. (1974) ‘On signalling that it's your turn to speak’.
Journal of experimental social psychology, 10(3), 234-247.
Firth, J. R. (1935) ‘The Technique Of Semantics’. Transactions of the Philological
society, 34(1), 36-73.
Francis, G. and Hunston, S. (1992) ‘Analysing everyday conversation’. In Coulthard,
M. (ed.) (1992) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, 123-
161.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967) Intonation and grammar in British English, 48, The Hague:
Mouton.
Hymes, D. (1971) ‘Sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speaking’. Social
anthropology and language, 47-93.
Opdenakker, R. (2006) ‘Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques
in qualitative research.’ Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 7(4).
Rapley, T. J. (2001) ‘The art (fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some
considerations on analysing interviews.’ Qualitative research, 1(3), 303-323.
Rendle-Short, J. (2006) The Academic Presentation: Situated Talk in Action.
! 28
Alderhsot: Ashgate Publishing.
Wengraf, T. (2001) Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and
semi-structured methods. Sage.
Yngve, V. H. (1970) ‘On getting a word in edgewise’. Chicago Linguistics Society,
6th Meeting, 567-578.
!!!!!!! !
! 29
APPENDIX: TRANSCRIPT Total time: 12 minutes 20 seconds (0:50 – 13:10), inclusive of two short video clip breaks Key to symbols: Long pause: # Emphasis/ Intonation change: italics Pause: … Quotes/ Titles: “ ” Stutter: - Other vocalization/ sounds: ( ) Interruption: & Incomplete exchange: (Incomplete) Overlapping: + Aside exchange: (Aside) Inaudible: xxx Act separator: /
Before this point, the interviewer, Tracy Grimshaw, had done a short introduction of the interviewee, Michael Crawford, which was followed by a short clip of Michael Crawford’s rendition of “Music Of The Night” in the musical “Phantom Of The Opera”. Tracy Grimshaw: T Michael Crawford: M Tony: Tn
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr 1 2 3
T: (Draws breath) Mi- (laughs) some of th-funniest things in television happen off air. / Michael Crawford in his famous role as “Phantom Of The Opera” and the man himself joins me, live in the studio. / Hello. (Laughs)
s ms gr
pre-h h h
opening opening
I I
Structuring (Aside) Greet
1 2
1
4 M: Hi Tracy. (Laughs) re-gr h answering R 5 T: D’you like your cushion
back? n.pr h eliciting I Elicit 3
6 M: No no no. rej h informing R 7 T: (Laughs) rea h acknowledging F 8 M: I was sitting on the cushion,
er er just before we caved back, yes it was dragged+
i h informing I Inform 4
9 T: +(Laughs)+ rea h acknowledging R 10 M: +from un- beneath me so I’m
now sitting dow-+
11 T: +Tony, can you bring+ n.pr h eliciting I Elicit (Aside)
5
12 M: +trip. /+ 13 T: +Michael’s cushion back? /+ 14 M: +No I don’t need it, I don’t
need it, no need.+ rej h informing R
15 T: +No need straightaway / ref h acknowledging F
! 30
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr 16 okay.+ ter post-h 17 M: +(Chuckles) 18 T: It’s great to see you. gr h opening I Greet 6 2 19 M: It’s lovely to be here. re-gr h answering R 20 21
T: You are here to promote this CD, which is lovely I was listening to it in the car, coming in to work this afternoon, all the great classics and of course, that track. From “Phantom Of The Opera” it’s on it with other tracks from there. / I-Is that your favourite role?
s n.pr
pre-h h
eliciting I Elicit 7
22 23
M: I-I-I think I-it has to be shared along with erm, with Frank Spencer and some others, / I-I-er completely opposite ends of the earth but er, it-it-it’s wonderful to have the opportunity to play something, and… what big lips I’ve got there.
i com
h post-h
informing R
24 T: (Laughs) rea h acknowledging F 25 M: Um, and er it is, it is a great
opportunity t-t-to test your acting skills and then, and then learn to sing and be taught by a wonderful teacher and to develop and and hav- and turn into a singing career,+
i h informing I Inform
8
26 T: +(Nods)+ ter h acknowledging R 27 M: +which I never ever ever
dream I would have.
28 29 30
T: (Draws breath) H-how did “Phantom” change your life, / I mean it put you on the world stage too didn’t it? / ’Cause you were not, as you said, you were not an unknown of course, but just not known for that.
s m.pr com
pre-h h post-h
eliciting I Elicit 9
31 M: No I wo- I-I-I mean “Some Mothers” had sold… er, i-i-it was very big in England and it was very big in Canada and Australia.
i h informing R
32 T: Mm. (eng)
! 31
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr 33 M: Enormous here for-for me,
and er New Zealand, but, it would it, I never wanted it to go to America I, because I thought if ever I do go to America I’m gonna be in a box, I’m never gonna be able to get out of that character.
34 T: Mm. (eng) 35 M: And, er… i-it wasn’t really
until I got the chance to er… to sing. And then when I went over to America with “Phantom” and opened on Broadway, they hadn’t the remotest idea that I’d ever played comedy,+
com post-h
36 T: +(Nods)+ (eng) 37 M: +although I’d done “Hello
Dolly” a hundred years ago, but I-I-I was still… um, this romantic lead suddenly.
38 T: Mm. (eng) 39 M: So, you can imagine what fun
I had.
40 T: (Laughs) rea h acknowledging F 41 M: Um, i-it but it was it chec- it-
it-it was extraordinary the difference, to go somewhere where you’ve never been seen before. And they keep saying “oh my gosh you’re so romantic Michael” and I’m going “yes, yes I am” /+
i h informing I Inform 10
42 T: +(Chuckles)+ rea h acknowledging R 43 M: +and (laughs) you don’t, you
don’t know your playin- & i h informing I Inform
(Incomplete) 11
44 T: & It’s in the genes! i h informing I Inform 12 45 46 47
M: You don- yes, yes it’s in your genes! / Oh I’d-I’d no idea th-th-th-th-that y-you’d come over like that. / You’re playing a character, you’re believing in this character, and if it’s, i-i-it was a very, um… sensual char-character for me. But a-again, y-y-you don’t really, you shouldn’t be aware of your
ref s i
h pre-h h
acknowledging informing
R I
Inform (Incomplete)
13
! 32
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr own sensuality of th-th-the so within the character otherwise it looks ridiculous, you would look… y-y-… I don’t know… “hello, how are you” you know it’s it-it was a man who, a passionate man, who’d suffered. And so, he was a dear, dear character to me.
48 T: (Draws breath) One of our viewers, Gabrielle, wondered what you think of “Love Never Dies”.
inq h eliciting I Elicit 14
49 M: I haven’t seen “Love Never Dies” I &
i h informing R
50 51
T: & Ooh / I think that’s a statement itself isn’t it. (Laughs)
m m.pr
pre-h h
eliciting R/I
52 53
M: Oh no, well… / I, I really did love “Phantom” and I+
m i
pre-h h
informing R
54 T: +Mm.+ (eng) 55 M: +I felt, that it resolved itself
in the end, it, that was the end of the story.
56 T: Mm. (eng) 57 M: And when I saw there was
gonna be a-a sequel I thought I couldn’t quite imagine him resurrecting himself. As in-in a way that they had in mind.
58 T: (Draws breath) Y-you did mention Frank Spencer and I-I think our viewers would shoot me if we didn’t throw to, you know, a-a brave clip of Frank Spencer, from “Some Mothers Do ‘Ave ‘Em” /+
s
pre-h
informing I Inform
15
59 M: +Okay.+ ter h acknowledging R 60 T: +let’s do that. cve h (Short clip plays) 4:40 – 4:49 61 M: (Guffaws) Oh dear. end h acknowledge F 62 63
T: I loved him! / I grew up watching him, and I think pe- and people are still growing up watching him. I don’t think anybody, has never heard – that’s a double
s i
pre-h h
informing I Inform 16
! 33
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr negative – has never heard of Frank Spencer.
64 65
M: Oh, that was very flattering, / oh because… I still I mean+
end com
h post-h
acknowledging R
66 T: +(Laughs)+ (eng) 67 M: +my heroes were, were… I
mean what boy wouldn’t want to do all these things?+
68 T: +(Laughs)+ rea h acknowledging F 69 M: +So I, all my dreams came
true because I was always getting into trouble for… sort of roller skating, and going under… places I shouldn’t go under, but to be hanging on the back of a bus, and get paid for it. I mean it was, it was, it was I was quids in it, it was great fun.
70 T: Did you ever get hurt? n.pr h eliciting I Elicit 17 71 72
M: No-er-no I didn’t. No I-I actually touched what I didn’t. / I was I was er… fortune enough to get away with er &
i com
h post-h
informing R
73 T: & I think be-because you were young and bendy perhaps.
i h informing R/I
74 75
M: I was. / I was very young and bendy, Tracy.
rec conc
pre-h h
informing R
76 T: (Laughs) rea h acknowledging F 77 M: (Laughs) rea h acknowledging F 78 T: It helps to be bendy I think.
(laughs) i h informing I Inform 18
79 M: It does indeed darling, yes! (Guffaws)
end h acknowledging R
80 T: Maybe that’s for er current affair after dark, think we should (laughs) &
i h informing R/I
81 82
M: & Yes, yes / I’ll have my cushion back now please. (Coughs and laughs)
rea com
h post-h
acknowledging R
83 T: (Laughs) rea h acknowledging F 84 85
T: We (laughs) we have had a few requests from people for you to do Frank. / Do you ever do Frank
s n.pr
pre-h h
eliciting I Elicit
19
! 34
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr anymore?
86 M: No. (Laughs) i h informing R 87 T: Is it because you can’t get
into the, the scope+ n.pr h eliciting Ib Clarify 20
88 M: +No.+ rej h informing R 89 T: +of moment? 90 91
M: No, you do. / But it-it’s-it’s usually… w- if you if you got a child, tha- it prob’ly tha-tha-that’s er puts you in a certain situation or they’ll ask you a question you go, you go “ooooh…”+
com
post-h
92 T: +(Laughs)+ rea h acknowledging F 93 94
M: +that you can do but-but it is hard it does feel, / it’s a lot it’s forty years ago.
i
h
informing
I
Inform
21
95 T: It is, it’s forty years and one month+
ref h acknowledging R
96 M: +Yes.+ ter h acknowledging F 97 T: +as a matter of fact. 98 M: So it looks if-if I tried now it
looks as I’m, slightly demented and um um um… it’s not really.
i h informing I Inform (Incomplete)
22
99 T: Do you watch modern day sitcoms?
n.pr h eliciting I Elicit 23
100 101
M: Yes, I do. / I mean I love, it’s not as modern now but um, Kim, Kath, Kit &
i com
h post-h
informing
R
102 T: & “Kath & Kim”! & i h informing R/I 103 104 105
M: & Aawh! I mean I’d, I think that was brilliant. / I just love that. / And I don’t think there’re enough comedies in that sense around now, in that style, in that manner. “Gavin & Stacey” from England, from the UK I loved. But uhh, aa-dd-a lot of it is just a little, it-it’s a little too simplistic for me nowadays. I love the characters, I love characters in comedy. And, er shows like that, everyone of the family, everyone of the cast was important. And everyone, you could, you
rec end com
pre-h h post-h
acknowledging
R
! 35
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr could, you knew them. You knew them, somehow you knew them from somewhere.
106 107
T: (Draws breath) We have to take a commercial break. / Will you stay and talk with us after the break? &
s ms
pre-h h
opening I Structuring 24
108 M: & I’d love to, yes, thank you. &
acq h answering R
109 110 111
T: & Great. / We’ll be back with more of Michael Crawford in just a moment. / Stay with us.
fr s d
h pre-h h
framing directing
Fr I
Boundary Direct (Aside)
25 26
(Short clip of “Hello Dolly” plays) 7:30 - 8:02 112 T: (Draws breath) Michael
Crawford singing there with Barbra Streisand just a couple of years ago in “Hello Dolly”. (Laughs)
ms h opening I Structuring 27 3
113 M: Yes. Gosh! acq h answering R 114 T: D-how many years ago was
that? inq h eliciting I Elicit 28
115 M: Forty years ago. i h informing R 116 T: Okay, alright. rec h acknowledging F 117 M: Everything was forty years
ago. (Chuckles) i h informing I Inform 29
118 T: (Laughs) And you can remember it all, that’s the extraordinary thing.
end h acknowledging R
119 M: Yes, I remember those tight trousers, that’s why I was singing so high up+
i
h
informing R/I
120 T: +(Laughs)+ rea h acknowledging R 121 M: +(laughs) never sung that
high since. (Laughs)
122 T: Do you ever see Barbra Streisand these days?
n.pr h eliciting I Elicit 30
123 124
M: Ah… no / we ma-, we did, she was she enjoy working with me so much that twenty five years later she ask to do a-a duet with me.+
i com
h post-h
informing R
125 T: +(Nods)+ (eng) 126 M: +So (laughs) so, she waited
twenty five years and then we recorded “Music Of The Night” together. &
! 36
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr 127 T: & (Nods)
(Draws breath) & rea h acknowledging F
128 M: & Which was great, it was very exciting to do.
129 130
T: S-she she is, on record is saying she’s a-a notoriously nervous live performer now. / What was she like then?
s inq
pre-h h
eliciting I Elicit
31
131 132 133
M: Er she was um… she was (#) she was very nervous she was but, confident in, in what she wanted and what she did / so she was d-, we were directed by the great Gene Kelly. And, to me, that was one of the most influential and and momentous times of my life. / I mean he had more influence on my career and me as an actor than anyone else I’ve ever worked with. ’Cause, he is exactly, as you knew him as you saw him in the movies. He was exactly that kind of, buoyant and energetic man and came in to work and he come up on ya sudd’nly and said “I got a great idea kid! And we’re gonna do, this and try these four steps! Okay, I’m goin’ home now.”+
i i com
h h post-h
informing informing
R R/I
134 T: +(Giggles)+ rea h acknowledging R 135 M: +and off he go and then
Monday morning we put this in. He was like a child, with his enthusiasm and and it taught me a professionalism that has never left me. So I-I-I’m-I’m still in awe of that man.
136 T: (Draws breath) You’ve done other movies, um, y-you made “Condor Man”+
obs h informing I Inform 32
137 M: +Thank you. /+ ter h acknowledging R 138 T: +for example (laughs) /+ 139 M: +(Laughs) Bring that cushion
back! (laughs)+ com post-h
140 T: +you didn’t you didn’t+ com post-h 141 M: +(Guffaws)+
! 37
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr 142 T: +get over xxx with it.
(Laughs)+
143 M: +(Laughs) 144 145
T: I was watching it on Youtube this afternoon. / It’s great, it’s corny+
i com
h post-h
informing I Inform 33
146 M: +It’s good fun.+ ref h acknowledging R 147 T: +but it’s great! 148 M: Yes. (Laughs) ter h acknowledging F 149 150
T: You must’ve been offered other movies over these, particularly after, y’know the Phan after “Phantom” put you on the map again in-in the US. / H-h-have you ever been offered other movies?
s n.pr
pre-h h
eliciting I Elicit 34
151 152 153 154
M: I have / but, it’s very difficult to put a stage character of that, he was a big character he was a big presence, on a stage, and-and to then see oh yea he’d be great in so-and-so and let it lay down on the line for some, sometimes the er Los Angeles er producers or directors, they don’t see it at all, so I-I actually wasn’t er inundated with offers at the end of er “Phantom” er and I stayed working on the stage I love. / I then started doing concert tours and that’s what brought me back to, to Australia happily. / And so, I had a much better time and the nerve to start singing these songs, live and telling… silly stories and stuff that had happened to me that made mostly sort of self-deprecated stuff that had happened through my career ’cause it was that was the way it was.
qu com i com
h post-h h post-h
informing informing
R I
Inform (Incomplete)
35
155
T: (Draws breath) We were talking about er classical music before and it all, at
s
pre-h
eliciting I Elicit 36 4
! 38
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr 156 157 158
least the classics before and we’re talking about the CD that you’re here to promote. / Do you listen to… /& & just in case people haven’t seen it, it’s up now (small giggle as camera zooms in on CD) “Michael Crawford - The Story Of My Life”. / D-do you listen to sort of contemporary music w- do you listen to Adele or Coldplay for example?
n.pr (aside) n.pr
h
159 160
M: I love Adele. And, I like Coldplay I like er One Direction, th-the new boy band. / I mean it’s good stuff because, again they’re just breaking out America there hasn’t been a boy band that broke out America in as big a way since The Beatles, so, and that was my time y’know wh-wh-when when The Beatles were around and still you listen to them today and they’re hard to beat. I mean they’re wonderful+
i com
h post-h
informing R
161 T: +Xxx+ ter h acknowledging F 162 M: +just just great music. 163 164 165 166
T: It’s true, it is. / You know, you are here to promote this album but er, can I tell you, it appears to have done quite well without you being here to promote it ’cause I have a little surprise for you Michael. (#) / Y-you sold thirty five thousand albums in Australia and that qualifies you for a gold record. / Tony?
ter s i d
h pre-h h h
acknowledging informing directing
F I I
Inform Direct (Aside)
37 38
167 M: Oh my+ rec h acknowledging R 168 Tn: +Congratulations Mr
Crawford+ gr h opening I Greet 39
169 170
M: +oh my gosh / thank you.+
s re-gr
pre-h h
answering R
! 39
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr 171 Tn: +’s got the pillow over there. i h informing I Inform 40 172 M: ’Ere, you’re the one who took
my pillow. ref h acknowledging R
173 T: (Laughs) It’s better than the pillow isn’t it?
m.pr h eliciting I Elicit 41
174 175
M: Oh that’s fabulous! / Oh thank you! Oh my gosh well I didn’t know that.
conf com
h post-h
informing R
176 T: Did you not?+ m.pr h eliciting Ib Clarify 42 177 M: +No I didn’t /+ i h informing R 178 T: +You had no clue.+ obs h informing R/I 179 180 181
M: +no I didn’t. / Although they hadn’t told me how many of these sold, I-I’ve tried to ask in case it hasn- / it’s like, we’re-we’re doing a record signing at ABC in, in Sydney next week and er-er-on Wednes- on Thursday, and I c- I’m so nervous that no one’s gonna turn up.+
ter s i
h pre-h h
acknowledging informing
R I
Inform
43
182 T: +(Nods)+ rea h acknowledging R 183 M: +You giv- you do. Every
artiste I think it’s the same. com post-h
184 T: After all these years still. inq h eliciting Ib Clarify 44 185 M: Oh yes, yes+ i h informing R 186 T: +Interesting.+ end h acknowledging F 187 M: +we’re, we’re, we’re still & i h informing I Inform
(Incomplete) 45
188 T: & Notoriously insecure+ i h informing I Inform 46 189 M: +Yes+ ter h acknowledging R 190 T: +xxx bunch. (Laughs)+ 191 192
M: +of course, yes. / And when someone steals your cushion in the middle of the show+
i
h
informing
I
Inform
47
193 T: +(Laughs)+ (eng) 194 M: +it makes you more insecure. 195 T: Really you deserve more
respect+ end h acknowledging R
196 M: +(Guffaws)+ 197 T: +than that. 198 199
T: It’s been such a pleasure to see you. / Thank you so much for taking the time to come and see us.
s gr
pre-h h
opening I Greet 48
200 201
M: It’s been my pleasure. / Thanks Tracy, very much.
s re-gr
pre-h h
answering R
! 40
Ln Sp Dialogue Act e.s. Move e.s. Exchange ex Tr 202 T: Enjoy the rest of your stay
and congratulations. ms h
opening I Structuring 49
203 M: Thank you so much. Thank you.
acq h answering R
204 T: The wonderful Michael Crawford.
con h opening I Structuring (Aside)
50
!
!
