On the Implications of Conversation Analysis for College Oral English Teaching
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 7, Issue 6, November 2019, Pages: 368-372
Received: Dec. 8, 2019; Accepted: Dec. 19, 2019; Published: Dec. 31, 2019
Views 308      Downloads 157
Author
Li Feng, School of Foreign Languages, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, China
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
College English is an important basic course in China’s higher education. Its quality is related to the talents’ cultivation and their practical working ability in the 21st century. Although most Chinese college students are proficient in English reading and writing, their oral English abilities are relatively weak. As is known to all, conversation plays an irreplaceable role in oral communication, and a host of scholars and educators have advocated including authentic conversations into college oral English teaching. However, their studies are mostly concerned with only a specific interactional practice of conversation, and there lacks a systemic study on the comprehensive application of conversations to oral English teaching. As a sociological research method, Conversation Analysis is aimed to study the social practices of talk and the social norm behind these conversational practices. The findings of Conversation Analysis have shown some potential in oral English teaching. Based on the current situation of Chinese college oral English teaching, the present study first explores the applicability of Conversation Analysis to college oral English teaching, then attempts to construct a practical oral English teaching model for college students in terms of four typical interactional organizations in conversation, viz. turn-taking organization, adjacency pairs, preference organization and repair organization, so as to effectively cultivate their communicative and interactive English skills and enhance their all-round practical capabilities to use English as a whole.
Keywords
Conversation Analysis, College Oral English Teaching, Conversation Organization, Communicative Skills
To cite this article
Li Feng, On the Implications of Conversation Analysis for College Oral English Teaching, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 7, No. 6, 2019, pp. 368-372. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20190706.27
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. 1984. Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
[2]
Bowles, H., & Seedhouse, P. 2007. Conversation analysis and language for specific purposes. Bern: Peter Lang.
[3]
Burns, A. 1998. Teaching speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (18), 102-123.
[4]
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5]
Drew, P. 2005. Conversation analysis. In K. L. Fitch & R. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 71-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[6]
Gao Yan, 2016. The correction of oral interaction and the teaching advice. Theory and Practice of Education, (36): 58-59.
[7]
Gardner, R. 2019. Classroom interaction research: the state of the art. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (52): 212-226.
[8]
Hall, J. K. 2018. From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9 (1), 25-39.
[9]
Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]
Jefferson, G. 1974. Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society, (3): 181-199.
[11]
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12]
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13]
Moore R. J. 2015. Automated transcription and conversation analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 (3): 253-270.
[14]
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Structures in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[15]
Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. 2005. Applying conversation analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
[16]
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson. 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language (50): 696-735.
[17]
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation, Language 53 (2): 361-382.
[18]
Schegloff, E. A. 2007, Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19]
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica (8): 289-327.
[20]
Seedhouse P. 2012. Conversation Analysis and Classroom Interaction. Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
[21]
Sidnell, J. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[22]
Thornbury, S. 2005. How to teach speaking. Harlow: Longman.
[23]
Wong, J. & Waring, H. Z. 2010. Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy: A Guide for ESL/EFL Teachers. New York and London: Routledge.
[24]
Xu Hongmei, 2013. An empirical study on interactive strategies of college English classroom based on turn-taking perspective. Chinese Journal, (6): 159-160.
[25]
Yang Lianrui, 2002. Turn-taking and Conversational Ability. Shandong Foreign Languages Teaching, (2): 22-24.
[26]
Yu Guodong, 2008. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186