�ݺ�ߣ

05.09.2013 Andreas Glombitza
English Seminar
Creating coherence in ad-hoc ELF
conversations

Coherence in ELF conversations
��? Conversational coherence
��? Centrifugal forces in (T)ELF conversations
��? Centripetal strategies
-? Enhancing hearer message relevance
?? comprehension monitoring
-? Enhancing speaker meaning accessibility
?? monitoring for feedback
?? self-monitoring
��? Summary
2 | Andreas Glombitza

Coherence in conversation
" [��] What one speakers says in a conversation [is] heard as
following sensibly from what another has said [...]".
(Schiffrin 1985: 640)
Shared responsibility for coherence
-? "a speaker is expected to formulate an utterance so that its
message is accessible [��]".
?? S signals what info will suffice as a minimally coherent response
-? "the hearer [��] is expected to demonstrate, through the next
utterance, proper attention to that message."
?? H signals coherence by providing that info or otherwise relating to it

Make your contribution such as is required��
Coherence and conversational maxims
?? Speaker maxim: "make your message accessible"
-? cp. Gricean maxim of manner (be brief, orderly, perspicuous,
unambiguous)
? we will generally expect S to perform according to his/her own
abilities and preferences (and make him/her feel like he/she does)
?? Hearer maxim: "relate your response to S's previous message"
-? cp. Grice's maxim of relation
?we will generally expect H to be relevant (and treat him/her as if
she is)
Consequence: "normalization" of the conversation surface, strategy
of "pretending to understand" (cp. House 2010: 368)

TELF discussions
?? a fixed topic/task (short, written description of a business-world problem)
??webapp: a collection of transcripts & a conversational corpus with
attached speaker-metadata and -retrospective data database
??~40.000 words, 3.000 turns, 60 subjects (11NS/49NNS)
? telf.uni-tuebingen.de

"Centrifugal forces" in (T)ELF discussions
��? loose overall discussion structure
tendency for "favourite individual topics" ("own agenda" cp. House 2002)
non-linear discussion process ("once again, back to start"), abrupt topic changes (cp.
Lesznyak 2002, House 2002)
speaker-meaning accessibility
creative/unconventional usage of words (reliance on "open choice", cp. Seidlhofer 2009)
"covert ambiguities" (e.g. stocks, recall)
ambiguous pronunciations (e.g. [recreate] for recruit)
interlocutors' general attention problems (due to monitoring strain)
hearer-message relevance
speaker meaning inaccessible (let-it-pass, "normalization" cp. House 2002, 2010)
lack of gambits / supporting moves (cp. House 2002)
hearer pursuing "own agenda
hearer message not accessible (see above)

Centripetal strategies �C monitoring and repair
(also cp. Kohn 1990)
notice potential
trouble
do something about
it
direct interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
speaker meaning
accessibility
self-monitoring
feedback monitoring
reorganize, rephrase
rephrase
signal gap, uncertainty,
correction
request
feedback , confirmation
give further clues,
accept or decline offers
negotiate own meaning
hearer message
relevance
comprehension
monitoring
use inferences to
bridge gaps
align response to
speaker's message
signal comprehension
gap
negotiate interlocutor's
meaning
escalation levels

COMPREHENSION-
MONITORING
Noticing trouble in understanding interlocutor's message that may
endanger relevance of next own contribution

(1/3) notice potential
trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
hearer message
relevance
comprehension
monitoring:
seemingly non-
compatible lexical
item (119)
form a contextually
appropriate
hypothesis:
"rehire" (Br, Ni) /
"recruit" (Al)
- -

trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
hearer message
relevance
comprehension
monitoring:
uncertain
illocutionary force /
propositional
content of Ja's
utterance (37)
form a contextually
appropriate
hypothesis about IF
and propositional
content (proposing
to wait)
revise hypothesis to
the effect that Ja
intends to warn (IF)
from potential side
effects of this plan
(waiting);
ask for confirmation
of hypothesis by
paraphrasing IF
and propositional
content of Ja's
previous turn (40)
get negative
response on
paraphrase and a
re-phrased
message from Ja
(41)
37
?Ja:
?[
?And
?so
?if
?]
?if
?we're
?if
?we're
?pushing
?this
?back
?what
?is
?that
?going
?to
?what
?is
?that
?going
?to
?
mean?
?I
?mean
?in
?certain
?circumstances
?I
?can
?see
?that
?m
?meaning
?that
?we
?would
?fold
?under
?the
?
pressure
?not
?having
?the
?right
?of
?a
?lot
?of
?money.
?But
?it's
?just
?an
?idea.
?
38
?El:
?Yea.
?
39
?Ja:
?Instead
?of
?no
?more.
?
40
?El:
?So
?you're
?you're
?proposing
?not
?to
?go
?public
?on
?that
?date,
?but
?to
?wait?
?[
?Are
?your
?argument
?]
?
41
?Ja:
?[
?Uhm
?no
?]
?I
?mean
?I
?I
?think
?that's
?a
?I
?think
?that's
?a
?great
?[
?idea
?],
?but
?I
?think
?another
?another
?
problem
?that
?we
?have
?another
?issue
?that
?we
?have
?to
?face
?is
?wha
?what
?does
?that
?what
?would
?that
?
mean
?for
?for
?a
?company
?for
?the
?money
?that
?we're
?we're
?going
?to
?become
?we're
?going
?to
?be
?uhm
?
bring
?in.
?
42
?El:
?That's
?a
?good
?point.
?
Midw_0910_ELF_05,
?Ja_247_En_m,
?El_246_It_f
?

trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
hearer message
relevance
comprehension
monitoring:
uncertain
propositional
meaning
contribution of
"benefits" (41) phrase relevant
response (rejection
of Ta's argument)
(43)
utter item with rising
intonation; attach
"sorry" with rising
intonation
acknowledge
elaboration (43:
"yeah")
receive elaboration
on the previous
turn, focusing on
"benefits " (42)
Excerpt 23
?
39
?Ch:
?so
?if
?you
?are
?allowed
?to
?go
?or
?not
?yeah
?[
?maybe
?]
?
40
?Ta:
?[
?and
?how
?]
?it
?influences
?your
?benefits
?in
?that
?time
?
41
?Ch:
?benefits?
?sorry?
?
42
?Ta:
?benefits
?I
?mean
?the
?this
?company
?you've
?just
?said
?that
?it
?will
?take
?a
?long
?time
?to
?make
?a
?
control
?of
?all
?the
?things
?and
?in
?that
?time
?the
?company
?could
?have
?sold
?so
?many
?goods
?they
?were
?of
?
a
?good
?quality
?but
?they
?will
?influence
?their
?benefits
?
43
?Ch:
?yeah
?but
?isn't
?it
?possible
?to
?sell
?it
?parallelly
?
44
?Ta:
?parallelly?
?[
?what
?do
?you
?]
?mean?
?
45
?Ch:
?[
?yeah
?]
?
46
?Ch:
?at
?the
?same
?[
?time
?]
?
Midw_10_TELF_01,
?Ch_257_Ge_m,
?Ta_259_Ru_f
?

FEEDBACK-MONITORING
Noticing indicators of non-comprehension while phrasing a message

trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
speaker meaning
accessibility
notice absence of
expected feedback
(receipts / okays /
go-ons)
proceed
elicit
feedback using
"appealer" moves
(cp. Edmondson/House
1981)
get confirmation
from Pr (121, 127)
120$Al:$But$we$don't$know$if$if$if$this$kind$of$technical$um$invention$has$already$saved$a$life.$So$we$
can't$prove$it$you$know$what$I$mean?$$
121$Pr:$yes$
[...]$
126$Al:$but$um$if$we$just$check$them$it$would$be$a$compromise$because$we$are$not$really$sure$that$
this$this$intercom$already$saved$a$life$you$know$what$I$mean?$$
127$Pr:$yes$
A:$when$I$talk$a$long$time$and$try$to$explain$something$orIor$my$idea,$I$ask$the$question$"do$you$
know$what$I$mean?"$because$I$was$not$sure$if$they$were$getting$my$idea$because$they$were$like$
still$and$I$don��t$know$if$they$were$thinking$about$what$they$were$saying$or$just$don��t$getting$what$I$
don��t$get$get$$
I1:$How$could$you$tell$that$they$weren��t$sure$about$your$ideas?$$
A:$because$nobody$was$saying$like$okay$okay$or$saying$nothing.$They$just$aaah$were$silent.$
Midw_1112_ELF_01,$Pr_270_It_f$,$Al_272_Sp_f$retrospective$comment$

trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
speaker meaning
accessibility
feedback
monitoring: notice
attributable silence
on part of
interlocutor (146)
repeat and
rephrase previous
message (149)
(cp. Kaur 2012)
ask for
comprehension
(potential FTA, 147)
receive uncertain
answer from Da
(148)
140$Ja:$(to$Da)$I$don't$think$so$because$the$is$uhm$also$the$pediatrics$they$commended$it$to$the$
customers$just$for$this$one$function$what$is$to$monitor$a$baby's$pulse$rate$[$and$][141$Jo:$Mhm$
][142$Da:$Mhm$]$$it's$really$what$says$it$I$think$because$you$have$a$lot$of$intercoms$for$babies$but$
this$one$is$specif$specific$with$[$this$function$]$[143$Jo:$Mhm$]$and$I$think$if$you$want$just$an$just$
intercom$if$you$buy$just$intercom,$but$if$you$want$this$one$[$you$]$[144$Jo:$yea$]$buy$this$one$
because$of$the$function$and$I$don't$think$so$if$you$buy$it$you$don't$use$it,$it's$nonsense.$[$You$]$[145$
Jo:$Yea$uhm]$buy$it$because$you$want$use$it$and$you$can$can't$not$that$uhm$from$the$10,000$just$
to$use$it$you$cannot$count$it$because$I$think$the$people$know$what$they$bought$and$they$use$it$for$
this$reason$
146$Da:$(long$pause)$Mhm$$right$
147$Ja:$(to$Da)$Do#understand#what#I#mean?$
148$Da:$Yea$I$think$so.$Uhm$
149$Ja:$It$will$be$something$else$if$it$will$be$just$one$function$of$many$
150$Da:$Mhm$
151$Ja:$but$I$think$it's$in$this$case$it's$the$main$function$
152$Jo:$Ja$f$alright$
153:$Da:$Right$right$[well$I$think$]$that$this$
Ja:$Erm$I��m$still$not$sure$that$Da$did$understand$the$thing$I$tried$to$explain$it$but$I��m$not$sure$it��s$
okay$let��s$see$maybe$it$will$be$okay$just$erm$confused$if$we$are$on$the$same$line$
$
Midw_08_NNSD_04,
?Ja_008
?retrospec7ve
?comment
?

SELF-MONITORING
Noticing trouble that may endanger own-message accessibility

trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
speaker meaning
accessibility
self-monitoring:
creative license
with lexical item
(351)
-
(laughter by Pr)?
351$Pr:$they$should$be$lucky$that$um$because$if$um$the$mass$media$know$about$it,$it$would$be$
catastrophical$$
Pr:$I$don't$know$if$this$word$exists$in$English.$"Catastrophical",$you$know.$$
I1:$do$you$have$another$way$you$would$say$it?$$
Pr:$this$"disaster"$should$be$$
Midw_1112_ELF_01,$Pr_270_It_f$retrospective$comment$
(laughs)

(2/5)* notice potential
trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
speaker meaning
accessibility
self-monitoring: ?
avoid conditional
construction?
incongruent choice
of personal pronoun
self-initiated
rephrasal to "it's not
a
problem" (simplify)
self-initated self-
correction to "they"
signal correction
"uhm" (cp. Clark
and Fox Tree 2002)
-
18
?Ed:
?Yea,
?I
?think
?that
?uhm
?if
?the
?purpose
?of
?the
?company
?is
?uhm
?earn
?earn
?money
?it
?doesn't
?
matter,
?it
?doesn't
?uhm
?it's
?not
?it's
?not
?a
?problem,
?yea?
?But
?if
?you
?uhm
?think
?in
?a
?social
?err
?point
?of
?
view
?it
?could
?be
?err
?a
?problem,
?yea?
?Because
?uhm
?it
?is
?a
?part
?of
?some
?uhm
?I
?don't
?know
?solution,
?it
?
could
?be
?a
?good
?solution
?for
?uhm
?the
?so
?only
?infant
?death,
?yea?
?It
?doesn't
?work
?err
?well
?so
?he
?have
?
to
?they
?have
?to
?improve
?something
?err
?better
?to
?to
?get
?uhm
?good
?err
?solution
?or
?everything.
?
Midw_07_MON_03,
?Ed_033_Sp_m
?

?
118
?Al
?:
?[
?Yea
?],
?but
?how
?[
?do
?you
?know
?it
?]?
?[
?How
?do
?you
?know
?it
?doesn't
?work?
?]
?[
?because
?it
?
doesn't
?make
?]
?it
?doesn't
?i
?it
?doesn't
?make
?any
?sounds
?[
?so
?if
?the
?if
?the
?]
?if
?the
?baby
?is
?not
?good
?
good
?good?
?Err
?healthy
?yea
?uhm
?yo
?you're
?just
?not
?gonna
?know
?[
?because
?if
?]
?it
?doesn't
?make
?any
?
sounds
?I
?err
?f
?soun.
?I
?thi
?yea
?err
?I
?think
?it's
?a
?good
?sign
?so
?[
?that's
?the
?problem
?].
?
Midw_08_NNSD_05,
?Al_001_Fr_m
?

?
8
?Jo:
?mhm
?but
?erm
?the
?sensors
?(hesitatingly)
?are
?not
?one
?of
?is
?
?(opens
?both
?hands)
?aren��t
?
?our
?
product.
?
?

trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
speaker meaning
accessibility
self-monitoring:
lexical gap
use "headphones"
gestural: both index
fingers to own ears
accept lexical item
by Sr "headphones"
So:
?but
?maybe
?it
?is
?more
?like
?that
?than
?the
?I
?don't
?know
?how
?it
?is
?said
?(gestures
?to
?own
?ears)
?[
?
?
?]
?
headphones
?yeah
?and
?that
?[
?the
?the
?is
?working
?good
?]
?
Sr:
?[
?headphones
?]
?
Ma:
?[
?phones?
?]
?
Lu:
?[
?so
?that
?there
?is
?no
?risk
?]
?
So:
?no
?um
?of
?course
?but
?I
?mean
?if
?if
?you
?can
?use
?it
?without
?um
?if
?you
?are
?going
?to
?use
?it
?without
?
that
?hairphones
?

?

?
Midw_1011_ELF_03, So_260_Sp_f, Sr_261_Ma_m, Ma_262_En_f, Lu_264_Sp_f

trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
speaker meaning
accessibility
self-monitoring:
lexical gap (115)
use "screws"
verbal: "how do
you"
gestural: index
fingers to
neighbour's glasses
reject first lexical item
(glasses); narrow
target concept;
ask confirmation for
second lexical item
(screws, 117); accept
second lexical item
115
?Ed:
?Mhm,
?it
?would
?be
?better
?because,
?I
?don't
?know,
?it's
?for
?example
?like
?uhm
?as
?a
?company
?
who
?who
?made
?a
?who
?make
?a
?how
?do
?you,
?how
?do
?(touches
?the
?frame
?of
?Ke's
?glasses)
?[
?you
?call
?
the
?]
?err
?no
?err
?the
?little
?[
?pieces
?]
?of
?err
?screws?
?
116
?Ke:
?[The
?glasses?]
?
117
?Ke:
?[Screws?]
?
118
?Ke:
?Yea
?like
?screwing,
?you
?know?
?(turns
?hand
?like
?with
?a
?screwdriver)
?
119:
?Ed:
?Yea
?like
?screws
?who
?who
?make
?a
?company
?who
?make
?this
?uhm
?things.
?Maybe
?they
?uhm
?
just
?produce
?it,
?but
?uhm
?I
?don't
?know
?maybe
?another
?company
?use
?that
?uhm
?to
?to
?make
?guns
?yea
?
and
?it's
?not
?uhm
?them
?fault.
?

?

?Midw_07_MON_03,
?Ed_033_Sp_m,
?Ke_109_En_m
?

trouble
do something
about it
direct
interlocutors'
attention to it
engage in co-
construction
speaker meaning
accessibility
self-monitoring:
lexical gap (196)
use "affiliate" (205)
verbal: "how is this
called"
reject first lexical item
("demand", 197);
narrowing using
code-switch to L3;
paraphrase;
asking for
confirmation of
second lexical item
("affilitate", 201);
"grudgingly" accept
affiliate (203)
196
?Ch:
?yeah
?that
?depends
?on
?uh
?uh
?uh
?on
?on
?on
?the
?possibilities
?this
?company
?has
?maybe
?they
?
should
?should
?acquire
?uh
?uh
?mmm
?uh
?uh
?mmm
?how
?is
?this
?called?
?such
?a
?uh
?such
?uh
?mm
?
197
?Ta:
?demand
?
198
?Ch:
?deliverer
?of
?of
?of
?such
?products
?mmm
?as
?as
?sucursal
?they
?say?
?I
?don't
?know
?really
?it
?is
?like
?
like
?uh
?uh
?uh
?a
?daughter
?of
?the
?head
?company
?
199
?Ta:
?uh
?yeah
?a
?daughter
?of
?
200
?El:
?affiliate
?
201
?Ch:
?affiliate?
?
202
?Ta:
?affiliating
?
203
?Ch:
?yeah
?well
?OK
?yeah
?that
?may
?be
?
204
?Ta:
?Konzernfiliale
?
205
?Ch:
?that
?maybe
?but
?mm
?or
?improve
?the
?uh
?the
?mm
?communication
?with
?with
?with
?the
?affiliate
?
or
?with
?or
?with
?the
?uh
?your
?delivery
?institution
?maybe
?

?
Midw_10_TELF_01,
?Ta_259_Ru_f,
?
?Ch_257_Ge_m
?

Summary
?? Central role of monitoring strategies in production and
comprehension for maintaining coherence at a subjectively
acceptable level
?? Variation with respect to speakers' propensity to escalate
monitoring strategy to "signalling trouble", "negotiate meaning" or
"engage in co-construction";
?? What makes some speakers / speaker combinations more
prepared than others to engage in these behaviors? What are the
limits of these strategies?

References
?? Clark, H. H., und J. E. Fox Tree. (2002). ?Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking��. Cognition 84 (1): 73�C111. Print.
?? Edmondson, W and J. House (1981). Let's talk, and talk about it : a pedagogic interactional grammar of English. M��nchen: Urban &
Schwarzenberg.
?? House, J. (2002), ��Pragmatic Competence in Lingua Franca English��, in: Knapp, K. and C. Meierkord (eds.), Lingua Franca Communication,
245-267, Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.
?? House, J. (2010): ��The Pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca.�� Anna Trosborg (ed.): Handbook of Pragmatics. Vol. 7: Across
Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton, 363-387
?? Kaur, J. (2011) "Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca." Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11), 2704�C2715
?? Kohn, K. (1990) Dimensionen lernersprachlicher Performanz. Theoretische und empirische Untersuchungen zum Zweitsprachenerwerb.
T��bingen: Narr.
?? Kohn, K. (2011). "English as a lingua franca and the Standard English misunderstanding." In: De Houwer, Annick and Antje Wilton (eds.).
English in Europe Today: Sociocultural and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 71�C94.
?? Lesznyak, A. (2002). From chaos to the smallest common denominator. Topic management in English lingua franca communication. In:
Karlfried Knapp and Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua Franca Communication, 163-193. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
?? Schiffrin, D. (1985). "Conversational Coherence: The role of 'well'." Language, 61 (3), 640-667.
?? Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2). 195�C215.
?? Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press.

Thank you.
Andreas Glombitza
andreas.glombitza@uni-tuebingen.de

�ݺ�ߣ

Creating Coherence in Ad-hoc ELF Conversations

More Related Content

Creating Coherence in Ad-hoc ELF Conversations