discourse of friends.
analuse spoken transcript of friends. generate list f defining characteristics of discourse of friends
hymes 1974 model applied to friends
look at friends from pint of view of st clair and coulathurd Birmingham school model
speaking – nature of friendship. apply hymes to the model
contextual matters. nature of relationship.
symmetric tole relatioshp in friendship. usually equal unlie family,
what are poer rleations. family is at stake – it can end. stable.
one can lose friends, people are careful. people are not so direct.
sme shared knowledge. nature if fixed and astable friendshop varies.
nature f friendshop – appluign speaking model depends on speaking model
friend sfor a log time ma affect symmetry of speaker relations.
type if friendship
friendhsp repertories. different types
close friends v acquaintances. we do things with acquainstance.s best friends foe eotioonal support
socio linguistic variables. look at them for conversation. female friendshops – different lingsutic friendhsop diffeene tform male amle and male female
different social clases and educational abckgrounds.
roles may have imaact n lang in friendship group. diffeen roles. comic in group. manager in grouo,#
roles fiex in family not inf rienhsi groups.
politeness markers. some hedges. vcatives.
how can we interept the etxrac ? apply st clair and coulahrd – intiaiton reposne feedback. cosndier evry speke rutrn. how does it function in temr sof intiiton reposne and feedback
rising intonation. tagged as an initiation. these happen as questions usually.
response to initiation,
another intiaitona nd another response.
speaker A LOOKS TO E – feedback on response.
IRF – initiation response feedback
some conversations are invented for teaching.
females. 20s. shared accomm.
initiations. they are often signalled by questions. not all questions are initiations.
some statements are initiations. five initiations
lexical repetition of down.
sometimes it is unclear if something it an initiation or a response.
linguistic features in extract. topic changes. three changes. very rapid. unproblematic. niot signalled. no marker to chnge tpic.
#no lverpapping or interruttpn. more symmetrical. no power to interrupt or overlap. that happesn in families instead
# hugh shared knowledge.
cohension amng friends. backward pointing. lxicla chaining and repetition. synonymety. earrings chain and watch. reformulation nd echoing – idnicatro of informal and intimes speech soldiairyt
nice – reformuasleew t lovley in next turn.
spud ws reformauledt as potato in next turn
no pragmatic marking with like and now. v unusual not to have it.
vague language. kind of copper – common in friends speech. indexed shared knowledge. we like to appar non expert and we approxiaet
friends 3. males watching telly in shared accomm
taboo lang. vocatives. short turnes. ejaculatos. overlpapping.
”I d say did he?” tag questions. pragmatic marker like. echoed ”like”
”i’d say did he” pragmatic marker
friends rapid topic change. little overlap and interruption. shared knowledge often situaitona l. v cohesive.
differing turn lengths.
taboo lang. vocatives. pragmatic markers. socio linguistic variables such as gender. length of friendshop can play a role.
acint more like famil – fewer pragmatic maarkers if they re frinds for yonks.