Applying the Method of Conversational Analysis in Interpersonal Communication; Communication Analysis of Elementary School Student Dialogue

Khaniki, H.; Noorirad, F.

doi:10.22035/jicr.2019.1880.2465

Applying the Method of Conversational Analysis in Interpersonal Communication; Communication Analysis of Elementary School Student Dialogue

Document Type : Scientific Research Manuscript

Authors

H. Khaniki ¹

F. Noorirad ²

¹ Professor of Communication, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

² PhD Candidate of Communication, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

10.22035/jicr.2019.1880.2465

Abstract

Dialogue as an important communication action, is one of the topics that has been less addressed in the field of communication science and most of the research has been done in the area of mass communication. Meanwhile, doing research in the field of human and interpersonal communication with a case-by-case perspective and a qualitative method that seeks to understand and describe a pure reality, is noteworthy in the field of communications science research. Therefore, in this research, we intend to study the class interactions in dialogical oriented sessions to clarify the structure, dimensions and components of the inquiry based dialogue. Conversation analysis studies the order/organization/orderliness of social actions, particularly those which are located in everyday interaction, in discursive practices, in the sayings/ tellings /doings of members of society. Therefore, one of the main results of conversational analysis is to identify this system with chain patterns, which builds structure upon oral behaviors during the interaction. The classroom conversational analysis shows that the overall structure of these conversations is forwarding, which means that when an idea is expressed in response to a question, participants are required to respond to an "agreement" or "opposition" to that idea. This reaction often leads to the correction and completion of the initial idea or clarification of it. People interconnect between the ideas proposed and say their inference from the discussion process. This kind of dialogue requires not only good intellectual stances, but also a commitment to results and rational orientation.

Keywords

conversational analysis

inquiry based dialogue

dialogue

interaction

elementary students

Subjects

Communication

Ansari, M. (2005). Democracy-ye goft-o-guyi, emkānāt-e democratic-e andišehā-ye Mikhail Bakhtin va Jurgen Habermas [Dialogical democracy]. Tehran, Iran: Markaz.

Blaikie, N. (2012). Pārādāymhā-ye tahqiq dar olum-e ensāni [Approaches to social enquiry] (H. R. Hasani, M. T. Iman, & M. Majedi, Trans.). Qom: Institute of Howzah and University.

Bohm, D. (1998). On creativity. Lee Nichol (ed.), London: Routledge.

Bohm, D. (2002). Darbāre-ye dialogue [On dialogue] (M. A. Hosseinnezhad, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Daftar-e Pažuhehā-ye Farhangi bā Hamkāri-ye Markaz-e Beynalmelali-ye Goft-o-gu-ye Tamaddonhā.

Buber, M. (2001). Man-o-to [Ich und du] (A. Sohrab, & E. Atarodi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Našr va Pažuheš-e Foruzānruz.

Cartledge, G., & Milburn, F.G. (1996). Āmužeš-e mahārathā-ye ejtemā'i be kudakān [Teaching social skills to children: Innovative attroaches] (M. H. Nazarinezhad, Trans.). Mashhad: Šerkat-e Behnašr.

Dorsey, G. (2009). Praxis: Dialogue, reflection, and action toward amore empowering pedagogy (MA Thesis). The Faculty of the Department of Elementary Education, San Jose State University.

Edmiston, B. (2008). Forming ethical identities in early childhood play. New York: Routledge.

Fisher, R. (2007). Āmužeš-e tafakkor be kudakān [Teaching thinking to children] (M. Safaei Moghaddam, & A. Najarian, Trans.). Ahvaz: Raseš.

Flick, U. (1989). Darāmadi bar tahqiq-e keyfi [An introduction to qualitative, research] (H. Jalili, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Ney.

Gardner, H. (2010). Analysing interactionsin childhood: Insights from conversation analysis. Department of Human Communication Sciences, Sheffield University.

Ghazi Moradi, H. (2012). Šowq-e got-o-gu va gostardegi-ye farhang-e takguyi dar miyān-e Iranian [The passion for dialogue and the extent of the unique culture among Iranians]. Tehran, Iran: Dāt.

Habermas, J. (2012). Koneš-e ertebāti [The theory of communicative action] (K. Pouladi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Markaz.

Hart, R. (2001). Mošārekat-e kudakān va nowjavānān az pazireš-e suri tā šahrvandi-ye vaqe'i [‎Children's participation from tokenism to citizenship] (F. Taheri, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Daftar-e Pažuhešhā-ye Farhangi.

Hartke Meyer, M. (2010). Bā ham andišidan: Rāz-e goft-o-gu [Miteinander denken das geheimnis des dialogs] (F. Sadr Ameli, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Ettelā'āt.

Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: SAGE Publications.

Haynes, J. (2005). Baččehā-ye filsuf; Yādgiri az tariq-e kāvošgari va goft-o-gu dar madāres [Children as philsophers: Learning through enquiry and dialogue in the primary classroom] (R. Ali Nowruzi, A. Jamshidian, & M. Mehrabi Koushki, Trans.). Qom: Samā'-e Qalam.

Holopainen, M. (2010) Outcomes of dialogic communication training on a city government management team (MA Thesis). The Faculty of the Department of Communication Studies, San José State University.

Imani, M. T. (2012a). Raveššenāsi-ye tahqiqāt-e keyfi [Methodilogy of qualitative researches]. Qom: Institute of Hawzah and University.

Imani, M. T. (2012b). Falsafe-ye raveš-e tahqiq dar olum-e ensāni [Philosophy of human reserch methods]. Qom: Institute of Hawzah and University.

Isaacs, W. (2001). Goft-o-gu va honar-e bā ham andišidan [Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life] (M. Hadadi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Institute for Political and International Studies.

Khaniki, H. (2002). Goft-o-gu-ye tamaddonhā va ertebātāt-e beynalmelali barresi-ye zaminehā-ye eyni va zehni dar Se dahe-ye pāyāni-ye Qarn-e Bistom [Dialogue of civilizations and international relations] (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Social Science, Allame Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

Khaniki, H. (2008). Dar jahān-e goft-o-gu [In the world of dialoge]. Tehran, Iran: Hermes.

Khatibi Moghaddam, S. (2009). Āmužeš va parvareš-e jadid va rošd-e mahārathā-ye goft-o-guyi; Barresi-ye ta'sir-e raveš-e ejtemā'-e kandokāv-e falsafi bar mahārathā-ye goft-o-gui-ye dānešāmuzān [New education and the development of dialogue skills; The impact of the philosophical context community method on student conversation skills] (M.A. Thesis). Faculty of Social Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Kolak, D., & Raymond, M. (2011). Porsidan mohemtar az pāsox dādan ast: Darāmadi bar falsafe [Wisdom without answers: A brief introduction to philosophy] (H. Bahreini, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Hermes.

Litte John, S. (2005). Nazariyehā-ye ertebātāt [Theories of human communication] (S. M. Noorbakhsh, & A. Mir Hasani, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Jangal.

Mahmudian, R. (2000). Hālat-e mesāli-ye goftār: Jahāni ārmāni: Vaz'iyat-e ārmāni-ye rābete-ye xod bā digari [An example of speech: An ideal world: The ideal condition of your relationship with another]. Journal of Arghanun, 16, 291-312.

Malekian, M. (2011). Rāhi be rahāyi: Jastārhāyi dar bāb-e aqlāniyat va ma'naviyat [A way to release: Questions on rationality and spirituality]. Tehran, Iran: Neqāh-e Mo'āser.

Mansournezhad, M. (2002). Ruykardhā-ye nazari dar goft-o-gu-ye tamaddonhā (Habermas, Fukuyama, Khatami, Huntington) [Theoretical approaches to the dialogue of civilizations]. Tehran, Iran: Jahād-e Dānešgāhi.

Matthews, G. (1984). Dialogues with children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.