Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnie
linguistlist.org>
Markee, Numa (2000) Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000 Reviewed by Ron Bonham, Malaspina University-College Numa Markee's book, Conversation Analysis, is an alternative, and, admittedly, even 'heretical' approach to examining CA methodology, especially in relation to SLA (Second Language Acquisition) research. This work is, in fact, one in a series of SLA research monographs published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates intended to advance the critical study and application of methodologies of potential benefit to SLA research. Implicit to the series, and in particular to Markee's critical examination of the base assumptions of SLA, is the need to bring an empirical, qualitative, and detailed examination of the workings of conversation to a discussion which has long emphasized (at times in an exclusionary, even elitist manner) a rationalist/ theoretical perspective. Markee's book has both the drawbacks and advantages of a monograph. It is compact and well-organized but quite dense in research and analysis. A book of 166 text pages, it nonetheless draws upon 20 pages of references and has extensive notes, tables, and a detailed appendix. Thus, the reader is challenged to assimilate a considerable body of information in a compact presentation. Markee's language is also made complex by jargon and the condensed analysis of detailed research. Thus, on the first page of her work, the author refers to 'predominantly nomoethetic epistemology' and to 'micro-moments of socially distributed cognition instantiated in conversational behavior' (3). The opening chapter also offers distilled analysis of discourse hypothesis, social interaction hypothesis, and interactionist hypothesis. Although Conversation Analysis offers interesting data and praxis of benefit to language pedagogy, the material and its presentation require some familiarity with acquisition theory and research. Knowledge of discourse analysis and of ethnomethodology would be of definite help as well. There are some issues which are intriguing, but, of necessity, receive brief, glancing treatment here. Ethical standards of SLA research (especially given new, potentially invasive technology), the implications of gestural context, and locating of the boundaries between language acquisition and use, for example, are merely adumbrated given the limits of the monograph and its primary emphasis on the methodological. Markee's book is structurally well-designed, however, and provides a soundly scientific approach to microanalysis of conversational data, without predetermination or assumption. The examination of talk-in-interaction and, in particular, of the three practices of interactional competence -- sequential organization, turn-taking, and repair-- leads to a rewarding pay-off in the final two chapters. There, Markee provides discussions of conversation that leads to understanding and learning (Ch. 7) and that does not lead to understanding and learning (Ch. 8). The author makes some important points about how the 'failure to understand' is as significant in establishing sound methodology as the instances of success as the former contributes to an all-encompassing understanding of how comprehension works. The 'emic' and 'ethnomethodological' nature of the approach here shows that understanding of conversational input is a complex of systemic knowledge (elements and rules of linguistic grammar) but also of interactional, lexical, and schematic knowledge. There are some central and significant points in Markee's work which contribute to the furthering of SLA research. First, the author shows the value of detailed and fine-grained examination of conversation where ethnomethodology not only invites but insists on the validation of all data, even the single or singular exception. All qualitative data must be examined and 'analysis must be subject to critical falsification' (29). Second, Markee offers a 'heretical' correction or balance of perspective on acquisition which challenges even the epistemological basis of acquisition theory. CA, in allowing researchers to employ qualitative work to investigate 'how learners use conversational modifications and whether such modifications can be shown to result in learning a second language' (44), fills an important gap in SLA advancement. Most significantly, these empirically derived data take on not the traditional 'hypothesis-generating role' but a 'hypothesis-confirming one' so that the methodology becomes closely allied, and even central, to determining the relationship between language use and acquisition. Finally, the details of Markee's fine-grained data collection and the attendant micro-analysis offer some important considerations for applied linguistics and second language educators. The value of naturalistic conditions and ordinary conversation has significant implications, since, not only do they provide the 'default' here for analysis but they also show greater impetus for self-regulation. Thus, participants/ learners have the opportunity 'to repair breakdown in communication and this allows them to gain access to . . . syntactic richness' (88). Furthermore, the teacher's use of CQ (D) strategy (Counter Question Display) is less conducive to problem-solving orientation in speech and is 'therefore acquisitionally less useful than the open-ended speech system' (77-8). Markee shows that conversational repair merits significant attention as the 'principal resources that conversationalists have at their disposal to maintain intersubjectivity, that is to construct shared meanings' (101). Nonetheless, in spite of its significance, Markee argues that repair is a 'dispreferred' activity, especially when done in excess, as it can be 'face-threatening' (164); also, it is necessary but 'not sufficient to promot[ing] language learning' (163) as there needs to be some connection to what speakers know about the world. Thus, the author reminds teachers that comprehension is complex, dynamic, 'not a simple all-or-nothing construct' and that often systemic knowledge is only truly validated when supported by schematic knowledge (background knowledge of the factual/ historical world). This latter point is evident in the analysis of the difference between success with understanding the word 'coral' and problems with the phrase 'We cannot get by Auschwitz'. In both instances, the speakers attempt definition, move freely between lexical and syntactic levels of discourse, and explore co-constructed meaning. However, although one can arrive at and comprehend the constituent parts of the phrase, the metaphorical meaning still may escape comprehension unless the teacher creates an open environment and does not focus 'exclusively on linguistic meaning' (159). Conversation Analysis is a worthwhile work to examine in the advancement of SLA. It offers a delicate balance between exact, even conservative methodology and its exciting, even risk-taking implications.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue