112 Advances in spoken discourse analysis
Since 1975 the description has been developed and diversified. These
developments are well exemplified and documented in Coulthard and
Montgomery (1981) and in this volume. The work of Brazil (1975, 1978a,
1978b) and Coulthard and Brazil (1979) looks closely at the function of
intonation in structuring discourse and in doing so extends and enhances
the description; Burton (1980) focuses on casual conversation and introduces
the valuable notion of challenging moves; Francis and Hunston (this volume,
Chapter 7) offer a development of the system to handle telephone
conversations; while Ventola (1987) extends the system to provide an
ethnographic analysis of service encounters. These are all attempts to
describe data in which the discourse is not predictably controlled as by
a teacher in a classroom.
The advantages of working within a structural description of discourse
are clear. The distinctive feature of a structural description is that the elements
in the description and their possible combinations must be rigorously defined.
This means that descriptions which are based on the same structural criteria
are directly comparable. It is possible to reveal similarities and differences
between different discourses and different genres of discourse once these
have been subjected to the same structural analysis.
The original Sinclair—Coulthard system of analysis is based on Halliday’s
(1961) rank scale description of grammar. The ranks in the model are lesson;
transaction; exchange; move and act, and these are related to one another
in a ‘consists of relationship. A lesson is made up of a series of transactions,
which in turn is made up of a number of exchanges. Exchanges are made
up of moves, which in turn are made up of acts. I would like to look first
at the ranks of exchange and move.
There are two types of exchange: Boundary exchanges and Teaching
exchanges. I want to look at teaching exchanges. A teaching exchange
has three elements of structure: Initiation (I), Response (R) and Feedback
(F). The structure of the exchange is specified as I(R)(F). This I(R)(F)
exchange structure dictates that all exchanges consist of at least an
Initiation and that this Initiation may be followed by either a Response
or a Feedback. If there is a Response this may in turn be followed by
a Feedback.
This I(R)(F) exchange structure defines the potential for an Opening
move followed by an Answering move followed in turn by a Follow-up
move. All the possible realizations of this exchange structure are to be
found in the data. An exchange may consist simply of an Opening move:
T: A group of people used symbols to do their writing. They used
pictures instead of, as we write, in words.In this case the move is realized by a single act, an inform. An Opening
move of this kind requires no Answering move on the part of the pupils. A
directive exchange, on the other hand, typically has an IR structure, consisting
of a teacher Direct: