156 Advances in spoken discourse analysis
This principle of ‘consistency’ is a useful one for discourse analysis. In
addition to the points made above we have also suggested that a framer will
indicate a transaction boundary if and only if what follows is consistent
with this interpretation (see p. 128 above where the framer is defined, and
pp. 139–40, where transactions and their boundaries are discussed). Such
tentativeness seems to us to reflect the negotiable status of any discourse
category. Whatever act or move an utterance appears to realize, it is always
subject to reclassification in the light of subsequent contributions by other
participants. This indeterminacy in turn reflects the ambiguous position of
the discourse analyst, who is neither A nor B, and who stands both inside
and outside the conversation.
We leave the reader with two concluding points, the first of which is that
many of the concepts we have discussed above remain sadly undeveloped:
the concept of information-transmission as being the defining property of
an exchange (and the consequent problems raised by Structuring and,
crucially, Direct exchanges); the question of dual function and double
labelling; and the whole area of inexplicitness raised by the positing of
implicit elements of exchange structure. All these areas are in need of
further clarification.
Our second concluding point is that this article is not intended to be
definitive. The system of analysis described above is flexible; new acts,
moves and exchanges can be added as the need arises, so long as such new
additions are sufficiently generalizable and so long as the basic theoretical
principles of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) are adhered to. Much work also
needs to be done on the ranks above the exchange. If, however, the reader
as analyst wishes to abandon these theoretical principles (for example the
rank scale, following Wells et al. (1981)) we suggest that he/she needs to
think in terms of constructing an alternative description which would account
for the data of everyday conversation in a more satisfactory way. We are not
claiming that it cannot be done. All that we can say is that while the Sinclair—
Coulthard system has its critics, very few of them have attempted to suggest
viable alternatives. To suggest, as some do, that everyday conversation cannot
be subjected to linguistic analysis is not a solution.
SAMPLE ANALYSIS: A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
Note: The first column headed ‘e.s’ gives the element of move structure
realized by the preceding act, and the second column headed ‘e.s’ gives the
element of exchange structure realized by the preceding move. The last two
columns number the exchanges and the transactions respectively. A single
line indicates an exchange boundary, a broken line indicates that the next
exchange is bound-Elicit, and double lines indicate a transaction boundary.
Pauses are timed in parenthesis; (#) indicates a pause of less than one
second. Laughter is shown by (la).