Another thing I noticed about this extract is that there are a lot of markers. In this nineteen-move extract there are five markers, usually tagged onto the start of sentences. Such as “Right then…” This changes the direction of the dialogue from one customer to another or from the Landlady to a customer. There is also use of expressive particles such as “Uh” or “Er”. This adds to the reality of the drama, as in everyday talk we use these noises as part of our diction.
The directives used in this extract are thrown to and from the Landlord and the Landlady. Neither offers any directives to the customers. Another thing that sets this extract apart from classroom discourse is that the directives are generally insulting. For example in move five the Landlord tells the Landlady to “Get it together”. Unusually the Landlady does not react in the way that Sinclair and Coultard’s framework expects her to. This is because within a classroom environment there is a power dimension that is missing between two adults in everyday life.
The next extract is between two of the customers in the pub. It is obvious from the outset that there is the power dimension within this relationship that was missing in the last extract. However it’s a completely situation to that within a classroom. Although Roy holds the power, he is constantly throwing Lesley confrontational elicitation’s and repeating them until he gets a sufficient reply. Lesley doesn’t dare to offer any real elicitation’s but just loops her “what?”(Moves 6 & 10), as though not understanding his question. This according to Burton is a meta-statement and therefore her reworking can be applied to this extract.
Although Roy is definitely the dominant character, Lesley does hold some conversational power as she has the information that Roy is constantly demanding. I found this an interesting paradox, because usually the person who holds the information is the dominant person within the relationship. Like Ben and Gus’ relationship in The Dumb Waiter, Ben, who is the more dominant character holds the knowledge and its Gus who constantly offers elicitation’s to Ben to ascertain that information. However in Roy and Lesley’s relationship, Roy is constantly questioning Lesley but he still holds the power.
There is also a great deal of repetition in this extract. Its usually Lesley who loops, both comments (moves 2 & 4) and elicitation’s (moves 6 & 10). The fact that Lesley doesn’t give much away in her dialogue also gives her conversational power. Again like Ben and Gus, Ben also keeps his conversation guarded, obviously for different reasons, however the result is the same. That one person has the power within the dialogue to withhold knowledge that the other wants.
Again, I can relate a lot of Sinclair and Coultard’s framework to this extract, probably more so than the last extract because of the power dimension and the fact that they are both talking directly to each other. Another thing that I noticed, that I can relate to classroom discourse is that Roy prompts Lesley. In the framework it is stated that a prompt means that the teacher no longer just requests a response but now demands one. This is not something that we experience in everyday talk, as it’s impolite to demand an answer in this way.
Again there are a great deal of markers in this extract. In this 21-move extract there are 7 markers, in some moves there is more than one marker. For example in move 13 there are two: “Right” and “Ha”. This is Roy moving from one line of interrogation to another. You can see that he doesn’t want the other customers in the pub to hear his confrontation with Lesley. Which is why he changes direction when things get too heated.
One other thing that I found interesting was move 20. There are two elicitations in that one move, again enforcing Roy’s interrogation. Instead of waiting to hear the answer to his first question he insists on a harder line of questioning. This is not usual of classroom discourse, as the teacher would not question a pupil in this way.
The third extract is very different again, it’s extremely surreal and definitely doesn’t follow the usual turn taking rules at first. Alice’s first three moves bear no relation to Fred’s. She ignores his directive (move 2) and his elicitation (move 4) and carries on singing. She finally responds to his second elicitation (move 6) with an informative rather than a direct reply.
Another highly usual thing in this extract is that from moves 9 to 13 there are two informatives and three comments followed directly by each other. This doesn’t follow Sinclair and Coultard’s framework as in teacher - pupil discourse there would be more relation between the comments.
What sets this extract apart from the other two are that there are no markers. They do not use this method to change the subject. Therefore we get a very swift change of topic, from getting the drinks to their relationship. There are also only three moves that contain more than one act. Thus making their conversation seem stunted. Although the first five moves do not follow usual turn taking rules, the rest of the extract does. For example they both take defined turns. Neither one talks over the other.
This differs greatly from the last extract as although we do get the feeling that Alice is slightly more submissive within the relationship, there is still not a great power dimension. Fred seems to coax information out of her rather than force it out the way Roy does. Which create a completely different atmosphere within the discourse
Overall I do believe that Sinclair and Coultard’s framework can be applied to any form of discourse, however it is apparent in parts that the definitions of the acts are specific to classroom discourse and not dramatic conversation. Burton’s reworking does expand on their initial framework and therefore helps to analyse drama in these terms.
