english telephone reservation conversation from a conversation analysis perspective = đặt phòng qua điện thoại bằng tiếng anh từ góc độ phân tích hội thoại

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
***



NGUYỄN THỊ THÚY



ENGLISH TELEPHONE RESERVATION
CONVERSATION FROM A CONVERSATION
ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE
(ĐẶT PHÒNG QUA ĐIỆN THOẠI BẰNG TIẾNG ANH
TỪ GÓC ĐỘ PHÂN TÍCH HỘI THOẠI)

Minor thesis




Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15









HANOI - 2010
2


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
***



NGUYỄN THỊ THÚY

ENGLISH TELEPHONE RESERVATION
CONVERSATION FROM A CONVERSATION
ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE
(ĐẶT PHÒNG QUA ĐIỆN THOẠI BẰNG TIẾNG ANH
TỪ GÓC ĐỘ PHÂN TÍCH HỘI THOẠI)


Minor thesis




Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Prof. Nguyễn Hòa









HANOI - 2010

6

TABLE OF CONTENT OF “ENGLISH TELEPHONE RESERVATION

CONVERSATION FROM A CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE”
Page
Retention and use of the paper i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of contents iv
List of tables vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Objectives and research questions of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 3
4. Organization of the study 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5
Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Conversation Analysis 5
1.1.1. Definition of Conversation 5

1.1.2. Conversation Analysis versus Discourse Analysis 5
1.2. Telephone conversation 7

1.2.1. Openings 8

1.2.2. Topic talk 9

1.2.3. Closings 10

1.3. Speech acts 12
1.3.1. Illocutionary act 13
1.3.2. Direct and indirect speech act 14
Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY 15

2.1. Research questions 15
2.2. Data collection methods 15
2.3. Participants 16
2.4. Data analysis framework 17
7

Chapter 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 20
3.1. Findings 20
3.1.1. Openings 20
3.1.2. Topic-talk 23
3.1.3. Closings 28
3.2. Discussions 30
3.2.1. Typical procedure of opening a telephone reservation conversation by
receptionists 30
3.2.2. Speech acts used by hotel receptionists in collecting guest‟s information for
reservation 32
3.2.3. Ways used by hotel receptionists in closing telephone reservation conversation 35
PART C: CONCLUSION 37
1. Conclusion 37
2. Suggestions for further study 38
REFERENCES 39
APPENDIX 40
8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Detailed information included in self-identification by the called
Table 2. International Phonetic Alphabet
Table 3. Specified needs of customer

9

PART A: INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the following aspects are covered:
- Rationale – reasons for choosing the research topic
- Aims and significance of the study
- Scope of the study, and
- Organization of the study
1. Rationale
Nowadays, telephone is considered an effective tool to connect people around the world. In
the business world, telephone also serves a significant function for trading, sales, marketing
and keeping traces of customers for it has prominent and outstanding features such as instant,
convenient and cheap. However, to communicate successfully through telephone is not a
simple task for participants when the caller cannot see the called and their non-verbal gestures.
Apart from linguistic competence, telephone etiquette is also important in business.
It seems that much has been said and done about telephone conversation within pragmatics
and conversation analysis field and such names as Levinson, Marknee, Sacks, Schegloff
Jefferson, have become familiar in the researcher circle. Although the structure of telephone
conversation has been studied and used to explain and organize a wide variety of
circumstances, it is limitedly and inconclusively used to explain cases of telephone
conversations in hotel while hotel is one business field that mainly lives on telephone system
and almost all matters in this kind of business are dealt with via telephone. With high interest
in this area, I decided to do a research in order to have a more insightful view of this
interactional behavior.
Apart from personal interest, I have received ideas and suggestions from my colleagues and
friends about their confusion in not yielding a satisfactory reservation conversation. I am
working in an international relations department and the work requires a lot of hotel
reservation via telephone. However, many hotel receptionists who speak English as a foreign
language face some problems and need to improve for a better image of the hotel as well as

providing a higher service quality.
10

In order to reduce the bad feelings of customers and help non-native receptionists of English
(refer to as non-native receptionists) achieve better communication results, the ways of
handling telephone reservation conversations should be observed and studied. Given this need,
the questions then become: what are the procedures that receptionists often adopt to make a
telephone reservation conversation? What are some reasonable implications that would help
promote the development of consciousness of telephone skills, and lead to the improvement
of interactional or communicative competence for successful reservation conversations? To
work out the answers to the questions above, I decided to do an analysis of telephone
reservation conversation in the light of conversation analysis.
2. Objectives and research questions of the study
Learners of a foreign language may find it troublesome to perform a professional conversation
naturally and properly in other tongues. For a smooth reservation, the knowledge of both
linguistic rules and the service itself is required. The objectives of this study are to:
(1) explore the reservation procedures expressed in formal reservation conversation
through telephone between a customer and a receptionist to characterize the speech
acts performed in the opening, topic talk and closings,
(2) discover good ways employed and detect common mistakes reflected in conversations,
thereafter to
(3) help non-native customers and receptionists get a better understanding of reservation
conversation and improve their communicative competence.
To serve the above-mentioned objectives, the research questions come out as how non-native
customers and receptionists behave in their reservation conversations with regard to such
skills utilized in opening, topic talk and closing parts. Specifically, the following questions
will be dealt with:
(1) How do the receptionists often open a reservation conversation through telephone?
(2) What are significant speech acts in collecting guest‟s information used by
receptionists?

(3) How do the receptionists preferably close a telephone reservation conversation?
11

This study should be of potential interest to those who work in or have passion for
Conversation Analysis, to customers who want to make a telephone reservation for room and
hotel receptionists who desire to achieve more satisfactory reservation, and generally to those
who want to have successful and smooth conversations through telephone. In short, from a
CA perspective, the turn level of analysis clarifies how speakers routinely implement the
collaborative and orderly achievement of reservation conversation.
3. Scope of the study
This study is proposed to work with reservation conversations via telephone between speakers
with equal power, one is guest (the caller) and one is hotel receptionist (the called) who
speaks English as a foreign language, in formal setting. The research targets at the written
scripts, not the audio or sound of conversations. Features that will be under study are opening,
topic talk and closing of conversation. Finally, due to the limitations of technology, non-
verbal gestures and expressions are excluded.
4. Organization of the study
This M.A thesis discusses the detection of some structure features of conversations between
guests and receptionists, namely opening, topic talk and closing. The paper is divided into 3
main chapters as follows:
Introduction, introducing the research topic, its rationale and research questions, scope of the
research and the organization of the paper.
Chapter 1: Literature review, discussing the theoretical background in thesis, of which the
research matters will be discussed
Chapter 2: Methodology, describing the nuclear methodology to investigate the research
matters
Chapter 3: Findings and Discussions, showing the results of the study, providing answers to
the research questions, and
Conclusion, summarizing the overall study and proposition implications as well as
suggestions for other related studies or work.

12

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter discusses the theoretical background of the study which explores the following
concepts:
- Conversation analysis
- Basic concepts of Conversation, and
- Basic concepts of telephone reservation conversation
1.1. Conversation Analysis
1.1.1. Definition of Conversation
When discussing conversation from a linguistic perspective, one has to know how this term is
defined in this context. In everyday language use, conversation often is understood as some
kind of “civilized art of talk” or “cultured interchange” (Schegloff 1968: 1075). This is not the
understanding Conversation Analysis has of conversation, although this definition - like
Conversation Analysis - excludes one kind of talk. This excluded kind is the one of organized
talk as is to be found in classrooms, churches and many other institutions. (Levinson 1983:
284)
Conversation Analysis defines conversation in a different way. First of all it is stated to be a
“familiar predominant kind of talk in which two or more participants freely alternate in
speaking” (Levinson 1983:282) and the “central or most basic kind of language use”
(Levinson 1983:283). This means, that in a conversation several persons speak in the way we
do it ourselves everyday, without a special set of rules according to which the participants are
to act, like in a courtroom. The conversation meant here can be a conversation between old
friends, a short talk between strangers, a call to a business-partner and so on. We converse in
this way almost everyday and more than we do in any other way.
1.1.2. Conversation Analysis versus Discourse Analysis

Two different main methodologies exist for analysing and examining conversation –
conversation in general, or telephone conversation in special – from a linguistic perspective:

13

Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis. To understand my decision to focus on the
discipline of Conversation Analysis, I will shortly point out the main differences and parallels
of these methodologies.
Of course, both disciplines examine conversation. But the methods used for this, the thereby
resulting findings and the main understanding of conversation differ immensely. A common
aim of Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis is to be able to give “an account of how
coherence and sequential organization is produced and understood” (Levinson 1983: 286).
According Nguyen Hoa (2000), Discourse Analysis uses primitive and basic concepts of
linguistics for this. It attempts to extend the rules applying to sentences over the boundaries of
sentences. The main method of the discipline is the isolation of sets of units of discourse,
followed by a formulation of rules according to these units and finally the division of units
into well-formed and ill-formed sequences. The conversations are then analysed according to
the rules which have been formulated before. This makes the methods of Discourse Analysis
an “immediate categorization of restricted data” (Levinson 1983: 287), which means that not
the motivation for the form of the data is searched for, but that some parts of data are isolated
from their context which could explain their occurrence and give insight into the real
intentions and meanings of utterances. This missing insight is also attributable to the field of
Discourse Analysis that is used for the analysis of conversation: the speech act theory.
(Levinson 1983: 286)
Speech act theory is in the field of the analysis of conversation mainly concerned with the
view that “the level of coherence and order in conversation is to be found [ ] at the level of
speech acts” (Levinson 1983: 288). For this, a syntax which shall explain what kinds of
utterances fit together and which utterances require each other is added to normal speech act
theory. One of the main difficulties of this view is that - as we will see - utterances are able to
fulfill more than one speech act at a time. (Levinson 1983: 290)
Conversation Analysis, in contrast, is a more “empirical approach which avoids premature
theory construction” (Levinson 1983: 286). Naturally occurring conversations build the set of
data in which recurring patterns of utterances are searched for. In contrast to discourse

analysis no rules are formulated according to these patterns, but it is attempted to find out why
14

a special utterance was produced and not an alternative one. From this, sequential
organization of the conversation and the way in which utterances are designed to fulfill this
organization are researched. In Conversation Analysis, it is not important if an utterance is
well-formed or not, but rather why the speaker chose such an utterance and what effect it has
on the listener.
The difference between Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis should makes it
obvious that here, conversation can only be observed from a Conversation Analysis
perspective as the examination of the organization of conversation and not of conversation as
a kind of sentence, is the aim of this paper. Also, Conversation Analysis certainly has
contributed more to the understanding of conversation than Discourse Analysis has, as a
conversation has to be seen rather as an interactional product - as claimed by Conversation
Analysis – than as a structural product like a sentence - as claimed by Discourse Analysis.
1.2. Telephone conversation

Talking on the telephone is a very special kind of conversation. It allows the participants
being “accessible to one another directly in real time without being „co-present‟” (Schegloff
2002:287). The participants are in no situation which itself allows this conversation like a
party, but are in their own reality. A telephone conversation has to be established to secure the
co-presence and at its end, the co-presence has to be lifted again. Because of this, a telephone
conversation has the duration of the call.
Telephone conversations are “social activities effectively constituted by talk itself”
(Levinson1983:309). Such activities tend to have a structure, which includes at least opening
section and closing section, but normally also topic-talk. Such a structure is an overall
organization as it organizes the conversation as one unit. The mechanisms which control this
overall organization on the telephone, the parts of such a conversation and the problems
resulting will be examined in the following.

1.2.2 Openings

15

Coulthard (1985: 89) states that conversations are opened with greetings. Exceptions to this
are telephone conversations although the first turn often is a hello. That this turn is no greeting
becomes obvious when contrasting a normal conversation to a telephone conversation.
In face-to-face conversation it is normal, that the person who wants to speak to another person
speaks first. One of the unusual features of a telephone conversation is that the called speaks
first. Schegloff (1968: 1076) claims that this is because, although the called is the first to
speak, he does not actually have the first turn. By calling the person one wants to talk to, the
caller makes the first move into the conversation. This first move consists in causing the
telephone of the called to ring. The question arises of what nature this ringing is.
The ringing of a telephone is a summons. The use of a summons is to get the attention of a
person. In face-to-face conversation it can have the forms of an address - like for example
Mummy? -, courtesy phrases or physical devices like a tap on the shoulder. In telephone
conversation this summons is realized by a neutral ringing of the telephone. (Levinson 1983:
310)
The summons shall open the channel for the conversation. Opening the channel needs the
participation of both parties. For this, the summons is the first part of the adjacency pair
summons-answer. By answering to the summons, the called signalizes that he is listening and
the channel is open. This also explains why the first turn of the called often is a yeah. It
corresponds to a normal answer to a summons in face-to-face conversation. (Levinson 1983:
310)
Thus, the ringing of the telephone and the first turn of the called are part of a summons-
answer structure which shall open the channel for talk and secure the participation of both
parties.

Another main concern of the openings of telephone conversations is identification-recognition.
The telephone does not provide visual ground for identification and recognition as exists in

face-to-face conversation. But recognition of the participants is immediately relevant in every
conversation. Thus, the recognition has to be done by other means. Techniques to achieve
recognition are non-overt self-identification and overt self-identification. Caller and called
16

both have to identify themselves and have to be recognised so that the conversation can begin.
The place for the participants to identify themselves is the first turn of both of them.
(Levinson 1985: 311)
Non-overt self-identification is mostly used among people who know each other well, like
family-members or friends and in domestic context. As ground for recognition one offers a
short voice-quality sample. The called has the option to perform non-overt self-identification
by answering the telephone with a simple answer to the summons without any further
identification, without knowing who is calling. The caller usually knows who he is calling and
in which relation he stands to the called, he can therefore decide whether to use non-overt
self-identification or not, before the called answers. The overt self-identification is mostly
done among passing acquaintances or in business context, when a recognition by terms of a
voice-quality sample is not probable. Again, both participants have the option to use this kind
of identification. The called can give a station identification or his name on answering the
telephone as well as the caller can do so in the turn following this answer.
1.2.3 Topic talk
According to Levinson, the reason of the call usually fills the slot of the first topic. The
performer of the summons also has to produce the reason of the summons. This reason of the
summons is the first turn after the conversation‟s opening and the first turn of topic-talk. This
is shown, by the utterance I just thought I could call you or similar statements in this place, if
no specific reason for the call exists. (Coulthard 1985: 80)
In conversations, there is a preference for topic fitting or topical coherence. The first topic
does not have to fit to any prior topics as there are no prior topics. Topical coherence means,
that mentionables are held back until they can occur in the flow of the conversation. But some
mentionables never occur naturally. As the reason of the call is especially important, it is
mentioned at the beginning of the topic-talk so that it does not have to fit. (Levinson 1983:

313)
In order to know when a topic fits and when not, the term a topic has to be examined. One
could say that two persons are talking about the same topic if they are talking about the same
17

set of references or linked concepts. But this characterization is not sufficient and indeed no
sufficient characterization exists. Topic is rather defined by practice and topical coherence.
According to Levinson (1983: 315) “topical coherence is something constructed across turns
by the collaboration of participants”. Practice shows, that if no topical coherence exists, new
topics are introduced in a dispreferred way.
When using a summary, the participant who wants to close the topic usually produces a
proverbial or aphoristic summary or produces a comment the other party can just agree to.
The speaker can also pass the turn on to the other speaker by producing a minimal utterance
like okay, so or others, which indicate that he has nothing to add or does not wish to add more.
1.2.4. Closings

A conversation can not be regarded as being closed just by speaking no more or in the case of
telephone conversation by hanging up. The turn-taking system has to be overruled to close a
conversation so that the non-verbalization of a speaker is not considered a silence. This has to
be achieved simultaneous by both speakers so that no party expects the other party to speak
anymore. The adjacency pair of terminal exchange secures the lift of the expectations towards
the other party to speak after the completion of a turn. Terminal exchange is realized by the
exchange of dismissals like bye, see you or others. The first uttered dismissal “announces
imminent closure and the second part secures it” (Levinson 1983: 324).
Typical components of closings are a closing implicative topic, passing turns and terminal
exchange. The closing implicative topic is voluntarily and not necessary for a complete
closing. Although the closing implicative topic occurs before the agreement on closing -
before pre-closing - it can be considered as belonging to the closing section as it leads directly
to closing. It can for example include the making of arrangements. If the closing implicative
topic is closed down, passing turns give each participant the chance to add more to the

conversation. If the possibility of adding is not taken up, pre-closing is agreed on and an
environment for terminal exchange can be established by rounding up the conversation by the
exchange of dismissals like bye, see you then or others.
18

Reopening of topic-talk can occur at any point of the conversation. As stated before, the
performer of a passing turn can on the performance of a second passing turn choose to
introduce a new topic. But as closing was already agreed on by the pair of passing turns, this
introduction of new conversational material has to be considered a reopening. A closing
section is “not a place for new things to come up” (Sacks & Schegloff 1973: 319). When new
material does come up, it is marked. Reopening can have several reasons. Among those
reasons are prior holding back of the real reason of the call, after-thoughts or material which
comes up in the closing section itself.
After reopening, the conversation might go on for a long time. Nonachievement of closing
can cause frustration with a participant when he tries to close the conversation several times
but the other party does not co-operate but continues the conversation.
In such a case special techniques exist to end a conversation. They are not restricted to the use
after declined closings, but can also be used to end conversations because one participant runs
out of time or for other reasons. Such techniques are called restricted techniques, because
their form depends on the performer. The called‟s technique as well as caller‟s techniques
both refer to the interests of the other party, although it actually is the party using this
technique who wishes to close the conversation. A possibility for a called to end a
conversation by such a special technique is for example That’s all for a reservation. The
called implies with this, that he does not wish to continue the conversation without seeming
rude.
To sum up, it was observed that closings of conversation are complicated, because both
participants have to arrive simultaneous at a point where the conversation is considered
closed. It can result from running out of mentionables or the attempt of a participant to close it.
1.3. Speech act
The elemental insights presented by the work of philosophers such as Austin (1962) and

Searle (1969, 1975) are that in or by saying something a speaker also does something.
According to Searle (1969), language is part of a theory of action, and speech acts are those
verbal acts such as requesting, welcoming and promising that one performs in speaking. On
this view, minimal units of human communication are not linguistic expressions, but rather
19

the performances of certain kinds of acts, such as making statements, asking questions, giving
directions, apologizing, thanking, asserting, giving comments and so on. These acts are called
illocutionary acts (Searle, 1969). The theory of speech acts, promoted by Austin (1962) also
asserts that there are a number of utterances that do not report or “constate” anything and are
not therefore “true or false”, but rather that the uttering of the sentence is, or is part of, an
action. For example, in such sentences “I name my puppy Rex” and “I bet you twenty dollar
she will come back”, the speaker actually names the small dog or makes the bet, but he is not
making any kind of statement that can be regarded as true or false. The sentences that he is
concerned with here are, grammatically, all statements but they are not constative, they are
performative. Austin also talks about an act of assertion, descriptive fallacy, constative
utterance and performative verb.
The notions of illocutionary acts, illocutionary force, and direct, and indirect speech acts are
the heart of speech act theory.
1.3.1. Illocutionary act
Searle (1969) claims that the term “illocutionary act” refers to an utterance with a
communicative force. For example, when one says “Could you send me the details?” or
“Please forget me”, this is an act of requesting. Similarly, if one says “I promise to go to bed
soon”, then this is an act of promising. Therefore, a speaker performs illocutionary acts by
expressing his intentions to get someone to do something, to promise something, to confirm
something, etc. in such a way that the listener can recognize the speaker‟s intention. Moreover,
Austin (1962) points out that, in uttering a sentence, a speaker also performs a perlocutionary
act which can be described in terms of the effect which the illocutionary act, on the particular
occasion of use, has on the hearer.
Related to the notions of illocutionary act is the concept of illocutionary point. The concept of

the illocutionary point refers to the point or purpose of illocution (Searle, 1990a). Searle
identifies five illocutionary points namely assertive, commissive, directive, declarative and
expressive. The, the request “Please forget me” given as an example above has a directive
illocutionary point.
20

In speech act theory a distinction is made between the illocutionary point and illocutionary
force of an act. “While the illocutionary point of request is the same as that of commands:
both are attempts to get hearers to do something, their illocutionary forces are different”
(Searle, 1990a). In his term “force” is same to strength. For example, in comparing “I suggest
we go to the movies” with “I insist that we go to the movies”. Searle argues that they have the
same illocutionary point, i.e. an attempt to get the interlocutor to go to the movies, but the
same illocutionary point is presented with different strength or force. The force of an
utterance is related to the status or position of the Speaker and Hearer.
Searle (1979) argues that each type of illocutionary act requires certain conditions for the
successful and felicitous performance of that act and these he calls felicity conditions. Searle
identifies four different kinds of felicity conditions. These conditions relate, on the one hand,
to the beliefs and attitudes of the speaker and the hearer, and, on the other hand, to their
mutual understanding of the use of linguistic devices for communication. The conditions
which underline a sincere request are specified as follows (Searle, 1979):
(1) Preparatory conditions (Hearer is able to perform Action)
(2) Sincerity conditions (Speaker wants Hearer to do Action)
(3) Propositional content conditions (Speaker predicates a future Action)
(4) Essential conditions (counts as an attempt by the Speaker to get Hearer to do Action).
1.3.2. Direct and indirect speech acts
In speech act theory, direct speech acts and indirect speech acts are distinguished from each
other. Indirectness is defined as “those cases in which one illocutionary act is performed
indirectly by way of performing another” (Searle, 1975). Thus, in direct speech acts the
speaker says what he means, while in indirect speech acts the speaker means more than he
says, i.e. speakers perform one illocution act implicitly by way of performing another

illocutionary act explicitly. For instance, instead of asking someone about the time, a speaker
may ask if he has the ability to do it such as “Can you tell me the time?” In this case the direct
act is asking whether the hearer has the ability to tell the time, but the indirect act is that of
requesting the hearer to tell the speaker the time. Thus, the act of asking about the hearer‟s
21

ability is performed explicitly while the act of requesting the hearer to tell him the time is
performed implicitly.

22

CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
This chapter is to illustrate the methodology of the study and the sections which follow,
include:
- Research questions repeated
- Data collection instruments
- Participants
- Data analysis framework.
2.1. Research questions
As mentioned in the first chapter of the paper, this study targets at exploring how the
reservation receptionists (refer to as the called) deal with the coming calls from potential
guests who want to reserve hotel rooms through telephone. Specifically, the following
questions are addressed in the study:
(1) How do the receptionists often open a reservation conversation through telephone?
(2) What are significant speech acts in collecting guest‟s information used by
receptionists?
(3) How do the receptionists preferably close a telephone reservation conversation?
2.2. Data collection methods
With the research questions mentioned above, the primary source of data were mainly

collected with the help of equipments since the analysis of talk-in-interaction minimally
requires the use of audio or video recordings of participant‟s talk to capture the tremendous
complexity of conversational behaviours. The data collected in this thesis include short
conversations which serve the purpose of room reservation. The majority of these dialogues is
imported from CD and VCD illustrating the scene of responding and dealing with the
reservation calling from customers in hotels.
While audio recording is the main method of collecting data of this research, observations
skills are also required. These skills enable the researcher to perceive a broader range of
23

visual phenomena, to note complex additional facial expressions and gestures as well as the
aural information conveyed by a speaker‟s hesitation phenomena, pitch, volume in
emphasizing and so on.
Moreover, a questionnaire was also distributed to collect opinions as well as feelings from the
angle of guests. This source of data helps the author to discover the behavior and expectation
of guests when involving in conversations of room reservation, from which more accurate
advice and suggestions could be drawn out.
2.3. Participants
The aim of this study is to explore speech acts performed in opening, information collecting
and closing reservation calls from potential guests in formal business settings. Therefore,
causal talks between two speakers, one customer (the caller) and one hotel receptionist (the
called), were recorded. Normally, the managing board of every hotel requires that all the
conversations made between their staff and customers must be recorded for assessment and
further researches. Those conversations were extracted from that source. While the group of
the called was selected among hotel receptionists who could use spoken English fluently and
have clear understanding on hotel service and room reservation procedure, the group of the
callers varied from gender, age, profession to location and nationality. However, they met the
same needs of room reservation and the must language to use was English.
Copyright is an obstacle during the writer‟s hard process of collecting data. None of hotels
that the researcher contacted allowed her to copy the whole collections of conversations from

their staffs due to the secret of business. Therefore, she had to pick up sums of dialogues from
several hotels, both domestic and overseas ones namely Hanoi Daewoo hotel, Sofitel Plaza
Hanoi, Vien Dong hotel (in Nha Trang city) and some others in America and Australia.
The number of dialogues is not great as expected before and the researcher is well aware that
if she had more dialogues, she would have more samples to enhance the reliability of the
findings. However, in that case the qualitative data will be unmanageable. It will take much
more time for seeking and even buying the sources while she only examines three aspects in a
minor thesis with the limitation of time and financial status as well. Therefore, she believes
24

that the number of conversations collected as discussed above is considerably enough for the
purpose of her study.
Moreover, about 40 customers coming from different nations were asked to fill in a survey
questionnaire to collect their attitudes towards some behaviours of receptionists. Their names
and addresses will not be revealed until the author got their approval.
Last but not least, for ethical consideration as well as the deal commitment between the
researcher and data providers, participants‟ identity would be protected and selectively
displayed in papers with the providers‟ permission.

2.4. Data analysis framework
With the research concerns reflected in the above-mentioned questions, to sort out the
researched content happening in conversation, one of the common ways is to have the
conversations recorded for analysis and synthesis. Generally speaking, conversation analysis
unpacks the structure of conversation by analyzing either single cases or collections of talk-in-
interaction. Markee proposes that:
With singly cases, the objective is to provide an in-depth analysis of a particular
phenomenon that facilitates a deep understating of how the phenomenon under study
works. Analysis based on collection of similar data enable the analyst to use whether
the practices to which participants are thought to orient tare robust enough to account
for a broad range of data gathered in different conversational contexts.

(Markee, 2000:60)
By the nature of conversation analysis, this research was conducted as a qualitative study,
using audio equipment along with observation skills to collect data. Discussion with some
participants during or after the work of transcription was also done to re-confirm some
ambiguous contents. According to Wisher (2001:138), qualitative research is carried out when
we wish to understand meanings, describe and understand experiences, ideas, beliefs and
values – intangibles such as these. Whereas, Reichardt and Cook describe qualitative research
as “concerned with understanding human behaviour from the actor‟s own frame or reference,
naturalistic and uncontrolled observation, discovery-oriented, descriptive, process-oriented,
real and rich data” (Nunan, 1992:4). However, to confirm the research findings, calculation of
25

frequency and other statistic tools were also taken to assist the analyzing process. Therefore,
both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods are resorted to in this study.
The objective of this study is to explore the implementation of the typical structure of a
complete reservation telephone conversation through a closer look at opening, topic talk and
closing strategies employed by the called. Specifically, in order to yield valuable information
of observed phenomenon, raw data were first selected. Then the data were transcribed and
were examined for the typical sequence of speech acts which help the conversation to flow
according to a certain frame or layout with special attention paid to opening, topic talk and
closing parts. Speech acts were looked into for the exposure of illocutionary acts for the
successful and felicitous performance in reservation conversation.
In addition to dialogue analysis, the work with survey questionnaire was taken into
consideration. The short survey questionnaire with four main questions were uploaded in the
website and sent out to a number of local and international
friends and acquaintance of the researchers. 40 recipients responded to the survey with a wide
range of opinions and attitude, which was analysed to compare with the real situation
happened in researched conversations. Then, the survey results were utilized as the base to
figure out how much receptionists could satisfy their customers.
In short, the data were studied carefully in combination with observation of the recordings,

survey questionnaire analysis and statistic tools as follows:
- To find out the answers to the research questions, the content of studied areas,
were detected and analyzed. The number of elements such as openings, topic talk
and closings were codified, analysed and examined through speech acts embedded
in.
- To sort out the customers‟ attitude towards some behaviours of receptionists, a
survey questionnaire was distributed to a number of real customers and collected
for analysis and synthesis.
In the following chapter, some major findings are recognized and appropriate discussions are
provided regarding opening, topic talk and closing in turn.
26

CHAPTER 3
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter is the most practical part of the study which includes:
- the analysis of outstanding findings; and
- the discussion of the findings and answers to the research questions.

3.1. Findings
First and foremost is the overall exploration of data. After being collected, data were coded
and computed for analysis. Totally, the number of conversation is 80 and 40 is the quantity of
the questionnaires distributed. After analyzing chosen conversations in separate parts namely
opening, topic talk and closing, the author found out common features of each part. Then, she
synthesized such findings into the most typical structure of a successful reservation
conversation basing on what receptionists have done and should do to best meet customers‟
requirements and expectations.

3.1.1. Openings
As mentioned in the previous parts, the caller often makes the first move into the conversation

through the action of causing the telephone of the called to ring. And this ring is named a
summons with the aim at getting the attention of the called. 100% of the researched
conversations consist of this kind of summons. The recording showed that except to cases in
which they want to make a phone call or become the caller, only when hearing the land phone
ring, the receptionists picked up to answer the summons. However, the interesting information
comes from the number of ring. The researcher categorized the data into three groups in terms
of pick-up time since the phone rang as follows. Group 1 picking up the phone after one or
two rings accounted for 57,5% of the cases while Group 2 answered the phone after three
rings making up 35% and Group 3 was 7,5% of cases in which the receptionist did not lift the
receiver until four or more rings. Regarding this matter, the researcher interviewed some
receptionists and discovered that the difference resulting from working regulations, hotel
mechanism and habit. Most of them were well aware that taking the phone up right after the
27

first two rings would show the positive illocutionary acts of the willingness and enthusiasm to
start communicating, that is a professional working style in hotel industry; and this helps
minimize waiting time of the caller or potential guest as well. However, due to hotel
mechanism, some staffs have to take charge of many tasks at the same time. If the phone rings
at the time when they are working with other customers, especially in peak tourism season,
then the phone call will have to be delayed until a reasonable arrangement made by the
receptionist. That is the reason why over one-third of reservation calls is not answered after
the first two rings. Regarding this matter, the researcher collected some customers‟ attitude
questions number 1 and 2 and discovered that most of them (95%) showed the discomfort and
disappointment at the service and even some of them quitted the call.
If the action of picking up the receiver is considered the answer to the summons made by the
caller, then the initial utterance spoken by the called would need to be taken into
consideration. There are different ways to open a telephone conversation, which can vary
from:
(1) A: Advance Reservations. Can I help you?
B: Yes, I'd like to book a single room with a bath from the afternoon of October 4 to

the morning of October 10.
Over
(2) A: Hello, Melia Hanoi Hotel. Reservation Division. How can I help you?
B: Hello, I want to reserve a single room for tomorrow.
To:
(3) A: Thanks for calling Quality Inn. Morine speaking.
B: Hello. I'm interested in booking a room for the September long weekend.
Or:
(4) A: Metropolis Hotel, Good morning, can I help you?
B: Good morning, this is Mrs White. I‟d like to book a single room.
Or:
(5) A: Sofitel Plaza Hanoi, Lan Huong speaking. How can I help you?
B: Yes. I'd like to make a reservation.
28

As discussion in the literature background, by answering to the summons, the called
signalized his illocutionary force that he was listening, he was ready to welcome the customer
and the channel was open. Then, the summons-answer was followed by identification and
recognition. It was further discovered in studied conversations that the overt self-
identification was the most preferred turn. Along with greeting signals, the most popular
introduction includes the specific name of hotel and availability to offer help. Details of this
over self-identification are displayed in the following table (more than one detail can be
included in an expression of opening):
Information
Percentage
Hotel name
12,5%
Division name
82,5%
The called‟s name

60%
Thank you note
15%
Greeting signals
42,5%

Table 1. Detailed information included in self-identification by the called
Table shows that division name was a prominent element of introduction utterance and it
appeared in over four fifths of analyzed conversations, which was followed by the declaration
of the caller‟s name. The questionnaire results also informed that 65% of asked customers
wanted to know the name of division and speaker they were calling to. Not many receptionists
thanked the customer for contacting the hotel. Only 15% of the called got a thank you
expression. Greeting signals such as “hello”, “good morning”, etc accounted for nearly half of
the total conversations. This result does not match the expectation of guests which was shown
in question number 3 in the survey. Up to 80% of responders said they wanted to receive an
appreciation expression in the first utterance by the called.
The researched data showed that not all conversations began with the identification-
recognition routine. Among researched hotel booking dialogues, 17,5% of receptionists
started the conversation without introducing the name of their company or division, for
example: