A study of preferred and dispreferred second turns used in the first episode of the film downton abbey

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
------------o0o-------------

ĐINH THỊ THANH HUYỀN

A STUDY OF PREFERRED AND DISPREFERRED SECOND
TURNS USED IN THE FIRST EPISODE OF THE FILM
“DOWNTON ABBEY”
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CÂU ĐÁP ƯU TIÊN VÀ KHÔNG ƯU TIÊN
TRONG TẬP 1 PHIM “DOWNTON ABBEY”)

Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Training Program: Type 1
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Nguyễn Văn Trào, PhD

HANOI – 2016


DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis, entitled, “A study of preferred and dispreferred second
turns used in the first episode of the film “Downton Abbey” and the work presented in
it is my own and has been generated by me as the result of my own research for the
Degree of Master of Arts in English Linguistics at University of Languagues and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
I confirm that when I quoted from the work of others, the source was always given and
no part of this work has been published before submission.

Signature:

Date:


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the period of completing this research, I have received great assistance and
support from many people.

First and foremost, I owe my deepest debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof.
Nguyen Van Trao, PhD who has always encouraged me to pursue this study and been
willing to give me clear and sighted guidance as well as valuable suggestions and
corrections in the completion of this research.
Second, I wish to thank all of the lecturers, professors and doctors teaching at the
Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies of ULIS for their lessons and support during my MA
course.
I would also like to express my warmest thanks to my parents, my beloved sister, and
my friend Ngo Thanh Huyen for their love, support and caring.

Finally, I am also grateful to all the authors whose books, newspapers and works have
been referred to in this thesis.

The research paper could not have been fulfilled without them.

Hanoi, October, 2016
Dinh Thi Thanh Huyen


ABSTRACT
This study is carried out in an attempt to investigate the general patterns of
preferred and dispreferred second turns as well as the common linguistic features

indicating them in the first episode of the film Downton Abbey based on the theoretical
frameworks of conversation analysis and preference structure.
The database comprises 108 conversations, in which 13 contain preferred
second responses and 95 consist of dispreferreds. Both quantitative and qualitative
methods have been employed to seek answers to the research question.
The findings reported in the study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, the
mere four patterns of preferred seconds, namely assessment – agreement, invitation –
acceptance, proposal – agreement and request – acceptance, can be found in the
movie and the assessment – agreement pattern is the most common one. Also, there are
four linguistic elements signaling the preferreds, among which „saying „Yes‟ as
answer‟ ranks the most. Next is the appearance of all the five patterns, respectively
assessment – disagreement, invitation – refusal, offer – decline, proposal –
disagreement and request – refusal, in the examined dialogues including dispreferred
second turns. The „delay/hesitate‟ feature is the most widely used one. Additionally,
the data analysis figures out that there is a combination of using several linguistic units
to indicate dispreferred second responses and some certain elements express the sameclass lines.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION .......................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ............................................................................... vii
ABBREVIATIONS & CONVENTIONS .................................................................. viii
PART 1 – INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1. Rationale of the study ............................................................................................ 1
2. Aims of the study .................................................................................................. 2
3. Research Questions ............................................................................................... 2

4. Significance of the study ....................................................................................... 3
5. Scope of the study ................................................................................................. 3
6. Design of the study ................................................................................................ 4
PART 2 – DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................... 5
1.1. Film ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Speech Acts ......................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1. Definition ................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2. Typical types .............................................................................................. 6
1.3. Conversation analysis ......................................................................................... 6


1.3.1. Definition ................................................................................................... 6
1.3.2. Turn-taking ................................................................................................. 7
1.3.3. Adjacency pairs .......................................................................................... 8
1.4. Preference structure ............................................................................................ 10
1.4.1. Definition ................................................................................................... 10
1.4.2. General patterns of preference structure .................................................... 10
1.4.3. Preferred second turns ................................................................................ 12
1.4.4. Dispreferred second turns ........................................................................... 13
1.5. Preferred and dispreferred second turn in Episode 1of the film Downton Abbey
................................................................................................................................... 15
1.6. Related prior works ............................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY ...................................................................................... 18
2.1. Research Methods ............................................................................................... 18
2.1.1. Database ..................................................................................................... 18
2.1.2. Research Methods ...................................................................................... 18
2.1.3. Research Procedures .................................................................................. 19
2.2. Findings and Discussion .................................................................................... 20
2.2.1. Overview of Preferreds and Dispreferreds ................................................ 20

2.2.2. General patterns of Preferreds ................................................................... 21
2.2.3. Common linguistic features indicating Preferreds .................................... 22
2.2.4. General patterns of Dispreferreds ............................................................. 25
2.2.5. Common linguistic features indicating Dispreferreds ............................... 26
2.2.5.1. Common linguistic features ............................................................... 26


2.2.5.2. The ways six common linguistic features are used ........................... 27
PART 3 – CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 36
1. Recapitulation ....................................................................................................... 36
1.1. General patterns of preferreds ...................................................................... 36
1.2. Linguistic features associated with preferreds ............................................. 36
1.3. General patterns of dispreferreds ................................................................. 37
1.4. Linguistic features associated with dispreferreds ........................................ 37
2. Limitations of the study ........................................................................................ 39
3. Implications for language teaching and learning .................................................. 39
4. Suggestions for further studies .............................................................................. 40
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... ix
APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................ xiii
APPENDIX 2 ............................................................................................................ xv


LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES

page
Table 1 – Correlation of content and format in adjacency pairs seconds

11

Table 2 – The general patterns of preferred and dispreferred structures

11

Table 3 – Linguistic patterns signaling dispreferred second turns

14

Figure 1: Percentage of frequency distribution

20

Figure 2: General patterns of preferred second turns

21

Figure 3: Linguistic features indicating preferred second turns

22

Figure 4: General patterns of dispreferred second turns

25

Figure 5: Linguistic features indicating dispreferred second turns

26


ABBREVIATIONS & CONVENTIONS

SA

Speech Act

H

Hearer

S

Speaker

CA

Conversation analysis

Q

Question

A

Answer

EOG

Earl of Grantham

COG

Countess of Grantham

DCOG

Dowager Countess of Grantham

DOC

Duke of Crowborough

&

And

(.)

pause in talk less than tenths of a second


PART 1 – INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
Downton Abbey is a period drama television series set and filmed in Britain and
created and principally written by Julian Fellowes. The series is set during the postEdwardian era (after Edward VII's death) and depicts how major historical events such
as the sinking of the Royal Mail Ship Titanic, the First World War and the Spanish
influenza pandemic affect the fictional estate of Downton Abbey in Yorkshire. Six
series have been made so far, in which the 6th one has recently been confirmed to be
the final.
The first series of the seven episodes in Series 1 was broadcast in the UK in 2010,
exploring the lives of the Crawley family and their servants from the day after the
sinking of the RMS Titanic in April 1912 to the outbreak of the First World War on 4th

August 1914. The focus of the discussion is the first episode of Series One of the film
Downton Abbey because it is the commencement of all events and shows the main
features of the characters, notably their social status, attitude and personalities through
conversations with others.
However, from a functional approach to analyze this work, little research based on
pragmatic knowledge has been carried out. Therefore, this study is intended to find out
how Conversation Analysis (CA) can be applied to conversations in movies or drama
to inform audiences‟ understanding of the interpersonal dynamics between characters
through an investigation into a small aspect of CA – common patterns of preferred and
dispreferred second turns and linguistic units used to signal them.
In short, the self-interest in the film series Downton Abbey, especially the first season,
and the lack of attention to the link between English film works and preference


structure are the stimulation for the author to do the study of “Preferred and
Dispreferred Second Turns Used in the first episode of the film “Downton Abbey”.
2. Research Questions
The research seeks the answer to the following questions:
1. What are the general patterns of preferred structures and the common
linguistic features indicating them in the first episode of the film “Downton
Abbey”?
2. What are the general patterns of dispreferred structures and the common
linguistic features indicating them in the first episode of the film “Downton
Abbey”?
3. Aims of the study
This study aims to:
(1) supply readers with basic understanding of speech acts, conversation
analysis, adjacency pairs, and preference structure;
(2) explore the general patterns of preferred and dispreferred second turns
structure used in the first episode of the film Downton Abbey;

(3) investigate the linguistic features signaling preferred and dispreferred replies
in the episode;
(4) provide film critics with practical knowledge of conversations comprising
preferred and dispreferred second-turn questions.


4. Significance of the study
This conversational analysis of preferred and dispreferred second turns contributes in
two main aspects; both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the paper expands
the scopes of preference structure research employing the language spoken at the end
of the Edwardian era in 1912. Moreover, practically, this study might contribute in
education fields; especially for English language teachers and learners who exploit
films as a means of acquiring knowledge of English language and pragmatics; also in
film industry for critics and conversational analyst to create profound reviews on
analyzing lines as well as turn-taking practices. Therefore, with its assistance, readers
could comprehend speech acts, conversation analysis, adjacency pairs, preference
structure, preferreds and dispreferreds, together with their general patterns and the
linguistics segments indicating them.
Additionally, it may serve as the reference and suggestion for possible further studies
regarding the analytical comparison on this aspect of pragmatics among different kinds
of films by researchers of related fields.
5. Scope of the study
Owing to time limitation and within the framework of a minor thesis submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in English
Linguistics, the primary concentration of this study will merely be an investigation into
the small aspects of preference structure: the common patterns of preferred and
dispreferred second turns and the frequently exploited linguistic characteristics to state
them in the first episode of the film Downton Abbey.

6. Design
This study is presented into three parts in which part is divided into chapters that
elaborate the investigated issues.
Part 1, Introduction, states the rationale, objectives, research question, scope, and
significance of the study.
Part 2, Development, comprises two chapters.
Chapter 1 – Theoretical background indicates the relevant theories for the work.
Chapter 2 – The Study covers the context and methodology of the study, as well
as presents and discusses the findings that arise from the data collected.
Part 3, Conclusion, summarizes major points of the investigation, and provides
implications for teaching and learning English and pragmatics. This part will also
figure out some limitations of the research and make suggestions for further studies.


PART 2 – DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Film
Film (usually North American English movie) is a series of moving pictures recorded
with sound that tells a story, shown on television or at the cinema/movie theater. (Free
Online Dictionary, Oxford Learner‟s Dictionary)
Film, known as “the Seventh Art” (given by Ricciotto Canudo), shows the interaction
and communication between characters in form of conversations representing the
reality of daily life. Movies are not only the source of entertainment, documents of
their time and place but perfect wholes of dialogues that can be observed and analyzed.
These dialogues are analyzed is to “describe, analyze, and understand talk as a basic
and a constitutive feature of human social life” (Sidnell, 2009).
The sentiment, attitude and personalities of each character would be vividly revealed
through actions, lines of dialogue, and even silence.
1.2. Speech acts
1.2.1. Definition

The speech act theory has long been one of the widest interests among linguists and
philosophers. For instance, Yule (1996) stated that speech acts are “actions performed
via utterances” (p.16) or according to Kent Bach, "almost any speech act is really the
performance of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speaker's
intention."


1.2.2. Typical types
In English, speech acts are performed in „authentic situations of language use‟ such as
offer, acceptance, denial, refusal, assessment, offer, apology, greeting, request,
command, complaint, invitation, compliment, or invitation (Searle, 1969: 16).
These titles of SAs are used to indicate the speaker (S)‟s communicative ideas and the
hearer (H)‟s anticipated interpretation of the ideas via the process of interferences.
For instance,
 “Could you mail this letter for me?”

 Request

 “Okay.”

Acceptance

(Yule, 1996:78)
1.3. Conversation analysis
1.3.1. Definition
The term “conversation” or “talk-in-interaction” (Schegloff, cited in ten Have (1999))
could possibly be recognized as „a talk between two or more people in which thoughts,
feelings, and ideas are expressed, questions are asked and answered, or news and
information is exchanged‟. (Cambridge Dictionary Online) To put it another way, CA
is an approach to the analysis of spoken discourse that look at the way people manage

their everyday conversational interactions (Paltridge, 2008:107).
Conversation analysis (CA), therefore, is involved in the study of the orders of talk-ininteraction, whatever its character or setting. Agreeing upon this idea, Hutchby &
Wooffitt (2008) points out that it is „the study of recorded, naturally occurring talk-ininteraction‟ that aims to explore the understanding and responses of the S and H.


Levinson (1983: 287) also shows the purpose of conversation analysis that is to
discover the systematic properties of the sequential organization of talk, and the way
utterances are designed to manage such sequences. By studying CA, people can be of
much help when they do “talk-in interaction”, properly as an orderly accomplishment.
A must of CA is to catch “natural interaction” as fully and faithfully as possible, that is,
in other words, the data recorded should be “naturally occurring” or “nonexperimental”, not co-produced with or provoked by the researcher. (ten Have, 1999)
However, there does not seem to be a sharp line separating “naturally occurring” from
so-called “experimental” data because to some extent, Ss and Hs might be affected by
the appearance of the recorder.
When studying CA, it would be a shortcoming if the linguistic units of its organization
fail to be mentioned here, namely turn-taking and adjacency pairs.
1.3.2. Turn-taking
Studying turn-taking has been long considered to be important since conversations are
apparently and intimately related to people as a part of communication that cannot be
segregated from human life; turn-taking is even the heart of CA as declared by Richard
and Seedhouse (2005).
According to Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998:14), CA is purposed to investigate the way
participants receive the information and response to one another‟s talk, with the
primary concentration on how the successions of actions are created.
Turn taking is a cyclical process. It begins with one person speaking, and continues
as the speaker gives up control to the next person. The second speaker now has the
conversational floor. When the speaker is finished, they give control back to another


speaker (in this case, the beginning speaker), thus creating a cycle. The turn taking

cycle stops when there is nothing left to say (Woodburn, Arnott, Newell, and Procter).
Levinson (1983) also notes that conversation is distinctly characterized by turn-taking.
The speaker and the listener respectively change their role whether becoming a listener
or speaker via the process of talk-stop-talk-stop, i.e. the sequence of talk distribution.
1.3.3. Adjacency pairs
As Yule (1996: 77) mentions, adjacency pairs are “automatic patterns/sequences in
the structure of conversations” that always “consist of first part and a second part
produced by different speakers”. They can be classified as greeting-greeting, questionanswer, thank-response, request-acceptance, etc.
For example,
A: Hello.

B: Hi.

A: Bye then.

B: Bye.

To share this point of view, Paltridge (2008) also explains the term “adjacency pairs”
as utterances produced by two successive speakers in the way that the second utterance
can be regarded as the expected follow-up to the previous utterance (as cited in Silvia
& Imrohatin, 2012).
This local management organization in conversation, namely adjacency pairs, is
defined by Levinson as “paired utterances” of which question-answer, greetinggreeting; offer-acceptance; apology-minimization; etc are prototypical (p.303). This
may seem enough but both Levinson (1983) and Heritage (1984) realize certain
problems with such a bald formulation and add their own qualifications. Both identify


that such pairs are not always uttered in immediately adjacent positions. Here we use
an example from Goffman to illustrate this.
Q1. A: Have you got the time?

Q2. B: Standard or daylight saving?
Q3. A: What are you running on?
A3. B: Standard.
A2: A: Standard, then.
A1. B: It‟s five o‟clock.
(1981: 7)
It can be easily noticed that the answer to question one (Q1) is not given immediately
but after several insertion sequences (Schegloff, 1972) (actually it is the sixth
utterance of the dialogue). However, Q2 to A2 also adapt to the adjacency pair rule and
thus all the questions are finally replied.
Two problems arising here are that:
(i) There must be a strict criterion for adjacency pairs that, given a first part of a
pair, a second part is immediately relevant and expectable (Schegloff, 1972:363, as
cited in Levinson, 1983).
(ii) There must be a delimited set of seconds due to a wide range of potential
second part to a first part (Levinson, 1983:306-307).
The concept of preference structure helps revive the structural importance of the
concept of an adjacency pair.


1.4. Preference structure
1.4.1. Definition
Preference organization refers to the notion that some second pair-parts of an
adjacency pair are structurally preferred over others. Yule (1996:79) indicates that
“preference indicates a socially determined structural pattern and does not refer to any
individual‟s mental or emotional desires.” Similarly, Levinson (1983:307) shows the
same concern about this idea as mentioning that the notion of preference is not a
psychological one that depending on S‟s or H‟s personal motivations but a structural
phenomenon corresponding closely to the concept of “markedness”. In short,
preference is an observed pattern of talk, regardless people‟s will.

Preference structure divides second parts into preferred and dispreferred social acts.
The preferred is the structurally expected next act while the later is the structurally
unexpected next act. In other words, two possibilities of pairs that could happen in
adjacency pairs are respectively preferred (the H provides anticipated answers or
responses) and dispreferred (the H gives unpredicted answers or responses). Therefore,
preferred second turns are unmarked as they are quite simpler whereas because of
various types of structural complexity, dispreferreds are marked.
1.4.2. General patterns of preference structure
Levinson (1983:336) mentions the potential correlation of the content and sequential
position in each adjacency pair thanks to a structural characterization of preferreds and
dispreferreds, which may lead to their productions in proper format. Recurrent and
reliable patterns, such as refusals of request or invitation are almost classified as
dispreferred while acceptance would be on the other side. The table below may


illustrate the fairly appropriate correspondence between the content and the format
found across a number of adjacency pair seconds.
FIRST
PARTS:

Request

Offer/Invite

Assessment

acceptance

acceptance

agreement

Question

Blame

SECOND
PARTS:
Preferred:

Dispreferred:

expected

denial

answer
unexpected

refusal

refusal

disagreement answer or

admission

non-answer
(Levinson, 1983:336)
Table 1 – Correlation of content and format in adjacency pair seconds

Inheriting from Levinson‟s theory, Yule (1996) offers the common patterns of
preference structures as follows:
First part

Second part
Preferred

Dispreferred

Assessment

agree

disagree

Invitation

accept

refuse

Offer

accept

decline

Proposal

agree

disagree

Request

accept

refuse
(Yule, 1996:79)

Table 2 – The general patterns of preferred and dispreferred structures
(following Levinson 1983)


It can be recognized from the two tables above that they share some similarities in
categorizing the labels of first and second turns. Nonetheless, should Levinson include
question and blame as the first parts, Yule alters them with invitation and proposal. As
a matter of fact, Yule‟s criterion might be considered to be more explicit since the
action of questioning can be realized as invitation, proposal, offer or even request.
For example,
First part

Second part

a.

Can you help me? (Request)

Sure. (Acceptance)

b.

Want some coffee? (Offer)

Yes, please. (Acceptance)
(Yule, 1996:79)

1.4.3. Preferred second turns
As being referred previously, preferred second turns tend to follow the first part
without a pause and to consist of structurally simple utterances. Silvia and Imrohatin
state that preferreds mean interlocutors display a systematic preference for agreement,
acceptance, granting, etc. One of the earliest comments on this (1972) coming from
Sacks in a public lecture is that a preferred response „pretty damn well occurs
contiguously‟ (1987:57) (as cited in Willis, 2002).
Heritage, too, remarks that preferred responses have the features of:
(i) simple acceptance
(ii) no delay
as in:


B: Why don‟t you come up and see me some

times

A:

I would like to
(1984:265-6, cited in Willis,2002)

1.4.4. Dispreferred second turns

At the other end of the spectrum, dispreferred seconds seem to be preceded by a
pause and to begin with a hesitation particle such as well or uh. In Pragmatics by Yule
(1996), he points out that silence in the second part is always considered an indication
of dispreferred reply in any adjacency pair. In fact, silence is a factor that assists
interlocutors to revise the first one so that they may get a different response apart from
being silent (p.79-80). Look at the example below.
Sandy: But I‟m sure they‟ll have good food there.
(1.6 seconds)
Sandy: Hmm – I guess the food isn‟t great.
Jack: Nah – people mostly go for the music.
Here Jack‟s silence makes Sandy utter a different saying while normally he would have
had to produce a disagreement. The S is incapable of producing the preferred second
turn in this non-answer communication.
Schegloff et al (1977) suggest that dispreferreds are structurally delayed in turns and
sequences and are (or may be) preceded by other items (p.362), that is, a dispreferred
response can be marked with a hesitation, a delay, a preface, an apology and so on. The


patterns associated with a dispreferred second in English are presented as a series of
optional elements as shown in the following table.
How to do a dispreferred

Examples

a. delay/ hesitate

pause; er; em; ah

b. preface

well; oh

c. express doubt

I‟m not sure; I don‟t know

d. Token Yes

that‟s great; I‟d love to

e. apology

I‟m sorry; what a pity

f. mention obligation

I must do X; I‟m expected in Y

g. appeal for understanding

you see; you know

h. make it non-personal

everybody else; out there

i. give an account

too much work; no time left

j. use mitigators

really; mostly; sort of; kinda

k. hedge the negative

I guess not; not possible

Table 3 – Linguistic patterns signaling dispreferred second turns
Here is a short dialogue to analyze:
Becky: Come over for some coffee later.
Wally: Oh – eh – I‟d love to – but you see – I – I‟m supposed to get this finished
– you know.
(Yule, 1996:81)
From this talk, a combination of dispreferred patterns are utilized, namely, hesitation
“oh”, “eh”; Token Yes “I‟d love to”; stumbling repetition “I – I‟m”; giving an account
“I‟m supposed to do X” and an appeal for understanding “you know” to express a
dispreferred second turn.


Sharing this opinion, Levinson (1983:334) notes another way of generalizing the
characteristics of dispreferred seconds below:
(a)

delays: (i) by pause before delivery, (ii) by the use if a preface, (iii) by
displacement over a number of turns via use of repair initiators or
insertion sequences

(b)

preface: (i) the use of markers or announcers of dispreferreds like Uh and
Well, (ii) the production of token agreements before disagreements, (iii)
the use of appreciations if relevant (for offers, invitations, suggestions,
advice), (iv) the use of apologies if relevant (for requests, invitations,
etc), (v) the use of qualifiers ( e.g. I don‟t know for sure, but ...), (vi)
hesitation in various form, including self-editing.

(c)

accounts: carefully formulated explanations for why the (dispreferred)
act is being done

(d)

declination component: of a form suited to the nature of the first part of
the pair, but characteristically indirect or mitigated

To sum up, it can be drawn that making dispreferreds take more time, effort and
language use than preferred seconds.
1.5. Preferred and dispreferred second turns in Episode 1 of the film Downton
Abbey
To obtain a thorough understanding of the spoken discourse, generally; and the
preference structure, specifically generated in Episode 1 of Downton Abbey, it is
advisory that we are well-equipped with the background and setting of the film.
Masterpiece Website describes the opening scene as follows: the sinking of Titanic
covers almost every newspaper headline, which hits the idyllic and bustling life of the
British aristocratic Crawley family and their cadre of servants. Set on a gigantic and


luxurious mansion surrounded by beautifully landscaped grounds in North Yorkshire,

the movie features two sets of characters, revealing the viperous qualities of the upper
class and the venom of those who wait on them. Downton Abbey is set in an earlier
period but the upstairs/downstairs dynamic is also a focus (Frederic and Brussat).
Hence, the conversations occurring are amidst class lines, mainly between the upper
class – servant; servants or aristocrats themselves. This relates to huge differences of
action, attitude, together with word choice in their answers or responses; which is the
main emphasis of the researcher. During the film, sometimes it may lead to ambiguity
for listeners to decide whether the reply is agreement or disagreement; thus, it is
essential to acquire the knowledge of preferred and dispreferred second parts in the
early 20th century.
1.6. Related prior works
There exist a wide variety of studies of conversation analysis and preference structure
carried out heretofore.
The first and foremost to refer to here is Pomerantz‟s work conducted in 1975, which
can be regarded as the inspiration for followers in terms of the primary characteristics
of

preference structure, especially agreement and disagreement. Later on, her

preference structure-related publication, which examines a number of patterns of
preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes in agreeing and disagreeing assessments, appears in
Atkinson and Heritage‟s book (1985). Both of the aforementioned works have paved
the way for the junior researchers to discover other applied aspects of CA.
Interestingly, concerning CA in actual situations, Schegloff et al (1977)‟s „the
preference of self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation‟, Heritage
(1988)‟s „explanations as accounts: a conversation analytic perspective‟, Seedhouse
(2004)‟s „the interactional architecture of the language classroom: a conversation