Topic: Conversation analysisOrder DescriptionThe aim of this assessment is to give you an opportunity to learn how to use the tools of CA for analysis, starting from transcribing data, to identifying practices within your selected section, and discussing these in the light of extant CA research findings.Word limit:2000 maximum excluding your selected text transcribed conventionally and in Jeffersonian style, and list of references. Please also note that extracts from your selected text should be excluded from your word count. Due to the nature of this work, your assignment should contain several extracts. In order to facilitate your management of the word count, use of textboxes, inverted commas or at least different font is recommended. So, to be clear, the 2000 words is for your own analysis and discussion.TRANSCRIPTION:Using the two minutes of the philosophy tutorial recording available , select two minutes to transcribe using Jeffersonian CA conventions. Negotiate with the tutor which section you have chosen. Each student will transcribe and analyse a different section.Please give the minute and second timings from the audio file. Briefly state why you selected this section to analyse on the WOLF forum & note your choice there:eg from 3 minutes 30 seconds to 5 minutes 30 seconds.* I recommend that you use the recording provided. The class will work on different sections, the aim being to share knowledge of the practices occurring throughout this particular institutional interaction. However, if you have a strong case for using alternative data, please negotiate with me and let me hear your sound clip before I agree.• Create a conventional transcript of your selected extract= your Appendix 1• Then develop a Jeffersonian transcript= your Appendix 2 (see CA textbooks egSidnell 2010 for conventions)Within the 2000 word allowance, devote 75-100 words to reflecting on what the Jeffersonian transcription process enabled you to “see” and “hear” in the data, compared to your initial transcription.(very important)The remainder of the assignment is as follows:ANALYSIS:a. Discuss evidence of the “institutional fingerprint” in terms of participant orientation to inferential frameworks, specific goals, roles and restrictions on what can be said, when, and by whom in your section of text. What asymmetries can you find? (200 words).b. Identify and explicate practices you find in your extract. (1200 words)These may include:a. Action formationb. Turn-takingc. Turn design (eg speakers continuing past a possible utterance completion)d. Recipient design (eg choice of turn design for the recipient)e. Intersubjectivity “understandings emerge in the course of interaction and are revisable in the light of what subsequently happens” (Sidnell 2010:13).f. Overlapg. Repairh. Accountsi. Preference-organisationj. Epistemics/ deontics, (particularly related to tutor/student agency in the Philosophy tutorial recording)k. Normativity versus optionality and contingencyl. Advice formulations (egYou should)Discuss ONE/SOME of these practices in the light of CA research. It is your task to “see” and “hear” what practices occur in your section. You can then negotiate with the tutor which practice(s) to focus on. Please see worked examples from other data on separate documents.Assessment Criteria1) Accuracy of conventional and Jeffersonian transcription2) Analysis of conversational practices3) Engagement with CA literature4) Academic writing:a. Organisation and Coherence of argumentb. Accuracy and range of expressionc. Adherence to academic conventions including referencingSelected bibliography (see Module Guide, Session 1 notes etc as well)Institutional talkDrew, P. & J. Heritage (Eds.) Talk at Work (pp. 521-548). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.I wantChilds, C. (2012). ‘I’m not X, I just want Y’: formulating ‘wants’ in interaction. DiscourseStudies, 14 (2): 181-196.I meanMaynard, D. W (2011/13?)Defensive mechanisms: ‘I mean’ prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequencesepistemics/deonticsHeritage, J. (2013b).Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds.Discourse Studies 15 (5) 551-578.Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective Journal of Pragmatics 88:88-104Ekberg and Lecouteur (2015) Clients’ resistance to therapists’ proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic statusJournal of PragmaticsKärkkäinen, E. (2012). I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics 44 2194-2210.RepairSacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1977AccountsAngell, B. and Bolden, G. (2015) Justifying medical decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists’ accounts for treatment recommendation: Social Science and Medicine.Identity workBenwell, B. (1999). The organization of knowledge in British University tutorial discourse: Issues, pedagogic strategies and disciplinary identity. Pragmatics 9 (4), 535–565Benwell, B. M. &Stokoe, E. (2006).Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress.Membership categorisation work between students and tutorsMayes, P. (2015). Becoming an ‘autonomous writer’: Epistemic stance displays and membership categorization in the writing conferenceDiscourse Studies 2015 17: 752-769Tutorial interactionSvinhufvud, K. and Vehviläinen, S. (2013). Papers, documents, and the opening of an academic supervision encounter. Text and Talk 33: 1 139-166.