What we really need is a little bit of Aristotle...and some 20th century rhetoric

Let me preface by saying that this entry will definitely play with rhetoric more than this class is built for. I'm having a hard time engaging with Sacks because, let's face it, I hate the idea of a decontextualized conversation. This scenario just doesn't exist! So while I like some of the characteristics of conversational analysis (CA), it needs a bit of rhetorical love. Unfortunately for Sacks, introducing rhetorical theory essentially means the theoretical death of CA, while also problematizing the role of language in society more. I would argue that rhetoric swirls space, time, and actors. But it's not really just a mix of these ingredients, but the integration of space and actors within time. Grammar allows a sense of time that impacts our space and actors. So CA dies if we revoke the role of one of these qualities. We, researchers, care about rhetorical qualities because they make language and its analysis not a scientific study, but a qualitative one. Linguists (I'm pretty sure) would defend the stance that language is dynamic. So while we can create scientific models for repeated actions, communication is variety. This variety is constructed through layers of rhetorical tools.

Sacks, or rather Hutchby and Wooffitt evoke a rhetorical inquiry into CA in chapter 6 about "Talk in Institutional Settings." The style of talking for set organizations is not dissimilar to private conversation:

"By focusing on the relatively specialized ways in which turn-taking and turn-design are accomplished in institutional settings, conversation analysts show how participants similarly constitute 'non-conversation' interactions b the same process of displaying an orientation to the relevance of specific types of activity" (138). 

There is a systemization to all scopes of communication. This commentary reminded me of Aristotle's definition of topoi. Topoi are conventions for argumentation. Pick an industry (eg baking, politics, flute playing), and we know there are styles that have been practiced and repeated to signify the niche. Language tools like vocabulary, passive v. active sentence structures(science v. humanities), citation styles (MLA v. APA v. Chicago...), etc. are all hallmarks of disciplinized styles for institutional exchanges. English people would call this part of genre studies.

But before topoi, Aristotle explains that we must understanding the contemporariness of the argument. He defines three rhetorical styles that predicates the topoi conventions. The three styles are deliberative, judicial, and epideictic. Each style is associated with a time frame of action relative to the speaker. For example, deliberative speech is used to define future action (eg. should we go to war; how many people to invite to the wedding). Judicial, as the name implies, is for assessments of the past (eg. was it murder or manslaughter, can you steal your own property in the midst of a divorce?). Epideictic is used to assign praise or blame in the present tense (eg. an obituary or national anthem). So we have to understand the timing of the argument to understand its genre tendencies, says Aristotle.

"But wait," you ask, "why should Sacks care about all of this old Greek stuff?" To use a more contemporary metaphor borrowed from Twitter, CA is all about "trending" conversational turns. Chapters 4 and 5 related (semi-cookbook-style) considerations to analyze conversation. (See something happen--add a hashtag to it. See it again? Add another hashtag to it. Etc.) But unlike tweets, conversations have a more implicit exchange of dialogic characteristic. An epideictic speech moves towards an emotional assessment for the now. We see this, for example, in obituaries when people detail the lives of relatives to invoke grief. CA would all this movement the turn-taking. And Aristotle tells us that these patterns are important:

"Thus, one should take coincidences and chance happenings as due to deliberate purpose; for if many similar examples are cited, they will seem to be a sign of virtue and purpose." (On Rhetoric, I. 9. 32, my emphasis).

These turns are important because it relates some information about the speaker's role. And here again, is where CA gets KO'd by rhetoric. CA doesn't seem to stop and question who people are, it only cares that they said something to someone else who responded. But a purposeful conversation gets directed by someone who knows what's going on and knows how to discuss the issue to the people. It's not about a speaker's intention, but about their skills. I think one must consider the skill set of a conversationalist to understand how the discussion unfolds. Many teachers have "classic" tales of woe when students came to class unprepared and the lesson goes wry because the skills are not balanced in the context. Sure, CA will show how a stasis gets uncovered, but knowing the backstory helps the analysis.

I'm sorry if this commentary seems disjointed, but it felt satisfying.