07Apr 2020

DISCOURSE UNITS THAT SIGNAL CONVERSATION BREAKDOWN DURING GROUP GUIDANCE AND COUNSELLING SESSIONS

  • Department of Linguistics, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Maseno University P.O Box Private Bag, Maseno-Kenya.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Counselling programmes in high schools in Kenya are communicative events organised in group or individual sessions to remedy social or academic issues affecting students. Particular breakdowns often arise in such conversation settings due to their informal nature and turn control necessitating conversation repair among the participants. It is therefore imperative to study the conversational nature of guidance and counseling so as to identify inconsistencies that may lead to breakdown and misunderstanding and also the effects of the repair strategies used to address them. With regard to conversation repair, the existing literature has mainly focused on a one on one conversation and classroom setting and not on a highly interactive group counseling sessions. This study, therefore, sought to examine effects of conversation repair strategies employed by teacher-counselors and student-counselees during counseling sessions in selected secondary schools in Kenya.

  1. Andera, A. (2003). Structure and Pragmatic Features in School Counselling Discourse: A Case Study of Secondary Schools in Nairobi. Unpublished MA Thesis. Kenyatta University. Kenya.
  2. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  3. Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2rd ed) New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  5. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  6. Degand L. & Simon A. C. (2007). Minimal Discourse Units: Can we define them, and why should we? Centre for Text and Discourse Studies. FNRS/Universit? catholique de Louvain
  7. Hannay, M. & Kroon, C. (2005). Acts and relationship between discourse and grammar. Functions of Language,12: 87-124
  1. Heritage, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects. In Quasthof, U. (ed.) Aspects of oral communication. Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter 391-418.
  2. Kenworthy, O.T. (1984). The influence of selected discourse and auditory factors upon language acquisition of hearing-impaired children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin- Madison.
  3. Journal of Genetic Counselling (2001). Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 133-150
  4. McRoy, S & Hirst, G. (1995). The repair of speech act misunderstanding by abductive inference. Computational Linguistics, 21 (4): 435-478.
  5. Mann, C. W. & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A framework for the analysis of texts. International Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 79-105.
  6. Mertens, P. (1993). Intonational groupings, boundaries and syntax structure in French. In House, D. & Touati, P. (Eds.). Proceedings of ESCA workshop on Prosody, Lund (s) Working Papers 41,156-159.
  7. Miller, G. & Silverman, D. (1995). Troubles talk and counselling discourse: A Comparative study. Sociological Quarterly, 36, (4). 725-747.
  8. Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and analysing natural Language. New York: Blackwell Publishers
  9. Mugenda, M. O. & Mugenda, G. A. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Nairobi: Laba Graphics Services.
  10. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  11. Roulet, E. (2000). The analysis of dialogue in one modular structures of discourse approach: The example of novelistic dialogue. In F. Hundenurscher & E. Weigand (eds), Future Perspectives of Dialogue Analysis. Tubingen: Niemeyer, pp. 1-34.
  12. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
  13. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
  14. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn. The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation: American Journal of Society, 98, 1295-1345
  15. Searle, J.R. (1979). Taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  16. Selting, M. (2000). The Construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society. 29 (4) 477-517.
  17. Stenstrom, A. B. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. London: Longman.
  18. Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage.
  19. Van Dijk, T. (1999). Context model in discourse processing. In Van Oostendorp, H., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds). The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, NJ. USA. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp 123-148.
 

[Teresa Siro (2020); DISCOURSE UNITS THAT SIGNAL CONVERSATION BREAKDOWN DURING GROUP GUIDANCE AND COUNSELLING SESSIONS Int. J. of Adv. Res. 8 (Apr). 186-192] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Teresa Siro
Department of Linguistics, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Maseno University P.O Box Private Bag, Maseno-Kenya

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/10765      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/10765

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 14 | No. of Views: 33