Heritage (1997, P. 2) tells us … the conversational analysis begins with the notion that conversational interaction represents an institutional order, sui generis, in which interaction rights and obligations are linked not only to personal face and identity but also to macro-social institutions. In citing Garfinkel (1967) Heritage (1997, P. 2) advises that there are rules as well as practices that are present in the conversation. Drew and Heritage (1992. Pp. 3-65) help us to understand that there are differences in conversational interaction and context. The preceding is critical in that it helps to explain that there are differing conversational modes and levels that exist not only in ordinary conversation but in professional conversation as well as in the organizational contexts. Ordinary conversation represents interaction that does not require specialized terminology or represent a specialized setting such as an organization (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). However, legal proceedings, meetings with an accountant and other similar conversations are departures from the ordinary conversation as there are formalities and or specialized language involved that is imparted in the course of the conversation thus restricting speech delivery (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). The exploration into organizational conversation and language is a relatively new development, first taking place in the late 1970s (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). In an organizational context, the setting has formalized elements in terms of terminology, positions of reporting, task assignments and terms that are used within this context that differ from organization to organization as well as industry type (Heritage, 1997, P. 2).Conversations in institutions of learning, corporations, and departments in corporations have specialized terminology and organizational culture (Heritage, 1997, P. 2). The preceding means that the modes of conversing entail accepted organizational culture norms whereby certain language, words, and delivery are expected. The levels of adherence to more formalized conversational patterns can be found higher up the organizational ladder where more professional communication occurs. As one descends downward in the organization hierarchy, the more formalized interactions and terminology lesson in keeping with the lowered educational and or professional skill set of the individuals and the nature of their work. Examples of the preceding are provided by the conversational manner between top executives, these executives and middle managers, middle managers and line supervisors, line supervisors and their staffs. The conversation pattern between forklift operators and their foreman differs from the conversational pattern between the head of the accounting and his staff, with the latter requiring more terminology and technical words as well as understandings as opposed to the more common language delivery a foreman uses.In delving into critical discourse analysis, the first notable difference that exists between this and conversational analysis is that the former is a power-oriented language that uses conversational to a purpose. In fact, critical discourse analysis represents the pointed use of words, context, circumstance, and conditions to cause something to happen, thus representing a form of conversational analysis, but in a totally different view. To understand the foundational facets of critical discourse analysis Heritage (1984, Pp. 52-59) tells us that interaction patterns are a concept taken from ethnomethodology.
Conversation Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis