In spoken interactions among peers, two or more people generally contribute equally to the conversation. However, there are two specific times in informal spoken interactions when one person has the right to be the main speaker, to take the floor and hold it: story-telling and direction-giving. Zimmerman and Boden recognize this phenomenon in formal speech interactions as well, saying, "conventional restraints on turn-taking transform the speech exchange of ordinary conversation to provide . . . for the organization of activity requisite for the kind of act addressed . . ." (14). However, more informal language occasionally needs such a provision for organization, and the languages of direction-giving and story-telling are comparable in this respect.

A careful look at both structure and context is essential for a complete analysis of any discourse generally, and direction-giving specifically. As Schiffrin says, a close analysis of discourse requires first looking at the principles underlying the necessity of the sequence of the utterances and second at how the discourse’s organization and context allows that utterance to be useful while also allowing people to interact with and understand each other (Approaches 41). This paper analyzes samples of direction-giving from an organizational framework for language-in-action set out by George Psathas and looks at how the structure of direction-giving relates to its context.

First, it is necessary to clarify why direction-giving cannot be effectively analyzed using the same framework as story-telling, despite some striking surface similarities between the two interactions. In both events, one speaker holds the floor and the attention of the listeners, and that speaker directs the flow of the conversation. Also, both are intended to impart information, both can be thought out in advance, and both have their own recognizable structures—each is obviously a "story-telling" or "direction-giving" event. However, direction-giving is in practice part of the language-in-action genre rather than the narrative genre. As George Psathas states, "sets of directions can be analyzed, as stories have in interaction, for their features as a sequentially organized activity" (194). But more specifically, speakers in direction-giving take on specific roles and follow a largely unalterable script, whereas story-telling, even though it is also "sequentially organized," is generally more relaxed in form.

The Sinclair/Coulthard model for analysis can in some ways easily be applied to both story-telling and direction-giving:

Both story-telling and direction-giving easily fit into these parameters. As expected from the criteria set forth by Cook, a broad surface analysis of scripts for "direction-giving" and "story-telling" using the Sinclair/Coulthard model is extremely straightforward.

However, major differences between the scripts become immediately apparent. All of the direction-giving data collected for this paper begin with an elicitation act, continue with an informative act, are sprinkled throughout with acknowledgement acts, and end with a brief conclusion act. This rather austere script does not provide an effective analysis for the exchanges. This is in direct contrast to an analysis of any story-telling script, which would commonly begin with a starter act, continue with an informative act, and could possibly include any combination of acknowledgement, reply, react, comment, accept, evaluate, and conclusion acts throughout the story.

As stated earlier, the main difference between direction-giving and story-telling, even though, among other similarities, both allow one speaker to hold the floor, is that they belong to different speech genres. As Carter and McCarthy point out, story-telling belongs to the narrative speech genre, whereas direction-giving can be considered part of the language-in-action genre (Exploring 10). For this reason, direction-giving can be analyzed more fully by using the model that Psathas has set out than by using the Sinclair/Coulthard model of analysis:

"A gross characterization of direction sets, without yet examining in detail the sequential structures which they contain . . . may be offered as follows:

1. they are sequentially organized;
2. they are undertaken in response to a request initiated by the recipient (direction-asker) or solicited by the direction-giver;
3. they are designed for a recipient (direction-asker);
4. they consist of a next turn(s) in which the set of directions is begun; and of
5. next turn(s) in which the recipient-asker co-participates as an active recipient with displays of understanding, acceptance, or requests for elaboration, repetition, clarification, etc., which are a coordinate part of the set of directions and not new topics; and of
6. a next turn in which the direction-giver proposes "arrival" at the destination; and of
7. a marked ending of the set with such possible moves to end as

1. an acknowledgement/acceptance/understanding display by the recipient and a move to a next topic or to a closing, or
2. a request for confirmation by the direction-giver and a confirmation/acknowledgement/appreciation by the recipient and a move to next topic or to a closing." (Psathas 198)

In keeping with this model, the data collected for this paper are all sequentially organized in exactly this way. All of the data was initiated as a request for directions to the University of Nottingham’s Halliward Library from the Lower Court area of Broadgate Park, an area of student housing. They are all marked by discourse markers that signal the beginning of "a next turn in which the set of directions is begun," and throughout the direction-giving, "the recipient-asker co-participates as an active recipient" with either verbal or physical backchanneling present in all sets of directions. Finally, the direction-givers all propose arrival at Halliward Library. The sets end with "an acknowledgement/acceptance/understanding display by the recipient and a move to a . . . closing" in three of the five sets. The other two sets end with "a request for confirmation by the direction-giver and confirmation/ acknowledgement/appreciation by the recipient and a move to . . . a closing," the other option for closing proposed by Psathas.

Looking more specifially at the data, the direction-asker’s opener from Appendix A ("Tell me how to get to the Halliward Library from here") can be assumed for all appendices, even though it was not recorded for all five sets. Then come the responses that begin the direction-giving:

All are the beginning of "a next turn in which the set of directions is begun," and all begin with a discourse marker, signifying a new stage of the conversation. These discourse markers mark the part of the conversation where the direction-giver actually begins to have the official right to take the floor and hold it.

During all sets of directions except with direction-giver D, the direction-asker provides backchannel noises. The noises are not part of a new topic or interruptions; they are simply signals that the direction-giver is being clear. Because direction-giver D speaks very quickly, the direction-asker does not supply a verbal backchannel but nods throughout the direction-giver’s turn, signifying understanding of the directions. The direction-giver probably speaks quickly because she assumes that the direction-asker is familiar with the area she is describing—an illustration of Psathas’s statement that directions "are designed for a recipient (direction-asker)."

The similarities among all direction-givers’ proposals of arrival at Halliward Library are remarkable. All but one of the direction-givers use nearly the exact words to propose arrival:

All of the above except direction giver E say "that’s Halliward Library," and E’s choice of "which" rather than "that" is due to word order more than word choice. It does not change the sense of his utterance in the same way that using "it" or "this" would have done. Direction-giver D’s irregularity with "Halliward Library is located on the left hand side and the the entrance is on the road that is y- you have to turn left in order to enter the uni- library that’s it basically" is interesting because it has the same sense as the other four utterances—it is still an assumed "arrival"—but it has an entirely different form. But the similarity between the language of the other four direction-givers is even more striking when their differing backgrounds—Egyptian, Maltese, Argentinean, and Korean—are considered. None of the four is a native English speaker, but all four have the same understanding of the way a "closing utterance" should work.

The endings of the sets also confirm the validity of Psathas’s model. In three of the acts (B, C, and D), the direction-asker confirms understanding of the directions and moves to close the direction-giving act by expressing thanks. In the other two (A and E), the direction-giver askes for confirmation of the direction-asker’s understanding of the directions in general, and then the direction-asker moves to close the act:

<S 02> You’re welcome. (B);

<S 02> Ok. Thanks. (C.);

<S 02> Ok thanks. (D.); compared to

<S 02> mm pleasure (A); and

<S 01> =[laughs] (E).

Overall, Psathas’s model describes the act of direction-giving very well. Because the model describes the direction-giving act in general terms, it appears to be able to fit any kind of direction-giving; for example, face-to-face direction-giving fits the model as well as directions that are given over the telephone. But Psathas’s model forbids any participation by the direction-asker such as making jokes, commenting on the complexity of the directions for any reason other than the purpose of clarification, or mentioning prior knowledge of the area for any reason other than a display of understanding. In other words, Psathas’s model prohibits all "new topics" in direction-giving. While new topics are not likely to last long because the direction-asker will need to finish receiving the directions he or she desires, they are still possible and probably very likely, especially in situations where the direction-asker and the direction-giver know each other very well. Nevertheless, Psathas’s model describes the act of direction-giving accurately when it refers only to the times in the act where the direction-giver is holding the floor.

The verbal context of direction-giving data in this paper is responsible for the vague language used by the direction-givers. If directions to Halliward Library from Broadgate Park had been written down, they would have been much more explicit than they were in the verbal data collected for this paper. However, as Lyons states, "utterance-meaning goes beyond what is actually said: it also includes what is implied (or presupposed). And context is highly relevant to this part of the meaning of utterances" (Lyons 201). The verbal context of direction-giving dictates its form and allows for verbal ambiguities, many times in the form of deictic language. For example, direction-givers might point out objects in the visual field of both themselves and the direction-askers. Because the data collected for this paper was gathered in a closed environment with no visibility to the path that had to be taken, deixis did not come into play in the same way that it might have in other contexts.

The language used in the data was, however, ambiguous in other ways. Lyons points out that "[u]sually, we operate with contextual information below the level of consciousness in our interpretation of everyday utterances. Most of the ambiguities, whether lexical or grammatical, therefore pass unnoticed" (202). For example, direction-giver B says "And then you have to do basically is just keep on walking straight," and direction-giver D says, "you see the main entrance of the university you have to keep up from the from the main entrance and there is a walking path and you have to climb up the path in the middle."

These utterances make only vague grammatical sense in a written context, but, as Carter and McCarthy point out, "many of the grammatical features observable in everyday, unplanned conversation are simply ‘wrong’, and are corruptions of and lapses from the standards enshrined in the scholarly grammars . . ." ("Grammar" 142). Direction-giver A omits words that would be necessary in a written context, such as "and then what you have to do is just keep on walking straight," and direction-giver D’s instruction to "keep up from the main entrance" is nebulous at best. The direction-givers’ "lapses" are due at least in part to the context of their speech acts: both knew the direction-asker and believed that the direction-asker was familiar with the area they were describing. For this reason, they used informal language and glossed over many of the specificities that they might have used for a listener with whom they were less familiar.

This application of Psathas’s model in combination with an overall look at how the structure of direction-giving relates to its context has been successful in creating a larger understanding of the way the language, structure, and context of direction-giving work together to make the act useful. Direction-giving allows one person the right to take the floor and hold it, but such floor-holding is an anomaly for an informal speech-act. For this reason, direction-giving requires a very high level of organized structure in order to make the floor-holding acceptable, as Zimmerman and Boden point out, as "requisite for the kind of act addressed" (14). In contrast to this high level of organizational structure, the language of direction-giving is vague and informal, and occasionally incomprehensible when removed to a written context. Therefore, the context of direction-giving is as important as its organization for the understanding of the directions as a whole. Overall, direction-giving’s formal organization in combination with its informal context allows people to understand each other, which makes it serviceable even in informal speech.

Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 1997.

---. "Grammar and the Spoken Language." Applied Linguistics 16.2 (1995): 141-158.

Cook, Guy. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.

Lyons, John. Language, Meaning and Context. Suffolk: Fontana Paperbacks, 1986.

McCarthy, Michael. "It, this and that." Advances in Written Text Analysis. Ed. R. M.

Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1994. 266-275.

Psathas, George. "The Structure of Direction-giving in Interaction." Talk and Social

Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Deirdre

Boden and Don H. Zimmerman, eds. Oxford: Polity Press, 1991.

Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994.

---. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.

Sinclair, J. McH., and R. M. Coulthard. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English

used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975.

Zimmerman, Don H., and Deirdre Boden. "Structure-in-Action: An Introduction." Talk

and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.

Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman, eds. Oxford: Polity Press, 1991.