Domino theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory 

An illustration of the domino theory as it had been predicted

The domino theory is a geopolitical theory that was prominent in the United States from the 1950s to the 1980s which posited that if one country in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect. The domino theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify the need for American intervention around the world.

Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower described the theory during a news conference on 7 April 1954, when referring to communism in Indochina as follows:

Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.

Moreover, Eisenhower’s deep belief in the domino theory in Asia heightened the "perceived costs for the United States of pursuing multilateralism" because of multifaceted events including the "1949 victory of the Chinese Communist Party, the June 1950 North Korean invasion, the 1954 Quemoy offshore island crisis, and the conflict in Indochina constituted a broad-based challenge not only for one or two countries, but for the entire Asian continent and Pacific." This connotes a strong magnetic force to give in to communist control, and aligns with the comment by General Douglas MacArthur that "victory is a strong magnet in the East."

History

During 1945, the Soviet Union brought most of the countries of eastern Europe and Central Europe into its influence as part of the post-World War II new settlement, prompting Winston Churchill to declare in a speech in 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri that:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "Iron Curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

Following the Iran crisis of 1946, Harry S. Truman declared what became known as the Truman Doctrine in 1947, promising to contribute financial aid to the Greek government during its Civil War and to Turkey following World War II, in the hope that this would impede the advancement of Communism into Western Europe. Later that year, diplomat George Kennan wrote an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that became known as the "X Article", which first articulated the policy of containment, arguing that the further spread of Communism to countries outside a "buffer zone" around the USSR, even if it happened via democratic elections, was unacceptable and a threat to U.S. national security. Kennan was also involved, along with others in the Truman administration, in creating the Marshall Plan, which also began in 1947, to give aid to the countries of Western Europe (along with Greece and Turkey), in large part with the hope of keeping them from falling under Soviet domination.

In 1949, a Communist-backed government, led by Mao Zedong, was instated in China (officially becoming the People's Republic of China). The installation of the new government was established after the People's Liberation Army defeated the Nationalist Republican Government of China in the aftermath of the Chinese Civil War (1927-1949). Two Chinas were formed - mainland 'Communist China' (People's Republic of China) and 'Nationalist China' Taiwan (Republic of China). The takeover by Communists of the world's most populous nation was seen in the West as a great strategic loss, prompting the popular question at the time, "Who lost China?" The United States subsequently ended diplomatic relations with the newly-founded People's Republic of China in response to the communist takeover in 1949.

Korea had also partially fallen under Soviet domination at the end of World War II, split from the south of the 38th parallel where U.S. forces subsequently moved into. By 1948, as a result of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S., Korea was split into two regions, with separate governments, each claiming to be the legitimate government of Korea, and neither side accepting the border as permanent. In 1950 fighting broke out between Communists and Republicans that soon involved troops from China (on the Communists' side), and the United States and 15 allied countries (on the Republicans' side). Though the Korean conflict has not officially ended, the Korean War ended in 1953 with an armistice that left Korea divided into two nations, North Korea and South Korea. Mao Zedong's decision to take on the U.S. in the Korean War was a direct attempt to confront what the Communist bloc viewed as the strongest anti-Communist power in the world, undertaken at a time when the Chinese Communist regime was still consolidating its own power after winning the Chinese Civil War.

The first figure to propose the domino theory was President Harry S. Truman in the 1940s, where he introduced the theory in order to “justify sending military aid to Greece and Turkey.” However, the domino theory was popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower when he applied it to Southeast Asia, especially South Vietnam. Moreover, the domino theory was utilized as one of the key arguments in the “Kennedy and Johnson administrations during the 1960s to justify increasing American military involvement in the Vietnam War.”

In May 1954, the Viet Minh, a Communist and nationalist army, defeated French troops in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and took control of what became North Vietnam. This caused the French to fully withdraw from the region then known as French Indochina, a process they had begun earlier. The regions were then divided into four independent countries (North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) after a deal was brokered at the 1954 Geneva Conference to end the First Indochina War.

This would give them a geographical and economic strategic advantage, and it would make Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand the front-line defensive states. The loss of regions traditionally within the vital regional trading area of countries like Japan would encourage the front-line countries to compromise politically with communism.

Eisenhower's domino theory of 1954 was a specific description of the situation and conditions within Southeast Asia at the time, and he did not suggest a generalized domino theory as others did afterward.

During the summer of 1963, Buddhists protested about the harsh treatment they were receiving under the Diem government of South Vietnam. Such actions of the South Vietnamese government made it difficult for the Kennedy administration's strong support for President Diem. President Kennedy was in a tenuous position, trying to contain Communism in Southeast Asia, but on the other hand, supporting an anti-Communist government that was not popular with its domestic citizens and was guilty of acts objectionable to the American public. The Kennedy administration intervened in Vietnam in the early 1960s to, among other reasons, keep the South Vietnamese "domino" from falling. When Kennedy came to power there was concern that the communist-led Pathet Lao in Laos would provide the Viet Cong with bases, and that eventually they could take over Laos.

Arguments in favor of the domino theory

The primary evidence for the domino theory is the spread of communist rule in three Southeast Asian countries in 1975, following the communist takeover of Vietnam: South Vietnam (by the Viet Cong), Laos (by the Pathet Lao), and Cambodia (by the Khmer Rouge). It can further be argued that before they finished taking Vietnam prior to the 1950s, the communist campaigns did not succeed in Southeast Asia. Note the Malayan Emergency, the Hukbalahap Rebellion in the Philippines, and the increasing involvement with Communists by Sukarno of Indonesia from the late 1950s until he was deposed in 1967. All of these were unsuccessful Communist attempts to take over Southeast Asian countries which stalled when communist forces were still focused in Vietnam.

Walt Whitman Rostow and the then Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew have argued that the U.S. intervention in Indochina, by giving the nations of ASEAN time to consolidate and engage in economic growth, prevented a wider domino effect. Meeting with President Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger in 1975, Lee Kuan Yew argued that "there is a tendency in the U.S. Congress not to want to export jobs. But we have to have the jobs if we are to stop Communism. We have done that, moving from simple to more complex skilled labor. If we stop this process, it will do more harm than you can every [sic] repair with aid. Don't cut off imports from Southeast Asia."

McGeorge Bundy argued that the prospects for a domino effect, though high in the 1950s and early 1960s, were weakened in 1965 when the Indonesian Communist Party was destroyed via death squads in the Indonesian genocide. However, proponents believe that the efforts during the containment (i.e., Domino Theory) period ultimately led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Some supporters of the domino theory note the history of communist governments supplying aid to communist revolutionaries in neighboring countries. For instance, China supplied the Viet Minh and later the North Vietnamese army, with troops and supplies, and the Soviet Union supplied them with tanks and heavy weapons. The fact that the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge were both originally part of the Vietminh, not to mention Hanoi's support for both in conjunction with the Viet Cong, also give credence to the theory. The Soviet Union also heavily supplied Sukarno with military supplies and advisors from the time of the Guided Democracy in Indonesia, especially during and after the 1958 civil war in Sumatra.

Arguments that criticize the domino theory

• Elements of the cold war ideology such as the domino theory became propaganda tools for the US government to create fear among the American people, in order to gain public support for the US's participation in the Vietnam War.
• In the spring of 1995, former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said he believed the domino theory was a mistake. Professor Tran Chung Ngoc, an overseas Vietnamese living in the US, said: "The US does not have any plausible reason to intervene in Vietnam, a small, poor, undeveloped country that does not have any ability to do anything that could harm America. Therefore, the US intervention in Vietnam regardless of public opinion and international law is "using power over justice", giving itself the right to intervene anywhere that America wants."
• The domino theory caused major deep divisions in the heart of the United States. Because of this theory, the US government has introduced extreme policies, causing dissatisfaction to the people. Radical anti-communist politicians and US intelligence agencies regularly carry out anti-communist campaigns that include stalking, discriminating, firing, prosecuting and detaining many people on the pretext of "suspected communist" or support communism. The vast majority of the victims were actually very unlikely to harm the US government and their involvement with the communists was very weak.

Significance of the domino theory

The domino theory is significant because it underlines the importance of alliances, which may vary from rogue alliances to bilateral alliances. This implies that the domino theory is useful in evaluating a country’s intent and purpose of forging an alliance with others, including a cluster of other countries within a particular region. While the intent and purpose may differ for every country, Victor Cha portrays the asymmetrical bilateral alliance between the United States and countries in East Asia as a strategic approach, where the United States is in control and power to either mobilize or stabilize its allies. This is supported by how the United States created asymmetrical bilateral alliances with the Republic of Korea, Republic of China and Japan “not just to contain but also constrain potential ‘rogue alliances’ from engaging in adventurist behavior that might it into larger military contingencies in the region or that could trigger a domino effect, with Asian countries falling to communism.” Since the United States struggled with the challenge of “rogue alliances and the threat of falling dominoes combined to produce a dreaded entrapment scenario for the United States,” the domino theory further underscores the importance of bilateral alliances in international relations. This is evident in how the domino theory provided the United States with a coalition approach, where it “fashioned a series of deep, tight bilateral alliances” with Asian countries including Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan to “control their ability to use force and to foster material and political dependency on the United States.” Hence, this indicates that the domino theory assists in observing the effect of forged alliances as a stepping stone or stumbling block within international relations. This underscores the correlation between domino theory and path dependency, where a retrospective collapse of one country falling to communism may not only have adverse effects to other countries but more importantly, on one’s decision-making scope and competence in overcoming present and future challenges. Therefore, the domino theory is indubitably a significant theory which deals with the close relationship between micro-cause and macro-consequence, where it suggests such macro-consequences may result in long-term repercussions.

Applications to communism outside Southeast Asia

Michael Lind has argued that though the domino theory failed regionally, there was a global wave, as communist or Marxist–Leninist regimes came to power in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua during the 1970s. The global interpretation of the domino effect relies heavily upon the "prestige" interpretation of the theory, meaning that the success of Communist revolutions in some countries, though it did not provide material support to revolutionary forces in other countries, did contribute morale and rhetorical support.

In this vein, Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara wrote an essay, the "Message to the Tricontinental", in 1967, calling for "two, three ... many Vietnams" across the world. Historian Max Boot wrote, "In the late 1970s, America's enemies seized power in countries from Mozambique to Iran to Nicaragua. American hostages were seized aboard the SS Mayaguez (off Cambodia) and in Tehran. The Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan. There is no obvious connection with the Vietnam War, but there is little doubt that the defeat of a superpower encouraged our enemies to undertake acts of aggression that they might otherwise have shied away from."

In addition, this theory can be further bolstered by the rise in terrorist incidents by left-wing terrorist groups in Western Europe, funded in part by Communist governments, between the 1960s and 1980s. In Italy, this includes the kidnapping and assassination of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, and the kidnapping of former US Brigadier General James L. Dozier, by the Red Brigades.

In West Germany, this includes the terrorist actions of the Red Army Faction. In the far east the Japanese Red Army carried out similar acts. All four, as well as others, worked with various Arab and Palestinian terrorists, which like the red brigades were backed by the Soviet Bloc.

In the 1977 Frost/Nixon interviews, Richard Nixon defended the United States' destabilization of the Salvador Allende regime in Chile on domino theory grounds. Borrowing a metaphor he had heard, he stated that a Communist Chile and Cuba would create a "red sandwich" that could entrap Latin America between them. In the 1980s, the domino theory was used again to justify the Reagan administration's interventions in Central America and the Caribbean region.

In his memoirs, former Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith described the successive rise of authoritarian left-wing governments in Sub-Saharan Africa during decolonization as "the communists' domino tactic". The establishment of pro-communist governments in Tanzania (1961–64) and Zambia (1964) and explicitly Marxist–Leninist governments in Angola (1975), Mozambique (1975), and eventually Rhodesia itself (in 1980) are cited by Smith as evidence of "the insidious encroachment of Soviet imperialism down the continent".

Other applications

Political cartoon by Carlos Latuff applying the domino theory to the Arab Spring.

Some foreign policy analysts in the United States have referred to the potential spread of both Islamic theocracy and liberal democracy in the Middle East as two different possibilities for a domino theory. During the Iran–Iraq War the United States and other western nations supported Ba'athist Iraq, fearing the spread of Iran's radical theocracy throughout the region. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, some neoconservatives argued that when a democratic government is implemented, it would then help spread democracy and liberalism across the Middle East. This has been referred to as a "reverse domino theory," or a "democratic domino theory," so called because its effects are considered positive, not negative, by Western democratic states.

Methanol economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The methanol economy is a suggested future economy in which methanol and dimethyl ether replace fossil fuels as a means of energy storage, ground transportation fuel, and raw material for synthetic hydrocarbons and their products. It offers an alternative to the proposed hydrogen economy or ethanol economy, though these concepts are not exclusive.

In the 1990s, Nobel prize laureate George A. Olah advocated a methanol economy; in 2006, he and two co-authors, G. K. Surya Prakash and Alain Goeppert, published a summary of the state of fossil fuel and alternative energy sources, including their availability and limitations, before suggesting a methanol economy.

IBC container with 1000 L renewable methanol (the energy content is the same as that of 160 pieces of 50 L gas cylinders filled with hydrogen at 200 bar)

Methanol can be produced from a wide variety of sources including fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, oil shale, tar sands, etc.) as well as agricultural products and municipal waste, wood and varied biomass. It can also be made from chemical recycling of carbon dioxide.

Uses

Ferry with methanol engine (Stena Germanica Kiel)

 

Racing car with methanol combustion engine

 

Sports car with reformed methanol fuel cell (Nathalie)

 

Passenger car with reformed methanol fuel cell (Necar 5)

Fuel

Main article: Methanol fuel

Methanol is a fuel for heat engines and fuel cells. Due to its high octane rating it can be used directly as a fuel in flex-fuel cars (including hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles) using existing internal combustion engines (ICE). Methanol can also be burned in some other kinds of engine or to provide heat as other liquid fuels are used. Fuel cells, can use methanol either directly in Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC) or indirectly (after conversion into hydrogen by reforming) in a Reformed Methanol Fuel Cell (RMFC).

Feedstock

Methanol is already used today on a large scale to produce a variety of chemicals and products. Global methanol demand as a chemical feedstock reached around 42 million metric tonnes per year as of 2015. Through the methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) process, it can be transformed into gasoline. Using the methanol-to-olefin (MTO) process, methanol can also be converted to ethylene and propylene, the two chemicals produced in largest amounts by the petrochemical industry. These are important building blocks for the production of essential polymers (LDPE, HDPE, PP) and like other chemical intermediates are currently produced mainly from petroleum feedstock. Their production from methanol could therefore reduce our dependency on petroleum. It would also make it possible to continue producing these chemicals when fossil fuels reserves are depleted.

Production

Today most methanol is produced from methane through syngas. Trinidad and Tobago is currently the world's largest methanol exporter, with exports mainly to the United States. The natural gas that serves as feedstock for the production of methanol comes from the same sources as other uses. Unconventional gas resources such as coalbed methane, tight sand gas and eventually the very large methane hydrate resources present under the continental shelves of the seas and Siberian and Canadian tundra could also be used to provide the necessary gas.

The conventional route to methanol from methane passes through syngas generation by steam reforming combined (or not) with partial oxidation. New and more efficient ways to convert methane into methanol are also being developed. These include:

• Methane oxidation with homogeneous catalysts in sulfuric acid media
• Methane bromination followed by hydrolysis of the obtained bromomethane
• Direct oxidation of methane with oxygen
• Microbial or photochemical conversion of methane
• Partial methane oxidation with trapping of the partially oxidized product and subsequent extraction on copper and iron exchanged Zeolite (e.g. Alpha-Oxygen)

All these synthetic routes emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide CO₂. To mitigate this, methanol can be made through ways minimizing the emission of CO₂. One solution is to produce it from syngas obtained by biomass gasification. For this purpose any biomass can be used including wood, wood wastes, grass, agricultural crops and their by-products, animal waste, aquatic plants and municipal waste. There is no need to use food crops as in the case of ethanol from corn, sugar cane and wheat.

Biomass → Syngas (CO, CO₂, H₂) → CH₃OH

Methanol can be synthesized from carbon and hydrogen from any source, including fossil fuels and biomass. CO₂ emitted from fossil fuel burning power plants and other industries and eventually even the CO₂ contained in the air, can be a source of carbon. It can also be made from chemical recycling of carbon dioxide, which Carbon Recycling International has demonstrated with its first commercial scale plant. Initially the major source will be the CO₂ rich flue gases of fossil-fuel-burning power plants or exhaust from cement and other factories. In the longer range however, considering diminishing fossil fuel resources and the effect of their utilization on earth's atmosphere, even the low concentration of atmospheric CO₂ itself could be captured and recycled via methanol, thus supplementing nature's own photosynthetic cycle. Efficient new absorbents to capture atmospheric CO₂ are being developed, mimicking plants' ability. Chemical recycling of CO₂ to new fuels and materials could thus become feasible, making them renewable on the human timescale.

Methanol can also be produced from CO₂ by catalytic hydrogenation of CO₂ with H₂ where the hydrogen has been obtained from water electrolysis. This is the process used by Carbon Recycling International of Iceland. Methanol may also be produced through CO₂ electrochemical reduction, if electrical power is available. The energy needed for these reactions in order to be carbon neutral would come from renewable energy sources such as wind, hydroelectricity and solar as well as nuclear power. In effect, all of them allow free energy to be stored in easily transportable methanol, which is made immediately from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, rather than attempting to store energy in free hydrogen.

CO₂ + 3H₂ → CH₃OH + H₂O

or with electric energy

CO₂ +5H₂O + 6 e⁻¹ → CH₃OH + 6 HO⁻¹

6 HO⁻¹ → 3H₂O + 3/2 O₂ + 6 e⁻¹

Total:

CO₂ +2H₂O + electric energy → CH₃OH + 3/2 O₂

The necessary CO₂ would be captured from fossil fuel burning power plants and other industrial flue gases including cement factories. With diminishing fossil fuel resources and therefore CO₂ emissions, the CO₂ content in the air could also be used. Considering the low concentration of CO₂ in air (0.04%) improved and economically viable technologies to absorb CO₂ will have to be developed. For this reason, extraction of CO₂ from water could be more feasible due to its higher concentrations in dissolved form. This would allow the chemical recycling of CO₂, thus mimicking nature's photosynthesis.

In large-scale renewable methanol is mainly produced of fermented biomass as well as municipal solid waste (bio-methanol) and of renewable electricity (e-Methanol). Production costs for renewable methanol currently are about 300 to US$1000/t for bio-methanol, about 800 to US$1600/t for e-Methanol of carbon dioxide of renewable sources and about 1100 to US$2400/t for e-Methanol of carbon dioxide of Direct Air Capture.

Efficiency for production and use of e-Methanol

Methanol which is produced of CO₂ and water by the use of electricity is called e-Methanol. Therefor typically hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water which is then transformed with CO₂ to methanol. Currently the efficiency for hydrogen production by water electrolysis of electricity amounts to 75 to 85% with potential up to 93% until 2030. Efficiency for methanol synthesis of hydrogen and carbon dioxide currently is 79 to 80%. Thus the efficiency for production of methanol from electricity and carbon dioxide is about 59 to 78%. If CO₂ is not directly available but is obtained by Direct Air Capture then the efficiency amounts to 50-60 % for methanol production by use of electricity. When methanol is used in a methanol fuel cell the electrical efficiency of the fuel cell is about 35 to 50% (status of 2021). Thus the electrical overall efficiency for the production of e-Methanol with electricity including the following energy conversion of e-Methanol to electricity amounts to about 21 to 34% for e-Methanol of directly available CO₂ and to about 18 to 30% for e-Methanol produced by CO₂ which is obtained by Direct Air Capture.

If waste heat is used for a high temperature electrolysis or if waste heat of electrolysis, methanol synthesis and/or of the fuel cell is used then the overall efficiency can be significantly increased beyond electrical efficiency. For example, an overall efficiency of 86% can be reached by using waste heat (e.g. for district heating) which is obtained by production of e-Methanol by electrolysis or by the following methanol synthesis. If the waste heat of a fuel cell is used a fuel cell efficiency of 85 to 90% can be reached. The waste heat can for example be used for heating of a vehicle or a household. Also the generation of coldness by using waste heat is possible with a refrigeration machine. With an extensive use of waste heat an overall efficiency of 70 to 80% can be reached for production of e-Methanol including the following use of the e-Methanol in a fuel cell.

The electrical system efficiency including all losses of peripheral devices (e.g. cathode compressor, stack cooling) amounts to about 40 to 50% for a methanol fuel cell of RMFC type and to 40 to 55% for a hydrogen fuel cell of LT-PEMFC type.

Araya et al. compared the hydrogen path with the methanol path (for methanol of directly available CO₂). Here the electrical efficiency from electricity supply to delivery of electricity by a fuel cell was determined with following intermediate steps: power management, conditioning, transmission, hydrogen production by electrolysis, methanol synthesis resp. hydrogen compression, fuel transportation, fuel cell. For the methanol path the efficiency was investigated as 23 to 38% and for the hydrogen path as 24 to 41%. With the hydrogen path a large part of energy is lost by hydrogen compression and hydrogen transport, whereas for the methanol path energy for methanol synthesis is needed.

Helmers et al. compared the Well-to-Wheel (WTW) efficiency of vehicles. The WTW efficiency was determined as 10 to 20% for with fossile gasoline operated vehicles with internal combustion engine, as 15 to 29% for with fossile gasoline operated full electric hybrid vehicles with internal combustion engine, as 13 to 25% for with fossile Diesel operated vehicles with internal combustion engine, as 12 to 21% for with fossile CNG operated vehicles with internal combustion engine, as 20 to 29% for fuel cell vehicles (e.g. fossile hydrogen or methanol) and as 59 to 80% for battery electric vehicles.

In German study "Agora Energiewende" different drive technologies by using renewable electricity for fuel production were examined and a WTW efficiency of 13% for vehicles with internal combustion engine (operated with synthetic fuel like OME), 26% for fuel cell vehicles (operated with hydrogen) and 69% for battery electric vehicles was determined.

If renewable hydrogen is used the Well-to-Wheel efficiency for a hydrogen fuel cell car amounts to about 14 to 30%.

If renewable e-Methanol is produced from directly available CO₂ the Well-to-Wheel efficiency amounts to about 11 to 21% for a vehicle with internal combustion engine which is operated with this e-Methanol and to about 18 to 29% for a fuel cell vehicle which is operated with this e-Methanol. If renewable e-Methanol is produced from CO₂ of Direct Air Capture the Well-to-Wheel efficiency amounts to about 9 to 19% for a vehicle with internal combustion engine which is operated with this e-Methanol and to about 15 to 26% for a fuel cell vehicle which is operated with this e-Methanol (status of 2021).

Cost comparison Methanol economy vs. Hydrogen economy

Fuel costs:

Methanol is cheaper than hydrogen. For large amounts (tank) price for fossile methanol is about 0.3 to 0.6 USD/L. One liter of Methanol has the same energy content as 0.13 kg hydrogen. Price for 0.13 kg of fossile hydrogen is currently about 1.2 to 1.3 USD for large amounts (about 9.5 USD/kg at hydrogen refuelling stations). For middle scale amounts (delivery in IBC container with 1000 L methanol) price for fossile methanol is usually about 0.5 to 0.7 USD/L, for biomethanol about 0.7 to 2.0 USD/L and for e-Methanol from CO₂ about 0.8 to 2.0 USD/L plus deposit for IBC container. For middle scale amounts of hydrogen (bundle of gas cylinders) price for 0.13 kg of fossile hydrogen is usually about 5 to 12 USD plus rental fee for the cylinders. The significantly higher price for hydrogen compared to methanol is amongst others caused by the complex logistics and storage of hydrogen. Whereas biomethanol and renewable e-Methanol are available at distributors, green hydrogen is typically not yet available at distributors. Prices for renewable hydrogen as well as for renewable methanol are expected to decrease in future.

Infrastructure:

For future it is expected that for passenger cars a high percentage of vehicles will be full electric battery vehicles. For utility vehicles and trucks percentage of full electric battery vehicles is expected to be significantly lower than for passenger cars. The rest of vehicles is expected to be based on fuel. While methanol infrastructure for 10 000 refuelling stations would cost about 0.5 to 2.0 billion USD, cost for a hydrogen infrastructure for 10 000 refuelling stations would be about 16 to 1400 billion USD with strong dependence on hydrogen throughput of the hydrogen refuelling station.

Energy conversion:

While for vehicles with internal combustion engine that are fuelled with methanol there are no significant additional costs compared to gasoline fuelled vehicles, additional costs for a passenger car with methanol fuel cell would be about -600 to 2400 USD compard with a passenger car with hydrogen fuel cell (primarily additional costs for reformer, balance of plant components and perhaps stack minus costs for hydrogen tank and hydrogen high-pressure instruments).

Advantages

In the process of photosynthesis, green plants use the energy of sunlight to split water into free oxygen (which is released) and free hydrogen. Rather than attempt to store the hydrogen, plants immediately capture carbon dioxide from the air to allow the hydrogen to reduce it to storable fuels such as hydrocarbons (plant oils and terpenes) and polyalcohols (glycerol, sugars and starches). In the methanol economy, any process which similarly produces free hydrogen, proposes to immediately use it "captively" to reduce carbon dioxide into methanol, which, like plant products from photosynthesis, has great advantages in storage and transport over free hydrogen itself.

Methanol is a liquid under normal conditions, allowing it to be stored, transported and dispensed easily, much like gasoline and diesel fuel. It can also be readily transformed by dehydration into dimethyl ether, a diesel fuel substitute with a cetane number of 55.

Methanol is water-soluble: An accidental release of methanol in the environment would cause much less damage than a comparable gasoline or crude oil spill. Unlike these fuels, methanol is biodegradable and totally soluble in water, and would be rapidly diluted to a concentration low enough for microorganism to start biodegradation. This effect is already exploited in water treatment plants, where methanol is already used for denitrification and as a nutrient for bacteria. Accidental release causing groundwater pollution has not been thoroughly studied yet, though it is believed that it might undergo relatively rapid.

Comparison with hydrogen

Methanol economy advantages compared to a hydrogen economy:

• Efficient energy storage by volume, as compared with compressed hydrogen. When hydrogen pressure-confinement vessel is taken into account, an advantage in energy storage by weight can also be realized. The volumetric energy density of methanol is considerably higher than liquid hydrogen, in part because of the low density of liquid hydrogen of 71 grams/litre. Hence there is actually more hydrogen in a litre of methanol (99 grams/litre) than in a litre of liquid hydrogen, and methanol needs no cryogenic container maintained at a temperature of -253 °C .
• A liquid hydrogen infrastructure would be prohibitively expensive. Methanol can use existing gasoline infrastructure with only limited modifications.
• Can be blended with gasoline (for example in M85, a mixture containing 85% methanol and 15% gasoline).
• User friendly. Hydrogen is volatile, and its confinements uses high pressure or cryogenic systems.
• Less losses : Hydrogen leaks more easily than methanol. Heat will evaporate liquid hydrogen, giving expected losses up to 0.3% per day in storage tanks. (see Chart Ferox storage tanks Liquid oxygen).

Comparison with ethanol

• Can be made from any organic material using proven technology going through syngas. There is no need to use food crops and compete with food production. The amount of methanol that can be generated from biomass is much greater than ethanol.
• Can compete with and complement ethanol in a diversified energy marketplace. Methanol obtained from fossil fuels has a lower price than ethanol.
• Can be blended in gasoline like ethanol. In 2007, China blended more than 1 billion US gallons (3,800,000 m³) of methanol into fuel and will introduce methanol fuel standard by mid-2008. M85, a mixture of 85% methanol and 15% gasoline can be used much like E85 sold in some gas stations today.

Methanol from Supermarket as grill lighter fluid (Spain, 99 % methanol, colored blue)

Disadvantages

• High energy costs currently associated with generating and transporting hydrogen offsite.
• Presently generated from natural gas still dependent on fossil fuels (although any combustible hydrocarbon can be used).
• Energy density (by weight or volume) one half of that of gasoline and 24% less than ethanol
• Handling
  • If no inhibitors are used, methanol is corrosive to some common metals including aluminum, zinc and manganese. Parts of the engine fuel-intake systems are made from aluminum. Similar to ethanol, compatible material for fuel tanks, gasket and engine intake have to be used.
  • As with similarly corrosive and hydrophilic ethanol, existing pipelines designed for petroleum products cannot handle methanol. Thus methanol requires shipment at higher energy cost in trucks and trains, until new pipeline infrastructure can be built, or existing pipelines are retrofitted for methanol transport.
  • Methanol, as an alcohol, increases the permeability of some plastics to fuel vapors (e.g. high-density polyethylene). This property of methanol has the possibility of increasing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from fuel, which contributes to increased tropospheric ozone and possibly human exposure.
• Low volatility in cold weather: pure methanol-fueled engines can be difficult to start, and they run inefficiently until warmed up. This is why a mixture containing 85% methanol and 15% gasoline called M85 is generally used in ICEs. The gasoline allows the engine to start even at lower temperatures.
• With the exception of low level exposure, methanol is toxic. Methanol is lethal when ingested in larger amounts (30 to 100 mL). But so are most motor fuels, including gasoline (120 to 300 mL) and diesel fuel. Gasoline also contains small amounts of many compounds known to be carcinogenic (e.g. benzene). Methanol is not a carcinogen, nor does it contain carcinogens. However, methanol is metabolized in the body to formaldehyde, which is both toxic and carcinogenic. Methanol occurs naturally in small quantities in the human body and in edible fruits.
• Methanol is a liquid: this creates a greater fire risk compared to hydrogen in open spaces as Methanol leaks do not dissipate. Methanol burns invisibly unlike gasoline. Compared to gasoline, however, methanol is much safer. It is more difficult to ignite and releases less heat when it burns. Methanol fires can be extinguished with plain water, whereas gasoline floats on water and continues to burn. The EPA has estimated that switching fuels from gasoline to methanol would reduce the incidence of fuel related fires by 90%.

Status and Production of renewable methanol

Europe

• In Iceland the company Carbon Recycling International operates a plant for production of e-Methanol of CO₂ from a geothermal plant with a methanol manufacturing capacity of more than 4000 t/a. The plant was named after George Olah.
• BioMCN from Netherlands has a production capacity of more than 60 000 t/a for production of renewable methanol (biomethanol and e-Methanol)
• BASF produces methanol of renewable resources named EU-REDcert methanol using waste based biomass.
• In May 2019 a demonstration plant was started in Germany in Niederaußem with a daily production capacity of one ton as part of the project MefCO₂. The methanol was used for denitrification in a waste water treatment facility.
• In Germany there is a project called Carbon2Chem of Thyssenkrupp to produce methanol from smelter gases.
• Within the scope of the consortium Power to Methanol Antwerp BV consisting of ENGIE, Fluxys, Indaver, INOVYN, Oiltanking, PMV and Port of Antwerp a plant for production of 8000 t/a renewable methanol shall be built. The CO₂ for the production of the e-methanol shall be separated by Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) from emissions.
• Wacker Chemie AG from Germany plans as part of a submitted funding project (RHYME) to build a plant for production of green hydrogen and renewable methanol (as of April 2021). For synthesis of methanol of green hydrogen the CO₂ shall be originated from production processes of the chemical site and perhaps of other industrial processes (e.g. CO₂ from cement plants). 15 000 t/a of renewable methanol shall be produced which shall be used for company internal production processes (e.g. synthesis of silicones) as well as for selling as a fuel.
• At site Örnsköldsvik in Sweden the consortium Liquid Wind together with Worley plan a plant with a production capacity of 50 000 t/a for renewable e-Methanol (as of May 2021). The CO₂ shall be originated from a biomass plant. Until 2050 Liquid Wind wants to build 500 similar plants. Members of the consortium are Alfa Laval, Haldor Topsoe, Carbon Clean und Siemens Energy.
• Total Energies (the largest methanol producer in Europe with production capacity of 700 000 t/a) starts the project e-CO2Met for production of renewable methanol in Leuna, Germany (as of June 2021). Hereby a 1 MW high temperature electrolyzer shall be used. The CO₂ for the methanol production shall be originated from production processes of a raffinery.

North America

• Enerkem from Canada produces renewable Methanol with a capacity of 100 000 t/a. The methanol is produced from municipal solid waste.
• Celanese announced in May 2021 the plan to produce methanol from CO₂ at site Clear Lake, Texas. Herefore 180 000 tons of CO₂ per year shall be used.

South America

• A consortium of Porsche, Siemens Energy, Enel, AME und ENAP plans to build production facilities for manufacturing of renewable methanol with wind power and CO₂ from the air (as of July 2021). With assistance of ExxonMobil the methanol shall be transformed to further synthetic fuels. By 2024 the consortium wants to produce 55 million litres of eFuels and by 2026 around 550 million litres of eFuels.

China

• In the "Liquid Solar Fuel Production demonstration Project" in 2020 the large-scale production of renewable methanol with sun power with a 10 MW electrolyzer was demonstrated.
• More than 20 000 taxis are operated in China with methanol (as of 2020)
• End of 2021 in Henan province the world's largest plant for production of methanol from CO₂ with a capacity of 110 000 t/a shall be commissioned in "Shunli CO₂-To-Methanol Plant" with assistance of Carbon Recycling International.
• Several major Chinese automakers such as FAW Group, Shanghai Huapu, Geely Group, Chang’an, Shanghai Maple and SAIC prepare for mass production of methanol capable vehicles and fleets of taxis and buses.
• In Shanxi province there exist more than 1000 petrol stations that sell M15 and further 40 M85-M100 refueling points. Until 2025 the government of Shanxi wants to convert more than 2000 refueling stations for methanol fuel as well as 200 000 vehicles for operation with methanol.

Conversation analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_analysis 

Sociology
History Outline Index

Key themes

Perspectives

Branches

Methods

People

Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction, embracing both verbal and non-verbal conduct, in situations of everyday life. CA originated as a sociological method, but has since spread to other fields. CA began with a focus on casual conversation, but its methods were subsequently adapted to embrace more task- and institution-centered interactions, such as those occurring in doctors' offices, courts, law enforcement, helplines, educational settings, and the mass media, and focus on nonverbal activity in interaction, including gaze, body movement and gesture. As a consequence, the term 'conversation analysis' has become something of a misnomer, but it has continued as a term for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of sociolinguistic interactions. CA and ethnomethodology are sometimes considered one field and referred to as EMCA.

History

Inspired by Harold Garfinkel's ethnomethodology and Erving Goffman's conception of the what came to be known as the interaction order,^[ CA was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. It is distinctive in that its primary focus is on the production of social actions in the context of sequences of actions, rather than messages or propositions. Today CA is an established method used in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology. It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics and interactional linguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology.

Method

The method consists of detailed qualitative analysis of stretches of interaction between a number of people, often less than a minute. Most studies rely on a collection of cases, often from different interactions with different people, but some studies also focus on a single-case analysis. Crucially, the method uses the fact that interaction consists of multiple participants and that they make sense of each other, so the method proceeds by considering e.g. how one turn by a specific participant displays an understanding of the previous turn by another participant (or other earlier interaction). This is commonly referred to as the next-turn proof procedure even though proof is not to be taken literally. Research questions revolve around participants' orientation, that is, what features (linguistic or other) that cues people to respond in certain ways and influence the trajectory of an interaction. One key part of the method is about identifying deviant cases in collections, as they show that when a participant does not follow a norm, the interaction is affected in a way that reveals the existence of the norm in focus.

The data used in CA is in the form of video- or audio-recorded conversations, collected with or without researchers' involvement, typically from a video camera or other recording device in the space where the conversation takes place (e.g. a living room, picnic, or doctor's office). The researchers construct detailed transcriptions from the recordings, containing as much detail as is possible.

The transcription often contains additional information about nonverbal communication and the way people say things. Jeffersonian transcription is a commonly used method of transcription and nonverbal details are often transcribed according to Mondadan conventions by Lorenza Mondada.

After transcription, the researchers perform inductive data-driven analysis aiming to find recurring patterns of interaction. Based on the analysis, the researchers identify regularities, rules or models to describe these patterns, enhancing, modifying or replacing initial hypotheses. While this kind of inductive analysis based on collections of data exhibits is basic to fundamental work in CA, it has been more common in recent years to also use statistical analysis in applications of CA to solve problems in medicine and elsewhere.

While Conversation Analysis provides a method of analysing conversation, this method is informed by an underlying theory of what features of conversation are meaningful and the meanings that are likely implied by these features. Additionally there is a body of theory about how to interpret conversation.^[12]

Basic structures

Conversation analysis provides a model that can be used to understand interactions, and offers a number of concepts to describe them. The following section contains important concepts and phenomena identified in the conversation analytical literature, and will refer to articles that are centrally concerned with the phenomenon. A conversation is viewed as a collection of turns as speaking; errors or misunderstandings in speech are addressed with repairs, and turns may be marked by the delay between them or other linguistic features.

Turn-taking organization

Main article: Turn-taking

The analysis of turn-taking started with the description in a model in the paper known as the "Simplest Systematics", which was very programmatic for the field of Conversation analysis and one of the most cited papers published in the journal Language.

The model is designed to explain that when people talk in conversation, they do not always talk all at the same time, but generally, one person speaks at a time, and then another person can follow. Such a contribution to a conversation by one speaker is then a turn. A turn is created through certain forms or units that listeners can recognize and count on, called turn construction units (TCUs), and speakers and listeners will know that such forms can be a word or a clause, and use that knowledge to predict when a speaker is finished so that others can speak, to avoid or minimize both overlap and silence. A listener will look for the places where they can start speaking - so-called transition relevant places (TRPs) - based on how the units appear over time. Turn construction units can be created or recognized via four methods, i.e. types of unit design:

• Grammatical methods, i.e. morphosyntactic structures.
• Prosodic methods, e.g. pitch, speed and changes in pronunciation.
• Pragmatic methods: turns perform actions, and at the point where listeners have heard enough and know enough, a turn can be pragmatically complete.
• Visual methods: Gesture, gaze and body movement is also used to indicate that a turn is over. For example, a person speaking looks at the next speaker when their turn is about to end.

Each time a turn is over, speakers also have to decide who can talk next, and this is called turn allocation. The rules for turn allocation is commonly formulated in the same way as in the original Simplest Systematics paper, with 2 parts where the first consists of 3 elements:

1. • a. If the current speaker selects a next one to speak at the end of current TCU (by name, gaze or contextual aspects of what is said), the selected speaker has the right and obligation to speak next.
   • b. If the current speaker does not select a next speaker, other potential speakers have the right to self-select (the first starter gets the turn)
   • c. If options 1a and 1b have not been implemented, current speaker may continue with another TCU.
2. At the end of that TCU, the option system applies again.

Based on the turn-taking system, three types of silence may be distinguished:

• Pause: A period of silence within a speaker's TCU, i.e. during a speaker's turn when a sentence is not finished.
• Gap: A period of silence between turns, for example after a question has been asked and not yet answered
• Lapse: A period of silence when no sequence or other structured activity is in progress: the current speaker stops talking, does not select a next speaker, and no one self selects. Lapses are commonly associated with visual or other forms of disengagement between speakers, even if these periods are brief.

Some types of turns may require extra work before they can successfully take place. Speakers wanting a long turn, for example to tell a story or describe important news, must first establish that others will not intervene during the course of the telling through some form of preface and approval by the listener (a so-called go-ahead). The preface and its associated go-ahead comprise a "pre-sequence".Conversations cannot be appropriately ended by 'just stopping', but require a special closing sequence.

The model also leaves puzzles to be solved, for example concerning how turn boundaries are identified and projected, and the role played by gaze and body orientation in the management of turn-taking. It also establishes some questions for other disciplines: for example, the split second timing of turn-transition sets up a cognitive 'bottle neck' problem in which potential speakers must attend to incoming speech while also preparing their own contribution - something which imposes a heavy load of human processing capacity, and which may impact the structure of languages.

However, the original formulation in Sacks et al. 1974 is designed to model turn-taking only in ordinary and informal conversation, and not interaction in more specialized, institutional environments such as meetings, courts, news interviews, mediation hearings, which have distinctive turn-taking organizations that depart in various ways from ordinary conversation. Later studies has looked at institutional interaction and turn-taking in institutional contexts.

Sequence organization

Adjacency pairs

Talk tends to occur in responsive pairs; however, the pairs may be split over a sequence of turns. Adjacency pairs divide utterance types into 'first pair parts' and 'second pair parts' to form a 'pair type'. There are many examples of adjacency pairs including Questions-Answers, Offer-Acceptance/Refusal and Compliment-Response.

Sequence expansion

Sequence expansion allows talk which is made up of more than a single adjacency pair to be constructed and understood as performing the same basic action and the various additional elements are as doing interactional work related to the basic action underway.
Sequence expansion is constructed in relation to a base sequence of a first pair part (FPP) and a second pair part (SPP) in which the core action underway is achieved. It can occur prior to the base FPP, between the base FPP and SPP, and following the base SPP.
1. Pre-expansion: an adjacency pair that may be understood as preliminary to the main course of action. A generic pre-expansion is a summon-answer adjacency pair, as in "Mary?"/ "Yes?".It is generic in the sense that it does not contribute to any particular types of base adjacency pair, such as request or suggestion. There are other types of pre-sequence that work to prepare the interlocutors for the subsequent speech action. For example, "Guess what!"/"What?" as preliminary to an announcement of some sort, or "What are you doing?"/"Nothing" as preliminary to an invitation or a request.
2. Insert expansion: an adjacency pair that comes between the FPP and SPP of the base adjacency pair. Insert expansions interrupt the activity under way, but are still relevant to that action. Insert expansion allows a possibility for a second speaker, the speaker who must produce the SPP, to do interactional work relevant to the projected SPP. An example of this would be a typical conversation between a customer and a shopkeeper:

Customer: I would like a turkey sandwich, please. (FPP base)

Server: White or wholegrain? (Insert FPP)

Customer: Wholegrain. (Insert SPP)

Server: Okay. (SPP base)

3. Post-expansion: a turn or an adjacency pair that comes after, but is still tied to, the base adjacency pair. There are two types: minimal and non-minimal. Minimal expansion is also termed sequence closing thirds, because it is a single turn after the base SPP (hence third) that does not project any further talk beyond their turn (hence closing). Examples of sequence closing thirds include "oh", "I see", "okay", etc.

4. Silence: Silence can occur throughout the entire speech act but in what context it is happening depends what the silence means. Three different assets can be implied through silence:

• Pause: A period of silence within a speaker's turn.
• Gap: A period of silence between turns.
• Lapse: A period of silence when no sequence is in progress: the current speaker stops talking, does not select a next speaker, and no one self selects. Lapses are commonly associated with visual or other forms of disengagement between speakers, even if these periods are brief.

Preference organization

CA may reveal structural (i.e. practice-underwritten) preferences in conversation for some types of actions (within sequences of action) over others, as responses in certain sequential environments. For example, responsive actions which agree with, or accept, positions taken by a first action tend to be performed more straightforwardly and faster than actions that disagree with, or decline, those positions. The former is termed a preferred turn shape, meaning the turn is not preceded by silence nor is it produced with delays, mitigation and accounts. The latter is termed a dispreferred turn shape, which describes a turn with opposite characteristics. One consequence of this is that agreement and acceptance are promoted over their alternatives, and are more likely to be the outcome of the sequence. Pre-sequences are also a component of preference organization and contribute to this outcome.

Repair

Repair organization describes how parties in conversation deal with problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding, and there are various mechanisms through which certain "troubles" in interaction are dealt with. Repair segments are classified by who initiates repair (self or other), by who resolves the problem (self or other), and by how it unfolds within a turn or a sequence of turns. The organization of repair is also a self-righting mechanism in social interaction. Participants in conversation seek to correct the trouble source by initiating and preferring self repair, the speaker of the trouble source, over other repair. Self repair initiations can be placed in three locations in relation to the trouble source, in a first turn, a transition space or in a third turn.

Action formation

Turns in interaction implement actions, and a specific turn may perform one (or more) specific actions. The study of action focuses on the description of the practices by which turns at talk are composed and positioned so as to realize one or more actions. This could include openings and closings of conversations, assessments, storytelling, and complaints. Focus is both on how those actions are formed through linguistic or other activity (the formation of action) and how they are understood (the ascription of action to turns). The study of action also concerns the ways in which the participants’ knowledge, relations, and stances towards the ongoing interactional projects are created, maintained, and negotiated, and thus the intersubjectivity of how people interact. The concept of action within CA resembles, but it different from the concept of speech act in other fields of pragmatics.

Jeffersonian transcription

Gail Jefferson developed a system of transcription while working with Harvey Sacks. In this system, speakers are introduced with a name followed by a colon, as conventionally used in scripts. It is designed to use typographical and orthographical conventions used elsewhere, rather than a strict phonetic system such as the International Phonetic Alphabet. The transcription conventions take into account overlapping speech, delays between speech, pitch, volume and speed based on research showing that these features matter for the conversation in terms of action, turn-taking and more. Transcripts are typically written in a monospaced font to ease the alignment of overlap symbols.

Partial table of annotations added in Jeffersonian Transcription

Feature	Symbol Used	Example
Very quietly spoken	°°...°°	Matt: Shoes °°I love shoes°°_
Quietly spoken	°...°	Sue: Have you had any °symptoms°,?
Loudly spoken	Capital letters	Sara: Why can't you JUST STOP?
Falling pitch	.	Fred: That's a good idea.
Unchanging (level) pitch	_	Matt: That's a good idea_
Slightly rising pitch	,	Matt: We like to shop, and to eat fish_
Intermediately rising pitch	,?	Alex: We're buying shoes,?
Rising pitch	?	Bill: Should we open the door?
Stressed syllables	Underlined letters	Dave: That is a good idea.
Absence of normal pauses	=	Lucy: Perhaps we should leave= William: =I don't think that's a good idea_
Noticeable pauses	(.)	Lucy: James (.) we need to talk.
Pauses of a specific duration	(Duration)	Lucy: James (1.0) we need to talk.
Rushed speech	><	Alex: What are you doing? Jack: >I need to buy the shoes<
Slowed speech	<>	Fred: <That's a good idea,> I think
Overlapping speech	[...]	Dave: Perhaps we should [leave.] Tom: [Go inside,?]
Prolonged sounds (non-phonemic)	:	Dave: O:h wo::w.
Creaky voice	*...*	Lucy: Do you want to talk? James: *No* (.) Sorry.

There are various transcription systems based on the jeffersonian conventions with slight differences. Galina Bolden has designed a system for transcribing Russian conversations while Samtalegrammatik.dk uses their own system for Danish. GAT2 (Gesprächsanalytisches Transskriptionssystem 2) was also designed originally for German and to systematize the way some of the prosodic features are handled. The TalkBank also has its own system designed for use with its CLAN (CHILDES Language Analyzer) software.

Different approaches

Interactional linguistics

Main article: Interactional linguistics

Interactional linguistics (IL) is Conversation analysis when the focus is on linguistic structure. While CA has worked with language in its data since the beginning, the interest in the structure of it, and possible relations to grammatical theory, was sometimes secondary to sociological (or ethnomethodological) research questions. The field developed during the 90's and got its name with the publication of the 2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics and is inspired by West Coast functional grammar which is sometimes considered to have effectively merged with IL since then, but has also gained inspiration from British phoneticians doing prosodic analysis. Levinson's former department on Language and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics has been important in connecting CA and IL with linguistic typology. Interactional linguistics has studied topics within syntax, phonetics and semantics as they related to e.g. action and turn-taking. There is a journal called Interactional Linguistics.

Discursive psychology

Main article: Discursive psychology

Discursive psychology (DP) is the use of CA on psychological themes, and studies how psychological phenomena are attended to, understood and construed in interaction. The subfield formed through studies by Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell, most notably their 1987 book Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour.

Membership categorization analysis

Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) was influenced by the work of Harvey Sacks and his work on Membership Categorization Devices (MCD). Sacks argues that members' categories comprise part of the central machinery of organization and developed the notion of MCD to explain how categories can be hearably linked together by native speakers of a culture. His example that is taken from a children's storybook (The baby cried. The mommy picked it up) shows how "mommy" is interpreted as the mother of the baby by speakers of the same culture. In light of this, categories are inference rich – a great deal of knowledge that members of a society have about the society is stored in terms of these categories. Stokoe further contends that members’ practical categorizations form part of ethnomethodology's description of the ongoing production and realization of ‘facts’ about social life and including members’ gendered reality analysis, thus making CA compatible with feminist studies.

Relations to other fields

Contrasts to other theories about language

In contrast to the research inspired by Noam Chomsky, which is based on a distinction between competence and performance and dismisses the particulars of actual speech, conversation analysis studies naturally-occurring talk and shows that spoken interaction is systematically orderly in all its facets (cf. Sacks in Atkinson and Heritage 1984: 21–27). In contrast to the theory developed by John Gumperz, CA maintains it is possible to analyze talk-in-interaction by examining its recordings alone (audio for telephone, video for copresent interaction). CA researchers do not believe that the researcher needs to consult with the talk participants or members of their speech community.

It is distinct from discourse analysis in focus and method. (i) Its focus is on processes involved in social interaction and does not include written texts or larger sociocultural phenomena (for example, 'discourses' in the Foucauldian sense). (ii) Its method, following Garfinkel and Goffman's initiatives, is aimed at determining the methods and resources that the interacting participants use and rely on to produce interactional contributions and make sense of the contributions of others. Thus CA is neither designed for, nor aimed at, examining the production of interaction from a perspective that is external to the participants' own reasoning and understanding about their circumstances and communication. Rather the aim is to model the resources and methods by which those understandings are produced.

In considering methods of qualitative analysis, Braun and Clarke distinguish thematic analysis from conversation analysis and discourse analysis, viewing thematic analysis to be theory agnostic while conversation analysis and discourse analysis are considered to be based on theories.

Application in other fields

CA is important in language revitalization. For example, according to Ghil'ad Zuckermann, Western conversational interaction is typically both "dyadic" (between two particular people, eye contact is important, the speaker controls the interaction) and "contained" (in a relatively short, defined time frame). Accordingly, if one asks a question, one expects to receive an answer immediately thereafter. On the other hand, traditional Aboriginal conversational interaction is "communal" (broadcast to many people, eye contact is not important, the listener controls the interaction) and "continuous" (spread over a longer, indefinite time frame). Accordingly, if one asks a question, one should not expect an immediate answer.