English Amy B.M. Tsui. Conversation by Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. xviii+298 pp. Reviewed by Anna M. Guthrie University of California. Los Angeles While wOTk analyzing the structures of conversation has predominantly been methodology of Conversation Analysis (hereafter called CA), which seeks to explore the interactional accomplishment of the participants carried out under the in a particular context as it develops tum-by-tum, Tsui's approach to analyzing conversation in English Conversation is one which proposes a descriptive framework for the sequential patterning of ccxiversational utterances. Based on the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) model in which interactional coherence is considered at the level of exchange structures, in particular the initiation- response-feedback (I-R-F) exchange, Tsui develops a taxonomy which both classifies utterances and predicts which classificatiwis of utterances can follow others based on and an utterance's structural location, prospective classification, (3) retrospective classification. it is Throughout the book, Tsui argues that her framework, because based on both the sequential patterns d valid and comprehensive than other conversation and linguistic features, is more ^proaches. In her Overview (Chapter Tsui discusses two different sets of units of conversational description and sequence, used in CA, and those which she favors act, move, and exchange, jH-oposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). In her arguments both against the terms used in C A and in favor of the turn, pair, Sinclair and Coulthard terms, Tsui demonstrates some misunderstanding of both frameworks, as well as a lack of understanding that the two approaches to analyzing q)eech are seeking to answer very different questicHis. Tsui's adaptation and expansion of the Sinclair and Coulthard model confuses conversation with formalized institutional talk. The Sinclair/Coulthard model, with its terms act. move, and exchange, was devetoped to describe classroom interaction, specifically, that classroom interaction which is often referred to as traditional, in which the teacher [is] at the front of the class teaching', and therefwe likely to be exerting the maximum amount of control over the structure of the discourse (Sinclair overall structure of this type of discourse is Coulthard, 1975, p. 6). The vastly different from, and certainly Issues in Applied Linguistics ISSN 1050-4273 Vol. 6 No. 2 1995 Regents of the University of California