Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation

Citation preview

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI A Bell A Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles

Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish C onversation

A dissertation subm itted in partial satisfaction of the requirem ents for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology ty

Anna Karin Benedicta Lindstrdm

1997

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 9818037

Copyright 1997 by Lindstrom, Anna Karin Benedicta All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 9818037 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. I

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI

300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

© Copyright by Anna Karin Benedicta Lindstrbm 1997

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The dissertation of Anna Karin Benedicta Lindstrom is approved.

Raim o A nttila

Steven d a y m a n

fj

A lessandro D uranti

John H eritage & \s a a

/I

tenet N drdberg d r d b Bengt

^ e r e (

Em anuel Schegloff,

University of California, Los Angeles 1997

ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures List of Tables A cknow ledgm ents V ita Publications and presentations Abstract

v ii v iii ix xi xii xv

1. Introduction 1.1. The phenom ena 1.2. M ethodological orientations 1.2.1. A sociological context 1.2.2. Conversation analysis 1.3. Preference organization 1.3.1. Preferred and dispreferred actions 1.3.2. Pre-sequences 1.4. O rganization of study N otes to chapter 1

3 7 7 12 19 19 23 27 28

2. The data 2.1. Description of data corpus 2.1.1. Ethnographic inform ation 2.1.1.1. The families th at recorded telephone conversations 2.1.1.2. The family that recorded dinner conversations 2.1.2. Recording set-up 2.1.2.1. Audio recordings 2.1.2.2. Video recording 2.1.3. Ethical concerns 2.2. Transcription 2.3. T ranslation 2.4. Sampling and quantification N otes to chapter 2

31 31 34 36 36 36 37 37 38 39 41 43

3. Marking problematidty: the or-inquiry 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Isolating the or-inquiry as a tu rn in its own right

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

44 47

3.2.1. D ifferentiating the or-inquiry from sim ilar tum constructions that have been analyzed in other language com m unities 47 3.2.2. T urn design 52 3.2.2.1 Syntax 52 3.2.2.2. D eterm ining possible com pletion points 54 3.2.2.3. Syntactic com pletion points 56 3.2.2.4. Pragm atic completion points 58 3.2.3. T urn transition between or-inquiry and next turn 59 3.2.3.1. O verlap onset at projectable com pletion of or-inquiry 60 3.2.3.2. The intonation contour at the turn boundary 62 3.2.3.3. Delayed uptake 64 3.2.4. Sequential appropriateness of activity done in next tu rn 67 3.2.5. Sequential uptake in the turn after next turn 71 3.2.6. Sum m ary 76 3.3. Swedish research on or-inquiries 76 3.4. M arking problem atidty w ith the or-inquiry 78 3.4.1. M arking problem atidty in talk-in-interaction 78 3.4.2. O r-inquiries that run counter to the preference displayed in the prior talk 80 3.4.2.1. M aking an offer that is unw arranted by the prior talk 80 3.4.2.2. Refusing to fulfill an expectation to speak on behalf of a spouse 82 3.4.2.3. Declining a request 85 3.4.2.4. Pursuing a topic that has been resisted 86 3.4.3. O r-inquiries that in and of them selves are dispreferred 90 3.4.3.1. A pre-com plaint 90 3.4.3.2. Checking w hether the red p ien t knows about an em barrassing in d d en t 92 3.4.3.3. M is-aligning w ith a troubles-telling 95 3.4.3.4. Disaligning w ith a line pursued in the previous talk 97 3.4.3.5. Form ulating something th at was conveyed in the prior talk 110 3.4.4. Sum m ary 115 3.5. Discussion 116 Notes to chapter 3 118

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

4. Acceptances and grantings of deferred action requests, invitations, and proposals 4.1. Introduction 4.1.2. Data base 4.1.3. Preview of chapter 4.2. Deferred actions 4.3. Evidence that the affirmative response token does not satisfactorily complete a claim of alignm ent with a deferred action request/proposal 4.3.1. The affirm ative response token is typically produced as a turn preface 4.3.2. W hen the affirmative response token is produced as its ow n TCU recipients still orient to the relevance of an extended turn 4.3.3. Summary 4.4. Using the affirm ative response token to claim hearing and understanding and project granting or acceptance 4.4.1. Claiming hearing and understanding 4.4.2. Projecting acceptance or granting 4.4.3. Summary 4.5. Accomplishing granting or acceptance w ith the next turn com ponent 4.5.1. Making an explicit com m itm ent to fulfill the deferred action 4.5.1.1. Displaying granting or acceptance by referring to the deferred action request, invitation, or proposal with an indexical expression 4.5.1.2. Displaying granting or acceptance by resaying action verbs from die first pair part of the base sequence 4.5.2. Initiating a new action w hich dem onstrates that the deferred action will be satisfied 4.5.3. Summary 4.6. Com pound responses in other sequentialenvironm ents 4.7. Discussion Notes to chapter 4

v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

121 123 124 125 128 129 132 141 141 141 145 151 152 152 153 157 162 165 166 171 174

5. Projecting a non-aligning responsive action with the curled ja 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Literature review 5.2.1. Dispreference m arkers and the avoidance of disagreem ent 5.2.2. Prosody and interaction 5.2.2.1.The English "w ell" 5.2.2.2. The Finnish nii 5.2.3. Swedish research 5.2.4. Summary 5.3. Non-aligning responses that are prefaced w ith a curled ja 5.3.1. Hedges 5.3.2. Pre-rejections 5.3.3. Rejections 5.3.4. Summary 5.4. Projecting a non-aligning responsive action w ith the curled ja 5.5. Addressing the inappropriateness of the prior action 5.6. Discussion Notes to chapter 5 6. Concluding discussion 6.1. Sum m ary 6.1.1. The phenom ena 6.1.2. Convergences 6.2. Contributions of study 6.3. Challenges for future research Note to chapter 6

176 183 183 186 186 197 190 190 191 192 197 199 204 204 211 222 225 226 227 230 232 235 238

Appendix T ranscription conventions

239 243

References

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5.1. The pitch contour of the curled ja

v ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UST OF TABLES Table 4.1. Deferred action FPPs

124

Table 4.2. Design of the responsive turn

132

Table 4.3. Syntactic form of the utterance that im plem ented the deferred action FPP

147

Table 5.1. Action responded to by the SPP including the curled ja

181

Table 5.2. Syntactic form of the FPP of the curled ja sequence

182

v iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS UCLA has provided a challenging and stim ulating environm ent for my work. My advisor, Emanuel Schegloff, taught me to look beyond w ords to the actions engaged in through talk-in-interaction. While gently prodding me along this o r that analytical path, he has also given me the immense privilege to make my ow n discoveries. W hat I have learned from M anny's seminars and our discussions around my m aterials I could never have learned from anybody else. Although he has not had the official capacity of main advisor, John Heritage has given m e support and guidance since my very first days at UCLA. He has read every d raft of the various chapters of this dissertation and given insightful com m ents that allowed me to sharpen my analytical focus and im prove the argum ents made. I am also grateful to the other members of my com m ittee - Raimo Anttila, Steven d aym an, A lessandro Duranti, and Bengt N ordberg - for constructive criticism and encouragem ent along the way. Fellow students have offered a supportive environm ent for trying out new ideas. Thanks especially to Elizabeth Boyd, Maria Egbert, Elizabeth Keating, Geoffrey Raymond, Jeffrey Robinson, A ndrew Roth, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. The UC Regents, Phi Beta Kappa, and the Paulson scholarship fund gave financial support for my studies. Members of the Scandinavian research com m unity invited me to

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

present my w ork and discuss it w ith them. In this regard I thank Auli H akulinen at the departm ent of Finnish at Helsingfors universitet, Per Linell at Tema K a t Linkdpings universitet, Ann-M arie Londen at Svenska social och kom m unal hogskolan at Helsingfors universitet, Bengt N ordberg at FUMS at Uppsala universitet, and Ann-M arie Sellerberg a t the departm ent of sociology at Lunds universitet. Thanks also to A nn-Christin Cederborg, Mats Eriksson, Per-Anders Forstorp, Ake H edm an, and Vesa Leppanen. My parents and brothers w ith families provided practical support during various stages of this work. I have especially appreciated my m other's outspoken support for a project that placed a physical distance betw een us. H er intelligence, compassion, and resilience continue to inspire me. I am also grateful that my father was able to see me bring this project to completion. My husband has been at my side every step of the way always encouraging me to carry on while assuming more than his fair share of the parenting responsibilites for our young daughter. Finally, I w ish to thank the families who allowed me to record their everyday lives. W ithout their participation this study w ould have been im possible.

x

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

VITA July 4,1961

Bom, U ppsala, Sweden

1986

B.A. Cum laude, Journalism , San Diego State U niversity

1987-1989

Teaching A ssistant D epartm ent of Speech C om m unication San Diego State U niversity San Diego, California

1989

M.A., Speech C om m unication San Diego State U niversity San Diego, California

1989-1992

Research A ssistant D epartm ent of Sociology U niversity of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

1990

Teaching A ssociate C om m unication Studies Program U niversity of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

1991

Teaching Associate D epartm ent of Sociology U niversity of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

1992

M.A., Sociology U niversity of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1992-1994

Research Assistant D epartm ent of Sociology U niversity of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

1994

Teaching Associate D epartm ent of Sociology U niversity of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

1995

C andidate in Philosophy, Sociology U niversity of California, Los A ngeles Los Angeles, California

1997

Research Associate A vdelningen fdr Forskning och U tbildning i M odem Svenska U ppsala U niversitet Uppsala, Sweden PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Lindstrdm, A., & Samovar, L. A. (Professor of Speech Communication) (1989). Inter cultural perspectives on love. Paper presented at the annual convention of the W estern Speech Communication Association, Spokane, WA. LindstrcJm, A., & A ndersen, P. A. (Professor of Speech Communication) (1989). Intercultural com m unication research: A Swedish perspective. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Com m unication Association, San Francisco, CA. Linds trdm, A. (1992). '7a hei du:. (.) De e Lingren, "Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Pacific Sociological Association, O akland, CA. Lindstrdm, A. (1993). Accounting for m isunderstandings. Paper presented

xii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

at the XIVth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics and the VHIth Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, Goteborg, Sweden, A ugust 16-21. Lindstrbm , A. (1993). Olika form er av alter-initierade reparationer i vardagliga sam tal. Paper presented at the annual convention of Omr&desgruppen fbr Tal och Interaktion (OFTI), Uppsala, Sweden, Septem ber 23-24. Heritage, J. (Professor of Sociology) & Lindstrbm, A. (1994). AdviceGiving: Term inable and Interm inable. Paper presented at the annual m eeting of the W estern Speech Com m unication Association, San Jose, CA, February 26. Lindstrbm , A. (1994). Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Language in Society, 23 (2), 231-52. Lindstrbm , A. (1994). When "ves" m eans ,,no’': An analysis of a dispreferred response form at in Swedish conversation. Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Anthropology A ssociation, A tlanta, GA, November 30 - December 4. Lindstrbm , A. (1994). W hen "ves” m eans "no": The curled ia as a preface to a dispreferred second pair part in Swedish conversation. Paper presented at the 13th W orld Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany, July 18-23. Lindstrbm , A. (1995). Addressing relevance in talk-in-interaction: The case of the Swedish "or"-constructed inquiry. Paper presented at the Am erican Sociological Association M eetings, W ashington D.C., A ugust 19-23. Lindstrbm , A. (1995). "Or"-Constructed Inquiries as a Resource for Probing the Relevance of Prior Talk in Swedish Conversation. Paper presented at the Georgetown Linguistics Society Conference, Georgetow n University, W ashington D.C., February 17-19. Lindstrbm , A. (1996). Den sodala konstruktionen av solidaritet ru n t m iddagsbordet. In M. Thelander et al. (Eds.), Samspel & variation: Spr&kliga studier tillagnade Bengt N ordberg p i 60-Arsdagen (pp. 271-278). Institutionen fbr N ordiska SprAk. U ppsala Universitet: Uppsala.

xm

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Lindstrdm, A. (1997). Conversations in the Sw edish home help service: Presentation of a research project Paper presented at the annual convention of Qmr&desgruppen fdr Tal och Interaktion (OFI'l), Uppsala, Sweden, September 25-26. Lindstrdm, A. (1997). Instructions and the negotiation of help in interactions betw een home helpers and elderly help recipients. Paper presented a t the annual convention of the Association Su€doise de Linguistique A ppliquee, Linkoping, Sweden, November 6-7.

xiv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION D esigning Social Actions: G ram m ar, Prosody, and Interaction in Sw edish Conversation

A nna K arin Benedicta Lindstrdm D octor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Los Angeles, 1997 Professor Em anuel Schegloff, Chair This study contributes to a larger research program that links gram m ar and prosody on the one hand w ith talk-in-interaction on the other. One of the underlying assum ptions of this study is that language is key to the organization of social action. Language both shapes and is shaped by the fact th at it is used by interactants to engage in a range of social activities. Seen from this perspective, gram m ar and prosody are im portant resources for both the production and understanding of social action. The data for this study consists of recordings of naturally occurring m undane Swedish conversation. Using conversation analysis, I describe and analyze the interactants' orientations as displayed through their tum s-as-talk. Three phenom ena are introduced th at can be identified by and are constituted through aspects of gram m ar or prosody. The first of these is the "orinquiry." This is a "yes"/"n o" question that ends w ith the Swedish conjunction eller [or]. I argue th at this syntactic construction is not the

xv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

product of a speech error b u t designed for the social activity of marking the action the turn otherw ise engages in as problem atic. Second, I examine the sequential environm ent of deferred action requests, invitations, and proposals. A deferred action is one that cannot be immediately satisfied. I dem onstrate that an affirm ative response token is insufficient to agree w ith or accept a deferred action request, invitation, or proposal. An additional unit of talk is required w here the recipient m akes a commitment to satisfy the deferred action in the future. Third, I focus on a prosodic variant of the Swedish affirm ative response token ja. I show that w hen ja is produced w ith a stretch and rising pitch contour in the turn-initial position of a responsive action it projects dis-alignm ent. That the curled ja projects b u t does n ot im plem ent dis-alignm ent provides a resource for the interactional negotiation of alignm ent or agreem ent. A lthough this study is based on Swedish conversation, its findings may have relevance beyond the boundaries of the Swedish language communities. This is especially the case for the or-inquiry where I show candidate instances of the same phenom ena in such diverse languages as A m erican English, Finnish, and Japanese.

xvi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1. INTRODUCTION This dissertation focusses on the intersections between gram m ar, prosody, and interaction. Using recordings of naturally occurring Swedish conversation, I describe how interactants use gram m ar and prosody to achieve social activities. Instead of treating language as a neutral conduit between speakers and hearers, I view it as a tool for engaging in social life. Linguistic resources such as grammar and prosody are thus put to w ork w ithin interaction. A particular syntactic construction or prosodic contour is not happenstance b u t designed for the construction of social action. This does not necessarily m ean that the interactants have a discursive consciousness of this process. That aspects of syntax and prosody are key to the im plem entation of a social activity is evident in the interaction itself. Activities are built in and through talk.1 This dissertation explicates how this is done by focussing on how grammar and prosody both organizes and is organized by interaction. This study builds on and contributes to research that links gram m ar and prosody on the one hand with interaction on the other (c.f. Ochs, Schegloff, & Thom pson, 1996; Couper-Kuhlen & Setting, 1996). Focussing on grammar, Schegloff, Ochs, & Thompson (1996) argued that the study of interaction is vital for understanding gram m ar. This is so because "gram m ar's integrity and efficacy are bound up w ith its place in larger

1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

schemes of organization of hum an conduct and with social interaction in particular7' (p. 3). One m ight even argue that grammar em erges from and is shaped by interaction (c.f. Schegloff, 1996, p. 54-55). This idea w ill be explored in chapters three and four w here I will show that particular syntactic constructions are associated w ith and perhaps even designed for the accom plishm ent of social activities. Couper-Kuhlen and Selting m ade a case for the benefits of linking prosody and interaction. They argued that prosodic features can be reconstructed as members' devices, designed for the organization and m anagem ent of talk in social interaction. They can be shown to function as p art of a signalling system w hich together w ith syntax, lexico-semantics, kinesics and other contextualization cues - is used to construct and interpret tum constructional units and tum s-at-talk (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting p. 25; c.f. Selting 1992,1995). Assum ing a more radical position, G um perz proposed that "only through prosody do sentences become turns a t speaking and come to be seen as actions perform ed by living actors" (1996, p. x). Chapter five exemplifies the interactional significance of prosody by dem onstrating that a prosodic variant of the Swedish affirm ative response token ja can be used to project disalignm ent. In this case then w e have a prosodic realization w ith an interactional m eaning that stands in stark contrast with the traditionally assigned lexico-semantic m eaning of a w ord.

2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1.1. The phenomena The relationship betw een gram m ar, prosody, and interaction will be explored through detailed analysis of three distinct phenom ena that can be identified by and is organized through aspects of gram m ar or prosody. The first of these is the "or-inquiry." This is a "yes"/"no" question that ends w ith the Sw edish conjunction e lle r [or]. I will argue that this syntactic construction is used to m ark the action the turn otherw ise engages in as problem atic. Second, I focus on the sequential environm ent of deferred action requests and related proposals. A deferred action request or proposal is one th at cannot be im m ediately satisfied. I will dem onstrate that an affirm ative response token is insufficient to agree w ith or accept a deferred action request or proposal. A n additional unit of talk is required where the recipient makes a commitment to satisfy the deferred action. H ere then, the syntactic construction of the turn is m otivated by interactional concerns. Third, I explore how recipients can project disalignment. I focus on a prosodic variant of the Swedish response token ja. I argue that w hen ja is produced w ith a stretch and rising pitch contour in the turn-initial position of a responsive action it is understood to project disalignm ent. Example 1 is a transcription of a recording of a telephone conversation betw een two friends.2 The arrow ed turns show each of the phenom ena that will be explored in the dissertation.

3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

#1 ULLERAk e r [MOL:l:A:2:174] Anita and Vera attended medical school together. Both women interrupted their medical training to have children. "Schooling", first mentioned in line 10 refers to the process of gradually getting the children accustomed to institutional day care (this requires that at least one parent be present). UllerAker, mentioned in line 18 is a mental hospital. 01

A:

02

•Borru ja tankte bora ifall ni ville ba en •Listen I thought hear in case you wanted have a Listen I was going to ask if you wanted to be liten pAhalsninal* little visit paid a visit*

03

V: ->fJa: de vill vi garna?f fYes that want we gladlyt Yes we would love to

04

A:

Utav mej A ba:rnend From me and the children By me and the children

05

V:

Ja::: jattegasrna? Yes very gladly Yes really

06

A:

I veckani In the week This week

07

V: -> 'hb Ja:± (.) de e lite kSrvt ((smilevoice)) ‘hh Ja.w (.) 't’s little difficult Ja:± it's a little difficult

08

09

10

->men de- vi ska se vicken da bade ’ru tankt dA, but 't- we will see which day had 'you thought then but it- so which day had you thought of A:

Nej ja bar inte tSnkt nAnting for nMsta vecka No I had not thought anything cause next week No I hadn't thought anything it's just that I begin b&rjar ja sko:la in dom, begin I school in them schooling them next week

4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

11

V:

12

A

13

A

16

V:

A:

19

)

Ja ja ska borja jobba i September tredje Yes I will begin working in September third Yes I'll start to work in September the third

Tredje September aba? pt Third September aba pt The third of September aba

pt

Si att ja ska borja skoila in dom, So that I will begin school in them So that I will begin schooling them [(de qor ja nasta vecka) [(that do I next week) I'll do that next week

17

18

[(

September. September of September

14

15

pt hh Ska' ru [borja iobbai pt'hh Hill’you [begin working Are you gonna start working

V : ->[Ska'ru jobba pi Ulleriker elleri [Will'you work at UllerAker or Are you going to work at Ulleriker or A : Jas, Yes

20

V:

‘Pi: vicken avdelning-* On which department At which department

21

A:

Ja de vet ja inte nu, Yes that know I not now Well I don't know that at the moment

22

V:

h'[ne0 ‘h*[no*

23

A:

24

V:

[J a bar fdrtrSngt de [hh, [I have repressed it [hh [Du bar f&rtr- beh beb [You have repr- heh heh

5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

[beb [heh

25

A:

26 27

28

[*heh heh*

V:

hh Men Anita du bar vari henma lange ocksA hh But Anita you have been home long also But Anita you have been home for a long time as well val right haven't you

This spate of talk will be analyzed later. For now I just w ant to point to the three phenom ena that will be explored in the dissertation. Vera accepts A nita's deferred action proposal to come visit in line 3. The accepting tu rn is com posed of tw o units, an affirm ative response token ja and an explicit acceptance de vill vi gtirna. The use of this syntactic construction in this sequential context will be discussed further in chapter four. Anita suggests a time for the prospective visit in line 6. Vera responds to this suggestion w ith a tu rn that is prefaced by the affirm ative token ja produced w ith a slight stretch and gradual rise in pitch. This is an example of w hat I w ill call a curled ja. I will argue that the curled ja projects a disaligning responsive action. It w ill be examined in chapter five. Finally, Vera's or-inquiry in line 18 pursues talk about A nita's new job. This is a topic that Anita has resisted in the im m ediately preceeding talk. To pursue this topic in spite of A nita's resistance is problem atic and this is m arked w ith "or." The or-inquiry w ill be explored further in chapter three.

6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1.2. M ethodological orientation3 This study draws on w ork in sociology, linguistics, and anthropology that has show n that language is not merely a referential object but also, and perhaps m ore im portantly, a tool for engaging in social action (Austin, 1962; Garfinkel, 1967; Goodwin, 1979,1981; Halliday, 1985; Labov & Fanshel, 1977; M oerman, 1988; Sacks, 1963; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 1968; Searle, 1969). The methodological orientation of the study is conversation analysis (hereafter abbreviated as CA). There are numerous introductions to CA (c.f. Goodwin & Heritage, 1990; H eritage, 1984b; H eritage, 1988; Levinson, 1983; Sacks, 1992; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 1968,1995; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, Zim m erm an, 1988). Before review ing some of the m ethodological assum ptions of CA, I will briefly situate CA w ithin a sociological context that is relevant for the analysis presented in this study.4 1.2.1. A sociological context CA was developed at a tim e w hen prevailing sociological methods for understanding the social w orld were being questioned. Two central figures in this context were H arold Garfinkel and Erving Goffman. During the 1960's H arold Garfinkel im plem ented a range of studies that form the foundation of ethnom ethodology (Garfinkel, 1963,1967). Garfinkel described ethnom ethodology as studies of practical activities, of common-

7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

sense know ledge, and of practical organizational reasoning (Garfinkel, 1974, p. 18). Ethnom ethodological ideas and assum ptions have clearly im pacted and continue to im pact CA. However as these ideas are not central to an understanding of the work presented in this dissertation they will not be discussed here (for discussion of the complex relationship between ethnom ethodology and CA see d ay m an & M aynard, 1995; Garfinkel, 1988; Goodwin & H eritage, 1990; Heritage, 1984b, 1987,1995; M aynard & daym an , 1991; Pollner, 1991; and Schegloff, 1992b). The w ork of Erving Goffman on the other hand, and in particular his developm ent of the notion of "face", touch on issues explored in the study at hand. Erving Goffman has been characterized as one of the leading sociological w riters of the post-war period" (Giddens, 1988, p. 250).5 His legacy w as the introduction and developm ent of the interaction order as a self-subsisting norm ative field of sociological inquiry. As one of his students rem arked, in registering certain events and aspects of events as w orthy of notice and available to acute and penetrating interpretation. Goffman m aterialized alm ost out of thin air the realization that there was a subject m atter there to study. One is tem pted to say that he rehabilitated a field, except that he seemed actually to have habilitated it (Schegloff, 1988a, p. 90). O ther scholars had examined interaction, b ut they had largely treated it as a secondary or interm ediary variable. Consider for example, Bales Interaction

8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Process Analysis, one of the m ost widely used approaches for the study of interaction the 1950's (Kendon, 1990). A lthough this approach entailed detailed observations of face-to-face interactions for the purpose of fitting them w ithin an elaborate coding scheme, the primary objective was to use interaction as an index of such "macro" -sociological variables such as power, status, and influence. Goffman criticized these kinds of approaches for treating the social situation in a "m ost happy-go-lucky-way" and argued for the need to study interaction as a phenom enon in its own right: your social situation is not your country cousin. It can be argued that social situations, at least in our society, constitute a reality sui generis as He used to say, and therefore need and w arrant analysis in their ow n right, m uch like that accorded other forms of social organization. (Goffman, 1964, p. 61) 6 At the end of his career, Goffman described his concerns as that of "prom oting acceptance of this face-to-face dom ain as an analytically viable one - a dom ain which might be titled, for w ant of any happy nam e, the interaction order —a domain whose preferred method of study is microanalysis" (Goffman, 1983, p. 2). Goffman introduced his m ost critical concepts for the study of interaction in his (1955) essay "On Face-Work". He argued that interactants "tend to act out w hat is sometimes called a lin e —that is, a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he [sic] expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself" (1967

9

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

[1955], p. 5). Goffman underscored that w hether we intend this or not we w ill be understood to have taken a line through the actions w e engage in. O ur actions are thus unavoidably m eaningful. "We are condem ned to m eaning" in M erleau-Ponty's w ords. Closely connected w ith the idea of a line is the notion of "face," that is "the positive social value that a person effectively claims for him self by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact'' (1967 [1955], p. 5). Goffman argued that in the final analysis, a person's social face is not created and sustained from w ithin b u t rather granted o r w ithheld from w ithout, by fellow interactants. Thus, w hile his social face can be his m ost personal possession and the center of his security and pleasure, it is only on loan to him from society, it will be w ithdraw n unless he conducts himself in a way that is w orthy of it. Approved attributes and their relation to face make of every m an his own jailer, this is a fundam ental social constraint even though each man may like his cell. (1967 [1955], p. 10) In order to protect their own face as w ell as the faces of others, persons engage in face-work. Goffman differentiated between two basic kinds of face-work: one entailing the avoidance of situations which m ay pose a threat to face, and the other involving an interchange that Goffman alleged w ould restore "the ritual equilibrium " after a threat to face had occurred. The em phasis on ritual stems from the fact that Goffman thought of face as a "sacred th in g ."

10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Goffman suggested th at interactants conscientiously orient to face in spoken interaction, thereby lending interaction some of its organized quality. The notion of face thus em erges as both a m otivating and organizing force in social encounters. The socialized interactant com es to handle spoken interaction as he w ould any other kind as som ething that must be pursued w ith ritual care. By repeatedly and autom atically asking himself the question, "If I do or do not act in this way, will I or the others lose face?" he decides at each m oment, consciously or unconsciously, how to behave. (1967 [1955], p. 36) In contrast w ith Goffman, CA has not, on the whole, afforded as much significance to face and face-work. W hen face is alluded to in CA w ritings the exact character of the connection between face and interaction is usually not specified. In introducing CA notions of preference, H eritage (1984b) w rote that that "plainly issues of 'face' (Goffman, 1955; Brown and Levinson, 1978) are closely associated w ith our maintenance of the relevant form s and observances" (p. 268). However, he did not go on to discuss particular sequence of interaction by reference to face concerns. O ne reason w hy face does not figure as prom inently w ithin CA is that it is difficult to dem onstrate that participant orient to the preservation of face w ithout m aking reference to social psychology and intentionality. Schegloff suggested th at "ordinary conversational data, or data on other form s of talkin-interaction, do not have (in my experience) the elaborate apparatus of

11

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ritual face restoration in the afterm ath of troubled talk which is the m ain focus of Goffman's treatment" (Schegloff, 1988a, p. 97). Face may not be dem onstrably oriented to in interaction in the way that other phenom ena that have been investigated w ithin CA, such as the rules for turn-taking, are. Indeed, the most ambitious developm ent of Goffman's analysis of face was not based on recordings of actual interaction but on native speaker's intuitions of language use (Brown & Levinson, 1978). In chapter three, I will return to the limitations of face as an analytical resource for understanding the organization of talk-in-interaction. Goffman cultivated a fertile environm ent for the developm ent of CA and m any of his ideas are fruitfully utilized and explored in CA studies. W hat follows is by no means a review of the methodological assum ptions and w ays of working w ithin CA. Instead I will briefly discuss some issues that are relevant for understanding the analysis of the three phenom ena that w ill be introduced in chapters three through five. Furtherm ore, as is the case w ith m ost prolific research disciplines, there are m ultiple ways of w orking w ithin CA with different research emphases, analytical orientations, and agendas. These are some ideas that have guided m y own w ork. 1.2.2. Conversation analysis Unlike Goffman, conversation analysts use recordings of interaction as

12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

data. Contrasting the work of CA w ith that of "macro” sociology Sacks, (1984 [1967]) stated that "whatever humans do can be examined to discover some way they do it, and that way will be stably describable. That is, we may alternatively take it that there is order at all points" (p. 22). Through analyses of actual instances of social interaction, conversation analysts set out to describe how the rules of ordinary conduct are visible in the interactant’s displayed orientations w ithin those interactions (cf. Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 290). In the first published CA paper, Schegloff (1968) dem onstrated the rules for the sequencing of telephone conversation openings. Schegloff showed how the participants' orientations to these rules w ere visible w ithin their conduct (particularly their turns at talk). CAists view rules as resources for both the recognition and production of social action. "Participants use their ability to recognize an underlying pattern as a resource for the accomplishment of that very same activity" (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1992, p. 172). A central resource for understanding the action engaged in w ith any utterance is its context, particularly its sequential context. "Every utterance is nailed into its very place. Participants found its sequential intelligibility there; and there the analyst m ust discuss it" (Moerman, 1988, p. 69; see also Schegloff, 1997). Each utterance is doubly contextual in that it both is shaped by w hat preceeded it and shapes w hat follows it. How utterances are

13

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

context-shaped and context-renew ing (Heritage, 1984b, p. 242) is shown in the exam ple below taken from a Swedish telephone conversation betw een H enrik and his m aternal grandm other (m o r m o r ). #2 (Lindstrom, 1994) A denotes answerer (Henrik) and C denotes caller (mormor). 0

Telephone Summons

1

A:

Hej de eBe:nri:k, Hi 't 's Henrik

2

C:

Ja hej de va mormosr? Yes hi 't was (maternal) grandmother

3

A:

Hej, Hi

H enrik's utterance in line 1 is context-shaped. It is offered after a telephone summ ons. Although it takes the form of a greeting it is not heard as such bu t as a response to sum m ons (Schegloff, 1968, 1979, 1986). The immediate context of H enrik's turn in line 1, i.e. that it is issued in response to a summ ons, thus shapes its m eaning. This analysis is supported by H enrik's greeting in line 3 which w ould have been redundant if H enrik's utterance in line 1 had been a greeting. H enrik's turn in line 1 is also contextrenew ing in that it in turn provides a context for M orm or's ensuing action. His self-identification m akes relevant recognition. M orm or displays recognition by greeting H enrik and by identifying herself w ith a relational term th at is recipient designed for her grandson (line 2).

14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The centrality of sequential context does not mean that the analyst only can describe an utterance in terms of w hat the recipient made of i t While recipient uptake certainly figures heavily in the analyst's description of the action engaged in w ith any utterance, the analyst is not restricted to the recipient's displayed understanding(s). W orking w ith collections of m ultiple instances of a phenomenon, the analyst strives to provide a description of how a particular action is accomplished. As my analysis w ill show this description is not always dependent upon and must not always converge w ith the understanding displayed by the recipient (c.f. chapter 5, examples #10 and #12). However w hen there is a divergence between the analyst's description of an utterance and a recipient's situated understanding of it, an effort is made to try to explicate how the recipient came to understand the utterance in just th at way. Furtherm ore, w hen m is­ understandings do occur, they may be explicitly addressed by the interactants themselves. Discusssing this idea in relation to adjacency pairs or paired actions, Schegloff and Sacks (1973) noted that by virtue of the occurrence of an adjacently produced second, the doer of a first can see that w hat he intended w as indeed understood and that it was or w as not accepted. Also, of course a second can assert his failure to understand, or disagreement, and, inspection of a second by a first can allow the first speaker to see that w hile the second thought he understood, indeed he m isunderstood. It is then through the use of adjacent positioning that appreciations, failures, corrections, et cetera can them selves be understandably attem pted, (p. 297-298)

15

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Heritage (1984b) referred to this intrinsic proof procedure as "an architecture of intersubjectivity" (p. 254 ff). Sacks spoke of interaction as the product of a "machinery" (Sacks, 1984 [19xx]). This m ethaphor may be heard to connote the idea of an interactional straight-jacket that prevents the individual interactant from shaping h er social world. However this w ould be a m isinterpretation of Sacks who encouraged his students to appreciate a sequence "as a series of moves am ong the potential (emphasis added) series of moves that are otherwise to be actualized from some people" (Sacks, 1992 [1970], p. 169).7 Furtherm ore it should be em phasized that "each utterance can only invite or try to avoid - but never require or guarantee - some next utterance" (Moerman, 1988, p. 46). In describing the different action trajectories that individual utterances can and do engender, CA reveal the choices available to us. "W hat is at stake is the existence of a form of social organization which is so strong and detailed as to render choices among courses of action both conceivable and possible" (Heritage, 1984b, p. 292). Finally, as argued earlier, w hat an utterance am ounts to as an action is not up to the individual speaker or recipient b u t negotiated between the tw o (c.f. Schegloff, 1992b). CA has proven to be a highly cum ulative research paradigm . Heritage observed th at "during the past fifteen years or so, many hundreds of

16

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

detailed studies have been developed using this technology in a num ber of countries. This w idespread use of CA techniques testifies to their transportability both w ithin and across national boundaries" (1990, p.41).8 W ithin CA there is a com m itm ent to work inductively from the data. Sacks stated that "when we start out w ith a piece of data, the question of w hat we are going to end up w ith, w hat kind of findings it will give should not be a consideration" (1984 [196x], p. 27). Since the bulk of CA observations has been developed from analysis of British and American English language materials the inductive approach is particularly im portant for studies such as this one which is based on analysis of nonEnglish data.9 Otherwise, we m ight create a hegemonic situation where the structures that have been found to be relevant in English m aterials are invoked for non-English m aterials where they may not be relevant. In my own work I started out by undertaking to explore Swedish m aterials so as to docum ent earlier findings made on English language m aterials (Lindstrbm, 1991, 1994).10 My work was then redirected to be grounded in observations m ade on Swedish materials in the first instance, so that the analysis could be m ade responsible to issues and practices indigenous to Swedish language, interaction, and culture, and not im ported from other, non-indigenous domains. In as m uch as it was possible I thus approached my m aterials w ith an open m ind set.111 was not

17

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

p u t u n d er any obligation to have a single overarching topic or theme for the dissertation, nor did I im pose it upon myself. T hat way, the analysis could develop under the discipline of the data and the analytical requirem ents of describing the phenom ena I was trying to track, to the m axim um degree possible. The three phenom ena explored in the dissertation did therefore not spring out of extensive review s of earlier CA literature nor were they the result of some grand hypotheses. I started to notice the curled ja as I w as working with a fellow graduate student on a collection of instances of other-initiated repair (c.f. Lindstrdm , 1993a, 1993b).12 My first observations on the or-inquiry w ere w ritten up in a footnote in a draft of a paper on the curled ja. The analysis of aligning responses of deferred action requests and proposal also had its origins in my w ork on the curled ja. H aving found an association betw een the curled ja and disalignm ent I decided th at it w ould be interesting to build a contrasting collection that show ed how alignm ent w as done. I thus started a broad collection of y es/n o questions and w ithin this collection I found the organization of aligning responses to deferred actions and proposals that I describe and analyze in chapter four. There are nonetheless convergences betw een the chapters. One of these has to do w ith the organization of preference.13 The or-inquiry im plem ents a dispreferred initiating action. The chapter on aligning responses to

18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

deferred actions and proposals shows how preferred responsive actions can be done. A brief preview of how the notion of preference is used in CA and some of the practices associated w ith preference is thus in order. 13. Preference organization In the CA literature, preference does n o t refer to the desires of the speaker. Rather, it is lodged in sequence construction and the sequential properties of turns (Schegloff, 1988b, p. 445).14 There are at least tw o usages of preference in CA and they are not m utually exclusive. On the one hand, preference can be understood as a property o f a sequence type. A first pair p art can be heard to be built to prefer a particular second pair part. I w ill prim arily em ploy this sense of preference in the chapter on or-inquiries as I w ill suggest that the turn-final "or" relaxes th e preference structure of the turn so as to allow for the possibility of a "no"-type response. On the other hand, preference can be understood "as a property of the participants' way of doing or enacting a responsive action" (Schegloff, 1988b, p. 453). This usage will be relevant for the analysis of acceptances and grantings of deferred action requests and related proposals in chapter four and the curled ja in chapter five.15 13.1. Preferred and dispreferred actions CA research has show n that preferred and dispreferred actions are done differently (Davidson, 1984; Drew, 1984; H eritage 1984b, 1988; Levinson,

19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1983; Pom erantz, 1975,1978,1984; Sacks, 1987 [1973J, Schegloff, 1988b, 1995) Preferred responses are typically produced w ithout delay. Consider the follow ing example. #3 BIRTHDAY WISHES Ullas is calling her daughter Rut's home to wish her grand-daughter (Rut's daughter) Malena a happy birthday. Malena is not home. 25

Rut:

26

Ulla:

27

28

Ja:±'r&, Yes then Mat da kan val halsa till Malena att ja har ringt Mm: you can vSl tell to Malena that I have called Mm: tell Malena that I have called d£, then

Rut: ->Ja: deska ja gora,((creaky voice)) Yes that will I do Yes I'll do that

Ulla is asking that Rut convey to her daughter that she had called in lines 26-27. R ut grants this request in line 23. The design of her preferred response will be discussed in chapter five. H ere I just w ant to notice that it is produced w ithout delay after the com pletion of Ulla's request. D ispreferred responses by contrast are delayed, mitigated, and accom panied by hedges and accounts. M alena's rejection of Lisa's invitation to go swim m ing in the next example shows some of the typical features of a dispreferred response. #4 GOING SWIMMING 15

M:

Ja Yes

20

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

16 L:

17 18

(

) Ja tankte hora om da ville simma me mei? I thought hear if you wanted to swim with me I was gonna ask if you wanted to swim with me

((laughter)) H: ->Nu:? Now

19 L:

Jasi Yes ->(.)

20

21

M: - > mNej de vill ja inte ida:'. No that want I not today No I don't want to today

22

H: ->Menja vill gasrna de sen. But I would gladly that later But I would love to do it later

23

li•

Ja, Yes

24

M: ->Nin annan da:. Some other day

25

L: Ja de vaYes 't wa-

26

M: ->Fast ja kom just hem innanfor dorrene But I came just home inside thedoor am so But I just came home I am so

27

~>hunari si ja hAller pA A

hungry so I am hungry I am dying

sA

do:r,

on to die

28

L: Jajaja. Yesyesyes

29

M: Mm:

30

L: Ja nej men de f&rstAtr ja ju sA att- de var Yes no but that understand I ju so that- it was Yes well I understand that so that- it was

21

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

31

32

darfor ja ringde tidigare d£, therefore I called earlier then because of that I called earlier see M:

Ja:? Yes

Lena invites Malena to go swimm ing in line 16. M alena's declination is delayed by an insertion-sequence (lines 18-19) and a pause (line 20). The declination itself is qualified ("I d o n 't w ant to today but I would love to do it later some other day"). Furtherm ore it is follow ed by an account for why M alena can not accept the invitation ("I just came home I am so hungry I am dying"). This is an ability account (Labov & Fanshel, 1977) that is no­ fault (Heritage, 1988). T hat is, rather than em phasizing that she does not w an t to go swimming, M alena cites a physical need that presumably is beyond h er control as the reason why she can n o t go swimming. That dispreferred responses are delayed and are accom panied by prefaces furnishes a resource for recipients as this allow s them to reshape their actions so as to avert a projected non-alignm ent. How this is accomplished w ill be explored in chapter five. Preference issues are not m erely oriented to in responsive actions. As chapter three will dem onstrate, they can be addressed w ithin the first pair p art (hereafter abbreviated as FPP) itself. Indeed w e may need to back up before the production of the FPP to properly understand how preference

22

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

comes in to play for a particular sequence. 1 3 2 Pre-sequences Analyses of American and British English data have established that pre-expansions can be used to maximize the possibility of a preferred response to a base sequence (Schegloff, 1980,1988c). Example 5 show s a pre­ request (iine 2) that is m et w ith a go-ahead response (line 4). #5 CLOTHES LINE (GRU6:B:1:5) Rut: is calling her adult daughter Malena who lives with her parents. The transcript begins after Rut has selfidentified with “de e din mamma”. 01

02

M:

R: -> 'hh Va got du d£, 'hh What do you then 'hh What are you doing

03 04

05

Bej, Hi

then

(0.8) M: ~>Inget sarski:lt hh,((breathy)) Nothing special hh R:

Nehej 'hh vet du va ja fr£- ville Nehej 'hh know you what I as- wanted I see 'hh listen I ask- wanted

06

att du skulle g£ ut £ ta uit in that you should go out and take out in that you'd go out and take out- in

07

tvMtten som hanger ba:ksidan 'hh the laundry that hangs backside ‘hh tha laundry that hangs in the backyard ‘hh

After M alena has returned her m other's greeting and thereby claim ed recognition (Schegloff, 1968,1977, 1986; for Swedish, Lindstrom, 1994), Rut initiates a pre-sequence (line 2). As a question asked in its ow n right Rut's

23

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

question w ould make relevant a description of M alena's current activities. As a first pair part of a pre-sequence, on the other hand, it probes M alena's availability to engage in a prospective action. M alena's response, [nothing special], is compatible w ith treating R ut's question as prelim inary by refraining from providing a description of M alena's current activities. The response promotes the base sequence by suggesting that M alena's current activities are unim portant and, by im plication easily abandoned. Rut initially receipts M alena's reply w ith an acknowledgment n e h ej. Had Rut's question in line 2 been asked in its ow n right this acknowledgment w ould be adequate uptake and tum -transfer w ould be relevant. By not claiming the floor at the transition relevance place (hereafter abbreviated as TRP) after n e h e j Malena shows that she is expecting more talk from Rut. Once again she is thus displaying an orientation to the fact that the question in line 2 was issued on behalf of another prospective action. Subsequently Rut begins to articulate the base pair part, a request that Malena bring in some laundry from the clothes line (lines 5-7). How pre-sequences maximize the possibility of a preferred response to the base sequence is more evident in instances where the first pair p art of the prelim inary gets a hedging or a blocking response. This is because hedging and blocking responses can alter the shape of the base first pair part or prevent its production altogether (Schegloff, 1980). Example 6 shows a

24

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

pre-invitation that is met w ith a hedging response. #6 FRIDAY RIDING (VATll:A:17:373) Ylva's daughter Lotta takes riding lessons from Liv. 04

L: ->

05

[Ja. Precis. El- jobbar Lotta Yes Precisely El- work Lotta Yes Exactly El- does Lotta work

->pA fre:dan

nAl

on the friday some on friday at all 06

Y:

07

L: ->Jobbar Lotta pA fre:dan£ Works Lotta on the friday Does Lotta work on friday

08

Y:

Nu: pA fretdan, Now on the friday This friday

09

L:

Mm, (1. 6)

10

11

Va, What

Y:

12

13 Y:

Mm mm mm am mm ((humming)) (0.2) ->Hon hade fAtt en

(da) men ja vet

inte hur

She has got one day but I know not how She has one day off but I don't know how 14

->hon jobbar (

)

she works 15 L:

pt Annars- vi ska risda klockan ett pA pt Otherwise- we will ride clock one on pt Otherwise- we'll ride at one on

16

fresdan

(.) nAra stycken jatg A

hhh

the friday (.) some pieces I and 'hhh friday (.) a few of us I and *hhh

25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

17

Li- Lisa Backlund 4 Li- Lisa Backlund and Li- Lisa Backlund and

18

risda om hon vill. ride if she wants ride if she'd like to

n4ra s4 d4 kan hon £4 some sothen can she may some others so then she can

Liv's question in lines 4-5 [does Lotta work on friday a t all] is a preliminary to her invitation to Ylva's daughter to join a riding group in lines 15-18. The prelim inary is initially m et w ith an other-initiated repair (line 6). H aving clarified the exact day that Liv is referring to Ylva shows herself to be "doing thinking" by hum m ing in line 11. She then offers a hedging response [she has one day off b u t I d o n 't know how she works]. The first pair p art of Liv's invitation sequence is fitted to the hedging response to the pre-sequence. Specifically, the turn-initial [otherwise] allows for the possibility that Lotta m ight no t be able to accept the invitation. This study contributes to w ork on preference organization by focussing on how both the first and second pair part of an action sequence are shaped by and shape preference structure. The or-inquiry shows how preference considerations can be addressed w ithin the first pair p art of a sequence. The analysis of acceptances and grantings of deferred actions shows that how alignm ent is accom plished m ay depend on w hether the action that is being responded to can be im m ediately satisfied. Third, I show how speakers m anipulate the prosody of a response token that typically is associated with

26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

alignm ent to project non-alignm ent. 1.4. Organization of study The dissertation is organized as follows. In chapter two I describe the collection and preparation of the data. C hapter three examines the structure of the or-inquiry and how it is used to m ark problem atidty. Chapter four focusses on acceptances and grantings of deferred action FPFs. I argue that an affirm ative response token is insufficient to align with a FPP that initiated a deferred action. Chapter five dem onstrates how recipients can use the turn-initial slot of a responsive action to project non-alignm ent and how this in turn can allow speakers to revise their positions so as to avert actual non-alignm ent. Chapter six sum m arizes the dissertation and points to areas for future research.

27

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Notes to chapter 1 1. The prim ary data base for the dissertation is telephone conversations. I will therefore focus on talk as a resource for building social action. However, for co-present interaction, non-vocal activities such as eye gaze and body orientation are perhaps equally im portant as words are (c.f. Goodwin, 1981). 2. See Appendix A for an explanation of the transcription conventions. 3 .1 thank the participants in the conversational colloquium at FUMS, especially M attias Broth , Ulla Bdrestam, M ats Eriksson, Leelo Keevallik, H&kan Landqvist, Caroline Liberg, Johan Liljestrand, Bengt Nordberg, Annika Persson, Fritjof Sahlstrdm, and U lrika Sjbberg for constructive criticism on the rem ainder of this chapter and on chapter two. 4. Kendon (1990) includes a discussion of how some traditions outside of sociology shaped the study of interaction in general and CA in particular. 5. Alexander (1987) w ho was intent on situating Goffman's work w ithin the Parsoman tradition described Goffman as the most important "interactionist" in the generation younger than Blumer (p. 230). 6. The capitalized "H e" is an allusive reference to Emile Durkheim who w as a central figure for Goffman. Collins (1980) suggested that the Durkheim ian influence was especially im portant for Goffman's early writings. This is because the core of D urkheim ian approach [sic], on the level of empirical field work is to see people's behavior through the lens of ritual and its group sustaining functions, to look beneath the usual surface pf practical business and see the real dynamics of the crowd and its moral ties beneath. (Collins, 1980, p. 178). In one of his earliest papers, Goffman concluded that "the general capacity to be bound by m oral rules may well belong to the individual, but the particular set of rules which transform s him into a human being derives from requirem ents established in the ritu a l organization of social encounters [italics added] (1967 [1955], p. 45). Durkheim's influence is even m ore pronounced in the essay "the nature of deference and dem eanor" as

28

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Goffman here declared his project as that of hying to show "that a version of D urkheim 's sociology can be effective in m odem dress" (Goffman, 1967 [1956], p. 47). Goffman was here referring to the later version of Durkheim 's sociology, in particular the chapter on the soul in The Elem entary Forms of Religious Life (Durkheim, 1915). 7. c.f. Schegloff (1982) who argued that if certain stable forms appear to em erge or recur in talk, they should be understood as an orderliness w rested by the participants from interactional contingency, rather than as automatic products of standardized plans. Form, one m ight say, is also the distillate of action and / in interaction, not only its blueprint. If that is so, then the description of forms of behavior, forms of discourse (such as stories) included, has to include interaction am ong their constitutive domains, and not just as the stage on w hich scripts w ritten in the m ind are played out. (p. 89) 8. A t the U niversity of California, Los Angeles alone w here m uch of the groundbreaking w ork in CA was done, the CA method has been successfully used in such diverse language communities as G erm an (Egbert, 1993), Finnish (Sorjonen, 1997), Korean (Park, 1997), and M andarin Chinese (Wu, 1997). 9 .1 thank Emanuel Schegloff for continuosly rem inding me of this point. 10. W ithin this study, which focussed on identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings, I noted that just because the core opening sequencing first was developed for Am erican conversations does not necessarily mean that the American opening should be considered a yard stick against w hich openings in other languages should be m easured. The American opening m ight m ore appropriately be though of as a flashlight that can guide our exploration of unlaiow n territory. Phenom ena that fall outside the beam of light should not be dism issed b u t be carefully considered not from an A m erican but from a native perspective (Lindstrdm , 1991, p. 12). 11. Of course no analysis can be completely unprejudiced.

29

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

12. My thanks to Elizabeth Keating. 13. The others will be discussed in chapter 6. 14.W hat follows is a synopsis of Schegloff's discussion on preference organization (1988b, p. 453 ff.). 15.1 w ill sometimes describe a preferred responsive action as aligning and a dispreferred responsive action as non-aligning.

30

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

2. THE DATA In this chapter I provide ethnographic inform ation about the families who m ade the recordings that form the data base for the dissertation, describe the recording set-up, and how the data was prepared. I also make some brief remarks about the analytical process. The latter rem arks are not intended as guidelines for the novice analyst. In an effort to demystify the analytical process I merely offer some personal observations about how this project got off the ground. 2.1. Description of data corpus The data for the dissertation consist of audio recordings of telephone conversations and video recordings of family dinner conversations. The telephone data was collected in 1991 and the video data in 1993. All the data w as naturally occurring rather than experim ental. The interactants did not conduct these interactions for my benefit. Rather they engaged in their own projects. These were quite diverse and ranged from persuading a spouse to go fishing over the weekend to gossiping about a co-worker. Most b ut not all of the data were mundane. A few of the telephone calls were to governm ent authorities and private businesses. I personally collected, translated, and transcribed all the data used in the dissertation. 2.1.1. Ethnographic information Before providing some ethnographic inform ation about the

31

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

individuals w ho m ade the recordings I should note that I have prim arily relied on the identities that have been m ade relevant through the action sequences th at I have analyzed. I thus frequently refer to the interactant as an inviter/ invitee, requester/requestee rather than as a m other/physician/social dem ocrat/neighbor. As Schegloff (1991, 1992a) has convincingly argued relevance rather than correctness should be the criterion w hen ethnographic identities are used analytically (see also Sacks, 1972). It w ould be perfectly correct to characterize me as a woman, a nativeborn Swede, a 36-year-old, a wife, a m other, a coffee-drinker, a swim m er etc. The job for the analyst is not to choose the correct characterization but rather to choose the one(s) that is (are) m ade relevant in the talk, i.e. the one(s) that the participants show themselves to oriented to (c.f. Sacks 1972; Schegloff, 1991,1992a). Furthermore the analyst m ust show how these identities are "procedurally consequential" that is w hether they have any consequence for "the shape, form, trajectory, content, or character of the interaction th at the parties conduct" (Schegloff, 1992, p. 111). It is therefore not enough to say that in asking me for perm ission to play at a friend's house, my daughter is making relevant h er ow n identity as a child w ith restricted rights and my identity as a parent who has the authority to give permission. Furtherm ore it needs to be specified w hether the identities of daughter and m other impact the structure of the request and its reply. Here

32

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

I am not making the social constructionist argum ent that identities only exist in interaction. Rather I am suggesting that given the m ultiplicity of identities that may be potentially relevant in any interaction, it is a com plicated process to make a defensible argum ent that any particular identity shaped the interactants' production or understanding of an individual utterance. By defensible argum ent I mean one th at is em pirically grounded in the interactants' displayed orientations. This study does not strictly adhere to the rigorous use of identity that Schegloff recom mended. I som etim es refer to the interactants in relational term s i.e. as m other/daughter, husband/w ife, old friends etc. because I feel that this animates the data and brings the reader into the scene of the everyday lives of the interactants. A t the same time I realize th at this might invite the reader to understand the talk in term s of the ethnographic identities of the interactants rath er than the actions that are being instantiated. Furtherm ore, I m ight suggest that a particular course of action can be heard as a move tow ard advice giving because the speaker is a m edical doctor rather than a lay person. Overall however, I have relied on such characterizations fairly sparingly. This is one of the areas w here I still have m uch to learn. In introducing the individuals w ho figure in my recordings then I am not seeking to use the ethnographic inform ation to explain their

33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

conduct. Rather I w ant to invite the reader to see that they are w hat we in Swedish call vanligt fo lk [regular folks]. By that I do not m ean that they form a statistically representative sample of the Swedish population. However, as they range in age from pre-school to senior citizen, have varied educational, occupational, and socio-economic backgrounds, and come from different geographic areas, their interactions offer some insight into everyday life in Swedish society. 2.I.I.I. The families that recorded telephone conversations The families that agreed to record their telephone conversations w ere not close personal acquaintances of mine. They are better described as "friends of friends".1 2 The Persson family is w orking class.3 The father (Torkel), 30 years old at the tim e of the study, worked at a sawmill. The m other (Liv), 29 years old, provided childcare for her ow n and other children. She is trained and has worked extensively as a life guard. The Perssons’ have three young children Henrik, six, Sara, five, and Pontus, one and a half years old. Six-year old Henrik participates in several of the exam ples that I will analyze in the dissertation. Like m ost of us, he is still being socialized into using language (Ochs & Schiefflin, 1986). Having analyzed several examples w here he figures I feel he is as com petent as m ost of the adult participants in the study at using language as a tool for accom plishing social action (c.f. his skillful negotiation in chapter 4,

34

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

exam ple 26). The Lindgren family consists of two parents in their early fifties with three grow n children. The father (Per) is a fireman w hile the m other (Rut) w orks as a cook for the municipal school district The oldest son (Tore) was thirty years old. He was building a house at the time of the study and made m any calls from his parents' home to orchestrate the construction process. The younger brother (Hannes) was 25 years old and works as a registered nurse in a different town. He did not take part in many of the recorded conversations. The youngest daughter (Malena) was 23 years old. She had just undergone a major surgery and was living at hom e during the time the data was collected. The Lundberg family differs from the other two families in terms of education and social class. The father (Allan) who was in his early thirties is an agrarian economist and heads a farm ing developm ent program in the local com munity. His wife (Vera), who was on m aternal leave at the time of this study is a native of one of the Swedish-speaking areas of Finland but has lived in Sweden for several years. She is a medical doctor by training. She w as in her early thirties. The young couple's son (Eskil) was less than a year old during the time of the study and did not participate in any of the recorded calls.4

35

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

2.1.1J2. The fam ily that recorded dinner conversations Six consecutive dinner conversations were recorded in the Eriksson family. The father (Hasse) was 46 years old a t the time of the recording and worked as a lumberjack. The mother (Ann-Katrin) was 34 years old and worked part tim e as a teacher's aide. The tw o sons, (Gabriel and Nicklas), were twelve and eight years old. 2.1.2. Recording set-up 2.I.2.I. Audio recordings The recording device was attached to one of the telephones in the home. If possible, the device was attached to the telephone that was least frequently used. The recording device activated the recorder when the receiver of any of the telephones in the house was picked up. The recording was stopped w hen the receiver was put back in the cradle. I provided the families w ith audiotapes but left it to them to handle the recording. To avoid a constant need to monitor the recording process, they were encouraged to only check the tape once daily and to switch sides or change tapes if necessary at that time. They were also instructed not to tend to the recording during the course of a telephone conversation. Approximately 37 hours of conversations were recorded in the Persson, Lindgren, and Lundberg family.

36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

2.I.2.2. V ideo recording As w ith the collection of the telephone data as m uch as possible of the recording process was handled by the family w ithout intervention by me. A Panasonic camera w ith a w ide angle lens and an audio recorder was used.5 I taught the mother how to operate the camera and the audio recorder thinking that she w ould be the one in charge. H ow ever the videoand audiotapes showed that the recording apparatus m ainly w as handled by the children. The older son in particular was conscientious about m aking sure that both the audio recorder and video camera were running w hen the family sat dow n at the table. The cam era was placed on a tripod in a com er of the kitchen and the audiorecorder was placed on the dinner table. The family w as encouraged to start the recording before the dinner begun and let it run until after everybody had left the table. In actuality how ever, the father usually prom pted the others to turn off the recording w hen everybody had finished eating. As a result the recording of each dinner was fairly short (ranging from 20 to 30 m inutes each yielding a total of tw o hours and fifteen m inutes of recordings). 2.1.3. Ethical concerns All the family members w ho w ere old enough to read and w rite, signed consent forms. The fam ilies who recorded telephone conversations w ere encouraged to inform the individuals with whom they frequently

37

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

conversed over the telephone about the recording. It w as agreed that the fam ilies could keep any tapes that contained calls where at least one of the interactants expressed discom fort a t the prospect of being recorded.6 This option was exercised by one of the families. Another family gave me a tape w ith a conversation w here one person jokingly objected to the recording. In this case I chose not to transcribe or analyze this conversation. Although the recording apparatus certainly represented an intrusion in the everyday lives of these families, they seem ed comfortable w ith the situation, especially after the first few days of recording. As a m atter of fact I got the sense that they felt honored that their everyday life w as worthy of scholarly inquiry. The participants in the video recording were also given the option to keep any of the tapes but did not exercise this option. The m other asked for and w as given a copy of a videotape that contained all the recorded dinners at the end of the study. A lthough all members of the family agreed to participate in the study and signed consent forms I got the im pression that they w ere not all equally enthusiastic about being recorded. While the m other and the children were excited the father seemed resistant. 2J2. Transcription The data was transcribed according to the transcription system initially developed by Gail Jefferson (cf. Atkinson Sc Heritage, 1984, pp. ix-

38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

xvi).7 The transcripts do not substitute for the recordings but are used as supplem ents to them. Repeated listenings forced me to continuously revise the transcripts. For the curled ja especially I found that I had to rewind the tape and re-listen to the talk over and over to capture w hat I heard on the printed page. I do not consider the transcripts finished b ut I feel that they are adequate for the purposes of my analysis. 23. Translation The data was translated into English. The second line provides a word-by-word translation of the Swedish original. If possible, I adjusted the w ord spacing so that the English translation lined up w ith the Swedish. As the example below shows, this m eant that I was able to fit less on each line than I w ould if the translation had not been included. #46 OUT OF BREATH [M0L2:A:3:36] 03

04

F:

Ja: de klart ju de (vi ska ju Yes 'ts obvious ju that (we will Yes it's obvious that (we will )

) ju )

stugorna A hAller p A A tvatta lite fonster

cottages cottages

and hold on to and are in the

wash few windows midst ofwashinga few windows

05

Aja ja kanner nog att man Ska ja komma A eh- vagen forbi: eller, Shall I come and eh- the road by or Should I come and eh- drop by your place or

04

E:

05

06

Hej ja a i Bsk- nej fan ja & i Skatra imorron No I 'm in Esk- no devil I 'm in Skara tomorrow No I'll be in Esk- no by god I am in Skara tomorrow kvSll fSr fa:n, night for devil night damn it

P:

Ar'u de:? Are'you that You are

44

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

This or-inquiry will be analyzed in detail later in this chapter. For now T just w ant to point to a few features of this sequence that are characteristic of the other or-inquiries in the collection: • The or-inquiry is produced and understood as a turn in its ow n rig h t • The tum final eller is designed to be heard as a constitutive com ponent of its host TCU rather th an as an add-on post possible com pletion. There is no pause or hesitation a t the syntactic com pletion point betw een the penultim ate w ord (forbi:) and eller. • The recipient treats the or-inquiry as com plete. In this case this is done by Erik responding w ith no gap in lines 4-5. • The speaker of the or-inquiry treats it as com plete by prom oting the sequence in progress in his next turn. This is evidenced by Per topicalizing E rik's response w ith a new sm ark in line 6. • The or-inquiry m arks the action th at the turn otherwise engages in as problem atic. The grounds for problem atidty are diverse in the collection. In this example Per is basing the or-inquiry on an assum ption that runs contrary to w hat has been conveyed in the prior talk. In the sequence that preceedes the or-inquiry Erik has given a dow ngraded response to P ei's question w hether he is "fit for fight" (lines 1-2). This response raises the possibility that Erik is not

45

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

keen on participating in the game. P ei's otter to give Erik a ride to the game runs counter to the stance conveyed by Erik in the prior turn. By ending the "y es"/"n o " interrogative w ith eller [or], the speaker relaxes the preference structure of the turn so as to facilitate a "no"-type response. The or-construction thus reveals a speaker anticipation of possible recipient resistance to the action engaged in w ith the or-inquiry. I am not arguing that this stance is reflective of the speaker's privately held psychological state. The sincerity of the publically displayed stance is neither accessible to the interactants in m y data nor to me.1 The data for this chapter consist of 60 or-inquiries draw n from the data base described in chapter two. The chapter is organized as follows. First, I isolate the or-inquiry as a turn in its ow n right. This entails a discussion of the design of the or-inquiry, the transition betw een the or-inquiry and the next turn, and the sequential trajectories generated by the or-inquiry. Second, I briefly review Swedish research on or-inquiries. Third, I discuss how the or-inquiry is used to m ark problem atidty. I begin w ith a brief discussion of problem atidty as an oriented to feature in talk-in-interaction. The analysis of how or-inquiries m ark problem atidty is divided into tw o parts. First, I show or-inquiries that initiate an action that runs counter to the preference displayed in the prior talk. Second, I examine or-inquiries

46

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

where there are other grounds for problem atidty such as making a precom plaint, checking w hether the redpient know s about an em barrassing incident, m is-aligning w ith a troubles-telling, disaligning w ith a line pursued by the redpient, and articulating som ething that was alluded to in the prior talk. I condude by pointing to some of the lim itations of the study and making suggestions for future research. 3.2. Isolating the or-inquiry as a turn in its own right The or-inquiry is produced and understood as a turn in its ow n right. In the following I will differentiate the or-inquiry focussed on in this study from sim ilar tum -constructions that have been analyzed in other language com munities. The or-inquiry is distinct in that it is oriented to as a com plete tu rn w ith the tum tinal eller as a constitutive component of its host TCU. I w ill present evidence of turn design, tu rn transition, and of sequential uptake that show both speaker and red p ien t orienting to the integrity of the or-inquiry as a complete turn. 3.2.1. Differentiating the or-inquiry from similar tum-constructions that have been analyzed in other language communities W hile this is not the first study to exam ine turns ending w ith eller [or], it is the first one that focusses the analysis on this turn construction. The or-constructed interrogatives examined in other studies appear to be different from the types of or-inquiries I analyze. D avidson's (1984,1990)

47

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

studies of modifications of invitations, offers, and rejections included examples of turns ending w ith "or". The next example, taken from her 1984 paper, shows a turn that ends w ith "or".2 #2 1 2 3 4 5

(Davidson, 1984, p. 116) A:-> Oh: would it be: alright if we cane in a little -> early or (0 . 2 ) A:-> Would that upsetchu[r B: [I: don't think so.

Davidson argued that there is a possible sentential completion point after "early" in line 2. The "or" is thus added post possible completion.3 W ith no response forthcoming from B, A continues her previous turn by providing a possible reason for why B m ight n o t w ant to accept the offer (and this is done w ith another or-inquiry). U nlike the or-inquiry in lines 1-2, the orinquiries in my collection are n o t continued in the same speaker's next turn w ith an utterance that links u p directly w ith the tum -final "or" in the way that the turn in line 4 is syntactically fitted to the turn in lines 1-2 in the example above. 4 Lazaraton's (1991) study of language assessment interview s also included questions ending w ith "or". However, her examples w ere different from the or-inquiries studied in this chapter in that the "or" in her data w as either done as a post-positioned recom pletion of the tu rn or was produced as a part of its prior tu rn b u t w ith a trail-off prosodic contour. "Or" (transcribed as "er") is post-positioned in the example below. This is

48

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

captured w ith the intonation m arker after "class" in the arrow ed turn. #3 Marcia (7:7-42) JC=interviewer, MC-student (Lazaraton, 1991, p.197) JC:

that's good .hhh do you have any questions for me? (0.5) JC: about (0.2 ) MC: u:m (.) about thi:s cla[:ss?, JC:-> [about this class, [er. MC: [I'm not sure

In the next example "or" is produced w ith trail-off intonation (partially captured w ith a colon). #4 Chan (2:52-3:1) JC=interviewer, JC is student (Lazaraton, 1991, p. 199) JC:

tchl alright .hhh wu- u- IS: what is: your native Language,«is i[t CN: [CHinese. JC:-> is it Mandarin o[r: CN: [Mandarin.=yeah.=[Mandarin. I come JC: = [Mandarin.

Both Davidson and L azaraton treat the turn-final "or" as a com ponent that is added on to its host TCU. In Lazaraton's study this is m otivated by the em pirical fact th at som e of her turn-final “o t 's " are produced as post-positioned objects (c.f. example 3). In my collection of orinquiries by contrast, "or" is done as a constitutive com ponent of its host TCU. T hat is, there is no hitch or perturbation between the penultim ate possible com pletion point and eller. By contrasting D avidson and Lazaraton's analysis of or-inquiries w ith m y ow n collection I am n o t im plying that the type of or-inquiry I am

49

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

exam ining is unique to the Swedish language com m unities. After I came upon this phenom enon in Swedish I started to notice paraUell constructions in other languages. Below are Am erican, Finnish, and Japanese or-inquiries that appear similar to the Sw edish or-inquiries exam ined w ithin this chapter. Like the or-inquiries in this chapter, these or-inquiries are produced and responded to as com plete turns. Furtherm ore, these or-inquiries raise activities that can be understood as problem atic. In example 5, taken form a doctor-patient consultation, the doctor uses an or-inquiry to quantify the patient's alcohol consumption. Specifically, he asks w hether the patient uses alcohol daily. This question could be heard to suggest that the patient is a alcoholic. #5 from doctor-patient interaction [Madison 3.4]5 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

DOC: PAT: DOC: PAT: DOC: PAT: DOC: PAT: DOC: PAT: DOC: PAT: DOC:

Are you married? (•) NO. (•) You're divorced (*cur[rently,*??) [Mm hm, (2.2) Tl You smoke?, h (5.0) Alcohol use? (1.0) Hm:: moderate I'd say. (0.2) Can you define that, hhhehh ((laughing outbreath)) Uh huh hah .hh I don't get off my - (0.2) outa thuh restaurant very much but [(awh:) -> [Daily do you use ->alcohol or:*h Pardon? Daily? or[:

50

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

PAT:

DOC: PAT:

DOC: PAT:

[Oh: huh uh. .hh No: uhm (3.0) probably:: I usually go out like once uh week. (1.0) *Ray.* (3.0) Now I would probably drink more if I didn't (.) live right there where I worked an- I work with uh lotta teenage kids 'n so [. h h] there's always [Mm hm], somebody 't wants tuh come 'n talk tuh me.

In example 6, Tuula and Meeri are talking about ordering honey from a local dealer. Tuula asks M eeri in line 1 w hen she should make her order. Meeri responds by implying that the orders already are due. Tuula then uses an or-inquiry to make explicit w hat M eeri im plied in her prior turn, e.g. that Tuula is late. #6 Finnish or-inquiry:Tuula:Honey:4-7 (simplified transcript from Sorjonen, 1996) Meeri has just reminded Tuula that it is the time of year for getting honey from the local honey dealer. Tuula is now asking about the more exact timing of the process. IT:

=e Millo-s se on. -e When is it.

2

Ncx se o-is itse asxassa nyt aika 4kxx:rek-k± jo.hh well< actually it's just about the time already .hh

M:

3

Jos, If,

4

T: ->Nxi et[ta o-xs pxtS-ny jo ilmotta-a [vai,] So you mean we should already have signed up or,

5

M:

6

M:

7

[(

)[fNxi:h]

kylla v- perxaatteessa nxinku juiiannuk-seen >yes in principle you know by Midsummer

51

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In exam ple 7, N uses an or-inquiry to introduce a person w ho she later will characterize as a hysteric trouble m aker. The problem atidty inheres in the fact that the person who will figure negatively in N 's telling is know n to M. #7 Japanese or-inquiry (Mori, 1996, p. 128). Line numbers added and syntactic glossing line omitted. 1

N: ->(ja) mae no ruumumeeto nanka wa doo datta?i- ita jan? ano:: supeingo o hanasu hito ya::,= You had that uhm the one who speaks Spanish or

3

M:

4

N:

5

=ha:: ha:: ha:: [ha:: 'yeah yeah yeah yeah' [nanka itumo mondai okoshite, like she was causing trouble all [nanka [ko hisuterikku [datta janai?= the time and being hysteric right

Further exam ination by scholars w ith native or near-native com petence in these languages is dearly needed to establish how the or-inquiry is used. However, it seems possible that the analysis presented in this study may have relevance for the study of or-inquiries in other language com m unities. 3.2.2. T urn design 3.2.2.1 Syntax The or-inquiry consists of either a "yes"/"no" question or a "B"-event statem ent that ends w ith the Swedish conjunction eller (Engl. "or"). Labov and Fanshel (1977) define a "B"-event as knowledge that is prim arily

52

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

know n to recipient "B" b u t not to speaker "A." Previous w ork has shown th a t although they are syntactically formed as declaratives, "B"-event statem ents can be heard as questions or requests for confirm ation (Labov & Fanshel, 1977; see also H eritage, 1985; Pomerantz, 1980; Schegloff, 1995, p. 180). The arrow ed turns in the examples below show two or-inquiries.6 Exam ple 8 shows a "yes"/"n o" question and exam ple 9 shows a "B"-event statem ent. #8 KENNEL [MOL2:A: 18:373] Viveka is calling the kennel to arrange to leave her two dogs there. The kennel owner and Viveka have just agreed that it would be okay to leave Viveka's bitch at the kennel even though she has just been in heat. 02

K:

03

Ja vi go:r si hdrrudu: men nar koaaer ni Yes we do so listenyou but when come you Yes we'll do that but when will you bring me'rom dA:Z with'them then them then

04

V: ->Eh- bar ni oppet pA ldrdamotrron eller. Eh- have you open on saturdaymorning or Eh- are you open saturdaymorning or

05

K:

Ja::? Yes

#9 CALLING RICKARD [GRU7:A:5:237] Per is calling Bosse to arrange carpooling to an upcoming soccer match, in line 8 Per is talking about Rickard who apparently will carpool with Bosse. Ekbom, first mentioned in line 13 is another member of the soccerteam. 08

P:

09

B:

Ska me dej vefttu. Will with you knowyou Is going with you you know [Ja? Yes

53

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

10

P:

11

P:->'hh Bhs e- du ringer till dom eller, 'hh Eh: e- you will call to them or 'hh Eh: e- you will call them or

12

B:

13

Mmj_,

Ja: ja prata me Rickard kan val gor- ja bar inte £&tt Yes I talk with Rickard can val do- I have not got Yes I('ll) talk with Rickard can do- I haven't got ta:g pA Ekbom annu, hold on Ekbom yet hold of Ekbom yet

In example 8, the operator (har) is placed before the subject (ti i). As in English, this is a com mon syntactic form for questions in Swedish (c.f. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985). The or-inquiry in example 9 is grammatically form ed as a declarative but is heard as a question by the recipient who responds in the next turn. I use the term or-inquiry rather than or-interrogative to capture the fact that or-inquiries are not necessarily formed as syntactic interrogatives. I now tu rn to the internal composition of these inquiries, to examine w hether the tu rn is possibly complete before eller. 3J2J2.2. Determining possible completion points

In determ ining points of possible com pletion, I primarily draw on work by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) and Ford and Thompson (19%). Sacks et al. described how turn-taking is organized in ordinary conversation. They em phasized that access to the floor is not

54

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

predeterm ined b u t locally managed and negotiated by the parties to a conversation. Of particular im portance to the study at hand, the authors showed that although intonation also figures, a prospective speaker is heavily oriented to the syntactic properties of a tum -in-progress to determ ine when it w ould be relevant to start talking. They identified four unit types for English conversation: sentential, clausal, phrasal, and lexical constructions and argued that the speaker is initially entitled, in having a turn, to one such unit. The first possible com pletion of a first such unit constitutes an initial transition-relevance place. Transfer of speakership is coordinated by reference to such transition relevance places, which any unit-type instance w ill reach. (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974, p. 703) Using Sacks et a l/s study as their point of departure, Ford and Thompson (1996) sought to further specify how syntactic, intonation, and pragm atic resources are used to manage turns. The authors analyzed excerpts from face-to-face m ulti-party conversations in American English to determ ine points of syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic possible completion. Pragm atic or action com pletion is " based on the potential that any utterance has for constituting an action in an interactional sequence" (p. 148). Ford and Thom pson found m ore possible syntactic com pletion points than any other kind (p.154). Furtherm ore, their data show ed th at intonation and pragm atic com pletion points select from syntactic com pletion points to form "complex transition relevance places" (p. 154).

55

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Seventyone percent of the speaker changes in Ford and Thom pson's data occurred at complex transition relevance places.7 The analysis of orinquiries contrasts w ith Ford and Thom pson's findings in that the orinquiry yields turns transfer when the tu rn is intonationally and pragm atically complete but, in term s of traditio nal conceptions of syntax, syntactically incomplete. 3.2 23 . Syntactic completion points Following Ford & Thompson, I consider an utterance to be syntactically possibly complete "if, in its discourse context, it could be interpreted as a complete clause, i.e., w ith an overt o r directly recoverable predicate, w ithout considering intonation or interactional im port" (p. 143). Syntactic possible completion points can be increm ental. The or-inquiry in exam ple 10 has three possible syntactic com pletion points (m arked w ith the symbol #10 KENNEL [MOL2:A:18:373] *

04

#

*

Vs ->Eh- har ni oppet pA lozdamotrron eller, Eh- have you open on saturdaymoraing or Eh- are you open saturdaymorning or

Here, "on Saturday" and "on saturdaym orning" are syntactic increments to the first TCU ("Eh- are you open"). Note that from the point of view of traditional linguistics, the or-inquiry is syntactically incom plete at the end of the turn. This may motivate us to treat the or-inquiry as an anomaly,

56

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

perhaps a speech error (c.f. Chomsky, 1957). However, as alluded to in chapter one, recent work in sociology and linguistics has started to specify an interactionally grounded syntax (cf. Ford, 1993; Ochs, Schegloff, & Thom pson, 1996; Schegloff, 1979b). Emphasizing the im portance of such a specification, Schegloff (1996c) suggested that "if the basic natural environm ent for sentences is in tum s-at-talk in conversation, w e should take seriously the possibility that aspects of their structure - for example their gram m atical structure - are to be understood as adaptions to that environm ent" (p. 3). This point is supported by D uranti and O chs' (1979) study of left dislocation in Italian conversation. Left dislocation "is a construction in which a constituent (e.g. a noun, a full pronoun, etc.) that appears befo re/to the left of its predicate has, w ithin the same sentence a (nonreflexive) coreferential pronoun" (p. 378).8 Like the or-inquiry, left dislocation has an exotic status as a linguistic objects (Duranti & Ochs, 1979, p. 379). D uranti and Ochs argued that while these constructions typically are not found in formal Italian discourse they are abundant in interactions of fam iliars and intimates. The authors show ed that interactionally, left dislocation is far from anom alous or deficient. Rather it is used as an interactional device to seek access to the floor. Similarly, I will argue that the or-inquiry is not erroneous b u t functional as an interactional device for m arking problem atidty.

57

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

3.2.2.4. Pragmatic completion points I use the term "pragmatic completion" differently than Ford & Thompson in th at I do not differentiate between global and local pragmatic com pletion and, m ore im portantly for the purposes of this study, do not take into account intonation to determ ine places of pragmatic completion. A turn in progress can therefore be pragm atically possibly complete even though it is intonationally incomplete. This is show n in example 11 ("•" marks pragm atic com pletion while

marks international completion).

#11 CALLING RICKARD [GRU7:A:5s237]

11

P: ->'hh Eh: e- du ringer till dom eller, 'hh Eh: e- you will call to them or 'hh Eh: e- you will call them or

Because of the continuing intonation and lack of stress on d o m this turn is not intonationally complete until after eller. Example 11 appeared to be the only case in my data base where pragm atic and international completion did not coincide before turn-transfer occured. As Ford and Thompson underscored, the sequential context m ust be examined before possible pragmatic com pletion points can be specified. In the example below, the or-inquiry is an insert-expansion to a question sequence in w hich the kennel ow ner inquires w hen Vera will bring her two dogs to the kennel (lines 2-3). The or-inquiry in line 4 initiates a presecond insert expansion to this question (Schegloff, 1990; Schegloff, 1995).

58

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Since the kennel ow ner's question im plicates the specification of a time, the or-inquiry cannot be pragmatically com plete at the end of "open" even though this is a syntactically complete phrase.9 #12 KENNEL [MOL2:A:18:373] Viveka is calling the kennel to arrange to leave her two dogs there. The kennel owner and Viveka have just agreed that it would be okay to leave Viveka's bitch at the kennel even though she has just been in heat. marks syntactic completion; marks pragmatic completion; and *-* marks intonational completion. 02

03

04

K:

Ja vi go:r si h&rrudu: men nar koamer ni Yes we do so listenyou but when come you Yes we'll do that but when will you bring ae'ron di:i with'them then them then

V:-> Eh- bar ni oppet pi lordamosrron eller, Eh- have you open on saturdaymorning or Eh- are you open saturdaymorning or

In the tw o examples above I have indicated a pragm atic com pletion point at the end of the or-inquiry. To establish this analytically we have to examine the sequential uptake of or-inquiries. This examination w ill also allow us to explore the recipient's orientation tow ard points of intonational com pletion. 3 3 .3 . T urn transition between or-inquiry an d next turn

Recipients of or-inquiries do not claim the floor before the or-inquiry is projectably com plete as an or-inquirv nor do they w ait for the speaker of the or-inquiry to continue the turn after the production of eller. In 47 of the 60

59

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

cases there is a norm al transition space betw een the or-inquiry and its subsequent turn. By norm al transition space, I mean that the next turn does not overlap the or-inquiry, nor is it latched or delayed. Instead there is "a beat of silence" (Jefferson, 1989b) betw een the or-inquiry and the ensuing turn (c.f. examples 8 and 9). 3.23.1. Overlap onset at projectable completion of or-inquiry O verlap only occurs in five cases and in all these cases the overlap onset is positioned at the point w here the or-inquiry is projectably complete as an or-inquiry (Jefferson, 1983). This is show n in example 13 w here the overlapping response to the or-inquiry begins after the first syllable of eller has been produced. #13 KAFFEREP [GRU7:A: 1:33] Per is calling his elderly mother (Frida). When the transcript begins Frida is in the midst of recounting a telephone call she made to an old acquaintance. Quotation marks indicate phrases that are produced as quoted speech. marks syntactic completion; marks pragmatic completion; and marks intonational completion. 09

F:

10

P:-> Ska hon koama hem pi kaffe di ell [eri Will she come home on coffee then or Will she come over for coffee then or

11

F:

12

(Eh-)

[Nej di sa No then said No then I said ja 'hh bar du lust i sStta pi kaffectannan I 'hh have you lust to turn on the coffeepot 'hh if you are in the mood to make coffee

60

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

13

nAn

gAng (pA't over)

sA komaer ja till dej "Ah

some time (on it over) so come some time I'll come over "Oh 14

I

to

you

“Oh

va ro:litn what fun" how nice"

Here I am suggesting that Frida is beginning her turn at the projectable com pletion of eller. A lternatively one m ight argue that Frida is oriented to da [then] as a possible com pletion and is allowing "a beat of silence" to pass

before starting her turn and that this beat happens to be occupied by the first syllable of eller. This example is thus not optim al for showing th at recipients orient to tum -transfer after rather than before eller. The next exam ple offers m ore conclusive evidence that recipients orient to e ller as an organic rather than an added com ponent of its host TCU. #14 SKARA [Pel Nummer] Nalena and Sara are aquaintances. Malena has just described a local town festival. She assesses the festival in line 14. marks syntactic completion; " -* marks pragmatic completion; and marks intonational completion. 14

M:

15

S:->

16

17

De va faktist iattemvsf it. ’t was actually supercozy *t was actually really nice [ * ’hh * du bor inte har i *'hh* you live not here in you don't live here in

Skara ann[ars dA eller, Skara otherwise then or Mt->

She j ja har gjort ilia knatt No I have made hurt the knee No I have hurt my knee

I hhhh hhhh

61

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

18

ja har korsbandsskada. (.) Si ja har I have cruciate ligament injury So I have been

M alena takes a pretum inbreath when the w ord annars ["otherwise"] of Sara's turn in progress is projectably complete (line 17). Instead of claiming the floor upon the com pletion of this word how ever, M alena w ithholds talk through another complex transition relevance place (at da ["then"]) and does not begin her talk until after the or-inquiry is complete as an orinquiry. As shown in the examples above, recipients orient to the integrity of the or-inquiry as a turn in its ow n right even w hen there are complex transition relevance places before eller. That recipients do not claim the floor prem aturely suggests that there is something about this turn that cues the recipient that an or-inquiry is underway. In term s of turn design there does not appear to be anything about the part of the tu rn that leads up to e lle r that differentiates it from interrogatives that do n ot end w ith eller.

Intonationally however, the or-inquiry appears to be distinguishable from other queries. 3 .2 3 2 . The intonation contour at the turn boundary

U pon re-listening to the previous example, I noticed that there was a flat or level intonation starting from the first complex transition relevance place until just before the end of eller and that there w as no break or

62

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

hesitation betw een the last three complex transition relevance places. This intonation pattern is characteristic for the other cases in my collection where there is at least one complex transition relevance place before eller. #15 SKARA [Eel Nummer] marks syntactic completion; "•" marks pragmatic completion; marks intonational completion; marks level intonation; and "," marks a slight rise in intonation. 15

S:

16

17

['-hh' du bor inte har i *'hh* you live not here in you don't live here in

Skara ann[ars di eller, Skara otherwise then or M:

[ 'hhhh 'hhhh

Naej ja har gjort ilia kna:t No I have made hurt the knee No I have hurt my knee

In Swedish, interrogatives can end w ith level (or comma) intonation (c.f. endnote 6). Sara's turn in lines 15-16 above is intonationally possibly complete at the end of annars and da and M alena shows her orientation to the first of these by taking a pretum inbreath just before the projectable completion of annars. However, the continuous tone bridges betw een the complex transition relevance places and cues the recipient that the turn is not yet com plete. In music this type of transition is called harmonic m odulation.10 Skilled musicians use it to m ask the move from one musical m ovem ent to the next. Similarly, speakers of or-inquiries rely on harmonic m odulation to mask the transition betw een complex transition

63

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

relevance places. The intonation does not rise until the end of the w ord e lle r and tu rn transfer then occurs w ithout hesitation. This does not necessarily m ean that the final rise in intonation causes tu rn transfer. The overlap onset in example 16 suggests that this is not the case as the overlap begins before the final rise in intonation (i.e. before the beginning of the second syllable of eller). #16 KAFFEREP [GRU7:A:1:33] marks syntactic completion; "•" marks pragmatic completion; marks intonational completion; marks level intonation; and marks a slight rise in intonation.11 09

F:

(Eh-) it

it

it

•

•

•

10

P :-> Ska hon kommahem p£ kaffe d£ ell[eri Will she come home on coffee then or Will she comeover for coffee then or

11

F:->

[ffej d£ sa No then said No then I said

It may be the w ord eller that signals the relevance of turn transition. In addition to m arking an action as problem atic, eller in turn-final position may function as a tum -exit device (Sacks et al. 1974, p. 718). 3.233. Delayed uptake The recipient of the or-inquiry could treat the inquiry as incom plete by w aiting for further talk. Eight of the or-inquiries in the data base are followed by a silence. If the or-inquiry is syntactically and pragm atically

64

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

incomplete after eller, one might expect the recipient of the or-inquiiy to treat this silence as the or-inquiry speaker's intratum pause. Instead, the orinquiry recipients claim the floor after the silence to continue the sequence in progress. This furnishes further evidence that the or-inquiry is oriented to as a com plete rather than an incom plete turn. There is 0.6 second silence after the or-inquiry in example 17. The recipient of the or-inquiry then continues the sequence in progress by responding w ith a dispreferred SPP. #17 COME HOME [GRU7B:2:292] Cajsa and Tore are building a house together. At the moment they are living separately. Tore is living close to the construction site while Cajsa is living in another town. Tore is calling Cajsa at work. Cajsa helps paint and wallpaper the house in the evenings. 04

T:

Nej No

05

C:

Ma± men da hur ska ja tror'u att ja beh&ver kouma Mm: but you how will I think'you that I need come Mm: but listen how should I- do you think I need to come

06

nAn kvSlli veckan eller, some evening in week or some evening this week or

07

-> (0.6)

08

T:->

09

C:

10

nfhh nfhh

Mm:vi kan kolla de sen d& ( [ Mm: we can check that later then Mm: we can decide that later then

)

[Kan vi val inte Can we val not But we can't do gdra f&r den enda kvSllen ja kan komma isAfall at do for the only evening I can come inthatcase is that for the only evening I can come in that case is

65

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

11

12

ja tisda eller onsda? ju tuesday or Wednesday tuesday or Wednesday as you know T:

Ja men di f- sajer ja de imorron isifall, Yes but then w- say I that tomorrow inthatcase Yes but then w- i'll let you know tomorrow in that case

In the turn beginning in line 5, Cajsa asks w ith an or-inquiry w hether Tore thinks that she needs to come home some evening during the week ("Mm: but listen how should I- do you think I need to come som e evening this week or"). After the silence Tore first answers w ith the response particle mm. This can be an affirm ation in Swedish but is not oriented to as such in

this example.12 Tore continues by suggesting that they defer this decision until later ("we can decide that later then"). This is heard as an undesireable response by Cajsa who rejects this suggestion in her next turn (lines 9-10). She offers as an account the fact that she would only be able to come home Tuesday or W ednesday. Tore replies w ith a deferral in line 12. Unlike the indefinite deferral that he proposed in line 8, this deferral is offered within a specific time frame ("tom orrow ''). N either of the interactants treat the silence after the or-inquiry as Cajsa's intratum pause. The analysis of example 17 underscores that to determ ine whether the or-inquiry is a com plete turn, we cannot merely m easure the time that elapses beetween the or-inquiry and the next turn. A dditionally we need to inspect the stance the next turn displays tow ard that silence. Sacks et. al

66

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

distinguished between gaps and pauses in conversation. Gaps are silences at possible completion points w here turn transfer may be relev an t Pauses by contrast occur within a turn and are not to be talked in by others (Sacks et. al p. 715, footnote 26). However as the authors also suggested, w hether a silence is best understood as a gap or a pause is a negotiated m atter that is both contingent on who speaks next and the kind of action engaged in w ithin the next turn.

In the example above, it is the recipient of the or-

inquiry (Tore) rather than the person who produced the or-inquiry (Cajsa) who starts talking after the silence. In choosing to claim the floor at this point Tore treats the silence as a gap where it is appropriate for him to speak. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that he prom otes the sequence in progress by answering Cajsa's or-inquiry. That Tore claimed the floor after the silence to advance the sequence in progress thus prom otes my analysis that the or-inquiry is understood as a complete turn. This pattern was characteristic of the other seven exam ples w here a silence ensued after the or-inquiry. 3.2.4. Sequential appropriateness of activity done in next turn The particulars of the stance displayed in the tu rn after the orinquiry will be explored in m ore detail in section 3.4.. For now I just w ant to establish that the next tu rn responds to the action initiated w ith the orinquiry. This was true for all the cases in my data base. As noted earlier, this

67

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

supports my point that the or-inquiry is treated as a complete turn. In example 18 the kennel ow ner responds to V iveka's insertion sequence (line 5). #18 KENNEL [M0L2:A:18:373] 04 V:

Eh- har ni. oppet pi lordamosrron Eh- have you open on saturdaymorning Eh- are you open Saturday morning or

05

K:-> Ja: :? Yes

06

V:

eller. or

Attatiden pi ISrda hur [gir des. Eighttime on Saturday how goes that Around eight on Saturday how is that

In the first TCU of line 12 in example 19, Bosse prom ises to comply w ith P ei's request [Yes I('ll) talk w ith Rickard can do-]. #19 CALLING RICKARD [GRU7:A:5:237] 11 P:

12

B:->Ja: ja prata me Rickard kan vil gor- ja har inte fitt Yes I talk with Rickard can val do- I have not got Yes I('ll) talk with Rickard can do- I haven't

13

14

'hh Ehs e- du ringer till dom eller, hh Eh: e- you will call to them or *hh Eh: e- you will call them or

tatg pi Ekbom Snnu, hold on Ekbom yet got hold of Ekbom yet P:

Nehejdu [han 2r- ar upptagen han Mr kanske u:te iNehej you he is- is busy he is maybe out and I see he is- is busy he might be out and-

And in examples 20 and 21 the recipient answ ers die or-inquiry (lines 11-14 and 17-22 respectively). #20 KAFFEREP [GRU7:A:1:33]

68

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

10

P:

Ska Hill Hill

11

Fs->

hon komma hem pi kaffe di ell[er£ she come hone on coffee -then or she come over for coffee then or fNfej di sa Ho then said No then I said

12

-> ja 'hh har du lust i satta pi kaffepannan I 'hh have you lust to turn on the coffeepot 'hh if you are in the mood to make coffee

13

-> nin ging (pi’t over) si kommer ja till dej "Ah some time (on it over) so come I to you "Oh some time I'll come over "Oh

14

->va rot lit” what fun" how nice"

#21 SKARA [Pel Nummer] 15

S:

[ *'hh * du bor inte har i *' hh‘ you live not here in you don’t live here in

16

17

18

Skara ann[ars di eller, Skara otherwise then or M:->

[ hhhh hhhh

Saej ja har gjort ilia kniit No I have made hurt the knee No I have hurt my knee

-> ja har korsbandsskada. (.) si ja har I have cruciate ligament injury So I have been

19

-> ooererat mej nu i sommar har, 'hh Si att ja har varit operated me now in summer here *hh So that I have been operated on now this summer *hh So I have been

20

-> (lemma nu i tre minader men annars si har ja varit home now in three months but otherwise so have I been home for three months but otherwise I have been

21

->

ute i flanat it vari skidlSrare lite h&r idir out and dashed and been ski teacher little here and there

69

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

out running around and been ski teacher here and there 22

-> i

tre A[sr in three years for three years

Three of the or-inquiries in the data base were followed by other-initiated repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977). In one of these cases the repair initiation was a candidate understanding that was confirmed in the next turn. In the two other cases, shown below, va ["what"] was used to initate repair. #22 AIRPORT [Vetlanda] 07

08

Jan: -Be:j, Hi Vera:

E du pA Vetlanda eller £ Are you at Vetlanda or

09

Jan:-> Va? What

10

Vera: »Var e du ndnstans?• Where are you someplace Whereabouts are you

#23 PURE COPY (Svhrfar) 13

VERA:

14

RUNA:->

15

VERA:

Ja: h va hSsrlit e do(m) pA besok nu ellerYes h what wonderful are they on visit now or Yes 'h how wonderful are they visiting now or Vat I What E dom pA beso:k? Ere they on visit Are they visiting

As other research has shown this type of repair initiator formulates a

70

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

general problem in hearing or understanding (Drew, 1997; Schegloff, 1997). In no t specifying a particular p art of the troublesource tu rn va ["what"] does not single o ut the turn final e lle r as the specific cause of trouble. N onetheless it is noticeable that the speaker of the troublesource turn drops e lle r in the repair itself (example 22 line 10 and example 20 line 15). In

exam ple 22 this can be explained by the fact that Vera reform ulates her question as a so called "w h"-question »Var e du ndnsta ns« ["whereabouts are you"] and these types of questions cannot take eller. The om ission of e lle r is more apparent in example 22, as the speaker in this example repeats

part of the troublesource turn in the repair (cf. lines 13 and 15). The inclusion of eller in line 13 and its omission in line 15 is m ore likely to be grounded in the disjunctive character of the turn in line 13 than in the intelligibility of the turn final e lle r (cf. Drew, 1997) 3.2.5. Sequential uptake in the turn after next turn Schegloff (1992b) dem onstrated the strategic im portance of the turn following a "responsive" turn (i.e. a turn in third position) for the practical accom plishm ent of intersubjectivity in conversation. He show ed a range of examples w here a speaker uses a turn in third position to repair the recipient's understanding of the speaker's prior turn. None of the orinquiry sequences in my data base involved the type of corrections Schegloff described. Instead the speaker of the or-inquiry prom oted the

71

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

sequence that was already in progress. In example 24, Viveka responds to the base sequence initiated by the kennel ow ner in lines 2-3 by proposing that she leave the dog around eight ("around eight on Saturday how is that"). #24 KENNEL [MOL2:A:18:373] 02

K:

Ja vi go:r sA horrudu: men nar Jcommer ni Yes we do so listenyou but when come you Yes we'll do that but when will you bring

03

ae'rom dA:£ with'them then them then

04

V:

Eh- har ni oppet pA 16rdamo:rron eller, Eh- have you open on saturdaymorning or Eh- are you open Saturday morning or

05

K:

Ja::? Yes

06

V:- > Attatiden pA l&rda hur [gAr de:r Eighttime on Saturday how goes that Around eight on Saturday how is that

In exam ple 25, Per responds to Bosse's assertion in lines 12-13 that he has not been able to reach Ekbom ("I see he is- is busy he is perhaps out-"). #25 CALLING RICKARD [GRU7 :A: 5 :237 ] 12

B:

Ja: ja prata me Rickard kan vAl g&r- ja har inte fAtt Yes I talk with Rickard can vSl do- I have not got Yes I('ll) talk with Rickard can do- I haven't

13

14

ta:g pA Ekbom Anna, hold on Ekbom yet got hold of Ekbom yet P:->

Nehej du [han Sr- iir upptagen han Sr kanake u:te ANehej you he is- is busy he is maybe out andI see he is- is busy he might be out-

72

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

15

B:

[Ban arHe is

In exam ple 26 Per supports Frida's telling w ith a continuer ("yes"). Ja can be heard as an affirm ation in Swedish (c.f. endnote 12). However, because it does not appear after a "yes"/"no" interrogative it functions as a continuer in this sequence. This analysis is supported by Frida's ensuing turn where she declines the opportunity to continue her telling w ith "so that was my day". #26 KAFFEREP [GRU7sAs1:33] 10

P: ->

11

F:

12

Ska hon komma hempi kaffe di ell[eri will she come home on coffee then or Will she come over for coffee then or [Nejdi sa No then said No then I said

ja 'hh har du lust i satta pi kaffepannan I ‘hh have you lust to turn on the coffeepot 'hh if you are in the mood to make coffee

13

nin ging (pi't Sver) si kommerja till dej "Ah some time (on it over) so come I to you “Oh some time I'll come over "Oh

14

va rot lit" what fun” how nice"

15

Ps-> Jat, Yes

16

F:

'hh fJo (t) si de e min da det (dir), *hh Jo (t) so 't's my day that (there) *hh So that was ay day

73

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Sara makes a generalization based on Malena's telling in example 24. #27 SKARA [Fel Nummer] IS

S:

[ * 'hh * du

bor

inte har

i

°'hh*you live not here in you don't live here in 16

17

Skara ann[ars Skara otherwise M:

dA

eller,

then or

[ hhhh

Naej ja har gjort ilia knast

hhhh

No I have made hurt the knee No I have hurt my knee

18

ja har korsbandsskada. (.) SA ja bar I have cruciate ligament injury So I have I have cruciate ligament injury So I have been

19

opererat mej nu i sommar har, 'hh SA att ja har varit operated me now in summer here 'hh So that I have been operated on now this summer 'hh So I have been

20

hernia nu

i

tre

mAnader men annars

sA har

ja varit

home now in three months but otherwise so have I home for three months but otherwise I have been

been

21

-> ute A flAnot A: vari skidl&rare lite har A dar out and dashed and been ski teacher little here and there out running around and been ski teacher here and there

22

-> i tre A[:r in three years for three years

23

24

S:->

[Ja: ja du har haft lite sAna hSr sasongsjobb Yes yes you have had little such here seasonal jobs Yeah yeah you have had some seasonal jobs

-> A [sAnt. and such and things like that

And, in exam ple 28 Cajsa rejects Tore's suggestion (lines 9-11). #28 COME HOME [GRU7B:2:292] Cajsa and Tore are building a house

74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

together. At the moment they are living separately. Tore is living close to the construction site while Cajsa is living in another town. Tore is calling Cajsa at work. Cajsa helps paint and wallpaper the house in the evenings. 04 T:

Nej nfhh No nfhh

05

Mn± men du hur ska ja tror’u att ja behover komma Mm: but you how will I think'you that I need come Mm: but listen how should I- do you think I need to come

C:

06

nkn kvall i veckan eller, some evening in week or some evening this week or

07

(0.6)

08 T:

09

Mas vi Mm: we Mm: we

kan kolla de sen dk ( can check that later then candecide that later then

C:->

[

)

[Kan vi val inte Can we val not But we can't do

10

-> gora for den enda kvallen ja kan komma iskfall Sr do for the only evening I can come inthatcase is that for the only evening Ican come in that case is

11

- > ju tisdaeller onsda? ju tuesday or Wednesday tuesday or Wednesday as you know

12

T:

Ja men di f- s&jer ja de imorron iskfall. Yes but then w- say I that tomorrow inthatcase Yes but then w- I'll let you know tomorrow in that case

The third position of the or-inquiry sequence furnishes a slot w here the speaker of the or-inquiry could address the appropriateness of the recipient's displayed understanding of the or-inquiry. That the or-inquiry speaker uses this sequential slot to prom ote the sequence in progress rather than, for example addressing the prior tu rn as interruptive, furnishes

75

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

I 1

further evidence that the or-inquiry is designed to be com plete after eller. 3.2.6. Sum m ary I have isolated the or-inquiry as a turn in its ow n right. A lthough it is not a phenom enon th at is distinctive to the Swedish language com m unities, it differs from sim ilar tum -constructions th at have been analyzed in American English conversation in that eller is produced as a constitutive com ponent of its host TCU. The or-inquiries in m y collection are syntactically form ed as either B-event statem ents or as syntactic interrogatives. Drawing on w ork by Sacks et al. (1974) and Ford and Thom pson (1996), I analyzed points of possible com pletion w ithin the orinquiry. From the point of view of traditional linguistics, the or-inquiry is syntactically incomplete after e lle r [or]. I suggest that this should not be attributed to speech error. R ather it should be treated as evidence for the idea that gram m ar emerges from and is adaptive to interaction. Through analysis of both the onset and sequential appropriateness of the activity engaged in the turns that follow the or-inquiry I dem onstrated that both the speaker and the recipient orient to the the integrity of the or-inquiry in its ow n right. 3.3. Sw edish research on or-inquiries A lthough the or-inquiry is commonplace in Swedish conversation (Linell & Bredm ar, 1995) it has n ot been systematically studied. Lars

76

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A hrenberg (1987) considered or-inquiries in passing in his dissertation on interrogative structures of Swedish. He suggested that the tum final e lle r is the m ost com m on tag in spoken Swedish (p. 99). Ahrenberg's classification probably stems from the fact, supported by the analysis in this chapter, that the tu rn final e lle r follows a syntactically com plete utterance. H ow ever, my analysis shows th at it is misleading to treat e lle r as a tag. Unlike other tags such as "right" (Sw. inte sant), eller is never prosodically separated from the proceeding TCUs in my collection.13 Furtherm ore, as I have shown, recipients typically treat the or-inquiry as a single unit of action by not claiming the floor prem aturely, that is before eller. This is a significant difference from som e other tags w here the tag is be a post-positioned attem pt to pre-em pt a dispreferred response. A hrenberg speculated that the m ain function of the turn-final e lle r is to underscore the interrogative nature of an utterance or "at least make sure that a response will follow" (p. 99) bu t he did not dem onstrate how this is accomplished. He also proposed that or-inquiries may function as evidentiary m arkers that register "sudden doubt" (p. 104). Finally he com pared interrogatives that end w ith e ller w ith interrogatives that end w ith eller inte [or not] arguing that while the latter forces a choice upon exactly tw o alternatives, the former allows for a greater range of responses. Unlike the present study, Ahrenberg prim arily bases his analysis of the or-

77

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

inquiry on intuition. As a linguist, Ahrenberg concentrated on specifying possible grammatical constructions that can end w ith e ller . The present study by contrast is based on real life instances of or-inquiries that are presented and analyzed w ithin their sequential context. The analysis focusses on how interactants orient to eller as an instrum ent of social action. 3.4. Marking problematidty w ith the or-inquiry As noted in the introduction, the or-construction relaxes the preference structure of the tu rn to facilitate a non-aligning response. The or-construction thus reveals a speaker anticipation of recipient resistance to the project the or-inquiry otherw ise engages in. I will now explore this issue in more detail. First, I will briefly review CA work that has dem onstrated that problem atidty is an oriented-to-feature in talk-ininteraction. I will then analyze a range of or-inquiries that mark problem atidty. 3.4.1. Marking problematidty in talk-in-interaction O ther CA work has show n that partidpants in talk-in-interaction can orient to the potentially problem atic character of either the actions they engage in or the topics they raise (c.f. Schegloff 1980, Jefferson & Lee, 1981; Jefferson, 1984b). A case in point is question projections. Schegloff (1980) showed that question projections can be used to show that "the projected

78

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

question is, or is m arked as, a delicate one" (p.131). Example 29 shows a question projection (lines 14-15) where the delicate character of the projected question (lines 20-22) is made explicit (lines 17-18). #29 Erhardt: 8: 1 (cited and analyzed in Schegloff, 1980, p. 131-2) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Vicky: Pam:

Pam:

Pam:

You raj_ng? Oh hello there yes I di::d. -> .hh urn 1 nee:d tuh ask you a -> questiojn? (0.4) -> en you mustn't (0.7) uh take -> it personally or kill me. (0.7) I wan to knorw, (0.7) whether you: will(b)would be frees., (•) to work o:n urn tomorrow night.

Pre-delicate question projections are forward pointing. They can m ark the delicacy of a future action or topic. Or-inquiries by contrast are backwardlooking in that they m ark the project already engaged in w ithin the same turn as problematic. A lthough eller in and of itself is n o t separated from its host TCU this lends it an "after the fact" character. If we approach this tu rn construction in term s of considerations of face and politeness (Goffman, 1955; Brown & Levinson, 1978) it seems a poor conversational move. In blunt terms, the speaker first puts her foot in her m outh and then draw s attention to this w ith the turn-final eller. However, in term s of sequential considerations the fact that eller is done in turn-final position is crucial. O ther work (Schegloff, 1995) has shown that an unm arked "y es"/"n o " interrogative generally prefers a "yes" type

79

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

response. By unm arked I m ean a question w here other aspects of its design on the one hand, such as a negative form ulation, or its positioning on the other, does not alter its preference organization. By adding eller in turnfinal position the speaker relaxes the preference organization of the turn. C ontrary to other "y es"/"n o " questions, or-inquiries may be more likely to be heard to allow for the potentiality of a "no"-type response. 3.4.2. Or-inquiries that run counter to the preference displayed in the prior talk That or-inquiries are used to mark problem atidty is most readily apparent in environm ents w here elements of the preceeding sequence already have indicated that the project the or-inquiry engages in is dispreferred. 3.4.2.I. Making an offer that is unwarranted by the prior talk Example 30 was introduced in the beginning of this chapter. #30 CITY HALL [GRU7:B:9:485] Per and Erik are members of the same intramural soccer team. 01

02

03

P:

E:

Ar'ti fit for fight iaorron? Are'you fit for fight tomorrow Are you fit for fight for tomorrow JossrA nA sA nar. Jbthen some so near Jo sort of

P: ~>Ska ja komma A eh- vSgen fOrbit eller, Shall I come and eh- the road by or Should I come and eh- drop by your place or

80

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

04

05

E:

Nej ja a i Esk- nej fan ja a i Ska:ra iaorron No I 'b in Esk- no devil I 'm in Skara tomorrow No I'll be in Esk- no by god I am in Skara tomorrow kvall £Qr fasn, night for devil night damn it

P ei's question in line 1 occurs in the "reason for call" slot (c.f. Schegloff, 1986, and, for Swedish, Lindstrbm, 1994). A lthough it does not form ulate the reason for call it is likely to be heard in term s of the reason for the call due to its positioning in this sequential slot. The question itself, [Are you fit for fight for tom orrow], places the onus on Erik to figure out what Per means. An alternative and more accessible form ulation would have been for Per to ask w hether Erik is ready for the upcom ing soccer game the next day. In asking the question in just the way he asks it, Per shows that he orients to the upcom ing game as a big event that need not be named and, m ore im portantly, that he expects Erik to share his orientation and enthusiasm . Erik's response in the next tu rn is considerably dow ngraded. I hear the turn-initial response token jodd as roughly equivalent to the English "w ell" in this sequential position. The next TCU, [sort of], dow ngrades the response even further. Thus, Erik's response raises the possibility th at he is not ready for and prepared to participate in the upcom ing game. Instead of pursuing this possibility, Per asks in the next turn w hether Erik w ould like to carpool to the game. This is done w ith an

81

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

or-inquiry, [Should I come and eh- drop by your place or]. The first selfinterrupted unit "should I come and eh" could be heard to be going tow ard "should I come and pick you up". Per drops this formulation in favor of "the road by or" (c.f. the literal translation of line 3). The second form ulation underscores that Per will not have go out of his way to fulfill the offer. This self-repair shows that Per orients to the action as problem atic even before the articulation of eller [or]. By making the offer, Per is assuming that Erik will participate in the game. This assum ption runs counter to the proceeding talk. In doing the offer as an or-inquiry, Per displays an aw areness of the problematic character of his course of action. 3.4.2.2. Refusing to fu lfill an expectation to speak on behalf of a spouse In the next example, the speaker of the or-inquiry refuses to fulfill an expectation to respond on her husband's behalf. K idd is calling Allan and Vera's home to ask if Allan can act as the ad ult guardian during a riding camp sleep over. #31 SLEEPING OVER [MOL2:A:2:20] Kick! is a riding instructor at a childrens' riding camp. The children spend the night at the camp. She is calling for Allan who is not home. Allan's wife Vera has just told KicJci when she expects Allan to return. 01

02

K:

Nej fSr ja skulle bStra No for I should hear No cause I was going to

fSr ban bade tydligen for he had apparently ask cause he had apparently

sa:gt i vA:ras att ban kunde ligga kvasr p& n£ said in the spring that he could lay over on some said last spring that he could sleep over at some

82

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

03

lasger n£- nit tag hh camp so- some -time hh

04

V:

Jaha:: pt

05

K: Och eh ja bar lager nu'r£ And eh I have a camp now then

och de imorron andit tomorrow

06

imorron natt(*simile 're va jSttebra om ban tomorrow night (would't be reallygood if he

07

kunde could

08

V:

09

K:

10

11

12

13

14

15

*) )

Ja ja iufstde. Yes yes right it Yes yes right [( (

) etrbjndi sej, ) offered himself he offered to

V: ->Ja ia .bb eb ja bar svirt £ svara p£ de [men= Yesyes .hh eh I have difficulty to answer on that but Yes .hh eh it is difficult for me to answer that but K:

[Ja:. Yes

V: ->=om ban kan s£ gor ban sakert de men kan ja be if he can so does he surely that but may I ask if he can he'll surely do it but may I ask ->bonom ringa dej ikvStll eller? him call you tonight or him to call you tonight or K:

Mm: ja e v£l kvar bar till sex n£nting p£ Mm: I 'm val still here until six something at Mm I'm probably here until around six or so at ri:dhuse the riding house the riding center

A lthough h er intended recipient is not available, K idd begins to form ulate the reason for call in line 1, [cause I was going to ask]. She interrupts this

83

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

tu rn in progress to state that Allan had previously prom ised to perform the activity that Kicki is about to ask that he perform [cause he had apparently said last spring that he could sleep over at some camp so- some tim e hh]. In stating this Kicki does not only show why it is relevant for her to make the request. Additionally she im plies (by qualifying the authority of her statem ent w ith "apparently") that Allan would be breaking his w ord if he did n ot comply. I hear Vera's uptake in line 4 as an acknowledgm ent (akin to "I see"). This response neither affirm s nor denies the veracity of Kicki's previous statem ent. Kicki continues by stating that she currently is in charge of a riding camp and intim ates that she w ould need Allan to sleep over w ith the children the next night [tom orrow night (w ould't be reallygood if he could)]. V era's next turn (line 8) recognizes the need that Kicki has articulated but does not respond to the request. Kicki thus renew s the relevance of the request by once again noting A llan's promise [he offered to]. That Kicki is renew ing the request and the relevance of an acceptance or granting is supported by V era's uptake w here she form ulates herself as unable to respond on her husband's behalf [it is difficult for me to answ er that]. Vera then m itigates her refusal to either grant or deny the request by stating that she is sure that her husband will comply if able to do so and goes on to ask w hether Allan can return Kicki's call w ith an orinquiry. In this case the or-inquiry m arks that Vera recognizes that her

84

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

refusal to respond on her husband's behalf is dispreferred. 3.42.3. Declining a request Example 32 is taken from a different conversation where someone is trying to reach Vera's husband Allan. #32 BUSY [MOL2:A:l:5] Jens is seeking Allan but is told that Allan is busy and cannot come to the phone.VerachecksifAllan can call Jens back and asks if 10 pm would be too late. Thesequencecontinues as transcribed. 01

J:

Na: 'cA de g&r bra, Nothen that goes fine No that's fine

02

V:

Ja:? Yes

03

J:

Ni:etvi tre sjutton, Nine two three seventeen

04

Vs-> Eh vi ska se nu har ja ingen petnna har tror'u Eh we shall see now have I no pen here think'you Eh let's see I don't have a pen here now do you think

05

06

-> han har nuaret eller< he has the number or J:

Ja: han kan sli upp de annars. Yes he can look up it otherwise Yes otherwise he can look it up

In term s of both its sequential placem ent - after Vera has clarified how late Allan can return the call - and form, line 3 is hearable as a recitation of Jens' phone number. Vera responds to it as a request to w rite dow n the num ber by asserting that she is unable to do so [Eh let's see I don't have a pen here now]. In framing this account w ith "now" and "here" (see the w ord by w ord translation for the Swedish w ord order) she shows that it was not

85

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

unreasonable for Jens to assum e that she could have been prepared to w rite dow n the number. She then uses an or-inquiry to ask w hether her husband already has the number [do you think he has the num ber or]. This question declines the request. The or-inquiry shows Vera's aw areness that she is not engaging in the preferred course of action. Jens accepts the declination in his next turn by suggesting that Allan look up the num ber in the phone book. This suggestion preserves the appropriateness of Jens' having m ade the request in the first place and highlights that it indeed w ould have been relevant for Vera to w rite dow n the number. 3.4.2.4. Pursuing a topic that has been resisted The or-inquiry is used to pursue a topic that has been resisted in the immediately preceeding talk in the next example. The example was introduced in chapter one. A nita is calling Vera to see if they can arrange a get together. Anita has stated that she would like to come over to Vera's place some time during the week. Vera has just asked A nita w hich day she had in mind. The sequence continues as follows: #33 ULLEr Ak e r [MOL:l:A:2:174] Anita and Vera attended medical school together. Both women interrupted their medical training to have children. "Schooling'’, first mentioned in line 10 refers to the process of gradually getting the children accustomed to institutional day care (this requires that at least one parent be present). UllerSker, mentioned in line 18 is a mental hospital. 09

A:

Nej ja har inte tSnkt n&nting £8r nasta vecka No I had not thought anything cause next week No I hadn't thought anything it's just that I begin

86

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

10

borjar ja skosla in dom, begin I school in them schooling them next week

11

V:

12

A:

13

A:

14

15

16

pt'Aii Ska' ru [borja jobba£ pt'hh Will'you [begin working Are you gonna start working [
[Ska'ru jobba pi Uller&ker elleri [Will'you work at Uller&ker or Are you going to work at Uller&ker or

19

A5

JSL f f

Yes 20

V:

mPis vicken avdelning-' On which department At which department

21

A:

Ja de vet ja inte nu, Yes that know I not now well I don't know that at the moment

22

V:

A'fne* 'h*[no*

87

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

23

A:

24

Vs

25

A:

26 27

28

[Ja har fdrtrangt de [hh, [I have repressed it [hh [Du har fortr- heh heh [You have repr- heh heh

[heh [heh [ *heh

heh* V:

'hh Men Anita du har vari hemaa ISnge ocksA 'hh But Anita you have been home long also But Anita you have been home for a long time as well val right haven't you

Anita first m entions that she will be schooling in the children in line 10 to explain why she m ay not be able to get together w ith Vera during the upcoming week. V era latches onto this ancillary com ponent (Jefferson, 1984) of A nita's talk by asking w hether Anita is going to start to work (line ll) .14 A nita's response focusses not on the prospective job itself but on its time fram e [yes I'll start to w ork in September the third of September]. The time frame is relevant for the sequential activity that still is in progress, i.e. figuring out a time w hen Vera and Anita can get together. Vera receipts this inform ation w ith a w ord repeat [the third of September] and an acknowledgm ent, ah a, in her next turn. The acknow ledgm ent potentiates but does not require uptake from Anita. Instead of expanding on the news that she is returning to w ork, A nita returns to the fact that she will be schooling in the children and its relevance for the arrangem ent of the get

88

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

together in her next turn which begins w ith the resum ption m arker sa [so] (lines 16-17). In spite of A nita's resum ption to the children's school schedule, Vera pursues the news that A nita is going back to w ork w ith an or-inquiry [are you going to work at UUer&ker or]. Here, the or-design shows that Vera is aw are that she is pursuing a topic that A nita is resisting. Anita's reluctance to engage in the topic Vera is proposing is evident not only in her curtailed uptake to the questions in line 18 and 20 but also in her adm ission in line 23 that she "has repressed it". The m ost proxim ate reference for "it" is Vera's question in line 20 ("at which departm ent''). The Swedish w ord fdrtrangt has Freudian connotations (like the G erm an verdrangen). In using this term, Anita conveys her anxiety about the

assigned departm ent. There is a faint laugh token at the end of this turn (line 23). A lthough Vera first treats A nita's confession as laughable she quickly changes her tack and offers a reason (that she herself shares) as to why Anita m ight feel anxious [but Anita you have been home for a long time as well haven't you]. Examples 30-33 showed or-inquiries where aspects of the prior talk indicate that the action engaged in w ith the or-inquiry is dispreferred. For example 30, Erik's dow ngraded response to P et's question w hether he is "fit for fight" suggests the possibility that he is not prepared to participate in the upcoming soccer game. Instead of pursuing this possibility, Per asks

89

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

whether Erik w ould like to carpool to the game. In form ulating and pursuing a request that Vera's husband perform night duty at a riding camp in a conversation w ith Vera Kicki shows that she expects Vera to speak on her husband's behalf (example 31). Instead of doing so, Vera defers this decision to her husband. In example 32, Jens recites his telephone num ber to Vera so th at her husband will be able to return his phone call. Instead of writing dow n the number, Vera asks w hether Allan already has the number. In exam ple 33, Vera pursues a topic that Anita has resisted in the preceeding talk. The next set of exam ples are or-inquiries that in themselves are dispreferred. 3.4.3. Or-inquiries that in and of them selves are dispreferred The next set of examples show or-inquiries that in and of themself are dispreferred. They include m aking a pre-complaint, checking w hether a recipient knows about an em barrassing incident, mis-aligning w ith a troubles-telling, disaligning w ith a line pursued by the recipient in the previous talk, an d articulating som ething untow ard that only was alluded to in the prior talk. 3.43.1. A pre-complaint Mia is calling th e social insurance office to ask whether her husband's sick leave benefit has been paid out in exam ple 34. She formulates this request as an or-inquiry.

90

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

#34 SICK LEAVE [VAT13:B:4:65] 01

F:

Forsakringskassan Llndell. Social insurance office Lindell

02

M: ->Ja heisan de va Mia Edvardason ja skulle hora 'hhh Yes hi there it was Mia Edwardsson I should hear 'hhh Yeah hi this is Mia Edwardsson I was going to see 'hhh

03

->angAende Torkel Edvardssons sjmkpenning om den e regarding Torkel Edvardsson's sickness benefit if it's

04

->pA va:g eller (a),

hh[h hhh

on way or (m), 'hhh hhh on its way or (m), ‘hhh hhh 05

F:

06

07

[ Uu :_r Vi ska se nar ar Uu:j_ we will see when is Let's see when was hafn fddd? he born

M:

[Mm± Mm

fvrti noil sex Atta (0.2) nitti tretton. forty zero six eight ninety thirteen

(0. 8)

08

09

F:

10

M: Mms?

11

Vanta litegrann dA, Wait little bit then Hold on for a moment then

(32.00) ((children’s voices inbackground))

... side conversation between Mia anddaughter 15

16

17

omitted ...

F: Ar'e fSr ett sinkfall nu hSr i:[: angustii Is't for a sickness now here in august Is't for a sickday in august M:

(Ja:? Yes

M: A:? Yes

91

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

18

F:

'hh Peagar ska komma Ida:, ‘hh The money will come today

19

M:

Dom komaer ida. They will come today

In raising the expectation that m oney may not have been paid o ut even though it is due, this or-inquiry is hearable as a pre-complaint. Furtherm ore, from the point of view of the dom inant culture, the inquiry could be considered delicate as it intim ates that Mia and her family are low on cash. Mia displays an orientation to the problematic character of her course of action w ith the or-construction. 3.4.3.2. Checking whether the recipient knows about an embarrassing incident The or-inquiry in example 35 is dispreferred in that it checks w hether the recipient knows about an em barrassing incident. Ylva and Liv are talking. Liv is Ylva's daughter's (M aria's) riding instructor. M aria has recently participated in a riding cam p that Liv taught. #35 CUMBERSOME [VAT13:A: 12:364] Henrik, mentioned in line 21 is Liv's son. 01 Y:

(Gudrun Ahl) va ute A red ut i skogen med Marita (Gudrun Ahl) wasout and rode out in the woods with Maria (Gudrun Ahl was out and rode in the woods with Maria one

02

en da A de- de gick jSttebrat, one day and it- it went superwell day and she did really well

03 L:

Ja: Yes

92

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

04 05 L :

06 Y :

( ■)

Jos [d- 'hhh Jot d— 'hhh Jos th- 'hhh [Si de gjorde aycke (A) de dSr ridlagre i So it did much (also) that there riding camp in So it made a big difference as well that riding camp

07

somras ( ) the summer this summer

08 L::

Jas, Yes

09 Y:

Liksom lite mera, Sort of little more

10 L:

Jos de bisr liksom dom- man fastnar Jos it becomes sort of they- one gets attached Jos it becomes sort of they- one picks up

11

lite olikah olika gre(h)jer, little different different things a few different different things

12 Y:

Jasvisst, Yes of course

13 L:: ->Tyckte Aon de va iobbit dA eller, Thought she it was cumbersome then or Did she think it was tough then or 14 Y:

15 L:

Nej jattero[slit. Ho superfun No lots of fun [Nej nej tAtrarna den grata hon inge om 'hh Mo no the tears that talked she nothing about No no she did not talk of the tears at all

16 Y:

va sa 'ru, What said'you What did you say

17 Ls

TArarna prata hon inge om. The tears said she nothing about

93

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

She did not talk of the tears 18

Y:

Nejva['re sAna dki Nowere there such then No were there such things then

19 L:

[Ja::rA de va de ocksi pbh [hh hh, Yesthen it was that too phh [hh hh Oh yes there was as well

20 Y:

[$va va: 're

di

‘dA$i

What was't then then What was that then 21

L:

Ne:j de va den dar da:n nar Henrik skulle ridai No it was that there day when Henrik should ride No it was the day when Henrik was supposed to ride

Ylva is talking about M aria's progress in horsebackriding. She cites the riding camp that Liv organized as one of the factors that has im proved her daughter's horsemanship (line 6). H er turn can be heard as a com plim ent to Liv. Liv aligns w ith Ylva's statem ent w hithout overtly accepting the selfpraise by stating diffidently [one picks up a few different different things] (lines 8,10-11). As the ensuing talk reveals, Liv knows that Maria did not have an altogether positive experience a the riding camp. Apparently, there was an incident during the camp betw een lav 's son, Henrik, and Maria that brought M aria to tears (c.f. lines 17-21). From la v 's perspective this is an em barrassing incident because it im plicates her both as the instructor of the camp and as the mother of the instigator. However Liv does not know w hether Ylva knows of this incident and, m ore im portantly for the

94

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

sequence at hand, w hether Ylva's praise of Liv in lines 6-7, reflects a reversal of a previously held critical view. She pursues this delicate issue w ith an or-inquiry in line 13 [Did she think it was tough then or]. Ylva flatly disagrees in the next turn (line 14) w hereupon Liv asks w hether M aria m entioned the tears to her m other [she did not talk o f the tears]. Ylva receipts this w ith a repair initiation. U pon hearing the repaired question Ylva answ ers "no". She then asks "w ere there such things then" (line 18) thus aligning herself as a previously uninform ed recipient of Liv's incipient telling. Liv thus begins to tell the story about the incident that upset M aria in her next turn (line 21 ff). 3.433. M is-aligning with a troubles-telling The next or-inquiry initiates a step-w ise topic shift (Jefferson, 1984). A step-w ise topic shift is a shift that gradually moves away from the earlier topic. It does so by focussing on an ancillary m atter, i.e. som ething that was not at the heart of the m atter of the previous talk. Jefferson show ed that step-w ise topic shifts can be used to m ove out of a troubles-telling. This can be a dispreferred activity. The or-inquiry in example 36 is used in just this way. #36 SALINE DROPS [VATl3tA:9:234] Vendela and Liv are mothers. Vendela is calling to tell Liv that a common friend just gave birth to a baby girl. She reports that she learned this news when she was buying saline drops at the pharmacy. Min in line 1 refers to Vendela's infant son who has a bad cold. "+" indicates a complex transition relevance place.

95

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

01 V:

fffa ai:n Aar inte sovit sen klockan tolv ida:= I see mine has not slept since clock twelve today Well mine has not slept since noon today

02

L:

Her he. No Really

03

Vs

rNastaopt si in: i helsicke debidar gott Noseblocked so in in hell that bodes well Congested like hell it bodes for a +

04

+

inf&r natten vettu, infor the night knowyou nice night you know

05

(0.8) ((KIDS IN BACKGROUND))

06

L:

Vakdpte'ru nu ri. What bought'you now then What did you buy then

07

V:

Va, what

08

09

Ls —► Va kdpte'ru droppar eller, What bought'you drops or What did you buy drops or Vs

Ja: han fir ju inte ta nHs:spray heller. Yes he can ju not take nosespray either Yes he can't use nose spray

V endela complains that her baby has not napped properly in line 1. This is receipted w ith a minimal acknow ledgm ent from Liv in line 2. Vendela continues w ith "congested like hell". The syntactic construction, that is the om ission of the subject, m akes this tu rn parasitic of V endela's prior turn. It can therefore be heard to attribute the lack of sleep to the congestion. V endela then states ironically de bidar gott infor natten vettu [it bodes for a nice night you know]. There are at least three ways that V endela's turns in

96

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

lines 1, 3-4 can be heard as a troubles-telling. First, the complaint which is done through a negative observation in line 1. Second, the negative characterization "congested like hell" in line 3. Third, the intim ation in the continuation of the tu rn in lines 3-4 that this condition will prevail through the night de badar gott infor natten vettu [it bodes for a nice night you know]. Jefferson and Lee (1981) examined the sequential organization of a troubles-telling. They argued that the proper alignm ent to a troubles-telling is for the troubles recipient to affiliate w ith the troubled party. Instead of affiliating w ith Vendela, Liv does a step-wise topic shift by focussing on an ancillary com ponent of the prior talk, the m edication that Vendela has purchased [w hat did you buy then]. Rather than aligning herself w ith the troubled, Liv thus addresses herself to the trouble and its remedy. V endela's repair initiation in line 7 may be attributed to the disjointed and dispreferred character of lav 's inquiry (c.f. Drew, 1997). When Liv perform s the repair, she constructs the turn as an or-inquiry thereby marking it as problematic. 3.4.3.4. D isaligning with the line pursued in the previous talk The next five examples show or-inquiries th at disalign w ith the line pursued by the recipient of the or-inquiry in the prior talk. By "line" I m ean to include both topic in general and particular perspectives on a given topic.

97

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In the talk proceeding the segm ent transcribed in example 37, Malena and Sara have talked about a m utual M end who recently took up horse racing. In line 2 Malena begins a new topic by asking if Sara has been out on the tow n on "the old days”. M alena's turn is both a question of fact and a topic proffer. #37 SKARA [Fel Nummer] Skara, mentioned in line 15 is the name of the small town where the Sara and Malena grew up. "The old days" in line 2 refers to a historic town festival in Skara. 01

S: Ja:6 yes

02

M: hhh fBasf (.) har 'a vari pA stan dA pA aldre dar? Ha: have'you been on town then on old days Ha: have you been out on the town then on the old days

03

S:

04

M: Du [har inte de. You have not that You haven't

05

S:

06

M: .hh De va faktistiattemvsit iaA:r. IgArkvall de .hh 't was actually supercozy yesterday yesterdaynight it 't was actually really nice yesterday last night the

Naej, NO

[(

)

mNS:ejm. No

07

va fsA varmt vSder A sA mycke folkf (uppe was so warm weather and so much people up weather was so warm and so many people up

08

var riktit aysit faktist [ hhhh was really cozy actually 'hhhh was actually really nice

09

S:

)

[Ja: de kan ja tSnka mej. Yes 't can I think me Yes I can imagine that

98

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

10

H:

De va

sA gott

gick

A

At

glass

A

sa

hej

't was so sweet walked and ate icecream and said hi 11

sA dar. ((creaky voice)) and such there

[till alia gamla kosmpisar A

to 12

S:

13

S:

all

old

friends

[ mJ aham. Jashh?

Yes 14

tI:

De va

faktist

iattemvsfit.

’t was actually supercozy ’t was actually really nice 15

£is ->

16

du bor inte har i *' hh° you live not here in you don't live here in

[ m ’hh'

->Skara annfars

dA

Skara otherwise 17

M:

eller,

then or

[ 'hhhh

Naej ja har

'hhhh

18

gjort ilia kn a :t

No I have made hurt the knee No I havehurt my knee

korsbandsskada . (.) SA ja har have cruciate ligament injury So I have have cruciate ligament injury So I have been

ja har

I I 19

opererat mej

nu i

sommar har,

'hh SA

att ja har

varit

operated me now in summer here 'hh So that I have been operated on now this summer 'hh So I have been 20

hemma nu i tre mAnader men annars sA har home now in three months but otherwise so home for three months but otherwise I have been

ja varit

have I

21

ute A flgngt As vari skidlArare lite har A dar out and dashed and been ski teacher little hereand there out running around and been ski teacher here and there

22

i tre A[sr in three years for three years

23

S:

[Ja: ja

du

har

haft lite

sAna hSr

sasongsjobb

Yes yes you have had little such here seasonal jobs Yeah yeah you have had some seasonal jobs

99

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

been

24

A

[sAnt.

and such and things like that

Sara responds negatively to the factual question and rejects the topic proffer in h er ensuing turn w ith a cu rt "no"(line 3). M alena nonetheless pursues the topic w ith a follow-up query in line 4 that is receipted w ith a second rejection by Sara in line 5. N otw ithstanding Sara's apparent lack of enthusiasm , Malena goes on to relate her own experience of the town festival in an anim ated voice. H er description includes tw o positive assessm ents in lines 6 and 8. The use of the w ord "actually" displays that M alena is aw are of Sara's resistance to her topic proffer. Sara responds to the second of Malena's assessm ents in line 9. The m atter of fact tenor of her voice and her form ulation "I can imagine that" sounds distancing and suggests that she is not fully participating in the vivid scene that Malena is anim ating. In spite of this, M alena continues her telling in lines 10 and 12. Sara's acknowledgm ent in line 11 is slightly prem ature and may evidence lack of interest. Her breathy continuer in line 13 sounds aloof and may also m ark inattention. Beginning w ith Sara's curt response in line 3 there are thus several aspects in this spate of talk that suggests th at Sara is not keen on talking about the tow n festival. Malena repeats her earlier assessment in line 14. This repetition could be heard as a move tow ard a topic close (Schegloff, 1995).

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Sara does an or-inquiry in lines 15-16 that m oves away from the line pursued by Malena. Specifically, the or-inquiry perspecitivizes M alena's telling about the town festival by suggesting that such a scene would be "nice" only for someone w ho does not live in town. The or-inquiry thus raises the relevance of a potential confrontation of views, values, and lives. This is a delicate tack to take and this is marked w ith "or".15 Malena confirms Sara's presupposition that she does not usually live in Skara and goes on to describe a recent knee-injury as well as her past jobs. Her assertion in lines 20-21 that she has "been out running around and been ski teacher here and there" presents Malena as a cosm opolitan rather than a small tow n person. It could thus be heard as a counter to Sara's intimation that M alena was overly excited about the town festival. In the next example a new baby announcem ent (Terasaki, 1976) is m et w ith tem pered enthusiasm and an or-inquiry then introduces a shift from the line pursued in the previous talk. In the talk that proceeds the transcribed segment Vera and Anita have talked about a friend who just had a second baby. #38 GOTLAND [M0L:2:A:2:264] relevance place. 19

V:

20

A:

"+" indicates a complex transition

Mm± hh'ja* men [Or'eMmj. ‘hh'yes* but [is’t+

[Lissa har ju fitt en pojke till [Li:sa has ju had one boy more Lisa has had another boy

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

+

21

de vet du, that know you you know that

22 V:JassA ne de visste ja intei JassA no that knew I not I see no I didn't know that 23

24

A: Jo± Mattisas, Jo± Mattisas V:

Jaha? ((contrived))

25

A: Mm s.

26

V: Va ku:l. What fun How nice

27

A:

'h'Ja, * h°Yes*

28 V:—> (Dom e) e dom kva:r pA Gotland elleri (They are) are they left on Gotland or (They are) are they still on Gotland or 29

30

A: Ja: dom har ju kopt en andels- nit andelshus eller Yes they have ju bought a condo- some condominium or Yes they have bought a condo- some condominium or va de e:, what it is whatever it is

In stressing Li:sa (line 20) Anita highlights the link betw een the new topic that she is introducing and the previous topic. Specifically this is a story about another friend w ho has had baby. Faced w ith no uptake from Vera, Anita continues h er tu rn w ith the post-positioned de vet du [you know that] (line 21). This post-positioned object gives a possible reason why Vera did not im m ediately respond to the announcem ent. I hear the turn initial

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

lassa in V era's next turn as roughly equivalent to "I see". It is a weak

alignm ent w ith the new s announcem ent. Vera continues her tu rn by stating th at she d id not know about Lisa's new baby. Anita self-selects to supply the child's nam e in the next turn (line 23). This is receipted w ith a minim al acknow ledgm ent from Vera (line 24) and a delayed assessm ent (line 26). A fter a soft acknowledgm ent from Anita, Vera initiates an orinquiry th at focusses on an ancillary com ponent of the prior talk, the w hereabouts of Lisa's family. In addition to m oving away from the talk about the new baby, the or-inquiry presents Vera as a fairly distant friend of Lisa and her family in that she shows herself to not even be sure as to w here they live. As such it underm ines the relevance of Anita sharing the new baby announcem ent w ith Vera. In the next example, Runar is telling Vera about the resemblance betw een his grandchild and V era's husband, Allan. Runar is A llan's paternal uncle. Runar has to do three assessm ents of this resemblance (lines 1, 8, and 12) to secure a delayed second assessm ent from Vera. Vera then m oves aw ay from Runar's telling w ith an or-inquiry (line 13). #39 PURE COPY [SvArfar] 01

RUNA:

TSnk ja har en kopia av Allan h&r. Think I have a copy of Allan here Just think I have a copy of Allan here

02

VERA:

JasA?

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

03

RUNA:

Bos aej. With me At my house

04

VERA:

Jahajj_?

05

RUNA:

Den har eller nth va heter'en (den) dottersonen This here or nfh what call't (it) daughterson This here or nfh what do you call (it) my grandson

06

till mej, to me

07

VERA:

Ja±? Yes

08

RUNA:

Ja de e en ren kopia den 'ru, ((excited)) Yes 't 's a pure copy that 'you Yes 't's a carboncopy that one you see

09

VERA:

Kristian?

10

RUNA:

Jas? Yes

11

VERA:

Ja::? Yes

12

RUNA:

Ja de e for underlit, Yes 't 's too strange Yes 't’s' eerie

13

((smile voice))

VERA: -> Ja: 'h va hS:rlit e do(n) pi besok nu ellerYes h what wonde r f u l are they on visit now or Yes 'h how wonderful are they visiting now or

14

RUNA:

Va:£ What

15

VERA:

E dom pi besS:k? Are they on visit Are they visiting

16

RUNA:

Dom e M r ja har fern stycken har nu. They are here I have five pieces here now They are here I have five of them here now

17

VERA:

0::j oj oj. (.) Huse fullt. Oj oj oj House full

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Oh my

A full house

R unar's initial assessment of his grandson's likeness to Allan in line 1 m akes relevant a second assessm ent from Vera. Instead, Vera merely does an acknowledgment (line 2) w hereupon Runar explicates through a post­ positioned phrasal increm ent that "the copy" is at his house (line 3). Vera's Jaha± in the next turn sounds slightly puzzled and this may lead Runar to

provide a more accessible person reference [this here or nfh w hat do you call (it) my grandson]. Vera's acknowledgment in the next turn (line 7) could be heard to be doing recognition of the new person reference. If the person reference problem has been solved a second assessment would be due at this point. Runar's next turn shows that this is w hat he expects. He does a second upgraded assessm ent of the resemblance which renews the relevance of a second assessm ent from Vera (line 8). Instead of doing the second assessment, Vera supplies the grandson's name. H er turn is trym arked and makes relevant a confirmation. Having received confirmation from Runar Vera still does no t provide the second assessment. Runar thus does a third assessment in his next turn [ y e s 't's eerie] (line 12). Vera finally produces the long awaited second assessment in line 13 but it is delayed by a turn-initial affirmative response token and an inbreath. Furtherm ore she im m ediately initiates an exit to the sequence by doing an or-inquiry on an ancillary m atter, w hether K ristian and his family are visiting Runar. The

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

dispreferred and disjointed character of this querie is underscored by Runar's repair initiation in the next turn (line 14) (c.f. Drew, 1997). Pe^s elderly m other Frida is in the m idst of recounting the events of her day in exam ple 40 #40 KAFFEREP [GRU7:B: 1:33] Per is calling his elderly mother (Frida). The second word in line 7 is not the personal masculine pronoun but the beginning of an abandoned word (possibly the Swedish bej - English "hi"). Quotation marks indicate phrases that are produced as quoted speech. 01

02

03

F:

P:

F:

04

P:

05

F:

A sen bar ja rinat till Blin Sve: snsson And then have I called to Elin Sve::nsson And then I've called Blin Svensson Ja::, Yes Du vet gamla s6am:erska[n. You know the old seamstress [Jajaja:, Yesyesyes

'hhh A tSnk hon blev sA gla sA bon nastan 'hhh And think she became so happy so she almost And imagine she became so happy that she almost

06

ja bon blev bruten i rosten hh "He men yes she became broken in the voice ‘hh No but yes she got all choked up ’hh Oh but

07

Frida be fAr jag bbra din rost" [sa hFrida be may I hear your voice* said shFrida be I get to hear your voice" she said

08

P:

(Ja:i Yes

09

F:

(Eh-)

10

P: ->Ska hon koama bem pA kaffe Will she come home on coffee

dA'rA ell[er£ then'then or

106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

will she come over for coffee then or 11

F:

fWej dk sa No then said No then I said

12

ja 'hh har du lustk sStta pkkaffepannan I 'hh have you lust to turn on the coffeepot I 'hh if you are in the mood to make coffee

13

nkn gkng (pk't over)sk koamer ja till dej "Ah some time (on it over) so come I to you "Oh some time I'll come over to you "Oh

14

va rozlit" what fun* how nice*

15

P:

Ja:, Yes

Frida introduces Elin Sver.nsson by first and last name in line 1. In light of Per7s tim ely recognition in the next tu rn (line 2), Frida's second description of Elin Svensson in line 3 seems unnecessary. This analysis is supported by P ei's uptake [yeah yeah yeah] which in its repetition emphasizes that recognition already had been achieved. It seems possible that Frida's turn in line 3 is less oriented to securing recognition then to do a character description as to how Elin will figure in her prospective telling. T hat is, Elin is not going to figure as a friend in F rida's story but as an elderly person of potentially low er status (relative to Frida). This interpretation is supported by the next turn w here Frida focusses on how em otional Elin became upon hearing from her. Frida even quotes Elin as saying [Oh b ut Frida h e I get to hear your voice]. Per does an acknowledgment in overlap

107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

w ith Frida's line 7. He then interrupts her telling in progress w ith an orinquiry in line 10 [Will she come over for coffee then or]. The or-inquiry is problem atic in that it curtails Frida telling by formulating its upshot. Furtherm ore, it presum es an egalitarian relationship between the two women as Per suggests that it would be apt for Frida to invite Elin to her house for coffee. Frida's response (lines 11-14) rejects the or-inquiry on both these fronts. Frida first flatly asserts in dispreferred position that she had told the seam stress that she would be w illing to visit her house for a coffee [if you are in the m ood to make coffee some tim e I'll come over]. She then resum es her telling by quoting Elin's overjoyed response. The next example introduces a com peting dimension on the topic at hand w hen a second assessment is due. #41 BLAZER [GRU:8:A:8:157] Malena has just declined Lisa's invitation to go swimming. 36

H:

[Ja hAller pA A fpr(h)ova kla:dert ja bar I hold on and try clothesI have I am in the midst of trying on clothes I have

37

kdpt en kavasj, bought a blazer

38

L:

Nasej? No

39

M:

En gro:n kavaj*skit'anygg allsA, A green blazer shit nice see A green blazer damn nice see

40

L:->

Pi rean dA elleri At the sale then or

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

41

M:

Ja± den kosta femhundra? Yes it cost fivehundred Yes it cost five hundred crowns

42

L:

Jaha de e ju bra6 Jaha 't 's ju good that's good

43

M:

De va halva prlsseti It was half price

Malena self-selects to announce that she has bought a blazer in lines 36-37. Lisa receipts this inform ation as news in the next turn (Heritage, 1984a). Malena continues by describing and assessing the blazer ("a green blazer dam n nice see"). This turn is parasitic of her prior turn. "A green blazer" can be heard as a specification of the tum final "a blazer" in line 37. M alena's assessm ent in the end of line 39 makes relevant a second assessment (Pom erantz, 1984). Like m ost contributions to talk-ininteraction, assessm ents involve m uch m ore than description. G oodwin and Goodwin (1992) argued that assessments provide a resource for the interactive organization of experience. They w rote that assessm ents reveal not just neutral objects in the world, b u t an alignm ent taken up tow ard phenom ena by a particular actor. Furtherm ore this alignm ent can be of some moment in revealing such significant attributes of the actor as his or her taste and the way in w hich he or she evaluates the phenom ena he or she perceives. It is therefore not surprising that displaying congruent understanding can be an issue of some im portance to the participants, (p. 166) Instead of responding to M alena's assessment w ith a second assessm ent, Lisa initiates an or-inquiry ("on sale then or"). There is topical continuity

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

betw een the or-inquiry and the p rio r talk in that both focus on the blazer. However, while Malena em phasized the aesthetic quality of the blazer, Lisa em phasizes its value. Indeed, it could be argued that the or-inquiry sequentially deletes M alena's turn in line 39 (Lemer, 1989). This is because the or-inquiry is syntactically fitted to the last TCU of the tu rn that begins in line 36 ("I have bought a blazer"). So even though the or-inquiry is topically continuous w ith the previous talk it introduces a slight shift from the im m ediately preceeding turn. M alena shows her orientation to the salience of the shift from esthetics to value by not only confirm ing that she bought the blazer on sale but also giving its price. And, although Lisa does a positive assessm ent in line 42, M alena defensively explains that this was a half-price value in line 43. 3.4.3.5. Formulating something that was conveyed in the prior talk In the vernacular, understanding usually connotes a "m ental" m eeting of m inds. Interactionally how ever, understanding is a situated accom plishm ent. Confirming allusions provide one m ethod for its achievem ent (Schegloff, 1996a). Confirm ing allusions refers to a practice by which a speaker confirms that a recipient's candidate understanding of w hat th e speaker conveyed in the prior talk is on target. Example 42 shows an instance of this phenom enon.

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

#42 [MDE:MTRAC:60-1:2 ] (analyzed in Schegloff, 1996a) A separated couple are discussing the return of their teenage son to his father after having visited his mother in another city. The father expected the son to arrive home by car. 1 2

3 4 5 6

Mar: =He's flying. (0. 2 ) Mar: En llene is going to meet im:, Becuz the to:pwz ripped off'v iz car which is tih ssay someb'ddy helped th'mselfs. Ton:->Stolen. Mar:->Stolen. Right out in front of mv house.

In her turn in lines 3-4, M arsha conveys that h er son 's car has been burglarized. Tony offers a candidate understanding of w hat has been alluded to but not explicitly stated in his next tu rn (line 5). Marsha confirms the allusion by repeating the w ord "stolen" in the beginning of her next tu rn .16 Schegloff argued that by repeating the explication "the confirm ing party" not only confirms the se n se that the utterance proposes is to be made of w hat preceded. In addition, the confirm er confirm s that that sense h a d been "alluded to," had been conveyed w ithout being said. The repeat confirm s the allusion, and confirms it as an allusion, (p. 181) Schegloff suggested th at there can be special grounds for speaking allusively such as the delivery of bad news (c.f. the example above). In the next tw o examples the speaker of the or-inquiry articulates something that was alluded to w ithout being explicitly stated by the other interactant. For both examples the articulated understanding constitutes a negative assessm ent of either the other party o r the child of the other party. The or-construction m arks the delicate character of the articulated

111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

understanding. For both examples the candidate understanding is flatly rejected. T hat the allusions end up being disconfirm ed further substantiate their dispreferred status. Example 43 is from a conversation betw een Viveka and her elderly father. Viveka is calling her father to congratulate him on his birthday. #43 OUT OF BREATH [MOL2:A:3:36] Viveka's parents manage a cottage rental business (cf. line 4) 01

02

03

F:

Men eh- man borjar no bli: aldre. But eh- one begins probably becoming older But eh- one is probably getting old

Vs Kanner'a de:, Feel'you that You feel that way F:

Ja: de klart ju de (vi ska ju Yes 'ts obvious ju that (we will ju Yes it's obvious that (we will )

) )

04

stugorna A hAller pi A tvatta lite fonster cottages and hold on to wash few windows cottages and are in the midst of washing a few windows

05

£ja ja kSnner nog att man ar- fAr ta and- yes I feel probably that one is- must take and- yes I sort of feel that one is- must take

06

de lugnare, it easier

07

V: Mm±,

08

F: Ja, Yes

09

10

V: ->(Men) du kSnner att du blir flAtsigare (But) you feel that you get more breathless (But) you feel that you get more out of breath ->eller, or

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

11

F:

12

V:

13

F:

14

Natej inte direkt [inte. No not exactly no [Nate .hh aen deNo but 't (Annars) vet du sA dar nu koauaer Beata A Otherwise know you so there now comes Beata and Otherwise you know there now Beata and Torgny are here Torgny,

The father volunteers in line 1 that [one is probably getting old]. Viveka prom otes talk on this topic w ith a newsm ark in her next turn (line 2). The father then provides an instance of an experience that led him to [sort of feel that one is- m ust take it easier]. Viveka acknowledges this in line 7. W hen the father does not extend his telling she goes on to articulate w hat she understands him to have conveyed in his prior talk w ith an or-inquiry (Men) du kdnner att du blir flaisigare eller [(But) you feel that you get more

out of breath or].17 The or-inquiry implies that the father's health is com promised. The father rejects this understanding of his prior talk and proceeds w ith a disjunctive topic shift by calling attention to the arrival of other m em bers of his family in his next turn (lines 11-13). Two m others are discussing their respective infants' developm ental achievem ents in example 44. #44 GOING BACKWARDS [MOL1:B:4:202] Viktor is Karin's infant son. 29

K:

Viktor har fundezrat pA den har javla konsten att Viktor has contemplated on this here damn art to

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Viktor has contemplated this damn art of 30

kzytpa nu, crawl now crawling now

31

V:

hh Ja(h)s(h)A hh .hh

32

K:

Beh,

33

V: ->GAr'e baskAt elleri Goes't backward or Is he going in reverse or

34

K:

35

V:

Naej de gAr bara platt ne:r [hah hah ha= No it goes just flat down hah hah ha= No it goes altogether flat hah hah ha [Beh heh heh

Karin states th at her son Viktor [has contem plated this damn art of crawling now]. The anticipatory delivery of V era's acknowledgment in the next tu rn invites K arin to expand. Instead of doing so Karin laughs in line 32. Verathen articulates w ith an or-inquiry w hat she understands Karin to have conveyed w ith her turn in lines 29-30, [is he going in reverse or]. H er question suggests th at K arin's son is craw ling incorrectly. The serious delivery of V era's turn contrasts w ith K arin's proceeding laugh. A lthough V era's turn em erges out of a light-hearted environm ent Vera is not delivering it as a joke. Karin flatly disconfirm s the allusion in her next tu rn Naej de gar bara platt ne:r [No it goes altogether flat]. The construction of

her turn repeats the form ulation de gar [it goes] (in reverse order) from V era's turn. This form ulation does not fit in K arin's turn as she goes on to

114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

imply that V iktor indeed is not going anyw here, de gar bara platt ne:r [it goes altogether flat]. However, in terms of its sequential environment the repetition seem s appropriate as it underscores that Karin is rejecting V era's understanding of her prior talk. The sequence ends in joint laughter. However, this does hot underm ine my point that the or-inquiry was delivered an d understood as dispreferred. This section has show n a broad range of or-inquiries that in themselves are dispreferred. The dispreferred actions included making a pre-com plaint, checking w hether a co-participant knows about an em barrassing incident (example 38), mis-aligning w ith a troubles-telling (example 39) or disaligning w ith the line pursued by the co-participant in the previous talk (examples 40-44). Finally, in examples 43 and 44, the orinquiry was used by a recipient of some prior talk to articulate something that was alluded to b u t not explicitly stated in that talk. The allusion was potentially delicate in that it involved a negative assessment of the other person or, for exam ple 46, the other person's child. The allusion was disconfirm ed in both examples. 3.4.4. Sum m ary The analysis show ed how or-inquiries are used to mark the action the turn otherw ise engages in as problem atic. Reviewing previous CA studies, I established that interactants orient to the problematic character of

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the actions they engage in or the topics they raise. That or-inquiries m ark problem aticity is perhaps most evident in environm ents where elem ents of the proceeding sequence have show n th at the project the or-inquiry engages in is dispreferred. However the problem aticity can also inhere it the fact that the or-inquiry in itself is doing a dispreferred action. 3.5. Discussion This chapter has described a tum -construction that is used to m ark problematicity in talk-in-interaction. Syntactically, the or-inquiry seems anom alous as it ends w ith the non-connecting connective eller. H ow ever, I have shown that this turn is produced and understood as a coherent unit of action. Analysis of or-inquiries in a range of sequential contexts dem onstrated th at the or-construction is associated w ith the initiation of activities that can be understood as problem atic. The point is not that every problematic action is done as an or-inquiry. Rather, the or-construction marks the action as problematic. It is a way of "doing problematicity". I proposed that the positioning of eller w ithin the turn relaxes the preference organization of the turn to allow for a "no"-type response. This study has only provided a sketch of the or-inquiry and its interactional use. Future work could explore the prosodic production of the or-inquiry in m ore detail and, in particular, contrast the prosodic contour of or-inquiries w ith the prosodic contour of "yes"/"no" questions th at do not

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

end w ith eller [or]. There were no instances w here eller [or] was separated by a silence, hitch, or perturbation from its host TCU within my data corpus. H ow ever upon returning to Sweden six years after my own data was recorded, I have overheard or-inquiries where eller is separated from its host TCU. This does not mean that m y findings are incorrect Rather it underscores the dynam ic character of talk-in-interaction. It also makes it relevant to check my findings against a m ore current data base. I have suggested th at the turn-final eller [or] neutralizes the preference structure of the turn so as to allow for or indeed prom ote a "no"-type response. Future studies should explore this point in m ore detail. One might examine w hether "no"-type responses to or-inquiries are structured differently than "no"-type responses to "yes"/"no questions that do not take eller [or]. Finally it w ould be fruitful to contrast the or-inquiry w ith other interactional devices for marking problem aticity in talk-in-interaction.

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Notes to chapter 3 1. c.f. Schegloff (1988b) p. 445-6 for a discussion, and Pom erantz (1989) and Jefferson (1989a) for a debate on stances toward intentionality in CA. 2. The turn-final "(ch)ur" in line 4 may be a contraction of "your'' rather than "or". Since I neither have access to the tape nor to the ensuing parts of the transcript to resolve this issue, I will not treat this turn as an or-inquiry. 3. Since there is no indication of possible prosodic com pletion after "early" in her transcript, it is difficult to assess the validity of this claim. 4. One or-inquiry is continued in the same speaker's next turn but in this case eller is repeated in turn-initial position. The repetition breaks the continuity between the tw o turns. BRING FOOD (VAT12:A:1s34) 12

L:

Na de kanske 'rom inte gdr, No that perhaps they don't do No perhaps they don't

13 L:-> 'hhh Jo:: skulle vi ta me nin mast imorron eller, ’hhh Jo: should we bring with some food tomorrow or 'hhh Jo: were we supposed to bring food tomorrow or 14

Ah *m*

15

(0.2)

16

M:

((coughs twice)) Ja inte vet ia:£ ((upbeat)) Yes not know I Ja I don't know

17

L:-> Eller va're n& kottfars eller, (pkhh khh) Or was't some ground meat or Or were there some ground meat or

18

M:

Nja: [no finns de (val nA:n) Nja: probably is there val some Nja there probably is some

5 .1 thank John H eritage for bringing this example to m y attention.

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

6. In both these examples, the or-inquiry has been transcribed w ith "comma" or "level" intonation. W ithin English, this intonation contour is typically associated w ith continuation. In the environm ent of questioning, comma intonation can be treated as possibly complete. Further w ork clearly needs to be done on question intonation in Swedish conversation. My intuition is that questions can take either comma or question intonation in Swedish. This intuition has been confirmed by recipient uptake after com m a-intoned inquiries in this collection. 7. O n the face of it, this leaves a large residual category where turn transfer does not take place at a complex transition relevance place. However, Ford and Thom pson show ed that the turn transfers w ithin this category are adaptations to rather than violations of the turn-taking system. 8. Below is an exam ple of a left dislocation: UN AMICO 111:1 (simplified transcript, from Duranti & Ochs, 1979, p. 377): a Roberto 1'ho fatto aspetta'an'ora to Roberto him (I) made wait an hour Roberto I made him wait for an hour

9. In Swedish the com pound word, ldrdamo:rron ("saturdaym om ing"), takes a stress on the third syllable whereas the w ord lo.rdag ("Saturday") is stressed on the first syllable. Due to the differential prosody of these tw o w ords, ldrdam o:rron cannot be intonationally com plete after lorda. 10. I thank R uth Kaskow for suggesting this term . 11. In this exam ple the final rise in intonation is alm ost indistinguishable. 12. As chapter four will dem onstrate, w hether an affirmative response token accomplishes alignm ent is contingent on the type of action sequence that is being addressed. 13. This observation is based on the collection a t hand. I am not arguing th at eller cannot be separated from its host turn. 14. Institutional day care is prim arily offered to working parents in Sweden. T hat Anita is about to school in her children at daycare thus raises the possibility that she w ill start to work.

119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

15.1 thank Emanuel Schegloff for encouraging me to pursue this line of analysis. 16. See Schegloff (1996a), p. 185 for an analysis of this segment. 17. Viveka is a medical doctor. By articulating a physical condition "breathlessness", she could be heard to be m oving tow ard advice giving and this may be resisted by the father who cuts her off in the next turn (c.f. Heritage & Sefi, 1992 for a discussion of resistance to advice giving).

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

4. ACCEPTANCES AND GRANTINGS OF DEFERRED ACTION REQUESTS, INVITATIONS, AND PROPOSALS 4.1. Introduction Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) dem onstrated that turn-taking is a socially organized system that is locally managed by the parties in talkin-interaction. Sacks et al. argued that the turn-taking system "allocates single turns to single speakers; any speaker gets, w ith the turn, exclusive rights to talk to the first possible com pletion of an in itial instance of a unit type [italics added]" (p. 706). Speakers are thus ordinarily entitled to a single TCU w ith the turn reaching possible com pletion after that TCU. As discussed in chapter one, certain actions make relevant an expanded turn. For example, dispreferred responses to adjacency pair FPPs ordinarly get expanded and take more than one TCU before being taken as possibly complete (c.f. Pomerantz 1975,1984). Preferred responses on the other hand, have been described as being form atted in minim al turns, i.e., one TCU.1 D ispreferred responses are thus generally associated w ith turn expansion w hile preferred responses are associated w ith turn minimization (c.f. Heritage, 1984b; Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987[1973]; Schegloff, 1995, pp. 61-72). In this chapter I describe a sequential environm ent w here an expanded rather than a minimal turn is required to accomplish acceptance

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

or granting. I focus on the preferred sequence trajectory of action requests, invitations, and related proposals th at cannot be im m ediately satisfied (hereafter sometimes referred to as deferred action FPPs). A ction requests are those w here a speaker requests that a recipient perform a course of action other than supplying inform ation. I will argue th at an affirm ative response token such as ja, aa, m m, or jo is insufficient to accept or grant a deferred action FPP request/proposal. An additional u n it of talk is required w here a commitment to fulfill the deferred action req u est/p ro p o sal is made. Example 1 shows an invitation sequence w here the acceptance of the invitation is accomplished w ith a tw o unit turn, the affirm ative response token ja and [I can do that]. #1 TEA (GRU:8:A:8:166) The assessment in line 21 refers to Malena's recent purchase of a blazer (c.f. chapter 3 example 48). The deferred action invitation is marked with "a->" and the acceptance is marked with "b->." 21

L:

-Perfekt (hdrrudu:), Perfect (listenyou) Perfect (my friend)

22

Ms a->f\7a* »ska'ru inte komma hit A fika send»f Yes will'you not come here to fika later Yes why don't you come here for a cup of coffee later

23

L:b->Ja de kan jaaStra? Yes that can I do Yes I can do that

24

Ms

Ja: n&r'u har siama? Yes when'you have swum

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The proposed action, that Lisa come over for coffee, cannot be immediately satisfied since the invitation is done over the telephone. Schegloff (1995) noted th at "some types of first pair p art can function doubly, both as actions in their ow n right and as vehicles or formats for other actions" (p. 72). M alena's turn in line 22 both asks and invites, the question [will you not come here for fika later] being the vehicle for the invitation. The turninitial affirm ative response token functions as a com pliance m arker that prom ises but does not accom plish acceptance. Acceptance is done with the next tu rn com ponent w here Lisa indicates her availability to come over [I can do that]. Malena proposes a specific time for the im pending get-together in h er next turn [when you have swum]. This shows that she heard Lisa's prior tu rn as an acceptance. The design of accepting or granting responses to deferred action requests and related proposals should not be dism issed as a mere m atter of a person's individual speaking style (Tannen, 1990). Rather, it should be understood as a jointly produced practice. It represents a norm ative preference th at is visibly oriented to by parties in talk-in-interaction (H eritage, 1984b). D epartures from the norm are accountable (Garfinkel, 1967). 4.1.2. Data base This chapter is based o n 23 deferred action

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

request/invitation/proposal sequences w ith accepting or granting second pair parts draw n from a larger corpus of invitations, offers, and requests. The larger data base includes requests and invitations that are imm ediately satisfiable as w ell as invitations and requests th at are rejected. Table 4.1. shows the types of deferred action FPPs engaged in w ithin the collection of deferred action sequences.

Table 4.1. Deferred action FPPs: Deferred Action FPP action request inv itation proposal Total (N)

Total (N) 10 2 11 23

As noted earlier, action requests involve som ething other than a request for inform ation. "Proposal" is used broadly and includes directives and offers. All the instances in the collection are from telephone conversations. 4.1.3. Preview of chapter The chapter is organized as follows. First, I illustrate w hat I m ean by deferred actions. Second, I present evidence in term s of turn design and turn uptake th at show that an affirmative response token by itself does not accept or grant a deferred action request or related proposal. Third, I suggest that while the affirm ative response token cannot satisfactorily complete a

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

claim of alignm ent w ith a deferred action FPP it can claim hearing and understanding of the action produced in the prior turn and project acceptance or granting. Fourth, I show how acceptance or granting is done w ith the next turn component. Fifth, I discuss compound responses in other sequential environm ents. In conclusion, I briefly discuss the relevance of my findings and suggests avenues that could be pursued in future work. 4.2. D eferred actions Deferred actions are contrastive w ith actions that can be immediately satisfied. Example 2 shows an inform ation request that is im m ediately satisfied w ith a single TCU answ er in the next turn. #2 VEBERUD 01

A:

Va he:ter'u i efternamnd What name you in lastname What's your last name

02

V:

Veberu:d

W hether or not any first pair p art involves a deferred action m ust be individually determ ined. It is not necessarily the case that all requests for inform ation are imm ediately satisfiable.2 N or do all action requests, invitations, and related proposals always involve deferred actions. Example 3 shows an action request that is im m ediately fulfilled.

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

#3 THE SAUCE From a video

01

recording ofa family dinner conversation.

H looks at A and lifts his right hand H: ->F&r ja sAssen horru, Get I the sauce listenyou Can I have the sauce H sustains gaze at A and makes beckoning motion with his right hand. A grasps sauce pan and begins to pass it to H. H reaches out his hand and grasps sauce pan from A.

H ere the granting is done w ithout any spoken w ords w ith Ann-Katrin physically transferring the sauce pan to Hans.3 M any of the actions in my d ata base were deferred by virtue of the fact that the parties w ere speaking on the telephone. While deferred actions are not lim ited to telephone conversations they may be particularly prevalent in interactions where the parties are not co-present. It should also be noted that w hether or not any first pair part involves a deferred action can be a reflexive m atter. By that I mean to call attention to that fact that a request or related proposal m ight not be understood as involving a deferred action for its speaker. Rather, that the action is deferred can be conveyed by the responsive stance taken by the recipient. The next three exam ples show some of the types of deferred action FPPs in my collection. In exam ple 4, Ulla asks Rut to tell M alena that she called. This requested conveyance4 cannot be im m ediately satisfied since M alena is n ot home.

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

#4 BIRTHDAY WISHES Ullas is calling her daughter Rut's home to wish her grand-daughter (Rut's daughter) Malena a happy birthday. Malena is not home. 25

26

Rut:

Ja:±'ri, Yes then

Ulla: ->Ma: du kan val halsa till Malena att ja har ringt Mm: you can val tell to Malena that I have called Mm: tell Malena that I have called

27

->d£, then

28

Rut:

Ja: deska ja gQra.((creaky voice)) Yes that will I do Yes I'll do that

In exam ple 5, Allan is asking his m other to call back later. This directive also involves a deferred action that cannot be immediately satisfied. #5 CALL LATER Allan's mother is calling Allan's home to wish Allan's wife a happy birthday. She is not home. 09

M: I

10

A:

11

Ja fir-[jawill- [I-

->

[RING se:nare horrudu ring klockan eh (.) Calllater listenyou call clock eh Call later listen call at nine

->ni:e? nine o'clock

12

M:

13

A:

Ja: jakan ri:ngalite se:[nare Yes I can call little later Yes I can call a little later [Ja± gorYes do-

In exam ple 6 Lisa is inviting M alena to go out dancing. Like the previous two exam ples this invitation cannot be satisfied here and now. Rather, it

127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

makes relevant a com m itm ent to a future action. #6

OUT DANCING (GRU:8:A:8:166)

30

M:

31

L: ->Kan vi inte gA ut £ datnsai ((pleading)) Can we not go out to dance Why don't we go out dancing

32

N:

Ska vi gQsr de? Shall we do that

33

L:

Ja e sA 7(h)avla sugen pA A gA u:t A bora I 'I so fucking thirsty onto go out and hear "Fuckin'ay” I really feel like going out and listening

34

35

Nae:j? ((upbeat)) No

lite bra ausik. a little good music to some good music N:

Ja de [kan vi gora, Yes that can we do Yes let's do that

Having explicated how I use the notion of deferred action, I will now turn to a range of examples that show the interactants' dem onstrative orientation to the insufficiency of the affirm ative response token as an acceptance or granting of a deferred action request/proposal. 43. Evidence that the affirmative response token does not satisfactorily complete a claim of alignm ent with a deferred action request/proposal I will present three sorts of evidence that suggest that the affirm ative response token does not satisfactorily complete a claim of alignm ent w ith a deferred action FPP. First I will show cases w here the affirmative response

128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

token is produced as a turn preface rath er than as its own TCU. This is the m ost com m on response design in my collection. It suggests that speakers tend to design their talk to have the affirm ative response token understood w ithin a larger turn. Second, I turn to cases w here the affirm ative response token is produced as a separate TCU w ithin a larger turn. Recipients w ithhold talk at the possible transition point after the affirm ative response token thus treating the turn so far as pragm atically incomplete even though it is intonationally and syntactically possibly complete (c.f. Sacks et al., 1974; Ford & Thompson, 1996). Third, I turn to sequences w here recipient uptake after a free-standing affirm ative response token suggests that they are not hearing it as satisfactorily granting or accepting the deferred action request, invitation, or proposal. 4.3.1. The affirmative response token is typically produced as a turn preface The affirm ative response token is typically produced as a tu rn preface rather than as its ow n TCU in my d ata base. This is evident in the pacing of the talk as in the arrowed turn of exam ple 7 below where the speaker moves from the affirm ative response token Ja: to the next increm ent of the turn, [we w ould love to], w ithout any intonational break, hitch, or perturbation. #7

VISIT

01

A:

*H6rru ja t&nkte hora ifall ni ville ha en •Listen I thought hear in case you wanted have a

129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Listen i was thinking about asking if you wanted to be 02

03

litea pihalsninai* little visit paid a visit* Vs

->f«7ar de vill vi gSraa?f fYes that want we gladly t Yes we would love to

Syntactically, the second com ponent of line 3, literally translated as [that w ant w e gladly] is designed as a unit that could be treated as a free-standing TCU. By that I m ean to call attention to the fact that it includes a subject, predicate, and object. The affirmative response token's status as a preface is thus entirely realized through the prosodic production of the tu rn in this example. In other cases the syntactic construction of the talk after the affirm ative response token indicates that it is m eant to be understood as an increm ent rather than as its own TCU. This is show n in the arrow ed turn of example 8. #8 AFTERNOON VISIT [VAT4:B:433] 28

N:

[»Ja, kommer'ru va hexmaa pi eftermiddan* ? Yes will*you be hone on afternoon Yes will you be home in the afternoon

29

L:

Mm? (Mm?)

30

N.

(Mm) di ko[mater vi i hSlsar pi en stund? Mm then come we and visit on a while Mm then we'll come and visit for awhile

31

L:

[(De e ja) That am I That I am

130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

32

->Mm: qAr bra de, Mn:__ goes fine that Mm:_ that’ll be fine

The syntactic construction of the increm ent in line 32 of exam ple 8 can be contrasted w ith the increm ent in the arrow ed turn in exam ple 7. In exam ple 7 the increment begins w ith a beginning i.e. [that] (Schegloff, 1996b). The phrasal increm ent in line 32 of example 8 on the other hand begins w ith a predicate [goes fine that]. To a non-native speaker this clause may seem as complete as the second TCU of example #7, the only difference being th at the subject is in turn-final position. However, in spoken Swedish, clause components are often duplicated (c.f. Linell, 1978, p. 234 ).5 A m ore complete construction w ould be [that'll be fine that] w ith the subject in clause initial and clause final position.6 The om ission of the clause-initial subject in line 32 thus sounds elliptic in spoken Swedish and this coupled w ith the continuing intonation of the response token makes the clause hearable as an increm ent to the response token rather than as a free-standing TCU. The relative distribution o f responses where the affirm ative response token is produced as a preface versus as a separate TCU is shown in table 4.2.

131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 4.2. Design of the responsive turn. (Affirm ative response token abbreviated as ART.) T urn design ART produced as a turn preface ART produced as its ow n TCU

Total (N) 17 6

Total (N)

23

A lthough the data sample is small, this distribution suggests that speakers typically produce their talk to have the affirm ative response token heard w ithin the context of a larger turn rather than as a response in its own right. This shows speaker orientation to the insufficiency of the response token as a claim to alignm ent w ith a deferred action FPP. I will now turn to the cases w here the affirm ative response token is produced as its own TCU. My analysis will show that in these cases recipients nonetheless orient to the relevance of an extended turn. 4.3.2. W hen the affirm ative response token is produced as its own TCU recipients still orient to th e relevance of an extended turn Examples 9 and 10 show granting turns w here the first and second TCU are spoken as separate intonation units. In w ithholding talk at the com pletion of the first TCU even though the turn so far is intonationally and syntactically complete, recipients show their orientation toward the relevance of an extended turn. The tw o-unit response is thus contingently

132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

accomplished b y speaker and recipient Example 9 is from a conversation betw een M ona and Liv. M ona's child is in Liv's hom e based day care. Mona is hying to figure out w hen she can pick up her child. Liv tells her that the children have just sat dow n to watch a video. #9 QUARTER PAST FOUR (VAT11:A:8:84) Liv is calculating when the video will be over in her turns in lines 1-2 and 4-5. The deferred action proposal is marked with *a->* and the acceptance with "b->". 01

L: Ja de biller pi en- en- de biller pi en ti:mme men dom Yes 't holds on one- one it holds on one hour but they Yes it is on for one- one- it is on for an hourbut they

02

03

har no titta en kvarthave probably watched fifteen minutes M: Ja: [men va bra:. Yes but what good Yes but that's good

04

L:

05

L:

06

07

08

09

[ungefa:r approximately

M:a->

(Si [den e no klar till ) (So it's probably done til (So it'll be probably be over by) [Ja men di koamer ja lagom till en Yes but then come I just in time to one Yes but then I'll come at the right time if

a~>[kvart over fyra ungefar di, quarter past four approximately then I come around a quarter past four then L:

[Ja:ri, Yesthen Yes

L:b->Aa, De gir br[a de. Yes 't goes well that Yes that will be fine

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

10

Ms

[Ja de e fisnt de, Yes 't's fine that Okay fine

While Liv is calculating when the video will end, Mona begins to propose a time to pick up her child in lines 6-7 [Yes but then Til come a t the right time if I come around a quarter past four then]. Liv's [yes then] in line 8 comes before M ona's turn is transition relevant b u t at a point w here M ona has m ade it clear that she will calibrate the tim ing of her pick-up w ith the end of the video. This is done through the Swedish w ord lagom w hich is akin to the English expression "just in tim e." Liv's utterance in line 8 may thus display her willingness to accept th at M ona picks up her child after the end of the video. M ona completes her tu rn by proposing an approxim ate pick up tim e [around a quarter past four]. She ends this proposal w ith the inference m arker da [then] thereby m arking that the tim e w as derived from the prior talk, m ost proximately, L iv's calculation of the end of the video. Liv responds to the proposal w ith a compound tu rn in line 9 [A a, That will be fine,]. She accepts the proposal by assessing it positively w ith the second TCU [That will be fine]. As represented by the intonation m arker and the capitalization of [That], the affirm ative response token is produced as a separate TCU and the turn is possibly complete after A a . M ona is apparently intent on getting off the phone. That she nonetheless w aits until

134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the second TCU of Liv's turn is recognizably complete (Jefferson, 1983) before initiating a pre-closing (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) dem onstrates that she is treating the affirmative response token as insufficient as an acceptance of her proposal. Liv's com pound acceptance in line 9 is thus contingently accomplished by M ona w ithholding talk at the possible com pletion point of Liv's turn in line 9 and Liv continuing after the affirm ative response token in the sam e turn. The next example provides even m ore telling evidence that the com pound granting turn is jointly produced. Here a 1.8 second silence ensues betw een the affirmative response token and the granting. The exam ple involves a young couple, Tore and Cajsa. They are trying to figure out the best way for Cajsa to travel to Tore the following day. #10 PICK UP (GRU7B:5:431) Cajsa is calling Tore from work. She works and lives in a different town than Tore. She has just informed Tore that she intendsto takethe 3:30 train to the town where Tore lives the next day. Thedeferredaction request ismarked "a->" andthe granting is marked with "b->". 01

T:

02 03

(0.4) C:

04 05

Tjutgo over tres nar var'u Mr di:, Twenty past three when wereyou here then Twenty past three when would you be here then

Ti:e ify::ra, Ten to four (2.0)

T:

Ha,

135

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

06

C:a->Om du kaa Aka A hamta mej dA, If you can drive and pick up me then If you can come and pick me up then

07

T:

Mm.

08

C:

Eller nAsgon, Or somebody

09

Tzb->Mm

10

11

12

(1. 8)

T:b->JCan ja gor. Can I do I can do that C:

fMm±

Cajsa states that her travel plans are dependent on Tore picking her up at the train station (line 6). H er uptake after Tore's acknowledgment in line 7 will be discussed further later. Now I want to focus on the 1.8 second silence after Tore's affirmative response token in line 9. In w ithholding talk during that silence, Cajsa shows an orientation tow ard th e incompleteness of the affirm ative response token as a granting. When Tore finally responds he constructs his turn as a syntactic increment by placing the predicate rather than the subject in turn-initial position [can I do]. This syntactic construction underscores th at he is elaborating o n the affirmative response token in his prior turn rather than producing a tu rn that is meant to be understood in its ow n right. The m ost com pelling evidence for the insufficiency of the affirm ative response token as an acceptance or granting can be found in

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

deferred action sequences w here the person w ho produced the deferred action FPP engages in a pursuit after the affirm ative response token. The pursuit shows that they are not hearing the affirm ative response token as an acceptance or granting. Example 11 is from a conversation betw een M alena and her m other Rut. Malena is calling R ut from the Stockholm train station to figure ou t how to get from her train destination to Rut and M alena's joint home. The transcript begins after identification and recognition has been achieved. #11 STOCKHOLM CENTRAL (GRU7:A:4:209) Malena is temporarily slightly disabled due to a recent knee surgery. The deferred action request is marked "a->", the free-standing affirmative response token “y->", the pursuit "x->" and the granting "b->" 04

M:

Du: ja e pA Stockholm Centrasl, You I'm on Stockholm Central Hey I'm at Stockholm Central Station

05

R:

Jaha:,

06

M:

Stir mln bil darnezrei Stands my car down there Is my car down there

07

R:

Sej vi tog (bor-) hem'en Idas for pappa No we took (awa-) home't today for daddy No we took (am-) brought it home today cause daddy

08

09

10

tyckte att .hh [du ha-] thought that .hh [you ha-] M:a->

[Kan ni kommaA hamta mej Can you come and fetch me Can you comeandpick me up

a->tite dA, ten then at ten then

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

11

R:

12

13

(Du hade doat den s-) du hade parkesra'n (You had jud- it s-) you had parked't sA toklt.= so crazy so badly

M:

14

Ja (kan int-) koamer nis kan ni komma A Yes (can no-) come you can you come and Yes (can you no-) come you can you come and hamta mej ti:e ja har gAtt sA mycke ida, fetch me ten I have walked so much today pick me up at ten I have walked so much today

15

R:y->t7a;2 Yes

16

H:x->GAr'e brai Goes't well Would that be okay

17

R:

18

19

20

Ja:: [a— Yes [o-

M:

[Sjus over tie koamer t&get, Seven past ten comes the train The train comes at seven past ten

R:b->Ja annars koamer ja me cyzkel. Yes otherwise come I with bike Yes otherwise I'll come with a bike M:

Okej Okay

M alena states in the reason for call slot th at she is at the Stockholm central station. Rut responds to this as an inform ing w ith an acknow ledgm ent in line 5. M alena then asks [is my car dow n there]. "Down there" apparently refers to the parking lot at the local train station. Rut replies that she and her husband have moved the car and begins to attribute the decision to

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

move the car to her husband's opinion that Malena had parked it badly (lines 7-8 and 11-12). The attribution involves a negative evaluation of M alena's past behavior [you had parked it so badly]. Malena interrupts Rut's utterance just as Rut is about to make the negative evaluation to request a ride from the train station. She form ulates the request as derived from, and perhaps even w arranted by the prior talk, i.e. Rut's informing th at the car has been moved, w ith the inference m arker da. Rut sequentially deletes (Lemer, 1987,1989) M alena's request by returning to her husband's evaluation of the parking job in lines 11-12. Malena thus renew s the relevance of the request in lines 13-14 this time giving a reason as to why she could not walk home [I have walked so much today]. Rut replies w ith the affirm ative response token ja:. M alena's pursuit in the next turn [would that be okay] suggests that she is not hearing this response as a satisfactory granting of her request. Rut begins to produce an extended response in the next turn.7 M alena claims the floor at the first TRP of Rut's tu rn to add that the train arrives seven past ten. Rut responds to this w ith a doublebarrelled granting that is receipted by Malena with [okay] in the next turn.8 Example #12 bring us back to the conversation between Cajsa and Tore. #12 PICK UP (GRU7B:5:431)Cajsa is calling Tore from work. She works and lives in a different town than Tore. She has just informed Tore that she intends to take the 3:30 train to the town where Tore lives the next day. The deferred action request is marked "a->", the

139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

granting "b->", the pursuit "x->" and the free-standing affirmative response token “y->". 01 T:

Tjatgo over tre: nar var'u har dA:, Twenty past three when were you here then Twenty past three when would you be here then

02

(0.4)

03

Cs

Tise i fy::ra. Ten to four

04

(2.0)

05 T:

Ha,

06 C:a->Qm du kan Aka A hamta toej dA, If you can drive and pick up me then If you can come and pick me up then 07

T:y->#fin.

08

C:x->Eller nA:gon, Or somebody

09

T:

10

Mmj_i (1 . 8)

11

T:b->JCau ja gdr. Can I do I can do that

12

C:

fMm±

As discussed earlier, Cajsa is stating that her travel plans are contingent on Tore picking her up at th e train station. Tore responds w ith an affirmative response token in line 7. Cajsa's pursuit in the next turn w here she suggests that someone else could pick her up shows that she is not hearing Tore's acknowledgment as a granting. The sequence is brough to a close w ith a com pound turn in lines 9-11 (c.f. the analysis of example 10).

140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

43.3. Summary The affirm ative response token is typically produced as a tu rn preface rather than as a separate TCU in my data. This indicates speaker orientation tow ard having it understood in term s of a larger turn. When the affirm ative response token is produced as its ow n TCU, recipients w ithhold talk even though the turn so far is syntactically and intonationaUy possibly com plete. In these cases the extended tu rn is contingently achieved by speaker and recipient. Finally, recipient uptake after a free-standing affirm ative response token show that they do not hear it as satisfactorily granting or accepting the deferred action request, invitation, or proposal. 4.4. Using the affirmative response token to claim hearing and understanding and project granting or acceptance That the affirm ative response token does not accomplish alignm ent does not render it sequentially superfluous. Rather it seems dedicated to tw o tasks, claim ing an understanding of the action engaged in w ith the prior tu rn and, w hen produced in response to a syntactic interrogative, projecting granting or acceptance. 4.4.1. Claiming hearing and understanding The affirm ative response token claim s th at the action engaged in w ith the prior tu rn w as heard and understood.9 Although the response token is not overtly addressed to issues of understanding it is treated by

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

recipients as claiming understanding. The response token thus registers receipt of the prior turn and this is treated as evidence that the prior turn was understood. This is illustrated in the next two examples w here the person w ho initiated the deferred action FPP engages in a pursuit upon hearing the affirm ative response token. W ithin the pursuit they use an anaphoric pronoun to refer to parts of the deferred action FPP or to the deferred action itself. By using this reference form they show that they take it that their prior turn was heard and understood. The pre-sequence to the deferred action request in exam ple 13 was show n and discussed in chapter one (example 5). #13 CLOTHES LINE (GRU6:B:1:5) Rut: is calling her daughter Malena who lives with her parents. The deferred action request is marked "a->", the affirmative response token “y->" and the pursuit “x->“. 05

R:a->Nehej 'hh vet du va ja frA- ville Nehej 'hh know you what I as- wanted I see 'hh listen I ask- wanted

06

a->att du skulle gA ut A ta ust in that you should go out and take out in that you'd go out and take out- in

07

a->tvSttensom hSnger batksidan 'hh the laundry that hangs backside ‘hh the laundry that hangs in the backyard ‘hh

08

M:

[(Mm: )

09

R:a->[DE E: INte mAtnga saker- de e bara fyra [It is not many things- it is only four

10

a->saker 'hh kan du tar den dSr vista things ‘hh can you take that there white things ‘hh can you take that white

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

11

a->skjosrtan scan pappa ska ha i kvall A shirt that daddy will have tonight and shirt that daddy is going to wear tonight and

12

a->hanga opp pA en gaslge. hang up on a clothes hanger hang it on a clothes hanger

13

M:y->Ja:, ((glottal)) Yes

14

R sx->sA att den tosrkar vettu [for ja vill= So that it dries know you cause I wantSo it dries you know cause I don't

Rut begins to articulate the deferred action request in lines 5-7 [listen I ask w anted that you'd go out and take out- in the laundry that hangs in the backyard]. Malena receipts the request in progress w ith a continuer in line 8. That the request still is in progress is clear from Rut's inbreath at the end of line 7 which projects m ore talk as well as her com petitive overlap with M alena's turn. Rut continues her request by minimizing it [It is not many things - it is only four things-] and specifying a particular task [can you take that w hite shirt that daddy is going to w ear tonight and hang it on a clothes hanger]. The request is possibly complete at the end of line 12, and Malena responds w ith \]a:]. Rut then continues by beginning to give a rationalization for the latter p art of the request [so it dries you know cause I don't-]. H er turn is syntactically linked to her prior turn w ith the turninitial [so]. Furthermore, the anaphoric pronoun [it] references parts of the deferred action request turn [the w hite shirt]. Rut's uptake after the

143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

affirm ative response token thus displays that she takes it that Malena has heard and understood her prior turn. The person who produced the deferred action FPP uses an anaphoric pronoun to refer to the deferred action itself in the next example. This constitutes m ore conclusive evidence that the affirm ative response token claims that the action engaged in w ith the prior turn w as heard and understood. #14 STOCKHOLM CENTRAL (GRU7:A:4:209) Malena is temporarily slightly disabled due to a recent knee surgery. The initial request is marked a->, the free-standing affirmative response token is marked y->, and the pursuit x->. 09

10

11

12

[Kan ni komma A hamta mej Can you come and fetch me Can you come and pick me up

M:a->

a->ti;e dA, ten then at ten then R:

(Du hade dornt den s-) du hade parkesra'n (You had jud- it s-) you had parked't

sA to k it.= so crazy so badly

13

14

15

M:a->Ja (kanint-) koamer nis kan ni komma A Yes (can no-) come you can you come and Yes (can you no-) come you can you come and a->hSmta mej tise ja bar gAtt sA mycke ida, fetch me ten I have walked so much today pick me up ten I have walked so much today Rsy->Jasi Yes

144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

16

H:x->G&r'e brai Goes't well Would that be okay

17

R:

Ja:: [aYes [o-

As was discussed in section 4.3.2. and will be explored further in the next section, M alena engages in a pursuit in line 16 [would that be okay]. This pursuit references the deferred action request w ith an anaphoric pronoun [that] thus showing that M alena assum es that Rut has heard and understood her prior turn. 4.4.2. Projecting acceptance or granting W hen produced in response to a deferred action request, invitation, or proposal that is syntactically form ed as an interrogative the affirm ative response token functions as a prom issory note that projects and displays a com m itm ent tow ard acceptance or granting.10 These responses are akin to answers to so called double-barrelled turns, i.e. answers to turns that are actions in their ow n right as well vehicles for other actions (Schegloff, 1995, p. 72). A 's utterance in example 15 below both asks and offers, the question being the vehicle for the offer. #15 Reproduced within the text in Schegloff (1995, p. 73). A: Would you like a cup of coffee? B: Yes, thank you

Schegloff suggested that responses to these types of first pair parts typically

145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

address both barrells of the first pair part. So, for the example above, "yes" answ ers the question, and "thank you" accepts the offer (c.f. Schegloff, 1995, p. 73). The crucial difference between the responses to double-barrelled turns that Schegloff described and the com pound responses to deferred action requests/proposals that are done as interrogatives is that the first com ponent of the latter projects rather than accomplishes acceptance or granting. That this is the case is evident if w e re-examine M alena's p ursu it after the first com ponent of Rut's response to her request for a ride from the train station in exam ple 16. #16 STOCKHOLM CENTRAL (GRU7:A:4:209) Malena is temporarily slightly disabled due to a recent knee surgery. The initial request is marked a->, the free-standing affirmative response token is marked y->, and the pursuit x->. 09

M:a->

10

[Kan ni komma A hamta mej Can you come and fetch me Can you come and pick me up

a->tire dA, ten then at ten then

11 R:

(Du hade dornt den s-) du hade parkesra'n (You had jud- it s-) you had parked't

12

sA tokit.= so crazy so badly

13 M:a->Ja (kan int-) koamer ni: kan ni komma A Yes (can no-) come you can you come and Yes (can you no-) come you can you come and

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

14

3L->hamta mej tire ja har gAtt sA mycke Ida, fetch me ten I have walked so much today pick me up ten I have walked so much today

15

R:y->Ja:i Yes

16

M:x->GAr'e brai Goes't well Would that be okay

17

Rs

Ja:: [aYes [o-

As I argued earlier, M alena's pursuit shows that she has not heard Rut's ja: in line 15 as a granting. However, the w ording of the pursuit, literally translated as [Goes't well], suggests that Malena feels that the granting of the request is probable. She thus treats Rut's ja: as a prom issory note that projects b ut does not accomplish granting. W hether or not the affirmative response token projects granting or acceptance is less clear when the deferred action FPP is accomplished as a statem ent. As table 4.3. shows this is the m ost com mon syntactic form in the corpus.

Table 4.3. Syntactic form of the utterance that im plem ents the deferred action FPP. Syntactic form

Total (N)

syntactic interrogative statem ent

8 15

Total (N)

23

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

D eferred action FPPs that are implemented through statem ents are more indirect than those that are done as interrogatives. They are sim ilar to "my side" tellings (Pomerantz, 1980). A"my side" telling is a speaker device for soliciting inform ation from a co-participant w ithout overtly asking them to provide the information. Describing the design of such tellings, Pom erantz observed that a "my side" telling provides for the recipient to volunteer inform ation, perform a service, make an offer, extend an invition, rem edy an offense, answ er an accusation, and so forth w ithout his fsicl directly being asked, requested, accused or com plained against. W hen a conversant tells "my side," the im port of the telling, the concerns motivating it, and its treatm ent are for the recipient to determ ine. (Pomerantz, 1980, p. 193) Like "my side" tellings, deferred action FPPs that are form ed as statem ents place the onus on the recipient to figure out that a particular action is being im plem ented.11 They are therefore vulnerable to being responded to at their "face value" rather than in terms of the action(s) that are being im plem ented. This is illustrated by the arrowed turn in example 17. Kicki w ants Vera to respond on her husband's behalf w hether he can act as the adult supervisor during a sleep-over (c.f. chapter 3 example #31). #17 SLEEPING OVER [KOL2:A:2*20] Kicki is a riding instructor at a childrens' riding camp. The children spend the night at the camp. She is calling for Allan who is not hoae. Allan's wife Vera has just told Kicki when she expects Allan to return. The deferred action request is marked a-> and the response z->.

148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

01

K:

Nej fdr ja skulle ho:ra for ban bade tydligen No for I should hear for he had apparently No cause I was going to ask cause he had apparently

02

sasgt i vAsras att ban kunde ligga kva:r pi nA said in the spring that he could lay over on some said last spring that he could sleep over at some

03

lasger nA - nAt tag bb camp so- some time hh

04

V:

05

K:a->Och eh ja bar lager nu'rA ocb de imorron And eh I have a camp now then and it tomorrow

06

Jaha:: pt

a->imorron natt (*skulle're va jattebra om ban tomorrow night (would't be reallygood if he

07

a->kunde

could 08

Vtz->Ja

ja

*)

) iufst de.

Yes yes right it Yeah yeah right 09

K:

[( (

) esrbjudi sej, ) offered himself offered to

Kicki states that Vera's husband already had m ade a commitment to sleep at the camp [cause he had apparently said last spring that he could sleep over at some cam p so- some time hh]. Vera receipts this inform ation as news w ith a change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984a) in line 4. Kicki continues w ith a prospective assessm ent [(w ould't be really good if he could)]. By articulating a statem ent of need o r desire, this could be understood as a vehicle for a pre-request. Instead of addressing K idd's turn in lines 5-7 as a pre-request, Vera merely agrees w ith the prospective

149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

assessment [Yeah yeah right]. She thus responds to the turn at its "face value" rather than in terms of the pre-request that it im plem ents. This analysis is supported by Kicki's next tu rn w here she reinvokes the relevance of the pre-request by once again m entioning Allan's p rior promise to do the requested action (c.f. the w ord-by-word translation of line 9 [offered himself]). As show n in the example above, it is m ore complicated to determ ine w hether an affirm ative response token projects granting or acceptance w hen it is produced in response to a statem ent rather than an interrogative. The pursuit in the next example suggests that the affirmative response token involves a w eaker affiliatory claim w hen it is produced in response to a statem ent. #18 PICK UP (GRU7B:5:431) Cajsa is calling Tore from work. She works and lives in a different town than Tore. She has just informed Tore that she intends to take the 3:30 train to Tore's train the next day. The deferred action request is marked a->, the free-standing affirmative response token is marked y->, and the pursuit x->. 01 T:

Tjatgo Over tret nar var'u har dA:, Twenty past three when were you here then Twenty past three when wouldyou behere then

02

(0.4)

03

C: Ten

04

(2.0)

05 T:

Ba,

i fyaza, to four

150

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

06

C;a~>Om du kan Aka A hamta mej dA, If you can drive and pick up me -then If you can come and pick me up then

07

T:y->Mm.

08

Csx~>Eller nAsgon, Or somebody

09

T:

Ma±i

As com pared to the pursuit in example 16, where the affirm ative response token was produced after an interrogative, the pursuit in the example above (line 8) seems more pessimistic. By suggesting th at someone other than Tore come pick her up, Cajsa orients to the possibility that Tore might not be able to fulfill her deferred action request. However, m ore research is needed to determ ine w hether this case is generally characteristic of deferred action FPPs that are done as statem ents. 4.4.3. Sum m ary The affirm ative response token claims receipt of the action engaged in w ith the prior turn. This is especially evident in cases w here the person who had initiated the deferred action FPP engages in a pursuit after the affirm ative response token is produced and uses an anaphoric pronoun to refer to the deferred action engaged in w ith their prior turn. W hen produced in response to a deferred action FPP that is done as a question, the affirm ative response token may additionally project granting or acceptance. In the next section I will show how actual granting or acceptance is

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

accomplished w ith the com ponent that follows the affirm ative response token. 4.5. Accomplishing granting or acceptance with the next turn component Since deferred action FPPs cannot be im m ediately satisfied, recipients accomplish granting o r acceptance by displaying a com m itm ent to fulfill the deferred action in the future. W ithin my data base this is done in two ways. Recipients either make an explicit commitment to fulfill the deferred action or they initiate a new action which dem onstrates that the deferred action will be satisfied. 4.5.1. Making an explicit commitment to fulfill the deferred action When recipients make an explicit com mitm ent to fulfill a deferred action, they may refer to the deferred action w ith an indexical expression. This is typically done w hen the deferred action FPP and the granting or accepting second pair p art are contiguous. When the deferred action FPP and the granting or accepting second pair part are separated by one or several turns of talk by contrast, recipients resay action verbs from the first pair part of the deferred action sequence. As I will show in the analysis below, each of these response form ats are not arbitrary b u t designed for the accomplishment of particular interactional tasks.

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

4.5.I.I. D isplaying granting or acceptance by referring to the deferred action request, invitation, or proposal with an indexical expression Example 19 shows a deferred action proposal where the recipient displays acceptance w ith the deferred action by making a future com m itm ent. She refers to the deferred action proposal w ith the indexical [that]. #19 AFTERNOON VISIT [VAT4:B:433] The deferred action proposal is marked with "a->" and the accepting second pair part is marked with “b->". 28

N:

29

L:

30

N: a-> (Mm) di ko[mmer vi A halsar pi en stand? Mm then come we and visit on a while Mm then we'llcome and visit for awhile

31

L:

32

33

[•Ja,koamer'ru va he:oma pieftermiddan• ? Yes will*you be home on afternoon Yes will you be homein the afternoon Mm? (Mm?)

[(De e ja) That am I That I am b->Mm: g&r bra de, Mm:_ goes fine that Mm:_ that’ll be fine

N:

*h *Ja, *

The deferred action proposal is prefaced w ith a pre-sequence. N ina asks in line 28 [will you be home in the afternoon]. Liv promotes the base sequence by giving a preferred response (lines 29 and 31). Upon hearing the first p art of Liv's response to the prelim inary, N ina initiates the base first pair part, a

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

deferred action proposal that her family go over to Liv's house for a visit. The deferred action proposal is syntactically formed as a declarative statem ent [then w e'll come and visit for a while]. The accepting second pair part consists of the affirmative response token M m: followed by a com m itm ent [that'll be fine]. By referencing the request w ith the indexical [that] Liv avoids committing to the specifics that may be involved in accepting N ina's deferred action proposal. This issue will be explored further in the analysis of the next example which shows another deferred action FPP w here the recipient grants by making a future com m itm ent to fulfill the deferred action. Runar asks Allan to take care of his (Allan's) son Eskil. #20 BABY CARE From a conversation between Allan and his uncle Runar. Eskil is Allan's infant son. The deferred action request is marked with "a->" and the granting with 16

R:a->

N&sja ta harnd om E:skil nu, take care of Eskil now well then take care of Eskil now n A: ja

Schegloff & Sacks (1973) have show n that requests or im peratives that highlight the potential urgency of getting off the phone, like the one initiated by Runar in the example above, can be used to initiate a piedosing. Example 21 shows a request that is responded to as a pre-dosing. #21 (from Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 313 Linesshortened and line numbers added.) B has called to invite C, but has been told that c is going out to dinner. 01 B:

Yeah. Well get on your clothes and get out and collect some

154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

02 03 C: 04 B: 05 C:

of that free food and we'll make it some other time Judy then. Okay then Jack Bye bye Bye bye

In analyzing this example, Schegloff and Sacks (1973) state w hile B's initial utterance in this excerpt m ight be grammatically characterized as an im perative or a command, and C 's "Okay" as a submission or accession to it, in no sense b u t a technical syntactic one w ould those be anything b u t whimsical characterizations. While B's utterance has certain im perative aspects in its language form, those are not the ones that count; his utterance is a closing initiation; and C 's utterance agrees no t to a command to get dressed (nor would she be inconsistent if she failed to get dressed after the conversation), but to an invitation to close the conversation. A lthough R unar's turn in exam ple 20 and B's first turn in example 21 are produced to be understood as pre-closings, they are vulnerable to being treated as "real" requests or imperatives. This is evident if we examine the developm ent of example 20 w here Allan responds to R unar's request as a bona fide request rather than as a pre-closing by producing an extended

turn w here he addresses the request as inappropriate. #22 BABY CARE From a conversation between Allan and his uncle Runar. Eskil is Allan's infant son. 16

R:

NA:ja ta ha:nd oa Esskil nu, n A :ja take care of Eskil now

Well then take care of Eskil now 17

A: ->

18

->

«Ja de ska ja gora•,Vi har faktist basdat M r A Yes that will I doWe have actually bathed here and Yes I will do that We have actually had a bath here and sen har vi vart uste pA lAtngprouenatd nu ligger then have we been out on longwalk now lays then we have been out for a long walk now

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

19

->

ban A

sosver.

he and sleeps he is sleeping 20

R:

Oj oj oj oj [oj oj=

21

A:

[ hhJa,

22

=oj oj oj oj, ((trailing off))

23

(.)

24

A:

->

sA [att »han har'e no bras,* So that he has it probably well So that he is probably just fine

Allan refers to the deferred action FPP w ith an indexical expression [that] in line 1 7.1 suggested earlier that by using this reference form, a speaker avoids committing to the details that my be entailed in eventually granting the deferred action. This response design m ay thus embody less than fullhearted alignm ent. This is also evident in the developm ent of A llan's response where he goes on to address R unar's request as inappropriate. In lines 17-19 Allan gives am ple evidence that he already is caring for his son through a three p art construction (Jefferson, 1990) [we have actually had a bath here and then we have been out for a long walk now he is sleeping]. The past tense underscores that Allan engaged in these activities independently of R unar's request as does the use of "actually." Schegloff (1995) suggests that answ ers that begin w ith constructions like "actually" may relate the TCU w hich it initiates to its predecessor, as about to show that the latter has a contem porary relevance other than that created

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

by the question it was answering, and that the answer is then not casual, m erely disposing of the question, b ut of recent relevance independent of this occasion for talking about it. (p. 15) A lthough A llan's "actually" is not strictly p art of an answer, Schegloff analysis seem s in point. By prefacing the list of the different activities he has already engaged in to make sure that Eskil is properly cared for w ith "actually" Allan show s that the request w as im proper. Runar's uptake in lines 20 an d 22 is roughly equivalent to the English "oh my". This response treats A llan's prior turn as surprising. A llan concludes in line 24 [so that he is probably just fine]. This statem ent further underscores the inappropriateness of the request (e.g. that Allan is not taking care of his son).12 W hen granting or accepting a deferred action FPP by making an explicit com m itm ent to fulfill it in the future speakers may refer to the deferred action FPP w ith an indexical expression. W ithin my data this is done w hen the first and second pair part of the deferred action sequence are contiguous. The analysis of the last example show ed that this response form m ay entail less than fullhearted alignm ent. 4.5.I.2. D isplaying granting or acceptance by resaying action verbs from the first pair part of the base sequence Instead of referencing the first pair p art w ith an indexical expression w ithin the granting or accepting turn, recipients of deferred action FPPs can

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

resay action verbs from the first pair part. This is a resource for displaying that the turn is addressing a distant first pair part. In example 23, the deferred action request and the granting second pair part are separated by tw o turns. #23 BUS SCHEDULE (VATU:B:15:405) Elisabet is calling her father Petrus who is at home. The request is marked with "a->" and the granting with "b->". 05

Ps

06

Eia->Kan du titta om bussen a£r kvazt i tiiei Can you look if the bus leaves quarter to ten Can you look if the bus leaves at a quarter to ten

07

[Tjena, Hi there

(0.5)

08

P:

>Ja ha'ingen< lizsta, I have'no list I don't have a schedule

09

E:

Den ligger nere i mitt rum. It lays down in my room It's down in my room

10

P :b -> J a

11

E:

ja ska g£ £ titta. Yes I will go and look Yes I'll go look

Aar, Yes

A fter Petrus has claimed recognition of Elisabet with a familiar greeting form (Lindstr6m , 1994) in line 5, Elisabet gives the reason for call [Can you look if the bus leaves at a quarter to ten]. By referring to the bus in definite form w ithout any further specification Elisabet places the onus on Petrus to figure o u t w hat bus she is talking ab o u t After a half second delay Petrus

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

states that he does not have a schedule. This an ability account (Labov & Fanshel, 1977) that has a no-fault quality (Heritage, 1984b) by not im plicating a lack of willingness (Heritage, 1988, p. 18). Elisabet provides a location of the schedule in her next turn thereby solving Petrus' claimed problem of lack of access. Petrus grants the deferred action request w ith a turn composed of an affirm ative response token ja and a promise [I'll go look]. By resaying the word titta [look], Petrus displays that he is responding to a distant first p air part. Additionally, this form ulation provides an account for the fact that he is going to p u t Elisabet on hold while he retrieves the bus schedule. Elisabet acknowledges the granting w ith Aa: in her next turn. The relevance of resaying the action verb to display that the present tu rn is addressing a distant prior turn is even more evident in the next exam ple w here five insertion sequences separate the request from the granting. It is from a conversation betw een six-year old H enrik and his grandm other (Farmor). #24 SLEEPING BAG The deferred action the granting second pair part "b->." 03 F:

04

H:

request

is narkedwith "a->" and

Ja hej dd, Yes hi you Yeah hi there ‘h »Va heter ’re« h har ni nin sosvsack. 'h »what called’t« ‘h have you any sleepingbag Hhat'ch'ma callit ‘h do you have a sleeping bag

159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

05

F:

06

H :a->F- fAr ja lAsna e n ? M- may I borrow one

07

F:

'hh Sosvsack j a » va dA 'rA? hh Sleepingbag ja:± what then'then ‘hh A sleeping bag jas± why then

Ska ’ru Aka

bort

Are’ya going away 08

H:

09

dAZ

then

Ja vi ska Aka ida 'h b- ska ja ska sova pA en Yes we are going today ‘h b- will I will sleep on a Yes we are leaving today ‘h b- will I will sleep on a bosskulle dA de bir sA (.) fto:kit me tacke dAZ hayloft then it becomes so (.) [ awkward with blanket then hayloft it will be so (.) [awkward with a blanket

10

[hhh

11

F:

Hah hah hah hah 'hhhh Ska da sova pA en hosktutile. Hah hah hah hah 'hhhhWill you sleep on a hayloft Hah hah hah hah ‘hhhh You are gonna sleep on a hayloft

12

H:

AasZ Yes

13

F:

VtarnAnstans7

Whereabouts 14

H:

Ska - i: : hm pt eh 'hh var skulle vi sova nAnstans Will in hm pt eh ‘hh where would we sleep abouts will in hm pt eh ‘hh where were tie going to sleep

pappaZ ((off phone) ) daddy

15

16

Pi

I Orrbos, In Orrbo:

17

Hi

Ut i Orrboi Out in Orrbo

18

F:

Jahass e ’re oAnga som ska ligga kvar dSr 'rAl Jahas s 's 't many who will lay remain there 'then I see is it many people who will stay the night there then

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

19

H:

20

F:

E:'re ri:dla:ger. ’S 't ridingcamp 's 't horsecamp

21

H:

Ja:? yes

22

F:

J(h)a, Yes I see

23

H:

(UngefSr pA) tre natter, (About on) three nights (For about) three nights

24

F:

Jaha±£

25

H:

(h )

26

F:b->J o r r r i vi har eh hh sovsack sA den fAr d u Jo:± 'then we have eh hh sleepingbag so then may you Jo:± then we haveeh hh sleeping bag so (I guess you can)

27

28

De e; r- ri:dlager. It•s r- ridingcamp I t's h- horsecamp

b->val lAna, va'l borrow borrow it B:

Ja:?

I will only sketch the aspects of this complex sequence that are relevant for the argum ent at hand. Like example 19, this base sequence is prefaced by a pre-sequence, a pre-request. The pre-request occurs in the reason for call slot (line 4) after recognition has been achieved. Farm or orients to H enrik's turn in line 4 as a prelim inary by probing w hy he is asking about the sleeping bag (line 5).13 This question engenders the base first pair part, a

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

request to borrow a sleeping bag, in line 6. After five insertion sequences initiated by farm or in lines 7 ,1 1 ,1 3 ,1 8 , and 20, farmor grants w ith the deferred action request in line 26 [Jo::_ then we have eh hh sleeping bag so (I guess you can) borrow it]. Sorjonen (1997) argued that the particle joo in turn-initial position can be used to resum e an incomplete m ain action. "Joo acts as a preface to an utterance and its [sic] indexes that the talk to follow is a resum ption of a particular sequential slot in the interaction" (Sorjonen 1997, p. 491). More research is needed to determine Swedish usages of j o. However, Sorjonen's analysis seem s applicable to farm er's turn in line 26 as farm or initiates the granting second pair part for the first time in this turn. O ther aspects of the tu rn th at show that farmor is responding to die base request sequence include the inference marker da [then] and the resaying of the action verb lana [borrow] from the request turn (c.f. line 6).14 4.5.2. Initiating a new action which demonstrates that the deferred action w ill be satisfied Rather than directly addressing the deferred action FPP, recipients can grant or accept by initiating a new action which dem onstrates that the deferred action will be accom plished. This is shown in the next example taken from a call to a travel agency that specializes in exotic trips. #25 WORLD TRIP (GRU6:A:6:285) Malena is calling a travel agency, "Aventyrsresor." "Aventyrsresor Nitti Nittiett" (lines 7-8) and "Encounter of a Land" (lines 18-19) are catalogues published by the agency. "Till Australien pA Egen Hand" (line 14) is the name of a

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

travel package. The deferred action request is marked with "a->" and the granting second pair part "b->". 01

Cs

"Aventyrsre:sor" Cecilia? "Adventuretrips" Cecilia

02

M: Ja hesj ja heter Malesna Lundbera. Yes hi I name Malena Lundberg Yeah hi my name is Malena Lundberg

03

C: He:j, Hi

04

M:a-> hh Jag skalle garna vilja ha a'hh I would gladly want have ahh I would very much like to have a-

05

06 07

a->broschy:r (A skicka u:t At mig), brochure (and send out to me) brochure (sent out to me) C:

M:a-> =PA era ressor den har “A :ventyrsresor On your trips this here "Adventuretrips On your trips the one "Adventuretrips

08

09

Mm:?=

a->'Witti Nittietfi Ninety Ninetyone" C:

10

Ja:± (.) 'hh vill du ha me flygbiljetter eller Yes (.) 'hh want you have with airplanetickets or Yes (.) 'hh do you want with airplane tickets or e du mer intresserad av lite arranaerade are you more interested of little arranged are you more interested in trips that are

11

reserl trips pre-planned

12

M:

Aa::::,

13

C:

Eller e'ru ute efter A kopa en jorden runt Or are'you out after to buy a globe round Or are you looking to buy a trip around the world

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

14

biljett ellertill “Austra:lien pA Egen Hand" ticket or to "Australia on Own Hand" or to "Australia on Your Own*

15

eller sAl or so or something like that

16

Msa->Skicka lite alltnoilit va ni hard Send little everything what you have Send a little of everything

17

C:

18

M:a->E'ru snail 'hh A sen rom har "Encounter of 're'you kind 'hh and then those here "Encounter of Please 'hh and then the one "Encounter of

19

Mm: f£

a->a Land" a Land"

20

C:b->Mm± A du heteri Mbi s . and you called Mnu. and your name is

21

M:

Malesna Lundberg,

M alena is requesting th at Cecilia send her some travel brochures (lines 4-5 , 7-8, , 16, and 18-19). Cecilia grants this deferred action request by initiating a new sequence, a request for M alena's name (line 20). This inform ation is necessary for Cedlia to be able to fulfill M alena's deferred action request. As such, the turn dem onstrates that the request w ill be accomplished. This analysis is also supported by the and-prefadng of the new request [and your nam e is]. Heritage and Sorjonen (1994) have show n that and-prefadng "indicates that the questions it prefaces have a routine or agenda-based character" (p. 1). For this exam ple, the and-preface binds the name request

164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

as part of the overall activity of requesting travel information w hich was Malena's reason for call and was carried across several sequences and sub­ sequences. As such, the and-prefadng prom otes my analysis that the second TCU of line 20 grants the deferred action request. 4.5.3. Summary Redpients grant or accept deferred action FPPs by dem onstrating a commitment to fulfill the deferred action request or proposal in the future. In the data collection at hand this is accom plished in two ways. R edpients either make an explidt commitment to satisfy the deferred action or they initiate a new action th at in and of itself indicates that the deferred action FPP will be satisfied. W hen making an overt commitment to fulfill the deferred action, redpients may refer to the deferred action FPP w ith an indexical expression. This is only done w hen the first and second p air part of the deferred action sequence are contiguous. I suggested that this may constitute a weaker affiliatory daim than other forms. When there is intervening talk betw een the first and second pair part of the deferred action sequence, redpients may resay action verbs from the first pair part turn when they grant or accept w ith the deferred action FPP. This is a resource for displaying that the turn is addressing a distant second pair part. Finally, redpients can grant or accept deferred action FPPs by initiating a new action that dem onstrates that the deferred action will be accom plished.

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

4.6. Compound responses in other sequential environments In the preceeding, I have show n that a free-standing affirm ative response token does not grant or accept a deferred action request/proposal. A com pound response is required w here the recipient dem onstrates that she w ill satisfy the deferred action in the future. I am not arguing that com pound responses are exclusive to requests and related proposals that are done as deferred actions. However, w hen compound responses are used to grant or accept requests and related proposals that can be immediately satisfied, they may be dedicated to other interactional w ork than dem onstrating granting or acceptance. The next two examples show im m ediately satisfiable requests that are granted w ith com pound turns. A lthough these grantings superficially seem similar to the responses that are discussed in this chapter, they are interactionally distinct. Example 26 is from a conversation between six-year old H enrik and his m other, Liv. Henrik is at a friend's house while Liv is at home. In a previous telephone call w ith H enrik's friend's father, Liv has asked that H enrik return home. Henrik is now calling his m other back to ask for perm ission to stay longer at his friend's house. The sequence that I will focus on involves extensive negotiation. My analysis will focus on the initial request in line 3 and the final granting in line 30. The transcript begins after identification and recognition have been achieved.

166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

#26 SETTING OP TV (VAT11:A: 170) (Childrens' voices in background.) The initial request for permission is marked with "a->" and the granting with "b->".

f |

01

H:

Masama 'hh Mom

02

L:

Mm[:i

03

Hsa->

04

L:

05 H:

07

L:

08

Hs

09 H:

Ja vaddA pi tesven, Yes whatthen on the tv Yes what do you mean see the tv De e en- dom har kopt nys, 't's a- they have bought new 't's a- they have bought a new one

SnSlla, Kind Please (0.7)

H:

13 14

Ja men en- ( ) nar ja har sett pA tesveni Yes but one- ( ) when I have seen on the tv Yes but one- ( ) when Ihave seen the tv

(0.8)

11 12

As en halvtimme fdrsenad nuHenrik, Yes one halfhour late now Henrik Yes you're a halfhour late now Henrik (0.6)

06

10

[Vet du ja vill se pA te:ven foist., ((pleading)) Know you I want see on the tv first You know I want to see the tv first

Mammas, Mom (0.8)

L:

Tills dom har tage Until they have taken Until they have taken

tesven, up the tv out the tv upp

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

15

H:

VaddA:? Whatthen What

16

L:

Tills dom har tags uppte:ven Un-til they have taken up the tv Until they have taken out the tv

17

H:

Jah, ne:j tills dom har- eh har- tills dom har Yes no until they have- eh have- until they have Yes no until they have- eh have- until they have

18

gjort klasrt A starta'ni made finished and started't made ready and started't

19

( 1 . 6)

21

H:

**En tizmme," One hour ( 0. 6)

22

23

L:

Ja om inte de tar sA lAng tizd sA, Yes if not thattakes so long time so Yes if that does not take such a long time

24

H:

Ja ska frAga1 will ask

25

TAR DE l An g TI:D A SATTA IHO:P HANI ((Off phone)) Takes't long time to put together him Does it take a long time to put him together

26

(0.7)

27

H:

28

M:

*Ja: de e dea,m Yes 't's it Yes it will

29

H:

De e snart klart, 't's soon finished 't's soon done

E'REN SNART KLARTi ‘s 't soon finished will it soon be done

((Off phone))

((off phone))

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

30

L:b->Maf: koa direkt sen d&, Hm come right away later then

31

H:

Okesj, Okay

Schegloff (1970,1995) has argued that when a sum m ons-answer sequence is used in an already ongoing interaction it can be "understood to be invoked 'fo r cause' —that is, it em bodies the claim that the recipiency of its target for w hat is to come is in some respect problematic" (Schegloff, 1995, p. 45). H enrik's summons in line 1 is done after identification and recognition have been achieved and can be heard to invoke the potential problematic!ty of the upcoming talk. The turn-final [first] of H enrik's actual request for perm ission in line 3 provides further evidence of H enrik's orientation to the problem atic character of his course of action by registering his aw areness of his m other's prior dem and that he return home. Liv's response picks up on this aspect of H enrik's turn by specifying the nature of his infraction [you're a half hour late now Henrik]. Unlike the deferred action requests discussed in this chapter, H enrik's request for perm ission can be immediately satisfied. A fter considerable negotiation, Liv grants H enrik's request to stay later in line 30. The granting tu rn is m ade u p of two TCU's: the affirmative response token mm and a com m and [come right aw ay later then]. The second TCU elaborates on the first in the sense that L iv's im perative that H enrik "come right away later" displays that she

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

indeed is giving perm ission for H enrik to stay. A dditionally and more im portantly however the com pound design conveys a reluctance on the m other's behalf. By coupling the granting w ith an im perative the m other is "doing being strict." H enrik's oke:j in the next turn is fitted to this by prom ising compliance rather than expressing gratitude.15 The next example also involves Henrik. It is from a conversation betw een Henrik and his grandm other (farmor). H enrik is calling farmor to ask to borrow a sleeping bag (c.f. example 24). Farm or has just promised that H enrik can borrow a sleeping bag. #27 TALK TO DADDY 34

H:

hhh .hhh hhh

35

F:

[Va, What

36

H:

[Ja:. Yes

37

F:

Ja:. Yes

38

prata H:-> Ska 'ru Will'you talk with daddy Do you want to talk with daddy

39

F:

Ja: ja kan prata me ban Yes I can talk with him

The request to borrow the sleeping bag was H enrik's reason for call. Once farm or has promised to grant this request H enrik seems to run out of things to say. He sighs and takes a deep inbreath in line 34 whereupon

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

farm or initiates repair. Simultaneously, H enrik says ja:. H enrik's ja is not done as response to a question. When ja is produced in this type environm ent it is often used to initiate a topic- or conversational pre­ closing. H enrik's pre-closing is ratified by farm or who responds w ith another ja. H enrik then initiates the actual closing by asking w hether farmor would like to speak w ith his father [do you w ant to talk to daddy]. As a closing device, this could be understood as a request that is m asquerading as an offer. It is not a "real" offer because Henrik is not acting out of farm or's interest. Rather he is is using the offer as a resource for ending his ow n conversation w ith farmor. Farm or's responds w ith a com pound turn [yes I can talk w ith him]. The second component of her turn [I can talk w ith him] underscores that she is aligning w ith H enrik's turn as a request rather than as an offer by complying rather than expressing appreciation or excitement at the prospect of talking with H enrik's father. 4.7. Discussion In this chapter I have examined the preferred sequence trajectory of deferred action FPPs. While an affirmative response token can register receipt and project granting or acceptance of a deferred action FPP, it cannot complete a claim of alignm ent w ith that action. G ranting or acceptance is dem onstrated w ith the next turn component w here the recipient either

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

makes an explicit commitment to fulfill the deferred action or initiates a new action th at shows that the deferred action will be satisfied. I also showed com pound responses to actions that can be imm ediately satisfied and argued th a t the second responsive com ponent in these responsive turns may be dedicated to other interactional w ork than claiming alignm ent. I set u p the chapter by citing Sacks et a l/s finding that "any speaker gets, w ith the turn, exclusive rights to talk to the first possible com pletion of an in itial instance of a unit type [italics added]" (p. 706). This study does not underm ine the validity of Sacks et a l/s study. Rather, it lends further credence to their point that the turn-taking system is an interactionally m anaged system that " in its local m anagem ent, participant-adm inistered form, fits to conversational interaction"(p. 726). In this chapter I have shown that interactional projects that require some future com m itm ent because they cannot be satisfied in the present can shape the organization of turns by m aking relevant a multi-TCU turn. More w ork is needed in the following areas. Deferred action FPPs were broadly defined in this study to include action requests, invitations and related proposals. Future research m ight explore w hether there are individual differences w ithin these sub-categories of deferred action FPPs. I suggested th a t the affiliatory strength of the affirm ative response token

172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

hinges on the syntactic construction of the first pair part. W hen produced in response to a first pair part that is form ed as an interrogative, the affirm ative response token is heard as m ore affiliative than w hen produced in response to a statem ent. This suggestions clearly needs to be systematically explored on a larger d ata base. Finally, I did not make an analytical distinction between different affirm ative response tokens. As the next chapter will dem onstrate, the form and production of the response token is of prim ary importance for the affiliatory claim that is being made.

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

N otes to chapter 4: 1. One noteable exception are responses to topic proffers w hich are expanded (c.f. Pom erantz, 1984; Sacks 1987[1973]; Schegloff 1988b) 2. See chapter three exam ple #49 for an inform ation request that is not imm ediately satisfiable. 3. A parallell case can be found in W ootton's (1981) paper on the managem ent of grantings and rejections by parents in adult-child interaction. Drawing on earlier CA work, W ootton noticed that the turn organization of grantings and rejections are radically non-equivalent (W ootton 1981, p. 61) He argued that grantings either can be accomplished w ith a free-standing granting token such as "aye" or "yep" or through an extended turn bu t m ade no functional distinction betw een these two granting forms. However, it appears possible that the argum ent put forth in this study applies to his data as well. Consider the following example of a request sequence. Ma/M/P205 (from Wootton 1981 p. 62, line numbers added) [sic] 01 Ch: Could'you .hh could'you put on the light for my .hh 02 room 03 Younger Ch: 04 (.) 05 F: ->Yep

W ootton argued th at the father's response token in the arrow ed turn grants the child's request. However, this example is from co-present interaction. Thus, it appears plausible that the affirmative response token is accompanied by a non-vocal activity, the father flipping the light switch. That "yep" is sufficient as a granting may thus be attributed to the fact that this is a request that can be immediately satisfied. 4 .1 thank Emanuel Schegloff for suggesting this term 5 .1 thank Ulla Bbrestam for bringing this to my attention. 6. C.f. example 9 line 9 [de gar bra deJ for an example of the duplicated form at. 7. The open pronoundation of a- in the self-interrupted unit suggests that

174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Rut may have been on her way of saying annars [otherwise] c.f. line 19. 8. In stating that "otherw ise I'll come w ith a bike" Rut is conveying that instead of picking M alena up with a car, Rut w ill ride her own bike to the train station w ith M alena's bike "in tow" for M alena to ride home. 9. It does not how ever dem onstrate that the action w as understood. Focussing on the achievem ent of identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings, Schegloff (1979, pp. 42-45) showed that claims can be deceptively used. A non-recognizing answ erer can reciprocate a greeting thus deceptively claiming to have recognized caller. This practice can be contrasted w ith cases where answ erer m entions the caller's name w ithin the return greeting thereby not only claim ing but also dem onstrating that recognition has been achieved. 10. How the affirm ative response token is delivered may control the subtleties of exactly how much of a com m itm ent is m eant to be done. This point will be explored in chapter five. 11. All actions im plem ented through talk and / o r non-vocal behavior require some recipient interpretation. However, "my side tellings" and deferred action FPPs done as statements may be less transparent than some other devices such as interrogatives. 12. The sequence that immediately preceeded this excerpt involved a disagreem ent. This disaffiliative environm ent m ay have colored A llan's em phatic response to Runar's request. 13. The stretched ja i will be discussed in chapter five. 14. Unlike English, there is no lexical distinction betw een loaning and borrow ing in Swedish. 15. The m other's command is a deferred action request that requires a future commitment. The development of this sequence suggests that H enrik's oke:j is sufficient as compliance. This exam ple thus shows an alternative way of affiliating with deferred action requests.

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

5. PROJECTING A NON-ALIGNING RESPONSIVE ACTION WITH THE CURLED JA 5.1. Introduction In chapter four, I examined aligning responses to deferred action requests and related proposals. The aligning response is done w ith a turn that is com posed of at least two com ponents, a turn-initial affirm ative response token such as ja, a a, or m m followed by a sentential or clausal TCU. The affirm ative response token claims an understanding of the action engaged in w ith the prior turn. While it may function as a prom issory note that projects compliance, the response token does not in and of itself accomplish com pliance. This is done w ith the second TCU. D raw ing on a broader range of actions, I w ill now show how interactants exploit the strategic position of the turn-initial response token to foreshadow non-alignm ent. I will identify the curled ja as a sequential object that projects a non-aligning responsive action. A dditionally, although no t invariantly, the curled ja may m ark the action that is being responded to as inappropriate. The dictionary assigned meaning for ja is "yes". As is the case w ith the English "yes" (Jefferson, 1984a, 1993), there are several prosodic variants of the Swedish ja. I use the term "curled" to draw attention to two prosodic features: a lengthened vowel and a slight rise in pitch tow ard the

176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

end of the syllable (represented by colons and underlining in the tran scrip t).1 The acoustic analyses given in figure 5.1 shows the pitch contour of a curled ja in the corpus (i.e. #12 line 45).2

Figure 5.1. The pitch contour of the curled ja. 180 170 -

3

160 i 150 £• 140 S' 130 120

|

IT 110 £ ioo 90 80

113

226

339

452

565

Time (msec)

I include tw o articulatory variants of the curled ja in the data for this chapter, those that begin w ith a soft "j" [ja j and those that begin w ith an open "a" [aaL ]. The arrow ed turn in exam ple one shows a curled ja response.3 #1 VISIT (MOL:ltA:2*174) "Schooling” in line 10 refers to the process of gradually getting the children accustomed to institutional daycare (this requires parents to be present). 01

02

A:

•B&rru ja tinkte h&ra ifall ni ville ha en ■Listen I thought hear in case you wanted have a Listen I was going to ask if you wanted to be liten D&h&lsninai• little visit paid a visit*

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

03

V:

fJas de vill vi aama?f TYes t h a t w ant we g la d ly t Yes we w ould lo v e t o

04

A:

Utav mej A basrneni From me and t h e c h ild r e n By me and t h e c h ild r e n

05 V:

Ja::: jattegasrna? Yes very gladly Yes really

06 A:

I veckanI In the week This week

07

Vs

08

09

-> 'hh Ja:± (.) de e lite karvt ( (smilevoice)) 'hh Ja:± (.) 't*s little difficult Ja:± it's a little difficult -> men debut 'tbut it-

A:

vi ska se vicken da hade 'ru tSnkt dA, vie will see which day had’you thoughtthen so which day had you thought of

Nej ja har inte t&nkt nAnting for nasta vecka No I had not thought anything cause next week No I hadn't thought anything it's just that I begin borjar ja sko:la in dom, begin I school in them schooling them next week

10

a discussion about Vera's new job omitted— 50

A:

>Ar det Jlrcfrvt

den har veckan sa du< Is it difficult this here week you said You said it's difficult this week

Anita asks Vera w hether she w ould like a visit in lines 1-2 [listen I was going to ask if you w anted to be paid a visit]. Swedish is a t/v language w ith different forms for the second person singular and plural pronouns. Anita uses the plural form , n i. The proposal is thus addressed to the other

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

persons who share V era's residence as well [i.e. her family]. Vera enthusiastically accepts A nita's proposal on her fam ily's behalf w ith a twounit turn in line 3 [yes we would love to]. U pon hearing Vera's acceptance, Anita specifies the proposal by stating who the prospective visitors w ill be, [by me and the children]. This turn is syntactically parasitic on her prior turn in lines 1-2 and can only be understood in the context of that turn. Vera responds w ith heightened enthusiasm in line 5 [yes really]. A nita then adds another prepositional phrase that proposes a time for the visit [this week]. After an inbreath, Vera responds w ith a curled ja turn. The curled ja projects but does not im plem ent a non-aligning stance. This analysis is supported by the fact that turn-transfer does not occur during the micropause after the curled ja . In refraining from claiming the floor during this micropause A nita shows an orientation to the relevance of an extended turn. The type of non-alignm ent th at is being instantiated is specified w ithin die ensuing parts of V era's turn. Instead of accepting A nita's proposal, Vera states [it's a little difficult]. Vera begins the next TCU w ith a contrastive conjunction [but]. This syntactic linkage to the prior TCU indicates that the emerging TCU will contrast w ith its predecessor. Thus it project, that while A nita's proposal for the timing of the visit may not be ideal som ething could be worked out. However Vera does not bring this TCU to com pletion (note the self-

179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

!

interruption of ['t-]). Instead she initiates an insertion sequence [so which day had you thought of] that suggests th at Vera's acceptance of the proposal is contingent on the timeframe for the visit. It can thus be heard as a possible pre-rejection of the proposal. The past tense form ulation [had you thought of] coupled w ith the inference m arker da conveys that Vera has inferred that A nita already had a particular day in m ind w hen she m ade the proposal. A nita rejects V era's assum ption th at she had called w ith a pre­ planned agenda in her next tu rn [no I h ad n 't thought anything]. That she is addressing this assum ption is partially conveyed through the re-use of the w ord "thought" from line 8. A nita then gives an account [it's just that I begin schooling them next week] th at highlights the relevance of organizing the visit in the near future. This is an ability account (Labov and Fanshel, 1977) that has a no-fault quality (Heritage, 1984b, 1988) in that it "does not implicate a lack of w illingness" (Heritage, 1988 p. 18). Rather it references a circumstance that is beyond A nita's control (i.e. h er children's daycare schedule) as the reason w hy the visit needs to be scheduled sooner rather than later. Vera then pursues a discussion about A nita's new job (c.f. chapter three, example 33). A nita returns to the issue of scheduling the visit in line 50 by form ulating the upshot of Vera's curled ja tu rn [You said it's tricky this week].

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The stance that is being implicated w ith the curled ja turn is specified w ithin the talk that follow s the turn-initial curled ja in this example. This exam ple does therefore not conclusively show that the curled ja in and of itself projects non-alignm ent. However examples w here the stance im plicated w ith the curled ja can be isolated will analyzed later in the chapter to show that the curled ja itself projects non-alignm ent. The data for this chapter consists of 25 sequences w here the curled ja occurs in turn-initial position of a turn in which a responsive action is due. Table 5.1. shows the action responded to by the SPP including the curled ja.

Table 5.1. Action responded to by the SPP including the curled ja. A ction

Total (N)

inform ation request action request offer proposal advice assessm ent

12 7 2 2 1 1

Total (N)

25

The actions listed in table 5.1. w ere accomplished through a variety of linguistic devices. Table 5.2. shows the syntactic form of the first pair part of the curled ja sequences in the corpus. Unlike syntactic interrogatives follow -up questions do not include a subject. They are constructed with a

181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

clausal o r phrasal TCU and are syntactically and semantically parasitic of the sequential context (c.f. example one lines 4 and 6). Table 5.2. Syntactic form of the FFP of the curled ja sequence Syntactic form

Total (N)

syntactic interrogative statem ent statem ent about B-event follow -up question

12 5 4 4

Total (N)

25

A common feature of these first pair parts is that they are form ed as "yes"/"no" questions. By that I mean that they can be responded to with "yes" or "no". Ten of the first pair parts im plem ented the kind of deferred action requests and related proposals that w ere discussed in chapter four. As the analysis in that chapter dem onstrated, an affirmative response token is insufficient as a response to these types of first pair parts. While chapter four focussed on how speakers can exploit the first unit of the responsive turn to project compliance, this chapter focusses on how the same sequential slot can be used to foreshadow non-compliance. The chapter is organized as follows. I will review CA literature that has established the interactional relevance of projecting non-alignm ent. This is followed by a discussion of studies th at have linked prosody and

182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

interaction. To establish that the curled ja is associated w ith nonalignm ent I first analyze non-aligning responses that are prefaced w ith a curled ja. I then examine sequences w here the recipient of the curled ja reclaims the floor after the curled ja. The actions they engage in show that they heard the curled ja itself to project non-alignment. Finally I explore examples w here the interactants address the action im plem ented w ith the first pair p art of the curled ja sequence as inappropriate. The chapter concludes w ith a discussion of the findings. 5.2. Literature review Early CA research established that non-aligning actions typically are delayed and that turn-initial objects can project non-alignm ent. These two features provide a resource for recipients as they can revise their prior actions before the projected non-aligning action is realized so as to avoid full-fledged rejection or disagreem ent. O ther studies have highlighted the link betw een prosody and interaction by showing that the prosodic features of response tokens are sequentially and interactionally significant. 5.2.1. Dispreference markers and the avoidance of disagreement That turn-initial objects of a responding turn can foreshadow nonalignment w as established in early CA research. Sacks (1987 [1973]) showed that in conversation there is an association between agreem ent and contiguity on the one hand, and disagreem ent and non-contiguity on the

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

other. Agreeing utterances tend to be contiguous w hile disagreeing utterance are non-contiguous. Consider the following example. #2 (sacks, 1987 [1973] , p. 58) A: Yuh comin down early? B: well, I got a lot of things to do before gettin cleared up tomorrow. I don't know. I w- probably won't be too early.

As Sacks noted, B's disagreem ent - "probably w on't be too early" - is not only weak, additionally, and more im portant for this study, it is not produced until the end of B's turn. The disagreem ent is prefaced by "well", an account "I've got a lot of things to do before gettin cleared up tom orrow", a hedge "I d o n 't know", and a self-interruption "I w-". The distinctive features of agreeing and disagreeing turns were explored further by Pom erantz (1975,1978,1984). H er research in this area was review ed in chapter one. Here I will focus on her analysis of how pre­ disagreem ent delays shape sequence trajectories. Pom erantz stated that a gap after a first pair p art to which agreem ent/disagreem ent is relevant may function as a an "unstated" or "as yet unstated" disagreem ent. That is, if a recipient delays in initiating his talk post the com pletion of a tu rn to which agreem ent/disagreem ent is relevant, that delay-gap may be disagreem ent im plicative for his [sic] co-participant. As such, that co-participant may resum e talk post a gap w ith talk which displays a sensitivity tow ard a discrepancy between the parties. (Pom erantz, 1975, p. 79) This is illustrated in the following fragment. #3 [SBL:3.1.-8] (Pomerairtz, 1975, p. 79, line numbers added) 1 B: ..an' that's not an awful lotta fruitcake. 2 (1. 0 ) 3 B: Course it is. A little piece goes a long way.

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

4

A:

Well that's right.

B makes an assertion in line 1 [an' that's not an aw ful lotta fruitcake]. Faced w ith no uptake from B (line 2), she revises her assertion in line 3 [Course it is. A little piece goes a long way]. B's revision potentiates A 's agreement in the ensuing turn [Well th at's right]. In Pom erantz' term s B's revision shows B sensitivity tow ard the discrepancy between A and B's displayed points of view. In the exam ple above a silence was treated as disagreement im plicative. Other devices for projecting non-alignm ent include prefaces, partial repeats, anticipatory accounts, and "pro-forma" agreem ents (Heritage, 1984b, 1988; Levinson, 1983; Pomerantz, 1975; Schegloff, 1995). Pom erantz argued that modifications and revisions like the one above coupled with the tendency to delay or w ithhold actual disagreement has "a minimizing effect on the occurrences of disagreem ents and a maximizing effect for agreem ents. In such instances, it is not only what w ould be a disagreem ent may not get said, it is also that w hat comes to be said may be said as an agreem ent" (p. 81). The aforem entioned studies underscore that alignm ent cannot be properly understood by solely focussing on the interactants' internal psychological states. A lignm ent is the product of finely tim ed negotiation. In line w ith previous CA studies, this study focusses on how this negotiation is sequentially realized over the course of each emerging TCU.

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

5.22. Prosody and interaction As indicated by the nam e, prosody is one of the identifying features of the curled ja . The stretched vowel and pitch rise differentiate the curled ja from a host of other intonational variants of ja in Swedish. This study thus contributes to research that links prosody and interaction by specifying how m arked prosodic form s accomplishes certain social activities (on recent work in this area see the papers in Couper-Kuhlen and Selting, 19%). 4 Particularly, this study show s that "close and system atic attention to phonetic detail can open the way for a better understanding of the organization of conversational interaction" (Local & Kelly, 1986, p. 204). In the following I will set my study in the context of other work by briefly review ing two other studies that focus on how interactants modify the prosody of response particles to achieve a social action that differs from that achieved w ith the unm arked form. 522.1. The English "w ell" Local and Kelly (1986) analyzed different phonetic realizations of the English "well". They found that their data could be sorted into two gross classes: 1) tokens w ithout o n syllable pitch movement (unaccented) and, 2) tokens w ith pitch movement (accented) (Local & Kelly 1986, p. 189). Examining the former group m ore closely, they found that the word ending of "well" was intoned differently depending on w hether the word was

186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

followed by a vowel on the one hand or a pause or a consonant on the other. W hen "well" was followed by a vow el it had a lateral articulation. When it w as followed by a pause or consonant it ended in a relatively close back vowel "w hich typically was faucalized, sulcalized, and accompanied by weak nasality" (p. 190). This finding w ould seem to suggest that intonation is determ ined and shaped by the phonetic structure of its linguistic context. However, Local and Kelly also found instances where "well" had a vocalic ending w ithout faucalization ot lateral articulation. These instances occurred before both vowels and consonants b u t w ere limited in term s of their sequential distribution, they preceeded reported speech. This finding highlights the relevance of sequential context for phonetic form. 5.2J2J2. The Finnish nii Sorjonen (1997) studied the use of the Finnish response particle n ii. She suggested that intonational variants of this response particle em body different epistem ic claims. When nii is spoken w ith a falling intonation contour in an environm ent where a display of recognition of a referent is relevant it claim s recognition. The nii in the example below occurs after Asta has referred to a third (non-present) party by first and last name. #4 [Tuire/Danish visitor] (Sorjonen, 1997, p. 431-432) Simplified transcript.Syntactic glossing line omitted. 01

T:

Baloo?, Hello?,

02

A:

.mth o Tuire Baiaakainen?

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

=.at >Puhelime-ssa,< =.tch >Speaking,
Aas_ de vete tusan, ((CREAKY VOICE)) Aa± that know thousand Aas lord knows

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

46

CA:

47

hhh For ja borja fundera me Leif ocksA de hSr 'hhh For I began wonder with Leif also this here with 'hhh Cause I started to wonder with Leif and the stuff me: tapetserarbordet A hhh allting, with wallpaperingtable and hhh everything about the wallpaperingtable and hhh everything

Tore describes the construction w ork that he will do in his turn in lines 3940 [will have to put up this paneling today then]. Cajsa receipts this w ith an acknow ledgm ent (line 41). Tore's subsequent acknowledgment may propose topic closure. After a m icropause, Cajsa re-opens the previous topic by m aking an inference based on the prior talk [Then it'll be all panelled this w eekend then]. Tore responds w ith a curled ja followed by the idiom atic expression de vete tusan [lord knows]. This hedging response casts doubt on Cajsa's inference w ithout actually disagreeing w ith it. Cajsa orients to Tore's curled ja response as non-aligning by providing an account for why she was expecting the panelling to be finished by the weekend in her next turn. Example 7 is from a conversation between 6-year old H enrik and his father. The curled ja turn is produced as a response to the father's question w hether H enrik will return home (lines 2 and 4). #7 COME HOME SOME TIME (VAT11B:17:486) Henrik is calling home from a friend's house. 01

H:

H(EJ'RA, Hi'then Bye then

193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

02

T:

03

[Koa- kommer'ru hem sen d£l Com- come'you home later then Are- are you coming home later then (0.3)

04

T:

Win ging, Some time At some point

05

Hs ->Ja± hh ja vet inte, Ja± hh I know not Ja± hh I don't know

06

T:

Jasi Yes

Henrik proposes a conversational dosing in line 1 by initiating a good-bye sequence. Torkel daim s the floor interruptively to ask H enrik [are-are you coming hom e later then]. Faced w ith no uptake from H enrik (line 3), Torkel re-completes his prior turn w ith the adverbial phrase nan gang [at some point]. While the question in line 2 made relevant the specification of a tim e, this question merely requests a "yes" / "no" type response. The re­ com pletion can thus be hearable as adjusting to H enrik's lack of uptake in line 3. H enrik responds in line 5 w ith a curled ja turn. The curled ja is separated from the second TCU by an audible outbreath. Torkel treats the curled ja as incomplete by refraining from daim ing the floor at this point. H enrik continues w ith a disdaim er [I don't know] th at neither affirms nor denies Torkel's question. A nother hedging curled ja response is shown in example 7. #7 PANTS & TROUSERS (VAT11B:16:460) Torkel is calling Liv at work to ask what clothes their son should wear.

194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

01

T:

02

.h Va heter'e va skulle Henrik ha gA sej What call't what should Henrik have on himself What was I gonna say what should Henrik wear de grosnai the green the green stuff

03

L:

04

T::

05

T:

06

Li:

07

T;

Ja:: fo[r han lar vSl ha lAnga bvxor. Yes for he must val have long pants Yes cause he must probably wear long pants [VicketWhichWhatVicket di grdsna? Which then green What green stuff De som hanger pA hans sto:l, (De) dar lju:s[a That which hangs on his chair (that) there light That that's hanging on his chair that light ( ( Mi ns )

de va val inge grosnt, that was val not green that's not green 08

L:

De e visst gro:nt. it 's too green It is green allright

09

T:

'Ha::sej* NO

10

L:

Va e de for fara dii What's it for color then What color is it then

11

T:

Bl&tt lju:ssbl&tt Blue lightblue

12

L:

Jaha: okeidA. Jaha: okaythen

195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

13

Ts

14

L:

Nae:j de e grosnt. No it's green

15

T:

BA:de byxorna Atrojan? Both the pants and the sweater

16

L: ->Ja± han kan val ta trojan runt mitdjan Jaj_ he can val take the sweater around the waist Ja± he can at least put the sweater around the waist

17

( mTrosrja')/(*Jo:dAm) (Believe'I)/(Josthen) (I think)/(Josthen)

->Atminstone om de bir

kallt ’fAr han val at least if it gets cold gets he val if it gets cold he can

18

->sStta pA * sen har han val nAn svarta put on then has he val some black put it on then he has some black

19

->te:shirt eller fotbollste:shirtar t-shirt or soccer t-shirts

20

->ligger i garderoben, lying in the closet

21

Ts

mJa mi Yes

Torkel requests confirmation in lines 1-2 by asking w hether H enrik should w ear "the green stuff" [What was I gonna say what should H enrik w ear the green stuff]. Liv confirms in the next tu rn noting the need to w ear pants. In Sw edish langbyxor [long pants] are contrastive with kortbyxor [short pants o r shorts] (see the literal translation of line 3). A side sequence ensues w ith Torkel disputing Liv's characterization of the color of the clothing (lines 4-14). Torkel then asks w ith a follow -up question in line 15 w hether

196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

H enrik should wear both the pants and the sw eater [both the pants and the sweater]. Liv gives a curled ja response that neither com pletely aligns w ith nor dis-confirms Torkers question by stating that H enrik should bring the sw eater but not wear it [he can at least put the sw eater around the waist]. In the examples above the curled ja is followed by a hedge that neither aligns w ith the first pair part nor completely rejects it. In the next section I will show curled ja responses that are more disaffiliative in that they involve a pre-rejection. 53.2. Pre-rejections There are eight pre-rejection relevant instances of curled ja in the corpus. Examples 8 and one show pre-rejection curled ja turns. In example 8 Jan is calling his sister-in-law Vera in Sweden from a London airport. #8 LANDVETTER Vera and her family live within two hours driving distance of Landvetter airport. Ulla mentioned in line 23, is Vera's sister and Jan's fiancee. 16

J: Ja ja e: i London allsA, Yes I ’m in London see/in other words Yes I'm in London you see

17

V: fEs: 'RUti Are you You are

18

J: SA ja t&nkte frAga (.) pt om eh- (0.4) om nikunde(.) So I thought ask (.) pt if eh- (0.4) if youcould (.) So I was going to ask (.) pt if eh (0.4) if you could (.)

19

ja skulle beh&va liksom ha: h skjuss frAn Landvetter I would need kind of have ride from Landvetter I would sort of need a ride from Landvetter

197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

I

20

V: ->'hh Aar aar d£ 'rA? 'hh Aaj_ when then then 'hh Aaj_ so what tine would that be then

21 J:

Ja kommer klockan- v±d mldnatt kommer ja- klockan I come clock- at midnight come I clock I arrive at- around midnight I come- at

22

tolv, twelve twelve o'clock

23

24

V:

J:

->pt heh heh heh 'hh Aa:± 'hh eh kanske Uslla kommer? pt heh heh heh *hh Aa:± 'hh eh maybe Ulla comes pt heh heh heh ‘hh Aa:± ‘hh eh Ulla might come Ja just de. Yes right that Yes right

Vera treats Jan's announcem ent that he is in London as new s in line 17. Instead of responding to the newsmark, Jan begins to make a request for a ride from the airport. The request is indirect. It starts w ith a prelim inary [so I w as going to ask]. As discussed in chapter three such prelim inaries can m ark the upcoming talk as delicate (Schegloff, 1980). As dispreferred actions, requests are inherently delicate (Sacks, 1992 [1967] p. 685-92; Schegloff, 1995). This request may be especially delicate in that it is m ade on the day of Jan's arrival and w ould require Vera to drive to the airport in the m iddle of the night. Jan's orientation to the first of these issues is evident in th at he later in the conversation states that he had been trying to reach Vera earlier. The request includes two self-interruptions [pt if eh-] and [if you could]. The second of these could be heard to be going to a direct request "if you could pick me up a t the airport". However this form ulation is

198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

dropped for an indirect one that states a need [I w ould sort of need a ride from Landvetter]. Vera responds to the request w ith a curled ja tu rn (literally translated as [.hh A a: when then then]). In duplicating da , Vera em phasizes that her willingness to grant the request is highly contingent. H er curled ja tu rn can thus be heard project contingency rather than granting. Like the request in lines 18-19, Jan's answ er to Vera's question is hesitant and replete w ith self-repairs [I arrive at- around m idnight I come­ at twelve o'clock]. This may indicate an orientation to the time as problem atic as does Vera's laughter in line 23. Rather than granting the request Vera states equivocally w ith another curled ja turn that "Ulla m ight come" in line 23. Jan's neutral uptake to this turn [Yeah right] is compatible w ith the analysis that the request has not been granted. Example 1 show ed another pre-rejection curled ja turn. How that pre­ rejection was accomplished and oriented to w as discussed in the introduction of this chapter. 5.3.3. Rejections The curled ja is followed by a full-fledged rejection in the next tw o examples. Korvgubben ("hot dog man") is a sales person in a hot dog/new sstand. D avid has just asked w hether a copy of last Sunday's new spaper is still available (he is apparently calling on a day other than Sunday).

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

#9 DAGENS NYHETER [Dagens Nyheter] 08

K:

[De kan no handa men isAsfall finns de It can probably happen but in that case is there It may be possible but in that casetherewon't be

09

ingen esxtrabilasga till den atan di e're bara Dagens no extraenclosure to it but then 't’s only Dagens any magazine section then it's just Dagens

10

Nysheteri

11

D:

Ja bara Dagens Ny:heter jai= Yes just Dagens Ny:heter yes

12

K:

=Jo men de [tror ja att vi ha:r, ] Jo but it think I that we have ] Jo but I think we have that

13

D:

14

[

Ka~ kan du J titt(h)a:, Cacan you look Ca- can you go check

(.)

15

Ks->

16

D:

17

K:

18

D:

Ja:± de fisnns Jas± it exists Ja:± it's there KB[HB [ja vett de. [I know that I know it 'hh Eh nu e're si hSr att jat sitter ii Orvenbo 'hh Eh now 's't so here that I sit in- in Orvenbo 'hh Eh now I am in- in Orvenbo now

19

heir i kommer val inte ivag f o r m om en timma here and come probably not away until about one hour and I probably won't leave for about an hour

20

nSr stSnger'u? when close you when do you close

K orvgubben's response in lines 8-9 suggests that parts of the Sunday paper

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

still are available. When David replies that he only is interested in the paper itself (without the m agazine section) korvgubben states that he believes he has it \J° but I think w e have that]. David interrupts korvgubben's turn in progress to request that he go look for the paper [Cacan you go check]. Korvgubbens response to the request is slightly delayed. Instead of granting the request, korvgubben asserts w ith a curled ja prefaced turn that he has the paper [/a;; it's there]. David sighs heavily (line 16) and korvgubben treats this as a display of irritation by in turn responding with an upgraded epistemic assertion [I know that]. A different kind of rejection is shown in example 10. The excerpt is from a conversation between Allan and his unde Runar. #10 TAXMONEY [Tyskarna] Runar has just asked his nephew Allan whether Allan's father (Runar's brother), Orvar has returned home, orvar is a medical doctor employed by the Swedish government who apparently has been out on business travels. Allan responds that he does not know whether Orvar has returned. This response is acknowledged and the sequence continues as follow 34

R:

Han e bara ate A (lurvari) He is just out and putzes He is out (all the time) putzing around

35

A:

36

R:

Ja*. ((*=glottal stop)) Yes

37

A:

Gor av me vAra skattepengar. Makes off with our taxmoney Spends our taxmoney

38

R: -> Ja::=

pt Aa: ban e bara ute A ftirlustar sesj, pt yes he is just out and covorts himself yes he is out covorting (all the time)

201

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

i = hA,= Yes

39

A:

40

Rs -> =Borrudu- ’h ja har ( precis en) kansla av att Listenyou- 'b I have (exactly a) feeling of that Listen up h I have a certain feeling that

41

R:

[du ocksA got de, you also do that you do that as well

42

A:

[ hh

43

A:

44

R:

45

A:

46

Att ja: ocksA hh [g(h)o- [heh heh heh'heb heh heh That I also hh [d(h)o- [heh heh heh‘heh heh heh That I also spend[HAB BAB BAB BAB J(h)at_(h) de kanske e nit slSktdratg J(h)aj_(h) it perhaps is some familytrait (Yes) maybe it is a family trait horru[dui listenyou (don’t you think)

In line 34 Runar jokingly evaluates O rvar's travels [he is out (all the time) putzing around]. The Swedish w ord lurvar denotes w alking or moving about w ithout a sense of purpose. It is a benevolent term. Allan responds to R unar's turn with an upgraded assessment that treats O rvar's travels as more illicit [he is out covorting (all the time)]. A fter an acknowledgment by Runar in line 36, Allan reclaim s the floor to make another assessment that is stronger and more negative than the other tw o as it underscores that O rvar's travels has a negative im pact on others [spends our tax money]. The assessm ent makes relevant a second assessment (Pom erantz, 1975, 1984).

202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

To merely discuss this spate of talk in terms of the relevance of a second assessm ent however does n o t fully capture the interactional intricacies involved. In a study of A m erican family dinner conversations, Ochs, Smith, & Taylor (1989, 1992)) argued that one resource for building solidarity and cohesiveness w ithin the family w as to align the members of the family against a third non-present party. The possessive pronoun in line 37 [our] could be heard to refer to taxpayers in general as well as R unar and Allan in particular. A llan thereby builds an alliance w ith Runar contra O rvar (who is R unar's brother and A llan's father). H is assessm ent thus constitutes an invitation to R unar to express solidarity w ith him. H ow ever, this alliance is built at O rvar's expense. Runar produces a curled ja in line 38. On the immediate com pletion of the curled ja A llan reclaims the floor w ith .h A . Runar orients to A llan's turn as an interruption. The turn-initial sum m ons in line 40 [listen up] is doubly contextual (Heritage, 1984b). It links back to the prior turn by adm onishing A llan for claim ing floor prem aturely. It also points forw ard by marking the upcom ing action as problem atic (Schegloff, 1970,1995). Runar agrees w ith A llan's assessm ent b u t rejects the alliance by suggesting that Allan is ju st as bad as O rvar in his next TCU [I have a certain feeling that you do that as well]. He delivers this tu rn in a straight voice. Allan treats it as hum orous by laughing in his next tu rn and then attem pts to tu rn the tables on R unar by suggesting that this is

203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a family trait (lines 45-46). 5.3.4. Sum m ary W hen the curled ja turn is brought to completion it typically im plem ents a non-aligning action. M ost prevalent of these in my data base is the hedge w hich delicately balances betw een alignm ent an d nonalignm ent. My collection also include curled ja turns that are pre-rejections. Only tw o curled j a 's in my data base are followed by a full-fledged rejection. This distribution suggests that the curled ja is more closely associated with slight non-alignm ent than full-fledged rejection or disagreem ent. 5.4. Projecting a non-aligning responsive action w ith the curled ja That the curled ja typically precedes a non-aligning action does not prove that the curled ja projects non-alignm ent. To establish the latter point we m ust isolate the recipient's orientation tow ard the curled ja. The recipient claims the floor after the curled ja in the next set of examples. The action they engage in shows that they orient to the curled ja as foreshadow ing a non-aligning response. The analysis presented in this section builds on and contributes to CA studies th at have established that interactants orient to the em ergent and dynam ic quality of each turn at talk, parsing it for the action(s) that are being accomplished (c.f. Heritage, 1988; Jefferson, 1973; Lem er, 1987; Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff, Ochs, & Thompson, 1996). Schegloff (1996b) observes

204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

that

any utterance in conversation may be understood to go through three phases: as (incipient) next, as current, and as prior. That is, as a current-recipient-of som e-talk/ potential-next-speaker parses it in the course of its progressive articulation, potential response types and lines are engendered, subject to revision and replacem ent as the current talk is further produced bit by b it (p. 97) Recipients' orientation to the bit by bit construction of talk becomes particularly d ea r w hen one examines talk produced in overlap. As Jefferson (1973,1983, 1986) has shown, overlap is far from random . Its onset is predsely placed w ith respect to the turn that already is in progress and its resolution is delicately managed. Discussing overlap, Lem er (19%) states that just as each next tu rn in a conversation is ordinarily designed to follow the just prior turn, so a recipient's utterance begun internal to a turn's talk (i.e. in the midst of the projected turn space of the current speaker) is shaped by, and understood by reference to, its placement. (p. 251) In the next example the redpient of the curled ja turn will enter the tum space of her interlocutor. The placem ent of her turn relative to the tum -in-progress coupled w ith the kind of action it engages in lends support for my argum ent that the curled ja is understood to project non-alignment. The example is from a conversation betw een tw o young mothers, Nina and Liv. N ina's young children are in Liv's home based daycare. Nina is a nursing aide w ho works shift work. H er husband (Dennis) is a teacher. In the excerpt below they are discussing Nina and Dennis'

205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

prospective work schedules. #11 WORK SCHEDULE [Dagmamua] Nina is in the midst of describing days when her and her husband's work hours are so spread out that they hardly will require daycare. 01

N:

02

[ »k llkadant son tillexenpel* •And same as for example* And it’s the same if say on ja borjar- nar ja borjar fv:ra nar ja bar if I begin- when I begin four when I have if I begin- when I begin at four when I have

03

nattend night the night shift

04

L: Ja:? Yes

05

(0.4)

06

N: (Ja) behover ju inte Aka fore(0.2) t iuai i fvra.= (I) need ju not go before twenty to four I would not need to go earlier then twenty to four right

07

L: =A [Dennis konmerba:lv fen, =And [Dennis comes half five -And [Dennis comes home four thirty

08

N:

[(De e ju-) [(It's ju— )

09

Ns [Ja se[Yes la[Yes at the la-

10

L: fFore halv fen, [Before half five [Before four thirty

11

N:

12

L:

Senast [alltsA, Latest [that is At the latest [that is [Ja:, [Yes

206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

13

L:

hh Ju ban [slutar fvra dA, 'hh Yes he [quits four then 'hh Yes he [gets off at four then

14

N:

15

L:

16

N : -> Jass± d[e (e lite olika )] Jass± i[t ('s little different) Ja::± i[t (depends they have-)

17

L : ->

18

N:

Dom bar inte riktit (.) samma tisder. They have not really (.) same times They don't have exactly (.) the same times

19

L:

NSse, NO

20

N:

Sen de- ban bar ju inte fAtt nA schema ansom Then it- he has ju not received any schedule yet like Then it- he has not received a schedule yet see and like

[ (DA hinner ja) [(Then manage I) [(Then I'll have the time) Nes±j nar slutar'om slutar fore fvra va? No when quit they quit before four what Nowhen do they get off they get off before four don't they

[De berosr lite dA- as si] It depends little on yes It depends a little on the circumstances yes

21

fSrra Aret dA hade ju ban en da i- i veckan nar last year then had ju he one day in- in weekwhen last year then he had one day in- in the week see when

22

han bara hade en lektiosni he only hadone lesson he only had one class

23

L:

( 0. 6)

24 25

26

Mms,

L:

A bir de'rA faller'e in pA din lAngAnd becomes that'then falls't in on your longAnd if that then is- falls onyour longlAngda

dA

sA dA

b l i r ’e

ju ingenting nastan

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

b

longday then so then becoaes't ju nothing almost longday then there willl be hardly anything right

h

27

N:

Haej, No

28

L:

Om man sMger dA, If one says then So to speak

29

N:

'h*Ja*, »Nej sA vi fir se nar han fir sitt Yes »No so we shall see when he receives his Yes »No so we will see what happens when he receives his

30

[schesma* [schedule*

In line 13 Liv states that Nina's husband's work day ends at four. This is offered as a concessive inference across a series of turns beginning in line 7. A lthough her turn in line 7 is form atted as a statem ent it could be heard as a question because it focusses on a "B"-event (Labov & Fanshel, 1977). Instead of answ ering Liv, Nina reclaim s the floor interruptively to continue her ow n previous turn by beginning to form ulate its upshot [then I’ll have the time]. She yields the floor to Liv before her tu rn has been brought to completion. In line 15 Liv self-corrects the time reference she gave in her previous turn [no when do they get off they get off before four d o n 't they]. Liv uses a locally subsequent reference form [they], in locally initial position (Schegloff, 1996c). Presum ably she is referring to Dennis and his colleagues a t the school. The tu rn is done as a self-correction through the turn-initial "no” and the stress on "before". In contrast w ith her tom in line 13 w hich also focusssed on D ennis' w ork schedule, this tu rn is

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

form atted as a syntactic interrogative and includes a turn-final tag, va. Liv is thus pursuing a response from Nina. N ina begins her response in line 16 w ith a curled ja . Liv reclaims the floor just after the articulation of the first consonant of N ina's next TCU, i.e. after die (e lite olika

(literally translated as [i[t ('s little different]. The

"early" placement of Liv's tu rn is not haphazard but sequentially m otivated. Lemer (1996) argued that one feature of many recognition point entries is th at they are done not merely as responses to a forecasted TCU, but are used in circumstances w here it w ould be felicitous to pre-em pt the current speaker's utterance before completion - i.e. to forestall the action that is currently underw ay and recognizable as part of the TCU's projectability. (p. 252) The positioning of Liv's tu rn in line 17 is thus n o t early but precisely placed to pre-em pt the non-aligning stance that was projected w ith the curled ja. W hile the position of Liv's tu rn claim s an understanding of the action projected by the curled ja it does not dem onstrate that understanding. The dem onstration is achieved through the utterance itself [it depends a little on the circumstances yes] w hich is spoken in overlap w ith and aligns w ith the second TCU of N ina's tu rn [i[t ('s little different]]. By capitalizing on the non-alignm ent projected by the curled ja Liv has thus been able to m aneuver herself from a position of projected non-alignm ent to actual alignm ent w ith her co-participant.5 Example 13 is from a conversation between M alena and Pihlander.

209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

M alena has just bought a used Saab from Pihlander. Pihlander is calling M alena to rem ind her to register the car in her name as he otherw ise w ould be responsible for her traffic violations. #12 GASOLINE [Saab] After having underscored the importance of changing the registration, Pihlander informs Malena that he has an extra set of keys for the car thatshe can pick up at her own convenience. Once these two issueshave been settled, Malena raises a new topic in line 42 by asking Pihlander what grade of gasoline he has been using in the car. "Ninetysix" and "ninetyeight" refers to two grades of gasoline with ninetyeight being the most expensive grade. 39

P:

40

Malen:

41 42

[»FAr hamta dom nAn gAng dA sea • Can fetch them some time then later (You) can pick them up at some later time then Ja? Yes

P:A[a:, Malen:

[ 'hh Du ja tUnkte pA bensizn (eh*) visst tankar ['hh You I thought on gas (eh) no doubt fill ['hh Hey I was thinking about gas you do usually fill

43

du s- nittisex? you s- ninetysix up with s- ninetysix right

44

(0.6)

45 46

47

48

P: -> Ja:± [( h) Malen: ->

P:

Malen:

tanka 'ru nittiAtta?= [Or fill you ninetyeight [Or do you fill up with ninetyeight

[Eller

=Ne:j nittisex. No ninetysix Nittisex (bor ja vSl [kunna tanka'rA,) Ninetysix ought I probably [able to gas then I ought to be able to fill up with ninetysix then

M alena's question in lines 42-43 is built to take an affirm ative response

210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

through the adverb visst. Pihlander begins to respond in the arrow ed turn w ith a curled ja. Like the recipient of the curled ja turn in exam ple 11, M alena revises her prior turn upon hearing the curled ja. She does this by giving a contrastive alternative to the one she had offered in line 43 [or do you fill u p w ith ninetyeight]. H er tu rn is built as a revised query through i i | 1]

its placem ent (immediately after Pihlander's curled ja) and through the use of the tu rn initial "or". In revising her query Malena is trying to head off the non-aligning response that she heard to be underw ay at line 45. P ihlander then goes on to assert w ith an other-correction in line 47 that he indeed uses 96 octane gasoline. In this example then the curled ja w as not produced (or "intended") to project non-alignment. T hat M alena nonetheless heard it that way underscores th at for the negotiation of agreem ent and disagreem ent it is n ot "the intention" but the interactional effect th at m atters.6 5.5. Addressing the inappropriateness of the prior action A recurrent theme in the curled ja corpus is that either the curled ja speaker o r the recipient of the curled ja tu rn treats the action im plem ented w ith first p air p art of the curled ja sequence as inappropriate for its recipient. The inappropriateness of the action engaged in w ith the first pair p art is addressed in ten of the 25 cases in the collection. Examples 13 and 14 show the curled ja speaker addressing the inappropriateness of the prior

211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

turn. In example 13 the curled ja responds to a proposal. The curled ja speaker declines from either accepting or rejecting the proposal by suggesting that she neither has the knowledge nor the authority to do so. She thereby treats the proposal as having been inappropriately addressed to her. #13 LIFE GUARD [Badvakt] Bibi works at the municipal pool where Liv used to work before she started a daycare in her home. Bibi has just asked whether Liv will be having any children in her care during the upcoming week. Anna is the supervisor at the municipal pool. Nore is another life guard who apparently is on vacation. Anita, first mentioned in line 7, is Liv's younger sister. She has also worked at the pool. The third person pronoun in line 14 refers to Anna. 02

B: Men dA kanske Anna kan risnga till desj nAn dat dAl But then perhaps Anna can call to you some day then But perhaps Anna can call you one of these days then

03

L: VadA'rA? Whythen'then

04

B: Nos re har inte komme tillbaka anhh, * Nore has not come back yet Nore has not returned yet

05

L:

=JassA:,Annars kan Anista jobbai JassAs Otherwise can Anita work JassAs Otherwise Anita can work

06

B: Va, What

07

L: Anista kan (val) jobba, Anita can val work Anita can w o r k (couldn't she)

08

09

B: ~>*Jas_ * (0,8) [Nn *Ja± * (0.8) [Now mJa± * (0.8) [Now

*e h * nu vet *eh" now know *eh* now I.

[((ambient sound))

212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

10 B: ->[inte jag[not I don't know 11

L:

(0. 2)

12

13

[Stang av: ((off phone)) [Shut off [Turn it off

L:

pt (.) ts Ja:? pt (.) ts Yes

14 B: ->Om hon har aiort nintlng va men att de finns Whether she has done anythingwhat but that it exists Whether she has doneanything seebut there is 15

16

->iallafall ingenting (pi) almanackan? inanycase nothing on calendar at least nothing marked on the calendar L:

Neha: he[h

H aving established that Liv will not w ork w ith children during the upcom ing week, Bibi inquires w ith an inference marked B-event statem ent w hether Anna, the supervisor at the pool, can call Liv [but perhaps Anna can call you one of these days then]. A fter a probe from Liv in line 3, Bibi explains that another co-worker has not returned to work yet in line 4 [Nore has not returned yet]. As a response to Liv's probe this utterance conveys that Anna would call Liv to ask her to substitute at the pool. Liv first receipts this turn as news w ith the response token jassa w hich is akin to an English newsmark (Jefferson, 1978a; Heritage, 1984a). She then addresses it in terms of the possible w ork prospect by indicating her younger sister's availability to w ork in line 5 [otherwise Anita can work].

213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The turn-initial "otherwise" registers Liv's awareness that Bibi had not brought up this issue w ith her sister in mind. This proposal m ay have taken Bibi w ith surprise. She initiates repair in her next tu rn (line 6). In doing the re p a ir, Liv drops the contrastive marker [otherwise] and adds the pragm atic particle v a l (line 7). By dropping [otherwise] she underm ines the sense th at A nita would be a replacem ent for herself. This m ay present Anita as a stronger candidate for the job as it suggests that she is suited to work regardless of Liv's own availability. Val is sim ilar to the English tag [couldn't she]. Like the English tag it pursues alignment. Bibi replies w ith a curled ja prefaced response. She declines from either aligning w ith or rejecting Liv's proposal by presenting herself as a someone w ho merely is observing this from the sideline. This is partially conveyed through the contrastive stress on "I" in line 10 and the reference to the supervisor in line 14 [now eh now I don't know w hether she has done anything but there is at least nothing marked on the calendar]. In deferring to her supervisor, Bibi can be heard to propose th at Liv's proposal was inappropriately addressed to her. Additionally, Bibi's tu rn reveals that she is inform ing Liv of the availability of work not because her supervisor asked her to do so but because she has noticed some openings on the calendar (lines 14-15). Liv's N eha: in the next turn receipts this revelation as news. The ensuing laughter m ay address to the collusive character of

214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Bibi's action (Jefferson, Sacks & Schegloff, 1987). Example 14 was analyzed earlier. The curled ja is produced in response to a request th at korvgubben go look for the Sunday issue of D agens Nyheter. #14 DAGENS NYHETER [Dagens Nyheter] 08

K:

[De kan no handa men isisfall finns de It can probably happen but in that case is there It may be possible but in that case there won't be

09

ingen esxtrabilasga till den atan di e're bara Dagens no extraenclosure to it but then ’t's only Dagens any magazine section then it's just Dagens

10

Nysheteri

11

D:

Ja bara Dagens Nysbeter ja£= Yes just Dagens Ny:heter yes

12

K:

=Jo men de [tror ja att vi hasr, ] Jo but it think I that we have ] Well I think we have that

13

D:

14 15

[

Kakan du ] titt(b)a:, Cacan you look Ca- can you go check

(.) R:->

16

D:

17

K:->

18

D:

Ja:± de fisnns Jas± it exists Ja:± it's there KB[BB [ja vest de. [I know that I know it 'hh Eh nu e ’re si bar att ja: sitter i- i Orvenbo "hh Eh now 's't so here that I sit in- in Orvenbo ‘hh Eh now I am in- in Orvenbo now

215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

19

bar i koamer val inte ivSg f o r m om en txmma here and come probably not away until about one hour and I probably won't leave for about an hour

20

nar stanger'u? when close you when do you close

As discussed earlier, korvgubbens account in line 17 is responsive to D avid's irritation at korvgubben's refusal to comply with his request that he go look for the paper. In its epistem ic certainty (note the lenghtened vowel in ve:t) the account can also be heard to address the request as inappropriate. This may prom pt D avid's next turn where he explains that he is calling from Orvenbo. Orvenbo is four miles away from the kiosk. By Swedish standards this is considered a bit of a drive. In revealing his w hereabouts David could thus be heard to be explaining why he needed to make sure th at korvgubben has the paper. Additionally this revelation provides an account for his next request in lines 19-20 [when do you close]. Example 15 involves a different sense of inappropriateness. In this case it is not that the action is inappropriate for its recipient but that it is no longer w arranted by the circumstances. Specifically the curled ja tu rn addresses an incipient move from em pathy to advice giving as unw arranted. As Jefferson & Lee (1981) have shown advice giving is often undesired and resisted. #15 BABY [Morsan] Allan’s mother is calling to congratulate her daughter-in-law (Vera) on her birthday. Vera is not home and the mother ends up talking with her son Allan. Before the beginning of the excerpt, Allan has just asserted that Vera is at her Spanish class and

216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

that he is in the midst of making a cake. Bskil, referred to in line 2, is Allan and Vera's seven-month old baby. 01

M:

TA:rta go:r du, Cake make you You're making cake

02

A:

Ja: Yes

03

M:

Na::ej. Mo

04

A:

A ja hAller pA har A bakarAhbhh And I keep on here and bake and And I am in the middle of baking here and

05

M:

Nemen lilla v(h)a(h)n [heh heh heh [heh heh [heh heh Nobut little friend [heh heh heh [heh heh [heh heh Oh you poor thing

06

A:

H'hja)

07

A:

08

M:

A Eskil and Bskil

skriker screams

Aand

[hh

[hh

De [e: a a caller e A fA anvandnina for 'T 's now must 't and get use for 'T 's now one must get the use of [(

e

)

dyvemanskunskaper har, jack-of-all-tradesknowledge here the knowledge of a jack-of-all-trades

09

Ja: just de horrudu[:, Yes exactly that listenyou Yes that’s right

10

M:

11

A:

12

M:

Ja: tror'u att du fAr de:i Yes think'you that you will get that Yes do you think you'll get use of that

13

A:

S&e:j ja tror inte de. No I think not that No I don't think so

[Ja:? ((smile voice)) Yes

217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

14

H:

(SA att-) men- [men har han ont i ma:gfen [eller= (So that) but but has he pain in the stomach or (So) but- but does he have a pain in the stomach or

15

A:

16

Mi

17

A: ->

[ heh

heh

[VA? What

=vill han ha sallskfap [('h) Bskil. wants he have company (‘h) Eskil does he want company (*h) Eskil

[Ja:± [Jaii.

18

de e val en blandning it is va'l a mixture it's probably something

->han- just har han fAtt lite vailing har nu sA han he just had he got little formula here now so he in between he just had some formula here now so he shuts

19

->hAller truten nu, holds the trout now his trout shut now

20

Mi

Jas heh heh heh [heh heh 'hhh heh heh Yes heh heh heh [heh heh 'hhh heh heh

21

A:

[HEHE HHH heh heh heh

A llan states that his son is scream ing in line 2 [and Eskil scream s and]. The turn-final connective particle projects further talk. N onetheless the mother claim s the floor to align w ith A llan w ith an em phathetically produced "no". Allan then goes on to state (note the turn-initial connective particle) th at he is "in the m iddle of baking". The juxtaposition of these two incom patible activities (the son's screaming and A llan's baking) is heard as a com plaint by the m other w ho affiliates w ith Allan in the next turn [oh you poor thing]. A lthough she affiliates with Allan, the m other treats the trouble as non-serious by laughing tow ard the end of her turn. Allan

218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

appears to be joining her laughter (line 6). He then asserts ['ts now one m ust get the use of the know ledge of a jack-of-all trades]. This idiomatic expression connotes the idea that he will need a host of different resources to be able to deal w ith the situation at hand. A fter agreeing with Allan the m other asks [do you think you'll get use of that]. This could be understood to probe w hether Allan feels he has the know ledge that he just asserted that he w ould need. A llan's response in line 13 suggests that he indeed may not feel adequately equipped to deal w ith the situation [no I do n't think so]. The m other thus moves in the direction of advice giving by providing a candidate diagnosis for Eskil's crying [(so) but- b u t does he have a pain in the stom ach]. The shift from a turn-initial connective particle that builds on the prior talk [so that] to one that disconnects from it [but] marks her shift horn joking to serious. Allan laughs just as the m other has made this shift (line 15). He thus insists on treating the situation as non-serious in spite of his m other's change of tack. The m other first suggests that Eskil m ight have a stomach ache. A llan initates repair a t this point (line 15). The repair may resist the move tow ard advicegiving as w ell as pre-reject the diagnosis. The m other treats it as a trouble in hearing by providing a referent [Eskil] for the person reference in line 14 (c.f. line 16). The mother gives a second alternative diagnosis in lines 15-16 [or does he want com pany]. Allan's curled ja response does not fully align w ith the m other's

219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

diagnosis nor does it fully reject i t He asserts that [it's probably som ething in between] and goes on to say that [he just had some formula here now so he shuts his trout now]. This observation suggests that the problem has been solved and that the m other's incipient m ove tow ard advice giving is inappropriate. Allan uses a humorous form ulation [shuts his trout] to refer to the fact that Eskil stopped crying. In addition to introducing a shift from serious to joking, this w ord selection takes up a stance toward the m other's candidate diagnosis. In depicting his infant son as someone who "shuts his trout", Allan indirectly rejects his m other's suggestion in line 16 that the baby "wants com pany". The mother aligns w ith Allan's shift from serious to joking by laughing in her next turn (line 20). Her alignment is ratified by Allan who joins her laughter (line 21). In the next example, the speaker of the first pair part of the curled ja sequence addresses the possibility that the action she engaged in was inappropriate for her recipient. This example provides the strongest evidence so far that the curled ja not merely is associated with responses to actions that are inappropriate but that the curled ja in and of itself indexes the inappropriateness of the prior turn. The excerpt is from a conversation betw een tw o young wom en, Sara and Malena. Sara recently moved. They have just talked about the area where Sara lives.

220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

#16 UPPSALA 26

H:

27

Mm:, (.)

28

M:

■Uppsala e' re bra stad A lasa ir.« Uppsala 's 't good city to study in Uppsala is it a good city to be studying in

29

S:

pt A ISsa i::£= pt To study in pt To be studying in

30

M:

=(J)as, Yes

31

(0.2)

32

S:

Aa:± de (.) tror ja nog. Aa:± that think I probably Aa:± that I think is probably the case

33

Ms

34

S : [Aa±

35

Hz->[ »Brukar- 'ru har last i Uppsala• Usually- you have studied in Uppsala Do you- you have studied in Uppsala

(For) du tri:vs bra:, Cause you like/thrive well Cause you do well there

Malena raises a new topic in line 28 by asking whether Uppsala is a good city for studying [Uppsala is it a good city to be studying in]. Sara initiates repair w ith a candidate understanding in the next turn [to be studying in]. M alena confirms Sara's understanding in line 30. After a pause, Sara provides a curled ja hedging response that is pursued w ith a follow up question by M alena in line 33 [(cause) you do well there]. Just as Sara begins to produce another curled ja, Malena asks [Do you- you have studied in

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Uppsala]. This question specifically addresses the possibility that the action im plem ented w ith the first pair part of the curled ja sequence was inappropriate by questioning the presupposition of that turn (viz. that Sara studied in Uppsala) . Recall that Hellberg (1985) suggested that ja indexes that the speaker is not objecting to the conversational obligation to deliver an answer. This contrasts w ith my finding that interactants recurrently address the action engaged in w ith the first pair part of the curled ja turn as inappropriate. 5.6. D iscussion W hen used in turn-initial position of a responsive tu rn w here a display of alignm ent is relevant, the curled ja projects non-alignm ent w ith the action engaged in w ith the prior turn. Since it projects rather than accom plishes non-alignm ent, the curled ja furnishes a resource for recipients as they can recast their prior action upon hearing the curled ja to change the sequence trajectory from projected non-alignm ent to actual alignm ent. This w as illustrated by exam ple 15 w here Liv reclaim ed floor upon hearing the curled ja to revise the position she had assum ed in her prior turn. As my analysis showed, the placem ent of her turn was crucial in that it allow ed her to maneuver herself from a position of projected nonalignm ent to actual alignment w ith her co-participant. The curled ja is therefore an im portant tool for the achievem ent of alignm ent and

222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

affiliation as a negotiated outcom e. The curled ja can also address the action of the prior turn as inappropriate. There w ere several sources of inappropriateness in my data base. In m ost cases the action w as inappropriate for the recipient. However, I also show ed one example w here the action was inappropriate because it no longer was w arranted by the circumstances (example 15). The curled ja does not in and of itself specify the kind of inappropriateness that is involved. Rather it invites the recipient to inspect the prior talk for the kind of inappropriateness th a t m ight have been raised. Sequentially and interactionally, the curled ja is sim ilar to the English "well." Like "well" it is typically produced in turn-initial or TCUinitial position and like "w ell" it projects and is associated w ith nonalignm ent (c.f. Schiffrin, 1985,1987). However unlike "w ell" the curled ja is realized prosodically rather than semantically. In its unm arked (or uncurled) form, ja can be used to align, agree, acknowledge, and initiate the relevance of closing. T hat the curled ja is realized prosodically and in its unm arked form can be used to do a range of other activities make it a less accountable object than "w ell". By that I mean that the speakers and recipients can disclaim it in w ays that "well" cannot be disclaim ed. Unlike "w ell", the curled ja can be treated as a neutral interactional object. This was show n in example 10 w here A llan claimed the floor prem aturely after

223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

R unar's curled ja. He thus recontextualized the curled ja as an acknowledgment rather than as a projection of non-alignm ent.7 In this example, the curled ja speaker insisted on the non-alignm ent relevance of the curled ja by first adm onishing Allan and then im plem enting the non­ aligning action in his next turn. This is the first em pirical study of the curled ja. The findings are robust in the sense that they are grounded in the interactants' displayed orientations to the phenom enon at hand but they should not be treated as definitive. A larger investigation of a broader data base w ould allow us to determ ine the general validity of some of the tentative points that have been made in this chapter. Future studies could exam ine the syntactic form of the first pair part to see w hether it shapes how alignm ent and nonalignm ent is done w ithin the responsive turn. For the purposes of the analysis presented in this chapter I have not found any reason for treating ja i and aai as interactionally distinct. However this should be examined in

future work. I suggested that the curled ja may be m ore closely associated w ith slight non-alignm ent than full-fledged disagreem ent or rejection. This should also be explored in future studies. Similarly the notion of inappropriateness and how it is raised within curled ja sequences should be further specified.

224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Notes to chapter 5 1 .1 thank Em anuel Schegloff for suggesting this term. 2 .1 thank Lars Espmark for helping m e produce this machine m ade acoustic analysis on the Macintosh. 3. Below is the other articulatory variant: #8 LANDVETTER 20

V: -> ' hh Aa± 'hh Aaj_ 'hh Aa±

nar dA

"rA? when then then so what time would that be

then

4 .1 am borrow ing the term "m arked" from linguistics to denote those intonational variants that differ from the "standard" or "unm arked" form (c.f. Jakobson, 1932; Trubetzkoy, 1939; and, for a discussion, Levinson, 1983, p. 333) 5. In this respect this example is like the exchange examined in Schegloff (1987) w here a lateral headshake projects upcoming disagreement and enables its pre-em ption into agreem ent. 6. A rticulating a more radical position, Garfinkel (1963) proposed that meaningful events are entirely and exclusively events in a person's behavioral environm ent "hence there is no reason to look under the skull since nothing of interest is to be found bu t brains. The 'skin' of the person will be left intact." (p. 190) 7. That this curled ja was responsive to a statem ent rather than a syntactic interrogative may make it more vulnerable to being treated as an acknow ledgm ent than would a curled ja produced in response to a syntactic interrogative.

225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

6. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION 6.1. Summary This dissertation has explored the intersections betw een grammar, prosody, and interaction. W orking w ith records of naturally occurring conversation, I have shown that gram m ar and prosody furnish resources for the construction of social action. Unlike some of the previous scholars who have examined some of the sam e phenom ena that I have been studying (c.f. Ahrenberg, 1987; Hellberg, 1985), I have not based my analysis on my intuitions as a native speaker. Instead I have sought to explicate the interactants' own orientations as exhibited through their conduct. One assum ption of this dissertation is that the interactants them selves are analysts. By that I do not mean that interactants are able to or indeed w ould be interested in providing the kind of analytic descriptions that I have m ade in the analytical chapters of this dissertation. Rather I m ean to call attention to the idea that each contribution, or, for that matter, lack of contribution, to a conversation implements a stance tow ard a prior contribution. Insofar as interactants treat one another as intelligible social anim als who are engaged in a range of social activities, they will try to figure ou t w hat an utterance has am ounted to as a social action. Furtherm ore, as discussed in chapter one, w hat a contribution am ounts to as an action is not the achivem ent of an individual speaker b u t a co-

226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

construction by speaker and recip ien t How aspects of gram m ar and prosody are capitalized upon w ithin this co-construction has been the center of this dissertation. 6.1.1. The phenomena C hapter three focussed on the or-inquiry. The or-inquiry is a "y es"/"n o " interrogative that ends w ith the Swedish conduction eHer [or]. I did n o t treat this syntactic construction as a speech error. Instead I proposed that it was designed for the interactional task of m arking the action the turn otherw ise engaged in as problem atic. Using Sacks et. al's description of the organization of turn-taking, I show ed that the or-inquiry w as produced and understood as a turn in its ow n right. Then, I analyzed a range of sequences w here the or-inquiry m arks problem atidty. That the or-inquiry marks problem atidty was m ost readily apparent in environm ents w here elements of the proceeding sequence already indicate that the project the or-inquiry engages in is dispreferred. I also showed or-inquiries that in and of them selves are dispreferred. The latter include making a pre-com plaint, checking w hether the recipient knows about an em barrassing incident, mis­ aligning w ith a troubles-telling, disaligning with the line pursued by the co­ participant in the previous talk or m aking an allusion that involves a negative assessment of the o th er party. Although the or-inquiry m ight seem w arranted out of considerations of "face" (Goffman, 1955), I suggested

227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

that it is j )f pr * -ence. I propose ? jrgi r •l| tu rn to . ' on t'

a tio n o fth e reveals

speaker |» acl *... engaged in w ith tht

j

c syntactic

I

construe |\esig

>for the

accompi ^y «/• .It

It • !

i>f

!

departui j.ings c leferred action re r , requ fc-i

w here a -’U ~,f

s are those an other

than sup ■' - can i«• be i i

immedia*. ■-c'-/p < deferred

\

action car cer - ,

jdpient.

t

A n affirrr

. \ ->« Jfident as

an accept ", at»