Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions (Pragmatics & Beyond New, Volume 64)

GETTING ACQUAINTED IN CONVERSATION

pbns.64.vw.p65

1

22/11/99, 3:54 PM

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series Editor: Andreas H. Jucker (Justus Liebig University, Giessen) Associate Editors: Jacob L. Mey (Odense University) Herman Parret (Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp) Jef Verschueren (Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp) Editorial Address: Justus Liebig University Giessen, English Department Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10, D-35394 Giessen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Editorial Board: Shoshana Blum-Kulka (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Chris Butler (University College of Ripon and York) Jean Caron (Université de Poitiers); Robyn Carston (University College London) Bruce Fraser (Boston University); John Heritage (University of California at Los Angeles) David Holdcroft (University of Leeds); Sachiko Ide (Japan Women’s University) Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni (University of Lyon 2) Claudia de Lemos (University of Campinas, Brasil); Marina Sbisà (University of Trieste) Emanuel Schegloff (University of California at Los Angeles) Paul O. Takahara (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies) Sandra Thompson (University of California at Santa Barbara) Teun A. Van Dijk (University of Amsterdam); Richard Watts (University of Bern)

64 Jan Svennevig Getting Acquainted in Conversation A study of initial interactions

pbns.64.vw.p65

2

22/11/99, 3:54 PM

GETTING ACQUAINTED IN CONVERSATION A STUDY OF INITIAL INTERACTIONS

JAN SVENNEVIG Agder College, Norway

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

pbns.64.vw.p65

3

22/11/99, 3:54 PM

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Svennevig, Jan. Getting acquainted in conversation : a study of initial interactions / Jan Svennevig. p. cm. -- (Pragmatics & beyond, ISSN 0922-842X ; new ser. 64) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Conversation analysis. I. Title. II. Series. P95.45.S89 1999 306.44--dc21 99-31515 ISBN 90 272 5078 2 (Eur.) / 1 55619 942 2 (US) (alk. paper) CIP © 1999 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA

pbns.64.vw.p65

4

22/11/99, 3:54 PM

Contents Acknowledgements Transcription symbols CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1

CHAPTER 2 The establishment of interpersonal relations in conversation 2.1 Conversation 2.2 Identity and social relations 2.3 Conversational strategies in relational communication

7 7 19 37

CHAPTER 3 Methods for analyzing conversation 3.1 Conversation Analysis 3.2 Discourse analysis in linguistic pragmatics 3.3 Analytic procedure 3.4 Data

63 64 71 82 88

CHAPTER 4 The self-presentational sequence 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The activity and the sequence 4.3 Solicitation profile 4.4 The moves of the self-presentational sequence 4.5 Deployment of the sequence 4.6 Interactional characteristics of the sequence 4.7 Relational aspects of the sequence 4.8 Conclusion

91 91 92 93 95 116 122 135 160

CHAPTER 5 Topic introduction 5.1 Topic – product or process?

163 164

vi

CONTENTS 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Principles of topical talk Topic shift Topic shift and coherence Topic shift and coherence in the corpus Topic types Topic introductions in the corpus Topic, face and acquaintance

172 188 201 212 215 218 234

CHAPTER 6 Side sequences and the establishment of common ground 6.1 Introduction 6.2 General characteristics of side sequences 6.3 Interactional patterns 6.4 Communicative functions 6.5 Coherence and sequential relations 6.6 The side sequence as a grounding device 6.7 Side sequences and acquaintance 6.8 Conclusion

257 257 259 270 277 287 294 303 314

CHAPTER 7 Routine, variation, and success in first conversations 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Anna and Charlotte 7.3 Marta and Sven 7.4 Conclusion

317 317 319 324 330

CHAPTER 8 Conclusion

333

APPENDICES 1. Presentation and evaluation of the data 2. Post-recording interviews 3. Summaries of conversation 1 and 4

339 347 353

Notes

357

References

363

Subject Index

377

Author Index

381

Acknowledgements Two people have been of great help to me in writing this book: Elizabeth Lanza, who eminently supervised the work from beginning to end at the University of Oslo, and Herb Clark, who contributed fruitful perspectives to my project during my stay at Stanford University in the Spring 1996. I am also grateful to a number of other scholars who have read drafts of various parts of the book and contributed helpful comments. They are Ragnar Rommetveit, Marianne Lind, Don Zimmerman, Wenche Vagle and Thorstein Fretheim. Others have taken time to discuss my project with me and have also been of great help, namely Per Linell, Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Thomas Luckmann, Manny Schegloff and Rolv Mikkel Blakar. I would also like to thank Marianne Lind and Karianne Skovholt for assistance with parts of the transcribing. The transcription of Conversation 1 was revised and proof-read by a Swedish transcriber. Thanks to Ulla Börestam Uhlmann and Ulrika Sjöberg for this job. And, finally, I would like to thank Annabelle Despard, who proof-read the final manuscript and gave me invaluable help in finding idiomatic translations of the conversational data. The research has been financed by a grant from the University of Oslo, and the preparations for publication have been supported financially by the Norwegian Research Council. Kristiansand, February 1999 Jan Svennevig

Transcription symbols The transcription system is developed by Du Bois, Schuetze-Coburn, Paolino & Cumming (1991, 1993). The transcriptions are presented in two columns: On the left, the original transcription; on the right, an English translation. The translations seek to render the meaning and style of the original as faithfully as possible, using an idiomatic form of expression in English rather than a wordby-word translation. UNITS Intonation unit Intonation unit continued Intonation unit continued Truncated intonation unit Truncated word SPEAKERS Speaker identity/turn start Speech overlap TRANSITIONAL CONTINUITY Final Continuing Appeal Intonation unit continued ACCENT AND LENGTHENING Accentuated syllable Booster Lengthening PAUSE Long (>0,7) Medium (0,3-0,7) Short (<0,3) Latching

{carriage return} {indentation} & (before and after intervening talk) -: [], [[]] (vertically aligned brackets) . , ? & ’ ! = ...(N) ... .. (0)

x

GETTING ACQUAINTED

VOCAL NOISES Vocal noises Inhalation Exhalation Laughter QUALITY Piano (soft) Forte (loud) Allegro (rapid) Lento (slow) High pitch Laugh quality Breathing quality Quotation quality Parenthetical prosody Emphatic prosody PHONETICS Phonetic transcription TRANSCRIBER’S PERSPECTIVE Researcher’s comment Uncertain hearing Indecipherable syllable Focus of analysis

IN

CONVERSATION

(COUGH), (CLEARS THROAT), etc. (H) (Hx) @ (one per spurt or @= for extended laughter)

<@ @> <EMP EMP> (/ /) ((COMMENT)) <X X> X bold face

Chapter 1

Introduction First conversations are important for the relations that are subsequently established between interlocutors. In meeting a new acquaintance, some feel they really “hit it off” and establish a special contact that may lay the foundation of a lasting relationship, whereas others do not. This variation in the feeling of success is often explained by the participants as “vibrations” or “chemistry”, or other factors beyond their control. This book suggests that there are perhaps less mysterious factors influencing the success of a first conversation. With a basis in pragmatic theories of conversation it seeks to capture the specificities of this conversational genre. First conversations are here viewed as a recognizable conversational activity with specific procedures involving certain resources and constraints. One of the main aims is to describe these procedures and their deployment in conversation. The second aim is to explain the conversational procedures by reference to their relational implications, that is, how they contribute to establishing a certain interpersonal relationship (acquaintance) between the participants. One of the procedures studied here is how interlocutors introduce and develop personal matters into the conversation. This is done by a question eliciting self-presentational information, such as “Where do you come from?” or “What do you do?”. Such questions introduce a conversational sequence, involving certain constraints on the possible responses and the subsequent development of the personal topic. A second object of study is topic introductions. For instance, whereas friends and acquaintances may introduce news about themselves as a new topic (such as “Guess what I did last night”), new acquaintances have specific constraints on topic introduction that do not make this an option. Finally, strangers are constrained as to knowing what sorts of background information they can take for granted. When problems of assessing common

2

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ground arise, they commonly engage in side sequences, by which they can take a “time out” from the topic and establish the required contextual resources. These conversational procedures are not only described, but also explained with reference to their relational implications. Interpersonal relationships are viewed as consisting of three constitutive components: • • •

solidarity, involving a set of mutual rights and obligations familiarity, involving mutual knowledge of personal information affect, involving mutual liking (or dislike)

Acquaintance can be characterized primarily by the first two components, whereas “deeper” relationships, such as friendship and romantic love, include also the third. The conversational procedures are related to the characteristics of the personal relations by being considered as realizing certain relational strategies, involving face work, conversational style and the establishment of common ground. The data are gathered from people who are talking together for the first time. They meet as private persons in a setting associated with sociable conversation, such as a restaurant or a private home. The conversations involve people who are brought together for some real-life purpose (education, hobbies) and who will be seeing each other extensively also in the future. The conversations are thus personal investments in future social interaction (cf. 3.4 and Appendix 1). Within the field of Discourse Analysis the amount of work that explicitly focuses on first conversations is fairly limited. However, there is a large body of work within Social Psychology on the relation between interpersonal relationships and communicative behaviour. A framework that has been the basis of much research into communication and social relations is Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor 1973, Knapp 1978, Taylor & Altman 1987). This is a broad theoretical framework about the stages of communication within developing and decaying social relationships, not just acquaintance but also deeper relationships such as friendship and romantic love. The specific assumptions of the theory are presented more in detail in Chapter 2 (2.2.1 and 2.2.2). A central focus of investigation in this tradition has been ‘self-disclosure’ (cf. e.g. Holtgraves 1990, Duck & Pittman 1994). Self-disclosure is conceived as “any information exchange that refers to the self, including personal states,

3

INTRODUCTION

dispositions, events in the past, and plans for the future” (Derlega, Winstead, Wong & Greenspan 1987:173). Berger & Bradac (1982:86f) formulate a set of self-disclosure rules, such as “Do not disclose intimate information to new acquaintances“, “Disclose positively valenced (non-intimate) information to new acquaintances” and “Do not disclose excessively”. Many social psychologists view communicative behavior in initial stages of a relationship as motivated by the need for uncertainty reduction (Berger & Bradac 1982, Honeycutt 1992, Berger 1992). Unacquainted persons engage in ‘interrogative behavior’ and self-disclosure in order to reduce uncertainty about each other and thus be able to coordinate smooth encounters and enhance understanding of each other. Social psychologists are usually most interested in the establishment of social and personal relationships in itself and less in the linguistic forms and conversational procedures employed. Furthermore, they generally proceed using very different modes of inquiry from what is usual in the study of conversation. As an example of this let us consider Kellerman & Lim’s (1989) study of mental scenes and scripts (called Memory Organization Packets) for initial conversations. Kellerman & Lim present a set of ’scenes’ and ’phases’, which they claim are typical of first conversations (see Table 1). Table 1. The initial interaction memory organization packet (from Kellermann & Lim 1989:178) Initiation phase

Maintenance phase

Termination phase

Greeting Introduction Health Present situation Reason for presence Weather

Where live Hometown Persons known in common What do you do? Education Occupation Social relations Compliments Interests Family Sports

Discuss near-future meeting Evaluation of encounter Plan future meeting Positive evaluation of person Until later Reason for terminating Goodbyes

The goal of these scenes is said to be the locating of commonalities for the purpose of becoming acquainted. The transition from the initiation phase to the maintenance phase is characterized by a movement from relatively impersonal to more personal topics.

4

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

This study, like many others in Social Psychology, is not very informative for a discourse analyst. First, the claims are based on staged conversations in a highly artificial setting, the informants being instructed to “find out as much as you can about your partner” or “provide as little about yourself as you can” (Kellermann & Lim 1989). Other analysts do not use actual conversations at all, but rely on invented exchanges or questionnaires. Second, the level of abstraction is so high that we only learn about general action patterns of social actors and not the conversational procedures for realizing such actions. The ‘scenes’ proposed are severely underspecified. It is unclear how ‘greeting’, ‘compliments’ and ‘family’ can be analytic constructs of the same order. Greeting is a conversational activity involving a sequence of turns (more specifically an adjacency pair). Compliments are a type of speech act, whereas ‘family’ refers to the content of a stretch of talk. And it is possible to ‘talk about family’ in very many different ways that do not necessarily have much in common. Similarly, ‘self-disclosure’ might be a useful theoretical construct for describing the establishment of social relations, but it does not seem to correspond to any recognizable conversational activity. From the definition above, such different things would qualify as telling one’s partner in a restaurant what one is going to order and making a confession to a priest. Hence, much of the social psychological literature on initial interaction takes up topics that are related to the topic of this book. However, both the object and the methods of investigation differ significantly. The main objection is that the studies have little to say about the actual conversational procedures involved in initial interaction. And this is what this book sets out to describe. A study that is more in line with the aims of the current study is Maynard & Zimmerman (1984). They placed acquainted and unacquainted pairs of informants in a (laboratory) room and told them to ‘get to know one another’ and/or to ‘warm up’ before participating in an experiment. However, there was no experiment to warm up for, and instead the warming up conversations were used as the object of analysis. The focus of the study is topic initiation and development. Among other things it shows that, while acquainted pairs introduce topics by displaying prior experience, unacquainted pairs do so by the use of question-answer pairs focusing on categorizations of the recipient or category-bound activities. The methods of establishing personal topics are related to Goffman’s notion of interaction ritual, that is, how interactants

INTRODUCTION

5

maintain propriety in conversation (Goffman 1967, [1976] 1981). Finally, the conversational techniques are discussed in light of which role they play in bringing about familiarity and affiliation between the participants. The Maynard & Zimmerman study is central to my treatment of topic (Chapter 5) and self-presentation (Chapter 4) and will be presented in more detail there. My study differs from Maynard & Zimmerman’s with respect to both data and theory. Whereas they use an experimental setting and informants that have no real purpose for getting acquainted, my informants meet in connection with some actual, real life purpose, and they meet in a location that is natural for the occasion of the encounter (cf. Appendix 1). Furthermore, I study longer stretches of conversation (between 35 and 60 minutes long) and I do so using other theories, notably pragmatic theories of politeness, common ground and conversational style (cf. 2.3). Unacquainted persons meet and talk in very many different situations. One is when strangers accidentally come into contact and start to talk, for instance in a train compartment or at a cocktail party, not knowing whether they will ever meet again. The German linguist Schneider (1987, 1988) has studied this phenomenon. He characterizes his object of study in this way: Typically two people whose relationship is characterized by a low degree of intimacy find themselves in close proximity. This puts them under the strain of conversing in order to defuse the potential hostility of silence. [...] At the same time small talk prevents them from becoming too committed. (Schneider 1987:251)

Using tape recorded conversations as well as questionnaire reports and fictional dialogues, he sets up a model of small talk that includes both a discourse level and an utterance level (Schneider 1988:40). At the discourse level, he focuses on such things as topic types (typically impersonal, safe topics), politeness maxims (politesse and friendliness) and social functions (avoidance of silence and contact management). At the utterance level, small talk is characterized by deictic reference (typically the surroundings and the participants) and certain illocutionary patterns (the most frequent being ‘remark – agree’ and ‘question – answer – agree/evaluate’). The approach is primarily form-based; it presents models of conversations and topics in the form of mental frames that may be filled with various types of utterances and (sub-) topics. The functional and interactional aspects of the conversational moves are given less attention. I discuss Schneider’s study of topic in more detail in 5.6.2. However,

6

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

from the characterization of small talk above it should be clear that this form of talk bears only an indirect relevance to my data. The uncommittedness of small talk described there is not characteristic of my conversations. Rather, my informants are committed to extensive future interaction and thus have a greater motivation for getting acquainted.1

Chapter 2

The establishment of interpersonal relations in conversation This chapter aims at formulating a theoretical framework for studying how interpersonal relations are established in conversation. The theoretical foundations that have to be laid down in order to do this are, first, the nature of conversation and, second, what is meant by interpersonal relations and how they are to be described. The first section (2.1) presents a definition and some fundamental characteristics of conversation. The second (2.2) reviews some proposals for notions of identity and interpersonal relations, and concludes by proposing a descriptive framework for the type of relations involved in this study. The final section (2.3) presents pragmatic theories relevant to the study of relational communication and proposes to integrate them into a unified, analytical tool for studying the development of interpersonal relations in conversation.

2.1 Conversation Conversation is just one form of spoken interaction alongside a range of others, such as interviews, debates and business negotiations. Conversation may be regarded as a subcategory of spoken interaction, but a fundamental and privileged one. It is the basic form of language use and may be seen as underlying all other forms of spoken interaction. It is the way children first learn to use their mother tongue, it is the form of linguistic communication which requires the least specialized skills, and it is universal (Clark 1996:8). As the starting point of a theoretical discussion of the characteristics of conversation, I will venture the following definition:

8

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Conversation is a joint activity consisting of participatory actions predominantly in the form of spoken utterances produced successively and extemporaneously by different participants in alternating turns at talk which are locally managed and sequentially organized.

This definition is only informative if it is supplied with a specification of the terms employed, such as ‘joint activity’, ‘participant’ and ‘turn’. This will be provided in the following subsections, which outline some basic characteristics of conversation. Then at the end of this section I will return to the definition and outline the implications of it. This section draws primarily on two theoretical approaches to the study of spoken interaction, Conversation Analysis and linguistic pragmatics. In Chapter 3, I will present these traditions more in detail and discuss their compatibilities and incompatibilities. 2.1.1 Settings and participants The basic setting of conversation is a situation where individuals engage in face-to-face interaction as private persons. The characteristics of the situational preconditions for verbal interaction have been studied by Goffman (1963, 1972, [1979] 1981). According to him, a social situation involves two or more people entering into one another’s immediate presence and sharing a spatial environment so that they are in position to mutually monitor each other (Goffman 1963:18). Such situations may occur inside or outside of social occasions, such as a party, a workday or a night at the opera. A social occasion is an event bounded in time and space, typically facilitated by fixed equipment and with recognized patterns of appropriate conduct (including specific occasioned activities). Social situations include more types of interaction than just conversation. The mere copresence of social actors requires certain forms of management (what Goffman (1963) calls unfocused interaction). They will be expected to discipline their personal appearance and demeanor (for instance controlling their facial expression). But in some cases two or more participants in a situation “join[...] each other openly in maintaining a single focus of cognitive and visual attention — what is sensed as a single mutual activity, entailing preferential communication rights” (p. 89). This Goffman calls an encounter or face engagement, but I will prefer the term joint activity, following Clark (1996) (this notion will be developed in 2.1.2 below). Thus, conversation is

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

9

one type of joint activity, other examples being card games, ceremonies, interviews and lectures. The linguistic component of joint activities may be primary, as in a telephone call, or relatively secondary, as in a tennis match. There are rules and conventions regulating the rights and obligations of social actors to engage in conversation with one another. As a general rule, “acquainted persons in a social situation require a reason not to enter into a face engagement with each other, while unacquainted persons require a reason to do so” (Goffman 1963:124). Entering a conversation thus requires ratification by the participants. Greetings are a type of ratification device, a ‘ritual bracket’, that establishes the appropriateness of engaging in talk (Goffman [1979] 1981). The ritual procedures that regulate the entry into a conversation give the actors official status as ratified participants. Thus, not just anyone with aural access to the talk is a participant in the conversation. There may also be a set of unratified listeners present in the social situation. These include bystanders, who inadvertently overhear the conversation, and eavesdroppers, who purposely monitor the talk (Goffman [1979] 1981:132). The presence of such non-participants is consequential for conversation in that speakers take them into account in deciding what to say and how to say it (Clark & Schaefer 1992, [1987] 1992). Among the ratified participants in a conversation, not all have the same status. Some are addressed recipients of the talk whereas others are not. Speakers design their conversational contributions to accommodate these different ‘participation formats’ (Levinson 1988). Their illocutionary acts, proposing specific joint projects (see 2.1.3 below), will only be directed at the addressee. However, they have to design their utterances so that they will be understandable also to the other participants. Thus, in addressing the recipient, they simultaneously perform the act of informing the co-participants of what they are proposing to the recipient (Clark & Carlson [1981] 1992, Clark 1996). Also speaker roles may be decomposed. A speaker may merely fill the role of a person physically producing the utterances, what Goffman ([1979] 1981:144) calls an animator. But usually, he or she is also the author of the utterance, that is, the one having selected the content and the formulations. Furthermore, a speaker may (but need not) be the person taking responsibility for the utterance, that is, establishing a position, a social identity, by means of it (the principal, according to Goffman). These production roles are often

10

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

embodied in one and the same person, but in certain cases they are realized by distinct individuals or groups. For instance, at a press conference a spokesman of a ministry may read aloud (animate) a declaration formulated by some other bureaucrats (the authors), and the declaration may represent the official position of the ministry (for which the minister, and not the authors, is ultimately responsible). In face-to-face, informal conversation (as opposed to institutional discourse) speakers embody all three production roles at once. They formulate their contributions extemporaneously and take action as themselves, thus establishing their social position or identity through their utterances (Clark 1996:10). In studying taped conversations, it is important to remember that the conversationalists are aware of having a non-visible bystander – the researcher. They thus have to present a social identity that is ‘appropriate’, not only vis-à-vis the interlocutor but also vis-à-vis the researcher. 2.1.2 Acts and activities It was noted above that conversations are joint activities (or parts of joint activities). One of the first proposals for a notion of communicative activity, was Wittgenstein’s language game ([1953] 1988). The fundamental insight that this concept conveys is that language and action are interwoven in an inseparable whole. However, this notion covers a too wide array of functional units to be useful as a descriptive tool. Included are such different things as “reporting an event”, “play-acting” and “asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying” (p. 11-12). As Levinson ([1979] 1992) points out, the language game includes (among other things) both speech acts and speech activities. The notion of elementary speech acts has been developed by other philosophers, such as Austin ([1962] 1975) and Searle (1969, 1979), but the larger communicative activities have received less analytic investigation. In an attempt to formulate a more precise notion, Levinson proposes the notion activity type and defines it as a “fuzzy category whose focal members are goal-defined, socially constituted, bounded, events with constraints on participants, setting, and so on, but above all on the kinds of allowable contributions“ (Levinson [1979] 1992:69). In this definition, joint activities are goal-defined. They include certain conventional goals, and the acts included in them are rationally and function-

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

11

ally adapted to this goal (Levinson [1979] 1992:71). This dominant goal is their raison d’être. In addition, the participants may have idiosyncratic, strategic goals that are distinct from the conventional goals inherent in the activity (Craig 1990). The activity type involves certain constraints on the contributions, specifying which acts are required, expected, tolerated or prohibited. The resulting expectations play a role in ascribing communicative function to an utterance in context. Thus identifying the appropriate conversational activity will be an integral part of understanding an utterance (cf. Wittgenstein’s claim that meaning is use ([1953] 1988:20)). But how do participants in conversation know which activity type is relevant for the current interaction? Gumperz (1982, 1992, 1995) suggests that conversationalists use contextualization cues that signal the activity frame. These are verbal and non-verbal indexical signals that “serve to frame a speech exchange and thereby to access and retrieve the contextual presuppositions in terms of which speakers assess the communicative intent of constituent utterances” (Gumperz 1995:102). However, this is not just a matter of speakers signalling the context. The signalling “is not a matter of unilateral action but rather of speaker-listener coordination” (Gumperz 1982:167). Through the responses to each other’s contextualization cues, conversationalists implicitly signal agreement or disagreement and thus jointly establish the relevant activity frame. The relation between contextualization cues and activity frames is reflexive, so that contextualization cues not only reflect, but also invoke and create activity frames. This allows interactants to rapidly invoke on a moment-by-moment basis alternative activity frames and thus change the context. This means that conversationalists cannot identify the communicative activities without considering the (verbal and non-verbal) acts that make them up. On the other hand, they can only interpret single utterances and acts by relating them to the overall activity. They are thus caught in a ‘hermeneutic circle’ in which part and whole co-constitute each other (Gadamer 1975). The fact that activity types impose constraints on the contributions implies that they have different and recognizable discourse structures and conversational techniques associated with them. The association of specific communicative tasks and conversational resources is captured by the notion of procedure. I take procedure to mean a set of functional units which are linked by means of relevance relations and together accomplish some communica-

12

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

tive task. For instance, Chapter 4 shows how certain types of questions are related to certain types of responses and third position moves, and in tandem accomplish self-presentation. Thus, the communicative task involved in the goal of an activity will include certain standardized structural solutions, involving specific choices of vocabulary, speech acts, sequence types, etc. A more or less fixed concatenation of local conversational procedures may be called a genre (Luckmann 1992, Linell 1998). Genres are defined as “socially constructed communicative models for the solution of communicative problems” (Luckmann 1992:226). Activity types vary from highly prepatterned (e.g. religious ceremonies) to largely unscripted ones (e.g. dinner party conversations). The flexibility or rigidity of the constraints may vary, but seldom involves a rigid scripting of the moves. The typical pattern is that institutional discourse is of the more scripted type while casual conversation tends to involve a more flexible organization (Linell 1998). In any case, it is not just that conversationalists follow automatically a predetermined course of action. Even routines are achieved as an interactional accomplishment including on-line negotiation of the situation (Schegloff 1986). Activity frames may be changed and modified during the interaction itself, thus implying the relevance of new conversational procedures. The constraints imposed by the activity types apply to a vast array of conversational phenomena. The notions of activity and genre presuppose a community whose members share a competence governing the use of the conversational procedures involved. This is the condition for verbal signals functioning as contextualization cues, enabling the conversationalists to recognize each others’ moves as activating a common activity frame. Studying conversation in different activity frames is thus relevant not only to understanding the communicative activities themselves, but also to identifying the situational constraints and preferences governing the use of certain linguistic forms and conversational sequences. Getting acquainted is potentially a more or less routinized activity type. By investigating the conversational structures of a set of conversations between unacquainted interlocutors, I hope both to identify what the activity consists of and what the relevant procedures are. As with the conversationalists, I am myself faced with the hermeneutic circle of defining the parts and the whole — the acts and the activity — in light of each other.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

13

2.1.3 Cooperation and joint action Conversations, and joint activities in general, necessarily involve interaction, and thus some degree of cooperation. This aspect of conversations has been primarily described by Grice ([1975] 1989) and Clark (1996). According to Grice ([1975] 1989:26), talk exchanges are “characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction”. This implies two basic assumptions about conversational interaction. The first is that conversation consists of purposive acts, involving processes of means-end rationality. The participants engage in goal-oriented action and choose means that will best satisfy the ends. This presupposes an ability to compare different means and assess which will maximize benefit and minimize cost (Brown & Levinson 1987:65, 89f). The second assumption is that of cooperation. This is specified further by Grice in his Cooperative Principle: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (Grice [1975] 1989:26). This notion of cooperation is contingent upon the acceptance of some common goal. The cooperative principle is thus concerned with coordinating means to an end. As Clark (1996:62) formulates it: “Two people realize they have common goals, realize their actions are interdependent, and work backward to find a way of coordinating their actions in a joint action that will reach those goals.” The verb ‘cooperate’ has two distinct meanings according to the dictionary — either “to work or act together or jointly for a common purpose or benefit” or “to work or act with another or other persons willingly and agreeably”.2 It is in the first of these senses that Grice seems to use the word. This is important to stress because a number of critics of Grice seem to have understood him in the other sense and have cited inherent features of power, antagonism and competitiveness as counter-evidence (see for instance Chilton (1987) and Sarangi & Slembrouck (1992)). Such aspects of communication concern the goal of the exchange and who determines it. Here it can be useful to make a distinction between private and public goals. Only the latter can be common to the interactants. The participants may thus have private goals of deceiving one another, but this will not be a matter of cooperative work. However, once they have established some common, public goal they will

14

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

have to cooperate if they are to achieve it. It is the only rational thing to do. The public goal may itself involve competition (as in political debates), but they are obliged to cooperate in how to compete. The distinction is thus between cooperation and cooperativeness. The cooperative principle is not a principle of cooperativeness but a principle of what it is that makes meaningful exchange possible in the first place, namely cooperation. In trying to make efficient contributions to the cooperative project, the participants in interaction are guided by a set of maxims, requiring the participants to be informative, truthful, relevant and perspicuous (Grice [1975] 1989:26-27). Grice seeks to motivate the maxims by describing them as rational forms of behaviour. Following the maxims is the path of ‘least effort’ for attaining goals in interaction. Thus, inventing a lie or being uninformative would cost more effort and/or contribute less to the attainment of the common goal. What sort of goals do the maxims contribute to attaining? Grice says that the maxims are stated “as if this purpose were a maximally effective exchange of information” (p. 28). However, he was aware that this was not always the case. In interacting with others, people also have other goals, such as managing the interpersonal relationship with them. A theory which has elaborated on this idea is Politeness Theory as proposed by Brown & Levinson (1987). They note that “one powerful and pervasive motive for not talking Maxim-wise is the desire to give some attention to face. [...] Politeness is then a major source of deviation from such rational efficiency, and is communicated precisely by that deviation” (p. 95). Politeness theory is presented in 2.3.2 below, so for now we will just note that the social principles of relational communication are not included in Grice’s original proposal. The maxims are formulated as the most rational way of communicating referential content and thus apply primarily to the cognitive processes of communication. Additional strategies have to be formulated to account for how people cooperate to reach social goals, such as maintaining an interpersonal relationship. What are the acts that actors perform in cooperating? In linguistic pragmatics the answer to this question has generally been speech acts (Austin [1962] 1975, Searle 1969, 1979). However, there is a fundamental difference between the Gricean account of communication and traditional Speech Act Theory in that the latter does not include an interactional perspective on language use. In its classical formulation the successful performance of an illocutionary act is only related to the individual speaker’s intentions and

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

15

representation of the context of utterance. As Searle (1992:7) himself somewhat humorously puts it: The speech act scenario is enacted by its two great heroes, “S” and “H”; and it works as follows: S goes up to H and cuts loose with an acoustic blast; if all goes well, if all the appropriate conditions are satisfied, if S’s noise is infused with intentionality, and if all kinds of rules come into play, then the speech act is successful and nondefective. After that, there is silence; nothing else happens.

Thus, the sequential placement of the act and the interactional negotiation of meaning is not considered.3 This has been the object of massive critique (Schegloff 1984, Streeck 1992, Sbisà 1992 (and other contributions in Searle et al. 1992), Linell & Marková 1993). Clark (1996) has proposed a new account of speech acts that conceptualizes them as joint actions. A joint action consists of two (or more) individual actions performed by different actors as a part of the whole. These are called participatory actions and are performed in coordination as a means to a common goal. To have a common goal means being mutually aware of, and mutually accepting, a certain goal. On this account, speech acts have to be jointly accomplished at all levels of action. At the first level, the speaker executes a bit of behaviour (e.g. vocal sounds) for the co-participants to perceive. Only by attracting someone’s attention can a piece of behavior be given potential communicative effect. But in addition — at the next level — this behavior has to present a signal (e.g. an utterance) and the addressee has to identify it as such. At the third level, the speaker signals in addition a certain illocutionary force (e.g. a question) that the co-participant has to recognize. At the superordinate level, the speaker proposes a joint project (e.g. getting the addressee to sit down) for the addressee to consider (Clark 1996: 149f). A joint project is defined as “a joint action projected by one of its participants and taken up by the others” (p. 191). The minimal joint projects are adjacency pairs, such as question–answer, invitation–acceptance/declination or greeting–greeting. Higher level projects include telling narratives, asking for and giving route directions, and having a conversation. Common to these projects is that they are projected in one turn and accepted, declined or modified in the addressee’s response. This means that the proposed project and the subsequent uptake have to be publicly displayed in the initiatory and responsive utterances. To enact a joint project, the participants have to have reached an agree-

16

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ment of what the joint project is. This is a process of joint construal (p. 212f). In jointly construing a proposed joint project, the participants negotiate what the speaker is to be taken to mean. The addressee displays a construal of the proposed joint project in responding to it. This may be more or less in accord with what the speaker had intended. The display might be counter to the speaker’s intended construal, a more narrow, but compatible one, one of several distinct construals that the speaker had intended, etc. In fact, the question is not what the speaker originally intended at all (‘what the speaker means’), but what s/he accepts to be taken to mean. And here the proposer’s reaction to the addressee’s uptake will be crucial. In this third move the proposer of the project has the opportunity to either accept, correct or dismiss the addressee’s construal of his or her proposal. In this way, joint construals are arrived at in an interactive way by a process of negotiation. An interactional ‘working consensus’ is thus necessary for establishing both the import of the proposed joint project and a joint commitment to enacting it. An addressee may of course display a (for the speaker) fully acceptable understanding of the proposed project without, however, accepting to engage in it. In sum, then, conversations are joint activities or parts of joint activities. The participants cooperate to achieve the inherent goals of the activity by engaging in joint action. Joint action is necessary at all levels, from making speech acts to carrying out joint projects. 2.1.4 Conversational organization Conversations are not solely definable in terms of the joint activities they belong to and the joint actions involved in them. They also have a generic internal organization. For one, conversations are organized with respect to the allocation of turns at talk. Furthermore, the turns relate to each other by means of sequential organization. What makes conversation a distinguishable subcategory of spoken interaction is the speech exchange system operating in it. In institutional discourse there are certain preallocated rights and obligations for contributing to the talk. This might concern the right to talk (unasked) or to introduce a topic. The representative of the institution is usually the one responsible for introducing the main topics and for closing the interaction (Adelswärd 1995). In conversation there is a whole range of features that are not specified or fixed in

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

17

advance, such as turn order, turn size or content, distribution of turns and length of conversation. The organization of such features is locally managed. This is achieved by a system of turns, turn constructional units, and a set of allocational rules operating on them (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974). The turn-taking system first and foremost provides a device for coordinating one sort of participatory action in conversation, the physical production of speech (the phonetic acts in Austin’s ([1962] 1975) terminology). It provides a normative order in conversation in directing the participants toward speaking one at a time and minimizing gap and overlap. Deviations from the rules make the participants accountable for their non-observance and potentially also make them subject to sanctions. In addition to coordinating the acts of talking, the turn-taking system is a resource for jointly construing a common understanding on a moment-bymoment basis: It is a systematic consequence of the turn-taking organization of conversation that it obliges its participants to display to each other, in a turn’s talk, their understanding of other turns’ talk. More generally, a turn’s talk will be heard as directed to a prior turn’s talk, unless special techniques are used to locate some other talk to which it is directed. (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974:728)

The fundamental insight here is that every new turn will be seen as relating to the previous turn (unless otherwise signalled), thus displaying some understanding, appreciation and ‘analysis’ of it on the part of the speaker. Such participant analyses of prior talk are thus indirectly exhibited in every turn. Since every new turn makes the participants’ understandings publicly available to one another, they may monitor and adjust the common understanding along the way. Hearers may address problems in the others’ talk by initiating repair sequences (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977). Speakers may monitor the next turn to determine how they were understood, and if this is not acceptable (for the purposes of the interaction), they may use the third turn to explicitly adjust or repair the misunderstanding which was displayed in it. By means of the turn-taking system, then, “a context of publicly displayed and continuously up-dated intersubjective understandings is systematically sustained” (Heritage 1984a:259). Another order or conversational organization is the coordination of types of turns. Certain turn types project not only the occurrence of a next turn (as with the ‘current speaker selects next’ technique) but of a special type of turn. This establishes the turns in question as a sequence of turns (and not just a

18

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

random series). Some sequences are generic, such as adjacency pairs, presequences and insertion sequences, whereas others are activity specific, such as the ‘perspective-display sequence’ (Maynard 1989), which is used in situations where cautiousness in giving reports and opinions is required, such as in the activities ‘diagnostic news delivery’ or ‘getting acquainted’. In Chapter 4, I propose one such sequence type, the ‘self-presentational sequence’. We noted above that joint activities impose constraints on local contributions. We now see that conversational contributions may in addition be constrained by the local sequential context. One type of constraint results from the fact that every turn is topically constrained because it is understood in relation to the previous turn (unless otherwise signalled) and thus has to ‘fit in’ with the talk so far. Another type of constraint is due to the organization of sequences (adjacency pairs among others), which involves additional requirements on utterances who are to serve as constituent parts. 2.1.5 Conclusion Having reviewed some fundamental properties of conversation, we can now return to the definition presented at the outset with some more clarity concerning what the concepts involve. Here the definition is repeated: Conversation is a joint activity consisting of participatory actions predominantly in the form of spoken utterances produced successively and extemporaneously by different participants in alternating turns at talk which are locally managed and sequentially organized.

Conversation is (part of) an activity including conventional goals and standardized procedures for achieving them. The individual actions are parts in a joint action, in which meanings and projects are established. Language is not the only signalling system used, but it is dominant. The conversationalists are ratified as participants in the conversation, and they act as principals, extemporaneously formulating their utterances and thereby presenting a social identity. The utterances they produce are organized as turns that are allocated at the local level. This makes conversation distinct from institutional discourse, which involves certain preallocated rights and obligations. The turns are sequentially organized in that they are topically constrained by each other and in that they often constitute specific sequence types. The properties reviewed above imply that a conversational contribution is in a three-way reflexive (or dialogic) relation to its context:

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

19

• Act – activity: The contribution as a unit of action (an act) is in part constituted by the overall activity and in part constitutive of it. • Utterance – joint construal: As a unit of meaning (an utterance) it is partly determined by and partly determinative of the participants’ joint construal of it. • Turn – sequence: As a sequential unit (a turn) it is constrained by the previous sequential unit (the previous turn) while, simultaneously, it is partly constitutive of what that unit is taken to be (by displaying an analysis of it). This makes conversation a fundamentally interactional phenomenon, involving interaction both between the participants and between the discourse and the context (the sequential and the global). An approach which seeks to capture these aspects of conversation needs to be founded on a dialogic epistemology. The fundamental assumption of dialogism is that “there is an interdependence between the agent and his or her socio-historical environment”, so that “neither can be defined independently of the other” (Marková 1990:2). Interaction and mutuality between self and other are considered as constitutive features of language, cognition and communication (Rommetveit 1990, 1992, Linell 1998). The theories presented above share these fundamental assumptions. Conversation Analysis, with its roots in ethnomethodology, studies discourse as an ‘interactional achievement’ (cf. Schegloff 1982). Clark’s (1996) reformulation of Speech Act Theory as a theory of joint action also embraces this interactionist perspective. However, the same cannot be said about another theory that is central to my concerns, namely Brown & Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory. This presentation therefore includes a reformulation of it which conceptualizes politeness as an aspect of utterance meaning which is negotiated by the interlocutors in interaction rather than as a property of utterances per se (presented in 2.3.2).

2.2 Identity and social relations This section discusses some notions of identity and interpersonal relationships. The self is conceptualized as a claim to a social position established in and through interaction with others. A range of different conceptions of social relations will be reviewed before I propose a model of interpersonal relation-

20

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ships which defines them in terms of the concepts familiarity, solidarity and affect. 2.2.1 The Self The self may be described in different ways. Psychological approaches have tended to view it as a stable, individual essence (the underlying ‘true’ self) whereas sociological approaches have emphasized the flexible, social aspects, equating identity with roles or situated lines of action (Schlenker 1984). The aspects of identity that we will focus on here are the self as a reservoir of knowledge, feelings and attitudes on the one hand, and as a socially constructed role on the other. The former aspects deal primarily with individual characteristics, whereas the latter deal with the social. In one approach, the self is considered as the sum of a person’s knowledge, feelings and attitudes. This is the perspective of Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor 1973, Knapp 1978, Taylor & Altman 1987). The self is presented as stratified into a core of intimate information and several layers of increasingly ‘superficial’ information. The core of private thoughts, fears, values, etc. makes us vulnerable if revealed and is, therefore, protected. The outer layers represent more ‘public’ information about ourselves that we are not afraid of revealing. Relationships are characterized by the depth and the breadth of the social penetration processes, where depth is understood as the number of layers penetrated and breadth is the number of topical areas broached. Relationships start with narrow and superficial penetrations and develop as the penetrations get broader and deeper. Within this theory a key concept in relationship formation is self-disclosure (see Holtgraves 1990). Self-disclosure allows social actors to reduce uncertainty about each other and thus predict how costly or rewarding future interactions with the other will be (Berger & Bradac 1981). The degree of selfdisclosure has been considered a reliable measure of the depth of a relationship so that, for instance, spouses disclose more intimate information to each other than do strangers. Communication between strangers is more concerned with ‘public facts’ (Morton 1978). Initial interactions are said to have the following characteristics: [...] individuals make only a small part of themselves accessible to others. At this stage there is very little evaluation; instead, individuals make concerted efforts at conflict avoidance. The overall tone is cautious and tentative, as

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

21

each party to the relationship scans one another in accordance with socially conventional formulas. (Taylor & Altman 1987:259)

Social Penetration Theory has met considerable critique. For instance, Brown & Rogers (1991) question the fundamental assumption that sincere selfrevelation should be the foundation of intimacy. They write that: [...] the ideology of intimacy prescribes a relational ‘oneness’, brought about by clear, candid self-revelation, as the goal of interpersonal relationships. Ironically, [...] candid self-revelation often produces differentiation, undermining a sense of oneness (Brown & Rogers 1991:154).

They present evidence that intimate partners do not just reveal whatever is there, but actively promote similarities and gloss over differences. This leads them to wonder “whether intimacy is not as much a negotiated collusion as it is a state of ‘true oneness’” (Brown & Rogers 1991:154). In other words, relationship formation may be viewed as a process of constructing compatible identities rather than revealing one’s ‘true self’. This way of describing the process shifts the perspective from the individual to the interaction between the parties. Social Penetration Theory describes a basic fact about personal information, namely that some types of information are more public and some are more private. This is what I will retain from the theory in creating a model of interpersonal relationships (cf. 2.2.3). As for its epistemology of the self, it has an unwarranted emphasis on information and an unfortunate bias towards reification. The former point will be treated later on in the chapter. At this point I will address the latter problem, the reification of the Self. Several psychologists note that the self is flexible and varies to some extent from situation to situation. Berger & Bradac (1981), for instance, conceptualize the self as consisting of a stable core, which is mainly private, and an array of more situation dependent selves, which are more superficial. However, more severe critics question the very concept of a personal core. Brown & Rogers (1991) argue that what is needed is a radical shift from an “epistemology of objects” to an “epistemology of pattern”. They propose that the self should not be considered as a pre-existing object, to be concealed or revealed, but as a pattern of action, a process, emerging from interaction with others. This proposal involves a shift from a static to a dynamic conception of the self. A similar critique of traditional psychology is presented by a group of psychologists who propose dialogicity as the foundation of cognition and

22

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

communication (see collections in Marková & Foppa 1990, 1992, Graumann, Marková & Foppa 1995). Drawing on insights from interactionist thinkers such as Mead (1934), Vygotsky ([1934] 1986) and Bakhtin (1984), they claim that the self is fundamentally relational or dialogical. It can only be defined as part of a relation with a (real or virtual) other (Farr 1990, Rommetveit 1990, 1992). Instead of presupposing a dualism between self and other they argue for the study of the interrelations between them. A social theorist who has dealt with how the self is constructed in interaction is Erving Goffman. Inspired by existentialists such as Sartre, he identifies the self with the actual lines of action a person takes. He uses the metaphor of the theatre for describing the establishment of identity and social relations. In this perspective, the self is not an essence existing prior to, and independently of, social interaction, but a character imputed to social actors (!) by the performances they make: A correctly staged and performed scene leads the audience to impute a self to a performed character, but this imputation — this self — is a product of a scene that comes off, and is not a cause of it. The self, then, as a performed character, is not an organic thing that has a specific location, whose fundamental fate is to be born, to mature, and to die; it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented, and the characteristic issue, the crucial concern, is whether it will be credited or discredited. (Goffman 1959:252-253)

One point Goffman makes here is that we play different roles according to the different ‘audiences’ we confront. However, his more radical claim is that these roles are not merely external ‘masks’ that cover a ‘true self’. They are the self. Although we may play different roles with different degrees of confidence, there is no role-independent essence by which to judge the different performances. The self is the product of the situated lines of action. It is in the roles arising from situated performances that we know our fellow human beings, but it is also in these roles that we know ourselves (or, should we say, ‘our selves’) (Goffman 1959:19). Without going further into a philosophical discussion of the ontology of the self, I propose to use the term ‘self’ as referring to the socially constituted image a person creates of him- or herself in interaction with other social actors. The self is thus presented or constructed rather than disclosed. The approach to the self as a social construction shifts the focus from inherent personal attributes to situated patterns of action. Such patterns, by which an individual in an interaction presents an image of him- or herself and

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

23

the whole situation, are what Goffman (1967a:5) calls a line. Actors may take a line more or less wilfully and consciously, but in the interaction they will have to take into consideration the impression their acts have formed of them in the audience. The self is thus not constructed merely by self-disclosure, but by the total sum of expressions they give and give off.4 For instance, Laver (1975, 1981) has showed that different forms of small talk are related to the different social claims of the actors. In engaging in small talk, people may potentially start by producing utterances that are self-oriented, other-oriented or ‘neutral’ (e.g. the weather). However, other-oriented utterances were used by superiors to inferiors but not vice versa (more on this in 5.6 below). In this way, the line taken by the interactants in engaging in such talk implicitly makes a claim to a certain role. The image of the self presented in interaction is not just a display of individual characteristics, but also a claim to a certain social position. This is conceptualized in the notion of face, which is defined as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman 1967a:5). When actors present a line, they are expected to live up to the self-image thus conveyed. They can maintain face by having their line accepted and acknowledged by their cointeractants; otherwise, they may lose face. Face consists of two different social claims. One is a certain self-image, consisting of attributes such as a set of opinions, attitudes, feelings, etc. The other is a claim to a certain ‘territory’ — a field of action free of imposition. The construction and maintenance of face in interaction is done by facework. However, people cannot construct their face in isolation. They depend on others treating them in a certain way, giving them face. What they can do themselves is to proceed with a certain demeanor that displays aspects of a self-image they want to convey. But in order to succeed they are dependent on others to show respect to their face — to act with deference (Goffman 1967b). Others may confirm their territory by avoiding to impose on them (avoidance rituals) and they may contribute to enhancing their self-image by presenting compliments and other tokens of acknowledgement (presentational rituals). Social actors may also be confronted with events that are incompatible with the claim to social worth they are presenting by their line. This may either be their own acts, which may be judged inappropriate, or the acts of their cointeractants, which may not show the appropriate degree of deference. In such cases their face is threatened and corrective procedures have to be engaged if they are not to lose face.

24

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

A theory that shows how self-presentation is relativized by the speaker’s orientation to the interlocutor is Communication Accommodation Theory (see Giles, Coupland & Coupland 1991). This approach to communication focuses on how interactants converge or diverge verbally and non-verbally with their partners. In explaining accommodating behaviour, the researchers point to identification with individuals or social groups: [...] both speech convergence and divergence may be seen as representing strategies of conformity and identification. Convergence is a strategy of identification with the communication patterns of an individual internal to the interaction, whereas divergence is a strategy of identification with linguistic communicative norms of some reference group external to the immediate situation. (Giles, Coupland & Coupland 1991:27)

Social actors thus present their selves as either similar or dissimilar to their interlocutor depending on their wish for social approval. An underlying principle here is the assumption of ‘similarity attraction’, namely that, in general, people will be attracted more by people who are similar to themselves than by dissimilar others (Byrne 1971). Hence, if people seek social approval from someone else, they will seek to become more like those persons. This will manifest itself in features of speech style, non-verbal communication and topic.5 The tendencies to converge and diverge with other individuals and social groups reflect a basic tension between the needs of individual integrity on the one hand and communion on the other. The need for integrity will manifest itself as a tendency to display the differences between the individual and the interlocutor or a social reference group, whereas the need for communion will show up as manifestations of agreement, similarity, etc. As Tannen (1984:17) puts it: “we are all caught in the double bind of being the same and not the same as others”. Although we all have needs that go in opposite directions, the needs are differently dosed, so that some people have in general a stronger drive toward establishing community with others, and thus toward converging, whereas others have a stronger drive toward marking individuality, and thus toward diverging. The basic point in any of these cases is that the identity is constructed in a way that takes account of the ‘other’ just as much as of the ‘self’. Identities are always situated, as the following citation shows: Interactants can thus achieve a sense of identity either in terms of likeness or dissimilarity. That is to say that conversational ‘affiliation’ [...] can be seen as an ongoing construction of situated identities, rather than simply an exchange of names or recognition of fixed social roles. (Boden & Bielby 1986:77)

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

25

Another ‘double bind’ in communication is the dilemma between being selforiented and being other-oriented (Tracy 1990, Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1992). Interactants are constantly caught between the wants of their own face and those of the other. Many acts that enhance the face of the other threaten the face of the self, and conversely. However, in many cases giving face to others is a way of gaining face oneself. As Goffman has noted, a person may want to establish an impression of someone “who shows compassion and sympathy toward others, so that to retain his own face, he may feel obliged to be considerate of the line taken by the other participants.” (1967a:12). In addition, giving face to others gives rise to expectations of reciprocity. Examples are gifts and compliments which are profusely returned. Hence, giving face to someone else is a behavior that will potentially contribute to enhancing one’s own face by the possibility that the face-enhancing act will be reciprocated, if not by an identical token, then at least with some token of corresponding face enhancing value (more on this below). Finally, in our culture self-enhancement is object to severe sanctioning. This is reflected in proverbs, such as the Norwegian saying “selvros stinker” (literally: “self-praise stinks”). In fact, there are aspects of actors’ faces which they cannot properly present themselves: [...] there are many occasions when it would be improper for an individual to convey about himself what others are ready to convey about him to him [...] Rather, the individual must rely on others to complete the picture of him of which he himself is allowed to paint only certain parts. (Goffman 1967b:84)

In this way, the practice of self-presentation and face construction does not consist in explicit face-enhancing, self-oriented behavior. The interactants depend on each other to have their lines accepted and to be given face. The self is thus co-constructed by the acts of both the interactants rather than merely presented by the speaker. 2.2.2 Social relationships Social relations between people are in part a result of their positions in institutional networks. However, the relations have to be established in interaction between these individuals and they may then be redefined and developed. This is to say that, although having their bases in certain physical or institutional facts, social relations are primarily interactionally established patterns of (inter-)action holding between a set of individuals.

26

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

As noted, Social Penetration Theory offers an account of relationship formation that basically focuses on information. Growth of a relationship is described in terms of mutual acquisition of personal information, both in depth (from public to private) and in breadth (from a narrow to a broad range of personal topics). The communication between the parties of a relationship is characterized by the developmental stage of the relationship. In the growth of a relationship from the initial interactions to a deep relationship, communication patterns will develop accordingly with respect to the following features (see Knapp 1978:14-17, Berger & Bradac 1982:105-106): • • • •

•

• • •

Depth of communication. Long-term partners generally reveal more intimate information than do newly related partners. Breadth of communication. Long-term partners talk about a greater variety of topics. Communication difficulty. Communication is more efficient when persons have many experiences in common. Flexibility. Developed relationships permit many options for emotional expression, whereas initial interactions are severely constrained by cultural rules for affect display. Spontaneity. Intimates are less cautious, less inclined to plan their communication than are non-intimates. Intimates exhibit a higher degree of mindlessness when they interact. Smoothness. The interactions of long-term partners are more highly synchronized than are the interactions of those newly acquainted. Evaluation. Intimates are more likely to exchange positive and negative remarks than are non-intimates. Uniqueness. The communication of intimates is more personalized than is the communication of non-intimates.

Relationships are said to go through stages, from the initial monitoring of each other at distance toward deeper involvement, possibly culminating in the formal union of marriage (Knapp 1978:17-22): Initiating. This stage consists in strategies for collecting information about each other, either by direct observation or by secondary sources of information, such as friends and acquaintances, books or articles, etc. The first direct contact is also a part of this stage. Experimenting. Now the partners are in contact and start gathering infor-

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

27

mation concerning the public facts about the other. Small talk is the favoured activity and the goal is to find topics that integrate the two with respect to interests and experience. Commitments are limited and the tone is casual, relaxed and uncritical. Intensifying. At this point the partners show a greater commitment to the relationship, for instance by displaying mutual affect or by disclosing successively more private information. More implicit and idiosyncratic modes of communication develop. They unfold their uniqueness while simultaneously blending their personalities with each other. Integrating. The individuals integrate by appearing increasingly as a team. Certain individual characteristics are shared and consequently intensified whereas others are not, and are therefore minimized. The couple acquires common properties, symbols, and style. Bonding. Bonding is a public ritual that establishes a contract between the parties and announces their mutual commitment to others. The institutionalization of the relationship changes its character by stabilizing it and relating it to conventional and judicial expectations of behavior. According to Berger & Bradac (1982) the link between the stage of the social relation and the characteristics of communication is mutual predictability. As relations develop, the participants reduce their uncertainty about each other. This allows them to assess more accurately mutual background knowledge and, accordingly, make the communication more efficient and smooth. Social Penetration Theory makes some interesting claims about the interrelationships between communication and social relations. However, for empirical and theoretical reasons, it is not a fruitful model for studying the development of social relations in conversation. For one thing, the claims are to a large extent based on intuition and questionnaires rather than on studies of natural, spontaneous conversation. Furthermore, the focus on self-disclosure and uncertainty reduction seems to identify relationship development with strategies of information processing. This gives the cognitive aspects of the process an undue prominence. Knapp suggests, rightly, I would hypothesize, that institutional bonding changes the relationship itself, and thus introduces a new stage in the development. However, this is not a matter of gaining access to more private information about one another. Rather, it involves a change in their mutual rights and obligations. This suggests that we need a conceptual-

28

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ization of relationships that includes other aspects of relating as well. Such a model will be proposed below (in 2.2.3). Two main dimensions of social relations have generally been acknowledged, a power dimension and a distance dimension. These dimensions have received various labels in the literature, and there have been strongly diverging proposals as to their nature. I will not deal much with power relations here, but focus on the distance dimension. My dyads are chosen among peers, so that the interactional patterns should be mainly attributable to the distance variable and not to power differences. Brown & Gilman (1972 [1960]) were among the first to propose linguistic analyses that relied on conceptions of social relations. The object of their study is the use of pronouns of address, T-forms (as in French tu) versus Vforms (as in French vous). They propose a ‘vertical’ dimension, power, and a ‘horizontal’ dimension, solidarity. Power is presented as an asymmetrical relation involving one person’s ability to control the behavior of the other. Solidarity is a symmetrical relation involving ‘like-mindedness’, based on such things as frequency of contact or objective similarities. These relations may be seen as cross-cutting, as illustrated in Figure 1. POWER superior equal solidary

SOLIDARITY not solidary

inferior Figure 1. Brown & Gilman’s vertical and horizontal dimensions of social relations.

This is how Brown & Gilman characterize solidarity: Not every personal attribute counts in determining whether two people are solidary enough to use the mutual T. Eye color does not ordinarily matter nor does shoe size. The similarities that matter seem to be those that make for likemindedness or similar behavior dispositions. These will ordinarily be such things as political membership, family, religion, profession, sex, and birthplace. [...] The T of solidarity can be produced by frequency of contact as well as by objective similarities. However, frequent contact does not necessarily

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

29

lead to the mutual T. It depends on whether contact results in the discovery or creation of the like-mindedness that seems to be the core of the solidarity semantic. (Brown & Gilman 1972:258)

Their focus on similarity seems to invoke community membership as the basis for solidarity. What constitutes cultural communities are sets of shared assumptions, beliefs and attitudes (Clark 1996:102). We do not have such communities for things like shoe size and eye color, but we do for political membership, family, religion, profession, sex, and birthplace. The shared expertise and attitudes of a community is what makes for the like-mindedness of the members. Brown & Gilman’s conception of the social relation involved may also be gleaned from their choice of term, solidarity, which in everyday language normally refers to the relation between members of a group. In more recent studies social distance between interlocutors has been studied under a range of different headings, such as distance, solidarity, closeness, familiarity, affiliation and intimacy (Spencer-Oatey 1996). Underneath the terminological tangle lies a not less chaotic array of different conceptions of distance. A problem is that very few authors discuss explicitly what they include in the notion. The underlying conception might include such diverse things as frequency of contact, length of acquaintance, amount of self-disclosure and amount and type of affect. I will here review some of the proposals to show the range of different conceptions of what is involved in the relationship. Since the first publication of Brown & Levinson’s theory of politeness in 1978, many researchers have adopted their conception of distance. The distance variable (D) in their theory is presented as follows: D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which S & H [speaker and hearer] stand for the purposes of this act. In many cases (but not all), it is based on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material or non-material goods (including face) exchanged between S & H [...] The reflex of social closeness is, generally, the reciprocal giving & receiving of positive face. (Brown & Levinson 1987:76-77)

Like Brown & Gilman (1972), they postulate degree of similarity as the defining feature of the relation. Underlying this is perhaps the principle of similarity attraction (cf. above). The establishment of similarity provides mutual benefits for the parties by yielding confirmation and acceptance of their respective self-images. However, Brown & Levinson do not seem to relate this as much to community co-membership as to the actual exchange of

30

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

(symbolic) goods between the parties. Here the authors draw on a mercantile metaphor. The exchange of goods is governed by a principle of reciprocity, whereby their ‘expenses’, in the form of material and non-material ‘gifts’ (face-enhancing acts), are compensated for by the ‘profit’ obtained, in the form of gifts in return. For the relation to be harmonious and to develop, the outcome of the process has to be positive for both parties in terms of an enhanced self-image. The exchange model is thus founded on a principle of equity between costs and benefits. The equity between the interactants may be disturbed either by a face-enhancing act, for which a return gift should be made, or by a threat to face, for which the actor himself must compensate by redressive action (or by a corrective process in Goffman’s terms). For Brown & Levinson (and possibly also for Goffman) it is the last perspective which predominates in the treatment of social interaction: politeness as a compensatory strategy for redressing the other’s face (and thus the relational equity) after a face threatening act. We will return to Politeness theory below (in 2.3.2), but first let us continue our survey of conceptions of social distance. One of the main topics of discussion has been the role affect plays in social distance. Several studies, such as Baxter (1984), Slugoski & Turnbull (1988), and Brown & Gilman (1989), have argued that affect is a separate variable alongside with distance. And in the preface to the reissue of Politeness, Brown and Levinson concede that ‘liking’ might be an independent variable affecting the choice of politeness strategies (1987:16). Brown & Gilman (1989) have studied politeness in Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. They found that predictions based on the distance variable were not confirmed in the plays (whereas those based on the power variable were). What seemed to explain the facts was rather “changes of feeling”. They write: The outcomes for the changes of feeling exactly reverse the outcomes predicted by the D of politeness theory, following instead the rule that increase of affection is associated with increase of politeness and decrease with decrease. We conclude, in agreement with Slugoski and Turnbull, that the Brown/ Levinson model requires an additional parameter — ‘relationship affect’. (Brown & Gilman 1989:196)

Slugoski & Turnbull (1988) showed that informants used information about ‘liking’ independently of information about distance in deciding whether an utterance was to be taken literally or ironically in a hypothetical scenario. The scenarios included conditions in which the model persons, Sue and Jill, either

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

31

liked or disliked each other and knew each other either well or little. The utterances that were to be interpreted by the subjects were in one condition a literal insult (“Such a pity you haven’t learned to paint yet, Sue”) and in the other a literal compliment (“Your painting is a real work of art, Sue”). Their results indicate that it was the affect variable which “by far [had] the greatest influence on the subjects’ judgements of conveyed meaning“ (Slugoski & Turnbull 1988:113). The distance variable “failed to have any effect at all on subjects’ interpretations of literal insults, and its effect on their interpretations of literal compliments was limited to the condition in which the speaker and hearer were described as liking one another.” (Slugoski & Turnbull 1988:112). In spite of their concern with uncovering the factors of social relations, Slugoski & Turnbull do not make explicit what they mean by distance. However, the distance variable is assessed in terms of amount of previous contact and thus seems to involve something like familiarity, that is, mutual knowledge about personal information. In my opinion distance cannot be equated with degree of familiarity, and nor is it in Brown & Levinson’s original definition (cited above). In addition to “frequency of interaction”, distance involves “kinds of material or non-material goods (including face) exchanged” (cf. above). If people have not only had frequent contact, but in addition have ‘given face’ to each other during a certain period of time, this might be interpreted as indices of various psychological states, such as liking or a feeling of obligation. Slugoski & Turnbull have not proved that affect and distance are independent variables, since they take it as a point of departure that they are separate. So affect could yet be a component of a complex distance variable. The results they obtain could just as well be explained as variation in the importance of the affectual component of the distance variable. Thus, the positing of an independent affect variable seems unwarranted. Below I will present an alternative, which integrates affect as a component of a complex distance variable. Affective and informational aspects of the relation may point in different directions, but it is the sum of the factors that decides the relative distance between two persons, and thus the appropriate politeness strategies. A line of research that has not been much acknowledged in pragmatic treatments of social distance is the social psychological research on close relationships. Contrary to what one would expect from the previous discussion, close relationships are not necessarily characterized by strong, positive

32

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

affect and reciprocal deep self-disclosure (Brown & Rogers 1991). Rather, it seems that the key factor is interdependence. Close friends, spouses and other closely related persons typically become dependent on each other by having strong and frequent impact on each other in diverse fields of action (SpencerOatey 1996:20). We engage voluntarily in relations of dependence because we have something to gain from it. The underlying logic is that of social exchange: relationships involve personal investments of time, concern and other personal resources, but yield personal benefits in return. According to Ginsberg, Gottman & Parker (1986), friends depend on each other for: • • • • • •

Companionship (company in activities and talk) Stimulation (input of interesting information, excitement and amusement) Physical support (help to reach personal goals) Ego support/enhancement (contributions to self-evaluation and esteem) Social comparison (standards against which to gauge own views and attributes) Intimacy/affection (sharing of personal or private thoughts and feelings)

Of special interest to us here is that intimacy and affection are collapsed into one factor. Furthermore, we note again that one function of friendship is to get support for one’s self-image. Friends contribute to positive self-evaluation in several ways, either directly, by complimenting each other or otherwise conveying support for each other’s self-image, or indirectly, by attending to each other, listening to each other and showing appreciation of each other’s company. The focus on interdependence is in harmony with Goffman’s observation that we depend on others for our lines to be accepted and our selves to be constructed. Establishing a relationship is then not as much a matter of disclosing one’s selves and discovering actual similarities or like-mindedness, but of mutually taking on an obligation to heed, respect, and approve of each other’s selves as they are presented in interaction. In Goffman’s (1967:42) words: “A social relationship, then, can be seen as a way in which the person is more than ordinarily forced to trust his self-image and face to the tact and good conduct of others.” It is in this way that a relationship may be as much a state of ‘negotiated collusion’ as a state of ‘true oneness’ (Brown & Rogers 1991, cited above). This research brings in a new factor to the already complex notion of social distance, namely trust. Engaging in a relation of interdependence means having

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

33

something to lose if the other party does not do his or her part. The parties must therefore trust each other to a certain extent and show themselves worthy of trust. This mutual commitment involves a moral aspect of social relationships. The research on social relations reviewed here yields very different claims about the nature of social distance and how it is established. Some researchers focus on personal information and self-disclosure, some on affect, and others on interdependence and trust. In her broad review of the field, Spencer-Oatey (1996) concludes that, as of present, there is no broad consensus within pragmatics either on the number of fundamental dimensions of social distance or on their conceptual nature and their appropriate labels. There is thus a need for a model of social distance which includes explicit definitions of terms; which is founded on a principled account of social identity, and which takes into account the range of proposals for dimensions of social distance. Below I propose an outline of such a model. 2.2.3 A model of identity and social relations In this section I will seek to define social identity and interpersonal relationships as dialogical entities constituted in and through social interaction. To do this, we must start by the communicative acts involved in the processes. The speech acts in a conversation establish interpersonal relations between interacting interlocutors and allow them to coordinate further interaction. In performing speech acts, individuals present themselves to others with three basic self-images: a set of feelings and attitudes (an emotional Self), a claim to a position in the social structure, involving certain rights and obligations (a social Self), and a model of the world (a cognitive Self).6 Interaction between individuals establishes relations between them within each dimension. The most immediate concern in communication is with establishing a working consensus, that is, an agreement on the threefold validity of a speech act so that the interaction can proceed. But at a deeper level, interactants establish relational bonds by manifesting the compatibility of the self-images presented. The bonding may occur within all three spheres of communication, involving emotional relations, normative or ‘moral’ relations, and informational relations. The emotional relations between interactants are created mainly by their expressive behavior. The interactants display not only an image of their emotional selves, but also an image of their emotional response to the line of

34

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

action taken by the other. Both of these images may of course be more or less sincere. As noted by Caffi & Janney (1994:328-329), “emotive communication [...] has no automatic or necessary relation to ‘real’ inner affective states. Rather, it is related to self-presentation, and it is inherently strategic, interactional, and other-directed by its very nature.” The emotional responses two people give each other may be interpreted as attraction, indifference or rejection. They may be symmetrical or asymmetrical. The relation created between the two on the basis of emotional responses will be called an affective relation. Certain mutual emotional response patterns develop interpersonal relationships such as romantic partners and personal enemies. As for the normative relations, the speech acts and other social actions of a set of interactants distribute a set of rights and obligations among them. These might be motivated by their institutional roles and positions, or by their claims as individuals. When the distribution of rights and obligations is asymmetrical, we get a power relation between the interactants, but when they are symmetrical I shall speak of a relation of solidarity. A solidary relation between two individuals thus involves a normative requirement of equal rights and obligations. When the mutual commitments are established as a fixed pattern, we get one of the characteristics of certain interpersonal relationships, such as friendship. The information exchanged between two interlocutors presents claims about the world. These have to be construed as true or false representations. If accepted by the interlocutor as a true representation, an utterance establishes a state of mutual knowledge (common ground). Mutual knowledge of some piece of encyclopedic information creates a relation of common expertise while mutual knowledge of personal (diary) information establishes familiarity. People who have established a lasting state of openness about personal, or even more so private, information are intimates. I thus propose that relations of social distance include three different dimensions: solidarity, familiarity and affect. The dimensions and their characteristics are illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Dimensions of social distance Relation

Constitutive feature

Sphere

Solidarity Familiarity Affect

mutual rights and obligations mutual knowledge of personal information mutual attraction

normative cognitive emotional

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

35

These dimensions of distance are normally (but not always) interrelated, so that an increase in one of the dimensions will entail an increase in the others. For instance, if two people mutually disclose private information, it will normally be because they like each other and feel trust in each other (Wierzbicka 1991:105). And when they have thus opened themselves to each other, they will usually like each other even more and feel even more trust in each other. This will at least in part be an effect of the fact that the selfdisclosure is simultaneously a display of trust and liking. The three aspects need not co-occur. Solidarity may arise purely from common group membership and need not include either familiarity or affect. This is the case when, for instance, a Norwegian in a far away country stops to help a compatriot in distress even though they are complete strangers. Pure affect may arise in situations of ‘love at first sight’. Familiarity may occur alone in therapy groups, in which people discuss their innermost problems with people they have minimal reasons for either liking or feeling committed to. Interpersonal relationships are constituted by mutual expectations of various amounts of solidarity, familiarity and affect. They are established through interaction and are maintained, developed, or broken in interaction. This does not mean, however, that the participants in a relationship have to demonstrate continuously their mutual openness, liking, and commitment. Rather, the relationship, once established, presupposes a readiness to be open, committed and to show affection. Different interpersonal relationships involve different degrees of solidarity, familiarity and affect. Being acquainted involves at least some minimal degree of solidarity and familiarity, but does not necessarily involve mutual liking. Being friends, by contrast, involves some degree of mutual liking, and, in addition, more openness and a stronger commitment. Being romantic partners involves an even stronger claim of affect, whereas it is questionable whether it necessarily involves any more solidarity and familiarity than a friendship may involve. When romantic affection is institutionalized in marriage it may be argued that the solidarity dimension becomes more important in that rights and obligations are made official and judicial. The variation between these forms of relationship with respect to the minimal degrees of solidarity, familiarity and affect is illustrated in Table 3:7

36

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Table 3. Relational dimensions involved in different interpersonal relationships. Relationship Acquaintance Friendship Romantic partners

Solidarity + ++ ++(+)

Familiarity + ++ ++

Affect +/+ ++

In this model, then, being acquainted with someone means having established interactionally at least some mutual rights and obligations, and at least some personal common ground. The parties may or may not have established mutual liking. Personal common ground involves information that is specific to the individuals in the relationship, and which is based on joint perceptual experiences or joint actions (Clark 1996:112, cf. 2.3.4 below). In other words, acquaintances must not only have personal information about each other; they must have acquired it in presence of each other (for instance in conversation), so that they also know about each other’s knowing of it (i.e. mutual knowledge). By mutual rights and obligation, I mean rights and obligations that exceed those that obtain among all members of society (such as the right to pursue one’s own interests or the obligation not to impede unwarrantingly on others). In our culture the minimal obligation that holds between two acquaintances is reciprocal greeting (or some other token of recognition, for instance a passing smile), and the minimal right is engagement in talk (Goffman 1963:112f). By contrast, strangers do not have any obligation to greet each other (at least in cities and villages of a certain size) and their right to engage in talk is limited. Typically, strangers have to have some special reason to initiate talk with each other, such as certain instrumental purposes (for instance asking for route directions) or be in special situational contexts, such as institutional contexts (contacting a vendor in a shop) or what Goffman (1963) has called “open regions” (bars, train compartments, etc.). And when talk is initiated, the commitment to the conversation may itself establish solidarity between the participants. In this way, words can act as a ‘relationship wedge’; that is, once an individual has extended to another enough consideration to hear him out for a moment, some kind of bond of mutual obligation is established, which the initiator can use in turn as a basis for still further claims [...] (Goffman 1963:105).

As contact between acquaintances is broadened, the relationship may develop into friendship. For this to happen, there must be some evidence of mutual liking, and the solidarity and familiarity component must be strength-

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

37

ened. This might be realized by joint commitments or shared personal information that is unique to the pair. A display of a special commitment to the other can be a voluntary offer of symbolic goods (favors, compliments, gifts) that is not likely to yield any direct reward in the immediate future. Sharing some important private information may also be a display of the special or unique character of the relationship. In the list of characteristics of friendship cited from Ginsberg, Gottman & Parker (1986) above (companionship, stimulation, physical support, ego support/enhancement, social comparison and intimacy/affection), it is only the last feature (sharing of private thoughts and feelings) which qualitatively distinguishes friendship from acquaintance. The other features merely yield differences in degree. When does a relationship cross the boundary from acquaintance to friendship? This is not possible to answer rigidly from the relative measures indicated in the model, and nor is it likely to be a simple matter for the actual parties of a relationship. The model above is an attempt to give definitions that come as close as possible to the intuitive notions of acquaintance and friendship. They are thus aimed at making explicit what is implied when social actors categorize people as ‘friends’ or ‘acquaintances’. With a model of the dimensions involved in social distance and of their constitutive role in various relationships, we now turn to the question of how relationships are established in conversation.

2.3 Conversational strategies in relational communication Having now established some basic assumptions about conversational interaction on the one hand and social relationships on the other, we need a theory of how conversational behavior is related to the establishment, maintenance, and alteration of relationships. This will be called ‘relational communication’. It includes face work, conversational style, and establishment of common ground. These features will be described and discussed in turn. 2.3.1 Relational communication The interest in the relational aspect of communication is not new. Malinowski’s (1923) study of phatic communion is one of the sources of this research. Phatic communion is the use of language for purposes of sociability, “a type of speech

38

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

in which ties of union are created by a mere exchange of words” (Malinowski 1923:315). Containing “purposeless expressions of preference or aversion, accounts of irrelevant happenings, comments on what is perfectly obvious” (p. 314), it does not function as “a means of transmission of thought” but rather has a purely social function, one of creating an atmosphere of sociability and personal communion (p. 316). This work has inspired research on such topics as small talk (Schneider 1987, 1988), greeting and parting routines (Laver 1975, 1981), and introductory sequences initiated by the question ‘How are you?’ (Coupland, Coupland & Robinson 1992). However, these later studies generally reject the characterization of this talk as unimportant, uninformative, etc. Instead, the focus of investigation has shifted toward emphasizing the ubiquity of relational goals in discourse: “Phaticity may be best seen as a constellation of interactional goals that are potentially relevant to all contexts of human interchange” (Coupland et al. 1992:211, see also Tracy 1990). Many researchers interested in relational communication have adopted the axiom from Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson (1967) that all communication involves two levels of signalling: a content level and a relational level (Tannen 1984, Tracy 1990, Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1992). This seems to imply that relational signals do not have content — a somewhat implausible assumption. So in the following I will rather use the terms referential and relational content. Every utterance thus involves both a referential message and a relational message, a ‘metamessage of rapport’ (Bateson [1955] 1985, Tannen 1986). The relational messages serve to define self and other, and can be seen as conveying: “This is how I see myself ... this is how I see you ... this is how I see you seeing me” and so forth (Watzlawick et al. 1967:52). The way relational aspects of communication tailor conversational behavior can be described in terms of ritual constraints (Goffman [1976] 1981). These constraints regulate self-presentation and face work and are concerned with “the expressive implication of acts, with the sense in which acts can be read as portraying the position the actor takes up regarding matters of social import — himself, others present, collectivities [...]” (Goffman [1976] 1981:37). The ritual constraints are principles organizing interaction, and in this capacity they complement the system constraints, such as rules of turn-taking and sequence organization. Conversational utterances thus contribute to the establishment, maintenance and alteration of social relationships, realized in (at least) three distinct

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

39

ways. First, face work may contribute to defining the relationship. The way interactants threaten, redress, and enhance each other’s faces is crucial to the relation that is established between them. Second, conversational style is symptomatic or indexical of interpersonal relationships. High involvement style is characteristic of close relationships, whereas considerate style characterizes distant relationships (Tannen 1984). Finally, the establishment of personal common ground is an important factor in relationship formation. For instance, if unacquainted interactants were only oriented toward saving face, they would avoid topics that included personal matters and stick to the weather or some other ‘safe topic’. But they don’t. So to explain the form of communication involved in my corpus we need a framework that includes more than strategies of face work. A more general term that includes all the above mentioned aspects could be relational work (cf. Watts 1989). 2.3.2 Face work and politeness strategies Face work and politeness has been the focus of many studies since Goffman laid the foundations in the 50’s and 60’s. This provides the most encompassing framework for studying linguistic realizations of face work. One account of politeness strategies has been proposed by Leech (1983). This is based on a principle of cost and benefit. His politeness principle goes: “Minimize (other things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs” and, conversely, “Maximize (other things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs”. Impolite beliefs are beliefs which are unfavourable to the hearer or some third party and polite beliefs the opposite. This gives rise to a range of more specific maxims, such as: The tact maxim: Minimize cost to other, maximize benefit to other. The generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self, maximize cost to self. The approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of other. The modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self, maximize dispraise of self. etc. The politeness of an utterance results from three factors. First, the nature of the speech act itself, notably to which degree it involves costs or benefits to the speaker or hearer. Second, the formulation of the speech act, concerning the degree of indirectness and the degree of optionality (the freedom of choice given to the hearer). Finally, politeness is seen as relative to the relational

40

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

dimensions ‘authority’ and ‘social distance’. These factors constitute pragmatic scales, on which a specific speech act is given values according to the context. The model of politeness that I will use here, is Brown & Levinson’s (1987), which is also the most influential in current pragmatic research. One reason that this model is more relevant for my purposes is that it is explicitly based on Goffman’s notion of face and face work, and that it is compatible with my conception of social relationships, as outlined above. Goffman claims that social actors seek to build up and protect a certain social self-image for themselves. This concern is not reflected in Leech’s model, which draws a picture of the (polite) social actor as a self-effacing, altruistic character. For instance, he claims that interlocutors follow a principle that makes them “maximize dispraise of self”. However, people commonly accept compliments without rejecting the praise involved and without responding by dispraise of themselves — and yet they are not considered impolite (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1994). Brown & Levinson’s politeness theory might be seen as an interpretation and systematization of Goffman’s writings on face work combined with a pragmatic theory of conversational cooperation and utterance interpretation based on Grice ([1975] 1989). From Goffman they take the notion of face as a social actor’s public self-image, and from Grice they take fundamental assumptions about rational behaviour, such as the capacity to reason from ends to the means that will achieve those ends. They start by distinguishing two aspects of a person’s face (Brown & Levinson 1987:61): • •

negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal reserves, rights to non-distraction — i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. positive face: the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants.

The respect for face is not seen as arising from norms in society but rather from mutual awareness of basic face wants, which in general it will be in the interests of every member to satisfy to some extent. The negative face want is that the actions of the actor be unimpeded by others. The positive face want is that the wants of the actor be desirable to at least some others (Brown & Levinson 1987:62). These wants, then, are shared by all competent members

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

41

of society and are known to be so. People show respect for negative face by not imposing and for positive face by showing appreciation and approval of the self-image presented. According to Brown & Levinson certain speech acts intrinsically threaten the face of the other. Acts that threaten the negative face may be requests, orders, and suggestions. Threats to positive face include criticism, complaints, disagreement, and irreverence. Just how threatening an act will be in a given situation will depend on three factors (p. 74): •

• •

the absolute ranking of the threat associated with the act in the particular culture (asking a woman for her age is a threat in cultures where youth is the predominating ideal, but maybe not in cultures where experience and wisdom is the ideal.) the social distance of S and H (disagreement is generally more threatening when the interactants are strangers than when they are friends.) the relative power of S and H (a parent asking a child to be quiet is less threatening than the inverse.)

In deciding whether and how to perform a face threatening act (FTA) the speaker will take into consideration the relative weightings of (at least) the following three wants: the want to communicate the content of the FTA, the want to be efficient or urgent, and the want to maintain H’s face to any degree (p. 68). The result will be one of the five super-strategies, here ordered from the strongest to the weakest form of redress: 1 2 3 4 5

Don’t do the FTA. Do the FTA off record. Do the FTA on record with redressive action: negative politeness. Do the FTA on record with redressive action: positive politeness. Do the FTA on record without redressive action, baldly.

It is beyond the scope of this presentation to review the whole set of politeness strategies. My presentation will be restricted to a brief overview of the positive politeness strategies, these being the strategies which are most relevant to the establishment of solidarity and mutual affect between the interactants. Positive politeness strategies have in common that they express that the addressee’s wants are in some respects similar to the speaker’s wants. One way of conveying this is by indicating that the two belong to some set of persons who share specific wants, including goals and values. This general

42

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

strategy is formulated: “Claim common ground“ and consists in the following more specific strategies (p. 102): Claim common ground. Convey “X is admirable, interesting”: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods). Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H). Intensify interest to H. Claim in-group membership with H: Use in-group identity markers. Claim common point of view, opinions, attitudes, knowledge, empathy: Seek agreement. Avoid disagreement. Presuppose/raise/assert common ground. Joke. Another general positive politeness strategy is to convey that S and H are cooperators in some relevant activity. This indicates to the addressee that they share goals in a specific domain, and thus that his or her wants (of achieving the goal) are desirable also to the speaker. These are the relevant strategies as presented by Brown & Levinson (1987:102): Convey that S and H are cooperators. Indicate S knows H’s wants and is taking them into account Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants Claim reflexivity (If H wants then S wants , and conversely: If S wants <S has X> then H wants <S has X>): Offer, promise. Be optimistic. Include both S and H in the activity. Give (or ask for) reasons. Claim reciprocity: Assume or assert reciprocity Finally, a way of meeting H’s positive face wants is simply to fulfil his or her want for something. This strategy involves giving ‘gifts’ (symbolic or material), such as goods, sympathy, understanding, and cooperation. It is not within the scope of this brief presentation of positive politeness strategies to discuss each substrategy in detail. Nor is this the place to discuss

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

43

possible additions to the list, which is not claimed to be exhaustive. For instance, some of the features discussed under the label ‘conversational style’ below (2.3.3) could have been considered as positive politeness strategies as well. For now let us rather turn to the question of how these strategies may contribute to establishing relational closeness. The positive politeness strategies are primarily oriented to creating solidarity and mutual affect. The first set of strategies (“Claim common ground“) promotes the establishment of similarity. The different substrategies invoke similarities of tastes, interests, group membership, knowledge, attitudes and more. If we accept the general principle of similarity attraction, this will mainly contribute to mutual liking between the parties. In addition, some of the substrategies will contribute to solidarity by invoking common group membership. The second set of strategies (“Convey that S and H are cooperators”) is more directly relevant for creating solidarity. Here the strategies have in common that they invoke the mutual rights and obligations of the parties in cooperating in some activity. The substrategies establish the rights and obligations of self and other (concern for the other, expectation of concern by the other) and reciprocity as the principle regulating them. The final superstrategy (“Fulfil H’s want (for some X)”) is more equivocal and may be a display of either liking or obligation. Some of the strategies may also promote familiarity (sharing of personal information), but this will be as a secondary effect. For instance, claiming common attitudes or common group membership will convey information about the individual in addition to establishing similarity between the participants. But this is not the main function of the move as a politeness strategy. Brown & Levinson take as their point of departure that politeness is oriented toward mitigating face threatening acts and thus restoring the relational equilibrium. In their view politeness strategies are not primarily used to signal social relations, but rather to manage the interaction so as to avoid or redress threats to face. People use politeness strategies to get their communicative acts accepted in spite of the face-threat involved in them. However, several researchers have talked in favor of giving more attention to other types of face work. Penman (1990) proposes that face work should be considered the more encompassing and fundamental concept, of which politeness is just one type of strategy. She mentions four different types of facework strategies, which may be grouped into the general categories of respect and contempt:

44

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Facework strategies (Penman 1990): Respect: Mitigate/enhance Protect Contempt: Threaten Aggravate/depreciate These basic strategies can be oriented either towards self or other, and concern either positive or negative face. This yields a total of sixteen different strategies: 1 2 3 4

Mitigate/enhance Mitigate/enhance Mitigate/enhance Mitigate/enhance

5 Protect etc.

positive face positive face negative face negative face

of self of other of self of other

positive face

of self

In my view Penman draws attention to two major aspects of face work that are not included in Brown & Levinson’s account of politeness. First, she points to strategies which are used for other things than FTA redress, such as face enhancement and face aggravation. Second, she incorporates self-oriented strategies. The same type of critique has come from Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1992). She objects to making face threatening acts the corner stone of politeness, claiming that this gives an undue primacy to agonistic aspects of communication. Acts supporting the face of the other are presented as contingent upon face threatening acts and thus secondary to them. Contrary to this view she proposes that producing acts enhancing face should be considered an independent strategy. Compensating for FTAs is just one of the uses to which they may be put — another is to reduce social distance. Such acts I will henceforth refer to as face-enhancing acts.8 It is not entirely correct that Brown & Levinson ignore non-redressive politeness. In fact, they note that politeness strategies also have as a secondary effect an indexical function, meaning that the participants may glean information about the status of the relationship from the set of strategies employed. In Brown & Levinson’s words, “language usages are tied to strategies rather than directly to relationships, although relationships will be characterized by the continued use of certain strategies” (1987:281).

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

45

Although Brown & Levinson are most concerned with politeness as redressive action, they emphasize that the strategies described may have other uses as well. Positive politeness is the form of politeness which has a potential for establishing closeness between the interactants. Here they say: the linguistic realizations of positive politeness are in many respects simply representative of the normal linguistic behaviour between intimates, where interest and approval of each other’s personality, presuppositions indicating shared wants and shared knowledge, implicit claims to reciprocity of obligations or to reflexivity of wants, etc. are routinely exchanged. (Brown & Levinson 1987:101)

If the behavior associated with positive politeness strategies is indicative of close relationships, it may also be used to establish closeness: “positivepoliteness techniques are usable not only for FTA redress, but in general as a kind of social accelerator, where S, in using them, indicates that he wants to ‘come closer’ to H” (p. 103). They even note explicitly that strangers may use the “language of intimacy“ for the sole purpose of establishing closeness: Positive-politeness utterances are used as a kind of metaphorical extension of intimacy, to imply common ground or sharing of wants to a limited extent even between strangers who perceive themselves, for the purposes of the interaction, as somehow similar. (Brown & Levinson 1987:103)

There is an apparent paradox in this theory. On the one hand, positive politeness is seen as “the normal linguistic behaviour between intimates”. However, on the other hand, it is noted that persons who have established a long-time relationship are in fact less obliged to use politeness to redress FTAs. Close friends are seen to use more bald-on-record strategies (i.e. unredressed FTAs) than others. Even ‘teasing’ may be used as a marker of solidarity rather than as a threat to it (Brown & Levinson 1987:229). The explanation Brown & Levinson give for the more ‘optimistic’ and unredressed performance of FTAs in close relationships is that: “[...] in intimate relations there may be presumed to be minimal danger of face threats” (Brown & Levinson 1987:229). What they mean by ‘face threats’ here must be something like face aggravation, that is, disrespect for the face of the other. Clearly, they do not mean that there is minimal danger of face threatening acts, since what they discuss is how FTAs may be produced without redress and yet not damage the face of the other. I will argue that there is no less danger of face aggravation, but rather that certain acts are not (or only minimally) face threatening, given the mutual

46

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

rights and obligations established between the interlocutors. Clearly, it is not just any FTA that they may produce bald-on-record, but just those that involve things the interlocutors mutually see as their right to expect from each other. In this way, it is not the level of politeness which changes with the relationship, but rather the definition of which acts are to be seen as face threatening. This solves the paradox. Close friends have established a set of mutual rights and obligations and thus do not experience certain acts (such as requests, or even the criticism implied in teasing) as face threatening, but rather as confirming and reestablishing their relational bonds. This does not contradict that they in general support each other’s positive face as a part of their mutual rights and obligations. Rather, it brings into question the notion of ‘intrinsic FTAs’. If an intrinsic FTA can be treated as not face-threatening in certain contexts, it is no longer intrinsic. I will argue below that both face threats and politeness are not intrinsic properties of utterances at all but aspects of meaning ascribed to utterances in context by the interlocutors in their joint construal. The distinction between explicitly giving heed to the positive face of the other and presupposing solidarity can be illustrated by two of the strategies treated by Brown & Levinson. One is to “offer, promise”. It is based on the idea that “whatever H wants, S wants for him and will help to obtain” (p. 125). The speaker explicitly shows concern for the face of the hearer. This is a typical positive politeness strategy. The next strategy, however, is less classic: “Be optimistic”. This inverts the pattern in that the speaker assumes that his own wants are also wanted for him by the hearer and that the hearer thus will help him to obtain them (p. 126). The result of this strategy is the performance of potentially threatening acts with minimal explicit redress, such as: Look, I’m sure you won’t mind if I borrow your typewriter. The reason why speakers can be optimistic about the other’s wish to fulfil their own wants is that the two of them mutually take it for granted that the speaker would do the same for the hearer on a similar occasion. The speaker thus presupposes reflexivity of concern for the other. However, his or her concern for the hearer’s face is not explicitly stated, but merely taken for granted. It is as if the threat is redressed by the very fact that it is presented as a so small (given the nature of their relationship) that it is not even worth redressing by explicit means. By indexing social distance, politeness strategies function as relational contextualization cues. The language forms used are seen as reflecting a

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

47

certain type of relationship between the interlocutors. And the cues may be used strategically, so that they do not merely reflect, but actively define or redefine the relationship. The positive politeness strategies presented above may thus — when they are not seen as merely redressive — contribute to strengthening or developing the solidarity, familiarity and affective bonds between the interactants. The focus is here shifted from maintaining the relational equilibrium toward setting and changing the values on the distance parameter. Especially for unacquainted parties this is a major function of politeness. They have little or no bonds uniting them at the outset, and have to establish these in conversation by their speech acts (and other actions). In this context, face enhancing acts are a means of establishing solidarity and positive affect and thus of defining the relationship. People may also increase the distance between themselves and their partners in interaction. One way of doing this is by not producing speech acts that enhance the positive face of the other. Also negative politeness is often associated with great distance, since the strategy of not imposing emphasizes the interactants’ relative autonomy and independence, and thus their lack of mutual rights and obligations. A more drastic step is to produce face threatening acts without redress (or other circumstantial justification, such as urgency). This is not a case just of adjusting the distance, but rather of dismissing the entire relationship. Politeness strategies thus do not merely compensate for face threatening acts in order for the parties to achieve their current joint projects. They also index the relational distance between them. This gives politeness strategies a potential for not only maintaining the relational balance, but for proposing adjustments of the social distance. They may be used to propose rapprochement or distancing. These proposals may then be accepted by the other by reciprocating the strategies or rejected by maintaining the previously established set of strategies. This gives us a general model of the function of facework strategies in relational work, as illustrated in Table 4.

48

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Table 4. The relational function of various facework strategies Facework strategy

Relational function

Enhance positive face: Claim common ground Convey that S and H are cooperators Fulfil H’s want (for some X) Redress positive or negative face

Reduce distance Establish mutual affect Establish solidarity Establish solidarity/affect Maintain distance (Restore relational balance) Increase distance (deny solidarity) Increase distance (deny mutual affect)

Honour negative face Aggravate face

Analytically, it is important to keep these different relational moves separate, so that face redress aimed at maintaining the relationship at status quo is not confounded with acts aimed at increasing or reducing distance. In fact, this is just what Slugoski & Turnbull and Brown & Gilman seem to do, and might be the reason why their results do not fit with the predictions they make from Politeness Theory (cf. the discussion in 2.2.2 above). Slugoski & Turnbull (1988) study circumstances in which literal insults are taken as compliments and literal compliments as insults. These are cases of respectively face enhancement and face aggravation and not of face redress. Brown & Gilman also confound politeness as relational index with politeness as compensation. In the examples they give of contrasts along the distance dimension the politeness strategies are for the most part not redressive acts related to an FTA (see Brown & Gilman 1989:194-195). Only in one case do they relate the polite forms to an FTA, but they relate them to a threat against the speaker’s own face, namely a “confession of unwarranted suspicions”. Obviously, otheroriented politeness does not redress a self-oriented threat. It should be noted here that the relational functions of facework strategies should not be conceived as a simple mapping onto individual speech acts. In Brown & Levinson’s theory, as in most subsequent treatments, politeness and face threats are seen as intrinsic to certain speech acts (cf. the notion of intrinsic FTAs mentioned above). However, this does not fit with an interactional, dialogic view of language and meaning. Rather, relational functions of utterances should be considered a joint construal, just like any other aspect of meaning (cf. 2.1.3). This means that an utterance cannot be considered face enhancing, face redressing or face aggravating solely on the basis of its characteristics as a speech act. Instead, the face value of the utterance is established interactionally in the conversation. Whether an utterance is to be

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

49

taken as threatening, redressive, or enhancing is negotiated by the participants in their contributions. 2.3.3 Involvement and conversational style Involvement in discourse has been studied by researchers such as Lakoff (1979, 1989, 1990), Chafe (1982, 1994) and Tannen (1984, 1986, 1989). It has mainly been considered a feature of conversational style. There is a great deal of overlap between some positive politeness strategies and involvement strategies. For instance, the use of in-group language (dialect, jargon, slang, etc.) and humor are presented both as positive politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson: 110, 124) and as features of high involvement style (Tannen 1984:145).9 However, it is a general tendency that politeness strategies are articulated more with respect to the content of conversational contributions and style features more with respect to their form, such as topic change, pacing, narrative strategies, and paralinguistics. Such form features contribute to defining the relationship between the interlocutors mainly by connotation, or what Brown & Levinson call “metaphorical extension” (cf. above); that is, by establishing analogies between the current conversation and a type of conversation for which the style is characteristic. In this way, conversational style is also a relational contextualization cue: The association of these various lexical choices with particular settings then yields the possibility of stylistic variation created by usage in other settings. The shared social knowledge of expectation of one register rather than another, in other words, makes it possible to signal metaphorical meaning about the relationship and the situation at hand. (Tannen 1984:13)

Whereas politeness strategies may concern either familiarity, solidarity or affect, involvement strategies are more exclusively concerned with the affect dimension of social relationships. For Tannen (1989:12) involvement is “an internal, even emotional connection individuals feel which binds them to other people as well as to places, things, activities, ideas, memories, and words.”10 Although this definition seems to make involvement an intrapsychic phenomenon, she goes on to stress that it is the interactional establishment of these emotional connections in discourse which is meant. This has important implications for the definition of involvement. Rather than being a straightforward reflection of an inner psychological state, it is related to selfpresentation and interaction. This means that it consists in the communicative

50

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

signalling of affective information, whether it is sincere or not (Caffi & Janney 1994). Involvement may be seen as inherent in any utterance. Katriel & Dascal (1989) make the point that involvement is one of the two ‘promises’ a speaker makes in producing a speech act. The first is a commitment to “beliefs or other psychological states expressed by the utterance as well as to other elements of the illocutionary force such as the illocutionary point” (p. 275). The second is involvement, which “can range from very casual to very intense engagement, either in the topic of the exchange or in the relationship between the participants in it” (p. 276). As noted by Katriel & Dascal, the focus of involvement may differ. First, speakers may display involvement in themselves, for instance in reporting on an emotional state. Furthermore, the involvement may be oriented toward the audience, as in a display of concern for the other. Finally, speakers and hearers may be involved in the topic of conversation, as in an emotional delivery and receiving of a narrative (Chafe & Danielewicz 1987:105). Lakoff (1979, 1990) has formulated a set of interactional strategies related to the establishment of rapport in conversation. The strategies are ordered as a stylistic continuum from minimal to maximal focus on rapport. This is presented in Figure 2. CLARITY DISTANCE least relationship between participants

DEFERENCE

CAMARADERIE most relationship between participants

Figure 2 Strategies of rapport (from Lakoff 1979:62) Figure 2. Strategies of rapport (from Lakoff 1979:62)

Clarity represents the extremity of minimal rapport. Here the speaker “does not make any overt assumptions about the character or needs of the addressee” (p. 63). The focus of the utterances is the referential content. The language behavior will be in conformity with the Gricean maxims of conversation (Grice [1975] 1989) and there will be a minimum of indirectness, rhetorical circumlocution or emotional expression. Distance is a strategy which is aimed at preventing direct contact between the participants. It is the human analogue to the territorial strategies of other animals. Distance is created by impersonal communication and avoidance of emotional expressions. Characteristic of this style is formality (etiquette,

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

51

courtesy) and absence of individual and personal references. Although it deals with the relationship between the interlocutors, it does so in avoiding involvement and bonding. Also the deference strategy avoids involvement. Rather the interlocutors follow the injunction: “Don’t impose, give options” (Lakoff 1979:65). This implies giving authority to the addressee (whether actually or merely conventionally). The speaker appears as indecisive and unassertive. This is achieved by asking questions (rather than stating facts), hedging opinions, and being indirect. Camaraderie is the pole of maximal involvement and closeness. Whereas the deferential and distance strategies deal with the dangers of interaction, this strategy sees interaction and connection as good in themselves (Lakoff 1990: 38). The involved character of this strategy leads to direct expression of emotions, whether friendly or hostile. Thus, relational information is communicated by means of stylistic choices related to the strategies of rapport. Conversational forms of expression form a stylistic continuum ranging from a high involvement style to a high considerateness style. These styles are characterized by Lakoff in the following words: “Where involvement is exciting, creates interaction, but is often aggressive, considerateness is blander, less involved in the conversation but more receptive to other speakers’ needs” (Lakoff’s 1990:50).11 Deborah Tannen (1984, 1989) has developed Lakoff’s thoughts about conversational style by specifying the forms involvement may take in conversation. Below is a list of some features of high involvement style:12 Involvement strategies Turn management: faster speaker shifts, tolerance for overlap, participatory listenership Topic: abrupt topic shifts, preference for personal topics, preference for narratives Paralinguistics: expressive pronounciation, marked shifts in pitch, amplitude and voice quality, faster rate of speech Metrics: rhythm, repetition (of phonemes, morphemes, words, sequences), style figures of speech Participation in sensemaking: indirectness, ellipsis, tropes, internal evaluation Dramatization: constructed dialogue, imagery and detail (Based on Tannen 1984:30-31, 1989:17)

52

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

The preference for personal topics is a case of involvement in the interlocutor. Tannen (1984:54f) reports on a clash between styles when a high involvement speaker (Deborah) meets an unacquainted interlocutor (Chad) who is a high considerateness speaker. Deborah asks Chad about his job, but gets short and hedged responses in return. At one point, Deborah turns the topic into talk about jobs in general. Here Chad starts producing more elaborate and smooth responses. However, just as Chad is getting comfortable with the topic, Deborah feels rude because she is no longer attending to Chad. The result is a constant unease with the topic from one of the parties and a corresponding difficulty in coordinating a joint topical focus. Tannen’s conclusion is that high involvement style makes personal matters an appropriate topic in conversations with unacquainted interlocutors whereas high considerateness style does not (Tannen 1984:64). Another characteristic of involved conversation is the expectation of mutual revelations (p. 79f). Interpersonal involvement includes an assumption that the co-participants are interested in each other’s reports on personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. There is an expectation that: having something to say, speakers will say it. It is not the burden of the interlocutor to make it comfortable and convenient for others to express their ideas, but rather to be free and spontaneous with reactions (Tannen 1984:109110).

In this way, the interlocutors show “understanding of and concern for each other’s statements by offering comparable personal statements” (p. 83). The high involvement style thus establishes an interactional pattern of mutual selfselection. The interlocutors take the floor to volunteer personal information without being explicitly invited to do so. The mutuality involved here is also demonstrated in cases when the telling of a story generates a new story. Hearers may display involvement in a story by producing a new story in response. This leads to rounds of stories in involved conversation. Second stories are regularly constructed to ‘fit’ the first story by means of certain produced similarities, such as common perspective (Sacks 1992b:3f). The final point I will comment on here is the hearer’s participation in sensemaking. Tannen’s general point here is that “the more work readers or hearers do to supply meaning, the deeper their understanding and the greater their sense of involvement with both text and author” (Tannen 1989:23). One of the ways a conversational contribution can invite the other to participate in

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

53

sensemaking is by not stating the point explicitly. In the case of narratives this has been described as internal, or embedded, evaluation (Labov 1972). It consists in dramatizing the events and refraining from explicitly evaluating them. The audience gets an experience of the story and has to infer the point by themselves. It is thus a matter of showing rather than telling. This way of involving the interlocutor by making the evaluation implicit should be equally feasible for other discourse genres as well, e.g. descriptions. Some of the central points in the theory of involvement and conversational style have been criticized in recent years. The main objection is that there is a fundamental lack of definitional rigor and specificity. Especially the term involvement is too broadly and loosely defined (Besnier 1994, Caffi & Janney 1994). As Caffi & Janney (1994:345) note, Tannen uses it variously to designate techniques (rhetorical-stylistic strategies), messages (messages of rapport, shared feelings), and effects of communication. Personally, I would like to add that the list of stylistic features is not motivated in any principled account of emotive communication, and consequently seems somewhat ad hoc. There is no explanation for why just those style features have been chosen for analysis or what it is that makes them markers of involvement. Some more precise characterizations of emotive communication may be found in more psychologically oriented studies. As Gallois (1994) and Caffi & Janney (1994) point out, such treatments usually describe emotive communication along three main dimensions, namely evaluation (or positivity), arousal, and dominance (or potency). The evaluative dimension communicates a stance towards the topical matter as good or bad, important or indifferent. Arousal concerns the intensity of the affective display. The dominance dimension includes several different features of communication, such as the assertiveness, the confidence, the proximity and the clarity of the speaker towards the referential content (Caffi & Janney 1994) Using such reference points it would be possible to give a far more specific definition of involvement. The features Tannen analyses seem to fall mainly within the arousal and evaluative dimensions. Linguistic devices that convey arousal are all intensifying and deintensifying speech choices (such as phonological elongations, unexpected prosodic stress and loudness, and repetition). Evaluative devices are discourse phenomena that “can be interpreted as indices of pleasure or displeasure, agreement or disagreement, like or dislike and so forth” (such as voice quality, emotion terms, and diminutives and other evaluative vocatives) (Caffi & Janney 1994:356-8). However, which kinds of

54

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

evaluation (positive or negative) are relevant for establishing rapport necessarily depends on the object of evaluation. Here Tannen also needs to distinguish between interlocutor-oriented emotive displays and topic-oriented ones. Evaluation of some external matter may establish rapport even if it is negative — if only it is mutual — whereas evaluation with a bearing on the interlocutor’s face must be predominantly positive. The way I will use the terms here, involvement strategies will refer to features of conversational style that display emotion in conversation. High involvement style may establish a positive affective relation between interlocutors by displaying positive emotional responses to each other’s conversational contributions. The stylistic features include (primarily) markers of intensity and evaluation, which purport to express emotional arousal and positivity. 2.3.4 The establishment of common ground A starting point for describing how mutual knowledge contributes to acquaintance can be Schutz’s (1970) distinction between direct and indirect social relations. Direct social relations are established in face-to-face-situations as persons are mutually aware of each other sharing a simultaneous experience in the world (what Schutz calls “growing old together”). As they mutually experience the simultaneity and live in the experience together, they can also live in each other’s subjective contexts of meaning and experience each other’s flow of consciousness (p. 187). They can use the state of experiencing together (the ‘we-relationship’) to ascribe meaning to each other’s communicative acts (the ‘because- and in-order-to-motives’). Furthermore, the face-toface-situation allows the partners to correct and adjust their respective understandings of each other (p. 193). This process makes the participants ‘consociates’. In indirect relations the participants know of each other but do not experience each other immediately; they are mere ‘contemporaries’. The knowledge they have of each other is thus inferential. The abstraction away from the subjective context leads to an idealization and anonymization of the other, who is thereby turned into a ‘type’. Schutz calls this a shift from a Thouorientation to a They-orientation (p. 224). Contemporaries do not experience each other’s flow of consciousness in a vivid present and are, therefore, limited to grasping each other in terms of general types of subjective experi-

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

55

ence (p. 222). This affects the depth of communication they can achieve: The more anonymous my partner is, the more “objectively” must I use the signs. I cannot assume, for instance, that my partner in a They-relationship will necessarily grasp the particular significance I am attaching to my words, or the broader context of what I am saying, unless I explicitly clue him in. As a result, I do not know, during the process of choosing my words, whether I am being understood or not. [...] In indirect social experience there is only one way to “question a partner as to what he means,” and that is to use a dictionary [...] (Schutz 1970:230-1)

The point which Schutz makes here is that to grasp a person’s individuality requires direct social interaction. And getting acquainted involves just this sort of unique mutual experience. We call acquaintances only those with whom we have had direct contact. This leads to a need for distinguishing what it is that is different in the two conditions. The distinction between consociates and contemporaries may be described in terms of personal and communal common ground. Though not based on Schutz’s writings, Clark’s theory of common ground nicely complements some of his fundamental points. Common ground consists of mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, mutual assumptions, and mutual awareness. For a piece of information to be part of the common ground of two persons, they must not only both have access to this piece of information and know that they both have access to it, they must also have mutual awareness of this situation (Clark 1996:95). Common ground thus involves self-awareness as a fundamental component. People come to experience such states of mutuality by sharing certain kinds of evidence: Common ground (shared basis) p is common ground for members of community C if and only if: 1. every member of C has information that basis b holds; 2. b indicates to every member of C that every member of C has information that b holds; 3. b indicates to members of C that p. (Clark 1996:94) The bases for common ground may be either the cultural communities the participants belong to (their status as contemporaries) or their direct personal experiences with each other (their status as consociates). The direct mutual experiences may establish common ground by means of copresence heuristics (Clark & Marshall [1981] 1992). They can be either joint perceptual experi-

56

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ences or joint actions. An event may be assumed to be jointly perceived only if it is salient to both parties. They may assume joint salience of an event because it is salient in itself, because it is made salient by gestural indication, or because they perceive each other’s perception of it (Clark 1996:113). The other type of joint experience is joint action, and the prototype is talk. Here the participants may assume joint attention to the activity and thus that the parts of it constitute common ground. Common ground is established, then, on the basis of either physical or linguistic copresence. Common ground based on copresence is what Clark calls personal common ground. People keep track of their personal common ground with others in personal diaries. As a metaphor for one type of memory organization, the diary is a log of their direct experiences with others. It has entries for the type of event in question and the participants with whom they shared the experience. The second type of basis for common ground is joint membership in cultural communities. A cultural community is a set of people with a shared expertise that other communities lack. The basis for their common expertise may be such things as nationality, education, language, politics, subculture and gender. For instance, by the mere fact of sharing nationality, Norwegians have mutual knowledge of such things as how the national holiday — the 17th of May — is celebrated, what the Prime Minister’s name is, and why Norway is not a member of the European Union. This type of shared expertise constitutes their communal common ground. Not all categories of people constitute cultural communities. Common blood type, for instance, does not entail shared expertise, and is consequently not the basis for a cultural community. Finally, common ground may also consist in potential states of mutual knowledge requiring inferential activity. Clark & Marshall ([1981] 1992) call this indirect copresence. Communal common ground is represented in a mental encyclopedia. Here people store the expertise they possess and the communities to which it is specific. When they meet another member of a certain cultural community (an ‘insider’) they can presuppose mutual manifestness of a whole range of assumptions. One thing they share is a communal lexicon, containing specific word forms and/or meanings that are unique to the community (Clark 1998).13 This may be features of dialects, sociolects, jargon, technical terminology, slang, etc. Furthermore, they share certain cultural facts about the community, certain norms and conventions, and certain procedures for joint activities within the community (Clark 1996:108f).

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

57

Community membership may also be of help to ‘outsiders’. Although they do not have the same expertise as insiders, they at least have some knowledge about what types of knowledge a member of a certain cultural community is likely to possess. So although I personally do not know the names of any of the fancy leaps skateboard riders perform, I would expect a member of this community to do so. A way of representing the distribution of knowledge among conversation partners is proposed by Labov ([1969] 1972:301) in terms of ‘A-’ and ‘Bevents’: Given two parties in a conversation, A and B, we can distinguish as ‘Aevents’ the things that A knows about but B does not; as ‘B-events’ the things which B knows but A does not; and as ‘AB-events’ knowledge which is shared equally by A and B.

Labov shows how conversation partners’ state of knowledge may be consequential for how an utterance is understood. He formulates the rule that, “if A makes a statement about a B-event, it is heard as a request for confirmation” (Labov [1969] 1972:301). In Chapter 4 and 5 it is also proposed that interlocutors’ access to the topical matter defines their rights and obligations to participate in and develop the topic. There are specific conversational procedures for confirming, adjusting and correcting the interlocutors’ common ground. Clark has described this as the process of grounding (Clark & Brennan 1991, Clark & Schaefer [1989] 1992). Grounding is “to establish [a signal] as part of common ground well enough for current purposes” (Clark 1996:221). Grounding is an instance of a more general principle of closure, which says that people, in engaging in purposive actions, require evidence that they have succeeded in what they set out to do. In conversation they thus need evidence that their contributions have been understood and accepted by their interlocutors. Every contribution contains two parts, a presentation and an acceptance: Presentation phase. A presents a signal s for B to understand. He assumes that, if B gives evidence e or stronger, he can believe that B understands what he means by it. Acceptance phase. B accepts A’s signal s by giving evidence e’ that she believes she understands what A means by it. She assumes that, once A registers e’, he too will believe she understands. (Clark 1996:227)

58

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

The acceptance phase is thus the part of a contribution which presents evidence of understanding. This evidence may take several forms, such as: Assertions of understanding: continuers (‘uh-huh’, ‘I see’, etc.), nods, smiles. Presuppositions of understanding: initiation of a relevant next turn. Displays of understanding: (partial) construal of the previous turn. Exemplifications of understanding: paraphrases or repetitions of the previous turn. (modified from Clark 1996:228)

In this way, common ground is established interactionally on a turn-by-turn basis. Mismatches between assumed and actual common ground may be detected and dealt with as problems arise. The knowledge of who belongs to which community is not itself part of the encyclopedia but has to be established by copresence heuristics (Clark & Marshall [1981] 1992:37). This means that in order to have established any common ground at all, people have to have had some direct experience with each other. Common ground thus becomes one of the defining features of social relations (cf. 2.2.3 above). Having a relationship with someone along the distance variable (acquaintance, friendship) means having had some joint personal experience and thus having established some common ground. Strangers are people who have not established any personal common ground. That a personal experience is joint means that the participants have not only had individual experiences of a similar kind, but that they have attended to each other having these experiences. In Schutz’s words, they have had a reciprocal Thou-orientation and “sympathetically participate[d] in each other’s lives for however short a time” (Schutz 1970:186). That mutual knowledge is an essential component of social relationships was demonstrated in a series of experiments lead by Sally Planalp (Planalp & Benson 1992, Planalp 1993, Planalp & Garvin-Doxas 1994). She first had naive judges listen to conversations between friends and acquaintances and then she asked them to tell which the participants were. In about 80% of the cases the judges guessed correctly. The single most common reason for distinguishing the two was mutual knowledge. This included knowledge of basic demographic information, habits and dispositions, current activities, schedules and plans. Another clue to their mutual knowledge was reference to people, places and events without accompanying identification of the referent. In the next experiment Planalp coded the conversations for the same features that were reported by the judges and subjected them to discriminant analysis.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

59

This different technique resulted in equally accurate discriminations between acquaintances’ and friends’ conversations (83%). Mutual knowledge was again the single best predictor. However, it was not only the presence of mutual knowledge among friends that made the difference. In some cases (such as knowledge of other people and of the other’s biography) mutual knowledge was equally or more notable in its absence for acquaintances (Planalp 1993:348). Planalp concludes that mutual knowledge is a fairly neglected, but nonetheless extremely important dimension of interpersonal relations. She compares friends’ mutual knowledge with expert knowledge. Their extensive knowledge of each other allows them to communicate more efficiently, to comprehend each other more deeply, and to remember the conversational content better (Planalp & Garvin-Doxas 1994:25). Common ground is established either by circumstantial evidence or by episodic evidence (Clark 1996:117f). Circumstantial evidence is what people can infer from situational clues, such as dress, gear, and physical location. For instance, as we shall see, those of my informants who are students never even ask each other about occupation. The fact that they meet at the University and that they are rather young is evidence enough for them to assume common status as students. Episodic evidence is evidence from the actions the parties take, such as their speech acts. Many researchers have noted that unacquainted interlocutors start off by asking and answering questions (Knapp 1978, Berger & Bradac 1982, Maynard & Zimmerman 1984, Kellerman & Lim 1989). The type of questions they ask have been called categorization questions (Maynard & Zimmerman 1984). The categorizations form the basis for inferences about the participant. To get maximum information about the co-participant, one will in general employ what Sacks has called ‘inference-rich’ categories. These are characterized in the following way: [...] a great deal of the knowledge that members of a society have about the society is stored in terms of these categories. [...] And the inference-rich character of these categories constitutes another warrant for their occurrence in early parts of first conversations: When you get some category as an answer to a ‘which’-type question, you can feel that you know a great deal about a person, and can readily formulate topics of conversation based on the knowledge stored in terms of that category. (Sacks 1992, vol. 1, p. 40-41)

Occupation is proposed as a category having such characteristics: “Knowing what a person does allows us to fall back on stereotypes and to proceed to

60

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

handle what follows in comfortable ways” (Wardaugh 1985:120). Examples from Maynard & Zimmerman’s study, which had students as informants, include year in school, academic major, local residence, and home residence. Inference-rich categories seem to be just what Clark calls cultural communities. Categorization sequences are thus routinized procedures for establishing communal common ground. In the case of questions and answers, communal affiliation is presented explicitly in the discourse. But community membership may also be established more indirectly. People may display membership in a certain cultural community by invoking community-related activities or expertise (Clark 1996:118). In such cases community membership has to be inferred on the basis of the specific activities reported or the knowledge displayed. Maynard & Zimmerman (1984) found that unacquainted pairs, in addition to categorization questions, asked questions about activities related to a certain category (what they called a “category-activity sequence”). Community membership may even be displayed by using words specific to a communal lexicon: Ordinarily, two strangers need to establish which communities they are both members of before they can choose words in talking to each other. [...] Other times, they choose words from a lexicon to signal what communities they are members of. (Clark 1998)

Using terms from communal lexicons may thus be a way of displaying community membership and the associated expertise. Finding special areas of common expertise is not just a way of making the communication of referential content more efficient. It also has a potential for creating emotional involvement in the topic and a resulting affective affiliation between the interlocutors. Goffman has described this social accelerating function of sharing specific knowledge: For in many of the conversations John has with others (whether with familiars or unfamiliars), he will not merely fall back on what can generally be taken to be shared, nor, indeed, will he merely tailor his references to the particular mind of his particular hearer; rather he will be inclined to select from whatever he shares with this other, just those topics that allow him to employ allusive phrases that only the recipient would immediately understand. Thus, his talk will not so much depend on common understanding as seek it out and then celebrate it. (Goffman 1983:18)

This search for particular common ground is also noted by Planalp and coworkers. In their data acquaintances actively sought out topics that established

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS

61

common community membership, and when such topics were found they went deeper into them and disclosed more personal information (Planalp & Garvin-Doxas 1994:13). There are several problems with computing common ground. The two processes of inferring knowledge from community co-membership and community membership from displayed knowledge are both highly probabilistic, and there are many pitfalls. Firstly, a person may display a single piece of community-related knowledge or jargon without thereby belonging to the community. Secondly, it is not necessarily obvious to a member exactly which assumptions can be counted as universal within the community. Some assumptions are more central than others — and thus more universally shared. Finally, people sometimes assume mutuality where it does not exist. They tend to “overestimate the extent to which others know things that they themselves know and, conversely, to underestimate the extent to which others know things that they themselves do not know” (Krauss, Fussell & Chen 1995:135). The main conversational resource for establishing assumptions as common ground is the process of grounding. Information is added to the common ground by evidence of understanding displayed in the acceptance phases of contributions. Adjustments and corrections will typically be performed in side sequences. Here, the parties temporarily leave the ongoing joint project, and initiate a new one that establishes the necessary common ground, before they resume the original project. The role of side sequences in negotiating common ground is the subject of Chapter 6 in this book. Information is presented differently according to whether it is assumed to be already a part of the common ground or not. There are many linguistic markers that have as their main function to mark referents or propositions for common ground status. Definiteness-marking of nouns has as an essential function to mark the referent as either part of common ground or as a new item being added to it (Clark & Marshall [1981] 1992). Discourse referents that are assumed to be uniquely identifiable within a frame of common ground are presented in the form of pronouns (‘he’, ‘it’), demonstrative pronouns (‘that’, ‘this’), definite noun phrases (‘the N’, ‘this N’, ‘that N’) or proper names (‘Joan’, ‘Joan Smith’, ‘Ms. Smith’). Referents that are not assumed to be uniquely identifiable take the form of indefinite noun phrases (‘a N’, indefinite ‘this N’ (as in “Yesterday I met this strange person”)) (Ariel 1988b, Gundel, Hedberg & Zacharski 1993).

62

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Whole propositions may be marked as already in the common ground by such things as pragmatic particles (e.g. German ‘ja’ and ‘doch’), adverbs (‘after all’, ‘obviously’, ‘of course’) and intonation (Ariel 1988a). A common ground particle in Norwegian is ‘jo’ (Fretheim 1991, Lind 1996). Common ground is also the basis for deciding the level of explicitness — what to present in the form of an assertion, what to background in the form of a presupposition, and what to convey implicitly in the form of an implicature. The assessment of the actual common ground is in other words crucial for being able to follow the Quantity maxim, saying neither more nor less than what is required at the present stage of the conversation (Grice [1975] 1989). As a general rule, what is already part of common ground may be presupposed in the conversation, whereas new information has to be asserted explicitly. If information that is not part of the common ground is presupposed, it may be questioned or objected to. However, this is not always the case. Even presuppositions sometimes convey new information, are accepted, and thus create new common ground. As pointed out by Lewis: “Say something that requires a missing presupposition, and straightway that presupposition springs into existence, making what you said acceptable after all” (provided that nobody objects) (Lewis 1991:416). This phenomenon is called accommodation. Choosing a linguistic expression that fits the current common ground is important both for the communication of referential content and for the maintenance of the social relation. The informative motivation is to convey the intended meaning as efficiently as possible, without triggering misunderstandings or unintended implicatures. Saying too much or too little will typically give rise to a search for another, implicit, interpretation of the utterance. The relational motivation is to avoid face threatening acts. Taking too much for granted may give the impression that the speaker is not attentive to the informational needs of the hearer; that he is elevating himself or denigrating the other by ‘talking over his head’. On the other hand, presenting information explicitly that is already in the hearer’s background knowledge may appear as an underestimation of his intellectual capacity and may thus seem patronizing (Sperber & Wilson 1986:218). So in conversation people have several strong motivations for keeping careful track of the common ground and using it to strike just the correct balance between taking for granted and presenting explicitly.

Chapter 3

Methods for analyzing conversation In this chapter I present two different approaches within the field of discourse analysis — Conversation Analysis and linguistic pragmatics — and discuss their methodological stances. This forms the basis for the analytic procedure to be used in this book, which combines the two. There is an array of different analytic approaches to conversation, all with specific theoretical and methodological assumptions (for contrastive expositions, see Taylor & Cameron 1987, Roger & Bull 1989, Schiffrin 1994). The approaches have developed within different academic disciplines and have different ‘godfathers’, such as: • • • • • • •

ethnomethodological sociology (Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson) systemic-functional linguistics (Sinclair & Coulthard) sociolinguistics (Labov) philosophy (Austin, Searle, Grice) micro-sociology/anthropology (Goffman, Gumperz) ethnography of communication (Hymes) social psychology (Duncan & Fiske)

Obviously, these different backgrounds give rise to different problem formulations, methods of investigation and interpretations of data. It is therefore not possible to speak of the methodology of conversational analysis. Rather, there is a need in each case to specify what are the principles and procedures of the analysis at hand. This is what I will attempt here. There are some general patterns in the division of labor among these different research traditions. For instance, linguists are (often) more interested in the deployment of linguistic resources in conversation, sociologists in social interaction, philosophers in meaning, etc. However, several questions pertaining to conversation require interdisciplinary approaches, and there is an increasing number of researchers who combine insights from several disci-

64

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

plines (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1990, 1992, Nofsinger 1991, van Rees 1992a, Clark 1996). Others maintain that the approaches are so essentially heterogeneous that they should be kept distinct (Levinson 1983, Schegloff 1984, 1988a, Watson 1992). In my analyses I will depend both on Conversation Analysis and on more linguistic/pragmatic approaches. I will therefore start out by outlining some of the methodological principles of these different approaches and then go on to discuss their compatibilities and incompatibilities.

3.1 Conversation Analysis Conversation Analysis (CA) has its roots in ethnomethodology, as developed by Harold Garfinkel in his Studies in Ethnomethodology ([1967] 1984). 14 Ethnomethodology can be described as the study of a particular subject matter: the body of common-sense knowledge and the range of procedures and considerations by means of which the ordinary members of society make sense of, find their way about in, and act on the circumstances in which they find themselves. (Heritage 1984a:4)

The focus is thus on the procedures members themselves use in creating social order. The task of the analyst is to uncover and describe this order as it emerges in the situated practices of the members. The central claim of ethnomethodology, which makes it radically different from traditional sociology (and other social sciences), is that the orderliness of human interaction is not to be analyzed by applying rules or standards obtained outside the actual settings themselves (Garfinkel [1972] 1986). Instead it is “recommended that any setting be viewed as self-organizing with respect to the intelligible character of its own appearances as either representations of or as evidences-of-a-social-order” (p. 323). Thus, the order and understandability of a social situation should not be seen as given by some external general principle, but as a contingent achievement, that is, as something produced by the participants in situ. Harvey Sacks developed Garfinkel’s program into a specific methodology for studying conversation. The point of departure was an expectation of “order at all points”, that is, that order could be found at all levels of verbal interaction and that nothing could a priori be dismissed as accidental or irrelevant (Sacks 1984). The aim was to describe this order in terms of recurrent and reproducible formal procedures employed by the conversation-

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

65

alists. The formal system he set out to describe was characterized in terms such as “the grammar” (of social activities) and “the machinery” (of interaction). That the analysis should seek to capture the members’ procedures — their categories and rules — does not mean that the analysis should necessarily be identical — isomorphous — with the intuitions or the ‘lived experiences’ of the members. The analyst’s description is a formal one, using structural terms (such as ‘adjacency pair’, ‘turn-constructional unit’, etc.) for which the ordinary members have only tacit knowledge. Rather, the formal units and rules are intended as descriptions of the tacit knowledge an ordinary member has as part of his or her competence for engaging in and co-ordinating practical activities (such as conversation) with others (Schegloff 1992b:xix-xx). The Conversation Analysis tradition is characterized by strict empiricism and inductivism. It is stressed that the object of study should not be invented or remembered exchanges, but recordings of naturally occurring talk. Sacks argues that relying on intuition or memory will not do justice to the richness of detail found in actual conversations. And from the expectation of “order at all points” such detail cannot be neglected. Also other sources of data, such as interviews or designed experiments are refuted on the grounds that specific details of naturally situated interaction are lost and replaced by idealizations (Heritage 1984a:236). The aim is thus to found a truly empirical sociology which is able to “handle the details of actual events, handle them formally, and in the first instance be informative about them in the direct ways in which primitive sciences tend to be informative, that is, that anyone else can go and see whether what was said is so” (Sacks 1984:26). Actual recorded data have the advantage of making it possible for others to check — and possibly dispute — a given analysis. Furthermore, every claim should be empirically grounded and should not rely on concepts that are not themselves empirically grounded. This excludes characterizing conversational features by reference to mental states, such as intentions and emotions, or to a prioristic theoretical constructs such as goals, strategies and mutual knowledge. This is in line with Garfinkel’s argument that settings should be considered as self-organizing and thus not analyzed by reference to external principles or causes. The inductivist orientation is found in the rejection of pre-formulated theories or hypotheses about communication, language or social structure. The conversation analyst should at the outset assume as little as possible about

66

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

the conversation, apart from the expectation of “order at all points”. The task of the analyst is to discover and describe this order. This may be done simply by “unmotivated looking” in whatever conversational data one has available (Psathas 1995:45). The analyst should describe the order in conversations, not make conversations fit with some pre-established order: The researcher’s analysis [...] is not to be based on some constructive analytic interpretation of such matters as ‘taking the role of the other,’ ‘presenting a self,’ ‘managing impressions’ [...] and the like. All such constructive analytic interpretations are set aside, because they interfere with the direct examination of the phenomena themselves. (Psathas 1995:47).

Other fundamental assumptions of the CA tradition is the indexicality of talk and the reflexivity of discourse and context. Talk is indexical in that it points out its own interpretive context. The context is thus to be found in the talk itself and not in external features (cf. Garfinkel’s point about social situations being self-organizing). The external context (e.g. participant characteristics) has to become internal (that is, part of the interaction) in order to be demonstrated as relevant to the participants: The paradox, then, is this: if some ‘external’ context can be shown to be proximately (or intra-interactionally) relevant to the participants, then its external status is rendered beside the point; and if it cannot be so shown, then its external status is rendered equivocal. (Schegloff 1992a:197)

A patient may very well talk to a doctor without there being any ‘doctorpatient talk’. Besides being doctor and patient, they may also be in-laws, car dealer and customer, co-members of the local ornithology association, etc. Which of the external contextual parameters (identities, roles, institutions, etc.) are relevant for their conversational activity cannot be determined in advance, but has to be demonstrated by the orientations of the participants in the talk itself. Doctor-patient talk is more than just talk between a doctor and a patient. Rather, it is talk in which the participants constitute themselves as doctor and patient respectively in the interaction. This is the reason ethnomethodologically inspired analysts reject considerations of context that are not intra-interactionally manifested. Contexts are generated in interaction by the procedures employed. It is not sufficient that the doctor makes explicit reference to him- or herself as being a doctor. He or she has to talk like a doctor and do the things a doctor is expected to do. The contextual parameters are made relevant to the talk by showing up in the procedures of the interaction. Only in this way can some

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

67

feature of the context — such as participant characteristics — be shown to be consequential for the talk (Schegloff 1992a). This brings us over to the reflexivity of talk and context. The participants in a conversation use their knowledge of the situation to produce relevant contributions and to interpret those of the others. At the same time they use their conversational contributions to constitute a specific definition of the situation. In other words, “it seems at least as appropriate, and perhaps more so, to speak of talk [...] invoking its contexts than it is to speak of context impacting on talk [...]” (Schegloff 1992a:197). Act and activity, discourse and context, co-constitute each other, so that the one cannot be identified or defined independently of the other (Goodwin & Duranti 1992). Norms of interaction are resources for recognizing, understanding and acting within the particular situation: “common norms, rather than regulating conduct in pre-defined scenes of action, are instead reflexively constitutive of the activities and unfolding circumstances to which they are applied.” (Heritage 1984a:109). This reflexivity also gives the grounds for seeing departures from the expected course of action as motivated, meaningful behaviour: The procedures through which action is interpreted are thus doubly constitutive of the activities they organize. They provide both for the intelligibility of perceivedly normal conduct and for the visibility of conduct which deviates from this (Heritage 1987:240).

Deviant cases also testify to the norm in that the deviation itself will either be accounted for or else sanctioned by the participants in the interaction. In this way, they provide extra strong evidence for the normative character of the conversational procedures. In this perspective, participants may become accountable even for the absence of a particular action. For instance, following a question, the lack of an answer will be heard as an ‘official’ absence and the nominated answerer will be accountable for its non-occurrence. The questioner may orient to this absence by repeating the question, or the answerer may account for the absence by giving reasons for why an answer is not produced (such as lack of knowledge, time, etc.) (Heritage 1984a:248f). The reflexive relation is claimed to hold both between the talk and the situation and between the single contribution and its linguistic context. As noted above, the doctor and the patient use specific conversational procedures to invoke a definition of the situation as a medical consultation. And conversely, their knowledge of medical consultations gives them resources for producing and interpreting talk. At the turn-by-turn level, every contribution

68

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

is context-shaped in that it has to be understood by reference to its sequential placement in the conversation. At the same time it is context-renewing in that it adds to the sequence of turns and thus creates a new sequential context for the next contribution to come (Heritage 1984a:242). In this way, context is dynamic, both at a local and at a global level. The importance of a turn’s placement in conversation has made sequential analysis one of the main preoccupations of CA-oriented research. Schegloff and Sacks (1974:241) go so far as to say that “some utterances may derive their character as actions entirely from placement considerations”. Sequential placement is crucial for two different levels of analysis, both the organization of turn sequences, that is, analysis of structure, and the establishment of intersubjectivity, that is, analysis of meaning (cf. 2.1.4). These sequential aspects of conversation are the main resource for the participants to establish common understanding. Also, it is the main resource for the analyst, who may exploit the responsive aspects of turns as a source of knowledge about the participants’ own understandings of each other’s utterances. Thus, sequential analysis is a method for the analyst to approach the participants’ own methods of analysis of the conversation. Taking the perspective of the members means excluding from analysis information that is not available to the participants. Researchers should therefore remain within the participants’ temporal frame and not use knowledge based on what happens subsequently in the conversation to interpret what preceded (Psathas 1995:49). Nor should they draw on information about the participants that come from external sources (interviews, prior experience, etc.) and that is not displayed in the interaction as mutually available to the participants. In trying to capture the procedures of the participants, CA as approach is fundamentally emic. It seeks to identify the functional units in the system used by the participants (thus the parallel with other studies of systems, such as phonemics). The units (such as ‘turn’ or ‘adjacency pair’) are not defined by reference to features of realization, but by reference to their abstract properties which allow the participants to see various realizations as instances of a common system unit. Etic approaches, by contrast, do not study functional properties of units, but particularities of realizations (thus the parallel with phonetics). The focus is on co-occurrence of uninterpreted behavioural units. An illustrative example of the difference between emic and etic approaches to discourse is the two competing accounts of turn-taking, Duncan &

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

69

Fiske (1977) and Sacks et al. (1974). The former are etic in that they start from uninterpreted physical acts — raw data — such as laughing, smiling, pausing, turn length, nodding, gesturing and foot movement. By studying co-occurrence patterns of such acts in connection with speaker transfer they identify various ‘signals’ of turn transition. The latter formulate a system of functionally defined components (such as the ‘turn constructional unit’) and a set rules meant to account for the orderly transition of speakership with a minimum of gap and overlap. The categories do not refer to raw data but to postulated system (or competence) entities that are to account for the data. Conversation Analysis is a qualitative research methodology, and most of its practitioners refrain from quantification. One fundamental reason for this, which follows from the argument about the normative status of conversational rules (cf. above), is that the object of study is not simple regularities, but normative constraints that are continuously present. For instance, when questions are not answered, this does not mean that the adjacency pair rule does not operate.15 On the contrary, the absence of an answer will make the ‘nonanswerer’ accountable for not having answered. As noted above, this may lead to repetitions of the question or accounts by the hearer for the failure to answer. In this way, the sort of rules and structures that are described are claimed to be oriented to whether particular realizations are regular or ‘deviant’. Qualitative analysis is often paired with case studies. Many studies in the CA tradition have in fact been close analyses of one or a couple of single excerpts of conversation (e.g. Jefferson 1984a, Jefferson, Sacks & Schegloff 1987, Psathas 1992)). Some conversational phenomena are so complex in their detail that it is difficult to generalize and say whether some other occurrence is a manifestation of the ‘same’ conversational procedure or some other procedure. And in this perspective a single case is sufficient to motivate analysis. As Schegloff puts it: “one is also a number”: The best evidence that some practice of talk-in-interaction does, or can do, some claimed action, for example, is that some recipient on some occasion shows himself or herself to have so understood it, most commonly by so treating it in the ensuing moments of the interaction, and most commonly of all, next. Even if no quantitative evidence can be mustered for a linkage between that practice of talking and that resultant ‘effect’, the treatment of the linkage as relevant — by the parties on that occasion, on which it was manifested — remains. (Schegloff 1993:103)

It is only on the basis of understanding what the participants are orienting to in a single case that the researcher can know what to look for in other cases.

70

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Failing to see the actual procedures employed by the participants in a single instance, the researcher may proceed to generalize on the basis of superficial similarity in form (thus providing an etic description rather than an emic). Consequently, the only accepted claim of validity within CA is to show that the participants are actually in specific cases orienting to the procedure described by the analyst. Statistics cannot contribute to showing this: Such questions as […] frequency, range, and distribution may be pursued in other inquiries, but they are not relevant in terms of providing proof or validation of a claim about the structure of an interactional phenomenon (Psathas 1995:50).

Conversational organization is a matter of sequential implicativeness, that is, of one type of utterance projecting the occurrence and type of another one. This amounts to more than serial patterning of utterances. For instance, a mere statistical demonstration of greetings co-occurring in series does not itself show what it is that generates this co-occurrence. A co-occurring series of utterances does not entail sequential implicativeness, whereas sequential implicativeness may be used to explain both the co-occurrence and the occasional non-co-occurrence of particular instances. Claims about sequential organization are, therefore, stronger than claims about serial organization. The formal descriptions provided by conversation analysts can hardly be said to be explanatory in the traditional sense. A common requirement of scientific explanations is that they should relate the object of study (the explanandum) to an independent phenomenon (explanans) in some other domain (Faarlund 1987). Ethnomethodology explicitly rejects the use of such external explanations. They provide a generalization in the form of an abstract, formal system that accounts for the actual data. This is more than just giving a description of form regularities (co-occurrence patterns). However, it does not ground the system in discourse-independent phenomena (such as cognitive principles, social maxims or the like). The theoretical constructs created by conversation analysts are said to be explicatory rather than explanatory (Psathas 1995:66). As we shall see, this is one of the points where CA differs from accounts within the field of linguistic pragmatics, which attempts to set up an explanatory framework for conversational contributions.

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

71

3.2 Discourse analysis in linguistic pragmatics Conversation Analysis is a relatively homogeneous tradition of analysis, with some common tools of analysis (‘turns’, ‘adjacency pairs’, ‘preference organization’, etc.) and some generally agreed upon methodological principles. The same cannot be said of the variety of approaches to discourse found within linguistic pragmatics. Though there are some unitary ‘schools’ of analysis, such as the Birmingham school (Sinclair & Coulthard 1975, Coulthard 1992, Stenström 1994), the majority of researchers are rather eclectic in their theoretical and methodological orientations. The approaches Schiffrin (1994) outlines besides CA include interactional sociolinguistics (based on the works of Gumperz and Goffman), pragmatics (based on Grice [1975] (1989)) and Speech Act Theory (based on Austin ([1962] 1975) and Searle (1969, 1979)). However, these seem more to constitute foci of investigation or broad theoretical frameworks than distinct analytic disciplines with their own methodology. In spite of the heterogeneity of the field, I will in the following attempt to outline some basic methodological principles that are common to discourse analysts working within the tradition from Austin, Searle and Grice. This tradition is the basis for the central parts of my theoretical exposition (Chapter 2), namely the theory of common ground, as formulated by Clark (1992, 1996), and Brown & Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory. As described in the previous section, the ethnomethodological tradition starts out with some basic assumptions about the data (“order at all points”, sequential organization of contributions, and reflexivity of discourse and context, cf. Heritage 1984a:241). The pragmatic tradition rather takes as its point of departure a set of assumptions about the process of communication, more specifically that conversation is constituted by purposive, cooperative action and that meaning is created by reference to certain pragmatic principles. In 2.1 and 2.3, I outlined the set of theoretical constructs that form the basis of my study. These may be summarized as in Table 5, which outlines the basic assumptions about conversation and agents in general, and certain more specific assumptions about the cognitive and social processes involved.

72

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Table 5. The theoretical framework of a pragmatic approach to conversation Characteristics of conversation:

joint action activity specific goals purposive contributions

Capacities of agents:

means-ends rationality inferential abilities

Conversational processes:

cognitive

social

General goals:

exchange of information

management of social relationship

Properties of interactants:

diary encyclopedia

positive face negative face

Strategies:

conversational maxims

politeness strategies

Joint actions:

speech acts joint projects

face threatening acts face enhancing acts face maintaining acts mitigating acts

In linguistic pragmatics, then, a conversation is regarded as a joint activity involving certain inherent goals that are sought to be realized by agents through purposive contributions. The agents have the capability of meansends rationality and inference. When the agents enter a conversation, they engage in certain cognitive and social processes. In the cognitive domain, they engage in exchanging information. The information is stored in an encyclopedia and a diary. To convey the information efficiently, the interlocutors rely on certain pragmatic principles, such as the cooperative principle and the conversational maxims. The acts they perform at the micro-level are speech acts, which in turn converge into larger joint projects. In the social domain, the interlocutors engage in regulating the relations of distance and power between them, thus managing their social and interpersonal relationships. In doing this, they present and construe a certain image of themselves and each other, describable as a positive and a negative face. The management of distance and power is regulated by certain politeness strategies and is enacted by actions that either threat, maintain or enhance face, or which mitigate face threats.

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

73

What the pragmatic approach first and foremost supplies is a theoretical framework for understanding how actors jointly work to achieve goals such as exchanging information and managing social relations. It does not provide a readily applicable model for empirical research. On the contrary, the relation to data is a very indirect one. Firstly, traditional pragmatic accounts are usually based on invented utterances in invented contexts. The validity of the claims is thus based on introspection and appeals to native speaker intuition, just like in formal linguistics. Secondly, even when empirical data are analysed, they are often just illustrations of theoretical claims and not objects of study in themselves. Brown & Levinson (1987), for instance, provide ample exemplifications of their politeness strategies from recorded data in three languages. However, nothing is said about the representativity of the examples. It is not clear whether the examples are just single instances or whether they represent frequently recurring patterns, and there is no discussion of data that does not fit into the scheme. In short, the theory is not accountable to a corpus of data and can thus hardly be considered empirical (Schiffrin 1987a, b). The non-empirical bias of pragmatics is due to its origin within the philosophical tradition of rationalism. The aim of Austin, Searle and Grice has not been to make empirically testable claims about conversation, but to formulate the a priori conditions of meaningful verbal interaction. Within the rationalist tradition the validity of a claim is not sought in experience, but in conceptual and logical properties of the argument. It is therefore difficult to imagine what sort of empirical evidence would be required to falsify the principle of cooperation, the maxim of relevance or the felicity conditions of speech acts. Rather, the theoretical constructs are claimed to be valid by necessity, given the nature of talk exchanges, cooperation, rationality, etc. The analysis thus proceeds by conceptual analysis and logically valid inferences rather than by empirical investigation. The fact that traditional pragmatics has not been empirically oriented does not mean that it cannot be made empirical. In fact, Bilmes (1993) argues that the study of implicature may well be conducted using the empirical techniques of CA. This will involve “[looking] at instances of actually achieved implicature and [studying] them as complex assemblages of situated practices” (Bilmes 1993:406). One way of demonstrating that an inference is actually made in conversation, is to show that the response to the utterance triggering the implicature displays an understanding containing such an inference. Politeness Theory takes one step in the empirical direction in designing a

74

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

model that is specific enough to allow predictions. Social psychologists have taken the endeavor further and have operationalized and tested certain variables in the theory (see Brown & Gilman 1989, Turnbull 1992, and Slugoski & Turnbull 1988). Theories of presupposition and common ground have also been applied by social psychologists in empirical studies (cf. the work by Planalp and collaborators reviewed in 2.3.4). Linguistic pragmatics thus generally contrasts with CA in proceeding by a more (hypothetico-) deductive methodology. Problems are formulated by reference to pre-established theories, hypotheses are formulated, and then data are consulted to confirm or falsify them.16 Whereas CA studies usually start from form categories — observable structures in the data — and then assign to them functional (ie sequential) properties, pragmatic studies usually start from function categories — which are theoretical constructs — and then map form categories on to them. One reason for the different approaches of CA and pragmatics may be that their object of study differs. In CA the focus is primarily on conversational organization, whereas in pragmatics it is on issues of meaning. Obviously, statements about organization are more closely related to observable data than are claims about intentions, inference processes and understanding. And processes of utterance comprehension are perhaps more readily observable by introspection than by observation of actual talk. Conversation involves both social processes of organizing and coordinating participatory actions and cognitive processes of displaying and recognizing communicative intentions. In my view, these approaches to discourse supplement each other rather than compete. In some cases the two approaches give alternative accounts of the same discourse phenomenon, and here it becomes especially clear that they are interested in distinct matters. Let us consider Levinson’s (1983) proposal that a traditional pragmatic concept, indirect speech acts, may be better understood in sequential (CA) terms, that is, as truncated pre-sequences. He proposes that indirect requests followed by compliance, such as (1), should be reanalyzed as a truncated version of a pre-sequence (pre-request plus ‘go-ahead-signal’) plus an adjacency pair (request plus compliance), such as in (2): (1)

(Levinson 1983:361) S: Have you got Embassy Gold please? H: Yes dear ((provides))

((INDIRECT REQUEST)) ((COMPLIANCE))

METHODS (2)

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

75

(Levinson 1983:357) A: Hi. do you have uh size C flashlight batteries?((POSITION 1: PRE-REQUEST)) B: Yes, sir ((POSITION 2: GO AHEAD)) A: I’ll have four please ((POSITION 3: REQUEST)) B: ((turns to get)) ((POSITION 4: RESPONSE))

Levinson indicates a preference ordering of alternative formulations, so that the type represented in (1) is most preferred, the one in (2) is least preferred with an intermediate solution being: pre-request — offer — acceptance of offer. His argument is extended and subtle and cannot be rendered in full length here, so I will just go on to cite his conclusion: We can now say that so-called indirect speech acts are position 1 turns — prerequests — formulated so as to expect position 4 responses in second turn. Questions about whether they have ‘literal’ or ‘indirect’ (or both) forces or meanings simply do not, on this view, arise. Such position 1 turns mean whatever they mean; that they can be formulated so as to project certain conversational trajectories is something properly explored in the sequential analysis of successive turns. (Levinson 1983:363)

However elegant this solution is, it is an account of conversational organization (the projection of a certain conversational trajectory) and not of how speakers and hearers display and recognize utterance meaning. What Levinson does is to substitute the term ‘indirect speech act’ for the CA term ‘pre-request’. But CAoriented researchers say nothing about how speakers and hearers display and recognize pre-requests as pre-requests, they just take for granted that they do. And if they were to account for this, it would necessarily have been by invoking notions such as the relevance of the question (the pre-request) to some potential request. And in that case they would be doing just what Grice attempts in proposing his maxim of relevance. The point here is that pragmatics and CA ask different questions, and thus give accounts that complement each other rather than exclude each other. CA accounts for how a question such as “Have you got Embassy Gold please?” projects a certain conversational trajectory (that might be truncated in various ways for reasons of preference), whereas Gricean pragmatics accounts for how a hearer may infer a proposed joint project (that H provide a pack) that is not directly expressed in the question itself. Pragmatics has little to say about the former question, and CA has little to say about the latter. The more fundamental underlying difference is that CA is a primarily structural approach to conversation, whereas pragmatics represents a functional approach (Schiffrin 1994). CA is above all concerned with sequential

76

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

structure. When researchers from this tradition make use of such concepts as ‘question’ and ‘request’ these are thought of as purely structural units, such as constituents of various sequence types. How speakers and hearers come to see these utterances as performing such actions is not considered. Nor is there any explicit discussion of what these acts really are. For instance, it is not intuitively evident exactly what it means to ‘ask a question’. Thus, while CA “uses speech acts as the structural units upon which coherent sequential relations are defined, the functional properties of speech acts do not enter into such definitions” (Jacobs & Jackson 1983:51).17 Pragmatic theorists take function (goal directedness) as the point of departure, and see discourse structures as derivative of this. Thus, the argument is that “the rules and structural patterns identified by a sequencing rules approach [=CA] are the consequences of a more fundamental system of principles by which people rationally pursue goals in conversation” (Jacobs & Jackson 1983:51). In some sense, then, we may say that CA sees (speech act) function as unproblematic whereas pragmatics sees (sequential) structure as unproblematic. Levinson’s reanalysis is just one contribution in a long and fierce dispute between ethnomethodologically inspired conversation analysts and speech act based discourse analysts (Schegloff 1984, 1988b, 1992c, Jacobs & Jackson 1983, van Rees 1992b, Searle 1992, Coulthard & Brazil [1979] 1992). Much of the polemic character of this theoretical discussion could have been avoided if the researchers acknowledged the difference in object of study. It might be more fruitful to focus on how they could mutually benefit from each other. The CA tradition could profit from Speech Act Theory’s explicit specification of what speech acts are and of their conditions of successful performance. This could in CA terms be useful as specifying what an utterance makes the actor accountable for. Speech act theorists, on the other hand, have assigned illocutionary force to utterances in isolation from sequential context. They could thus profit from using interactional criteria as a resource for establishing functional properties of utterances in conversation. An example of successful integration of these perspectives is in my opinion Clark’s (1996) account of language use as joint action (cf. 2.1.3). Pragmatic approaches attempt to provide an explanatory framework for discourse phenomena. This is another point of contrast with the CA framework. CA ‘explicates’ phenomena by formulating a procedure, that is, by relating them to the process of interaction. Pragmatics seeks to explain them by relating them to the actors. The very notion of explanation implies going

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

77

beyond the interaction process itself, as noted by Mey (1993:271): A pragmatic analysis cannot remain on the object language level, describing ‘the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts’, as the conversation analysts (often implicitly) seem to advocate. A pragmatic explanation requires a metalevel, where the facts and factors of the analysis are placed in an overall explanatory framework [...]

Pragmatics explains discourse by reference to what actors are trying to do and consequently relies on concepts such as ‘intentions’, ‘goals’, ‘understanding’, etc. As we have seen previously (in 2.1.3), Grice motivates his maxims in human rationality. Searle’s account of speech acts is grounded in mental representations of the context and speaker intentions. These are features of the cognitive processes of the actors and not of the interaction itself. Pragmatic accounts thus meet the requirement of scientific explanations that the explanans should come from an independent domain. The explanations are sought in the cognitive domain, in features that are common to thought processes in general (rationality, intentionality, etc.) and not just to language production and understanding. The problem with actor explanations is that mental constructs are not observable in themselves. However, if one assumes that linguistic interaction is just one special case of goal-directed, interactive behaviour, evidence can be collected from other domains of experience that are thought to derive from the same mental processes. And this is just what Grice ([1975] 1989) does when he mentions cooperation in non-linguistic interaction as evidence for his principles. Explanations in linguistic pragmatics have tended to relate to the cognitive domain. An alternative would be the social domain, and this has also had some proponents. Habermas (1984), for instance, has proposed a reformulation of Speech Act Theory that grounds speech acts in social conventions. He presents a set of validity claims that speakers make in performing speech acts, which makes them responsible vis-à-vis their addressee for (1) making a true statement; (2) expressing truthfully their beliefs, intentions, feelings, etc.; and (3) performing a speech act that is ‘right’ in respect to the given normative context (consisting in the social obligations of parties in various interpersonal relations) (Habermas 1984:305f). The focus is thus shifted from individual cognitive processes (as in Searle’s work) to social, interpersonal ones. Although Grice explicitly promotes his maxims as strategies of rational behavior in cooperating with others, it is not entirely clear that rationality is

78

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

the only motivation for them. Grice himself seems to suggest that there are also social motivations in noting that “the observance of some of these maxims is a matter of less urgency than is the observance of others; a man who has expressed himself with undue prolixity would, in general, be open to milder comment than would a man who has said something he believes to be false” (Grice [1975] 1989:27). Here the observance of the maxims is not related to effective communication but to social sanctions (‘comments’ by interlocutors). And clearly, the maxim of quality has obvious parallels with moral norms of the society. The manner maxims could correspondingly be compared to stylistic norms of a genre (in this case the norms of academic expository prose). This ambiguity between a rational and a normative motivation for the maxims may be much to blame for the confusion about the status of the maxims and the frequent allegations that Grice imposes a normative standard on communication (cf. Taylor & Cameron 1987, Chilton 1987, Sarangi & Slembrouck 1992). In my opinion, the social interpretation of Grice is not warranted if we consider Grice’s fundamental project. Surely, there exist social norms of proper conduct (moral, stylistic and others), but these are not constitutive of cooperation in the ‘generic’ sense (the sine qua non of interaction) but rather of cooperation in the other sense, as an agreement to work together “willingly and agreeably” (cf. 2.1.3). So at the social level, people generally do not lie in cases where they commit themselves to certain moral standards as part of a social ‘contract’. At the level of rationality, people generally do not lie because indiscriminate lying would make communication and cooperation impossible. The politeness strategies in Brown & Levinson’s account are placed within the Gricean framework and thus have the same basis in means-ends rationality. The authors explicitly refute the view that respect for face consists in “norms or values subscribed to by members of a society” (Brown & Levinson 1987:62). Instead, face is considered as basic wants that participants have mutual knowledge of and thus have to take into consideration while finding means that will satisfy their goals. This means that they do not always show respect for each other’s face. In other words, there can be no general maxim of communication such as ‘Be polite’ (as suggested by Grice and developed by Leech 1983). People may in fact communicate and interact without being polite. The ‘principle of politeness’ as formulated by Leech (1983, cf. 2.3.2) is at best a social norm of certain types of interactions (but by

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

79

no means all) and not a generic feature of producing and interpreting utterances in joint actions. The cooperative principle and maxims are fundamentally different from politeness principles. When a maxim is apparently broken, participants search for implicit meanings that will restore the presumption of cooperation. The maxims are thus robust to counterevidence, making it hard to be genuinely uncooperative. The same cannot be said about politeness. In the face of tokens of impolite behavior we do not generate implicatures that restore an assumption of politeness in the same way (Brown & Levinson 1987:5). In couching their theory in the Gricean framework, Brown & Levinson thus make politeness a feature of rational cooperation and efficient communication. Politeness strategies are not maxims themselves, but rather principled reasons for deviating from the maxims of cooperation. As such, they contribute to specifying the conditions of rational behavior in conversational cooperation. Accounts in CA relate particular phenomena in discourse to abstract descriptions of participant procedures. This is a matter of making generalizations over the data rather than explaining it. If CA accounts were to be considered as explanations, they would be circular. Let us consider again the account of pre-sequences presented above. As noted, CA researchers do not give independent criteria for identifying pre-requests. Pre-requests are what is treated by the participants as pre-requests. But how do we know what participants treat as pre-requests? We find their displays of understanding in the discourse itself (as outlined in 3.1.1 above). Thus, discourse structure is explained by reference to participant orientations and participant orientation is explained by reference to discourse structure. As Taylor & Cameron (1987: 120) note: it is not legitimate (1) to use the conversational data as evidence for the claim that it is by ‘orientation’ to those devices that the conversation develops as it does, when (2) the interpretation of the data itself depends on taking for granted the speakers’ ‘orientation’ to those same organizational devices.

The way out of this circle is not to claim explanatory status at all. Thus, the theoretical system formulated by CA becomes a generalization that accounts for interactional data rather than an explanation of it. What does it mean to ‘explain’ language usage in discourse analysis? Explanation in the humanities and the social sciences in general means establishing after the fact the determining factors of a phenomenon. The ideal of natural sciences — predictive theories — is only attainable for causal pro-

80

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

cesses in closed systems (such as mathematics, logic, etc.) (Flyvbjerg 1991, Chametzky 1992). Language use is not a closed system (the way many would claim the language system is). Being inherently context-dependent, language use is determined by a principally infinite number of potential contextual parameters. Nor are utterances causally determined by underlying rules. Rather, they are motivated by such things as principles and strategies of the actors (Leech 1983:21f). This means that an explanation of the occurrence or meaning of an utterance cannot consist in establishing causal connections to mental processes, social rules or the like. The relation is always indirect and has to make reference to an actor’s goals. This calls for a hermeneutic approach that includes understanding actors’ subjective experience. A pragmatic explanation can thus only consist in an interpretation of a specific speech situation to posit plausible motivations for the actual behaviour. But such attributions can never be definitive. An important feature of implicatures, for instance, is that they are cancellable (Grice [1975] 1989), thus never definitive. Consequently, an explanation of such phenomena can itself only be the analyst’s interpretation of the data and an explicitly founded attribution of motivational factors. In asking why-questions, pragmatic theories not only motivate discourse structures, they may also explain cases that do not fit the procedural account provided by CA. I will use the CA concept of preference to illustrate this. In spite of its name, preference organization is intended to describe a structural and not a motivational feature of discourse. It refers to a priority ordering of alternative courses of action in terms of structural complexity. For instance, after an assessment, agreement is generally preferred to disagreement; after an invitation accepting is preferred to declining (Sacks 1987, Pomerantz 1984). Dispreferred actions are avoided, and, if produced, occur in a marked format. Markers of dispreference are delays (e.g. pauses), prefaces (hesitations, apologies, qualifiers), and accounts (for the inability to produce the preferred action) (Levinson 1983:334). By relating preference uniquely to the structural features of utterances, CA does not speculate on why certain responses are preferred over others. The claims on preference only concern structures observable in data. As noted above, the only requirement is to show that participants orient to the procedure in question. However, this can hardly be met since preference seems to be more a matter of tendencies than of rules. For instance, there are cases like this:

METHODS (3)

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

81

(from Levinson 1983:360) A: ... had to put new gaskets on the oil pan to strop-stop the leak, an’ then I put- an thenR: That was a gas leak. A: It was an oil leak buddy. B: “T”s a gas leak. A: It’s an oil leak.

Here disagreement can hardly be said to be avoided by the interactants. Rather it is sustained over several turns and is not softened in any way. There are no markers of dispreference; the turns are produced with no pauses or hesitation and there are no mitigating prefaces or accounts. On the contrary, certain emphatic markers, such as the emphatic stress on “gas” and the addition of the vocative “buddy”, seem rather to escalate the conflict than to mitigate it. The conversation analyst may treat such instances of apparent counterevidence in two ways, either by weakening the notion of preference, or by proposing amendments to its range of operation. Pomerantz (1984), for instance, has already proposed one such exception to the rule of preference for agreement. She notes that a special class of assessments — self-deprecations — inverses the priority scale, so that disagreements become preferred and agreement dispreferred. In our case, a similar solution could, for instance, be to propose disputes as an activity in which preference organization is inactive. However, it is problematic to keep adding in an ad hoc manner categories that do not fit the rule. The claim of preference organization becomes unfalsifiable if every piece of counter-evidence is met by positing ad hoc-categories of exceptions. If we provide this organizational feature of discourse with an explanatory theory that motivates it, this problem disappears. Politeness Theory can provide such an explanatory framework (Brown & Levinson 1987:38f). It may reframe the notion of preference as a motivational feature. This does not mean making preference a psychological notion, referring to individuals’ feelings of preference; it means basing it on the social obligations of attending to each other’s face. For instance, when invited to a party, people will generally decline in a dispreferred format even if they are personally relieved that they cannot go. This is because declining is a potential face threat (possibly implying not wanting to go) that has to be redressed if one is to heed the face of the other. In this perspective, dispreferred responses are then dispreferred because they are face-threatening. And dispreference markers are realizations of strategies for mitigating or compensating for face threats.

82

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Politeness Theory motivates not only the preference organization as described in CA, but also deviations from it. It explains why the preference for agreement is reversed after self-deprecations, in that agreement would imply a threat to the positive face of the other. Furthermore, Politeness Theory predicts the circumstances in which mitigating strategies will be reduced or suppressed. Politeness strategies will be reduced to the extent that (1) the threat is insignificant, and (2) the partners are solidary (p. 74f).18 So when the object of disagreement does not have great implications for face and the partners are close friends, the need for mitigation will be reduced. Finally, politeness theory does not claim that social actors always work to preserve each other’s faces. Producing non-mitigated FTAs may thus be an instance of face aggravation, that is, a way of increasing social distance (p. 93). Example (3) above may thus be considered as either an instance of reduced attention to face due to low distance between the interlocutors and a relatively insignificant threat implied by the object of disagreement, or as an instance of social distancing (‘quarrelling’). To decide which is the case here we would require more contextual information, but the point is that there are explanations of this behavior that do not contradict the theory and that do not require ad hoc additions to it. Thus, the explanatory theory does not only motivate the discourse structures, but also provides a more cogent descriptive account of actual data. To conclude this discussion, CA and pragmatics may be seen as complementary rather than contradictory approaches to conversation. The analyses carried out in this study rely on both approaches and constitute an attempt to combine them. This does not mean, however, that they should be mixed uncritically. Rather, they can complement each other by being applied in distinct phases of the analysis. A CA analysis may be used for an identification and description of conversational organization, and pragmatics may then be used as an explanatory framework to motivate the structures in a functional perspective. Below I sketch how this procedure is carried out in the empirical analyses.

3.3 Analytic procedure In order to integrate CA methodology with a pragmatic account I propose a two-step procedure for empirical analysis. The first step is primarily based on

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

83

a conversation analytic methodology and the second on a pragmatic approach. As a general characterization, the two steps involve description and explanation respectively. 3.3.1 Step one: description The first step consists in identification and description of certain recurring patterns in the data. The aim is to identify sequential structures which are organized by procedures oriented to by the participants. This is a predominantly inductive process of investigation in that the analyst does not start out with a specific hypothesis about discourse structure but rather inspects the data to see which structures emerge as important for the purposes of the specific analysis. That this process is mainly inductive means that the analyst searches for structures that emerge as characteristic of the data rather than those that are theoretically pre-defined. The conception that the investigation of a corpus can be completely unmotivated does not seem very likely. Rather, the analyst may be well advised to reflect on and discuss the criteria for choosing to study certain structural units (particles, syntactic constructions, sequences) to the exclusion of others. In the case of the present study, the units picked out for analysis have be chosen on the basis of being: • • •

recurrent co-constitutive of the overall activity characteristic of the corpus

The structures identified by this process are self-presentational sequences (Chapter 4), topic introductions (Chapter 5) and side sequences (Chapter 6). These most certainly do not exhaust the set of structures with a potential relevance for the activity of getting acquainted. However, I will here comment on the criteria and how the identified sequences satisfy them. First, the chosen structures are recurrent. My claims concern local procedures with multiple recurrence in each conversation. The total of each sequence type ranges from approximately 60 to 100 instances. This is important in order for me to be able to generalize. The corpus consists of only 5 conversations, and if the unit of analysis were to be each conversation as a whole, the basis for generalizing would have been rather weak. However, as it is, the support for the analysis in each case is a fairly extensive collection of instances of each sequence type.

84

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

The second criterion is that sequences should be relevant to the overall joint activity. I have chosen data from a specific context, first encounters, and thus I have an initial expectation that this context will be relevant to the talk produced. However, I cannot take this for granted. Rather, I have to show by the procedures employed what the participants orient to as the relevant conversational activity. As noted above, the external features of context have to be internally manifested in the conversational contributions to be assumed relevant to the participants. Local procedures and overall activity cannot be defined individually, but co-constitute one another (cf. 2.1.2). This hermeneutic circle implies a methodology that shifts back and forth between a local and a global perspective. My member’s understanding of what is being accomplished in the conversation as a whole is a guide to searching for the relevant local procedures. At the same time it is the very same local procedures that are my primary guide to what the overall activity is. In practice this has drawn my attention to sequences in which the participants display lack of acquaintance (familiarity and solidarity) and demonstrate mutual efforts to establish it. One such locus is a sequence of questions and answers that generate extended self-presentation. Another is the topic introduction procedure, in that it displays an orientation to not presupposing personal common ground or solidarity but, on the contrary, to constructing it. Side sequences are similarly used in cases where a lack of common ground emerges in the conversation and the participants pause to deal with it. In this way, I see all these sequences as (partly) constitutive of the overall activity, which then materializes as ‘getting acquainted’. The final criterion is that the discourse patterns should be characteristic of the corpus. The sequences identified here are representative of the corpus in that they are recurrent and consequential for the conversations as a whole. Especially the topic introductions and the self-presentational sequences are characteristic in that they have an overall structuring effect on the conversations. They ‘set the scene’ for the conversation as a whole. Though the procedures are claimed to be characteristic of this type of conversations, there is no evidence to conclude that they are unique to them. This study does not use contrastive data and thus I have limited possibilities of comparing with other conversational genres. However, in some cases results from other published studies are drawn upon to suggest that the procedures are distinctive of the type of speech event. This is done with some caution and reservation since the other studies are often based on quite different methodological assumptions.

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

85

Validity of the sequential analyses is claimed on the basis of participant orientation. This means that the analysis should provide evidence that the procedure described was actually oriented to by the participants on the particular occasion. One sort of evidence (but not the only one) is the mere recurrence of certain patterns to the exclusion of others. The mere fact that the participants overwhelmingly (to use a CA cliché) do things in the same way is taken as testimony of an underlying procedure. As noted above, recurrence is one of the characteristics of the sequences analyzed in this study. Another sort of evidence is the treatment of deviating patterns. If the regularity is a result of an underlying normative procedure, deviations should be treated as deviations, that is, they should be accounted for. This sort of evidence is also found in the data. For instance, in the description of procedures for introducing topics in Chapter 5, a restriction is formulated that unacquainted pairs do not (and should not) introduce self-oriented matters as brand new topics (that is, not occasioned by prior discourse). In one case, however, one of the participants does introduce a self-biographical narrative that does not initially seem to link on to anything in the prior discourse. In this case, she produces a side sequence in which she provides a misplacement marker, thus accounting for the fact that the topic is not introduced in an appropriate way (see discussion of ex. (30), p. 230). Finally, a source of evidence for participant orientation is metacomments, in which the participants reflect on their own use of certain procedures. For instance, in one place one of the conversationalists (Charlotte) introduces a self-presentational sequence by mentioning the procedure she is about to employ rather than just using it.19 She says: (4)

WIDOW (1: 2033–2036) C: ...(2.6) ja= ... nu börjar-kommer frågan ... om du har ba=rn, ... exmake ... eller, @@ <@ är du änka kanske,

C:

Yeah= ... now begins-comes the question ... whether you have chi=ldren, ... exhusband ... or, @ @ <@ perhaps you’re a widow,

She thus displays a metacommunicative awareness of what she is doing and that it is a conventional thing to do (cf. “now begins-- comes the question...”). Another such example occurs when one participant produces a return question and then provides a metacomment indicating his feeling of obligation to ask:20

86 (5)

GETTING ACQUAINTED ( 2: 710–711) J: .. ’du da? .. jeg må nesten ’spørre --

IN

J:

CONVERSATION

.. ’how about ’you? .. I probably should ’ask --

In claiming that other-oriented topic introductions are subject to a strategy of reciprocity whereby the participants typically return topic initiating questions (cf. 5.8.3) I do not only find support in the recurring pattern of such reciprocal questions, but also in Jens’s expression of obligation to do so. The sequential analyses in this study are thus based on a CA methodology and consequently do not apply quantitative techniques. Counting is most reliably done when based on form similarity. The procedures described here rather involve underlying, functional similarity which may be present across sets of different utterance-tokens. It is in practice impossible to present in writing a qualitative analysis of every instance of a procedure in the corpus, so the presentation consists of close examination of some selected instances. In demonstrating organizational systematicity and participant orientation in each case across a set of instances, I show that the same underlying procedure is at work in each case, although with some variable surface features. In the case of topic introductions, I present some figures concerning the distribution of the different types of introductions in the corpus (cf. 5.5 and 5.7). This does not, however, provide the basis for theoretical claims about the procedures of topic introduction, but is merely an illustrative indication of their distribution in this specific corpus. 3.3.2 Step two: explanation The second step of the analytic procedure consists in relating the identified structures to a pragmatic explanatory framework. In this study the utterances and sequences identified in the first step of the analysis are assigned functional properties in accordance with how they match strategies of politeness, involvement, and of establishing personal and communal common ground. It will then be discussed whether, and to what extent, the structures can be seen as motivated by strategies for establishing familiarity, solidarity and mutual affect, that is, for getting acquainted. A problem in assigning function to form is that a single form can have multiple functions (Taylor & Cameron 1987, Schiffrin 1994). For instance, in Chapter 4 it is noted that the informants repeatedly engage in sequences of

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

87

personal questions and answers. Asking a stranger a personal question may be interpreted in two radically different ways; either as a sign of attention and interest – and thus a positive politeness strategy — or as an intrusion into his or her private affairs (‘territory’) — and hence a face threatening act directed at negative face. As to the first interpretation the personal question may be considered a strategy for establishing familiarity and displaying an affectual commitment, whereas with the second it may not (see discussion in 4.7.1). Such multifunctionality is widespread and has important methodological implications. It implies that function cannot be mapped onto form in an automatic way by means of rules. Rather, function has to be interpreted on the basis of the sequential context. This is in contrast with traditional Speech Act Theory, in which speech act rules are thought to map utterances directly onto illocutionary acts by means of certain ‘illocutionary force indicating devices’ (Searle 1969). In the Gricean framework, functional properties are results of principles, strategies and maxims, which differ significantly from rules. Maxims may conflict with each other and they may apply to various degrees (Leech 1983). Strategies are relative to the specific, situated goals of the interactants. This means that the resulting interpretations are situated (context-dependent), probabilistic and cancellable (Grice [1975] 1989, Leech 1983). Explaining discourse structures in terms of strategies and maxims thus involves using the specific context of each occurrence as a resource for interpretation. Analyses of conversational strategies should thus proceed by close investigation of single excerpts. This does not mean that the identification of instances of strategies cannot be generalized to types of utterances or sequences. Certain features of the utterances and their contexts may be conventionally associated with certain strategies. So, for instance, in the case of the question-answer sequences referred to above, the questions may be made non-intrusive by addressing only ‘public’ information, such as geographic origin, occupation, etc. (the ‘outer layers’ of the self in Social Penetration Theory, cf. 2.2.1). In the context represented in my corpus, this seems to be a conventionalized way of displaying attention and considerateness, that is, positive politeness. In some other context, such as talking to a cashier during a business transaction, this might no longer be the case. The methodological point here is that strategies may be assigned to general classes of utterances in an activity type on the condition that this context-sensitivity is itself made part of the analysis.

88

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Another aspect of the situatedness and context-sensitivity of conversational strategies is that they cannot be assigned to single actors on the basis of their utterances in isolation. Meaning is jointly construed, and the interpretation of the data has to reflect this. This means that utterances cannot be considered as inherently polite or face-threatening or inherently cooperative. Only the interactants’ joint construals of each others presentations can serve as the basis for assigning functional properties to utterances. In sum, then, the first step of the analysis consists in identifying conversational procedures employed by the interactants. This results in a description of certain conversational sequences. The second step consists in interpretation of these sequences with a focus on how they can be seen as conventionally realizing theoretically defined pragmatic strategies, in this case strategies of getting acquainted. In the empirical part which follows below, this procedure is reflected in the structure of the chapters. The first parts are devoted to description of the conversational sequences involved, whereas the last parts discuss these sequences in light of pragmatic strategies and acquaintance.

3.4 Data The corpus of this study consists of five tape-recorded conversations, amounting to a total of 3 hours and 32 minutes of talk. The conversations were collected among unacquainted persons who had come in contact with each another for some real-life purpose. The participants in conversation 1 (Anna and Charlotte) are two Swedish students who participated in a summer school in Norwegian language and literature at the University of Oslo. Jens and Hilde (conversation 2) and Ragnhild and Victoria (conversation 3) are new students in an undergraduate course in Scandinavian Studies at the University of Oslo.21 Conversations 4 (Marta and Sven) and 5 (Bjørn and Lars) are between volunteers (a new and an old) working on the editorial board of a non-profit culture magazine (Cultura). In all the cases, the occasion of the encounter entailed extensive future contact between the participants. The recordings were made in restaurants, bars, and private homes, according to what was most appropriate to the situation. The point was to find a setting that was suitable for sociable talk and that was natural for the participants. In the case of the students, the local university restaurant was used. For

METHODS

FOR

ANALYZING CONVERSATION

89

the volunteers, the recordings were made in connection with a party arranged by the editorial board. The private home where the party was being held and a local bar were used as recording sites. Table 6 presents the identification number of the conversations, the name and sex of the participants, and the location and duration of the recordings. Table 6. Conversations in the corpus No.

Names of participants

Sex

Location

Duration

1 2 3 4 5

Anna - Charlotte Jens - Hilde Ragnhild - Victoria Marta - Sven Bjørn - Lars

F-F M-F F-F F-M M-M

restaurant restaurant restaurant private home bar

63 min. 42 min. 36 min. 36 min. 35 min.

The informants were invited to participate in the conversations on a volunteer basis. They were offered a free meal in a restaurant (or free drinks) and the opportunity of meeting someone else in the group they were joining for an informal conversation. The volunteers were then sketchily informed about the research project and given some instructions. They were instructed to “be themselves” as much as possible, and not to engage in any kind of play-acting. In particular, I asked them to feel free to comment on the situation of being recorded and participating as informants in a research project — which they also did. Having attached the microphones (small ’bugs’) to the participants, I withdrew from the site and left them to themselves. The informants were not selected as representative of the population. Social and cultural variation are not the issues in this study. Rather, the point was to go in depth into the practices of a more or less homogenous group of people to find their common procedures. The informants are all relatively young (between 21 and 36 years of age) and have an urban life-style (yet different geographical backgrounds). A more detailed presentation and evaluation of the data is presented in Appendix 1. After the recordings I had short interviews with the participants individually, asking them what impression they had of the conversation, how much they felt inhibited by the recording situation etc. Most of the informants reported that the microphones had influenced them somewhat in the initial stages of the conversation, but that they became relatively relaxed about it after a short while. The interviews are rendered in Appendix 2.

Chapter 4

The self-presentational sequence 4.1 Introduction How do we start talking when we enter a sociable conversation with a stranger? Most people have something to say about this. When I discuss my work with other people — be it discourse analysts or lay persons — they usually have clear ideas about what is a good or a bad way of starting a conversation with a stranger. They thus have a strong awareness about the conversational procedures involved. The thing most of them comment on is the ‘typical questions’ in first conversations, such as: “what do you do?” and “where do you come from?” Some find them comfortable and useful, whereas others find them dull and conventional and say they try to avoid using them. In any case, most people consider the questions as just a step on the way to something else. Finding an involving topic is the best that can happen, whereas a conversation that never gets past this ‘interviewing stage’ is experienced as boring and unengaging. And you never know who you are going to ‘hit it off’ with. Sometimes the chemistry is right from the very beginning, whereas other times you have to really work to keep the conversation going. What these intuitive characterizations concern is just what this chapter is about. And this academic study is to a large extent in conformity with people’s intuitive reports. The typical questions and their subsequent responses are here dubbed the self-presentational sequence. The basic moves of this three-turn sequence are described in 4.4. But before this I describe the role of questions in the corpus in general (4.3). Section 4.5 takes up the deployment of the sequence in conversations, that is, where it typically occurs and how it contributes to structure the conversations as a whole. I then go on to characterize its role for topic generation, turn allocation and self-presentation (4.6). Finally, I interpret the design of the sequence with respect to its contributions to establishing familiarity, solidarity, and positive affect, that is, acquaintance.

92

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

4.2 The activity and the sequence In Chapters 2 and 3 I stressed the reflexivity of discourse and context. For the present purpose this means that I cannot take for granted that unacquainted pairs talk differently from acquainted ones, nor that the participants orient to their unacquaintedness as relevant to their talk. Rather, these are points to be demonstrated in the analysis. Their degree of acquaintance is but one of a range of contextual parameters which may tailor their conversational behaviour. Their status as unacquainted and the activity of getting acquainted can only be demonstrated as relevant for the participants if it is somehow displayed in the interaction itself. This study therefore attempts to show that the lack of acquaintance is something that is oriented to by the participants. This can be done by describing recurrent and recognizable conversational moves in which the participants themselves make their degree of acquaintedness manifestly relevant. It is not sufficient to find explicit comments by the participants concerning their status as unacquainted. Their being unacquainted also has to be demonstrated to be procedurally consequential for the talk they produce, that is, determinative of the actual conversational contributions of the participants (Schegloff 1992a). I propose that the self-presentational sequence described in this chapter displays these features and thus contextualizes the activity of getting acquainted. The ethnomethodological point underlying these considerations is that conversation has to make itself intelligible, recognizable, by the actual procedures employed. In this way, this study is not a mere description of some regularities in the talk of unacquainted persons. Some such regularities might be accidental, and some might be common to all sorts of conversations. So the aim is more ambitiously to describe the procedures that the participants orient to as a recognizable and orderly activity of getting acquainted. It is not a study of how lack of acquaintance influences the talk, but of how the talk establishes getting acquainted as a mutually relevant activity. In the following, I describe a conversational sequence that generates selfpresentation by one of the parties and I argue that it is used by the participants as a method for recognizably engaging in the activity of getting acquainted. The sequence is based on a question-answer format. But before describing the sequence in detail, it might be a useful first approximation to give some rough quantitative indications of the role of questions in the corpus.

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

93

4.3 Solicitation profile One of the most salient features of conversations between unacquainted interlocutors has been claimed to be the number of questions and their importance in structuring the conversation (Berger & Bradac 1982, Kellermann & Lim 1989). This section is a study of questions and other explicitly evocative utterances, and gives some rough indications of their importance in the corpus. Eliciting information from the addressee may take many forms. It may be done by interrogative utterances or by other sorts of requests to tell, such as: “få höra nu .. det lät ... intressant” — “tell me about it .. that sounds ... interesting” (1:2214). A method for measuring the importance of such contributions is offered by Initiative Response Analysis (Linell & Gustavsson 1987, Linell, Gustavsson & Juvonen 1988). In this approach, conversational contributions with the interactional effect of eliciting information are called strong initiatives. It has to be a request for some substantial informative response, and not just a first pair part of any adjacency pair (such as “hello” — “hello”). ‘Statements about B-events’ (Labov [1969] 1972) are generally counted as strong initiatives, whereas ‘formulations’ (Heritage & Watson 1979) are not. Left out of the category are also rhetorical questions and requests for repair (see Linell & Gustavsson 1987:35-41, 112-131). The percentage of strong initiatives in a conversation is called the solicitation coefficient (Linell & Gustavsson 1987:203). To calculate it, the strong initiatives are first identified and counted. The total number of turns is then divided by the number of strong initiatives. In a modest quantitative analysis I have contrasted parts of my corpus with a small corpus of conversations between acquainted pairs. The conversations between acquainted pairs are chosen from settings that correspond to those found in the corpus, that is, of a sociable type of conversation. These are informal conversations between spouses, friends and colleagues. Two of them (No. 6 and 7) are conversations analyzed by Linell & Gustavsson (1987:211). The other two are analyzed by myself, one of them (No. 8) being also recorded and transcribed by me and the other being taken from Rygh (1994). The excerpts are fairly short (ranging from 98 to 288 turns) and in order to keep to excerpts of about the same size from the corpus of conversations between unacquainted interlocutors, I have restricted myself to the first 200 turns of each conversation.22 The strong initiatives were counted in the two corpora and the respective

94

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

solicitation coefficients were calculated. The distribution of strong initiatives among the individual participants was also noted. The results are presented in Table 7. Table 7. Solicitation coefficients in conversations between acquainted and unacquainted pairs Data selection

Participants

No. of turns

Solicit. coeff.

Distribution

Unacquainted: 1 2 3 4 5 Whole selection

Anna/Charlotte Jens/Hilde Ragnhild/Vict. Marta/Sven Bjørn/Lars

200 200 200 200 200

19 21 15 13 15 16

46/54 36/64 66/34 56/44 43/57

Acquainted: 6 7 8 9 Whole selection

Colleagues Spouses Spouses Close friends

98 109 100 288

13 10 12 11 11

62/38 73/27 75/25 58/42

The percentage of strong initiatives in the conversations among unacquainted interlocutors amounts to an average of 16. The range in the individual conversations is from 13% to 21%. The average in the conversations between acquainted pairs is 11%, ranging from 10% to 13%. There is thus a tendency for the conversations between unacquainted interlocutors to include more evocative utterances than the conversations between acquainted ones. As for the distribution of the strong initiatives among the participants, the two sets of conversations display a more or less equal pattern in that both participants solicit information from one another. A slight tendency that might be worth noting is that the most asymmetrical conversations are found among the acquainted pairs (nos. 7 and 8), while the most symmetrical ones are found among the unacquainted pairs (nos. 1 and 4). This fits in well with the orientation towards reciprocity found in conversations between unacquainted interlocutors (discussed below). The tendency towards symmetrical distribution of strong initiatives distinguishes these conversations from some institutional genres, such as court trials and medical consultations, where strong initiatives are far more asymmetrically distributed (Linell & Gustavsson 1987:215f).

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

95

This is a very rough characterization of the corpus and gives little information about the specific character of the genre. More interesting questions are: what sorts of questions are asked? when are they asked? and how are they responded to? This will be taken up in the following.

4.4 The moves of the self-presentational sequence There is a recurring pattern of question-answer pairs that the conversationalists use to introduce personal talk. Let us look closely at one such passage, before we set out to outline the general characteristics of the sequence. 4.4.1 An instance The excerpt is taken from about 12 minutes into the conversation between Jens and Hilde. Up until this point the conversation has mostly been concerned with their common biographical ties to Northern Norway and their respective academic background and future plans. Then Hilde opens a new topic by asking a question: (1) TEACHER (2:613-625) H: har du tenkt å bli ’lærer? ((SIDESEKVENS UTELATT)) J: ’ja=, jeg ...(1.0) jeg ’tror det, H: .. ’mm. J: ... men= ... jeg sekke bort ifra at det .. kan bli journa’list, .. jeg har tenkt litt på ’forlagsbransjen. H: ... ’mm. J: .. men e= .. sånn som det ser ut ’nå, <@ så blir det nok ’lærer. @>

H: are you planning to become a teacher? ((SIDE SEQUENCE OMITTED)) J: ’yeah=, I ...(1.0) I think so, H: .. ’mm. J: ... but= ... I don’t rule out that I .. might become a ’journalist, .. I have considered ’publishing. H: ... ’mm. J: .. but e= .. the way it looks ’now, <@ I’ll probably end up as a ’teacher. @>

Hilde’s question relates to (future) occupation. It concerns Jens’s personal life, but not the intimate or private sphere. It focuses on the sort of biographical data that people are generally willing to disclose to just about anyone. Such information also invokes ‘inference-rich categories’ (Sacks 1992, cf. 2.3.4) in that it allows the hearer to deduce further categorizations based on experiential stereotypes.

96

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

By relating to such official diary information, the question displays their lack of acquaintance. Hilde focuses the conversation on information that they do not have in common. Yet her question does not display a total lack of common ground. It focuses specifically on one type of profession, namely teaching. In formulating the question in this way, she shows that she is taking into consideration their common status as students of liberal arts in general, and of Scandinavian Studies more specifically. It is common knowledge for such students that a large percentage of them become teachers. The question thus shows an orientation to their common community membership and their shared background knowledge. In this way, the topic initiation accurately indexes their degree of acquaintedness: on the one hand, it displays lack of knowledge about each other’s central biographical data, and the relevance of sharing such information; and on the other, it displays that they are actively exploiting the personal and communal common ground established so far. The answer may also be seen as tailored to fit into the activity of getting acquainted. Rather than just giving an affirmative or negative answer, Jens goes on to mention alternatives that he has considered (journalism and publishing). He thereby volunteers personal information beyond what was explicitly solicited by Hilde. In this way, he treats the question as not merely a request for some specific information, but as an invitation to engage in selfpresentation. At this point the question is answered, and the conditional relevance of the first pair part of the adjacency pair is fulfilled. Jens’s response has indeed volunteered mentionables to a topic about professional aspirations, but at the same time he renounces developing them any further. He closes his response by returning to Hilde’s primary concern by indicating that he will most likely become a teacher. This leaves the floor to Hilde, thus leaving her with the responsibility of developing the topic further in one direction or another. Here is the continuation: (2) H:

PUBLISHING (2:627-641) ... ’ja. H: ... kanskje til å begynn- -ja det e en del som -æ e- ha- noen- en del andre venna ’og ja som tenker på ’forlags=bransjen. .. men den er jo litt ’smalere den stien

... ’yeah ... perhaps to star- -yeah there are quite a few who -I e- hav- some- quite a few other friends ’too who are thinking about ’publishing. .. but then that track is a bit ’narrower

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE ’der da. ... enn= .. veien liksom. J:

H:

.. ’ja. J: ... jeg må nesten ’se hvordan det ’er jeg, jeg-.. på ’hovedfagsnivå så vil jeg prøve å jobbe litt ved ’siden av. .. få meg ’jobb ... innafor ’forlagene, da kan jeg jo se hvordan det ’er. .. ’mm. H:

97

right ... than .. track sort of. ..’yeah. ... I”ll have to ’see how it ’goes, I -.. at the ’graduate level I”ll try to work a bit on the ’side. .. get a ’job ... in a ’publishing house, then I can see how it ’goes. ..’mm.

Hilde’s next turn elaborates on one of the mentionables Jens introduced above, namely publishing. This may seem to contrast somewhat with the distinct focus of her initial question, which was teaching. But by showing interest in the additional, volunteered information provided by Jens, she ratifies his self-presentation as a relevant response, thus showing that she was in fact not just asking for a minimal ‘answer to the question’. In elaborating on publishing as a potential topic, Hilde first relates it to her own personal experiences, namely the similar interests of her friends. This comment grounds the topic in a personal frame, and establishes a certain interactional symmetry between them. Hilde appears as more than just an ‘interviewer’ in that she makes her own personal comments. Furthermore, she displays knowledge of the topic, her next utterance being a statement concerning the lesser chance of getting into the publishing business. By confirming the reportability of Jens’s interests, she invites more talk on that topic. Jens relates her statement to his own plans. He takes her utterance as a point of departure for explaining how he intends to approach the business. In the subsequent talk, Jens takes an independent — that is, uninvited — initiative to give additional information about his motivations for choosing publishing: (3) J:

H:

MONEY (646–681) ...(1.5) så ’lokker egentlig !pengene i ’forlags<@bransjen litt. @> ...

] [åh jeg vet] liksom ingent- -’javel, det e s- ’gode penga å tjen ’der asså?

J:

H:

...(1.5) and then I’m actually a bit ’tempted by the !money in <@ ’publishing. @> ...

] [oh I don’t] know anyth--okay, there”s ’good money to be made ’there then?

98 J:

H:

J: H: J:

GETTING ACQUAINTED ... ’ja=, i alle fall .. i forhold til [<@ en @>] ’lektorstilling. [

] .. men e= ska du -- blir du da for eksempel å prøv og jobb som== -... altså ’kri=tiker, eller .. e= -.. ’nei, [.. jeg tro’kke ’det.] [e det liksom] Brikt ’Jensen som e i’dolet eller? (0) @= .. hvis jeg skulle vært journa’list, var det ’det du tenkte på?

IN

J:

H:

J: H: J:

H:

.. nei nu tenkte [æ på] ’forlager.

H:

J:

[’kri=tiker?] .. ’åja, .. i ’forlag. .. nei æ veit ikke ka dem -.. nei= -(0) vurder ’bøker=, ... ja en= .. [form for konsu’lent,] [æ går ut fra at du ikke akkurat tenkt på] at du skull sitt og [[ .. pakk bøker i ’kassa. @ ]]

J:

H: J: H: J: H:

J: H: J:

H: J: H: J: H:

[[ sånn som nå så er man jo bare ]] ung [og= ] .. helt ’uferdig, [’ja.] så den -.. for å komme inn nå så blir det å lese korrek’tu=r, .. [<X drive X> litt ’bokvask, ] [ åja ’sånn ja. ] .. sånn elementær -.. ’ja. .. enkle ting som sånne som <@ ’meg kan gjørra. @> .. ’ja.

H: J: H: J: H:

J: H: J:

H: J: H: J: H:

CONVERSATION ... ’yeah=, at least .. compared with [<@ a @>] ’teaching job. [

] .. but e= are you-- will you then for instance try to get a job as==-... say a ’critic, or .. e= -.. ’no, [.. I don’t think so.] [is Brikt ’Jensen] your sort of i’deal then? (0) @= .. if I were to be a ’journalist you mean, is ’that what you were thinking of? .. no now I was [thinking of] ’publisher. [’critic?] .. ’all right, .. in ’publishing .. well I don’t know what they -.. well= -(0) evaluate ’books=, ... yeah a= .. [kind of reader,] [I suppose you’re not exactly] planning to sit [[packing books at the ’counter. @]] [[as for now you know I’m just ]] young [and=] .. quite imma’ture, [’yeah] so the -.. to get into it now I’ll have to read ’proofs=, .. [<X check X> ’spelling and that,] [all right like ’that yeah] .. that sort of basic -’yeah. simple things that people like <@ ’me can do. @> .. ’yeah.

It is Jens who brings in the financial aspects of working in publishing. He thus takes an independent initiative to develop the topic further. In this way, Jens

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

99

and Hilde both assume the right to develop the topic. However, Hilde takes on a special responsibility for it. She is the one who initiated it and she pursues it by asking a series of questions. What we find in this excerpt, then, is a pattern of questions and answers which establishes personal information about one of the participants as the topical focus. The other asks a series of questions, and the answers are of an expanded format, typically supplying more information than was requested in the question itself. Though Hilde primarily asks questions, she also contributes topical information, namely what she knows about the publishing business. And although Jens primarily responds to Hilde’s questions, he also takes some initiatives on his own. We thus distinguish a pattern where one party asks questions and the other answers them (and expands on them), but this does not seem to be a rigid distribution of participation rights, since they also make other sorts of contributions. 4.4.2 General outline I propose that what is described above is an instance of a more general procedure that unacquainted conversationalists employ in accomplishing the communicative task of getting acquainted in a sociable setting. I will call it the self-presentational sequence. It includes certain communicative acts which are ordered in a certain sequential arrangement. There are certain constraints on type of contribution, participation format and topical focus. At the same time, there is a certain flexibility and freedom of choice built into the sequence. This makes the activity on the one hand recognizable and routinized, and on the other hand flexible and adaptable (to be developed in Chapter 7). The self-presentational sequence consists of three basic moves, sequentially ordered, with three alternative lines of action in the third position. Below I will first present a brief general outline of the moves and their sequential ordering, and subsequently I will discuss more in detail the constraints associated with them. The moves are presented in Figure 3.

100

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

1) A: Presentation-eliciting question – community membership – biographical information 2) B: Self-presentation. – minimal – expanded 3a) A: Acknowledgement token 3b) A: Continuation elicitor – topicalizer – focused, topical question 3c) A: Self-oriented comment Figure 3. The moves of the self-presentational sequence

The question that initiates the sequence takes the form of an invitation to the other to present him- or herself. Self-presentation is not enacted in the corpus without being occasioned by prior discourse, and this sort of question is the main device used to generate self-presentation. It typically occurs in topicinitial position and is topic-generating. The orientation towards topic generation is displayed by the fact that the question generates expanded responses and/or further sequences of question-answer pairs. The answer to the question displays an orientation to performing selfpresentation in that the preferred response presents information beyond what is asked for. By elaborating on the matter, the self-presentator makes a topical bid. Minimal responses imply a potential declination of developing the topic, but they usually generate further sequences of questions and answers, and thus generally do not close off the topic. In the third position there are several alternative courses of action, partly dependent on the type of response given in the second position. The initiator of the sequence may respond to the self-presentation with only an acknowledgement token (3a). This does not invite further elaboration and is followed by either a return question or a topic change. The continuation elicitor (3b) invites elaboration of the other’s selfpresentation. The initiator does this by confirming the mentionability of the topical items reported in 2). One way of doing this is by producing a topicalizer — a short-form response that marks the newsworthiness of a topical bid

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

101

without itself developing it (e.g. “really?”) (Button & Casey 1984). Another way may be to ask a new question concerning the presented topical item. Finally, initiators of the sequence may connect to the other’s self-presentation by presenting their own experiences, knowledge or attitudes that are in some way related to it (3c). This serves as a device for marking similarity and community co-membership. The self-presentation occasions, and thus ‘legitimizes’ the self-oriented utterance by the initiator. This move represents an initiative to abandon the sequence, and, if followed up by the co-participant, involves a change in turn allocation structure, substituting the other-selection of the sequence with self-selection as the dominant turn-allocating device. After this short presentation, I will now discuss more in detail the characteristics and constraints of the sequence, taking one move at a time. 4.4.3 The presentation-eliciting question (1) The opening move in the sequence is a question concerning the other. The content focus is personal, but not intimate. It concerns either membership in some cultural community or biography. The question about community membership places the other in relation to a certain category of people. These categories are notably the ‘inference-rich categories’ (Sacks 1992) that were presented in 2.3.4. Examples of such questions are: (4) QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP 1:431 C: vad ’läser du? C: 3:98 R: men du har .. ’litt-vit eller noe R: sånn fra ’før har du ’det? 5:56: L: hva ’er det du jobber ’med? L: 5:405: L: er du herfra ’byn eller e du? L:

what are you ’studying? but you’ve taken .. ’Comp Lit or something al’ready ’right? what ’is it you ’do? are you from the ’city here or are you?

To get to know such things as the other’s occupation or place of origin allows the participants to associate the person with a larger group of people and their characteristics. They can use their general background knowledge about typical features of certain cultural communities to draw inferences about the co-participant. These features may be such things as what a person can be expected to know (and consequently what can be treated as common ground), socio-cultural norms and values, etc. The questions are thus not designed to generate just any categorization of the co-participant, but to establish his or her membership in some cultural community. Theoretically one may categorize people from a range of perspectives, such as for instance blood type or

102

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

shoe number, but not all categorizations are relevant to self-presentation in conversations between unacquainted interlocutors. The categorization questions that are used in my data are all oriented to establishing community memberships that involve some cultural expertise. The second set of questions concerns biographical information, that is, information about past experiences, current activities and plans for the future. Some examples are: (5) QUESTIONS ABOUT BIOGRAPHY 1:985 C: har du ’sommarjobb? C: 1:1025 A: hur bor ’du då? A: 1:1088 C: har du ’stor fa’milj? C: 2:222 H: men ’du har ikke tatt .. H: nordisk ’grunnfag i ’fjor? æ meine .. siden ikke vi ’kjenne hverandre, 2:1172 J: har du ’studielån ved ’siden J: av? 3:718 V: så du e- du blir cand mag V: ’nå du? 3:404 R: men du ’snakker fransk og R: har ’bodd i Frankrike eller? 4:646 M: er det noe spesielle emner du M: har lyst til å= ... gå nærmere ’inn på .. i i’dehistorien, 5:23 L: er du ’aktiv i dette bladet ’du, L: 5:162 L: åssen kom ’du inn i dette L: ’her a? ((TIDSSKRIFTSREDAKSJONEN))

have you got a ’summer job? how do ’you live? have you got a ’big ’family? but ’you didn”t take .. the ’first year of Scandinavian ’last year? I mean .. since we haven’t ’met before, do you have a ’student loan as ’well? so you e- you’ll be Cand Mag ’now then? but you ’speak French and you’ve ’lived in France then? are there any special topics you want to go more ’into .. in in the History of I’deas? are you ’active in this magazine, how did ’you get onto ’this then? ((THE EDITORIAL BOARD))

These questions have a personal focus on the other person as an individual. Whereas the community membership questions attempt to associate the person with a category of people, thus making him an instance of a (stereo-) type, the biographical questions ask for his individual characteristics, thus seeking to grasp his individuality. However, the categories are not mutually exclusive. Rather, information about community membership may imply certain assumptions about the biography of the person, just as biographical information may give rise to inferences about community membership. A large part of the biographical questions concern activities associated with some community membership, so-called ‘category-bound activities’ (Sacks 1992). Some of my informants were students, and, as may be seen in

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

103

the examples above, they make this category relevant by asking each other about subjects and exams. In this way, established community membership is exploited as a resource for formulating biographical questions. A characteristic of many of the presentation-eliciting questions is that they are occasioned by the situational context. Those who meet as students ask about each other’s studies, and those who meet as members of the editorial board ask about their relation to the magazine. The questions thus index the occasion of the encounter and the participants’ situational identities. At the same time the questions establish the relevance of these contextual parameters. The focus of the self-presentational questions is personal, but not private or intimate. The categories evoked are publicly available, and the activities inquired about are exercised in public. This means that in general the information solicited is not of a private or sensitive character, but concerns the ‘official façade’ of the person. 4.4.4 The self-presentation (2) The next move in the sequence is an answer containing self-presentation. In line with the specifications given for the question, this means that the answerer presents information that is relevant for establishing a situational identity. The answer may be minimal or expanded. A minimal response does not provide more information than was asked for in the question. But in the sample analysis, we observed that Jens gives an expanded response in that he does more than just inform Hilde whether he plans to work as a teacher in the future or not. He provides some “extra” information, namely examples of other professional careers that he has considered. In this way, Jens treats the question as an invitation to give a general self-presentation concerning career plans rather than just eliciting a yes/no-answer. And Hilde does nothing to correct this interpretation — on the contrary: she elaborates on one of the other careers than the one she asked about, namely publishing. The expanded responses thus show an orientation by the speakers towards self-presentation as the relevant activity in position 2 of the sequence. The expansions generally develop in the direction of giving a more total picture of the person, or relating the facts to other central data of the established situational identity. The minimal responses in this position do not show such an orientation. But they are treated as temporary or partial in that they are followed by further

104

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

questions. Here is an instance, in which minimal responses or short-form answers give rise to a series of new questions. Only when there is an expanded response, including the mentionable ‘Haparanda’, is the pattern broken and an extended topic is elaborated: (6) HAPARANDA (1: 553-583) A: ...(2.0) m= ... och .. du ’läser i Växjö också? C: .. [mhm] A: [eller,] ... och du ’är från Växjö& C: .. [mhm,] A: &[från början] ’också? ...(1.2) <X> du gick till ’lärare. C: A:

C: A: C: A: C: A: C: A:

.. mhm .. ’ett till [’sju.] [<X det var] ganska många här -- X> .. [[jaha]] [[’ett]] till ’sju=. ... hur ’länge har du ’läst då?

... ’tre år. ...(1.3) [jaha det-] [jag går ’ut] till ’jul. ... jaha=, ... det är tre och ett ’halvt, ... det- .. ska väl kunna ’gå att få nån ’lärarjobb nu då? C: ...(1.3) ja .. jag tänker flytta till Hapa’randa, så jag ’klarar mej väl. A: ... har du be’stämt dej <@ för att @> C: .. ’ja== varför ’inte. .. @@@ .. nej [men--] A: [nej] men du måste ha nåt ... <@ nån speciell ’anledning. @> C: [[ja== e=]] A: [[@@@]] C: ...(1.5) ja för det ’första, från ’början-... ja. ...(1.0) ’först var det på ’skämt. ...(1.0) jag var i ’Ryssland nyligen, ((HISTORIE OM TUR TIL RUSSLAND))

A:

...(2.0) m= ... and .. you’re ’studying in Växjö too? C: .. [mhm] A: [or,] ... and you ’come from Växjö& C: .. [mhm,] A: &[from the beginning] ’too? ...(1.2) < X> you were doing ’teacher training. C: .. mhm .. ’one to [’seven.] A: [<X there were] quite a few here -- X> .. [[right]] C: [[’one]] to ’seven=. A: ... so how ’long have you been ’studying? C: ... ’three years. A: ...(1.3) [I see that-] C: [I’m ’quitting] at ’Christmas. A: ... right=, C: that”s three and a ’half, A: ... I .. suppose you’ll ’manage to get a ’teaching job now then? C: ...(1.3) yeah .. I’m planning to move to Hapa‘randa, so I reckon I’ll manage. A: ... have you de’cided <@ to @> C: .. ’yeah== why ’not. .. @@@ .. no [but--] A: [no] but you must have some ... <@ some special ’reason. @> C: [[ yeah== e=]] A: [[@@@]] C: ...(1.5) well ’first, to start ’off with-... yeah. ...(1.0) at ’first it was a ’joke. ...(1.0) I was in ’Russia recently, ((STORY ABOUT TRIP TO RUSSIA))

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

105

As we see, the minimal responses to presentation-eliciting questions do not close the topic, but are pursued by further questioning. In this way, the orientation towards generating topic is displayed. The sequence is not abandoned until an extended turn at talk topicalizes one of the mentionables introduced (Charlotte’s plans for moving to Haparanda). 4.4.5 The acknowledgement token (3a) In some cases the initiator of the sequence produces only an acknowledgement token in response to a self-presentation. By giving only a minimal response, s/he renounces topicalizing the other’s topical bid (Maynard & Zimmerman 1984). By contrast, both the options 3b and 3c topicalize the self-presentation by expanding on the mentionables introduced by the other. Minimal response tokens such as ‘yeah’, ‘mhm’, etc. may signal different things. They may be continuers (Schegloff 1982) which indicate that the person producing it passes the opportunity to take a full turn and that the other may thus continue. Alternatively they may be acknowledgement tokens (Jefferson 1984b) which the speaker uses to acknowledge receipt of the previous contribution. In the first use, minimal responses may be produced at points where the current speaker’s turn is not yet complete, sometimes even in overlap with it. In the second case, they come at a transition relevance place and signal that the previous turn is perceived as complete (and thus that it is possible for someone else to take the next turn).23 In some cases the minimal response may be ambiguous as to whether it is a continuer or an acknowledgement token. Only by reference to the subsequent construal by the participants is it possible to determine its status. In the course of a self-presentation it is quite common that the initiator produces continuers. This is done to signal the relevance and appropriateness of an extended turn by the self-presentator. But sometimes a minimal response follows what may be considered a complete self-presentation, that is, a complete answer to the initial question and a turn that does not itself project more to come. In such cases the minimal response may be construed as either a continuer or an acknowledgement token. In the former case, the self-presentator goes on to expand on his or her earlier self-presentation. Hilde’s minimal responses in (1) (TEACHER) (p. 95) can serve as examples of this. When Jens is asked whether he is planning to become a teacher he produces a minimal, but potentially complete, answer (“yeah=, ... I ...(1.0) I think so,”). Hilde’s response to this is:

106

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

“mm”. Jens then takes the opportunity to elaborate on his plans for the future, thus treating her response as a continuer. In the other case, when a minimal response is treated as an acknowledgement token, the minimal form of the response may be seen as initiating closing of the topic, thus aborting further self-presentation. In such cases the next relevant thing to do will be to produce a topic change. This will often take the form of asking a return question, such as here: (7) J:

H: J: H: J: H: J:

CAND. MAG. (2:287-298) .. @@@ .. du blir cand ’mag til ’sommeren, .. hva er det du=? .. e= !hvis æ klare det ’her da. .. ’ja. (0) nei da har æ tatt ’engelsk mellomfag fra før. ... ’javel. ...(1.3) enn ’du? .. ja jeg få- .. e= blir forhåpentligvis cand ’mag til sommeren jeg ’og.

J:

H: J: H: J: H: J:

.. @@@ .. you”ll be Cand ’Mag by the ’summer, .. what is it that you’ve=? .. e= that is !if I manage ’this. .. ’yeah. (0) well I’ve done ’English second year before. ... ’right. ...(1.3) how about ’you? .. yeah with any luck I’ll hav- .. e= be Cand ’Mag this summer me ’too.

Hilde first produces a minimal self-presentation, in which she merely supplies the other subject of her Cand. Mag.-degree, that is, she just ‘answers the question’ without elaborating any more upon it. Jens responds to this by a minimal acknowledgement (“javel/right”). A gap of 1.3 seconds occurs but neither Jens nor Hilde take the opportunity to pursue the self-presentation. Instead Hilde returns his question and thereby changes the topical focus (from her studies to his). The return question is thus typically used when the initiator does not topicalize the mentionables introduced in the self-presentation. It involves a partial topic shift, changing the participant focus from one speaker to the other, yet retaining the informational focus from the previous episode. The shift implies an inversion of the participation format, so that the main speaker in the previous episode now invites the other to take the role as main speaker. In other cases the participants may change the topic by returning to a previous topic. Here is an example. Jens and Hilde are talking about summer jobs:

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE (8) JOURNALISM (2: 1253–1261) J: ... eller jeg hadde en .. !drøm om å J: jobbe som journa’list da, ... men så ’fikk jeg meg ikke <X noen X> .. journa’listjobb i ’sommer. H: ...(1.9) ja det .. ’det e ’vanskelig. H: J: ... ’ja. J: H: .. du ha”kke tenkt på H: journa’listhøyskolen da? .. det e- -æ ’vet det e vanskelig å ’komme inn og sånn asså, men -J: ... nei jeg tror ikke ’det, J: .. jeg tror jeg har lyst til å få meg en -... ta et ’hovedfag ’her. H: H: ...(1.2) ja’ha. ((TALLERKENKLIRRING)) ...(3.8) ’ja, ...(6.0) J: men= den ’kommende sommeren da, J: så har jeg ikke fått meg ’jobb enda,

107

... or I had a .. !dream of working as a ’journalist you see, ... but then I didn’t ’get <X a X> .. job as a ’journalist this ’summer. ...(1.9) yeah it .. ’that’s ’difficult. ... ’yeah. .. you haven’t thought of the College of ’Journalism, then? .. it’s- -I ’know that it’s difficult to get ’in and stuff, but -... no I don’t ’think so, .. I think I want to get a -... take the ’graduate level ’here. ...(1.2) ’right. ((RATTLING OF PLATES)) ...(3.8) ’yeah, ...(6.0) but= this ’coming summer, I haven’t found a ’job yet,

In discussing summer jobs Jens mentions his wish to work as a journalist. This occasions a question by Hilde as to whether he has considered the College of Journalism. This is a break with the current topic (summer jobs), yet is rather relevant for a previous topic, namely academic careers (cf. example (1) – (3)). Jens gives a negative answer and a short expansion of it to signal that he has decided on the Graduate level of Scandinavian Studies. This may be considered a complete answer to the question, and, in just stating his decision, he does not project further elaboration of the topic either. Hilde’s minimal response therefore appears as an acknowledgement token rather than a continuer. None of them have signalled willingness to pursue the matter further and the topic is closed by yet another minimal response and prolonged silences (cf. 5.3.1 on topic closing signals). Jens returns to their previous topic by producing an utterance that connects directly to what he was saying before Hilde introduced her presentation-eliciting question. This marks the intervening talk as a side sequence (cf. 6.2). This sort of treatment of the self-presentational sequence is possible only when the presentation-eliciting question is occasioned by an earlier topic and inserted into it. The fact that the previous topic has not been closed provides the possibility of resuming it without having to reintroduce it (this is discussed in more detail in 5.3.2).

108

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

4.4.6 The continuation elicitor (3b) Whereas the acknowledgement token is used when the sequence fails to generate topical talk, the next options (3b and 3c) both topicalize mentionables introduced in the self-presentation. The continuation elicitor represents a line of action in which the initiator creates the interactional conditions for extended self-presentation by the interlocutor and fixes the topical focus on him. Furthermore, the complementary interactional pattern is sustained in which one person elicits and the other presents personal information. This often evolves into long sequences of question-answer pairs. The eliciting turn may either be in the form of a topicalizer or a focused question. Both mark the mentionability of (some item of) the self-presentation and invite more of it. Asking additional questions directs the interlocutor to expand in a certain direction and thus restrains the focal range of the subsequent self-presentation. The topicalizer, by contrast, is less focused and just marks the relevance of elaborating on the topical item. The topicalizer conveys a positive evaluation of the topical bid, indicating the speaker’s surprise, interest or approval concerning the reported matters. It may take the form of an echo question repeating what the interlocutor has just said in an interrogative format (interrogative syntax or intonation): (9) R: V:

R: V: R: V: R: V:

FRENCH (3: 404–415) .. men du ’snakker fransk og har ’bodd i Frankrike eller? .. jeg ’snakker fransk, .. v- det er ’morsmålet mitt. .. men= -(0) er det ’det ja? [det var det første --] [ja vi er vokst] ’vokst opp med ’det ja. det var det [[første --]] [[’mm.]] .. vi snakket fransk ’hjemme. .. ’akkurat. (0) det var det første språket jeg ’lærte.

R: V:

R: V: R: V: R: V:

.. but you ’speak French and have ’lived in France then? .. I ’speak French, .. v- it’s my ’mother tongue. .. but=-(0) is it ’really? [it was the first --] [yeah we grew] ’grew up with ’that. it was the [[first --]] [[’mm.]] .. we spoke French at ’home. .. ’right. (0) it was the first language I ’learned.

In echoing what was just said, Ragnhild’s question is formulated so as not to appear as a genuine request for information. Rather it expresses her surprise at Victoria’s previous report and her interest in hearing more about it. In this way, it invites Victoria to expand on her self-presentation, which is exactly what she does in the following.

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

109

Other kinds of evaluative comments can work in the same way. Here is an example of an expression of approval: (10) COASTAL EXPRESS (2: 1001-1011) J: ...(1.2) hva er det du ’jobber som da? H: ... e= æ ha <X jo X> hatt-bestandig hatt veldig .. veldig for’skjellige sommerjobba, æ ha jobba -... men= i ’fjor sommer så jobba æ på ’hurtigruta. J: ... ’nei så !fint. H: .. ’mm. det va h- -’veldig fint, ... og ’veldig bra be’talt. @@

J: H:

J: H:

...(1.2) so what are you ’working as? ... e= I’ve had-always had very .. very ’different summer jobs, I’ve worked -... but= ’last summer I worked on the ’Coastal Express. ... ’wow how !nice. .. ’mm. it was h- -’very nice. ... and ’very well ’paid. @@

The exclamation produced by Jens generates a response in which Hilde expands on the evaluation given by Jens. Her response is not just a comment to Jens’s evaluation, but a further specification of the ‘good and bad parts’ of the job. The topicalizer thus generates an expansion of what was introduced in the first steps of the sequence. The other way of eliciting further self-presentation is to ask more questions. This is in fact the most common move. The questions have two main features which display their sequential placement in the sequence. First, they maintain the same topical focus as the preceding self-presentation. Second, they are more specific and focused than the topic-initial questions that precede them. Like the topicalizers, the questions also mark the mentionability of the self-presentation and its potential for generating a topic. In this way, these moves topicalize the self-presentation of the interlocutor and create the interactional conditions that authorize him to continue to develop the personal topic. We have already studied an example of a series of questions in (6) (HAPARANDA) (P. 104), in which Charlotte’s minimal responses concerning her studies gave rise to continued questioning by Anna. Note that Anna does not close the topic, in spite of the failure to establish topical talk. She continues to ask questions within the same topical sphere, expanding in different directions until a mentionable appears that may be exploited to generate topical talk (Charlotte’s plans of moving to Haparanda). This is topicalized by an echo question, displaying Anna’s surprise: “have you decided <@ to @> move to Haparanda?”.

110

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

4.4.7 Self-oriented comment (3c) In the sample analysis in the beginning of this chapter (ex. 1-3) we saw that Hilde, in response to Jens’s self-presentation, made a connection to her own experience and knowledge of publishing. In (2) (PUBLISHING) (p. 96) she says: “I e- hav- som- quite a few other friends ’too who are thinking about ’publishing.” In the options considered so far, talk about oneself has been restricted to cases where the other elicits such talk by means of a question. But here Hilde initiates self-oriented talk without having been asked a question. This is the third option in responding to a self-presentational utterance. The initiator relates the information given by the interlocutor to own experiences, knowledge or attitudes. The self-oriented comment may give rise to three different sequential developments: 1 The floor is given back to the self-presentator for further self-presentation. 2 The initiator acquires an extended turn at talk to expand on the selforiented comment. 3 The self-oriented comment generates a series of symmetric, self-selected comments by both parties. In (2) (PUBLISHING) Hilde’s comment relates to her experience of having friends considering the same thing and also to her knowledge of the difficulties of getting into publishing (“.. but then that track is a bit ’narrower right ... than the ’teaching .. track”). This does not abort the self-presentation by Jens — on the contrary, he exploits the comment to elaborate on how he intends to go about to achieve his goal. And Hilde accepts this move by continuing to ask questions about his career plans (excerpt (3) (MONEY)). So, even if it is related to herself, her comment primarily concerns Jens’s self-presentation. She makes a statement about a B-event (Labov [1969] 1972), that is, a statement about matters that are supposedly within Jens’s area of expertise. In this way, the next turn is allocated to Jens, who continues to be the primary speaker and the topical focus of talk. This self-oriented comment thus works in much the same way as the continuation elicitor, indicating that the self-presentation is interesting or relevant to the initiator and may be expanded. But the initiator may also shift the focus more radically, so that s/he becomes the new focus of attention. This may be done by making an extended self-oriented turn which becomes an independent self-presentation. This is

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

111

what happens in example (11): (11) OLD NORSE (2: 222-244) H: ...(2.0) men du har ikke tatt .. nordisk H: grunnfag i ’fjor? æ meine .. siden ikke vi ’kjenne hverandre, så må jo de= -J: .. ’nei, J: jeg er faktisk ’ny -.. eller jeg kom hit nå= .. denne ’hausten da. ... så jeg går på littera’turvitenskap.

...(2.0) but you didn’t take .. the first year of Scandinavian ’last year? I mean .. since we haven’t met, that must -.. ’no, I’m actually ’new -.. rather I came here now= .. that is this ’term. ... so I’m taking Comparative ’Literature. .. ’også. .. ’too. H: .. og sk- ska ta ek’samen? H: .. and you’re taking the e’xam? J: .. til ’sommeren. J: .. in the ’summer. ... hvis alt .. går ’bra. ... if everything .. turns ’out right. ..

..

H: .. åja du driv ’også sånn, H: .. okay so you”re up to that ’too, for æ driv også og kjør ’dobbelt nu. cause I”m also doing a ’double course now. J: .. ’ja. J: .. ’yeah. H: .. for at æ tar -H: .. cause I’m doing -eller e= ikke s- riktig ’så ambisi’øst. or e not th- quite ’that ambitious. men æ ska ta noe som heter norrønt but I’m gonna study something se’mesteremne. called basic Old ’Norse .. [’samtidig.] .. [at the same ’time] J: [skal du ’det?] J: [’are you?] H: .. ’mm. H: .. ’mm. .. Norse was very ’nice really, A> ((FORTSETTER OM STUDIENE SINE)) ((CONTINUES ABOUT HER STUDIES))

Here Hilde starts off by asking about Jens’s studies, but upon hearing that he is studying two different subjects in parallel, she self-selects to tell him that she is doing the same thing. Jens produces a topicalizer (“are you?”) and then Hilde goes on to elaborate on her motivations for doing so. The topical focus and the status as primary speaker shifts from Jens to Hilde. Jens contributes to this by his question and thus legitimizes the shift. The third type of sequential development consists in mutual self-selected comments. This changes the basic turn-allocation pattern of the sequence from other-allocation to self-selection. This is what happens in the next excerpt:

112

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

(12) KRISTIANSUND (5: 405–452) L: ...(2.5) er du herfra ’byn eller e du—

L:

B: B:

B: B:

L: B: L:

B:

L: B:

L:

B:

L: B: L: B: L:

(0) nei nei nei neida. ...(1.7) nei jei e= .. øhø ...(0.8) fra Kristian’sund .. en ’gang, ... [for--] [å ja] [[akku-]] [[ja]] ((SIDESEKVENS UTELATT)) .. ja .. e har ’vært der ’ei gang faktisk .. i mitt ’liv. ... å ja akkurat. .. ja ja ja ja det= @[@@]

L: B: L:

B:

[det] e jo en ’fin liten L: [[e=]] .. ’stad. ((/STA:D/)) [[je]] B: .. jaja jøss jada .. ja, .. men det er jo ikkje no sted folk drar i’gjennom .. asså. så det er ikkje no ’sånt [sted (XXX).] [nei nei e skulle] .. skulle faktisk på @ en e=, ...(1.0) på ’seiltur fra Kristian’sund til ’Risør, .. [så det var en større--] [!a= au ’der] au ’der au ’der. .. ja, ... !jøss, ... ja !det er jo ’svært, ... [!her]regud. [ja.] .. hvor lang tid tok ’det a? ... det tok e= ... et par ’uker tror e. .. ja ja det ’må det jo ha gjort. .. ’jøss. ...(1.0) s- jada nei det var helt latt-.. det var= e=--

L:

B:

L: B: L: B: L:

CONVERSATION

...(2.5) are you from the ’city here or are you-(0) no no no not at all. ...(1.7) no I’m= .. hm hm ...(0.8) from Kristian’sund .. ’originally, ... [a long --] [oh yeah] [[righ-]] [[yeah]] ((SIDE SEQUENCE OMITTED)) .. yeah .. I’ve actually ’been there ’once .. in my ’life. ... oh yeah right. .. yeah yeah yeah yeah that= -- @[@@] [it”s] a ’nice little [[e=]] .. ’town. [[I --]] .. yeah sure yeah .. yeah, .. but it isn’t a place that people pass ’through .. you know. so it isn’t ’that sort of a [place (XXX).] [no no I was going] .. was actually going on @ a e=, ...(1.0) on a ’sailing trip from Kristian’sund to ’Risør, .. [so it was quite a --] [!a= ’wow] ’wow ’wow. .. yeah, ... !God, ... yeah !that’s ’something, ... [my] !God. [yeah.] .. how long did ’that take? ... it took e= ... a couple of ’weeks I think. .. yeah yeah it ’must have. .. ’Jesus. ...(1.0) s- yeah no it was completely ridic-.. it was= e=--

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE .. (KREMT) ...(1.5) det ’går jo stort sett ’godt det meste, men ’det det var ren og skjær ’galskap. ((HISTORIE OM TUREN))

113

.. (CLEARS THROAT) ...(1.5) most things usually turn out al’right, but ’that that was pure and simple ’madness. ((STORY ABOUT THE TRIP))

When Bjørn has presented his place of origin Lars makes a self-oriented comment in reporting that he has been there once. They have now established some grounds for assuming mutual knowledge concerning a topical item (Kristiansund), namely that both have been there. Lars’s self-oriented comment does not allocate the next turn to Bjørn. Bjørn at first produces a mere acknowledgement and does not topicalize Lars’s comment. He seems to be about to comment more on this (perhaps humorously, cf. the laughter) but is interrupted by Lars who goes on to make an evaluative statement about the town (“det e jo en fin liten stad” — “it’s a nice little town”). This indicates that they both have equal rights to take the next turn. There are several mentionables that may be topicalized, for instance Bjørn’s adolescence, Lars’s visit, or the town itself. In commenting on the town Lars develops a common topic that does not ‘belong’ specifically to anyone of them (an AB-event in Labov’s ([1969] 1972) terms). Lars’s statement about Kristiansund does not appoint Bjørn as next speaker. However, he self-selects and produces another comment about the town. At the next transition relevance place, no-one is selected as next speaker either and the topic is within their common sphere of expertise. Bjørn’s statement that it is not a place people “pass through” occasions a new selforiented comment by Lars, this time an account for why he went there (namely that he was going on a sailing trip). At this point Bjørn produces a series of topicalizers in the form of several emphatic exclamatives (“!God”, “!that’s something”, “my !God”) and a focused question (“how long did !that take?”). And in the following Lars’s travel becomes the topic. But what we have seen up to this point is a pattern of symmetry and selfselection. The mentionable ‘Kristiansund’ is used as an inclusive topic to which they both can contribute equally. They self-select to do so and do not wait for the other to ask questions. In the next example we can observe the effort made by the participants to create similarity and common ground in the third position of the sequence:

114

GETTING ACQUAINTED

(13) LAST NAME (2: 94-124) J: ...(1.5) men for å fortsette med det= --

H: J: H:

J:

H: J:

H: J:

H:

J: H:

IN

CONVERSATION

J:

...(1.5) but concerning what we were talking about=-... hv- hvor i ... [hvor] i Nordnorge er ’du ... wh- which ... [which] part of Northfra da? ern Norway do you come from? [.æ=.] æ æ e ifra ’Bodø, H: [e=] I I’m from ’Bodø, eller [[ ... ]] kommer fra ’Bodø, or rather [[ ... ]] come from ’Bodø, [[ <X

X> ]] J: [[ <X

X> ]] men -H: but -og navnet er liksom fra ’Meløy da. and my name is sort of from ’Meløy. det er litt lenger ’sør. that”s a bit further ’south. .. and there’s [only] the one family in .. !verden A> .. the !world ... som= ’har det. ... that= ’has it. [

] J: [

] .. ’javel. .. ’right. så det er et ’stedsnavn på en ’øy i so it’s place name on an island close nærheten av ’Bodø? to ’Bodø? .. ’ja. H: ..”yeah. .. det er litt av et ’sammentreff fordi= J: .. that”s quite some co’incidence .. mitt ’etternavn det @@ .. cause .. my last name @@ .. det er også et stedsnavn på en øy it is also a place name on an ’nord for ’Bodø. @ island ’north of ’Bodø. @ .. s- sier du ’det? H: .. i- is ’that so? (0) det er en ’halvøy da, J: (0) well it’s a pe’ninsula, oppå ’Kjerringøy. at ’Kjerringøy. .. [så --] .. [so --] [!Kjerring]øy, H: [!Kjerring]øy, ja det e jo rett= -yeah that’s just= -... S- ’Kvernås? ... S- ’Kvernås? .. e det ’det? .. that’s it? .. ’ja. J: .. ’yeah. .. kanskje ikkje æ -H: .. maybe I’m not so well -nei æ e kanskje ikkje så- godt nok ’kjent maybe I don’t know the place well der. enough. .. ’hm. .. ’hm. ... ’javel, ... ’right, ja men der har æ jo vært en del og gått på well but I’ve been there quite a lot on ’tur og sånne ting. ’walks and stuff like that.

Here Jens extracts certain features of Hilde’s presentation and assembles them

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

115

in a question that takes the form of a reformulation (“so it’s place name on an island close to ’Bodø?”). Of course this is not a mere reproduction of what she said, but a selective and interpreting representation of it. Having had this characterization accepted by Hilde (“yeah”), he goes on to say that the same characterization applies to him as well. He thus first creates an ad hoc category on the basis of Hilde’s contribution and then claims category co-membership. In this way, the common ground is not just unravelled as talk proceeds, but is the result of an effort by Jens to create similarity. Hilde also displays an orientation to establishing common ground by making another self-oriented comment in which she displays her (lack of) knowledge of Jens’s place of origin. She fails to recognize the place name, thus indicating a lack of common ground. However, she goes on to assert whatever common ground there is in presenting her personal experience related to the island (“well but I’ve been there quite a lot on walks and things like that”). In this way, the question-answer format of the sequence may be seen as indexing the lack of common ground and the need to establish some fundamental social coordinates, whereas the self-oriented comment and the following self-selected comments represent an index of the establishment of some common ground. The sequence thus reveals its function as a device for establishing common ground. Once it has achieved doing so, the questionanswer format is abandoned and the discursive roles change. The self-oriented comment establishes an inclusive topic and the asymmetry of the sequence may be abandoned for topical talk with more symmetrical contributions. The connection between finding a common reference point and establishing a topic has been noted by Sacks: [...] if he takes up the topic, we get something happening in which we can see how conversation works at its best, so to speak. And that is [...] turning it into something for us, where what is done first is to turn it into something for you (Sacks 1992, vol. 2:568).

The sequence first opens a potential topic that is other-oriented (“something for you”), and subsequently gives the opportunity as a standardized move to relate this item to the initiator himself, thus establishing it as a topic related to both (making it “something for us”).

116

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

4.4.8 Combinations of options The self-presentational sequence includes basically three moves with certain options for each move. This may be minimally realized in three turns, as in (7) (CAND. MAG.) (P. 106). Other topics may then be introduced, or the talk may develop by different means. But often the moves of the sequence are combined into longer stretches of self-presentational talk. We have already seen an example of a series of questions where new ones were being added as long as the current ones did not result in extended topical talk (ex. (6) (HAPARANDA) (P. 104)). In the sample analysis in the beginning of the chapter, Hilde first responds to Jens’s self-presentation by producing a self-oriented comment (ex. (2) (PUBLISHING) (P. 96)), but leaves the floor to Jens, who continues talking about himself. After that, Hilde goes on to elicit more self-presentation by asking questions. And after a while Jens produces a return question (in line 705: “du da?” — “what about you?” cf. example (29), p. 155). So in this case, all third position options are exploited in order to develop the topic. When options are combined in this way, the third position moves may no longer be in the third turn after the initiation of the sequence. But that is not essential. The main distinction to be made is that between first position moves and third position moves. The first position sets the scene and the subsequent moves are all relative to this scene. The first position question introduces selfpresentation as a new topic, whereas third position moves develop this topic in some direction.

4.5 Deployment of the sequence In the very beginning of a first conversation the participants have not established any common ground that could serve as a resource for generating mentionables for topical talk. In contrast to friends and acquaintances, who may exploit mentionables from previous conversations to introduce first topics, strangers are obliged to begin by introducing ‘brand new’ topics. In this situation they use either setting talk (cf. 5.7.1) or the self-presentational sequence to get started. The sequence is thus a major resource for generating topic in first conversations. It may be introduced by both the participants, and it may be introduced in its own right, that is, it does not require any special occasioning through prior discourse. In this way, the sequence has its natural

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

117

location in first parts of first conversations. To introduce topics later in the conversation the conversationalists may exploit mentionables already generated through topical talk up to that point. The self-presentational sequence has a structuring effect on first conversations. It is used to introduce topics, especially in the first part of the conversation, and thus sets the scene for much of the ensuing talk. The amount of instances of the sequence is greater in some conversations than in others (cf. below) but in those with a high density of sequences the overall structure of the conversation is to a great extent created by the operation of the sequence. The first thing the participants in the corpus ask about is each other’s name. In two of the conversations (Nos. 3 and 4) the participants already know each other’s names (through prior perceptual co-presence, cf. Appendix 1), but in the remaining three conversations they all use questions about names to elicit the first self-presentations. It is doubtful whether questions about names initiate self-presentational sequences. They are typically not topic generating; rather, they project a minimal answer and a return question as the conventional responses. In this respect they are perhaps better treated as (parts of) opening sequences — thus preceding the ‘first topic slot’ (Schegloff & Sacks 1974:242) of the conversation. The routine character of establishing each other’s names in the beginning of the conversation is especially salient in conversation 5, in which Lars, even though he has heard Bjørn’s name mentioned before (by me), starts by asking for confirmation that he has got the right name: (14) FIRST NAMES (5: 7–14) L: ... ’Bjørn .. var ’det ’navnet? B: .. ja ja [ja .. ]

L: [ja mm] ...(2.5)

P> B: .. ja og ’du het igjen,

L: B:

.. æ må [’få det--] [L Lars.] ... ’Lars ja ja akkurat.

L: B: L: B:

L: B:

... ’Bjørn .. was ’that your ’name? .. yeah yeah [yeah ..]

[yeah mm] ...(2.5)

P> .. yeah and what did you say ’your name was, .. I have to [’have it--] [L Lars.] ... ’Lars yeah exactly.

Lars’s question gets a minimal response and is not elaborated upon. Instead, Bjørn returns the question and gets the same type of minimal response. After this reciprocal exchange, their names are established and other topics may be introduced. Exchanging names establishes a central identificational property of the participants but can hardly be seen to be consequential for the rest of the

118

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

conversation. They do not use each other’s names as vocatives during the rest of the conversation and they only occasionally take up names as a topic in itself. Rather, the introduction seems to be a routine serving other purposes, such as subsequent identification vis-à-vis third parties. After names are established the participants start eliciting self-presentations in other areas. Some are occasioned by prior talk and are thus rather context-specific and idiosyncratic, whereas others are common to all the conversations. Two categories of self-presentation that are most recurrent are geographical origin and present occupation. The questions related to these matters are presented here: (15) 1:315 1:431 1: 553 1:834

QUESTIONS ABOUT GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN AND OCCUPATION C: jaha varifrån== kom ’du? okay where did== ’you come from? C: ... vad ’läser du? ... what are you ’studying? A: ... o- .. du ’läser i Växjö också? ... a- .. you ’study in Växjö too? A: jag= måste fråga om det är en .. I= have to ask whether it’s a .. dialect dialekt eller om du har ett or whether you have another mother annat modersmål eller så tongue or something

2:94

J:

2:222 H: 2:276 J: 2:297 J: 2:303 H: 2:466 H: 2:564 H: 2:613 H: 2:705 J: 3:98

R:

3:718 V: 4:547 M:

4:646 M:

... hvor i Nordnorge er ’du fra da? men ’du har ikke tatt .. nordisk ’grunnfag i ’fjor? e= du tok .. ’grunnfagseksamen nå til jul? du blir cand ’mag til sommeren, hva er det du=-enn ’du? men du er ’sikker på at det er !norsk du vil gå ’videre med? ’e du herifra? har du tenkt å bli ’lærer? ’du da?

... so where in Northern Norway are ’you from? but ’you didn’t take .. the ’first year of Scandinavian ’last year? e= you took .. the ’first year exam now at ’Christmas? you”ll be Cand ’Mag this summer, what have you=-how about ’you? but you are ’sure it’s !Norwegian you want to carry ’on with? do you ’come from here? are you planning to become a ’teacher? what about ’you?

men du har .. litt vit eller noe fra ’før, har du ’det? så du e- du blir cand mag ’nå du?

but you’ve taken .. Comp Lit or something al’ready, ’haven’t you? so you e- you’ll be Cand Mag ’now?

jeg for- for’stod det ’sånn på ’deg ((...)) atte ’du hadde tatt en Xdel fag i ’Trondheim, er det noe spesielle ’emner du har lyst til å= ... gå nærmere ’inn på, .. i i’déhistorien,

I und- under’stood you as ’saying ((...)) that ’you had taken X- some subjects in ’Trondheim, are there any special ’topics you would like to= ... go more ’into, .. in the History of Ideas,

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

119

4:760 S:

ka du har tatt ’du da?

so what have ’you studied?

5:23 L: 5:57 L: 5:229 B:

er du ’aktiv i dette bladet ’du, hva ’er det du jobber ’med? kor ’langt har du kommet i i’dehistorien, er du herfra ’byn eller e du--

are ’you ’active in this magazine? what ’is your ’job? how ’far have you got in the History of I’deas, are you here from the ’city or are you--

5:405 L:

What we see here is that all the conversations contain self-presentational sequences that focus on current occupation, such as studies and work. And of the 10 participants 5 ask for geographical origin. All these questions come relatively shortly after the start of the conversation — within the first 15 minutes. All this suggests that questions about geographical origin and occupation are conventional routines and that they have their privileged position in the first part of this type of conversation. Self-presentational sequences are in general more frequent in the initial phase of the conversations. For instance, in conversation 5 Bjørn and Lars start by eliciting self-presentations but quickly abandon this activity. All the selfpresentational sequences are located within the first ten minutes of talk. Some of the pairs start their conversation by commenting on the setting, the encounter or other situational features and only later come around to self-presentations. Marta and Sven (conversation 4), for instance, start by commenting on Marta’s late arrival due to a tram delay and this generates extended talk about ways of getting around in Oslo. This in turn occasions talk about various areas of Oslo. Only after about 12 minutes do they introduce the first self-presentational topic. This occasions two more sequences (all presented in (15) above) before they abandon this activity completely for the rest of the conversation. It is a general tendency that, as the conversations proceed, the selfpresentational sequences become more rare. The participants generally use mentionables from their accumulated common ground to introduce new topics. When presentation-eliciting questions are used they are usually occasioned by some item in the topic in progress. It has been noted that the self-presentational sequence is a resource for introducing brand new personal topics. Once some personal common ground is established, the participants seem to prefer to exploit this resource to starting over again with selfpresentations within a completely new and unrelated area. There is, however, one exception to this pattern. About 55 minutes into conversation 1 there appear some symptoms of difficulty with generating topical talk (cf. 7.2.2). Several topics are introduced but do not generate

120

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

extended talk. As a solution to this problem, Charlotte starts eliciting selfpresentation within a sphere they have not yet touched upon: (16) WIDOW (1:2033-2060) C: ...(2.6) ja= ... nu börjar-kommer frågan ... om du har ba=rn,

A:

C: A: C:

A: C: A: C:

A: C: C:

... exmake ... eller, @@ <@ är du änka kanske, [@@@@ är du vigd. @>] [@@@@@@] nej jag har varken barn eller .. exmake, ... eller ...(1.3) <@ eller [jag är änka. @@@@@@@@>] [@@@@@@@@@] ...(2.0) ne=j, ...(1.0) är du? ...(2.0) (H) (Hx) ... det har jag inte. ... e och ’är inte heller. ... (KREMT) P>] [men man har ju före] detta pojkvänner, ... [[ja=]] [[i den]] stilen. ...(1.5) så är man ju nästan, ... ja. ...(1.3) änka, [@@@@@@@@] [@@@@@@@@@] .. ja. ...(2.1) ’har du någon? ... pojkvän,

C:

A:

C: A: C:

A: C: A: C:

A: C: C:

...(2.6) yeah= ... here begins-here comes the question ... whether you have chi=ldren, ... exhusband ... or, @ @ <@ perhaps you’re a widow, [@@@@ are you married. @>] [@@@@@@] no I’ve neither got children nor .. exhusband, ... nor ...(1.3) <@ nor [am I a widow. @@@@@@@@>] [@@@@@@@@@] ...(2.0) no=, ...(1.0) are you? ...(2.0) (H) (Hx) ... I haven’t. ... e and I ’am not either. ... (CLEARS THROAT) P>] [but of course there have been] boyfriends, ... [[yeah=]] [[that]] sort of thing. ...(1.5) so then I guess you’re almost, ... well. ...(1.3) a widow, [@@@@@@@@] [@@@@@@@@@] .. yeah. ...(2.1) do you ’have someone? ... a boyfriend,

The introduction is performed in a humorous mode, presenting options that are highly unlikely to be relevant, given their age (they are both in their early twenties). After laughing together at this question Charlotte goes on to ask a somewhat more likely question, namely “are you married?”. However, Anna does not respond to this and only answers the joking questions. After some more laughing, she returns the question. Charlotte answers negatively and expands in a more serious direction by mentioning the more realistic option of ex-boyfriends. Once more Anna invokes the joking frame by making a humor-

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

121

ous completion of Charlotte’s utterance (C: “so then I guess you’re almost” A: “a widow”). So twice Charlotte seems to make the focus of the self-presentation more serious, while Anna neglects this and continues in the joking mode. Only with the final question does she succeed in asking a serious selfpresentational question (see continuation in example (21) p. 138).24 The first thing to note here is the metacommunicative form of the presentation-eliciting question: “here comes the question...”. Charlotte thereby seems to display that she is falling back on a routine. This supports the claim that presentation-eliciting questions are a conventional resource for the participants in talking with unacquainted persons (and moreover that they may have a reflexive consciousness about it). Both the metacommunicative format and the joking tone make this a mock initiation of the sequence. However, Charlotte does not seem only to want to joke. In fact, she uses the mockery as a preface to questions that are indeed serious (“are you married?” and “do you have someone? a boyfriend”). The use of humor may thus be an indication that it is not felt to be appropriate to reinitiate self-presentations at this stage of the conversation. Reinitiating the self-presentational sequence is a way of ‘starting from scratch’ and thereby marks their failure of establishing common ground and involvement in the previous topics. In this perspective, the humorous mode may be seen as mitigating the negative relational implications of this ‘delayed’ self-presentation. In other words, this exceptional case seems rather to confirm than to invalidate the claim that the participants orient to the sequence as belonging in the initial phase of the conversation. In parts of the conversations the sequences tend to come in series or clusters. This means that one self-presentational sequence is introduced, developed and abandoned in favor of a new sequence, often introduced by the other participant. This pattern may then repeat itself extensively. This usually occurs when the self-presentational sequences do not generate extended topical talk. Instead there is a phase of mutual ‘interviewing’. One such phase is observable in conversation 2 from line 222 to 303: (17) 2:222 H: 2:276 J: 2:297 J: 2:303 H:

men ’du har ikke tatt .. nordisk ’grunnfag i ’fjor? e= du tok .. ’grunnfagseksamen nå til jul? du blir cand ’mag til sommeren, hva er det du=-enn ’du?

but ’you didn”t take .. the ’first year of Scandinavian ’last year? e= you took .. the ’first year exam now at ’Christmas? you’ll be Cand ’Mag by the summer, what is it that you’ve=-what about ’you?

122

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

The sequences here do not succeed in generating extended topics and instead new sequences are introduced. In the corpus, new sequences are frequently introduced by means of a return question, as in line 303, or a similar question, as in line 276. All in all there is a clear tendency to reciprocate presentationeliciting questions, or at least to take turns at eliciting self-presentation. This gives the conversations an overall symmetrical character and contributes to the clustering effect in certain phases of the conversation. There is considerable variation in how much the participants attend to self-presentation in the individual conversations of the corpus. In conversation 4 there are only 4 instances of the sequence (of which 3 are cited in (15) above) whereas in conversation 2 there are 15 (the duration of the conversations is 36 and 42 minutes respectively). These differences may be due to personal style but may also in part be explained by discourse-internal factors. As will be argued below (in 4.6), the sequence is a resource for introducing a ‘first topic’ or a new topic after a previous topic has been closed. Furthermore, it is designed to generate extended talk. Thus, if the sequence succeeds in generating rich, extended topics the participants will have less need for constantly returning to the sequence to generate new topics. And so, extensive use of the sequence might be interpreted as an index of failure to establish rich, rewarding topics. This point will be elaborated further in Chapter 7.

4.6 International characteristics of the sequence 4.6.1 The sequence as resource for topic initiation and topic pursuit The self-presentational sequence can be considered a resource for unacquainted persons allowing them to introduce talk on personal matters. It is a quite common technique to use the co-participants in the conversation as the source of a new topic (Korolija & Linell 1996). What is particular to conversations among unacquainted pairs, however, is that personal topics have a restricted set of initiation methods. The sequence, involving an other-oriented self-presentational question, is the only initiation procedure for ‘brand new’ personal topics, that is, topics which are used as the first topic of the conversation or which introduce matters that are completely unrelated to prior discourse. By contrast, self-oriented topics are not possible to introduce in their own right, but need to be occasioned by prior discourse (cf. 5.7.3).

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

123

Furthermore, not all other-oriented questions may initiate brand new topics. It is in fact only the community membership questions that may do this, whereas biographical questions need to be grounded in an already established community membership. Such membership may have been established by prior discourse or may be inferred by the present situation. For instance, some of the informants in my data meet in the context of attending the university, and thereby have good grounds for assuming common status as students. Especially the common presence in a setting on a given occasion is an important resource for inferring community membership and introducing biographical questions. In conversation 5, for instance, this is the resource exploited by Lars to introduce the first topic: “are you active in this magazine” (5:24, cf. (15) above). Lars and Bjørn meet in connection with a party held by the editorial board of a culture magazine, where Lars is relatively new. This situation itself gives cues to establishing their common community membership and gives Lars the opportunity to start directly with a biographical question concerning Bjørn’s involvement in the magazine. In contrast to this, Button & Casey (1985) report that the conversationalists in their corpus introduce new topics (and first topics) by announcing news related to themselves.25 In one of their examples a topic is introduced like this: “Oh I got hurt a li’l bit las’ night” (p. 25). This sort of self-oriented topic initiation is not represented in my corpus, and thus seems to presuppose a certain degree of common ground or a common history of interaction. The first position move of the sequence is tailored to generate topic. In general, questions project a next turn in that they are first pair parts of adjacency pairs (Schegloff & Sacks 1974). But some questions project more than this. This is noted by Sacks concerning questions like ‘How have you been?’ in opening sequences. He calls such questions ‘topic openers’ because they “are built so as to invite responses which are more than an answer long, but which admit at least answer-long responses” (Sacks 1992, vol. 2:566). The preferred answer is thus an expanded response, in which the topic is elaborated. A minimal response (“an answer long”) is yet possible as an answer. It does not violate the expectations set up by the first pair part of the adjacency pair, but merely rejects the topic possibilities offered by the question. “There are, then, differential signals for saying, as an answerer, ’Let’s talk some more about it’ or not” (Sacks 1992, vol. 2:565). Schegloff (in prep.) proposes to call such sequences topic proffering sequences. These are generally introduced by questions (or other soliciting

124

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

turns) and usually introduce ‘recipient topics’, that is, topics in which the recipient will be the main speaker and the one with authority. The preferred response is one which accepts or encourages the proffered topic. It will generally take the form of an expanded response which aligns with the polarity of the question. This will be a way of claiming access to the topic, whereas dispreferred responses (minimal, non-aligned responses) will deny access to the resources required to develop the topic proffer. The preference for expanding is exhibited in topic profferers’ tendency to ask twice. In the case of a dispreferred response, this will be to try again along some other, related line, whereas in the case of a preferred response, it will be to narrow the focus of the topic. Presentation-eliciting questions may be used as topic proffers. In these cases expanded self-presentations are preferred responses and display acceptance of the proffered topic. Minimal responses are dispreferred and represent a declination of it. As noted in the analysis above, the interactants in the corpus usually produce answers that give more information than that which is made relevant by the question itself (cf. ex. (1) (TEACHER) (P. 95)). Topic generation is thus a function that is built into the sequence and that the participants orient to when engaging in it. It has also been noted that, in cases where the initial question receives only a minimal answer and thus fails to generate topical talk, new questions are added until the opportunity of expanding is established (cf. example (6) (HAPARANDA) (P. 104)). The third position also offers ways of embracing or rejecting the topical bid made in position two. The first option — the acknowledgement token — does not encourage expansion; on the contrary, it is closure implicative (however, as we have seen, the self-presentator may treat it as a continuer and choose to expand on his/her own behalf). The other two options — the continuation elicitor and the self-oriented comment — are both topicalizing moves. The first invites expansion by the self-presentator, whereas the second presents material that expands on the matter (thus making yet further subsequent expansion relevant). The sequence may thus be considered a catalyst for generating topic: It provides the participants with a conventional resource for reengaging in talk when a topic has been potentially closed, and it is abandoned once an extended topic has been established. However, presentation-eliciting questions do not always aim at introducing new topics. Sometimes they are inserted into topics that are in progress and

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

125

not potentially exhausted. In such cases they may merely suspend temporarily the pursuit of the topic and introduce a side sequence. This is what happens here: (18) STEINKJÆR (4: 189–209) S: .. det virka som at folk som= ’bo=r S: i Oslo og har bodd her lang ’tid og - M: S:

’ja. e= tar banen ... sånn .. auto’matisk.

M: S:

M:

.. ’ja, .. [det= --] [<X det e heilt for]’skjellig det. X> .. ’ja, ... det= -.. ’ja, det= -dere ’ha=r vel ikke= - (0) ’nei, fra ’Steinkjær. .. fra !Steinkjær ja, akku’rat. .. æ ha ’bodd i Trondheim en ’del da.

M:

S: M:

S: M: S: M:

.. ’ja, .. (SNUFS) jeg vet ikke om det ’har noe med det at det ’er .. til’gjengelig å gjøre jeg asså,

S: M:

S: M: S: M:

.. it seems as if people who= ’li=ve in Oslo and have lived here a long ’time and - ’yeah. e= take the tram ... like .. auto’matically. .. ’yeah, .. [that=--] [<X it’s completely ’dif]ferent. X> .. ’yeah, ... it= -.. ’yeah, it=-I guess you do=n’t ’have=- (0) ’no, from ’Steinkjær. .. oh from !Steinkjær, e’xactly. .. I have ’lived in Trondheim quite a ’bit though. ..’yeah, .. (SNIFF) I don’t know if it ’has to do with that it ’is .. a’ccessible like,

Here Marta’s question is inserted into an ongoing discussion about the propensity of Oslo citizens to take the tram rather than walk on their own two feet. It is produced with parenthetical intonation and it interrupts her own utterance in progress (“I guess you don’t have--”), which seems to introduce a comparison with Sven’s home town. This suggests that Marta is merely seeking confirmation for her assumption about Sven’s background in order to make an argument in the discussion. Sven may be seen as recognizing this in that his response is not an extended account of his adolescence but a minimal answer (“no, from Steinkjær.”). Marta produces an acknowledgement token in the third position, thus declining to pursue the matter further. Sven self-selects to

126

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

add another piece of information (that he has lived quite a bit in Trondheim) but this may also be considered as tailored to supply Marta with the relevant background information for her to make the comparison rather than as a topical bid. In any case, Marta does not expand on this either but returns to the previous topic about trams in Oslo. What this example shows is that presentation-eliciting questions are not treated as topic proffers when they are introduced as subsidiary to some already established topic. In such cases the self-presentations in the second position are minimal and they are not expanded in the third position either beyond what may be relevant for pursuing the original topic. The selfpresentational sequence is treated as a side sequence and not a topic proffering sequence (for a discussion of the relation between topic proffering and side sequences, see 5.3.2). In some cases there may be a mismatch between the participants’ understanding of what is being introduced, a topic proffering sequence — making relevant extended self-presentation — or a side sequence — projecting short-form responses tailored to the relevancies of the original topic. Here is such an instance. Charlotte has been telling about her journey to Oslo the day before and her problems getting a room in the student dormitory: (19) JOURNEY (1: 302-334) A: ...(1.5) eh jag kom också i .. i ’går, A: men jag fick ju ’rum <X och så där, X> det var bara att ... jag hade inga-C: ...(1.5) [’sängkläder? @@@@@] C: A: [inga ’sängkläder] eller så, A: så jag la olika ...(1.0) ’kläder ovanpå mej och, ...(1.3) jag [sov] som en ’stock, C: [mhm] C: A: jag var så ’trött, A: jag sov nästan=, ... e= ja en ’elva ’timmar i natt. ...(1.0) @@[@@ fast jag ’frös lite.] C: A: C: A:

[jaha varifrån==] kom ’du? ...(1.7) e= m jag kom-jag studerar i ’Stockholm. mhm, så jag kom ’därifrån.

C: A: C: A:

...(1.5) eh I also arrived .. ’yesterday, but I found a room <X and stuff, X> it was just that ... I had no-...(1.5) [’bedclothes? @@@@@] [no ’bedclothes] and things, so I put various ...(1.0) ’clothes on top of me and, ...(1.3) I [slept] like a ’log, [mhm] I was so ’tired, I slept almost=, ... e= like e”leven ’hours last night. ...(1.0) @@ [@@ although I was a bit ’cold.] [okay where== did] ’you come from? ...(1.7) e=m I came-I study in ’Stockholm. mhm, so ’that’s where I ’came from.

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE C: A:

mhm, fast .. ’innan är jag från … Öre’bro.

C: A:

C:

.. nej jag tänkte= m .. ’resvägen,

C:

A: C:

(0) ja, om det var ... nån stans ’långt ...

A: C:

A:

C: A: C: A:

<X

X> nej ... pratar .. jag-jag byter ’dialekt så ofta så jag -... det kanske <@ ’låter som jag är norrifrån, @@ [@ @ @ @ @ @] [jag är så ’dålig på det med ’dialekt så,] ... mhm. ...(2.7) men du ’fick sängkläder i ’dag? ja. ...(1.3) och e= jag fick låna ’gardiner a v e=, han som bor ’bredvid mig.

A:

C: A: C: A:

127

mhm, although .. originally I’m from … Öre’bro. .. no I was thinking about= m .. the ’journey, (0) yeah, whether it was ... from somewhere ’way ... <X

X> no ... do I .. speak -I change ’dialect so often that I -... maybe it <@ ’sounds as if I’m from up north, @@[@ @ @ @ @ @] [I’m so ’bad at guessing ’dialects so,] ... mhm. ...(2.7) but you got bedclothes to’day? yeah. ...(1.3) and e= I borrowed ’curtains from e=, the guy next ’door.

Charlotte’s question: “where did you come from?” is clearly coherent with Anna’s previous narrative. The question is in the past tense, just as the narrative, and it is introduced by “jaha/okay”. Anna answers by giving more information than is required by the question. She not only says that she came from Stockholm (keeping to the past tense and answering the question) but also volunteers the information that this is where she is studying. This addition gives typical self-presentational information. And after a minimal response by Charlotte (“mhm”) she expands and presents yet more biographical information (“although originally I’m from … Örebro”). This addition cannot be seen as either solicited by the question or relevant to the previous narrative. What Anna is doing is to treat the question as an invitation to present herself more generally. But here Charlotte intervenes and explicitly states by means of a metacomment that she intended to inquire about the journey and not about Anna’s origin. This efficiently aborts further self-presentation by Anna. Charlotte expands on her metacomment by giving an account of why she asked, namely that she wanted to find out “whether it was from somewhere way up (north)” (“om det var nån stans långt uppifrån”). Anna once again frames this question as part of the activity of soliciting self-presentation. She

128

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

responds by giving the reason why Charlotte might have thought she was from Northern Sweden, namely that she changes dialect so often (and thus maybe speaks a mixture of several dialects). Charlotte, however, states that she is not very good at (guessing the origin of) dialects. Her reason for asking may rather be that Anna had just been telling that she had been awfully tired and that she had slept very hard and very long (11 hours). This may have led Charlotte to induce that Anna had travelled extremely far, and this would in turn mean from the northern part of Sweden. Of course, we do not know that this is what motivated Charlotte’s question and her subsequent account, but it gives the most plausible account of why she should guess that Anna comes from Northern Sweden (when she simultaneously denies being good at guessing dialects). This corroborates the analysis that Charlotte with her question (“where did you come from?”) is asking for background information relative to the current topic (Anna’s exhaustion) rather than eliciting self-presentation. Anna, on the other hand, seems to interpret the question as a request for self-presentation. Even when she is informed that Charlotte was not asking for her origin, she goes on to treat Charlotte’s supposition about her coming from the north as a guess about her origin and not about her journey. She does not relate the question and the guess about her coming from up north to the previous topic but to her dialect. She starts asking a question concerning the way she talks, but stops mid-course (“no .. do I .. speak —”). She goes on to give an account of why her dialect may be heard as originating from the north. In doing this she presents even more biographical information, namely that she has changed dialect often (indicating that she has moved around a lot). She is thus still treating Charlotte’s comments as concerning community membership (geographical origin) and not biographical events (her journey). Charlotte does not correct Anna’s interpretation this time. By saying that she is not very strong on dialects, she rather seems to accept the interpretation that her supposition about Anna being from “way up (north)” was based on her dialect. I choose to interpret this as an alignment with Anna so as not having to surface their misunderstanding once more. In this way, it can be seen that they operate throughout within different frames of action — Charlotte trying to develop, through a side sequence, the current topic on biographical events (Anna’s journey), and Anna treating Charlotte’s utterances as a topic proffering sequence, thus inviting extended self-presentation from her. The differences in expectations generated by operating in different frames ought to make the contributions of the other odd and

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

129

unexpected. A phenomenon that might be seen as a symptom of this, is Anna’s unilateral laughter (“maybe it <@ sounds as if I’m from up north @@@@@@@@”). After a gap of 2.7 seconds, Charlotte brings the conversation back on track by returning to another aspect of Anna’s previous topic, namely the lack of bedclothes. They return to the previous topic, and topical talk is reinstated. In this way, the self-presentational questions that are occasioned by prior discourse may be ambiguous as to whether they proffer a new topic or just open a side sequence as an expansion of the current topic. Only the in situ negotiation decides which frame is established. And in some cases, as the one above, competing frames may exist in competition for several turns until a common perspective is found– in this case by returning to the previous topic. 4.6.2 Self-presentation One of the central characteristics of the sequence is that it creates the sequential conditions for extended self-presentation. It gives the adressee of the presentation-eliciting question the opportunity to take an extended turn to talk about him- or herself. Furthermore, it is oriented towards generating information that is central to establishing the situationally relevant identity of the other. This identity can be either the general characteristics of the ‘official façade’ (origin, occupation, place of residence) or more contextually relevant characteristics. The contextual characteristics are those that are more specifically pertinent to the current situation (such as members of the editorial board of the culture magazine) or those that are evoked by the discourse itself. Self-presentation is not enacted in its own right, but always occurs as triggered by something. There are two sorts of legitimation for engaging in self-presentation: – the other invites you to present yourself – the prior discourse makes a self-oriented comment relevant The first option is the introduction of the self-presentational sequence; the other is occasioning (Jefferson 1978, Sacks 1992). The occasion for making a self-oriented comment may be a whole range of things, as long as the selfpresentation may be presented as linking up with it. One sort of occasioning is the self-presentation of the other. This is what happens when the initiator of the self-presentational sequence makes a self-oriented comment in third position. He uses the interlocutor’s self-presentation as a legitimation and anteced-

130

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ent for his own self-oriented comment. The questions about community membership are functionally adapted to the goal of providing a maximum of personal information. They evoke social categories that provide the basis for making inferences about the other’s social characteristics (they are ‘inference-rich categories’ cf. Sacks, quoted above). We activate typified knowledge about community members based on cultural stereotypes. Placing the other within a category of people makes him an instance of a social type. To start with questions concerning the stereotypical characterization of a person is an efficient choice in terms of information processing. It enables us fairly rapidly to make manifest a whole range of assumptions. The assumptions based on stereotypes will be relatively weak, and in need of subsequent adjustment and modification to arrive at more specific characteristics of the individual. Not all categories are inference-rich. This is one of the reasons why some questions are typical of interaction between unacquainted pairs while others are not. As we have seen, questions concerning occupation and geographical origin are frequently asked (when such things are not inferable from the situation), whereas questions concerning for instance blood type or shoe number are not. In our society blood type is not associated with social characteristics, and thus does not provide a resource for drawing inferences about the interlocutor. Finally, some categories are inference-rich, but are not used because of their implications for face. This might be questions concerning religious, sexual or political affiliation (cf. 4.7.1 and 5.8). The sequence is also oriented towards self-presentation by focusing on personal information. The questions that initiate the sequence are tailored to construct an identity in that they ask for things that in some way have a social value. That is, the categories invoked are not indifferent to the individual, but integral parts of his self-image. This means that the other’s evaluation of the category will be associated with his evaluation of the person himself. Expression of indifference or contempt towards the category of people he is associated with, will by definition be a face-threatening act (more about this below). On the other hand, questions initiating the sequence do not concern some of the things that are of the greatest social value to an individual. They do not concern private information such as emotional characteristics or information concerning the private sphere (such as happiness, love relations, etc.). In this way, it is an image of the ‘public person’ that is elicited. These characteristics of the presentation-eliciting questions, I argue, are

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

131

constitutive of the sequence. They are not incidental characteristics, but consequential for their sequential treatment. This means that questions that may not be subsumed under these characteristics will not be recognized by the interactants as projecting this specific sequential pattern. To demonstrate this, I will analyse an example including a similar, other-oriented question occurring in topic-initial position, but where the content does not fit the description above. It appears after Charlotte and Anna have been talking for a while about love relationships. Charlotte has been telling that she is now free and single after having broken up with a guy she lived in with (see (21)). The topic is then closed down and a lapse of 17 seconds occurs: (20) DIVORCED PARENTS (1: 2204-2222) ...(17.0) ((ONE OF THEM USING A NAPKIN)) A: är dina= m= ... dina föräldrar A: are your= m= ... your parents ... fortfarande ’gifta och så. ... still ’married and everything. C: .. jaja. C: .. yeah sure. A: ... mhm, A: ... mhm, ... man märker ganska ...(1.8) ganska ... one can see quite ...(1.8) quite a stor ’skillnad mellan, ’difference between, ... unga människor som har ... ’skilda ... young people who have ... di’vorced föräldrar, parents, .. och dom som ’inte har, .. and those who ’don”t, ... på vilken syn dom har på ... ... as to what their views are on ... på ’parförhållanden och så tycker jag. on being in a ’couple and stuff I think. C: ...(2.3) få ’höra nu, C: ...(2.3) ’tell me about it, .. det lät ... intre’ssant, .. that sounds ... ’interesting, .. få ’höra. .. go ’on. A: jo men jag tycker jag märker på, A: well I think I notice from, ... (KREMT) på folk jag ’känner, ... (CLEARS THROAT) from people I ’know, dom som har ’skilda föräldrar those that have di’vorced parents ... har den där inställningen att dom, ... have the attitude that they, ...(2.0) e== ... mer eller mindre inte ’tror på, ...(2.0) e== ... more or less don’t be’lieve in, ...(1.8) livslånga ... för’hållanden ... och=, ...(1.8) lifelong ... re’lationships ... and=,

Anna’s question after the lapse is not formulated so as to link up with the previous topic (though it ultimately turns out that it does), so it cannot be seen as occasioned by that. Nor does it link up with Charlotte’s situational identity as established by the situational characteristics (they have mainly invoked their status as students and as Swedish tourists in Norway). Nor can the

132

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

question be said to concern the central ‘official biographical information’ relevant to presenting a situationally relevant identity. The question generates a different sequential pattern, and the response to the question does not show an orientation to producing self-presentation. There is no extended response or sequence of question-answer pairs. The question evokes only a minimal response, and the third move does not pursue the other-oriented matters (Charlotte’s parents) any further but rather gives an account of why she asked. This takes the form of a general reflection on the connection between divorced parents and attitudes towards long-term relationships, and does not relate to Charlotte specifically. It does not match any of the options described in the model above (3a, 3b or 3c). Charlotte treats this as a topical bid and topicalizes it by asking Anna to expand. No further selfpresentation is given by either of them, and the topic is elaborated in an encyclopedic rather than in a personal direction. The point here is that the initial question is not treated as a presentationeliciting question. It is not a conventional self-presentational question, and nor is it made relevant by contextual occasioning. It is therefore rather heard as a pre-sequence, projecting a report by Anna. Her subsequent report also takes the form of an account of why she asked. This sort of account is not given for presentation-eliciting questions in the corpus. It appears, then, that in this type of conversation self-presentational questions are relevant in their own right. They need not be occasioned by prior discourse or accounted for by the speakers. They may be used when no topic is in progress, and both participants may introduce them. The sequence thus reflects (and constitutes) self-presentation as a relevant activity in these conversations — an activity that may be introduced appropriately by conventional means without needing to be justified or accounted for specially in each case. 4.6.3 Turn allocation A basic characteristic of the sequence is that it establishes a recognizable turnallocational pattern. One party allocates the next turn to the other by asking questions. As we have seen, being given the turn and invited to talk is a prerequisite for starting to produce self-presentation. The sequence may be prolonged into a series of question-answer pairs when continuation elicitors are used in third position. Both the acknowledgement token (option 3a) and the self-oriented comment (3c) involve exiting from the turn-allocational

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

133

pattern of the sequence, but the continuation elicitor provides the possibility of recycling limitlessly presentation-eliciting and self-presentational moves. In such cases the initiator and the self-presentator embody complementary roles. The self-presentator becomes the main speaker, that is, the one speaking the most and the one that has privileged access to the information talked about. The initiator of the sequence produces soliciting moves. This creates a temporary state of interactional asymmetry. The initiator takes the initiative to introduce the topic and directs the contributions of the self-presentator. This makes him or her the interactionally dominant party, the one setting the agenda for this part of the conversation. However, the self-presentator has the option to decline topics or to expand the topic in directions not projected by the initiator. He or she may thus ‘dominate’ the conversation by speaking the most and by having the right to develop the content of the main bulk of the talk.26 Some genres have such a complementary distribution of contributions among the participants as an overall organizing principle, such as for instance news interviews (Greatbatch 1988). This is not the case for these conversations, however. There is a reciprocity principle at work, so that the roles of inviting and producing self-presentation are reversed from time to time, thus establishing a more symmetrical pattern at a global level (cf. 5.8.3). The typical move that enacts such a reversal is the return question (cf. 4.4.5). The self-oriented comment (option 3c of the sequence) is a move which does not involve further questioning and does not allocate the next turn to the other. Often this involves abandoning the pattern of other-orientation and establishing a pattern of mutual self-selection. In establishing common ground, the self-oriented comment changes the status of the topic from a ‘recipient topic’ (one concerning which the recipient has the primary access and authority) to an inclusive topic, that is, one to which they have common access (an ABevent). This will generally change the turn-allocational pattern. The selforiented comment may be followed by a similar self-selected and self-oriented comment by the co-participant and this may become the pattern for an extended stretch of talk. Such mutual self-selection operates on the basis of occasioning rather than adjacency pairs. Occasioning is a mechanism whereby some conversational contribution is made relevant by reference to a previous contribution, without, however, being projected by it (Jefferson 1978, Sacks 1992).27 As was shown in the analysis of (12) (KRISTIANSUND) (p. 112), Lars establishes Kristiansund as a common reference point by displaying that he personally has access to the topic (“I’ve actually ’been there ’once .. in my

134

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

’life.”). In the following turns he and Bjørn jointly create a topic sphere that is centered on what they have in common. The establishment of this inclusive topic allows the participants to proceed by occasioning and mutual selfselection rather than by chains of question-answer pairs and other-allocation. They actively use each other’s reports on the town of Kristiansund as occasions to make their own comments and do not wait to be invited to talk. In this way, producing a self-oriented comment may be considered an initiative to abandon the sequence in favor of another format of talk. However the shift has to be interactionally accomplished. In the example cited (12), Bjørn accepts the initiative by elaborating on their common point of reference (Kristiansund) rather than continuing his self-presentation or asking Bjørn a self-presentational question. We noted above that self-oriented topic introductions were restricted to people having some common history of interaction. It seems that the mutual self-selection format also requires a certain minimum of established common ground. As noted above, brand new topics among unacquainted pairs are introduced by either setting talk or presentation-eliciting questions. The setting is a resource for establishing common ground by the co-presence of the participants (Clark & Marshall [1981] 1992) and is typically realized by mutual self-selection. Self-presentational topics are introduced by the question-answer format of the sequence and change to mutual self-selection only when a common reference point is found. In this way, mutual self-selection is used in the data only when the setting or the previous discourse establishes common ground between the participants. 4.6.4 The sequence as a procedure for getting acquainted As noted, it cannot be taken for granted that any pattern of linguistic acts found in the corpus is a standardized realization of the communicative activity of getting acquainted. However, the description above has had as a main objective to show that the moves and their organization make the status as unacquainted salient in the discourse and are tailored to deal with this lack of acquaintance. In this way, they contextualize the communicative activity of getting acquainted. The features that contribute to this may be summed up in the following points: •

The lack of common ground is procedurally consequential in that it prevents unacquainted interlocutors from introducing brand new self-

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

• • •

•

•

135

oriented topics (the way acquainted pairs do). By inviting self-oriented talk the sequence establishes the relevance of personal topics and the propriety of talking about oneself. The preference for expanding responses creates the sequential conditions for developing topical talk. The questions concern information that establishes the interlocutors’ community memberships and biographical information relating them to such communities or to the current situation. By this fact the questions highlight their lack of familiarity and the need to establish their situationally relevant identities. By operating in a reciprocal mode the sequence establishes the mutual identities of the interlocutors and thus the conditions for establishing common ground. By allowing for self-oriented comments as responses to self-presentation (option 3c) the sequence facilitates the interactional establishment of community co-membership and common ground.

These features contextualize the activity of getting acquainted in that they deal with the establishment of familiarity, that is, the sharing of personal information. But personal relationships also involve solidarity and positive affect. These other relational aspects of the conversations will be considered in the next section.

4.7 Relational aspects of the sequence The main focus up until now has been on the description of the moves of the sequence and their sequential organization. The sequence has shown to have an inherent orientation toward dealing with the lack of acquaintance between the participants. The activity of getting acquainted may thus be considered as interactively established once the sequence is employed. We now move on to a more interpretive stage in the analysis. The interactional patterns are here to be explained as strategies for establishing a personal relationship. The moves are interpreted as to their relational effects, to which degree they can be said to develop familiarity, solidarity and positive affect.

136

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

4.7.1 Other-orientation as attentiveness The other-orientation of the sequence lies in the question-answer structure. The initiator introduces personal talk by asking the other a self-presentational question. This other-orientation is prolonged in cases where the initiator continues to solicit self-presentation by using a continuation elicitor (3b). These moves instantiate the positive politeness strategy: “Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 103). The initiator makes the interlocutor the focus of attention and thus displays interest in his/her person and biography. By continuing to ask questions (option 3b) s/ he intensifies this attentiveness. The form of the presentation-eliciting questions reflects a concern to let the other establish for him- or herself a socially acceptable identity. First, the questions focus on features that are central to defining a specific social identity, and, second, they solicit information that a person may reveal without the risk of losing face. I will discuss these two points in turn. That the questions show an orientation toward establishing a social identity means that they concern matters that, in the given culture, are central to ascribing a certain social value to a person. As noted, the questions typically concern such things as geographical origin and present or future occupation. In Norwegian (and Scandinavian) culture these are important points of reference that people both identify themselves with and use to categorize other people. Regional culture and dialects have a fairly high status in Norway and local patriotism is strong. The significance of a person’s occupation is due to our socio-economic system, in which occupation is — to some degree at least — a matter of choice and among the most significant factors determining a person’s position in society (wealth, power, status, etc.). The information that is significant for establishing a social identity varies from culture to culture. In another culture it might be ancestry or ethnic origin. In this way, the conventional presentation-eliciting questions may be seen to reflect the social value system and the ideology of the culture. The self-presentational sequence shows an orientation by the participants not to threaten the face of the other. Presentation-eliciting questions are chosen not only according to their inference potential, but also according to their degree of sensitivity. Questions such as: “Are you a practising Christian?” or “Are you heterosexual?” may certainly be inference-rich, but are yet not standardly used in first conversations. The questions the participants ask

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

137

generally concern matters that cannot be assumed to be of a compromising or intimidating character. The participants respect the positive face of the other by asking questions that allow the other to present a positive self-image and by not raising matters that might be discrediting to it. They respect negative face by not asking questions that invade the other’s private sphere. Inquiring into the affairs of another person might thus be regarded as an intrusion upon his or her ‘territory’. In this perspective, information about the person is regarded as (private) property, which is not automatically given out to just anyone. And some sorts of personal information are considered to be more private than others — in our culture it might be such things as religion, sex, politics or personal finances. Presentation-eliciting questions may thus both constitute a display of attentiveness and interest in the other and a potential threat of intrusion. The way this conflict is handled in the selfpresentational sequence is by conventionally focusing on ‘public’ or ‘official’ information about the other. For instance, information about origin and occupation are part of a person’s public ‘façade’ and something people are willing to reveal to just about anyone (and commonly do in filling in various official forms). The patterns of self-disclosure in the corpus are thus in line with the hypothesis of layering of personal information as presented in Social Penetration Theory (cf. 2.2.1). Unacquainted conversationalists ask questions at a relatively superficial, non-intimate level. As for attention to positive face, it may not always be clear what could be potentially discrediting to the other. For instance, it is possible to imagine contexts in which the conventional question about occupation may threaten positive face, such as when a person is unemployed or has a job with significantly lower social prestige than the others. However, in my data the participants are fairly similar with respect to occupation, and they have good reasons to assume this equality given the occasion of their encounter. Other aspects of identity which may reveal social inequalities or personal inadequacies are generally not focused on in presentation-eliciting questions. In this way, the self-presentational sequence may be seen as designed to allow the presentation of a positive self-image and to protect the negative face of the participants. To illustrate the conventional politeness built into the design of the sequence I will show how two occasional deviations from this get treated as problematic by the participants. These are instances in which the presentationeliciting questions may be seen as threatening the other’s positive and negative face respectively. In both cases there are signs of unease in the subsequent

138

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

talk and certain remedial techniques are employed to compensate for the threat. Both instances are from the conversation between Anna and Charlotte. Let us first consider an instance of the sequence which may be regarded as an intrusion into the private sphere. After some self-presentational questions concerning civil status (rendered in (16) (WIDOW) (p. 120)) Charlotte asks a question concerning Anna’s love life. The question is presented as occasioned by her own mention of boyfriends in a previous turn (“but I mean you’ve got ex-boyfriends, that sort of thing”; cf. example (16)). As we shall see, there are indices of unease with the introduction of such intimate affairs: (21) BOYFRIEND (1: 2057–2097) C: ...(2.1) ’har du någon? ... pojkvän. A: ...(2.0) mhm. ...(2.5) sen= ... ett halvår tillbaka. C: .. mhm. ...(1.7)

A: C: A:

C: A:

C:

C: A: C:

.. <X vad X> sa du? A: .. är det relativt ny=t då? C: .. [

] [ja= ett] halvår är väl e=, A: ...(1.5) jag vet inte, ... för ’mej är det inte, .. så väldigt nytt för jag har inte ... e, .. PAR> nej men jag (H) jag har inte ägnat mej så mycket åt ...(1.2) åt e= .. såna relationer. @@ [@@@@@@] [nej nej @@@@] C: nej ...

...(4.0) nja== ((SPISING)) A: ...(5.6) m= ... har du någon som sitter i Växjö och=, ...(1.6) <SUKKENDE jag vet inte om C: han sitter och längtar, SUKKENDE> ... !nej, ... sån där e=, ...(1.3) å ska man säga, ...(1.6) väldigt nytt. ... nej .. inte alls det,

...(2.1) do you ’have someone? ... a boyfriend. ...(2.0) mhm. ...(2.5) for= ... half a year now. .. mhm. ...(1.7)

.. <X pardon? X> .. is it relatively new= then? .. [

] [yeah I] suppose half a year is e=, ...(1.5) I don’t know, ... for ’me it isn’t, .. so very new cause I haven’t ... e, .. PAR> no but I (H) I haven’t gone that much in for ...(1.2) for e= .. that sort of relationships. @@[@@@@@@] [no no @@@@] no ...

...(4.0) well== ((EATING)) ...(5.6) m= ... do you have someone sitting in Växjö and, ...(1.6) <SIGHING I don’t know if he’s sitting there longing, SIGHING> ... !no, ... sort of e=, ...(1.3) what shall I say, ...(1.6) very recent. ... no .. not at all that,

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE ... nej .. från början så kan man säga så här att, ... jag har bott tillsammans med en kille och så== ja, ... !ho!ho. ((INN I MIKROFONEN))

A: C:

.. @@@@@@ ... så e= ... det tog slut .. ungefär för ett halvår sedan, ...(1.5) så jag är nu fri och obunden och vill ’vara det, ... och kanske just därför att jag vill vara det så, ... träffar man .. hela tiden, mhm. A: .. stöter på, C: ... några som .. !inte vill att jag ska vara fri och obunden. ...(1.0) den senaste ... har följt mej till tåget, och lovade skriva, så vi får se.

139

... no .. from the beginning you could say that, ... I have lived with a guy and then== well, ... !ha !ha. ((INTO THE MICROPHONE)) .. @@@@@@ ... then e= ... it broke upp .. about a half a year ago, ...(1.5) so now I’m free and unfettered and I want to ’stay that way, ... and maybe just because I want to stay that way, ... all the time .. I keep meeting, mhm. .. bumping into, ... people who .. !don’t want me to be free and independent. ...(1.0) the most recent one ... accompanied me to the train, and promised to write, so we’ll see.

Charlotte’s question is a potential transgression of Anna’s right to privacy and thus a threat to her negative face. However, the sequence occurs at an advanced stage of the conversation (after more than 55 minutes) and she may consider this as legitimizing such a step into the private realm. They have had some time to ‘get closer’, and have in fact already performed certain intimate self-disclosures (Anna has for instance revealed a story of an emotional conflict with a guide on her trip to Nepal). At this stage Charlotte might consider that they have established sufficient intimacy for opening up more of their ‘inner lives’. Anna’s response is delayed by two seconds, and takes the form of a minimal response (“mhm”), that is, a dispreferred response. Such a response might in turn be elaborated by both parties. But another prolonged gap follows (2.5 seconds) which might be interpreted as hesitation to pursue the matter. Only then does Anna give a bit more information by adding the duration of the relationship (“for half a year”). After yet another prolonged gap Charlotte asks whether it is “relatively new”. This may seem a somewhat odd question since Anna has just said how long she has been dating, and Anna hesitates a while before finding a suitable answer. But the question is understandable as a compromise between the two

140

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

opposing demands; on the one hand to follow up the topic she has herself introduced, and on the other to avoid intruding more into Anna’s private matters. This is done by not asking for any new information about the boyfriend, but just following up what Anna has voluntarily contributed. It might even be interpreted as giving Anna a reason for not wanting to talk about it (the fact that it is so recent), thus accounting for her hesitation. In not asking for new information beyond what is already on the table she does not contribute to elaborating the topic and may thus be seen, on the contrary, as offering a possibility of closing it (cf. 5.3.1). Again, Anna does little more than answer the question. She says that she does not experience the relationship as very new and then she gives an explanation of why she thinks so. Her turn ends in what seems to be an embarrassed laughter. Neither of them elaborate any more on the topic and Charlotte produces a closure implicative receipt token (“no I see”). Anna reciprocates Charlotte’s question, and gets a far more expanded response. Charlotte produces an extended turn, and voluntarily reveals considerable intimate information about herself (the breaking up with a live-in boyfriend, the desire to be free and unrestrained, doubt about the affection of her new boy-friend). Her readiness to enter into private topics displays that she considers the degree of intimacy obtained sufficient for such talk. This move may thus be seen as purporting to retroactively legitimize her own question. The difference in elaboration of the sensitive topic may not only be due to different assessments of the situation. It may also be related to different speech styles (Tannen 1984) and differences in personality. In the post-recording interview both Anna and Charlotte reported a general impression that Charlotte was more willing than Anna to be “open” and “personal” (cf. 7.2.2). What we see in this example, then, is a presentation-eliciting question which seems to be taken as an intrusion into Anna’s private sphere. Anna shows her unease with the topic by long hesitations, short-form, dispreferred responses and embarrassed laughter. Charlotte orients to Anna’s markers of unease by fairly quickly offering the opportunity of closing the topic. In this way, the construal of the question as face-threatening leads to mutual efforts to minimize the damage and exit from the sequence. Presentation-eliciting questions may also threaten positive face by raising matters that may be unfavourable or discrediting to the self-image of the other. Here is an example:

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE (22) ACCENT (1: 834-858) A: ...(1.0) har du=-jag= måste fråga om det är en .. dialekt eller om du har ett annat modersmål eller så. C: .. brytning? A: ... ja=, C: ja där kom det, vänta, ... det tog dej en halvtimma, !wow==. [annars får man höra det] direkt. @@@ A: [nej= men ja- jag-- ] C: nej ..[[jag k- e=]] A: [[jo men jag var]] tvu-- !aj ... ja- för jag har nämligen själv fått frågan e-... par gånger av e=,

A:

C: A: C:

A: C: A:

... invandrare som har frågat mej om jag är, ...(1.0) om jag är från ... nåt annat land. ... !det är jag ju inte. ... så ... då är det ju min dialekt så dom--

C:

.. därför är jag lite rädd å slänga meur mej det också <@ om det bara [är en dialekt. @>@] [nej .. det är jag van.] C: ... nej jag har brytning, e= jag ... f- ... flyttade till p- -från Polen till Sverige, med mina föräldra när jag var tolv.

141

...(1.0) do you have=-I= have to ask whether it’s a .. dialect or whether you have another mother tongue or what. .. accent? ... yeah=, yeah there it came, wait, ... it took you half an hour, !wow==. [usually people tell me] at once. @@@ [no= but I- I --] no .. [[I c- e=]] [[hey but I was]] oblige-- !oops ... I- cause you see I have been asked that question a- ... couple of times myself by e=, ... immigrants that have asked me if I’m, ..(1.0) if I’m from ... some other country. ... and of course I’m !not. ... so ... then it’s my dialect that they -.. that’s why I’m a bit afraid of coming out with it too <@ if it’s just [a dialect. @>@] [well .. I’m used to that.] ... anyway I do have an accent, e= I ... m- ... moved to p- -from Poland to Sweden, with my parents when I was twelve.

Anna asks whether Charlotte speaks a dialect or has some other mother tongue. The threat to Charlotte’s positive face becomes apparent in the conversation in Anna’s indirect and hesitative formulation of the question and in her subsequent justification of it. Anna aborts her initial question and restarts. In this process she reformulates the question and adds a hedge referring to obligation (“I have to ask”). The question is thus produced in a hedged and mitigated format. These features mark it as a dispreferred contribution. Charlotte’s response (“right there it came, wait, ... it took you half an hour, !wow==, usually I’m told at once @@@”) is ambiguous. On the one

142

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

hand, it seems to convey that the question is utterly appropriate and expectable, but on the other hand it may be seen as an expression of discomfort with the question. The exclamation is marked as non-serious by the exaggerated character of the exclamation and by the subsequent unilateral laughter. This may be seen as an attempt to mitigate the threat of the latter construal. One of the things Charlotte presupposes in her comment, is that this question is to be expected in this sort of conversation (“there it came”). Of course this may suggest that she is tired of answering it or that she finds it unpleasant to be confronted with what must be characterized as a deficiency. Anna also seems to start justifying that she asked at all (“I was oblige-”). However, the more literal interpretation is that Anna’s question is to be expected and that it is surprising that it did not come earlier. Anna restarts and gives a response more in line with this interpretation. Here, she justifies why she did not ask earlier, namely because she wanted to be sure that it was not just a dialect. Charlotte’s exclamation is thus ambiguous as to whether it proposes to construe Anna’s question as a face-threatening act or not. Anna sustains this ambiguous construal. Responding to the literal interpretation concerning the timing of the question, she simultaneously manages to convey that it is not a question that she just “throws out” without concern for her interlocutor. Only in Charlotte’s subsequent turn does the ambiguity seem to be resolved. When she responds to Anna’s account for asking, she seems to construe it as a justification and an excuse for having performed a face-threatening act. Her comment (“I’m used to that”) is clearly oriented to the fact that Anna has asked the question, and not to the timing of it. By expressing that she is used to being asked about her accent, she makes the potential threat of the question less dramatic. She thus seems to be excusing Anna. The threat is also displayed by all the subsequent compensatory activity Anna engages in. Five times in all in the subsequent talk she minimizes the face-threatening aspect by claiming that the accent is very weak, that it is not a draw-back, etc. Here is part of it: (23) DRAWBACK (1: 864-880) A: men- nej men det är ju ingen-A: ...(1.0) det är ju ingen stark brytning. det är bara att jag ... [undrar] för att ibland-C: [mhm] C: ... [[ibland hörs det.]]

but- no but it’s a-...(1.0) it’s not a strong accent. it’s just that I ... [wonder] cause sometimes-[mhm] ... [[sometimes you hear it.]]

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE A: C: A:

C: A: C: A: C: A:

[[ibland kan]] man få till en e=, ... hm=. ... en e= ... nån dialektvariant eller sådär, som nästan låter som en brytning också så det-...(1.5) ((ANNA SJENKER VANN)) ja .. inte till mig. .. nej men det m- ... är väl ingen nackdel. ... nej= ...(1.3) det stör mej inte så värst.

A: C: A:

C: A: C:

...(1.0) <@nä @@[@@@ det kan det A: väl inte göra, @> [@@@@@@@@@@@@] C: nej men] även om folk märker det, A: så behöver det inte vara nåt negativt.

143

[[sometimes you]] can get a e=, ... hm=. ... a e= ... some dialect variant or something, that sounds almost like an accent too so it-...(1.5) ((ANNA POURS WATER)) well .. not for me. .. no but sure that’s m- .. not a drawback. ... no= ...(1.3) it doesn’t bother me too much. ...(1.0) <@ no @@[@@@ sure it can’t do that, @> [@@@@@@@@@@@] no but] even if people notice it, it doesn’t have to be something negative.

Anna mitigates what could be construed as threatening Charlotte’s positive face by minimizing the potentially threatening feature (“not a strong accent”) and by insisting that the feature is not threatening after all (“that’s not a drawback”, “it doesn’t have to be something negative”). What this example illustrates is that a presentation-eliciting question may (more or less intentionally) introduce matters that turn out to be potentially discrediting to the self-image presented by the other. In such cases the initiator will be responsible for the relational implications of the question and engage in compensatory action to mitigate the potential threats. The participants thus treat this instance of the self-presentational sequence as deviant, problematic, in that they do not just proceed with the moves of the sequence but make explicit meta-comments on the question and engage in a remedial interchange rather than develop the topical matter introduced. It is not only the initial question of the sequence which realizes the positive politeness strategy of attentiveness. Also the continuation elicitor (3b) shows such an orientation. It may either be an on-topic question or a topicalizer, as noted. The evaluative expressions used as topicalizers in the data are invariably positive, in the sense that they display interest and approval. Example (24) may illustrate this (see also ex. (10) (COASTAL EXPRESS) (p. 109)): (24) STUDIES (4:760-773) S: ...(1.0) ka du har tatt ’du da?

S:

...(1.0) so what have ’you studied then?

144 M: S: M: S: M: S: M: S:

GETTING ACQUAINTED .. ja jeg har tatt= littera’turvitenskap jeg også, ..

.. og= tok= ’mellomfaget der, også har jeg ... te’atervitenskap, .. ’mm. .. også har jeg= ... ’nordisk. .. [holder] på med ’hovedfaget nå. [o’key.] .. ’jøss. ’mm. ...(1.0) du har gjort ’masse. .. koss får du ’lån til så mang mang mange ’år da?

IN

CONVERSATION

M:

.. well I’ve studied= comparative ’literature me too, S: ..

M: .. and= took= the ’second year there, and then I’ve done ... ’theatre science, S: .. ’mm M: .. and then I’ve done ... Scandi’navian, .. [I’m at] the ’graduate level now. S: [’okey] .. ’gosh. M: mm. S: ...(1.0) you’ve done a ’lot. .. well how do you get ’loans for so man- man- many ’years?

Sven here produces an interjection (“gosh”) and an evaluative utterance (“you’ve done a lot”). He has himself been telling that he is just starting his studies, so the assessment that Marta has “done a lot” seems to be of a positive sort: he is the novice being impressed by the experience of the more advanced student. When the initiator cannot sincerely present a positive evaluation of the other’s self-presentation, continued questioning may be a strategy in order to nonetheless display positive politeness. In the sample analysis at the beginning of this chapter (examples 1-3), we saw that Hilde keeps Jens as the focus of attention and thus enhances his positive face. She inquires into his professional aspirations, and he answers that it is most likely that he will become a teacher, but that he has considered publishing and journalism. She comments that it is more difficult to get into publishing than to become a teacher, to which he answers that he will try to get a part-time job in a publishing house during his studies. His presentation thus implies a preferential hierarchy; publishing has priority over becoming a teacher. This is implied by the fact that he will make some extra effort to get into publishing. Nevertheless, he considers teaching as the most plausible outcome. Hilde does not evaluate his priorities or question his motivations but keeps to his plans. She restricts herself to matters concerning Jens and does not present self-related ones. However, later in the conversation we see that she in fact has clear preferences herself that are quite different from those of Jens, and, furthermore, that she evaluates very negatively many students’ attitudes towards teaching as some ‘last resort’ possibility:

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE (25) J: H: J: H: J: H:

VOCATION (2: 808-821) .. så du føler det som et ’kall altså? .. ja æ ’gjør det. (0) ’ja. (0) æ ’gjør det. @ ... og æ blir vel- eller æ kan bli veldig ’såra når folk liksom ’sier at,
J: H: J: H: J: H:

det blir du ’alltids. A> Q> ... ikke ’sant? .. det e veldig mange ’her på universi’tetet som sier ’det.

145

.. so then you feel it’s a vo’cation? .. yeah I ’do. (0) ’yeah. (0) I ’do. @ ... and I feel ver- or I can feel very ’hurt when people ’say, you know Q> ... ’right? .. there are lots of people ’here at the uni’versity who say ’that.

So initially Hilde does not present evaluations or volunteer personal opinions while she is operating within the self-presentational sequence. She attends to Jens and supports his positive face by showing interest in his choices and priorities. Only when asked herself, at a later stage in the conversation, she states her own opinion, which is quite different. However, the views are not presented as opposing. They are rather presented as individual self-presentations when solicited. In the local context each of them is given the floor to elaborate on their own priorities without contradictions or challenges from the other. Only at a global level is it possible to see the contrast between their views. When Jens first mentions publishing as a possibility, Hilde prefers to pick out information that may establish at least some common ground between them, namely that she has friends who have considered the same thing and that she therefore knows that it is a “narrower track”. In this way, the self-presentational sequence may be seen as designed to avoid conflict. By continuing to invite self-presentation, Hilde avoids the potential conflict of a self-oriented comment on views of teaching as a profession. And continued attention to the presentational features of the other will normally imply acceptance rather than rejection, given the face enhancing function of positive politeness. We have seen that participants often use the option of making a self-

146

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

oriented comment when this may establish community co-membership between them (ex. (11) (OLD NORSE) (p. 111) and (13) (LAST NAME) (p. 114)). However, here we see that politeness concerns seem to guide the appropriateness of making such comments. They seem to be used when they contribute to closeness and avoided when they imply social distancing (more on this below). In sum, then, the question-answer format of the sequence places the initiator in the position of showing positive politeness. The display of interest and approval contributes to closeness by being conventional signs of positive affect. It conveys an image of the initiator as not hostile or indifferent to the other person, but instead being sympathetic to him or her. 4.7.2 Self-presentation as a gift The asymmetry of the sequence entails that only one party at a time can be other-oriented. But how about the self-presentators, who are talking about themselves and thus are not other-oriented? They have mainly two lines of politeness considerations that legitimize their self-orientedness. First, they may be confident that the genre they are engaged in allows them to initiate the sequence on another occasion, so that the roles will be reversed and they will get a chance to return the display of interest and approval. Second, they may enact positive politeness in answering the questions. To develop familiarity and establish common ground, they are obliged to talk about themselves. The question, then, is how to do it: Should the self-presentators give an extended response, volunteering additional information about themselves, or should they give a minimal response, and just present what the initiator asks for? Here they are caught between two opposing demands. On the one hand, they should respect the negative face of the other and not impose, and that involves not presuming that the other is interested in oneself (exceeding the scope of the question). This means giving a minimal answer. On the other hand, to enact positive politeness may be to “intensify the interest of his own [...] contributions to the conversation” (Brown & Levinson 1987:106). This means making the contribution interesting, dramatic or noteworthy in some way, and may include expanding the response beyond the scope of the question. In this way, the self-presentator offers a ‘gift’ of an interesting topic for conversation. It was noted (4.6.1) that the initial question initiates the establishment of a topic. By giving an extended response, the self-presentator may also be seen

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

147

as cooperating in generating a topic and thus as showing positive politeness (cf. the politeness strategy: “convey that S and H are cooperators”, p. 125). Giving an extended response in the second position of the sequence thus contributes to establishing both affect, by making the contribution interesting, thus ‘attractive’, and solidarity, by demonstrating that the parties are cooperators. This explains the preference for extended responses in the second position. More specifically the content of the self-presentation will also have relational implications. It may be more or less personal, more or less private. Also in this respect the contribution will have to be balanced between two opposing considerations. On the one hand, self-revelation may be a ‘gift’ of intimate information. The self-presentator then volunteers information that implies willingness to enter into a close relationship. The self-revelation is also an implicit compliment to the co-participant in that the self-presentator presupposes solidarity (trust, discretion). On the other hand, an intimate self-revelation presupposes that the other is interested in entering into an intimate and solidary relation (implying commitment to trust and discretion). Thus the selfpresentator may be felt to be pushy, and the presentation considered a threat to the negative face of the other (Coupland, Coupland, Giles & Henwood 1991). In this way, for the self-revelation to contribute to closeness, the ‘gift’ should only be given when there is reason to believe that it is desired by the other. In successful conversations the degree of intimate self-disclosure will thus be a result of fine-tuned negotiation. Extended self-presentation may, if it is prolonged excessively, imply lack of interest in the other. Therefore, the reciprocity effect demonstrated in the corpus — that the participants change roles as initiator and self-presentator — reequilibrizes this asymmetry and thus compensates for the threat inherent in the question-answer format. More specifically, the return question embodies this orientation towards reciprocity. To claim reciprocity is in itself a positive politeness strategy (Brown & Levinson 1987:129). It demonstrates the equal rights and obligations of the interactants, and thus furthers acquaintance by creating and displaying solidarity. 4.7.3 The self-oriented comment as alignment Producing a self-oriented comment in the third position (option 3c) is a move that often breaks the pattern of other-orientation and asymmetrical turn alloca-

148

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

tion. As noted (4.4.7), the 3c option allows three different developments: the focus is returned to the self-presentator, the instigator takes over the floor and initiates extended self-oriented talk, or both parties mutually self-select and contribute equally to the topic. In the first case, the other-orientation is continued, and so is the initiator’s display of attentiveness. But in the other two cases, there is a switch to self-orientation. This calls for an explanation of the accompanying changes in terms of face-work. Are the participants merely being self-centered and thus less polite, or is the shift to self-orientation itself a strategy for developing the relationship? It was noted above that self-oriented comments were massively used to establish common ground by claiming community co-membership or similarity of some sort. In this perspective, the shift involves a display of mutual concern with the items reported. The initiator displays personal involvement with the subject matter. From being an ‘outsider’ inquiring about the matters of the other — in much the same way as an interviewer would — he presents himself as an ‘insider’, that is, as someone with personal interest in, and knowledge of, the topic. The self-oriented comment thus represents an alignment with the self-presentator. The positive politeness strategies associated with such a move are “claim in-group membership with H” and “claim common point of view, opinions, attitudes, knowledge and empathy” (Brown & Levinson 1987:103). As noted in Chapter 2, claiming in-group membership contributes to acquaintance by establishing both familiarity and solidarity. One of the implications of belonging to a cultural community is having a set of common knowledge, opinions and attitudes. Establishing common group membership thus allows the participants to draw a whole range of inferences about each other. This radically expands their common ground and thereby contributes to greater familiarity. Furthermore, in-group membership involves a certain degree of mutual rights and obligations among the members. So when the conversationalists establish common group-membership, they also achieve a certain degree of solidarity. In addition to claiming community co-membership, the self-oriented comment is used to create similarity of some sort, as seen in examples (11) (OLD NORSE), (12) (KRISTIANSUND) and (13) (LAST NAME) (pp. 111-114). Similarity mainly contributes to developing the relation by creating attraction. In displaying similarity, the participants bring to the fore a motive for reciprocal liking. It was noted in 4.6.1 that the self-presentational sequence has a catalyst function and is abandoned when the participants find a piece of common

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

149

ground and mutually engage in contributing to the topic. The establishment of common ground creates both solidarity and familiarity between the participants. In this process, the sequence provides the fundamental ingredients of acquaintance. In this way, the establishment of common ground may be regarded as the inherent goal of the sequence and what makes it function as a procedure in the activity of getting acquainted. If the establishment of common ground is the goal of the whole sequence, then we should expect the participants to try to make a self-oriented comment whenever they can, that is, that they give this option the highest response priority in the third position. And in fact there is some evidence that they do. One sort of evidence is the effort put into the construction of community co-membership and similarity in the third position. For instance, it was noted in the analysis of example (13) (LAST NAME) how Jens went to great lengths to create a point of similarity between Hilde and himself with respect to Hilde’s place of origin. Furthermore, there is evidence that participants in some cases give accounts when they are not able to connect to the presentation of the other. When Hilde at a later stage returns the question of origin to Jens, the conversation takes a rather different turn from what we saw in (13): (26) HORTEN (2: 556-582) H: ... men ’koffor kom du til Oslo ’nu da?

H:

J:

J:

H: J:

H: J: H: J: H: J: H: J:

... nei fordi ... @@@ jeg ’måtte, @@ .. følte jeg ’sjøl. ..

(0) jeg har vært der i to ’år, je- sånn ’faglig sett så ... hadde jeg lyst på [for’ny]else. [’e du herifra?] ... ’nei, .. jeg er fra ’Vestfold. ... ’åja. .. fra e= ’Horten. .. ’åja. ... ’akkurat. ... jeg har bodd halve= .. livet i ’Horten og ’Åsgårdstrand så= -... ja’ha. (0) ’mm. ... ’vanligvis så sier jeg at jeg er fra ’Horten da,

H: J:

H: J: H: J: H: J: H: J:

... but ’why did you come to Oslo ’now? ... well because ... @@@ I ’had to, @@ .. I ’felt. ..

(0) I’ve been there for two ’years, I- as regards my ’subjects ... I wanted a [something ’new.] [do you ’come from here?] ... ’no, .. I’m from ’Vestfold. ((COUNTY)) ... ’okay. .. from e= ’Horten. ((TOWN)) .. ’okay. ... ’right. ... I’ve lived half my .. life in ’Horten and ’Åsgårdstrand so=-... u’hu. (0) ’mm. ... well ’usually I say I”m from ’Horten,

150

H: J: H:

J: H:

GETTING ACQUAINTED for ikke å -...(1.5) for å lok- kunn lokali’ser det liksom? .. ’ja. (0) ’ja. ...(2.2) ’ja=, .. ’der e æ ikke ’no ’kjent. @@[@] .. i det ’hele tatt. [@] @@ ...(3.6) så du føle at du !måtte hit? here?

IN

H: J: H:

J: H:

CONVERSATION to avoid-...(1.5) to loc- be able to ’localize it sort of? .. ’yeah. (0) ’yeah. ...(2.2) ’yeah=, .. I don”t know ’anything about that area. @ @[@] .. at ’all. [@] @@ ...(3.6) so you felt you !had to come

Here Hilde does not make any self-oriented connection with Jens’s place of origin. Instead there is a gap of 2.2 seconds, before she explicitly states her lack of knowledge of the place. This statement may be seen as an account for her inability to comment on Jens’s self-presentation and thus her initial orientation to doing so. The silence preceding her response may also be interpreted as a dispreference marker (Pomerantz 1984). Furthermore, Hilde seems to treat her own comment as inappropriate and to compensate for its negative relational implications. Her statement is followed by a chuckle, which is taken up by Jens. This may be seen to be in response to her direct display of their lack of common ground. Her ignorance, rather than being concealed or tuned down, is blatantly revealed by her statement (“I don’t know ’anything about that area”). It is even exaggerated by the double insistence that she does not know the place at all (anything — at all). It is thus the inability to connect which is made the object of laughter. The humorous exploitation of the fact that a point of lacking common ground has been revealed may be seen as a politeness strategy to mitigate the potential threat of the situation. This mitigating function of joking is noted by Brown & Levinson (1987:124) as a positive politeness strategy. And if this interpretation is correct, the joking itself becomes an index of the relational sensitivity involved in displaying non-alignment in the third position. If the establishment of common ground is the inherent goal of the sequence we might also expect other moves to display an orientation towards this goal. And indeed there is some evidence that the participants, in formulating presentation-eliciting questions, seek items that may allow for subsequent alignment. First, there is the feature that has been noted in 4.4.3, namely that the questions are often related to the occasion of the encounter. The participants

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

151

may exploit this common reference point to infer possible connections between them. For instance, when Hilde in (1) (TEACHER) (p. 95) asks whether Jens is planning to become a teacher, she exploits background knowledge related to the fact that they meet as students of Scandinavian Studies. In doing this she might be projecting the possibility of common career plans with the accompanying effect of alignment. When it turns out that Jens is on the contrary considering other careers she does not get the opportunity to align with him, but it is later revealed that she herself is planning to become a teacher. So we might speculate that Hilde might be asking whether Jens is planning to become a teacher in order to possibly create an occasion for alignment. Second, some continuation eliciting questions are formulated so as to paraphrase the self-presentation of the other so that it will fit a subsequent alignment by the initiator. For instance, when Jens, in (13) (LAST NAME) (p. 114), reformulates Hilde’s self-presentation as “so it’s a name of a place on an island close to Bodø?”, he focuses on certain parts of her self-presentation and formulates them in such a way that, afterwards, he will be able to say the same thing about his own name. Here follows another instance. Bjørn is talking about his guitar-playing and has been saying that he prefers playing electric guitar in bands to playing songs. He now goes on to talk about some music he is going to play in the near future (for the introduction of this topic, see excerpt (32) in Chapter 5, p. 232): (27) REAL THING (5: 972–994) B: ... nei æ ska e=-kjenne du== Real ’Thing==? de e jazz=& L: ja B: &<X greie ja X> ja ja ja ja ... æ ska spille no ’sånne greia no da,

B:

L: B:

L: B:

!ende’lig asså. æ jobba med no ’lignandes for noen ’år sida, åja. ...(1.0) ’det glede æ mæ ’stort til.

L: B:

L:

’det e jo= vældig= sosi’alt og alt det ’der ikkje sant, ja.

L:

... well I’m gonna e=-do you know== Real ’Thing==? it’s jazz=& yeah &<X stuff yeah X> yeah yeah yeah right ... I’m gonna play some of ’that sort of stuff now, !finally. I worked with something ’similar some ’years ago, right. ...(1.0) so I’m ’really looking forward to ’that. ’that’s= very= ’sociable and all ’that right, yeah.

152

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

B:

men det e en fire ’stykka <X og så nei ’det e sant X> vi bli=r vi blir ’tre.

L:

... så dere skal ’prøve å lage et L: morsomt ’band? .. ja det blir .. i første omgang bare en- B: ’en ’jobb lissom, som vi tar vældig på ’hælen og sånn, men e men e== de e en e== .. ameri’kaner da, som har .. emi’grert hit, og ’tatt med sæ ’Hammond-orgelet sitt da.

B:

B:

CONVERSATION but we’re four ’guys <X and then no ’that’s rightX> we’ll be= we’ll be ’three. ... so you guys are ’trying to make a cool ’band? .. yeah it’ll be .. for the time being just a- ’gig sort of, that we take very on the ’fly like, but e but e== there’s an e== .. A’merican guy, who has .. ’emigrated here, and brought a’long his ’Hammondorgan.

Lars’s continuation elicitor reformulates what Bjørn has talked about as ‘a band’. Bjørn answers “ja” — “yeah” but goes on to say that, for the time being, it is just one job. By this he seems to be implying that it is not — at least not yet — a band. The talk goes on for a while about the musicians involved and the music style (see excerpt (34) of Chapter 6, p. 309). We jump to the closing of the topic, 57 lines later: (28) BAND (5: 1051–1073) B: ’nei så ’de=t ’gleder æ mæ te. men, L: ja. B: det e= forsåvidt meir i mi ’gate, [både] i forhold te& L: [

] ...

B: &... [te] ’smak og=, L: [XX] (KREMT) ja B: ka æ kanskje ’kan ’spille og sånn. L: B: L: B: L:

B: L:

.. ’e skal starte opp band e ’også nå. ... ja’ha? ...(1.1) ’neida. [jaja] [<X men e= X>] ... det er på et litt annet ni’vå går e [ud fra]. [(HOST)] ...(1.0) men e=

B: L: B: L: B: L:

B: L: B: L: B: L:

B: L:

so I’m looking ’forward to ’that. but, yeah. that is= rather more my ’style, [both] when it comes to& [

] ...

&... [’taste] and=, [XX] (CLEARS THROAT) yeah what I perhaps ’know how to ’play and things. .. ’I’m starting a band ’too now. ... oh ’yeah? ...(1.1) ’well. [yeah right] [<X but e= X>] ... it’s on a somewhat different ’level I [suppose]. [(COUGH)] ...(1.0) but e=

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE ...(1.1) nei vi e- vi- vi ’er vel e= tre fire ’stykk, som e= ...(1.7) som ska=-eller vi har funnet et lo’kale da,

153

...(1.1) anyway we ar- we- I guess we ’are e= three or four ’guys, that e= ...(1.7) that are=-or we have found a ’place to play like,

After Bjørn has recognizably initiated closing of the topic on his coming musical assignment (cf. 5.3.1), Lars introduces a new topic, namely his own plans for starting a band. His utterance is formulated as a self-oriented comment linking back to the previous talk. He says he is starting a band and then adds “me too”, implying that this is what Bjørn has also been talking about. However, we have seen that Bjørn did not talk about the musicians as a band (and does not in the intervening passage either). It is only the reformulation made by Lars himself in the previous excerpt which allows him to establish the two topical items as belonging to the same class of items, namely ‘bands’. And it is this co-class membership which provides the legitimacy of his introduction of self-oriented matters. His self-oriented comment creates a point of similarity between them (both are starting bands) and establishes alignment. In retrospect, then, it is possible to see his first reformulation as strategic for preparing this point of similarity (and perhaps also for providing an occasion to get his topic on the table). In this way, the continuation elicitor was formulated so as to allow subsequent alignment and thus testifies to the participants’ orientation to the goal of establishing alignment. We have seen that both the self-oriented comments themselves and the questions leading up to them seem oriented to the goal of establishing alignment between the participants in the third position of the sequence. This may be explained as motivated by the positive relational effects of establishing similarity and common ground. 4.7.4 Mutual self-selection as involvement The question-answer format of the self-presentational sequence is associated with the conversational style of considerateness. In giving the floor to the coparticipant, the initiator shows attentiveness in giving him or her the opportunity to express him-/herself. The self-oriented comment may change this pattern, giving rise to mutual self-selection and self-orientation as the dominating turn-allocational pattern in the ensuing discourse. This mode of talk has been presented as a feature of high-involvement style (cf. 2.3.3). To repeat Tannen’s (1984:109-110) formulation, there is an expectation in involved talk

154

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

that, “having something to say, speakers will say it. It is not the burden of the interlocutor to make it comfortable and convenient for others to express their ideas, but rather to be free and spontaneous with reactions”. The ‘burden’ of making it ‘comfortable and convenient for others to express their ideas’ is rather an apt characterization of the considerate style of the self-presentational sequence. The positive politeness effect of mutually presenting personal matters is that one shows that the topic is interesting in some way. It is thus a way of supporting the positive face of the other by claiming common attitudes or empathy (Brown & Levinson 1987:103). This may of course be done explicitly, by saying such things as “That’s interesting”, “I feel just the same way”, etc. But an even more powerful way of showing this similarity is by conveying it implicitly in commenting on the matters raised by the other. This is a parallel to Labov’s concept of internal evaluation (Labov 1972). The similarity is not just claimed but demonstrated in the response. In producing a self-oriented comment the participants take the freedom of expressing their ideas without being invited to do so, and thus presuppose that what they have to say is interesting to the other. This move encourages closeness in that they begin to talk in much the same way as people do in close relationships. Instead of demonstrating interest in the other, they take for granted mutual concern for each other. They presuppose solidarity rather than demonstrate it directly. This norm of intimate communication is formulated in the positive politeness strategy “claim reflexivity“ (Brown & Levinson 1987:125). This is the polar opposition to negative politeness. Negative politeness consists to a large extent in making minimal assumptions about the other’s wants. To claim reflexivity means presupposing that the other wants for you what you want for yourself (on the reflexive condition that you want for him what he wants for himself). Close friends have established a set of mutual rights and obligations, and may consequently assume this reflexivity (or reciprocity). Unacquainted persons cannot assume this, but they can try to establish it by acting in the conversation as if such a relation already obtained. By presenting self-oriented matters without being asked, the participants presuppose that their co-participant is interested in their personal matters. In doing this they talk as if a relation of mutuality and reciprocity already existed between them. In this way, presupposing solidarity becomes a means of establishing solidarity. The interpersonal relation is defined at the micro-level

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

155

by the types of conversational contributions that are made. There may be a conflict between involvement and considerateness. Getting involved in a topic may entail that one expresses evaluations and opinions that do not support the positive face of the other. This reflects a conflict between two different ways of enacting positive politeness. On the one hand, there are strategies saying: “Seek agreement“ and “Avoid disagreement“ (Brown & Levinson 1987:112f). On the other, there is the requirement that the speaker should “intensify the interest of his own [...] contributions to the conversation” (Brown & Levinson 1987:106). But always agreeing and avoiding differing points of view does not necessarily make the conversation very interesting. Many researchers have noted that some difference, or even antagonism, is a precondition for there to be anything to talk about at all. Having exactly the same knowledge and attitudes would lead to silence. As Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1992:147) writes: “Just like games, communicative interactions are both cooperative and competitive (the participants being at the same time partners and adversaries)” (my translation28 ). People in close relationships normally allow a great deal of disagreement without considering it a threat to the relation. They have a shared history of interaction which has already established strong solidarity between them. In conversations between strangers, however, solidarity has to be displayed to be assumed. The relation is fragile and disagreement may easily be experienced as a way of keeping one’s distance and a rejection of solidarity. Thus, disagreement is a sensitive matter in such conversations. However, even disagreement may be a signal of closeness if it is used as a way of indexing solidarity. It may then become a contextualization cue which signals that the person considers solidarity to be obtained. The disagreement then has to be framed so as to appear in relation to a presupposed solidarity. This is what we find in the next example, when Jens and Hilde leave the self-presentational sequence and start discussing the advantages of teaching at different stages in school. We join them where Jens returns the question about professional plans (cf. ex. (1) (TEACHER)): (29) PUPILS (2: 705-789) J: .. ’du da? .. jeg må nesten [spørre --] H: [nei jeg= --]

nei æ= -’æ vil bli lærer,

J: H:

.. how about ’you? .. I feel I should [ask --] [well I= --]

well I= -’I want to be a teacher,

156

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

det har liksom s- vært min ambisjon helt fra æ begynte [på] .. på universi’tetet. [

] J: ...(2.2) ... mål ’før da. ...(1.2) liksom skull gå på N T ’H=,

CONVERSATION

that has sort of been my ambition the whole time since I started [at] .. the uni’versity. J: [

] H: ...(2.2) ... goals be’fore. ...(1.2) such as attending the ’technical university, og æ skull bli sånn og sånn og ’sånn men, and I was going to be this and ’that but, ...(1.4) så= fant æ ut at det va ’lærer æ ville ...(1.4) the=n I found out that I really wanted to be a ’teacher. J: ...

J: ...

H: ... så ’det -H: ... so ’that-J: ..’videregående skole? J: .. upper ’secondary? H: .. ’ja. H: .. ’yeah. J: .. ’ja. J: .. ’yeah. H: (0) ’ja. H: (0) ’yeah. .. ja ’ikke ’lavere .. ’hvert fall. .. yeah ’not ’lower .. at ’least .. ’kanskje [’høyere] nivå, .. ’perhaps a [’higher] level, J: [nei= --] J: [no=--] H: .. det ’trur æ. H: .. I ’think. .. eller etter kvert= som æ ha gått her .. or having studied here for a while I så har æ begynt å få smaken på -have begun to acquire a taste for-ja uff ja kanskje-well ugh yeah maybe-koffer ikkje prøv å tenk på ... ja why not try to consider .. well universi’tet eller ’høyskole? a uni’versity or a ’college? J: .. ’mm. J: .. ’mm H: .. for æ vil i hvert fall jobb med med H: .. cause I do know I want to work with folk some ’litt ’voksen. people who are a ’bit more ’grown up. ...(1.2) altså .. ’litt moden. ...(1.2) that is .. more ’mature. J: .. ja .. [føle at man får respons på det J: .. yeah .. [feel that you get some reman] & sponse] & H: [så du slepp å hold på med --] H: [so you don’t have to keep on --] ..
THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

J: H: J:

H: J: H: J: H: J: H:

ambi’sjonen min da skjønne du, ... å bli en ’god ’lærer, A> @@ J: .. det e liksom -H: .. ’det .. e ’målet. .. jeg trur jeg tenker på samme J: måten som ’deg, men= jeg syns det er litt be’tenkelig ’og,

157

is you see, ... to become a ’good ’teacher, A> @@ .. that’s like -.. ’that’s .. the ’goal. .. I believe I think the same way as ’you do, but I think that it’s a bit ob’jectionable ’too, fordi= vi tenker sånn ’faglig= .. kanskje cause we’re thinking about you know re’spons=, ’subjectwise .. perhaps re’sponse, .. atte .. atte mottakarane, .. that .. that the audience, atte de ... <X virker X> intere’ssert og sånn. that they ...<X seem X> like ’interested. ... i og med at ikke vi vil ’jobbe med ... seeing that we don’t want to ’ungdomsskole, ’work with lower ’secondary school, .. ’barneskole og sånne ting. .. ’primary school and things like that. ... så ’er vel det bare på grunn av ’det? then I guess it’s just because of ’that? .. fordi de= .. kan jo gi re’spons, .. cause they .. they ’can respond, de kan jo -they can -.. i ’ungdomsskole og ’barneskole ’og H: .. in lower ’secondary and ’primary mene du? school ’too you mean? (0) ja [man] får jo f- .. mange fine= -J: (0) yeah [you] get n- .. lots of great -[’ja.] H: [’yeah] .. ’joda, .. ’sure, (0) eller !de de tilfører deg veldig mye J: (0) or !they give a lot of great ’fint som [... ] vi blir for’uten da, ’things to you that [...] we’ll ’miss, [ ja ’det trur ’æ og ] H: [yeah ’I think so ’too] med= med den ’tankegangen og den= -- J: with that ’attitude and that -sikkert ’det vi kommer til å ’gå til. probably the ’things we’ll be ’doing. (0) ’teacher in in .. ’primary school. A>

158

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

...(1.3) ’det trur æ jo. .. men samtidig så= ... så ’kan du i hvert fall slå i ’bordet sånn som det e i ’dag at -æ mein du ’e her ’frivillig, J: H:

(0)

.. og hvis du ikke vil ’vær her så berre ’gå. ...(1.5) ’skjønna du?

J: H:

CONVERSATION ...(1.3) I think so ’too. .. but still ... at least you ’can put your ’foot down as it is to’day I mean you’re here of your own ’free will (0)

.. an’ if you don’t want to ’be here just ’leave ...(1.5) see what I ’mean?

Hilde’s justification for choosing secondary school already shows involvement in that she presents an evaluative stance, namely a preference for teaching more ‘mature’ pupils. Jens responds to this by challenging her standpoint. The focus of the conversation moves from Hilde’s professional plans towards her justification. Their contrasting evaluations generate a more competitive and argumentative form of talk. From just soliciting and presenting self-presentational information, they now engage in a discussion of the evaluative aspects of her choice. This coincides with the shift from questionanswer format to mutual self-selection. The first thing to note in this connection, is Jens’s alignment with Hilde before he launches the challenge (“I believe I think the same way as you do”). He explicitly states the similarity between them, and goes on to spell out what he believes is their common view (“we’re thinking about subjectwise response”). This allows him to establish a fundamental solidarity with Hilde; they have the same fate as prospective teachers and entertain the same opinions. Only then does he launch the challenge. He uses the plural pronoun ‘we’, thus directing the challenge at them in common and not just at Hilde. In this way, the challenge is presented in such a way as not to mark the distance between them, but, on the contrary, as an exchange of opinions between already solidary partners. Hilde accepts the initiative to move out of the self-presentational sequence by self-selecting and taking up the challenge. She also starts to defend her standpoint in a way that is attentive to their need of displaying solidarity. She starts by agreeing with the objection, and even upgrading it (“yeah of course .. not to mention that they may be completely ruined when start upper secondary”). After this alignment, she goes back to arguing for her initial stance. The turn takes the form: ‘yes + agreement, but + disagreement’. It thus follows a common pattern that has been explained as resulting from the preference for agreement (Sacks 1987).

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

159

In this way, the participants’ involvement in the discussion of professional priorities is carefully balanced between displays of solidarity and signs of involvement. They make the topic more interesting (involving) by presenting personal evaluations, and increase the intensity by challenging each other’s views. The relational effect of this is increased solidarity. By taking risks such as challenging each other’s opinions (seeking disagreement), they show that they take solidarity for granted. And by the very act of presupposing solidarity, it is achieved. Stretching Goffman’s theatre metaphor a bit, we may compare the move out of the sequence and into the involved mode of talk with the phases of a drama. A drama includes an exposition phase in which the characters are presented to the audience, and then the plot evolves as the actors get involved in various (often competitive or adversarial) projects. In conversation the selfpresentational sequence takes care of the exposition, whereas mutual involvement in a topical ‘project’ (enacted by the establishment of a common frame of reference) launches the conversational ‘plot’, which may involve either antagonism or affiliation. And just as spectators go to the theatre to see the plot unfold, and not the exposition, so unacquainted conversationalists may be said to talk in order to find mutually involving topics and not just to get as much information about each other as possible. This has been described above as the catalyst function of the sequence; it is used in order to get started and to obtain information that may facilitate the establishment of engaging topics, but is abandoned when it has achieved its aim. In using the sequence the participants actively seek common points of reference and exploit these to establish topics that involve them mutually. And the more involving the topics are, the less there will be a need to ‘start over again’ with a new topic. In this way, the number of selfpresentational sequences may be seen as an index of the degree of involvement. Few sequences generally index high involvement and the establishment of rich topics, whereas many sequences indicate high considerateness but less topical involvement. (This point is developed in Chapter 7, in which I contrast a conversation with high density of sequences (No. 1) with one characterized by a low density (No. 4).) Both the considerate style of the self-presentational sequence and the involved style of symmetrical topical talk may be said to develop positive affect between the participants. However, the two styles contextualize different types of relationships. Considerateness is a deference strategy, which

160

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

involves not imposing on the interlocutor (cf. 2.3.3). The display of attentiveness and interest is conventional (taking the form of a routine sequence) and thus may seem less than fully sincere. Involvement style, on the other hand, is a camaraderie strategy and connotes closeness. Consisting in direct expression of opinions and feelings, it increases the potential for disagreement and conflict, but simultaneously claims the inoffensiveness of such moves because they are considered as resulting from a relation of trust, openness and liking. This explains the somewhat paradoxical fact that non-alignment in conversation may be seen as a strategy for establishing solidarity and positive affect.

4.8 Conclusion This chapter shows that conversationalists have a conventional procedure for engaging in talk with unacquainted interlocutors. The procedure realizes a communicative activity — self-presentation — and takes the form of a sequence of turns. It consists in a set of resources and constraints. The selfpresentational sequence provides the participants with a resource for introducing personal matters into the conversation and for developing them into topics. The organization of the sequence also imposes constraints on the contributions of the participants. Self-presentation cannot be introduced in its own right, but has to be elicited by the interlocutor. Self-presentational questions solicit community membership and biographical information. The response is a minimal or an expanded self-presentation and the third position move is either an acknowledgement token, a continuation elicitor or a selforiented comment. The sequence may be used as a side sequence to generate personal information as a background to some topic in progress or as a topic proffering sequence. In the latter case, there is a preference ordering of the second and third position moves, such that expanding and topicalizing moves are preferred, whereas as minimal responses imply declination to develop the topic and are dispreferred. The sequence contextualizes the activity of getting acquainted. In using it the participants display their lack of acquaintance and their mutual orientation to sharing personal information. The self-oriented comment furthermore allows the establishment of community co-membership and other forms of similarity. But acquaintance involves more than sharing personal information. If solidarity and positive affect are to be assumed by unacquainted persons, they

THE SELF-PRESENTATIONAL SEQUENCE

161

must be established in the conversation itself. The design of the sequence facilitates this by promoting displays of solidarity and positive affect. The question-answer format allows the initiator to be attentive to the interlocutor. The preference for expanded responses may be explained by the positive politeness strategy of presenting a verbal ‘gift’, that is, making an interesting contribution and collaborating in generating a topic. The self-oriented comment is interpreted as a way of aligning with the self-presentator by promoting in-group solidarity and similarity attraction. Finally, the move out of the sequence and into a symmetrical pattern of mutual self-selection is seen as a display of involvement in the topic, with the accompanying implications of affective union. I have stressed the reflexive relation between the nature of acquaintance and the conversational procedures used to achieve it. So just as the theoretical framework is used to identify, describe and interpret the sequence, so the design of the sequence yields an understanding of what is involved in acquaintance. The empirical analysis corroborates the understanding of personal relationships as consisting of familiarity, solidarity and positive affect. The self-presentational sequence exhibits an inherent orientation by the participants to sharing personal information and establishing similarity and community co-membership. In soliciting personal information it develops familiarity, and in allowing alignment it promotes solidarity and positive affect. The design of the sequence may thus be considered as both functionally adapted to, and partly constitutive of, the activity of getting acquainted.29 The analysis also confirms some of the other claims about conversation between unacquainted interlocutors presented in Chapter 2. One is the use of categorization questions to generate personal topics, as described by Maynard & Zimmerman (1984) and Sacks (1992) (cf. 2.3.4). Furthermore, the selfpresentational sequence has basic affinities with Maynard & Zimmerman’s pre-topical sequence (cf. 5.6) as well as with Schegloff’s (in prep.) topic proffering sequence (as noted in 4.6.1). The present chapter also confirms some of the claims about self-disclosure, more specifically that the object of self-disclosure in first conversations is relatively ‘superficial’ information. Furthermore, it indeed shows that questions are important for generating self-disclosure and that there are certain reciprocity effects involved. However, the focus of my analysis has not been so much self-disclosure per se but rather the interactional conditions of performing self-presentation and the relational effects of it.

Chapter 5

Topic introduction The notion of topic is intuitively a natural unit for analysing discourse. Participants routinely characterize their conversations with reference to what they ‘talked about’. It has nevertheless proved difficult to give precise definitions of topic in positive terms. The problem is to find a unit that is both interactionally relevant to the participants and at the same time defined strictly enough to be useful as a tool for research. Two equally untenable solutions are either to use intuitive characterizations oneself (based on one’s own or the participants’ intuitions) or to set up an a priori technical definition that cannot be shown to be oriented to by the participants. In this chapter I propose a model of topic organization that aims at describing the mechanisms that the participants themselves orient to in introducing, developing, and closing topics. It is based on the fundamental assumption that topic structure is not an incidental (by-)product of talk, but an orderly interactional achievement. The principles for handling topic in conversation therefore constitute a part of the conversational competence of speakers of a language. The present chapter is divided into two parts. The first part (5.1–5.4) concerns topic organization in general and deals primarily with theoretical issues. The second part (5.5–5.8) concerns topic introductions in conversations between unacquainted interlocutors more specifically and is primarily concerned with empirical analysis of the corpus. In this way, the first part presents a model which is the basis for the empirical analysis in the second part. The model of topic organization is based on a set of pragmatic principles governing topic introduction and topic development (5.2). These principles are exploited by participants in a conversation to signal opportunities for topic change. Disjunctive topic shifts may be done in two different ways. First, the current topic may be interactionally closed off by means of topic closing techniques before a new one is launched. Such opportunity spaces for topic

164

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

introduction are called topic transition relevance places (5.3.1). Second, a new topic may be launched while the current topic is still in progress. For this topic leap to succeed the co-participant must accept the new direction of the talk by not using the opportunity to return to the original topic (5.3.2). Which mode of topic change is chosen depends on the degree of coherence between the old and the new topic. Radical cohesive breaks require preliminary closing of the current topic while more coherent shifts may be made by topic leaps (5.4). The proposed model of topic progression is used to identify topic shifts in the corpus (5.5). Topic introductions are then classified as to whether they focus on the participants (self- or other-oriented topics), on the setting, or on encyclopedic matters (5.6). The mode of introduction of these topic types and their subsequent trajectories are explored in 5.7. The topic types are then analyzed with respect to relational implications (5.8). The choice of topic has consequences for the development of acquaintance in that personal information must be appropriately accommodated into the conversation for the participants to establish familiarity. And, in order to establish solidarity, they will have to handle this information with sensitivity, so as not to threaten the face of the co-participant. These constraints, it is argued, shape the conventional procedures for choosing and introducing topics in first conversations.

5.1 Topic – product or process? Discourse topic may be studied from different perspectives. The essential difference lies in the general view of discourse. Discourse can be studied either as text, with focus mainly on discourse structure, or as action, involving a focus on interactional procedures and cooperation (Clark 1994). The former perspective leads to a view of topic as a product of the constituent parts of the discourse, whereas the latter promotes a perspective on topic as a process, that is, a set of techniques for establishing boundaries and coherence patterns in discourse. 5.1.1 The product view Early linguistic approaches have tended to treat topic as a semantic and discourse immanent feature. Van Dijk (1977) describes topic as a reconstruction of the discourse in terms of simpler propositional structures. The topic of

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

165

a sequence on his account is “a proposition entailed by the joint set of propositions expressed by the sequence” (p. 136). The role of the discourse topic is to “reduce, organize and categorize semantic information of the sequences as wholes” (p. 132). This account sees topic as a product and does not consider dynamic aspects of topic progression. It ascribes topics to discourse only after the fact, that is, after a whole stretch of discourse has been produced. The reason for this bias is that van Dijk’s focus is on how people organize discourse in memory and not on the on-line negotiation of topic. But it is not evident that the units people use to store information in memory are the same units they use to organize discourse in on-line production. Furthermore, topic is represented as a static structure, attributable to a stretch of discourse independently of its placement relative to preceding and subsequent sequences. Studies of actual conversations show, however, that frames of interpretation are dynamic and may change during the conversation (Tannen 1993). This means that what is said in one part may be retroactively redefined in a subsequent one or may be interpretable only in light of a preceding one. From a process point of view, it is therefore not admissible to characterize one stretch of discourse in isolation from the surrounding discourse. The same objections can be raised against approaches that define topic in terms of characteristics of discourse referents. Geluykens (1993), for instance, defines topic as a referent which is not ‘recoverable’ from the preceding context and which has some degree of persistence in subsequent talk. Clearly, conversationalists do not know at the time of presentation whether a referent will be persistent or not. Another objection to this kind of approach is that it does not take into consideration background knowledge and implicit information. It considers topic as immanent in surface structures and thus does not make reference to the communicative event as a whole or to the pragmatic presuppositions of the talk. Clearly, in a great deal of conversations the participants rely on information derived from the setting or from background assumptions to establish topical coherence. Consider this example from Sacks (1992, vol. 1:757): (1)

A: B: A: B:

I have a fourteen year old son. Well that’s all right. I also have a dog. Oh, I’m sorry.

166

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

If we restrict ourselves to the information provided by the discourse referents, A and B seem to be talking about sons and dogs. But if we consider the situational context, namely B’s wanting to rent an apartment from A, the dog and the son can be seen as members of a larger class, ‘possible obstacles to renting the apartment’. This may, but need not, be represented explicitly in the discourse. If we want a theory of topic that allows us to say that A and B are talking about possible obstacles rather than sons and dogs, we need to take extralinguistic information into account. Topic cannot be seen as constructed merely by means of the referring expressions and connectives represented in the “text” (Brown & Yule 1983:116, Levinson 1983:315). Keenan and Schieffelin (1976) propose a notion of ‘discourse topic’ that refers to “the proposition (or set of propositions) about which the speaker is either providing or requesting information” (p. 338). This proposition is what is presupposed by the “question of immediate concern” (p. 344), that is, the question that the utterance is a response to. In identifying topic with presuppositions, this characterization emphasizes the pragmatic nature of topic and the importance of background assumptions. There are, however, other shortcomings. The account is formulated as a parallel to theories of topic-comment structure. The result is that the focus is on single utterances rather than longer stretches of discourse. And, more seriously, topic is defined relative to the speaker only (cf. Keenan and Schieffelin’s definition, quoted above). In other words, the definition does not capture the interactional nature of topic negotiation. This approach treats topic as a result of the speaker’s prior utterance, and thus as a textual product. The decision about what the topic is is just moved to a more local level than in van Dijk’s model. Brown & Yule (1983) introduce the problem of sharing a topic in conversation. Speakers have ‘personal topics’, ie more or less clearly formulated proposals for a shared topic, but only if they are interactionally ratified do they become the shared topic of discourse. The dynamic character of topic negotiation and the problem of perspectivity are also presented: ‘what is being talked about’ will be judged differently at different points and the participants themselves may not have identical views of what each is talking about. (Brown & Yule 1983:73)

A reasonable conclusion from this observation is that it is not possible to formulate the topic of a stretch of discourse. What the participants orient to cannot be a “supersentence” (van Dijk) or a specific “question of immediate

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

167

concern” (Keenan & Schieffelin). Judgements about topic are never definitive, always provisional, and the perspective is at no single point given or fixed once and for all. What may be characterized by one person as “possible obstacles to renting an apartment” (cf. example (1)), may by another be characterized as “A’s household” or “contract conditions”. Topic may be formulated at different levels of abstraction and from different subjective positions. Brown & Yule’s solution to this problem is to formulate a weaker notion, topic framework, which includes “those aspects of the context which are directly reflected in the text, and which need to be called upon to interpret the text” (p. 75). The framework should be wide enough to “allow each of the possible expressions [of the topic], including titles, to be considered (partially) correct.” (p. 75) This seems more to be a move to create an elastic analytic tool for classifying discourse than to describe what participants actually orient to in making their contributions. Bublitz (1988:25) defines topic as “the outcome of a process of ascription in which a subject is linked to a complex speech act pattern”. The ascription takes the form of a paraphrase such as: “We have been talking (telling, complaining, etc.) about x”. This is also a proposal which treats topic as a product. Ascribing a topic to a stretch of discourse requires access to the section as a whole and even to what follows (to see that this is not on topic with it). Such an ascription can thus only be produced in retrospect. However, if topic is to be considered an organizational device that the participants use in making their contributions in real time, it cannot rely on subsequent discourse, to which the participants themselves do not have access at that moment. In Schegloff’s (1990:54) words, “coherence and topic must in the first instance be constructed into the talk and progressively realized, not found”. 5.1.2 The process view I propose to view topic not as a product of discourse, but as a set of techniques for organizing discourse in real time. In the action perspective, topic organization consists of a set of devices that interlocutors use to signal how their contributions relate to prior and subsequent turns. Topic organization thus influences the joint construction of meaning, although it does not contribute any conceptual meaning in itself. Rather, the information conveyed by the topic organization may be labelled procedural. Procedural information is information that gives processing instructions to the interlocutors, constrain-

168

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ing the interpretation of a certain piece of conceptual information in some way (Sperber & Wilson 1995). We shall see below how topic constrains the contributions of the participants, and also what sorts of information it conveys. Topics have to be interactionally established — they are joint projects (Clark 1996). A topic may be proposed by an individual, but depends on the other’s uptake in order to be established as the discourse topic. Explicit, metacommunicative negotiations concerning what is or should be the topic of the conversation are sometimes found, but ordinarily the topic is established implicitly by a set of techniques that allow the participants to propose topics and to take them up or reject them. Many authors have noted as a problem that the notion ‘topic’ usually is thought to pertain just to the content of a stretch of discourse and not the actions performed in it (Bublitz 1988, Schegloff 1990, Linell & Korolija 1995, Korolija & Linell 1996, Clark 1996). The traditional notion of topic only takes account of what the talk is about, and this may perhaps be sufficient as an organizing principle in written texts, in which the utterances are primarily assertions. However, in conversation the coherence of a stretch of talk may be provided by the action pattern or the activity realized in the talk. An example may be a lesson (Psathas 1992). Lessons may be about nearly anything — what makes them recognizable as lessons and what provides their internal organization are the patterns of action taken by the instructor and the student. Schegloff (1990) analyses an excerpt in which a single sequential structure (an adjacency pair with several expansions) provides the coherence of turns that otherwise do not seem topically (or contentwise) coherent. He also shows an example of the opposite, that is, a breakdown of sequential coherence where topical coherence is intact. Action and content thus seem to provide independent sources of coherence in discourse. Most of the authors cited above propose units of overall organization that include both action and content. Korolija & Linell (1996) call such units “topical episodes”, whereas Psathas (1992) prefers the more structural term ‘extended sequences’. Bublitz (1988) uses the term ‘topic’ but lets this include both the ‘subject’ (content) and the speech act (action) pattern of the talk. I will also apply the notion of ‘topic’ in this way, that is, as a unit organizing both action patterns and content of a stretch of discourse. In this perspective, topic is the largest sequential unit of conversation. As a sequential unit, it shares properties with other types of sequences, such as adjacency pairs, opening/closing sequences, side sequences, etc. Sequential

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

169

units signal (conditional) relevance relations and coherence patterns. A topic thus organizes utterances into a certain coherent unit, and has implications for the way relevance is established among them. This will be illustrated by analyzing an example. The first part of the extract should already be familiar from the previous chapter. The excerpt starts where the topic is introduced: (2) TEACHER (2: 613-660) H: har du tenkt å bli ’lærer? ((SIDESEKVENS UTELATT)) J: ’ja=, jeg ...(1.0) jeg ’tror det, H: .. ’mm. J: ... men= ... jeg sekke bort ifra at det .. kan bli journa’list, .. jeg har tenkt litt på ’forlagsbransjen. H: ... ’mm. J: .. men e= .. sånn som det ser ut ’nå, <@ så blir det nok ’lærer. @> H:

J:

H: J:

H:

H: are you planning to become a ’teacher? ((SIDE SEQUENCE OMITTED)) J: ’yeah=, I ...(1.0) I think so, H: .. ’mm. J: ... but= ... I don’t rule out that I .. might become a ’journalist, .. I have considered ’publishing. H: ... ’mm. J: .. but e= .. the way it looks ’now, <@ I’ll probably end up as a ’teacher. @> ... ’ja. H: ... ’yeah ... kanskje til å begynn- -... perhaps to star- -ja det e en del som -yeah there are quite a few who -æ e- ha- noen- en del andre venna I e- hav- some- quite a few other ’og ja som tenker på ’forlags= friends ’too who are thinking about bransjen. ’publishing. .. men den er jo litt ’smalere den stien .. but then that track is a bit ’narrower ’der da. right ... enn= .. veien liksom. ... than .. track sort of .. ’ja. J: ..’yeah. ... jeg må nesten ’se hvordan det ’er jeg, ... I’ll have to ’see how it ’goes, jeg-I -.. på ’hovedfagsnivå så vil jeg prøve .. at the ’graduate level I’ll try to work å jobbe litt ved ’siden av. a bit on the ’side. .. få meg ’jobb ... innafor ’forlagene, .. get a ’job ... in a ’publishing house da kan jeg jo se hvordan det ’er. then I can see how it ’goes. .. ’mm. H: ..’mm. ...(1.5) så ’lokker egentlig !pengene i J: ...(1.5) and then I’m actually a bit ’forlags<@bransjen litt. @> ’tempted by the !money in <@ ’publishing. @> ...

] ...

] [åh jeg vet] liksom H: [oh I don’t] know ingent- -anyth- -’javel, ’okay,

170

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

det e s- ’gode penga å tjen ’der asså? J:

H:

J: H:

... ’ja=, i alle fall .. i forhold til [<@ en @>] ’lektorstilling. [

] .. men e= ska du -- blir du da for eksempel å prøv og jobb som== -... altså ’kri=tiker, eller .. e= -.. ’nei, [.. jeg tro"kke ’det.] [e det liksom] Brikt ’Jensen som e i’dolet eller?

J:

H:

J: H:

CONVERSATION there’s ’good money to be made ’there then? ... ’yeah=, at least ... compared with [<@ a @>] a ’teaching job. [

] .. but e= are you-- will you then for instance try to get a job as==-... say a ’critic, or .. e= -.. ’no, [.. I don’t ’think so.] [is Brikt ’Jensen] your sort of i’deal then?

Here, Hilde opens the topic by asking whether or not Jens plans to become a teacher. However, the actual talk develops more in the direction of what Jens has thought of as an alternative to teaching, namely publishing. Hilde contributes to this development by asking several questions about this field of work. The focus is maintained for a couple of contributions, and then the topic is closed: (3) H: J: H:

J:

H: J:

H:

CAREER (2: 688-715) det er liksom en karri’erevei det der da? H: ... for å si det ’sånn. ...(1.4) nei j- -J: .. blir du lektor så er liksom ikke veien H: ’så= lang. ... da e du be’gynt ganske høyt ’oppe, og så så så ’e du gjerne ... [’lektor] da. [’ja=.] J: ... jeg har egentlig ikke tenkt i ’de baner=, .. først må jeg se hva det går ’ut på. .. ’mm. H: .. når jeg sier at jeg tenker på ’pengene J: så, ...(2.3) så <@ XXX-- .. kan jeg forklare det bare ’irrasjonelt tror jeg. @> ..

] [’eller,] H: .. tvert imot rasjo’nelt.

so that’s sort of a ca’reer path then? ... to put it ’that way. ...(1.4) no I- -.. if you become a high school teacher the path isn’t ’that long. ... then you have ’started quite far ’up, and then then then you re’main ... a [’teacher.] [’yeah=.] ... I haven’t really thought about it ’that way=, .. first I have to see what it’s all about. .. ’mm. .. when I say that I’m thinking about the ’money, ...(2.3) <@ XXX-- .. I can only explain that ir’rationally I think. @> ..

] [’or,] .. on the contrary ’rationally.

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

J: H: J: H: J: H:

æ mein man har jo et ’studielån og ...(1.3) ’andre ting man har løst til å gjør her i livet ’og. ...(1.5) @@ ...(1.7) ja du har rett i ’det. ...(1.0) på en ’måte. .. ’ja. ...(2.1) .. ’du da? .. jeg må nesten [’spørre --] [nei jeg= --] nei æ= -’æ vil bli lærer,

J: H: J: H: J: H:

171

I mean there’s the ’student loan and ...(1.3) ’other things one wants to do in life ’too. ...(1.5) @@ ...(1.7) yeah you’re right ’there ...(1.0) in a ’way. .. ’yeah. ...(2.1) .. ’how about ’you? .. I probably should [’ask --] [well I= --] well I= -’I wanna be a teacher,

After more discussion about publishing as a career the topic is closed by a series of minimal responses, and an opportunity space for topic shift occurs (see 5.3.1 below). At this point, Jens produces an elliptical question: “how about you?” Now the question is: how can he ask such an elliptical question, and how does Hilde go about to find the antecedent that informs her what this question is about? As we see, she treats it as returning her question at the very beginning of the topic (“are you planning to become a teacher?”). Her answer conveys that she wants to become a teacher, and the contrastive stress on the subject NP (“I”) indicates that she formulates her answer in opposition to Jens’s answer. However, this connection back to the topic introduction is not obvious. In the meantime, they have talked about publishing and not teaching, and Hilde has asked several (four, to be precise) questions that Jens could, in principle, be returning. He could for instance be inquiring about her preoccupation with the salary of a future job, which would relate to the matter of concern in their most recent contributions. But instead, she retrieves a more remote topical antecedent. So, in this case, it is not the immediately preceding turns which provide the relevant context for interpreting Jens’s question, but the introductory question of the previous topic. This reveals two characteristic features of topic organization. First, topic introductions have a special role in organizing the following talk. Although, in this case, the conversation had developed in directions not projected by the introduction (publishing instead of teaching), there was yet an orientation to the introductory question as an organizing device. This gave it a special, more salient, status than the more recent questions. Second, the participants produce

172

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

and interpret contributions relative to a certain spate of talk as a unified and organized whole. When Hilde was asking Jens questions about plans for going into publishing, the questions were formulated and interpreted relative to the immediately preceding talk. The participants were thus accumulating information step by step. However, when the topic was closed, the subsequent contribution (the return question) related to the previous topic as a whole and not just to the immediately preceding talk. The new contribution was not based on the previous step but on the whole staircase. In the following section I set out to formulate the principles by which talk comes to be organized into global units and topic introductions come to have a special status as devices for jointly establishing a global plan for the subsequent talk.

5.2 Principles of topical talk Topic organization involves a high degree of flexibility, so that topics may be long or short, they may be tightly organized around a limited number of referents or loose and associative. However, this is not to say that topics are undefinable. The argument in this section is that topics are organized around some general principles for topical talk, concerning the reportability, projectability, connectedness and progressivity of the contributions to a topic (see below). The principles are used to recognize talk on topic from talk off topic (as, for instance, asides, cf. 5.2.5). Furthermore, the principles underlie the procedures for initiating and closing topics and thus provide the participants with cues that help them signal and recognize the organizational status of a contribution. The principles involve production constraints, that is, normative expectations concerning contributions to a topic. In introducing a topic, the interactants are expected to propose a projected direction of the talk and to establish its reportability. Being engaged in a topic, they are expected to link each new contribution to the adjacent prior turn, unless otherwise is signalled. Furthermore, they are expected to develop the topic by producing continuous talk and by making contributions that expand their common ground. The principles, by constraining talk in various ways, also provide the participants with interpretive resources for contributing to and monitoring the global organization of the talk. By checking the reportability of an item or by

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

173

projecting an extended trajectory of talk the participants signal that they are proposing a topic. By establishing local links and producing informative, coherent contributions, they signal that they are contributing to maintaining and developing the current topic. Furthermore, the expectations may be exploited to signal closing of a topic. This may be done by displaying that one sees the projected trajectory as completed or by reconfirming the reportability of the topical matter. Also by making predominantly responsive contributions one signals that the topic is not developing and thus may be closed. All this will be developed below and form the basis for the subsequent analysis of topic structure in the corpus. 5.2.1 Reportability A characteristic of topical talk is a presumption of some interest by the participants in the matters of concern. This characteristic has received several labels in the literature, such as mentionability (Sacks 1992, Maynard & Zimmerman 1984), reportability (Labov 1972), and newsworthiness (Button & Casey 1984, 1985). These concepts seem to concern both informative and evaluative aspects of discourse. First, for something to be mentionable, reportable, etc., it has to contribute new information to the interlocutors. Second, it must present something that is considered of some value to them, typically that it is ‘interesting’ in some respect. There is strong evidence from conversations that interlocutors are concerned with the mentionability of their contributions. One feature that very directly reflects this concern is pre-sequences that preface certain topics. Story and joke prefaces, for instance, standardly take the form of an enquiry as to whether or not the interlocutor has heard the story or the joke before (Sacks 1992). Also other types of topic introductions are designed so as to establish the reportability of the proposed topical matter before launching elaborate talk on it. The reportability of the new topic has to be established in the opening sequence. This cannot be done by one participant alone; it has to be achieved jointly. Topic proposals — or topical bids (Maynard & Zimmerman 1984) — have to be taken up and accepted by the co-participants. This is done by means of topicalizers, which may be any type of utterances that “display interest and actively promote topical talk related to [the topical bid]” (Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:308). Topicalizers often take the form of a question or a

174

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

minimal response produced with interrogative intonation, such as in (4): (4) LECTURE (3: 82–88) R: .. ’åh, ... det ble litt ’mye for meg den siste .. ’forelesningen asså. V: (0) ’ja? R: ...(2.1) <X full X> pakke fra to til .. [’seks, og så] -V: [ja det er ..] ’slitsomt. R: .. ’veldig,

R:

V: R: V: R:

.. ’oh, .. it was a bit too ’much for me that last .. ’lecture. (0) ’yeah? ...(2.1) <X on the X> go from two till .. [’six, and then] -[yeah that’s ..] ex’hausting. .. ’very,

The excerpt starts with a topical bid from Ragnhild. Victoria responds by a minimal response with rising intonation, and thereby elicits an expansion of the proposed matter. Her response is what was referred to in the previous chapter as a continuation elicitor (cf. 4.4.6). The response is minimal, but nevertheless expresses interest in Ragnhild’s announcement, and is thus a confirmation of the reportability of the proposed topic. This turn is a topicalizer, a move that establishes the topic proposal interactionally as the joint topical project for the subsequent turns of talk. In this case, the minimal form of the topicalizer involves Victoria’s not using the opportunity to influence the choice of topic but merely accepting Ragnhild’s proposal. In other cases, a more expanded response to a topical bid, such as a question, will constitute a stronger contribution to defining the focus of the topic. The interlocutor may reject the topical bid by not producing a topicalizer, and this prevents the proposer from continuing. Here is an example in which it turns out that the proposed item is not reportable after all. Bjørn and Lars are talking about the new premises of Cultura. (5) L: B: L: B: L: B: L: B:

LEGENDARY (5: 866-889) ... ja og nå er det malt ’opp, [ja ja ja ja] [og= ’møbler,] [[og ’alt er kommet på ’plass.]] [[så <X grunnlaget X> ja ja]] jøss. .. så det [ser] e .. pent ’ut. [XX] ... ja ...(1.5)

(0) hm ...(2.5) det e jo e= legen’dariske om’givelsa,

L: B: L: B: L: B: L: B:

... yeah and now it’s been ’painted, [yeah yeah yeah] [and= ’furniture,] [[and ’everything’s in ’place.]] [[so <X the foundation X> yeah yeah]] wow. .. so it [looks] e .. ’nice. [XX] ... yeah ...(1.5)

(0) hm ...(2.5) of course the ’premises are e= ’legendary,

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

L: B: L: B: L: B:

L: B:

eller sånn, ... ja. .. [ja du ’vet?] [ja ja ja.] ... [[det--]] [[det]] er ei ’god histo[rie det ’der.] [@@@]@@ .. ’skikkele. ...(2.0) u’trolig, .. ja, ...(1.7) og !det telefonnettet som var ’lagt opp der ikkje sant, .. sikkert e= .. ’ti e= sånn ’uavhengige tele’fonlinja, og= ’skikkele ’opplegg asså.

L: B: L: B: L: B:

L: B:

175

or like, ... yeah. .. [yeah you know?] [yeah yeah yeah.] ... [[it--]] [[it’s]] a ’good ’story [that one.] [@@@]@@ .. ’really. ...(2.0) unbe’lievable, .. yeah, ...(1.7) and quite some !telephone circuit that was in’stalled there you know, .. probably e= .. ’ten e= independent telephone lines, and= the ’works.

In the beginning of the excerpt the topic of the refurbishing is being closed down. After a 2.5 second pause Bjørn produces a topical bid in which he focuses on a new aspect of the premises, namely that they are ‘legendary’. This is a partial report in that he does not say what it is that makes them legendary.30 Rather, he leaves the floor to Lars and lets him react to this statement first. For Bjørn to go on, Lars must produce a topicalizer, inviting more talk on the topic. But now Lars produces only a minimal response with falling intonation, and thus does not display interest in finding out what is legendary about them. Bjørn now explicitly asks whether Lars has heard the story, and Lars confirms that he has done so. Bjørn has anticipated the possibility that Lars might already know the story by using the particle ‘jo’ in his original statement (translated by ‘of course’). ‘Jo’ is a marker of common ground (Fretheim 1991, Lind 1996). But even if Bjørn presents the story as something Lars might already know, the report must be considered as a procedure for checking the reportability of the topical matter. When Lars confirms that he has heard the story before, the topic is closed down and a new (but related) one is introduced. If Bjørn really thought that Lars already knew, he would have had some other point to make in invoking this story, but no other point is made in what follows. Note that Lars does more than just signal his knowledge of the story. He goes on to say that it is a “good story”, that is, he confirms that the story is interesting and thus would have been reportable if he had not already heard it. So both the informative and the evaluative statuses of the story are displayed in this section.

176

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

In sum, then, reportability concerns both the informational status of a proposed topic (that it is new to the addressee) and the evaluative status (that it is of interest to him or her). These requirements are important for legitimizing a topic introduction, and interlocutors use regular interactional procedures in the form of topical bids and topicalizers to establish the reportability of an item in topic introductions. 5.2.2 Projectability Topic organization is a hierarchical type of organization, whereas the production of turns itself is linear. The way a hierarchic structure can be imposed on a linear stretch of talk is by the participants agreeing in advance on some ‘plan’ for the subsequent discourse. Topic introductions thereby need to establish some projection of the proposed topic and elicit acceptance for it. The projection may involve both the content of the proposed topic and the genre (narrative, argumentation, exposition, etc.) Some genres are more prepatterned than others, so that for instance narratives and argumentative sequences are more tightly organized sequentially than other genres. The genre conventions of narratives and argumentation give them a standardized and recognizable form. Such schematic patterns have been described by a number of researchers, the most influential being Labov & Waletzky’s (1967) model of personal narratives. The pre-patterned sequential progression allows the participants to have common knowledge of the current stage of the topic and to project the end of it. Both Labov (1972) and Sacks (1992) note that story tellers routinely preface their stories with short summaries, or abstracts, that project the point, or the main conflict, of the story. So the prefaces present evidence that narratives have at least some degree of global organization from the start. In addition, they offer an interpretive resource in that they allow the co-participants to foresee the end of the story (Sacks 1992). Expectations are created in the preface in such a way that their subsequent fulfilment becomes a signal that the point of the story (and thus its potential completion) has been reached. Not only do introductions of schematic genres project some global organization. This is also a characteristic feature of a set of topic generating techniques described by Button & Casey (1984, 1985, 1988) as topic initial elicitors, news announcements and itemized news enquiries. These sequences project a ‘newsworthy item’ as a potential focus of the subsequent talk. By

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

177

doing this, they also project a point of potential completion, namely when the news has been delivered and the addressee has produced an appropriate receipt token. Let us consider a news announcement as an example: (6)

(from Button & Casey 1985:21) Geri: Howyih doin (H) Shirley: Okay how’r you Geri: Oh alri= [=ght] Shirley: [(H=)] Uh=m yer mother met Michael las’ night.

According to Button and Casey, Shirley’s news announcement (“yer mother met Michael las’ night”) is constructed in a way so as to introduce an extended topic. By being only a partial report of what happened, it signals that more is to be reported. In this way, the introduction offers a piece of news to be told rather than tells the news itself. It projects some ‘point’ yet to be made. As we saw, the same was the case for the topic introduction in the previous example (5) (LEGENDARY). The topic initial elicitor and the itemized news enquiry are both types of questions that elicit some ‘newsworthy item’ as a possible topic. They are both recipient oriented, but differ in specificity. The first is an open question like: “What’s new?”, while the other specifies a particular item, as for instance: “How’s yer foot?” (examples from Button & Casey). The responses to these enquiries may present a candidate for topical talk. In that case, they display the same sort of provisionality as the news announcements in providing an incomplete report. Itemized news enquiries may be considered a special case of the more general category of topic proffers described by Schegloff (in prep, cf. 4.6.1). The latter is not restricted to ‘news’ but is a general technique for proposing a recipient topic by asking a question. Presentation-eliciting questions are another type of question that may be used as a topic proffer. A topical bid makes a topicalizing response relevant, such as a “continuation marker” (‘yeah’, ‘mhm’ cf. Schegloff 1982) or some comment or question addressing its incompleteness. In this way, these questions establish topic interactionally and signal that the sequential conditions are met for extended talk (Button & Casey 1985:17). These standardized techniques are oriented towards establishing both the reportability and the global organization of the proposed topic. That the introduction projects a specific course of talk does not mean that

178

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

the participants cannot drift away from this plan, or that the plan cannot be changed along the way. On the contrary, gradual topic transitions are extremely common in conversation, and even claimed to be the preferred way of changing topic (Sacks 1992, Schegloff, in prep.). However, when this does not occur the direction pointed out in the topic initiation is maintained until the topic is potentially exhausted. In such cases, the initiation presents a global plan for the discourse and allows the participants to project and recognize a point of potential completion. Here is an example. The excerpt is from early in the conversation between Marta and Sven. Marta has just arrived — half an hour late for the appointment. I (J) am bringing her a glass of beer and telling her to relax: (7) J: M: J: M:

J: M:

S: M:

S: M:

S: M:

S: M:

THE TRAM (4:113–172) .. ja du får ’slappe av nå, og ta deg en ’røyk og, (0) ja jeg får gjøre ’det asså. .. roe deg ’ned litt. .. mm. ((TENNER EN FYRSTIKK)) .. jeg må si det atte Oslo ’Sporveier asså, det er en ’kilde, .. til <EMP så mye irrita’sjon. EMP> @@@ .. herre’gud. .. det er -’ja. .. ka ’da? ...(1.6) ((RØYKER)) nei e= jeg skulle jo ’hit, ... ’nå [ikke ’sant?] [

] og= .. e= ’Jan ringte meg for en ’time siden, .. og spurte om jeg kunne ’komme. ..

.. og jeg ’var lissom klar= sånn .. til normal ’tid og kunne fint ’rukket det og [sånt no,] [

] og så prøvde jeg å få en ’taxi, men på grunn av alle disse ’ju= lebordene da,

J:

.. yeah re’lax now, and have a ’smoke and, M: (0) yeah I’d better ’do that. J: .. ’relax a bit. M: .. mm. ((LIGHTS A MATCH)) .. really I must say that Oslo ’Tramway Company, it’s a ’source, .. of <EMP so much irri’tation. EMP> J: @@@ M: .. my ’God. .. it’s -’yeah. S: .. well ’what? M: ...(1.6) ((SMOKES)) well e= I was on my way ’here, ... ’now [right?] S: [

] M: and= .. e= ’Jan called me an ’hour ago,

S: M:

S: M:

.. and asked if I could ’come. ..

.. and I ’was sort of ready= like .. at a normal ’time and could easily have ’made it and [stuff,] [

] and then I tried to get a ’cab, but because of all these ’Chri=stmas parties,

TOPIC INTRODUCTION .. så var jo det helt u’mulig. .. (SVELG) og begynte da liksom å- etter en ’kvarter å forsøke å få tak i ’taxi,

S: M:

S: M: S: M:

S: M: S:

M: S: M: S: M: S: M:

S:

så gav jeg opp ’det, .. og <X begynte X> da å ta <EMP ’sporveien. EMP> ..

S: .. <@ og det -- @> M: .. asså de kommer jo !aldri når de ’skal, .. [

] S: [blir] ’stoppende i ’veien ikke sant, M: [[ ’biler ]] som står i veien og, [[

]] S: ’fulle kunder, M: og det- -jeg mener, .. jeg tror- jeg tror jeg satt i !femti mi’nutter jeg, .. på- fra Grünerløkka til Ma’jorstua asså. .. på liksom å -.. måtte ’bytte trikk [flere ganger] og sånt no ’også. [

] S: ... ja det e jo heilt u’trolig ja. .. ja det er helt ’sinnssykt. M: .. nei æ har hatt jævla ’flaks <X der, X> S: æ ha ’aldri -... ’ja. æ ha ’aldri liksom ... hatt noe pro’blema med det derre. .. ’nei? .. ’okey. .. men -.. nei det skjer selvfølgelig .. ’mest når du har dårlig ’tid da. (0) når du ’må. [.. <@ X= @>] [<@ ’ja, @>] .. det er ’det. ... (SNUFS) .. men det ’æ merke best det e det atte, .. folk i ’Oslo e=,

M: S: M: S: M: S: M:

S:

179

.. it was just im’possible. .. (SWALLOW) and started then to like- after a ’quarter of an hour trying to get a ’cab, so I gave ’that up, .. and then I <X started X> to take the <EMP ’tram EMP> ..

.. <@ and that -- @> .. well they !never come when they are sup’posed to, .. [

] [’keep] stopping in the ’street right, [[’cars]] blocking the streets and, [[

]] ’drunken customers, and it- -I mean, .. I think- I think I sat for !fifty ’minutes, .. on- from Grünerløkka to Ma’jorstua. .. just sort of -.. had to ’change trams [several times] and things like that ’too. [

] ... yeah that’s just in’credible yeah. .. yeah it’s just ’crazy. .. no I’ve been damned ’lucky <X there, X> I’ve ’never -... ’right. I’ve ’never sort of ... had any ’problems with that. .. ’no? .. ’okay. .. but -.. no of course it happens .. ’just when you’re in a ’hurry. (0) when you ’have to. [.. <@ X= @>] [<@ ’yeah, @>] .. ’that’s it. ... (SNIFF) .. but what strikes ’me is that, .. people in ’Oslo e=,

180

GETTING ACQUAINTED .. virke som dem e ’redd for å ’gå da.

M:

... å= sier du ’det?

IN

CONVERSATION

.. seem like they are a’fraid of ’walking. M: ... oh= is ’that so?

Marta’s announcement: “really I must say that Oslo Tramway Company, it’s a source .. of <EMP so much irritation EMP>” links on to the prior talk about her late arrival. The announcement has in common with the introductions of news reports (cf. above) that it is an incomplete report. She presents the object of her irritation, but not the reason. Her announcement contains several markers of emotional involvement. The first is the emphatic particle ‘asså’ (rendered in English as ‘really’) and the second is the emphatic stress on “so much irritation”. The only reaction to this statement is laughter from me (J). She adds another involvement marker, this time an exclamation, “herregud” — “my God”. Then she starts an utterance that seems to elaborate on the matter, but stops mid-course (“it’s -- yeah.”). Her emotional involvement adds to the impression that she has something to report about Oslo Tramway Company. The fact that she does not, after all, go on to elaborate on the matter can be seen as oriented to the fact that Sven has not produced a topicalizer. By stopping she leaves it up to Sven to topicalize the mentionables contained in her announcement. And this is just what he does next, by asking a question that is fitted to Marta’s aborted utterance (“ka da?” — “well what?”). At this point Marta’s irritation with Oslo Tramway Company is established interactionally as the topic. However, in spite of Sven’s question, Marta does not immediately go on to name the things that annoy her. Instead, she starts a narrative about her preparations for coming to the current appointment. The reason she can do this is that Sven’s question is a topicalizer, which establishes the conditional relevance of extended talk on the topic and not just of a local second pair part. The topic introducing technique projects a point that is to serve as the globally organizing feature of the subsequent talk. Marta’s narrative is thus accommodated into the talk by reference to the announced irritation, and thus treated as leading up to the projected point.31 Sven also displays this orientation by producing continuers, that is, showing his expectation that there is more to come. At one point in Marta’s narrative, when she has said: “and so I started to take the tram”, she leaves the narrative format. She goes on to talk about the tramways in general (“they never come when they are supposed to”, etc.). The shift is reflected in a change from past to present tense (from “started” to “come”) and from specific to generic referents as subjects (from “I” to

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

181

“they”). Here she reports several features that could be interpreted as what she in her introduction referred to as “sources of irritation”, such as delays and drunken passengers. This may be seen as fulfilling the projections in the topic introduction, but it does not fulfil the point that was projected by framing the topic as a narrative. There has not yet been any narrative point made. Sven displays an orientation to this projection by still just producing continuers. Only when Marta returns to the narrative format and tells which ‘annoying’ things actually happened to her does Sven treat the report as complete by taking the turn and showing his appreciation of it. This takes the form of an assessment (“yeah that’s just incredible”). What this example shows is thus that both the content, projected in the pre-topical announcement, and the genre, signalled in the first topical utterances, project a global organization for the subsequent talk. This organization is in turn exploited for producing and recognizing the point of potential completion of the topic (more on this in 5.3.1 below). 5.2.3 Local connectedness Talk within a topic is characterized by local connectedness from turn to turn by the fact that the participants fit their contributions to the immediately preceding turn. This has been noted by Sacks et al.(1974:728): It is a systematic consequence of the turn-taking organization of conversation that it obliges its participants to display to each other, in a turn’s talk, their understanding of other turns’ talk. More generally, a turn’s talk will be heard as directed to a prior turn’s talk, unless special techniques are used to locate some other talk to which it is directed.

Adjacency between turns thus implies local coherence, unless there are signals to the contrary. This means that topic continuity is the norm, and that disruptions have to be signalled specifically. This chapter deals with how topic shifts are signalled, and the next chapter will analyze side sequences — another case in point in which special techniques have to be used to signal suspension of the principle of local connectedness. The local connectedness of topical talk represents both a production constraint and an interpretive resource. First, it constrains the possible contributions at a given point in a conversation. So even if the participants come to think of something that is clearly reportable in the current conversation, they cannot just report it at the very moment they come to think of it. As noted by

182

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Schegloff & Sacks (1974:243), the local organization of contributions involves “holding off the mention of a mentionable until it can ‘occur naturally’, that is, until it can be fitted to another conversationalist’s prior utterance, allowing his utterance to serve as a sufficient source for the mentioning of the mentionable”. The principle of local connectedness also provides an interpretive resource. Being engaged in a topic, the participants may assume that, if there are no signals to the contrary, the current utterance may be interpreted relative to the context created by the immediately preceding utterance(s). This is one of the main types of procedural information provided by topic organization. Strong evidence for this principle is the fact that when interlocutors do not manage to integrate the explicit content of an utterance into the current context, they will generate alternative, implicit interpretations — implicatures — that allow them to assume topical coherence, rather than, for instance, assuming that the co-participant has changed the topic. What is invoked here, then, is the Gricean maxim of relevance (Grice [1975] 1989), but with an added constraint that relevance be established relative to the local discourse context. Here is an instance, in which a new referent (‘an American’) is introduced without any explicit connections to the prior discourse but is interpreted as topically coherent all the same: (8) B:

L: B:

L: B:

L: B:

REAL THING (5: 972-1013) ... nei æ ska e=-kjenne du== Real ’Thing==? de e jazz=& ja &<X greie ja X> ja ja ja ja ... æ ska spille no ’sånne greia no da, !ende’lig asså. æ jobba med no ’lignandes for noen ’år sida, åja. ...(1.0) ’det glede æ mæ ’stort til. ’det e jo= vældig= sosi’alt og alt det ’der ikkje sant, ja. men det e en fire ’stykka <X og så

B:

L: B:

L: B:

L: B:

... well I’m gonna e=-do you know== Real ’Thing==? it’s jazz=& yeah &<X stuff yeah X> yeah yeah yeah right ... I’m gonna play some of ’that sort of stuff now, !finally. I worked with something ’similar some ’years ago, right. ...(1.0) so I’m ’really looking forward to ’that. ’that’s= very= ’sociable and all ’that right, yeah. but we’re four ’guys <X and then

TOPIC INTRODUCTION nei ’det e sant X> vi bli=r vi blir ’tre. L: B:

L: B: L: B:

L: B:

L: B: L: B:

... så dere skal ’prøve å lage et morsomt ’band? .. ja det blir .. i første omgang bare en’en ’jobb lissom, som vi tar vældig på ’hælen og sånn, men e men e== de e en e== .. ameri’kaner da, som har .. emi’grert hit, og ’tatt med sæ ’Hammond-orgelet sitt da. .. å ja en med .. ’B3 [eller no sånn?]

L: B:

L:

[ja ja] B: ’B3 [[ikkje sant,]] [[akkurat.]] L: som veie altså-B: æ veit ikkje æ ka det ’koste å ta over æ, .. det koster ’penger ja? ja æ ’har ikkje ’spurt n. ...(1.6) ’heilt ’sinnssykt. men e= ja hvertfall han ’har ’det ikkje sant, og= ja, .. ja det kan bli ’bra ’det.

det blir nye -.. var det ’Emerson ’Lake and ’Palmer? ... ja ja ja, som= dreiv og-.. jaja. nu vel æ håpe da ’virkelig ikkje ’det.

L: B:

L: B: L: B:

183

no ’that’s rightX> we’ll be= we’ll be ’three. ... so you guys are ’trying to make a cool ’band? .. yeah it’ll be .. for the time being just a- ’gig sort of, that we take very on the ’fly like, but e but e== there’s an e== .. A’merican guy, who has .. ’emigrated here, and brought a’long his ’Hammondorgan. oh yeah a guy with .. a B’3 [or some thing?] [yeah yeah] B’3 [[right,]] [[right.]] that weighs like-I don’t know what it ’costs to bring over, .. it costs a bomb yeah? yeah I ’haven’t ’asked him. ...(1.6) ’just ’crazy. but e= yeah anyway he ’has ’done it right, and= yeah, .. yeah that might turn out ’real ’good.

it’ll be the new -.. was it ’Emerson ’Lake and ’Palmer? ... yeah right right, that= used to-.. yeah right. well I sin’cerely hope ’not.

In the initial part of this excerpt, the talk concerns Bjørn and his plans for playing jazz. But at a certain point, Bjørn introduces an American and starts talking about him emigrating to Norway and bringing along his Hammond organ. There are no explicit signals of either topical rupture or of topical coherence. The interesting thing is that in such a situation, both we as analysts and Lars as a participant experience Bjørn’s talk as on topic with the preceding. Lars shows by his subsequent contributions that he integrates the information about the American organist with the previous information about Bjørn’s

184

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

‘band’. He compares the band with an old band — Emerson, Lake, and Palmer — which had a make-up that included a Hammond organ. Thus, as long as we do not get signals to the contrary, we interpret one contribution as coherent with the previous one. In the example above, that involved drawing an inference that would make the second part coherent with the first. This implicature was that the American was one of the band members and that he was going to play the organ in the band. The inference bridges a gap between two contextual spaces that, seen in isolation, do not seem to have much in common. It is a bridging inference (Clark & Haviland 1977). There are cases where conversationalists produce off-topic talk, yet without having disengaged from the commitment to an established topic. However, such contributions will routinely be prefaced by markers that signal the undue departure from the topic. Such signals have been labelled ‘misplacement markers’, and include phrases like ‘By the way...’ and ‘Hey, listen...’ (Schegloff & Sacks 1974). Such markers signal to the other that even though the current topic has not been ended, the following utterance should not be interpreted in this topical frame. The misplaced utterance might be produced to introduce an aside that only temporarily suspends the topical frame, or it might be a proposal for a change of topic. 5.2.4 Progressivity The final characteristic of topical talk is a requirement of progressivity. The topic might be carried on as long as it progresses, that is, as long as there is something more to say about it. Progressivity includes both form and content. On the form side, this means that talk should be continuous, and pauses and gaps should be minimized. On the content side, progressivity means adding new information, that is, expanding the common ground of the participants. Evidence for the expectation of progressivity is found in cases where turns do not contribute to topic development. In most cases, such contributions will constitute proposals for topic closure (see below). However, this interpretation is not always available. For instance, more talk may be projected by the global organization of the topic. In such cases, turns that, on the surface, do not seem to contribute to topic progression will typically give rise to implicatures that make them informative at a deeper level. What is involved here is the quantity maxim, and more specifically, the submaxim: “Make your contribution as informative as is required” (Grice [1975] 1989). Silence may be interpreted as

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

185

an expression of rejection, offensiveness and much more. Let us review an example from the previous chapter, which includes a question that seems to ask for something that has already been said: (9) C: A: C:

A: C: A:

C: A:

C:

BOYFRIEND (1: 2057-2078) ...(2.1) ’har du någon? ... pojkvän. ...(2.0) mhm. ...(2.5) sen= ... ett halvår tillbaka. .. mhm. ...(1.7)

C: A: C:

.. <X vad X> sa du? A: .. är det relativt ny=t då? C: .. [

] [ja= ett] halvår är väl e=, A: ...(1.5) jag vet inte, ... för ’mej är det inte, .. så väldigt nytt för jag har inte ... e, .. PAR> nej men jag (H) jag har inte ägnat mej så mycket åt ...(1.2) åt e= .. såna relationer. @@[@@@@@@] [nej nej @@@@] C: nej ...

...(4.0) nja== ((SPISING)) A: ...(5.6) m= ... har du någon som sitter i Växjö och=, ...(1.6) <SUKKENDE jag vet inte om C: han sitter och längtar, SUKKENDE>

...(2.1) do you ’have someone? ... a boyfriend. ...(2.0) mhm. ...(2.5) for= ... half a year now. .. mhm. ...(1.7)

.. <X pardon? X> .. is it relatively new= then? .. [

] [yeah I] suppose half a year is e=, ...(1.5) I don’t know, ... for ’me it isn’t, .. so very new cause I haven’t ... e, .. PAR> no but I (H) I haven’t gone that much in for ...(1.2) for e= .. that sort of relationships. @@ [@@@@@@] [no no @@@@] no ...

...(4.0) well== ((EATING)) ...(5.6) m= ... do you have someone sitting in Växjö and, ...(1.6) <SIGHING I don’t know if he’s sitting there longing, SIGHING>

Charlotte’s question “is it relatively new?” comes right after Anna has said how long she has been involved in the relationship. Anna’s request for repetition might be an index of a problem of construing Charlotte’s question so that it is relevant in the context. But when Charlotte does not elaborate any more on the question and just repeats it, Anna starts to answer it, albeit rather hesitantly. If the duration of the relationship had not been a part of their common ground already, “half a year” would have been the obvious answer to the question. However, the principle of progressivity (and the quantity maxim) block the interpretation that she is asking once more for the information that

186

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

was just presented. Anna’s answer to the question displays a different interpretation. She relates the newness not to physical time, but to psychological time; she explains how new it feels to her. In this way, both the question and the answer are construed so as to be expanding the common ground and not just reiterating it. 5.2.5 Procedural information Many of the principles and requirements presented above may just seem to be general maxims of conversation. And indeed, many of these principles have been presented as such. For instance, the minimization of gaps and pauses has been presented as a general characteristic of the turn-taking system. And the notion of relevance to the local discourse context has been seen as a general conversational maxim.32 However, my point here is that these requirements are suspended in turns that are off topic and at points of topic transition. And the very fact that these principles are not followed constantly gives them a potential for conveying procedural information. Overt and noticeable deviations from the principles signal that the current contribution is either off topic with the preceding utterances (for instance introducing an aside or a side sequence), or that it proposes a topic shift. The procedural information conveyed concerns the organization of the discourse. Local connectedness and progressivity imply maintenance of topic, whereas utterances projecting subsequent extended talk and establishing the reportability of it signal that the speaker is proposing a new topic. And below we shall see how the principles may be exploited to signal the closing of a topic (5.3.1). Talk off topic will typically be marked by evident deviations from one or more of the constraints. This may be the case when an interactant opens or closes a side sequence or an aside, or when the participants close off a topic and introduce a new one. Topic shift will be investigated below, and side sequences in the next chapter, so let me illustrate this point with an aside: (10) DOORBELL (4: 862-875) S: æ hadde jo ikke ’lyst til å begynn på S: ’universitetet engang. M: .. nei [’nettopp.] M: S: [for det at] æ tenkt at æ S: [[kunn jo]] les all ’bøkern allike’vel,

I didn’t even ’want to go to the Uni’versity. .. no [’right.] [cause] I reckoned that I [[could]] read all the ’books ’anyway,

TOPIC INTRODUCTION M: S:

M: S:

M: S: M:

S:

[[

]] .. i stedet for også ’vær med på en sånn .. ’plan over koss det skal ’vær da, ((RINGEKLOKKE)) .. ’ja. .. så i stedet så jobb- hadde æ ’jobba i= ... hadde ’jobba i ’avisa og og ’freelansa og sånn, P> i= ’tre år ’før, .. lurer på om jeg må bare ’gå og ’åpne jeg, [

[

]

187

M:

[[

]] S: .. instead of being ’part of a sort of .. ’scheme for how it should ’be, ((DOORBELL)) M: .. ’yeah. S: .. so instead I work- I had ’jobs in= ... had ’jobs for the ’newspaper and and did some ’freelancing and stuff, S: P> M: for= ’three years be’fore, M: .. wonder if I should just ’go and open the ’door, [

S: [

]

Marta’s aside here (“wonder if I should just go and open the door”) is a break with the established topic. It does not display any coherence whatsoever with the prior discourse, it does not fit into the global organization of the talk, and it does not contribute to the progression of the current matters under discussion. However, there is nothing wrong with her utterance as a contribution to the conversation. Sven accepts her proposal, both by an acknowledgement token (“yeah”) and by temporarily stopping his exposition (which he continues once she is back). It is only as a contribution to the current topic that the utterance is not appropriate. And, interestingly enough, it is the mere deviation from the principles of topical talk that signals the suspension of the current topic. That this is an aside means that the previous activity is resumed after the intervening sequence is completed, just as with side sequences (cf. 6.2.3). So when Marta comes back from opening the door, Sven continues: (11) DOORBELL (ctd.) (4: 887-891) ...(6.5) S: [ja] som sagt når du først be’gynne, M: [’ja.] S: så= @@ ... så ’er du der asså. M: .. ’ja.

...(6.5) S: [yeah] as I said once you ’start, M: [’yeah.] S: then= @@ ... you stay ’on. M: .. ’yeah.

Note that Sven does not reintroduce the prior topic, but takes for granted that it is still activated. He says: “once you start”, but he does not say what one is starting. This is taken for granted from the prior talk. Open access to prior talk is a structural feature that asides and side sequences have in common. What

188

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

makes them different is that asides are not topically related to the main sequence whereas side sequences are (cf. 6.2.2 and 6.2.5).

5.3 Topic shift There are two distinct techniques for changing topic. One is to first close the current topic and create an opportunity space for introducing a new one, what I will call a topic transition relevance place (TTRP). The other is to launch a new topic while the current topic is still in progress. The techniques themselves are different, and the types of topics they can be used to introduce are different. Topics that are latched on to the previous ones are recontextualizations of some aspect of the prior topic, whereas ‘brand new’ topics (that is, non-coherent ones) are only introduced at topic transition relevance places. What these topic changing techniques have in common is that they exploit the principles of topical talk outlined above to signal changes in topical organization. 5.3.1 Topic transition relevance places There are recognizable points in a conversation where the interactants display the potential for closing a topic and introducing a new one. My argument is that conversationalists orient to topic as a recognizable unit of conversation and that they can project the end of a topic in much the same ways that they can project the end of a turn constructional unit. To stress the parallel with transition relevance places in turn-taking, I propose to call such points in the conversation topic transition relevance places. Here I present the techniques conversationalists use to produce such points in conversation. The perhaps clearest signal of potential topic closure is lack of progressivity. As noted, progressivity concerns both the form side, the physical production of talk in turns, and the content side, expanding the common ground. Types of turns that do not contribute to developing the topic are those that are predominantly responsive, such as minimal responses, repetitions, reformulations, summaries, generalizations, conclusions and the like. Also the lack of continuous talk, silence and missing speaker transfer, is closure implicative. The role of silence and turn-taking phenomena in topic shift has been investigated by Maynard (1980). He points out that:

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

189

On some occasions, a series of silences occurs, indicating the failure of a prior topic to yield successful transfer of speakership. It is in these situations that topic changes regularly appear, as a solution to the problem of producing continuous talk. (Maynard 1980:265)

Topical talk can become discontinuous by the fact that the addressee (or some other participant) does not take the turn at a transition relevance place. This may occur in cases where the prior speaker has not appointed a next speaker. The addressee might produce a continuer or some other minimal response, but does not produce a substantial turn that develops the topic further. The problem of transferring the speakership shows up in an extended gap. The prior speaker may self-select to produce another on-topic turn, but if this does not generate an extended response either, yet another extended gap will be the result, and a topic shift will typically follow (Maynard 1980). Maynard’s observations are in line with the principle of progressivity and with my findings. Extended gaps display a lack of progressivity. The fact that the topic does not generate new substantial contributions and instead leads to extended gaps may be a procedural signal that the topic is potentially exhausted, and thus that closing it might be a relevant thing to do next. As noted, the lack of progressivity may also be displayed by using one’s turn to produce minimal responses. These do not contribute to developing the current topic, and thus halt its progression. Often a topic is closed down interactively by a series of such minimal tokens. They are usually accompanied by certain paralinguistic signals of termination, such as lengthening, falling intonation, low pitch and loss of amplitude (Brown & Yule 1983:101). The role of minimal responses in closing off a topic has previously been noted by Schegloff & Sacks (1974)33 and Jefferson (1993). As an illustration of the role of silences and minimal responses in closing a topic, let us consider the last part of example (3) (repeated here for convenience): (12) MONEY (2: 703-710) J: .. når jeg sier at jeg tenker på ’pengene J: så, ...(2.3) så <@ XXX-- .. kan jeg forklare det bare ’irrasjonelt tror jeg. @>

H:

..

] [’eller,] .. tvert imot rasjo’nelt. æ mein man har jo et ’studielån og

H:

.. when I say that I’m thinking about the ’money, ...(2.3) <@ XXX-- .. I can only explain that ir’rationally I think. @> ..

] [’or,] .. on the contrary ’rationally. I mean there are the student loans and

190

J: H: J: H: J:

GETTING ACQUAINTED ...(1.3) ’andre ting man har løst til å gjør her i livet ’òg. ...(1.5) @@ ...(1.7) ja du har rett i ’det. ...(1.0) på en ’måte. .. ’ja. ...(2.1) .. ’du da?

IN

J: H: J: H: J:

CONVERSATION ...(1.3) ’other things one wants to do in life ’too. ...(1.5) @@ ...(1.7) yeah you’re right ’there ...(1.0) in a way. .. ’yeah. ...(2.1) .. ’how about ’you?

Jens responds to Hilde’s contribution with considerable delay. First, after a 1.5 second gap, he produces a short laugh, which is a purely responsive move. Then, after another long gap, he makes a contribution that marks agreement but does not contribute any new information beyond that. After a one-second gap Hilde produces a hedge which does not contribute substantially to developing the subject matter either, but merely modifies what she has already said. Jens responds minimally, and yet another extended gap occurs. Hilde then produces another minimal token, which is in a paralinguistically reduced format, pronounced on outbreath. At this point they have both had the opportunity to take a turn twice, yet they do not make any new substantial contribution to the topic. They have also allowed extended gaps between their turns. These signals mark the potential for changing the topic, and this is also what happens in the next turn, when Jens proposes a new line of talk, namely Hilde’s career plans. The minimal tokens discussed above are not substantial turns in themselves. Rather, they are a way of signalling that the speaker passes the opportunity to make a topical contribution. However, there are also types of substantial turns that have a potential for signalling topic closure. A common feature is that they are predominantly responsive and do not project further talk, neither by selecting a new speaker nor by making a subsequent contribution conditionally relevant. The reason they have the potential for signalling this procedural information, I argue, is that they do not conform to the principle of progressivity. They do not expand on the topic, and thus invoke the potential for treating it as exhausted or completed. A turn type that does not contribute to expanding the common ground and thus may signal closure is repetition. Repetitions may be used to underline what was said previously, and thus turn this into a point or a conclusion. Furthermore, reproducing propositional content that has already been presented in the conversation may be a signal that the speaker is not willing or able to expand on the current matters. This closing potential of repetition has

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

191

been demonstrated by Johansen (1994). She concludes: [...] the reproducing topical act leads the topic back to the point of departure of the immediately preceding topical sequence. It is thus a signal that the speaker considers the topic exhausted and does not wish to develop it. (Johansen 1994:55, my translation)34

For silences and minimal tokens to be taken as implying a topic transition relevance place, they have to appear at a point where the current topic is potentially ‘complete’. The constraints concerning both reportability and projectability have implications for what is to count as a complete topic. In the case of projectability, some point must have been made that satisfies the expectations set up in the introduction. As noted, story prefaces, news announcements and news enquiries all project some point to be made in the subsequent discourse. In more general terms, a point may be seen to establish the reason for bringing up a topic, the answer to the recipient question of relevance: ‘why that now?’ (Schegloff & Sacks 1974:241). The potential completion of a topic is thus established once such a projected point has been made. As Sacks notes concerning narratives: [...] the teller of the story gives, right at the beginning of the story, information as to what should be watched for as the thing that will be the completion of the story. If someone says “I heard the most wonderful thing yesterday,” then you should watch for what it is that could be a wonderful thing. And when you’ve heard what could be a wonderful thing, then you should show that you see the story’s over. (Sacks 1992, vol. 2:11)

What Sacks claims for stories may be generalized, I propose, to many other types of topics as well. News reports, for instance, are introduced with reference to some projected newsworthy item, and when such an item has been presented, the recipient can, and should, produce some sort of ‘receipt’, often in the form of an evaluation. In argumentative discourse the typical point will take the form of some sort of statement of the outcome of the conflict (be this consensus or continuing disagreement). In example (12) (MONEY) above, the termination of the topic is related to an argumentative activity in the preceding turns. Jens has said that he can only explain his concern with the economic prospects (of a future job) as irrational. Hilde objects that it is on the contrary rational to think about money, given that there are student loans and “other things one wants to do in life too”. This amounts to argumentation in that she takes the opposite stance of Jens’s and that she presents arguments in support of it. At this point Jens could have taken

192

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

up the argument, for instance by presenting arguments for his initial position. But instead he aligns with Hilde, thus creating a consensual solution to the initial divergence of opinions (“yeah you’re right there”). His utterance indicates that an argumentative point or conclusion has been made, and no further point is projected. So the relevance of changing the topic arises. There are different ways of ‘making a point’ out of a previous stretch of talk and thereby proposing a conclusion to it. Utterance types that can be used to do this are summaries, generalizations and reformulations. They are all mainly reactive utterances and serve to put into perspective previously presented information rather than to add new information. Summaries sum up the topic by labelling or characterizing the events reported. This method of closing a topic has previously been noted by Jefferson (1993). A generalization makes a general point out of a singular case, and thereby shifts the focus away from the singular case. The singular case in its detail is dismissed by being subsumed under a class of phenomena. Generalizations sometimes take the form of aphoristic or proverbial expressions. Examples from conversations include “frid och fröjd” (“sweetness and light”, see ex. (18) below) and “c’est la vie” (Schegloff, in prep.). Reformulations are utterances that formulate the gist of the previous discourse and thus may be seen as concluding, making a point, or summing up. Their relevance for closing topics has been noted by Heritage and Watson (1979).35 For personal narratives, Labov & Waletzky (1967) have shown that the narrator will often end the story by a coda — which they describe as “a functional device for returning the verbal perspective to the present moment” (p. 39). This perspectival shift is reflected by a shift from the past to the present tense of the verb. The coda is also a device for putting the story into perspective and thereby a way of making a point. Finally, there are closure implicative turns that exploit the principle of reportability. The obvious way of acknowledging the reportability of some topical matter is by producing an assessment. And indeed, topics are routinely closed off by recipients producing assessments of the matters introduced by the topic initiator (Jefferson 1993, Schegloff, in prep.). Other expressions presenting some evaluation of what the other has said are laughter, sighs, interjections (such as “Oh my God!”) and other expressive signals. Generalizations, assessments and other closure implicative turns may evoke different reactions by the addressee. S/he may either collaborate in closing the topic, or resist. A move that displays acceptance of the proposal for

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

193

closing and collaboration in doing so is alignment or agreement with the cognitive or evaluative stance presented in the closure implicative turn (Schegloff, in prep.). The addressee of a generalization will, merely by agreeing, contribute to closing the topic. Aligning with an assessment will have the same effect. Resistance to closing the topic may be realized by withholding alignment and instead continuing to produce turns that contribute new information on the topic. In this way, the addressee restores the progressivity of the topical talk. Let us consider the final part of (7) (TRAM) again, this time as an example of how conversationalists may use generalizations and assessments to close a topic: (13) TRAM (4:153–172) M: .. måtte ’bytte trikk [flere ganger] og sånt no ’også. S: [

] ... ja det e jo heilt u’trolig ja. M: .. ja det er helt ’sinnssykt. S: .. nei æ har hatt jævla ’flaks <X der, X> æ ha ’aldri -M: ... ’ja. S: æ ha ’aldri liksom ... hatt noe pro’blema med det derre. M: .. ’nei? .. ’okey. S: .. men -M: .. nei det skjer selvfølgelig .. ’mest når du har dårlig ’tid da. S: (0) når du ’må. [.. <@ X= @>] M: [<@ ’ja, @>] .. det er ’det. ... (SNUFS) S: .. men det ’æ merke best det e det atte, .. folk i ’Oslo e=, .. virke som dem e ’redd for å ’gå da.

M:

M:

M:

... å= sier du ’det?

M: S: M: S:

M: S:

S: M: S: M:

S:

.. had to ’change trams [several times] and things like that ’too. [

] ... yeah that’s just in’credible yeah. .. yeah it’s just ’crazy. .. no I’ve been damned ’lucky <X there, X> I’ve ’never -... ’right. I’ve ’never sort of ... had any ’problems with that. .. ’no? .. ’okay. .. but -.. no of course it happens .. ’just when you’re in a ’hurry. (0) when you ’have to. [.. <@ X= @>] [<@ ’yeah, @>] .. ’that’s it. ... (SNIFF) .. but what strikes ’me is that, .. people in ’Oslo e=, .. seem like they are a’fraid of ’walking. ... oh= is ’that so?

As noted above in the analysis of this excerpt, Marta does two different things. She both reports on her irritation with Oslo Tramways in general, and tells a story about a specific incident that happened to her. Sven produces an assess-

194

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ment (“that’s just incredible”) in a position right after a narrative turn. The assessment is thus placed so as to display his appreciation of the story. Marta also produces an assessment, just slightly reformulating Sven’s (“it’s just crazy”), and thus aligns with him. In doing this she accepts his ‘receipt’, and thereby also his identification and construal of the point of her story. The assessments concern the events reported in the narrative, but do not address Marta’s complaints about trams in general. The narrative having been closed, Sven goes on to respond to this aspect of Marta’s talk. His response here is not aligned with Marta’s stance. He reports on never having had any problems with trams. This lack of alignment does not contribute to closing the topic but rather to restoring the progressivity. Marta responds by a minimal response with rising intonation (“no?”). This in itself looks like a topicalizer, eliciting an expansion from Sven. However, it is followed by an “okay” with falling intonation, which seems to disclaim the evocativity of her first response. Sven starts a turn, but breaks it off after the first word (“but --”). At this point Marta produces a generalization which reconciles the two conflicting stances: “no of course it happens .. ‘most when you’re in a ’hurry.” This description fits both Sven’s and her experiences, and thus proposes a sort of synthesis of their prior claims (which may accordingly be described as thesis and anti-thesis). Her proposed conclusion is accepted by Sven. He aligns with her by reformulating a part of her utterance (“when you ’have to.”). Their subsequent turns are short and paralinguistically reduced (hence the difficulty of transcribing Sven’s turn). However, they are produced with ‘laughing voices’ and thus display an additional evaluative alignment. The topic is definitively closed off by an informationally empty phrase, which serves to underline the previous point (“det er det” — “that’s it”). When a topic has been interactively closed off, the principle of local, neutral coherence is also suspended. The participants may at this point reintroduce matters related to the previous topic, but they need not. They are free to introduce completely unrelated matters. The only constraint is that they have to get their co-participants to accept their proposal for a next topic. It has to be established interactionally. A model of the various types of coherence ‘breaks’ that occur in topic shifts will be presented below (5.4). The introduction of a new topic restores the progressivity constraint, so that talk again becomes (optimally) continuous and contributions present new information. The shift is typically accompanied by a shift in paraverbal format, from low pitch and amplitude in closing sections to high pitch and

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

195

amplitude in the opening utterance (Brown & Yule 1983:101). There are also several linguistic markers of discontinuity that signal that what follows is non-coherent with the preceding discourse (cf. Finell 1992). Such markers range from explicit metacomments to discourse markers. Metacomments may take forms such as: “Not to change the topic but...” or “Speaking of...”. Discourse markers include for Norwegian ‘nei’, ‘men’ and ‘vel’, and for English ‘yes’, ‘now’, ‘well’ (Bublitz 1988:59). When marking topic boundaries in conversation, these particles are always stressed and produced in separate intonation units (as opposed to certain uses of the same particles in which they signal other things) (Stenström 1994:63). Here is an example of such a boundary marker: (14) (Radio broadcast, from Svennevig et al. 1995:39) RK: og så håper vi naturligvis at lytterne RK: and then of course we hope that the også vil være med litt og-- .. på listeners will also join in a bit and-- .. spøken, in the fun, og gjerne lager en konkurranse sånn and organize a competition in the midt oppe i juleribba og alt sånt no. middle of the preparations for the Christmas dinner and everything. ...vel, ... well, .. vi er klar til å starte, .. we’re ready to start,

Here the particle ‘vel’ — ‘well’ is produced in a separate intonation unit and marks the boundary between the introductory part of the radio programme and the preparations for the quiz which is to be the main part of the programme. Note here that this is not interactional talk. The topic shift thus has to be signalled within one and the same ‘turn’. The interactional techniques for creating topic transition relevance places are not applicable, so the presentator uses a discourse marker to signal the topic boundary. 5.3.2 Topic leaps Some topics are ended merely by the fact that one participant produces a cohesive break while the topic is still in progress. The new mentionables that are introduced have the potential for being established as the topic if the interlocutors together abandon the previous matters and attend to the new ones. In such cases the topic closing procedures described above are not used, and instead the shift constitutes what I will call a topic leap. The potential for making a topic leap is presented by an utterance producing a cohesive break. The types of coherence relations that are considered

196

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

topically disjunctive are presented in 5.4 below. However, a cohesive shift does not necessarily project a new topic. Since the topic in progress has not been interactionally closed off, it will still be available for linking more topical talk onto it. Within certain time limits this gives the interactants the opportunity to return to it, thus treating the shift as merely a temporary suspension of it. Sequences that constitute this type of temporary suspension of a sequence in progress are side sequences and asides (cf. 5.2.5 and 6.2). Whether or not the new topical matter will in fact be established as the new topic will in this way depend on the participants’ subsequent treatment of it. They may both treat it as a side sequence or an aside by returning to the prior sequence, or they may treat it as a new topic by continuing to expand on it. Let us consider the introduction of what is rendered above as examples (2) (TEACHER) and (3) (CAREER). I will just repeat the introduction here, and add what precedes it: (15) TEACHER (2: 597-641) J: ...(1.3) nei jeg sa til meg sjøl når jeg skulle begynne å stu’dere atte ...(1.3) ’Blindern der s- -.. kommer jeg til å være i mange ’år, men -H: .. åja du ville liksom ta en annen [’start da?] J: [så jeg ville] ’starte da, .. med å være et annet sted ’først, og det har jeg forsåvidt ’gjort, og det -... [så sånn sett] så er jeg ... i <@ ferd med å @> H: [jaja men ja --] @@ J: utføre ’planen da. H: (0) ja ’skjønna. .. ’ja. ...(1.3) så du hadd ikja ka hadd duhar du tenkt å bli ’lærer?

J: H:

((SIDESEKVENS UTELATT)) ’ja=, jeg ...(1.0) jeg ’tror det, .. ’mm.

J:

H: J:

H: J: H:

J: H:

...(1.3) you see I told myself when I began ’studying that e= ...(1.3) ’Blindern there I- -.. I’ll be spending a number of ’years, but -.. okay so you sort of wanted another [’start?] [so I wanted] to ’start, by being somewhere ’else, and that’s in fact what I’ve ’done, and it -... [so in that respect] I’m ... <@ fulfilling @> [yeah sure but yeah --] @@ the ’plan. (0) yeah I ’see. .. ’yeah. ...(1.3) so you didn’twell what did youare you planning to become a ’teacher? ((SIDE SEQUENCE OMITTED)) ’yeah=, I ...(1.0) I ’think so, .. ’mm.

TOPIC INTRODUCTION J:

H: J:

H:

... men= ... jeg sekke bort ifra at det .. kan bli journa’list, .. jeg har tenkt litt på ’forlagsbransjen. ... ’mm. .. men e= .. sånn som det ser ut ’nå, <@ så blir det nok ’lærer. @> ... ’ja. ... kanskje til å begynn- -ja det e en del som -æ e- ha- noen- en del andre venna ’og ja som tenker på ’forlags= bransjen.

J:

H: J:

H:

197

... but= ... I don’t rule out that I .. might become a ’journalist, .. I have considered ’publishing. ... ’mm. .. but e= .. the way it looks ’now, <@ I’ll probably end up as a ’teacher. @> ... ’yeah ... perhaps to star- -yeah there are quite a few who -I e- hav- some- quite a few other friends ’too who are thinking about ’publishing.

Here we see that Hilde’s question about whether Jens is planning to become a teacher is also a cohesive shift that occurs in the middle of a topic in progress and is occasioned by it. Jens has been talking about where he wanted to study. When he refers to a “plan” (in noting that he is, in fact, “fulfilling the plan”) Hilde relates this to another sort of plan, namely his plans for a future occupation. She begins by framing the question in the past tense (“what did you plan--”) but reformulates to the present tense (“are you planning”). This could, in principle, be projecting just a side sequence, providing background information that would enrich the interpretation of why he chose the university and the college he did. To respond to a contribution that makes a cohesive shift the conversationalist has to have some hypothesis as to what the utterance is relevant for (“why that now?”). If the initiator just means to generate background information in a side sequence and then return to the prior topic, then the appropriate response will be one that supplies what is relevant for the development of the prior topic and not more. If s/he wants to introduce a new topic, then it is more appropriate to give an expanded response containing new mentionables that may be topicalized. Jens’s response may be seen as accommodating both these projections. He expands beyond the minimal projections of the question (a yes/no-answer), but only mentions his alternative ambitions (journalism and publishing) before returning to the focus of the question (“but the way it looks now I’ll probably end up as a teacher”). He thus leaves the floor to Hilde and lets her choose — either to expand on the new mentionables or to return to the prior sequence. She does not return to her initial concerns but expands on one of the new mentionables introduced by Jens, namely publishing. Jens accepts this

198

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

focus shift by continuing to expand on it and neither of them resumes the topic of planning one’s education or choosing colleges. In this way, they establish the cohesive shift as a topic leap in collaboration. So, although the departure from the topic in progress in these cases is unilateral, the establishment of the new matter as the actual topic is necessarily interactional. First, the cohesive break has to be construed by the co-participant as a topic proposal. This means that s/he has to respond to it in a way that displays his/her interpretation of it as projecting extended talk and not just a local contribution. Second, s/he has to accept the proposal by contributing to develop the matters introduced. Responses that construe the departure as a topic proposal will either be realized by or elicit an extended turn. If the disjunctive turn is a question, the preferred response will be an extended answer, and if it is a statement, the preferred response will be a topicalizer (which elicits an extended response). Responses that construe the departure as an insertion will typically be short answers to questions and continuers as responses to statements. As a contrast let us consider a cohesive break that does not generate a topic leap but merely a side sequence: (16) HORTEN (2: 556-582) H: ... men ’koffor kom du til Oslo ’nu da?

H:

J:

J:

H: J:

H: J: H: J: H: J: H: J:

... nei fordi ... @@@ jeg ’måtte, @@ .. følte jeg ’sjøl. ..

(0) jeg har vært der i to ’år, je- sånn ’faglig sett så ... hadde jeg lyst på [for’ny]else. [’e du herifra?] ... ’nei, .. jeg er fra ’Vestfold. ... ’åja. .. fra e= ’Horten. .. ’åja. ... ’akkurat. ... jeg har bodd halve= .. livet i ’Horten og ’Åsgårdstrand så= -... ja’ha. (0) ’mm. ... ’vanligvis så sier jeg at jeg er fra ’Horten da,

H: J:

H: J: H: J: H: J: H: J:

... but ’why did you come to Oslo ’now? ... well because ... @@@ I ’had to, @@ .. I ’felt. ..

(0) I’ve been there for two ’years, I- as regards my ’subjects ... I wanted a [something ’new.] [do you ’come from here?] ... ’no, .. I’m from ’Vestfold. ((COUNTY)) ... ’okay. .. from e= ’Horten. ((TOWN)) .. ’okay. ... ’right. ... I’ve lived half my .. life in ’Horten and ’Åsgårdstrand so=-... u’hu. (0) ’mm. ... well ’usually I say I’m from ’Horten,

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

H: J: H:

J: H:

for ikke å -...(1.5) for å lok- kunn lokali’ser det liksom? .. ’ja. (0) ’ja. ...(2.2) ’ja=, .. ’der e æ ikke ’no ’kjent. @@[@] .. i det ’hele tatt. [@] @@ ...(3.6) så du føle at du !måtte hit?

H: J: H:

J: H:

199

to avoid-...(1.5) to loc- be able to ’localize it sort of? .. ’yeah. (0) ’yeah. ...(2.2) ’yeah=, .. I don’t know ’anything about that area. @@[@] .. at ’all. [@] @@ ...(3.6) so you felt you !had to come here?

Here Hilde’s question (“are you from here?”) has many of the same features as the question in the previous example. It is occasioned by the prior discourse and may be seen as soliciting background information relevant for continuing the current topic, in this case explaining why Jens moved to Oslo. And here again Jens gives a response that does little more than answer the question. As in the previous example, he expands somewhat (here by adding that he has lived in two different places) but this is just to modify the answer. It is once more up to Hilde to expand on his self-presentation or to return to the prior topic. But this time she does not topicalize the mentionables in his response. Instead she makes a self-oriented comment claiming lack of knowledge of this region. A silence of 3.6 seconds occurs and during this time Jens does not take the opportunity to develop the topic either. Hilde thus returns to the prior topic by reformulating what Jens had said before the cohesive shift (“so you felt you !had to come here?”). The intervening sequence is marked as a side sequence and the original topic continues. In this way, the initial cohesive shift does not determine whether what is to come will be a topic leap or a side sequence. This has to be negotiated locally from turn to turn in the subsequent discourse. In such cases, then, a cohesive shift does not itself establish the subsequent contribution as a proposal for a new topic the way it does after a topic transition relevance place. Cohesive shifts that occur within a topic-in-progress have the potential for introducing both side sequences and topic leaps, and which will be the outcome is negotiated on a turn-by-turn basis. If we compare the two excerpts, we can observe that both include a cohesive shift in which a question breaks into an established topic that is still progressing. Both questions are presented as emerging from the ongoing talk in that they link on to the line of talk in the immediately preceding turns. They

200

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

solicit background information relative to some aspect of the other’s most recent contribution. In this way, they both have the potential for being treated as side sequences whose function is to establish some common background before continuing the topic. However, both sequences include questions that ask for prototypical self-presentational information (“what are you actually studying then?” and “are you from here?”). This also gives them a potential for being expanded into topics on their own. In both cases Jens gives a general self-presentational answer that does not relate explicitly to the prior talk, but neither does he expand further on the self-presentation. In this way he shows an orientation to letting Hilde, who introduced the cohesive shift, decide whether it should serve just as background for continuing the prior topic or be expanded into a topic in its own right. What Hilde had initially intended is not for Jens or us to decide, but it is clearly a concern for Jens that she aimed at something in changing the focus of the talk, and so he gives an answer that might be appropriate both for a side sequence and for a topic leap and leaves it up to her to develop it according to her reasons for making the shift. In the first case, Hilde expands on mentionables from Jens’s talk that do not relate to either the prior topic or to the explicit concern of her question (whether or not Jens wants to become a teacher). In the second, she produces what may be seen as a declining of the possibility for her to pursue the topic and then returns to the prior topic. Topic leaps are thus emergent phenomena that can only be achieved by mutual collaborative efforts. The initiative to introduce a new matter is also an initiative to abandon the prior topic without closing it interactionally. The prior topic is therefore continuously available as a potential antecedent for further talk and may thus be revived. In order for the new matter to be established as the new topic, the participants have to mutually agree to talk about the new topic and not return to the prior one. By contrast, topic transition relevance places create an opportunity space for introducing new mentionables by closing the prior topic. A new and completely unrelated matter may be introduced as the next potential topic. A fundamental difference between the two techniques for changing topic is the types of cohesive shifts they allow. Topic leaps are always occasioned by the prior discourse and thus include some link to it. They involve a process of recontextualization (see 5.4.3 below). Topic transition relevance places allow the introduction of completely unrelated matters, that is, non-coherent topics. These techniques are thus differentially distributed and used for doing

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

201

different sorts of topic shifts. In order to introduce a new, unrelated matter the participants have to close the current topic by using the conventional and interactional procedures for generating a topic transition relevance place. A new topic that is related to the prior one may be introduced at a topic transition relevance place but may in addition be launched within a topic in progress. The difference between these techniques for introducing a recontextualized topic is that, after a topic transition relevance place, the utterance containing the new topical matter will be heard as a proposal for a new topic and treated accordingly, whereas, in the middle of a topic in progress, the initiative to introduce new matters may project different sorts of extended units (side sequences, asides, topics). It is thus an indefinite and transformable object which only achieves its status as a topic leap (or side sequence) by the way it is treated in the subsequent turns. The development is a matter of negotiation in which both parties have equal opportunities to influence the outcome. The previous paragraph made the type of cohesive shift determinative of which type of topic changing techniques it is appropriate to apply. This calls for a closer look at coherence relations in discourse.

5.4 Topic shift and coherence Topic shift cannot be characterized solely in terms of formal features, such as pauses, minimal responses, etc. These features create the opportunity for topic shift, but the participants are not obliged to change the topic at such a topic transition relevance place. They may take up again and pursue the same topic as before. In order to jointly establish a topic shift, they must in addition construe the content as disjunctive with the previous discourse. This brings up coherence as a constitutive feature of topic organization. However, shifts in coherence do not appear only at topic transition relevance places. Conversationalists may jointly construe a shift in coherence without accommodating it into the discourse by means of the conventional structural signals described above (silences, minimal responses, etc.). Before turning to the coherence shifts implied in topic transitions, it must be noted that there are clear shifts in coherence that are not topic shifts. These cases are side sequences and asides. Side sequences introduce a focus shift (see below). They may shift to a metacommunicative focus (as in repair sequences), or they may recontextualize an element in the prior discourse

202

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

(more on this in Chapter 6). Asides introduce matters that are not coherent with the ongoing discourse at all (cf. (10) (D OORBELL) (p. 186)). What these types of sequences have in common, and what distinguishes them from topic shifts, is that they are insertions. They suspend the current talk temporarily, but once they are completed, they return the participants to the point where the break occurred. Thus, they do not cancel permanently the contextual space created in the discourse up to that point, but only interrupt it for a limited period of time. The evidence for this is that conversationalists return to the same topic after such interruptions without having to reintroduce the topical matters. The prior topic is immediately available as a resource for continuing talk after the insertion. 5.4.1 Coherence and cohesive devices If structural markers of topic shift are not sufficient for establishing a new topic, there is a need for a procedure for signalling coherence relations in conversation. Chains of discourse referents offer a plausible candidate. Maynard (1980) has found that introducing a new set of referents is characteristic of topic change. In a quantitative analysis Schiffrin (1988) shows that there is a systematic relation between referring terms and discourse topic.36 Other cohesive devices, such as discourse connectives, temporality and modality, have also been proposed as cues to topic organization (Givón 1995). However, cohesive devices are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for topical coherence (Sanford & Moxey 1995, Trabasso, Suh & Payton 1995). The same set of referents occurring in a stretch of discourse does not guarantee topical coherence. The perspective may change radically, for instance from referential to metacommunicative. On the other hand, a stretch of discourse including distinct sets of referent chains may nevertheless be coherent, if an implicit perspective unites them in a common category (cf. (1) above). The same sort of argument goes for other cohesion markers as well. This can be illustrated by taking another look at (8) (REAL THING) (p. 182). The first part of this excerpt concerns the speaker and his plans for playing some jazz music with some other ‘guys’. The central discourse referents are ‘I’, ‘guys’, ‘Real Thing’ and ‘job’. But at a certain point all these chains stop. Instead a new set of referents is introduced, the two main ones being ‘American’ and ‘Hammond organ’. There is nothing that unites the two stretches of talk if one considers only the explicit cohesive devices.37 The

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

203

temporal deixis also shifts from reference to the future in the first part (“gonna play”, “we’ll be three”) to reference to the past in the second (“has emigrated”, “has brought along”).The discourse connective that appears between the two stretches is ‘but’. ‘But’ marks opposition rather than continuity and is frequently used as a boundary marker (Stenström 1994). While the cohesive devices mark rupture rather than continuity, a holistic interpretation establishes the two parts as coherent. This was explained above by the operation of the principle of local connectedness. The coherence is based on an inference that the American is one of the ‘guys’ that Bjørn is going to play with. The link between the two parts is implicit, and no explicit markers, such as connectives, discourse markers or referent chains even contribute to establishing the connection. This coherence is not only established by the outside analyst. There is clear evidence that Bjørn and Lars treat the two parts as connected. Towards the end of the excerpt Lars says: “that might turn out real good”. The anaphoric expression ‘that’ most plausibly refers back to the prior talk about the ‘band’ and not to the adventures of the American. And at least when he says that “it will be the new [...] Emerson Lake and Palmer”, the pronoun ‘it’ can only be referring to the ‘band’. No referents in the part including the American and the Hammond organ would constitute a plausible antecedent. As noted above, the information about the American organist is integrated into the talk about the band in that the band is compared with an actual band that included a Hammond organist. The point here is that coherence cannot be judged on the basis of surface level features alone. Coherence is a mental, not a textual phenomenon (Givón 1995). Establishing coherence involves a holistic assessment of relevance that relies on large amounts of discourse-external information, retrieved from the interactants’ background knowledge, and includes several inferential steps (Sanford & Moxey 1995). Explicit cohesive devices may contribute to coherence patterns, but are not constitutive of them. Since coherence is a mental phenomenon, it cannot be deduced automatically from surface form. The only thing we have access to as discourse analysts is displays of the interactants’ understandings and their establishment of coherence. As we saw in the example above, Lars displayed his establishment of coherence between the two parts of the preceding discourse in alluding to Emerson Lake and Palmer. And Bjørn, by accepting this linking, endorsed his construal. So it is possible after all to study coherence patterns in

204

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

discourse. But what we are studying is not the mental phenomena per se, but the intersubjectively construed meaning relations. Another point illustrated by the previous example is that subsequent discourse may shed new light on a piece of conversation. The coherence between the part about the band and the part about the American was not displayed in those parts themselves, but only afterwards, when Lars linked the two together. In this way, interpretations of coherence may be displayed and negotiated in retrospect. This shows that the construal of intersubjective meaning is a continuous process and the product never definitively fixed. For this reason, assessments of coherence patterns in discourse cannot take account only of the local discourse context (such as for instance a single contribution and its preceding contributions). It has to bring in the subsequent negotiation and the long-term joint construal of the contributions under investigation. 5.4.2 Degrees of coherence If we want to get a picture of the relation between topic shifting procedures and the actual changes of content in the conversation we need a measure of coherence. This may be done by classifying the possible types of connections between conversational contributions. For this I will use the following classification, based on Linell & Gustavsson (1987:42f): Immediate connection Non-focal connection Non-local connection Non-focal, non-local connection No connection These categories form a scale, so that the first represents maximal coherence and the last no coherence.38 Immediate connections are fully coherent and imply no topical shift. The topical matter may certainly be developed in one direction or the other, but the bulk of the contextual resources exploited in one turn remain relevant for the next. It lies in the nature of language use that each new utterance has potential for developing the topic in different directions. In Linell’s words: Each new unit is pregnant with opportunities for developing meaning; it represents a stage of ‘multiply determinable indeterminacy’ [Shotter]. Only some potentials actually get realised; the things that, in the course of this

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

205

continuous sense-making activity, are not ‘brought into language’ will remain ‘lost opportunities’ [Rommetveit]. (Linell 1998:110)

In non-focal connections the turn is related to the immediately preceding discourse, but the coherence is only partial. The break involves a focus shift. The focus may shift from referential to metacommunicative or vice versa. Another type of focus shift is what Linell (1998) has termed recontextualization, whereby some matter that is only implicit or peripheral within one topic space is extracted from that context and introduced as a central component of a new topic space. The same matter is partly maintained from one section to the next, but the focus on it shifts. An example may be a presupposition in one contribution being raised as an explicit focus of talk in the next. Another example may be a peripheral referent in a narrative being made the central concern of the next contribution (cf. example (18) below). In non-local connections the contribution does not display coherence (either focally or non-focally) with the immediately preceding discourse. However, it displays focal coherence with the more remotely preceding discourse.39 This means reintroducing a prior topic. Reintroductions are regularly done by reiterating or recapitulating some part of the participants’ previously established common ground (Komter 1986), such as here: (17) STIG AND THERESA (1: 1979-1985) C: ...(2.5)

A: ...(2.0) [<X nej jag bara-- X>] C: [du kj--] ... du känner Stig och Theresa sa du,

C: A: C:

A: C:

A: C:

... mhm, ... har ni umgåtts nånting elle=r ni bara känner varandra lite.

...(2.5)

...(2.0) [<X no I was just -- X>] [you kn--] ... you know Stig and Theresa you said, ... mhm, have you been seeing each other or= you just know each other slightly.

Here Charlotte reintroduces Stig and Theresa, who have been mentioned earlier on in the conversation, but not in the immediate discourse context. In doing this, she explicitly refers to their talking about these persons. Only when the reference to the prior topic has been acknowledged by Anna does Charlotte make a topical bid by asking a question about them. If an utterance, in addition to the non-local coherence, also changes the focus relative to that of the preceding discourse we get a non-local, non-focal connection. A stretch of discourse is non-coherent with the preceding discourse if it does not relate to it in any way, either explicitly or implicitly. There are no

206

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

anaphoric references to the previous discourse and no presuppositions exploiting contextual assumptions activated there. 5.4.3 Recontextualization and gradual topic shifts The probably most difficult distinction to maintain in an analysis is that between immediate connections (topic maintenance) and non-focal connections (recontextualization). I will therefore give an example and show in detail how the recontextualization process works: (18) ULF LUNDELL (1: 751-827) C: i ’lördags= skulle ’jag m== några kompisar vi skulle ’ut-ja .. ’två kompisar, .. vi skulle ut på Ulf ’Lundell. A: C: A: C: A: C:

mhm, ((SIDESEKVENS UTELATT)) .. han spelade i ’lördags i ’Växjö, jaha, ... och då kom .. ’dom, .. dom var två ’stycken, [mhm.] [dom] köpte var sin flaska ’vin, ... där satt vi på min ’balkong,

C:

A: C: A: C: A: C:

det var ’varmt och ’skönt, ... och tyckte ’synd om mina ’grannar bara, dom fick ... höra ’gapskratt ... <@ och ’skrik från oss. @> A:

ja= det finns ju ’värre å= höra.

A:

C:

ja= och så lite ’hög ’musik. ...

...(1.0) så drack vi upp ’flaskorna, .. jaha vi hade en ’halvtimma ’kvar,

C:

A: C:

.. okej .. fram med en flaska ’till, ...(1.7) och det var !otrolig, ’var sin flaska ’innan, ... ja? tre flaskor och tre tjejer.

A: C:

on ’Saturday= I was m== some friends we were going ’out-yeah .. ’two friends, .. we were going to the Ulf ’Lundell concert. mhm, ((SIDE SEQUENCE OMITTED)) .. he was playing ’Saturday in Växjö, right, ... and so ’they .. came, .. there were ’two of them, [mhm.] [they] each bought a bottle of ’wine, ... there we were sitting on my ’balcony, it was ’warm and ’pleasant, ... and just feeling sorry for my ’neighbours, they had to .. listen to roars of ’laughter ... <@ and ’screams from us. @> well= there are ’worse things to= listen to. yeah= and then some ’loud ’music. ...

...(1.0) then we drank up the ’bottles, .. all right we had another ’half an hour to go, .. okay .. we fetched ’another bottle, ...(1.7) and it was in!credible, ’one bottle ’each before you went ’out, ... yeah? three bottles and three girls.

TOPIC INTRODUCTION A: C: C: A: C:

A: C: A: C:

A: C: A: C:

A: C: A:

C: A:

A: C:

207

... [@@@@@@@@@] A: [det var-C: det var ju ... strong.] ...(1.0) men ... vi klarade oss. C: ... mhm. A: konstig ’nog. C: det trodde inte jag. jag trodde ... jaha nu säcker dom i hop, nu får jag lägga dom i min dubbelsäng.

... [@@@@@@@@@] [it was-it sure was ... strong.] ...(1.0) but= we coped. ... mhm. ’strangely enough. I wouldn’t have thought so. I thought ... okay now they’ll collapse, now I’ll have to put them in my double bed. ... @ A: ... @ .. men vi klarade oss. C: .. but we managed. ...(2.3) [mhm] A: ...(2.3) [mhm] [konserten] var bra, C: [the concert] was good, .. ja .. konserten var bra och allting .. var .. yeah .. the concert was good and [bra.] everything .. was [nice.] [jaha.] A: [right.] frid och fröjd. C: sweetness and light. ...(1.5) brukar du .. lyssna på honom. A: ...(1.5) do you usually .. listen to him. ... nej ... det gör jag inte, C: ... no ... I don’t, .. men jag tänkte att, .. but I thought that, ... han spelar i Växjö, ... he’s playing in Växjö, nu måste jag passa på. now I can’t miss that. ja=. A: yeah=. (Hx) C: (Hx) jo det är kul å gå på konsert även om A: yeah it’s nice to go to a concert even if det inte är nån ...(1.3) nån absolut idol, its not an ...(1.3) an absolute favorite, (H) .. och jag har lyssnat ganska mycket (H) .. and I used to listen quite a bit to him på honom för ... några år sen, some ... years ago, ... <X denna här Vassa eggen X> och=, ... <X this The Sharp Edge X> and=, ... Det glada livet, ... The Happy Life, .. säger mej ingen <@ ting. C: .. doesn’t ring a bell at <@all. @@@@@[@@@>] @@@@@[@@@>] [nej=] A: [no=] nej men em jag har en= tre fyra skiver no but em I have about= three or four hemma ... [[

]] records at home ... [[

[[mhm]] C: [[ mhm]] ... fast dom är ganska lika varann. A: ... they’re quite alike though. ... mhm. C: ... mhm. ...(1.5) ja= .. man säger ju att han är= ...(1.5) yeah= .. they say he’s= ... Sveriges= Bruce Springsteen, ... Sweden’s= Bruce Springsteen,

After Charlotte has told Anna about the drinking and the concert Anna asks a

208

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

question about Ulf Lundell. This is not incoherent with the preceding story, but whereas the artist was peripheral to Charlotte’s story, Anna makes him the centre of attention. From being a part of the setting for the story about the girls’ drinking, Anna focuses on Ulf Lundell as a singer. His peripheral status in Charlotte’s story shows up in that he is referred to only once, while he becomes a central discourse referent in what follows Anna’s question. In the process of recontextualization, the main bulk of the contextual assumptions activated in the narrative are rendered irrelevant to interpreting what follows. The discourse referent ‘Ulf Lundell’ is first decontextualized relative to the narrative, so that, in the next topic, it is irrelevant that he has held a concert in Växjö. He is then recontextualized into a new topic space, where he is no longer treated as a person giving concerts, but as an artist featuring on records and tapes. This process of recontextualization is illustrated in Figure 4. The central referents of the story are “the friends” and “the wine”. The peripheral referent “Ulf Lundell” is extracted from the story frame and made the central referent of a new topic space, leading to talk about his “records” and his resemblance to “Bruce Springsteen”. grannar neighbours latter laughter

lørdag saturday

kompisar friends

balkong balcony

vin wine konsert concert Ulf Lundell ↓ Ulf Lundell Bruce Springsteen

plater records

Figure 4. The process of recontextualization

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

209

Note that this process is quite distinct from gradual topic transitions. It is a punctual shift that involves a clear change in contextual frames. Gradual topic transitions may well change the topic quite radically, but the process goes over so many turns that each turn is focally coherent with the preceding. This phenomenon has been studied under labels such as topic shading (Schegloff & Sacks 1974) and topic drift (Hobbs 1990). One way of accomplishing a gradual transition is to find something that is connected both to the current topic and the potential one and to exploit this common connection, e.g. by establishing common class-membership between objects that occur in the two (Sacks 1992 vol. 1:757, vol. 2:300). As an example of a type of gradual transition, consider Jefferson’s (1984a) account of the procedure for stepwise topic transition from a topic which she calls a troubles telling (including one of the participants revealing some personal problem) and on to some “next positioned matter”. The movement consists of 5 steps, each of which may be considered as on topic with the preceding step, but which in combination replace the troubles topic with some other topic. The steps are: 1. Summing up the heart of the trouble. 2. The troubles-teller turns to matters that are ancillary. 3. The troubles-recipient produces talk that topically stabilizes the ancillary matters. 4. The troubles-recipient produces a pivotal utterance that has independent topical potential. 5. The participants establish the target matter as the new topic. (Jefferson 1984a:202-204) It might be considered problematic that neither the topic shift model nor the scale of coherence relations presented above include gradual topic transitions, especially since such transitions are very common. In fact, they are claimed to be the preferred way of shifting topic (Sacks 1992, vol. 2:300, 566). However, it has proven utterly difficult to distinguish gradual transitions from mere development within a single topic. In trying to operationalize topic progression into a coding scheme, Crow (1983) notes that there is low inter-rater reliability when it comes to distinguishing topic maintenance from coherent shift (which includes topic shading). This problem is an important one, as 60% of the shifts are labelled ‘coherent’. Crow’s conclusion is that shading is “perhaps the most important, though most elusive, mechanism for extending a conversation” (p. 155).

210

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

The shading category is defined as a shift category which “introduces a new topic by first establishing its relevance to, or connection with, the topic that has been on the floor” (Crow 1983:142). But, as noted above, we cannot in principle define the topic of a stretch of discourse. Now if we cannot define topic A and topic B individually, we certainly cannot use them as the criteria for defining the transition between them. We cannot define a topic shift such as shading as just a coherent sequence which relates A to B. Jefferson has the same problem. She uses intuitive characterizations such as ‘troubles telling’ without making it clear what makes this a relevant topic category in the first place or what its constitutive features are. In this way, we have no clear criteria to decide at which point the participants are doing ‘troubles telling’ and at which point they are doing something else. My position with respect to gradual topic transitions is that they do not at any point include a proposal for an extended joint project, but only local ones. Topic is managed locally and no single contribution projects extended talk with a specific global organization. Gradual topic transitions therefore do not include topic introduction but merely adjustments of already established topics. A joint project may be adjusted under the course of its completion, but the adjustment is not itself a new project. A recontextualization, by contrast, is constituted by a proposal and an acceptance to quit one joint project and engage in another. The reason that this might be effectuated as a topic leap, that is, without closing the prior topic, must be sought in the dynamics of occasioning as a conversational resource (Jefferson 1978). In recontextualizing some item the participants exploit the mentionables already on the floor to motivate the introduction of a new topic while assuring access to already established contextual resources (discourse referents, perspectives and more). 5.4.4 A model of topic organization Combining previous findings with my own proposals, I have now presented what I consider to be the fundamentals of a model of topic organization. Before proceeding to the empirical analysis I will sum up the basic features of the model. The principles of projectability and reportability provide the legitimation of topic introductions and a criterion of potential completion. They are subsequently exploited in techniques for closing the topic and preparing a topic transition relevance place. This is done by confirming the reportability of

211

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

the matters presented (assessments) and by displaying understanding of the projected point (generalizations, summaries, conclusions, etc.). The principles of local connectedness and progressivity are the standard requirements of topical talk, yielding continuous talk (minimization of gaps) and contributions that are both informative (expanding common ground) and locally relevant. When the participants mutually halt the progression of the topic by producing repetitions, minimal responses and extended gaps, they exploit the progressivity principle to signal potential exhaustion of the topic. Another technique for changing the topic is to produce a contribution that is not focally or locally coherent with prior talk, thus infringing the principle of local connectedness. This may open a side sequence or a topic leap, depending on how the deviation from the original topic is treated in the subsequent turns. For a certain period of time both parties have the opportunity to treat the deviation as a temporary suspension of the topic (a side sequence) and produce a contribution that is fitted to the contribution preceding the cohesive break. But if they instead continue to produce locally coherent contributions they will display acceptance of the cohesive break as a new topic. The model of topic organization is presented in condensed form in Table 8. Table 8 A model of topic organization Procedure

Realization

Pragmatic principle

Topic introduction

Topic proffer, topic nomination or topic initial elicitor Coherent contributions Informative contributions and continuous talk Extended gaps, minimal responses and repetition Assessments, summaries and generalizations Non-focally or non-locally coherent contribution

Projectability and reportability Local connectedness Progressivity

Topic development and gradual shifts Topic transition relevance place

Topic leap

Progressivity Projectability and reportability Local connectedness

212

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

5.5 Topic shift and coherence in the corpus The model of topic progression is now used to identify the topic shifts in the corpus. The analysis draws on both coherence relations and indicators of topic transition relevance places. Below I will present the general topic structure of the corpus. After that I will distinguish four types of topic introduction (5.6) and investigate their interactional characteristics as they are manifested in the corpus (5.7). This will constitute the basis for the subsequent analysis of politeness and relational work in topic introductions. The basic criterion for identifying a topic shift is the coherence relations with the preceding talk. All points in the conversations that include a break in the coherence are identified. A break in the coherence is defined as one of the less than coherent relations presented above (cf. 5.4.2: no coherence, nonlocal, non-focal or both non-local and non-focal coherence). Omitted are coherence breaks that involve side sequences or asides. There is a total of 147 topic shifts in the corpus as a whole. Their distribution is shown in Table 9. Table 9. Number of topic shifts in the corpus Conversation

Duration

1 Anna & Charlotte 2 Jens & Hilde 3 Ragnhild & Victoria 4 Marta & Sven 5 Bjørn & Lars

63 min. 42 min. 36 min. 36 min. 35 min.

Total

No. of topic shifts 47 32 22 18 28 147

As can be seen from the table, the conversations vary in frequency of topic shifts.40 While Marta and Sven on the average devote more than two minutes to each topic, both Jens and Hilde, and Anna and Charlotte devote only about one minute and twenty seconds. The others have averages in between. The next step in the analysis is categorizing the coherence relations involved in the shifts. By far the most frequent topic transition involves nonfocal coherence (approximately 62%). This means that the participants, in introducing new topics, most often use the contextual resources already deployed in the conversation up to that point. This is done by recontextualizing some current topical matter. ‘Brand new’ topics — topics that do not relate to prior talk at all — are much less frequent, representing only one fourth of

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

213

the total number of transitions. Reintroductions — transitions with non-local links — are even less frequent. The coherence relations involved in topic shifts are presented in Table 10. Table 10. Coherence relations between new topics and prior talk Coherence relation

No. of instances

Non-coherence Non-focal coherence Non-local coherence Non-local/non-focal coh. Total

38 91 12 6 147

Percentage 26 % 62 % 8% 4% 100 %

But what is the relation between coherence breaks and topic transition relevance places? The model above allows us to investigate to what degree coherence breaks are signalled by means of TTRP markers. Such markers include the features listed above (cf. 5.3.1), such as long gaps and pauses, sequences of minimal responses, repetitions, assessments and generalizations. The identification of topic transition relevance places is based on a holistic evaluation of the signalling, including the convergence of different signals and the strength of each signal. The participants do indeed use the methods of signalling topic shifts that are described above. 84 % of the coherence breaks occurred at topic transition relevance places (cf. Table 11). This indicates that the usual way to change a topic in this type of conversation is first to signal the potential completion of the prior topic before introducing a new one. Table 11. Number and percentage of topic transition relevance places at coherence breaks TTRP No TTRP Total

No. of instances 123 24 147

Percentage 84 % 16 % 100 %

Even more interesting is the picture we get if we correlate the presence of topic transition relevance places with types of coherence breaks. All non-coherent shifts occur after topic transition relevance places. 24 % of the recontextualizations (non-focal shifts) and 17 % of the reintroductions (non-local shifts) are introduced without TTRP markers. Shifts that are both non-local and non-focal also occur only after topic transition relevance places (see Table 12).

214

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Table 12. The correlation between types of coherence break and the presence of topic transition relevance places Coherence relation Non-coherence Non-focal coherence Non-local coherence Non-local/non-focal coh.

Topic shifts at TTRPs 100 % 76 % 83 % 100 %

Topic shifts outside TTRPs 0% 24 % 17 % 0%

These figures indicate that radical shifts in coherence are not possible just anywhere in this type of conversation. To be able to introduce a brand new topical matter interactants must first properly and jointly close the previous topic. In this way, new topics are standardly made room for and fitted into the discourse by routine interactional procedures. In the view of topic organization as joint action, we can say that participants complete one joint project before engaging in an entirely new one. When the coherence shift is less radical interlocutors may introduce a topic without first closing the previous one. This is when the new topic can be construed as occasioned by the prior discourse. Either the new topic recontextualizes some aspect of the current topic, or else it reintroduces some matter that has previously been in focus. Reintroductions might seem to be the most difficult to fit into the discourse without a topic transition relevance place. However, reintroductions vary with respect to how accessible the reintroduced material is. There are only two instances of reintroductions without topic transition relevance places. On closer examination, both of them represent cases where the reintroduction elaborates on some aspect introduced earlier on in the immediately preceding topic. And so they may be seen as taking up a ‘lost opportunity’ from the preceding topic. In this way, these introductions also fit into the picture presented above, namely that occasioned topics may be introduced without first creating a transition space. Heinemann & Simonsen (1996) have used the present model in an analysis of 4 conversations, 2 between acquainted and 2 between unacquainted pairs (totalling 1 hour and 24 minutes of talk). Their results mostly show the same tendencies as mine. First, they find that non-focal shifts are by far the most common, representing a total of 72% in their data (62% in my data) with non-coherent shifts as the second most common coherence relation (10% in their data and 26% in my). They also find that most topic shifts (81%) are effectuated by means of topic transition relevance places (vs. 84% in my data).

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

215

As for the relation between coherence and TTRP markers, there is one difference from my analysis. Heinemann & Simonsen find one instance (out of 9) of a non-coherent topic shift that is introduced outside a topic transition relevance place, whereas in my data they all occur at TTRPs. According to my analysis, however, their example is a non-focal shift and not a non-coherent shift after all. And, even if their analysis is to be accepted, the difference might be due to the fact that the instance occurs in a conversation between acquainted interlocutors, whereas my claims only concern first conversations. All in all, Heinemann & Simonsen’s (1996) analysis corroborates my findings. In the absence of formal tests for reliability, independent analyses by different researchers on different corpora provide an alternative, mutually strengthening the analyses when they yield similar results. Their analysis also testifies to the coherence and applicability of the topic model as a practical tool for analysis.

5.6 Topic types The treatment of topic up to this point has been of a rather general character and has made little reference to the specific nature of the conversations examined, namely that they occur between unacquainted partners. However, judging from the literature there are reasons to suspect that topic introduction may be subject to distinct constraints in such conversations. In this section I propose a division into four topic types which will be examined for their mode of introduction in the data (5.7). But first some words about previous studies of this topic. Maynard & Zimmerman (1984) claim that, in conversations between unacquainted interlocutors, there is a differential treatment of personal topics and setting talk. Personal topics require specific forms of introduction in the form of question-answer pairs — so-called pre-topical sequences. The first type is a categorization sequence, in which one speaker invites the other to classify himself with respect to some category of people. This may be done by questions such as: “Do you live here on campus?” The second type consists of questions about activities related to the categorization (called a categoryactivity sequence), for example: “what [classes] are you taking anyway?” (Maynard & Zimmerman’s examples). Pre-topical questions are not necessarily followed by extended topical

216

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

talk. Rather, they are invitations to produce a topic initial utterance. This will take the form of an expanded response that may in turn be topicalized by the initiator. A rejection of the invitation will treat the question as a mere request for information and produce only a minimal answer. The recurrent occurrence of pre-topical sequences in talk between unacquainted parties make Maynard & Zimmerman conclude that they are “required conversational and cultural forms for generating “personal” or autobiographical talk” in such settings (1984:309). Their aptness for just this context is that they allow the participants to establish their respective discourse identities and “generate typified knowledge of each other’s biography” (1984:306). This is due to the ‘inference rich’ character of the categories employed (Sacks 1992, cf. 2.3.4 above) The use of categorization sequences to introduce topics contrasts with the techniques used by acquainted pairs in Maynard and Zimmerman’s (1984) study. Acquainted pairs would instead introduce topics by means of “deliveries of news”, that is, they would present presumably new information about presumably known referents. This procedure seems to be just what Button & Casey (1985) call news announcements (cf. 5.2.2). In making news deliveries the interlocutors display prior experience related to their “shared history of interaction” and rely on “mutually assumed knowledge of one another’s biography” (Maynard & Zimmerman 1984:303). In contrast to these personal topics are the topics that concern the physical environment of the talk. Bergmann (1990) notes a tendency in conversation for the participants to turn to ‘local matters’, that is, focus on elements which are situated or occur in their field of perception. This local sensitivity is an important resource for reengaging in talk after closure-implicative silences and it may be used to generate other mentionables for further topical talk. Maynard & Zimmerman (1984) similarly note the recurrence in their data of setting talk, that is, talk about the scene providing the occasion for the conversation (in their case an experimental laboratory setting). The pretopical sequence used to introduce personal topics is designed to generate mentionables for subsequent elaboration. But setting talk, they note, “may be a ‘false’ topic in the sense that it is quickly exhausted unless it is used to introduce other ‘mentionables’” (1984:304). To move on to further topical talk one must either introduce a completely new and unrelated topic, or exploit some aspect of the neutral topic itself to introduce new mentionables. In this way, setting talk may have a transitional character in that it is regularly used as

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

217

an intermediary for entering into other topics. Harvey Sacks has also made a similar point with reference to the topic weather: [...] it is ‘transitional’ in the specific sense that at pretty much any point into it, it can be dropped in favor of something that happens to come up, whereas topics don’t ordinarily have that kind of character. (Sacks 1992, vol. 2:205)

Laver (1975, 1981) analyses the ritualized openings of conversations as a way of reaching a ‘working consensus’ for the rest of the interaction. His initial observation on topics in these phases is that they are typically deictic; that is, they include reference to factors of the situational context, such as time, place and participants in the conversation. These utterances establish or reiterate a mutual perspective on the participant statuses, situational characteristics and conversational activity of the current encounter. His first category of comments includes neutral tokens, which refer to physical features of the situation, such as the weather (Laver 1975:223). The other category consists of comments relating to personal features, and are subdivided into selforiented and other-oriented tokens. Schneider (1987, 1988) has studied the deployment of various types of topics in ‘small talk’. He reports that strangers typically start talking about the immediate situation. This is characterized as the most neutral and noncommitting level of talk. In proceeding to other topics they either draw on the external situation (the sociocultural context), extending the range of noncommitting topics, or they turn “inwards” to the participants themselves, thereby invoking more personal matters (Schneider 1988:86). These alternative courses of action are related to certain contextual factors, such as the expected ‘sociability’. Social occasions, such as parties, are distinguished from situations where strangers or distant acquaintances are merely forced to bridge a certain span of time together. In the former case, the interactants typically engage in personal topics, while in the latter, they do setting talk or talk about other impersonal topics, such as “light politics or economy” (p. 285). These studies suggest a division between personal and impersonal topics, and this has proved useful in my analysis of topic introductions in the corpus. Below, I show that these topic types require different modes of introduction and are subject to different sequential constraints. However, I subdivide these types even further. First, I take up Laver’s distinction between self- and other-oriented topics. In cases where the topic includes both participants, I speak of weoriented topics. In addition, I follow Schneider in discerning between talk about the immediate situation — setting topics — and talk about the wider socio-

218

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

cultural context – encyclopedic topics. In the latter, the main concern of the talk is matters related to the participants’ expertise as members of various cultural communities. Examples are media events, politics, literature and music. This yields a typology of topic initiations that distinguishes those that focus primarily on the participants (self- and other-oriented) from those that do not (setting and encyclopedic topics). Self-, other- and we-oriented topic introductions concern mainly diary information of the participants. They include talk about personal experiences, future plans, personal characteristics, etc. Neutral topic introductions focus on encyclopedic or perceptual information. Encyclopedic topics draw on the participants’ expertise as members of various cultural communities, whereas setting topics exploit their physical co-presence. The topic types are defined relative to the formulation by which they are introduced in the conversation. Topic introductions proffer or solicit mentionables for topical talk and in doing so propose (and project) an informational focus for the subsequent talk. It is this informational focus which is the basis for the classification of topic types. The focus may be — and often is — altered as the talk proceeds, but this is not my object of study here. Thus, the ‘topic type’ is intended to characterize the topic introduction and not all the topical talk that is engendered by it. The next section presents an analysis of the interactional and sequential characteristics of topic introductions in the corpus.

5.7 Topic introductions in the corpus The largest group of topic introductions is other-oriented introductions, with 69 instances (out of a total of 147). Self-oriented initiations amount to 40, while the neutral category has 35 instances – 20 encyclopedic and 15 setting topics.41 In addition, there are 3 we-oriented topic introductions (see Table 13). Table 13 Number and percentage of different types of topic introductions Introduction type Other-oriented Self-oriented We-oriented Encyclopedic Setting Total

No. of instances 69 40 3 20 15 147

Percentage 47 % 27 % 2% 14 % 10 % 100 %

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

219

The sequential properties of the topic types will be explored in this section, and their relational implications in 5.8. Because of the limited number of topic introductions that are we-oriented (3 in all), I will not comment on this category. However, the very fact that so few instances concern both parties is interesting and may be a reflection of the participants’ lack of common ground and lack of a shared history of interaction. 5.7.1 Setting topics Setting topics are generally introduced disjunctively and as non-coherent with previous discourse. Talk about the setting mainly achieves relevance from the situation as such and not from previous discourse. The main source providing mentionables for such talk is changes in the physical surroundings. As a majority of the conversations take place in a restaurant or café, much of the talk consists of comments on the food and beverages being served. Other examples are comments relating to people passing by, or to the microphones or other features of the recording situation. Setting topics represent only 10 % of the topic introductions in the corpus. It is therefore interesting that four of the five pairs (conversations 1-4) start their conversations with such topics. Having received instructions from me, they turn to the setting to find mentionables for initiating talk with each other. The aspects of the setting they comment on are the restaurant frame and the recording situation. Here are the opening lines of the five conversations: (19) 1: 11-12 C: vad ska man ’äta då. C: A: ...(3.4) jag måste ju- jag måste ju ’fråga A: vad du heter @@@@@

so what are we ’having to eat. ...(3.4) I must- I must ’ask you what your name is @@@@@

(20) 2: 33-35 H: ...(8.0) <X æ går ut fra at det kommer en kelner og ’henta- X> .. æ har ikke vært og ’spist her før æ. J: .. nei det er ’første gangen,

J:

...(8.0) <X I suppose there will be a waiter here to ’get- X> .. I haven’t ’eaten here before. .. no it’s the ’first time,

(21) 3: 77-81 R: ((TAR PÅ SEG MIKROFONEN))

R:

V:

’så da, .. er det greit nok ’sånn tror du? .. ’hva?

H:

V:

((PUTTING ON THE MICROPHONE)) ’so, .. you think it’s all right like ’this? .. ’what?

220 R: V:

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

.. tror du det er greit nok ’sånn? .. ja ’sikkert.

R: V:

(22) 4: 78-81 M: ... <@ har du ’gjort noe sånt ’før? @>

M:

S: M:

(0) <@ nei ’aldri. @> .. <@ nei ikke ’jeg heller. @>

(23) 5:7-9 L: ... ’Bjørn .. var ’det ’navnet? B: .. ja ja [ja .. ]

L: [ja mm]

CONVERSATION .. do you think it’s all right like ’this? .. yeah ’sure.

... <@ have you ’done anything like this be’fore? @> S: (0) <@ no ’never. @> M: .. <@ no neither have ’I. @>

L: B: L:

... ’Bjørn .. was ’that your ’name? yeah yeah [yeah .. ]

[yeah mm]

As we can see, the first four conversations refer to the setting as the first topic of the conversation. The first two address the practical concerns of ordering food in the restaurant. Ragnhild topicalizes the practical actions of attaching the microphone, while Maria brings the whole recording situation into focus. Only in conversation 5 do the participants start with something else, namely a presentation of names. The participants use the setting as a resource for starting to talk. The activity of talking together appears motivated or occasioned by features of the situation. In this way, the initiation of talk is presented as a responsive act and not a purely initiatory one. We recognize this technique as one which is also frequently used by people to initiate talk with a stranger. Unacquainted persons need a reason, or justification, to initiate conversation (cf. Goffman 1963, cited in 2.1.1), and a feature of the situation may provide just such a reason.42 My informants are brought together by me and thus do not need a reason to initiate talk, but may rather be seen to be in need of a topical resource that is available then and there the moment they are left to themselves. Bergmann (1991:213) calls setting talk a conversational “first gear” that may be used to set the conversation in motion. Furthermore, setting talk situates the talk within a frame of reference. For instance, by referencing the restaurant context, the participants contextualize the conversation as a ‘restaurant conversation’. The setting is ‘near at hand’ and provides an easily accessible source of information for both parties. This makes it a continuously available resource for topic generation. The setting topics are usually followed by presentations of names (cf. 4.5). As we see from the beginning of conversation 1 (ex. (19) above), Anna

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

221

does not expand on the setting talk, but chooses instead to proceed to introductions. These pieces of information, in conjunction with the references to the setting, can be regarded as establishing the basic deictic frame of the conversation. This is in line with Laver’s observation that opening sequences are typically indexical. The setting topics that appear later in the conversations are generally responsive to changes in the environment or impressions experienced by the participants. Here is a typical example: (24) LOOKS GOOD (2: 1085-1110) J: .. jeg ha"kke vært på ’Vestlandet heller så det, .. jeg kunne godt tenke meg å se [den ’Mørekysten du prata om og --] H: J: H: J: H:

J:

H: J: H:

[’åja .. d=] det e jo òg ’nydelig. @@ ...(1.0) ’fjordane. ... i i ’Sogn. ...(3.5) m= ((SMAKER PÅ MATEN)) .. [[ ser bra ut det ’her? ]] [[ du fikk masse= ]] fin ’salat du. ... .. ’nei, jeg= trur hu sa det at vi ’ikke fikk ’det. .. ’åja. .. men det så nu veldig ’godt ut. .. ’ja, det gjorde ’det. .. @@@ æ må <X nu X> ’trøst dæ litt. .. @@ .. men det så litt ’urettferdig ut sånn herfra, det må æ jo ’innrømm. .. kanskje det e skogsoppen som de har vært og ’håndplukka i skogen,

J:

H: J: H: J: H:

J:

H: J: H:

J: H:

.. @ [det ’tviler jeg på.] [som drar prisen ’opp.] .. @@

J: H:

J:

...(3.2) jobba du i hurtigruta nå== i ’jula òg?

J:

.. I haven’t been to the ’West Coast either so, .. I’d really like to see [that ’Møre Coast that you were talking about and --] [’oh yeah .. th=] that’s ’wonderful too. @@ ...(1.0) the fjords. ... in in ’Sogn. ...(3.5) m= ((TASTES THE FOOD)) .. [[this looks ’good huh?]] [[ you got lots= ]] of nice ’salad. ... .. ’no, I think she said that we couldn’t ’have ’that. .. ’okay. .. but it looks very ’good. .. ’yeah, it ’does. .. @@@ I have to ’comfort you a bit .. @@. .. but it does seem a bit un’fair from here, I have to ad’mit that. .. perhaps it’s the mushrooms that they have been out in the woods picking by ’hand, .. @ [I ’doubt it.] [which makes the price so ’high.] .. @@ ...(3.2) did you work on the Coastal Express now== at ’Christmas ’too?

222

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Here the waiter has served the meal while Jens and Hilde have been talking about the Coastal Express. Only when there is a potential topic completion point do they comment on the changes that have been produced in their physical surroundings. This local sensitivity is evidenced by the fact that they both simultaneously make a non-coherent, setting-related remark. The legitimacy of changing the topic is provided by the mutual access to the source of ‘distraction’ and thus its potential relevance to both. While some other topics need some sort of justification to be introduced appropriately (cf. below on self-oriented topics), the setting seems to be appropriate and relevant to topicalize at any topic transition relevance place. The relevance of talking about the setting does not have to be accounted for. This might be seen as pertaining to the accessibility of the topic source and its quality of being readily ‘near at hand’. The relevance is ‘programmatic’ rather than conditional (Schegloff 1990). Characteristic of the setting topics in the corpus is that they are generally transitory. They are not ‘rich topics’ (Sacks 1992) but are, on the contrary, rather quickly exhausted. If the topic does not itself provide possible ‘extensions’ — that is, mentionables that can be exploited for gradual topic transition — it will normally be closed quite quickly. The example above is representative also in this respect. The interlocutors comment briefly on the meal that is served, and then abandon the topic. Note, however, that the topic is not a mere side sequence (Jefferson 1972). The main characteristic of side sequences is that they are treated as ‘parentheses’ in an ongoing sequence. This means that the topic is subsequently resumed as a continuation of the previous talk (cf. 6.2.3). Although it is true that, in our example, talk about the Coastal Express is resumed after the setting talk, this is done as a reintroduction of a topic and not as a continuation. The central discourse referent, the Coastal Express, is introduced again in the form of a full definite description. This marks the referent as just (uniquely) identifiable, but not activated or in focus (Gundel, Hedberg & Zacharski 1993). Furthermore the topical focus is not identical to the previous mention of the Coastal Express. Before commenting on the meal, Jens has been talking about the itinerary he would like to make on the ship, whereas afterwards he returns to what had been the starting point of the topic, namely Hilde’s employment on the ship. This is to demonstrate that setting talk, although of limited format, may be oriented to by the participants as a real topic and not just as a side sequence or an aside.

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

223

The exits from setting topics are not elaborate. In the example above, the talk about the food is dropped for a completely unrelated matter merely by means of a prolonged silence. The markers of closing relevance are minimal throughout the corpus. This confirms the observation by Sacks (1992, vol. 2:205, quoted above) that such topics may be quite easily abandoned. They may be abandoned in one of two ways: either by abrupt shifts, such as above, or by gradual shifts effectuated by exploiting the referents in the setting talk to produce new mentionables. Here is an example: (25) EMPTY GLASS (1: 2265-2290) A: ...(1.6) det finns väl inga, ...(1.5) mallar å följa i vad som är rätt och riktigt i det. C: ...(1.1)

A: ...(4.2) men sitter du med [tomt glas?] C: [@@@] ja jag väntar på dig. A: .. nej nej nej nej. ... det [här] är inget-C: [(KREMT)] ...(1.2) nja ha. A: (0) här går man på ackord. C: .. så kommer du dra mej hemåt. A: C:

A: C:

A: C: A: C: A:

.. jadå. jag har ingen slips så du kan inte dra mej i <@ slipsen, @> [@@@@@@] @@ [nej= men du har .. långt hår.] det brukar man göra med pojkvänner, .. dra dom i slipsen och sen, ... [jaha=,] [från fest.] ... så dina pojkvänner har haft slips? [@@@@@@@@@@@@] [@@@@@@@@@@@@] vissa av dom. @ @@@

A:

C: A: C: A: C: A: C: A: C:

A: C:

A: C: A: C: A:

...(1.6) sure there are no, ...(1.5) standards to follow in what is right and proper in that. ...(1.1)

...(4.2) but are you sitting there with an [empty glass?] [@@@] yeah I’m waiting for you. .. no no no no. ... [this] is not a -[(CLEARS THROAT)] ...(1.2) well well. (0) here we do piecework. .. then you’re gonna have to drag me home. .. yeah sure. I haven’t got a tie so you can’t drag me by the <@ tie, @> [@@@@@@] @@ [no= but you’ve got .. long hair.] that’s what you usually do with your boyfriends, .. drag them by the tie and then, ... [uhu=,] [from parties.] ... so you’ve had boyfriends with ties? [@@@@@@@@@@@@@] [@@@@@@@@@@@@@] some of them. @ @@@

Here the filling of Charlotte’s glass with wine gives rise to the comment that Anna will have to drag her home afterwards. This in turn engenders talk about dragging boyfriends home from parties by their ties, and finally Charlotte’s

224

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

boyfriends become the focus of attention. This gradual introduction of personal matters is realized by exploiting associative potentials in the comments related to the setting. In this way, setting topics are transitional in that they may yield a potential for entry into new matters. For instance, one may use a topic that in itself is impersonal to introduce matters of more relevance for getting acquainted. 5.7.2 Encyclopedic topics Encyclopedic topics are also neutral in that the introductions do not focus on the participants themselves, but on culturally available referents. Here is an instance: Hilde and Jens have been talking for some time about the teachers at the University. Jens then explicitly proposes a change of topic and introduces instead the students as a topic: (26) INVOLVEMENT (2: 1707-1736) H:
J: H: J: H: J:

H:

H:

æ har følelsen <X æ går og er mer eller mindre sosi’alk- kurator for X> [XXXXX, .. de burde jo ikke ha undervist i det ’hele tatt. A>] [@=] @@@ J: .. [[ det kan man berre i- i- -- ]] H: [[ nei jeg erfarte det på= ]] litt vit nå i ’høst. .. ’mm. .. men= det var veldig= opp og ned der ’også da, fordi= -.. ja det må ’vær sånn, æ mein en plass må de jo ’vær her i verden de ’og. .. og de kan jo vær veldig ’faglig dyktig. ... så da må man liksom berre prøv å finn e= .. ’innfallsporten, og liksom prøv å finn ut ...(2.0) korrsen man ska grip de ’an. .. selv om de kanskje virka litt ’kryptisk= en del av de.

J: H: J:

H:

[XXXXX, .. they shouldn’t have been teaching here at ’all. A>] [@=] @@@ .. [[that’s something you can just i- i- --]] [[right I experienced that at=]] Comp Lit this term. .. ’mm. .. but= there were great variations there ’too, cause= -.. yeah it’s got to ’be like that, I mean they’ve got to have somewhere to ’go to they ’too. .. and of course they may be very competent in their ’subject. ... so then you just have to sort of try to find e= .. the ’gateway, and sort of try to find out ...(2.0) how to get ’at them. .. even though they may seem a bit ’cryptic some of them.

TOPIC INTRODUCTION J: H: J:

H:

J: H: J:

... men= for å forlate lærerane [så= --] [’ja.] ...(1.0) tenkte på= stu’dentene også, ikke alltid like= -eller like [stort engasje]’ment ja? [ entusi’astisk? ] .. nei det det e s- ’skremmande syns æ ’og, [ men== ] [ ’ja. det er ’det. ] .. [[ nu trur æ nok -- ]] [[ det er detta vi ]] ’driver med, det er detta vi== .. på en måte ’burde ’ånde for, for det er detta vi skal leve for ’seinere.

J: H: J:

H:

J: H: J:

225

... but= to switch over from the teach[ers] -[’yeah.] ...(1.0) I was thinking about= the ’students ’too, not always equally= -or very [great in’volve]ment right? [enthusiastic?] .. no it it’s f- ’frightening I think don’t ’you, [but==] [’yeah. that’s the ’point.] .. [[ however I think -- ]] [[ this is what we]] are ’doing, this is what == .. in a way ’ought to be our consuming ’passion, cause this is what we’re going to live for later ’on

The shift is not prepared by an interactive closing of the ‘teacher topic’. Instead, Jens makes a metacomment that proposes to shift the topic. (We might speculate that one of the reasons he may have is that it is one of the teachers who is currently recording their conversation.) The proposal is responded to by Hilde with an agreement (“ja”/“yes”). Yet, the change is not total. Jens creates a bridge linking the two topics by making ‘involvement’ a common feature. The ‘involvement’ feature is extracted from the prior topic and recontextualized in a student perspective: There are teachers who are not very involved in what they do, but there are also many students who lack involvement in their studies. This type of introduction is characteristic of encyclopedic topics. They do not appear as totally new or non-coherent, but link up non-focally with the preceding topic. Thus, in contrast to setting talk, encyclopedic topics do not seem to be relevant in their own right in this type of conversation. They are not proposed as a topic unless when they can be presented as emerging from the ongoing discourse. Their mode of introduction is restricted to the sequential mechanism of occasioning. The topic is also different from the setting topic in that it is not transitory. It introduces mentionables that are proposed as the object of extended topical talk and not just an intermediary in search for another substantial topic. In our example, the topic ‘students’ involvement in their studies’ is introduced in the

226

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

opening turn, and is a central matter of concern for at least 3 minutes of talk. Encyclopedic topics are not at the outset concerned with personal information. However, they tend to become more personal as the topic develops. Conversationalists do not introduce just any encyclopedic topic but rather ones that they, in some respect, find newsworthy or interesting and can relate to personal experiences. This may include expressions of personal attitudes towards the matter at hand or autobiographical narratives. Such a drift can be observed in the continuation of the above example as well: (27) ENTHUSIASTIC (2: 1758-1768) J: .. men i hvert fall de to åra ... [ som jeg ] har før dette ’her da, H: [ i ’Bø? ] J: så ...(1.5) så var det= -... folk var mer opptatt av andre ’ting,

H:

J: H: J:

.. på en ’måte. ...(1.7) [de brant ikke like mye for ’studiene.] [’åja for det e !ikke ’mi erfaring.] H: ... og særlig ikke på ’nordisk. eller -nu va æ som sagt i ei gruppe som !va veldig entusi’astisk,

.. but at least the two years ... [that I’ve] had before ’this, [at Bø?] then ...(1.5) it was like= -... people were more concerned with other ’things .. in a ’way. ...(1.7) [they weren’ t that keen on their ’studies.] [’oh cause that’s !not ’my experience.] ... and specially not in Scandi’navian or -although as I said I was in a group that !was very enthusi’astic,

Here both Jens and Hilde report on their personal experiences with fellow students in different classes. From talking about students in general, they turn to particular experiences from their diary (cf. 2.3.4). In studies of ‘small talk’, it is reported that encyclopedic topics may maintain an impersonal focus throughout the conversation (Schneider 1987). In my data, however, they tend to generate talk about personal matters. This may be interpreted as a display of their orientation towards presenting themselves and thus getting acquainted. In sum, then, setting topics and encyclopedic topics are both neutral in that they introduce matters that are not directly related to their individual or common diary. They typically occur after topic transition relevance places, that is, when the previous topic has been closed off. In spite of these common traits, they have quite different functional properties. In my material setting talk is always introduced as non-coherent topics, while encyclopedic topics are recontextualizations. Setting talk is relevant in its own right, while encyclopedic topics need some ‘legitimation’ in the form of a link to an already

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

227

established referent. This distinction is due to differences in communicative functions: setting talk is used as a transition to some other, unrelated topic, while encyclopedic topics generate substantial talk. 5.7.3 Self-oriented topic introductions Self-oriented topic introductions do not represent a very large group. They are generally introduced as (non-focally or non-locally) coherent with some previous topic. Like encyclopedic matters, personal experiences are not mentionables in their own right, but need to be presented as occasioned by some other talk. The link is typically one of analogy or metonymy. The speaker either introduces a parallel to some previous topic, or establishes an associative link to some referent or event. Consider this example, in which Charlotte has been telling about a trip she made to the city the same day with some other participants in the group of students. (28) C: A: C: A: C: A: C:

A: C:

THE TRAIN (1: 136-160) (0) !ja vi var ju fyra ’stycken, från? e= ’gruppen. ... ’härifrån. ja .. det va- kände du dom ’innan eller? !nej !nej, nej, vi hade pre’cis träffats. .. och så att .. i ’går .. em=, jag .. åkte ’tåg i går-... tog ’tåg från= e= ja ’Växjö, mhm? och på ’tåget så såg jag en ’tjej, ... jag tyckte ’ja=, ... ja man ’tänkte inte mer på det, men i ’Göteborg , så satt hon ’också där, .. med en stor ’resväska, .. och jag tänkte,

C: A: C: A: C: A: C:

A: C:

(0) !yeah we were four ’people, from? e= the ’group. ... from ’here. yeah .. it was- had you met them be’fore? !no !no, no, we had ’just met. .. and so .. ’yesterday .. em=, I travelled by ’train yesterday-... took the ’train from= e= well ’Växjö, mhm? and on the ’train I saw a ’girl, ... I thought ’yeah=, ... well I didn’t ’think any more about it, but in ’Gothenburg, she was ’also sitting there, .. with this big ’bag, .. and I thought,

228

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

ja= det kan- det kan=ske=, .. skulle .. på samma ’kurs, så jag ’frågade henne, hon ’skulle dit,

CONVERSATION yeah= it may- it may=be=, .. was going .. to the same ’course, so I ’asked her, she was ’going there,

Here Charlotte starts telling about her journey to Oslo the previous day. There are no markers that signal any relationship with the preceding talk. However, on the content level a possible link emerges. The story can be seen as presenting background information about a feature of the previous topic, namely her acquaintance with the other participants in the course. The previous topic includes reference to the fact that she did not know the other persons in the group and that they had just met. The narrative recontextualizes this point by making it the new focus of attention and elaborating on how she came to meet one of them. In this way, the self-oriented narrative is legitimized as an explanation of a feature in the previous topic. The topic shift is a topic leap. What may look at first as a side sequence providing background information is developed to an extensive account of her journey, and the previous topic (her trip to the city) is definitively abandoned. The coherence relation is not explicitly signalled, so the cohesive link emerges only gradually, when the encounter on the train presents itself as an account concerning her acquaintance with the others. After an extended narrative about her journey, Charlotte tells about the arrival at the University campus. It appears that no room had been reserved for her. Anna uses this as a point of departure for a new self-oriented topic introduction: (29) BEDCLOTHES (1: 296-311) C: vi såg en ’tjej springa förbi, vi sa ’hej, hon bara ’titta på oss och ’gick, A: C: A:

C: A:

C:

ja=, A: ’jaha .. tänkte vi, @@ C: ...(2.0) ja, A: ...(1.5) e= jag kom också i .. i ’går, men jag fick ju ’rum <X och så där, X> det var bara att ... jag hade inga-...(1.5) [’sängkläder? @@@@@] C: [inga ’sängkläder] eller så, A: så jag la olika ...(1.0) ’kläder ovanpå mej och,

we saw a ’girl run by, we said hel’lo, she just ’looked at us and walked a’way, yeah=, all ’right .. we thought, @@ ...(2.0) yeah, ...(1.5) e= I came .. yesterday ’too, but I got a ’room <X and stuff, X> it was just that ... I had no -...(1.5) [’bedclothes? @@@@@] [no ’bedclothes] or anything, so I put various ...(1.0) ’clothes on top of me and,

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

C: A:

...(1.3) jag [sov] som en ’stock, [mhm] jag var så ’trött,

C: A:

229

...(1.3) I [slept] like a ’log, [mhm] I was so ’tired,

Anna’s introduction is also occasioned by the previous topic. Her story is analogous to Charlotte’s in that they both report on the journey and problems with the accommodation. The orientation to the previous story is displayed by a marker of parallel, “också/too” (“I came yesterday too”) and by a marker of contrast, “men/but” (“but I got a room and stuff”). The relation to the previous story is thus explicitly established by cohesive devices. These two examples show the typical relations that link self-oriented topics to previous talk. They either constitute metonymic links, such as a recontextualization of a referent, or they are analogies, e.g. parallel stories. As noted by Sacks (1992, vol. 2:3f), stories have a tendency to generate new (‘second’) stories by the co-participants. These are regularly constructed to ‘fit’ the first story by means of certain produced similarities. There seems to be a constraint in first conversations that the participants should not introduce self-oriented topics unless they can be presented as occasioned by the ongoing talk. The occasioning may be formulated explicitly (“speaking of...”) but is in most cases implicit, relying on the co-participant’s ability to establish cohesive links. If the self-oriented topic can be seen as occasioned by the ongoing talk, the speaker does not bear the same responsibility for the choice of topic. S/he is just being responsive to the matters introduced by the co-participant. The topic is thus established in a more collaborative way than with non-coherent shifts. In their study, Maynard & Zimmerman (1984) found that unacquainted pairs did not introduce topics by “delivering news”. This is only partially in accordance with my data. It is true that the interactants do not use personal, biographical experiences as a resource for starting brand new (non-coherent) topics. However, when the ongoing discourse provides the occasion they may introduce self-oriented talk by linking it onto the prior topic. Self-oriented topics are thus like encyclopedic topics in that they are not usable as first topics or as brand new topics. They are restricted to sequential environments in which they can be presented as occasioned by the ongoing talk, and thus as partially coherent with it. In one case in point, the link that has to be established is quite associative and idiosyncratic. The self-oriented topic is presented in (18) (ULF LUNDELL) (p. 206) and consists of Charlotte’s narrative of the Ulf Lundell concert.

230

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

However, what precedes the topic introduction is not included in the excerpt, and is therefore rendered here. The waiter has just served the wine: (30) BALATON (1: 731-751) C: ...(3.5) vad är ’det för nåt, ... Balaton. ...(2.0) ungersk. ...(8.3) det ’enda jag har druckit .. ’ungersk det var .. ’Vermouth. ... ingen ’vitt vin, ... första [’gången.] A: [mhm,] ...(2.9) ja= C: ... ungersk vitt [vin.] A: [ungersk] jo jag--

C:

A: C: A: C:

C:

A: C: A:

nej jag kom-- jag kommer inte i ’håg, ... <@ namnen på @> @@@ på ’vinarna som jag bara druckit en ’gång. ... (H)

...(1.5) det verkar lite ’tyska=. C: ...(2.0) (H) (KREMT) ... i ’lördags, ...(2.0) (HOST) [gamla <X ’minne, X>] i ’lördags= skulle ’jag m== några kompisar vi skulle ’ut--

A: C: A: C:

...(3.5) what ’is that, ... Balaton. ...(2.0) Hungarian. ...(8.3) the ’only Hungarian I’ve drunk .. was a ’Vermouth. ... no ’white wine, ... first [’time.] [mhm,] ...(2.9) yeah= ... Hungarian white [wine.] [Hungarian] yeah I -no I don- I don’t re’member, ... <@ the names of @> @@@ of the ’wines I’ve only drunk ’once. ... (H)

...(1.5) it seems a bit like ’German=. ...(2.0) (H) (CLEARS THROAT) ... on ’Saturday, ...(2.0) (COUGH) [old <X ’memories, X>] ’Saturday= I was m== some friends we were going ’out--

The two are talking about the wine they have been served and other wine brands. This is setting talk, and, as we have seen, such talk may engender new topics based on mentioned referents. But in this case, Charlotte quite abruptly introduces a self-oriented narrative (“on Saturday...”). As we recall, the narrative is about an episode in which she and some friends had quite a lot to drink. The link with the talk about wine brands is one of mere token identity: The referent ‘wine’ appears in both. The weakness of this link is commented upon in Charlottes side sequence: “nu är det så här ’intresseklubben” which is slang (originally: “intresseklubben noterar”, literally: “the interest club notes”) and conveys something like: “This has not got anything to do with it, but I say it anyway”. It may thus be considered a misplacement marker. In this way, Charlotte may be seen as orienting to the requirement that self-oriented topic

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

231

introductions should be occasioned by the fact that she gives an account for her inappropriate topic introduction. There are two cases of self-oriented introductions that deviate from the general picture sketched above in that they are not occasioned by prior discourse. Both occur early in the conversations and refer to some mutual experience just prior to the conversation. Here is one of these instances: (31) R: V: R:

V: R: V: R:

LECTURE (3: 80-88) .. tror du det er greit nok ’sånn? .. ja ’sikkert. .. ’åh, ... det ble litt ’mye for meg den siste .. ’forelesningen asså. (0) ’ja? ...(2.1) <X full X> pakke fra to til .. [’seks, og så] -[ja det er ..] ’slitsomt. .. ’veldig,

R: V: R:

V: R: V: R:

.. do you think it’s all right like ’this? .. yeah ’sure. .. ’ah, .. it was a bit too ’much for me that last .. ’lecture. (0) ’yeah? ...(2.1) <X on the X> go from two till .. [’six, and then] -[yeah that’s ..] ex’hausting. .. ’very,

Ragnhild’s report on being exhausted from the last lecture is self-oriented in that it is an item from her own biographical experience. However, knowing that Victoria attended the same lecture, she also makes a reference to a common experience. She introduces a topic that exploits already established common ground (features from their common diary, cf. 6.6.2). Maynard & Zimmerman (1984) noted that acquainted pairs delivered news with reference to a ‘shared history of interaction’ (cf. 5.6). But here we see that Ragnhild and Victoria, although unacquainted, do have a shared history of, if not interaction, then at least co-presence. This is also the case in the other instance.43 This suggests that it is not being acquainted or unacquainted as such which conditions the introduction of brand new self-oriented topics, but rather the existence of a common diary. Acquainted pairs by definition have one, while unacquainted pairs typically do not. However, as we have seen, strangers may in certain cases have common experiences and be mutually aware of it. In such cases, self-oriented topics are introduceable in their own right after all. 5.7.4 Other-oriented topic introductions As noted above, other-oriented topic introductions constitute the most common procedure for initiating new topics, representing 47% of the total number of introductions. Like setting topics, they are not sequentially restricted to

232

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

environments of occasioning but may be introduced as first topics or as brand new ones. They appear in non-coherent shifts as well as in recontextualizations. In contrast to setting topics, they typically generate extended talk. A large part of the other-oriented topic introductions are questions which introduce the presentation-eliciting sequence described in the previous chapter. However, not all other-oriented topic introductions are questions establishing the other’s biography or community membership. Some concern his or her present affairs, state of mind or the like. Here is an example: (32) GUITAR (5: 951-962) L: ...(3.1) (SMATT) men du har ikke L: med de gi’taren, det er jo en .. ’svakhet [’med dæ.] B: [ne=i] nei nei B: æ har ikkje ’det asså. ... vi får ’se. ... ka som ’skjer. ...(1.0) æ e lissom ...(1.6) ganske sånn e=-... asså æ e jo ’el-gitarist mæst ’no asså ikkje sant, spe- spiller i ’band og sånt da, og ellers så så så æ e jo= .. ’klassisk gita’rist, og det æ omtrent ... ikkje har jobba med idet heile ’tatt, det e jo sånn derre type== ja sp-.. spille ’vise og= sånne greier, det e ikkje min ... greie i det ’heile tatt.

...(3.1) (CLICK) but you didn’t bring your gui’tar, that’s a .. weak ’point [of ’yours.] [no=] no no I ’haven’t. ... we’ll ’see. ... what ’happens. ...(1.0) I’m sort of ...(1.6) pretty much e=-... that is I’m mainly an ’el-guitarist ’now right, ple- playing in a ’band and things, and besides I I I’m a= .. ’classical gui’tarist, and what I have almost ... not worked with at ’all, is kinda like== well pl- .. playing ’songs and= things like that, that’s not my ... thing at ’all.

Lars’s initiation here can hardly be said to be eliciting a self-presentation. It is not even a question, but an assessment, expressing regret that Bjørn did not bring his guitar. This comment exploits two aspects of their common ground. First that Bjørn is a guitarist (which has been established earlier in the conversation) and second, that they will be attending a party together during the evening. Bjørn takes up the topical bid and gives an elaborate account of what contexts he does and does not like to play in. Consequently, my findings only partially confirm Maynard & Zimmerman’s (1984) claim that categorization sequences are required forms for generating personal talk in conversations between unacquainted interlocutors (cf. 5.6). When some common ground has been established in the conversation, it can be exploited as a resource for new topics that are not necessarily

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

233

self-presentational. Only when no common ground has been established at all within a field do categorization questions seem to be required. In example (32) (GUITAR) we saw how the situation could be a source of common ground. Here is an example of how the prior conversation (the cotext) can be exploited for the purpose of proposing a biographical topic. Victoria and Ragnhild have earlier talked about their University studies. One of the aspects that was elaborated upon was Ragnhild’s studies of Spanish. Somewhat later (about 8 minutes, during which other topics have been on the floor) we get this introduction: (33) SPAIN (3: 1227-1238) V: ...(4.0) m= ... det var deilig ’krydder. R: ... ’mm. det var ’kjempegodt. V: .. så du har vært i ’Spania du da? R: .. ’mm. V: .. vil jeg ’tro. R: (0) bodde i= .. Spania= ... (SNUFS) ett år etter= .. gym’naset <X jeg X>. V: .. ’ja? .. var det det som= gjorde at du ...(1.1) ville fortsette med ’spansk eller ’ta spansk? R: .. ja det ’var egentlig det.

V: R: V: R: V: R: V:

R:

...(4.0) m= ... lovely ’spices. ... ’mm. it’s ’excellent. .. so you’ve been to ’Spain then? .. ’mm. .. I sup’pose. (0) lived in= .. Spain= ... (SNIFF) for a year after= .. ’high school. .. ’yeah? .. was that what= made you ...(1.1) want to continue with ’Spanish or ’study Spanish? .. yeah it ’was actually.

Here Victoria exploits the knowledge of Ragnhild’s studies and pairs it with the stereotype assumption that Norwegian language students often spend some time in the country in question when they study a European language. She infers that Ragnhild has probably been to Spain, and asks a question that simultaneously expresses this expectation. In this way, she relates the topic to established common ground and orients the conversation towards personal matters from Ragnhild’s diary. She thus achieves a move from more public, encyclopedic information (student category) to more personal diary information (Victoria goes on to ask further questions about Ragnhild’s stay). Category questions seem to represent a standard way of generating personal topics in the first phase of the interaction. They are most frequent in the beginning of the conversations, and are gradually replaced by other questions. This indicates that people actively exploit the typified knowledge obtained through the categorization questions and the ensuing talk to generate new topics in the following course of the conversation.

234

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

It is also of interest to note the kinds of questions that we do not find in these data. We do not find topic initial elicitors or itemized news enquiries (Button & Casey 1984, 1985). Questions such as “What’s new?” or “How’s your foot?” exploit the fact that the participants have a set of referents that are part of their common ground. But in addition, they are oriented to the fact that these referents have not yet been topicalized and thus that they are relevant as new topics. In this way, they are designed to elicit ‘news’, that is, up-dating on these referents. They serve what Sacks has called a “clock function”, whereby interaction partners “re-find each other” relative to the last time they talked (Sacks 1992, vol. 2:564). Implicitly, then, the questions evoke the participants’ shared history of interaction in that the up-dating is attuned to prior reports. In my data no questions can be classified as topic initial elicitors. Some other-oriented biographical questions may resemble itemized news enquiries, but they differ in one important respect. They do not invoke or take for granted referents or assumptions originating from prior conversations. The common ground is established then and there, either from the situational context or from the conversation itself. So when the participants ask questions that exploit knowledge of the other person obtained through the conversation, the introductions take the form of elaborations of previous talk and not as brand new topics in the conversation. Other-oriented topics are thus, like setting topics, introduceable in their own right. Although they are introduced by speaker A, they proffer a ‘Bevent’ (cf. 2.3.4) as the potential topic, and thus nominate speaker B as the main speaker. If B takes up the topical bid, the initiation typically generates extended talk, beyond what is usual for setting topics.

5.8 Topic, face and acquaintance The introduction of a topic has relational implications. It may threaten the face of the other, and thus need redressive action; or, on the contrary, it may be face enhancing and thus contribute directly to establishing familiarity and/or solidarity. In this section we consider these aspects of the topic introductions. Linell & Bredmar (1996) have explored the characteristics of sensitive topics in talk between mid-wives and pregnant women. The topics examined were the woman’s smoking and drinking habits, HIV-testing and the offer of a

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

235

blood test (AFP) that might indicate serious malformations or anomalies in the foetus. The introduction of these topics was marked by indirectness and a range of mitigating devices. They were regularly preceded by metacommunicative pre-acts, such as: “I thought I should inform you that...”. Furthermore, they were reduced in prominence by being syntactically embedded and delivered with reduced amplitude. Special mitigating vocabulary was used, such as vague or abstract expressions, euphemisms and attenuations. And, finally, the topics were softened by invoking neutralizing contextual frames, such as the institutional and routine character of the encounter. This study shows that interactants are sensitive to the face implications of the topics they introduce and take measures to reduce the potential threats to face. The linguistic formulation of topic introductions is thus an important clue to understanding the face work and the negotiation of the relation going on between the participants. Schegloff (1980:131f) has also described a sequential technique for introducing sensitive matters into conversations. It is a pre-sequence which he calls predelicates, consisting in a request for permission to ask a question (variants of “Can I ask you a question?”). The predelicate projects a subsequent delicate question and may in this way be understood as preparing the recipient for it. Another feature of topic organization that may be seen as formed by face work is the preference for gradual topic transition (Sacks 1992). This mode of topic progression does not leave one party with the responsibility for having introduced the topic. Sensitive topics can be broached in a stepwise and collaborative manner which displays the participants’ mutual willingness to enter into it. The disjunctive and non-coherent shift gives one person the opportunity to change the direction of the conversation, but at the same time leaves him or her with the responsibility for the possible face threats the new topic may imply. To initiate a topic in conversation with a stranger involves specific risks to face. There are many unknown variables, and one cannot know exactly which topics may be sensitive. In such circumstances Goffman (1959:192) has pointed out that a process of “feeling out” occurs. This will be of special importance in the opening phase of the encounter, where the discourse identities are established. And, according to Gumperz (1982:142f), there is a need of “some common base of experience on which to build the interaction”:

236

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

What seems to happen is that, at the beginning of each conversation, there is an introductory phase when interpersonal relationships are negotiated and participants probe for common experiences or some evidence of shared perspective. (Gumperz 1982:142)

Central to this “feeling-out” process will be to find topics that do not threaten anyone’s face and which allow a common search for shared perspectives. The process of choosing topics for talk in a first conversation may take many forms. One may orient more or less directly to the issue of selfpresentation, or one may avoid personal topics, restricting oneself to more neutral ones. The choices reflect considerations of face and acquaintance. Personal topics clearly have a greater potential for achieving the goal of getting acquainted, but simultaneously imply greater risks of face threats. Neutral topics are typically more safe, but establish a relatively more anonymous relation between the participants. 5.8.1 The setting as a ‘safe topic’ One solution to the problem of assessing the sensitivity of topics in first conversations could be to avoid personal topics altogether. Laver notes that neutral phrases are by far the most frequently chosen in phatic talk (1975:224). One reason for this may be that such topics are relatively ‘safe’. They do not relate directly to either of the participants’ faces, whereas topics that are selfand other-oriented may imply greater risks of face-threats. Several authors have noted that safe topics are characteristic of conversations between unacquainted interlocutors. Goffman relates this to the dangers of raising topics that might be discrediting to the other: When the person knows the others well, he will know what issues ought not to be raised and what situations the others ought not to be placed in, and he will be free to introduce matters at will in all other areas. When the others are strangers to him, he will often reverse the formula, restricting himself to specific areas he knows are safe. (Goffman 1967a:16)

And Wardhaugh (1985) notes that also the views presented may be more or less safe when one does not have any evidence of the views of the other: ‘Safe’ topics also require ‘safe’ views, that is, the opinions you venture on these topics should not vary widely, if at all, form the prevailing ‘commonsense’ views [...] Wardhaugh (1985:121)

Safe topics are typically neutral topics, and they are safe by the fact that they

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

237

do not make the face of either of the participants the primary matter of concern. The distribution and exploitation of these safe topics can be seen as motivated by positive politeness strategies. The relevant strategies are: “Seek agreement”, “Avoid disagreement” and “presuppose/raise/ assert common ground”’ (Brown & Levinson 1987:112-124). The setting and the encyclopedia are the only sources of common ground in situations where no specific diary knowledge is shared. The participants thus exploit their physical copresence and their common access to the socio-cultural frame to seek and display common views, knowledge, and interests. Neutral topics do not contribute very much to establishing familiarity (that is, sharing diary assumptions) in the way personal topics do. The way they contribute to acquaintance is by permitting the parties to focus on their relative similarity in knowledge and evaluation. The typical safe topic is setting talk, in small talk often in the form of remarks about the weather. The setting talk in this data is for a large part concerned with the recording situation and the activities of ordering and consuming food and beverages. The interactants display agreement in all evaluative setting comments. These may concern such things as what looks good on the menu, how the food tastes, etc. In example (24) (LOOKS GOOD) (p. 221), Jens and Hilde display agreement that the food looks good. Furthermore, they both make similar comments on the fact that Hilde has got a lot of salad (in contrast to Jens). In this way, the setting talk contributes to solidarity by giving the participants an opportunity to focus on what they have in common and to display common evaluations of it. In the restaurant setting the activity of choosing from the menu occasions considerable setting talk. Also here one can observe an orientation towards agreement and compatible assessments. In two of three cases the participants even order the same food, and in the last pair they are about to do so, but one of them changes her mind in the last minute. In the next excerpt Victoria is prepared to order pizza upon Ragnhild’s suggestion, even though she afterwards states that this would not otherwise be her choice: (34) PIZZA (3: 177–235) R: (SMATT) ... (4.5) skal vi ’se=, .. jeg, men det er- -V: (0) det er jo det ’her. eller ser du på van- --

R:

V:

(SMACK) ... (4.5) let’s ’see=, .. but it’s- -(0) they do have that ’here. or are you looking at reg- --

238

R: V: R: V:

R: V:

R: V: R: V: R:

V: R: V:

R: V:

R:

V:

GETTING ACQUAINTED nei <X det er ha- X> -.. det er ’pizza der ja. .. ’akkurat. ...(6.2) [’hm=.] [’pesto] er jo veldig ’godt da. .. ja det er ’kjem[[pegodt. ]] [[ det er ]] ’smårett det ja. ’ja. ... det er ’smårett ja. .. ja jeg spiste ... en !kjempelunsj klokka t- -!rett før klokka ’to, så jeg -(0) åh du gjorde ’det ja? .. ja da var jeg så= ’sulten. .. [ja jeg har bare spist den vanlige .. <@ ’matpakkelunsjen jeg. @>] [@=] @@@ ...(6.5) ’hm, ...(3.3) ...(2.0) ’jo, for’såvidt. (0) ’egentlig? .. ’jo, ...(2.5) ’absolutt, ...(1.5) hvis ikke så er sikkert ikke den= .. fuc- fuccilli med ’skogsopp, den er sikkert ikke så dum den [’heller.] [det er sik]kert ’kjempegodt. (0) men -vi kan godt ta en ’pizza asså. .. det e= det er det !veldig lenge siden jeg har ’spist. .. [’åh,] .. [[ <@ nei= @> @= ]]

IN

R: V: R: V:

R: V:

R: V: R: V: R:

V: R: V:

R: V:

R:

V:

CONVERSATION no <X it’s ha- X> -.. there’s ’pizza there yeah. .. ’right. ...(6.2) [’hm=.] [’pesto] is very ’good. .. yeah it’s ’gre[[at.]] [[oh but]] that’s a ’starter. ’yeah. ... yeah it’s a ’starter. .. yeah I had ... a !huge ’lunch at t- -!just before ’two o’clock, so I -(0) oh ’did you? .. yeah I was so= ’hungry then. .. [yeah I have just eaten the usual .. <@ ’sandwich. @> [@=] @@@ ...(6.5) ’hm, ...(3.3) ...(2.0) well ’yes, I ’might. (0) really? ..’yes, ...(2.5) abso’lutely, ...(1.5) or else that= .. fuc- fuccilli with wild ’mushrooms, that one’s probably not bad [’either.] [it’s pro]bably de’licious. (0) but -sure we can order ’pizza. .. it e it’s a !very long time since I’ve had ’that. .. [’oh,] .. [[ <@ no= @> @= ]]

TOPIC INTRODUCTION R: V: R: V: R:

V: R: V:

R: V:

[[ @= ]] [<@ jeg syns du spurte sånn,] [<@ det var liksom derfor jeg sa -- @> ] .. @> [[ <@ det var ’sånn jeg mente å ’si det. @>

]] [[@= ]] .. nei stort sett så .. @@ [ <@ så -- @> ] [ @@@ ] hvis ikke jeg gå=r på= Peppes så= så vurderer jeg ikke pizza når jeg .. skal ut og spise ’middag, [for det er liksom ikke det --] [nei nei jeg er helt enig <X med deg X> i ’det.] (0) ... @@ ...(8.1) nei da satser jeg på den= med ’skogsoppen jeg.

R: V: R: V: R:

V: R: V:

R: V:

239

[[ @= ]] [<@ I thought you asked like,] [<@ that was sort of why I said -- @>] .. @> [[<@ ’that’s what I really wanted to ’say. @>

]] [[@=]] .. no generally I .. @@ [<@ I -- @>] [@@@] if I don’t go= to= Peppe’s I= I don’t think of pizza when I .. go out for ’dinner, [cause it’s sort of not the --] [no no I absolutely agree <X with you X>.] (0) ... @@ ...(8.1) no then I go for the one= with the wild ’mushrooms.

We have here a misunderstanding that gets cleared up in the subsequent discourse. Victoria understands Ragnhild as proposing to order a pizza when she says: “you don’t want a ’pizza”. She first gives a somewhat hedged agreement (“well yes, I might”) but then upgrades her agreement to “yes absolutely”. She presents an alternative (fucilli) but then repeats that they can take a pizza, and even presents a reason to do so, namely that it’s a long time since she has eaten that. Only at this point does Ragnhild signal that she did not intend to propose to order a pizza but to indicate that they (or she) did not want a pizza. When this misunderstanding is brought to the surface Victoria says that she does not generally consider pizza at restaurants, and she goes on to say that she will have the fucilli. What we see here is that Victoria makes an effort to align with what she thinks Ragnhild is proposing. Although she mentions an alternative — thus making a suggestion in return — she gives independent reasons for choosing pizza. When the misunderstanding is cleared up this appears as ‘mere politeness’, that is, a somewhat forced enthusiasm for pizza. She thus puts some effort into agreeing with Ragnhild. And when she admits that she generally does not consider pizza Ragnhild agrees completely. In addition, we may note that each time one of them mentions something on the menu that looks good (pesto and fucilli), the other agrees and even upgrades the assessment. All this

240

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

testifies to the orientation of the participants to establish agreement and common ground (common point of view) in setting talk. Setting topics do not contribute much to familiarity. Maynard & Zimmerman (1984:305) note that “topic initiations that reference the setting temporarily display and achieve a degree of anonymity in relationship”. However, they furnish the interlocutors with a mutually accessible source of common ground. Their mere co-presence gives them a common source of information that they can exploit for the purposes of generating topic. These features may explain some of the characteristics of their deployment noted in 5.7.1 above. It was noted that setting topics are typically transitional. They are frequently used to ‘get started’, either at the very beginning or after the potential closing of a topic. On the other hand, they are soon abandoned for other matters. Setting topics are a permanently available source of non-face related talk and they allow smooth transitions to more face related topics. As we saw in excerpt (25) (EMPTY GLASS) (p. 223), a setting topic may develop into a more personal topic. There, talking about Charlotte having more wine leads to talk about “dragging” her home, which in turn leads to talk about boyfriends. In this way, setting talk may be used to start a topic in a safe way and then gradually introduce more personal matters. It provides a safe point of departure for the ‘feeling out process’. If a setting topic does not generate other mentionables for topic elaboration, it does not itself contribute very strongly to developing the relationship. This may be the reason why setting topics are so quickly exhausted and abandoned. 5.8.2 Encyclopedic topics and alignment Encyclopedic topics are much more likely to involve face sensitive matters. People’s identities tend to be tied to their opinions on various social and cultural issues. If such topics are to be considered safe, certain topical areas are excluded because of their potential for face-threatening discrepancy, such as politics. In addition, the views expressed have to be safe, restricted to the common-sensical. All this suggests that agreement and common ground may be more difficult to achieve in encyclopedic topics. However, the increased face-relatedness also makes them potentially more rewarding from a relational point of view. Finding areas of common expertise or interest may have strong affiliative effects (cf. 2.3.4). Not only does it establish extended common ground, but it contributes to emotional bonding through common in-

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

241

volvement in the topic. This may suggest that encyclopedic topics are not so ‘neutral’ after all. However, the category is defined on the basis that the participants are not the explicit focus of the talk. Indirectly, self-presentation goes on in all talk. In talking about the setting or the society at large, one inevitably presents a selective and perspectivized picture of reality and, however common-sensical this picture, it provides evidence of one’s views, attitudes and knowledge — in sum, one’s ideology. After the participants have obtained some personal information about each other they may use their knowledge of the social distribution of knowledge and attitudes to compute which encyclopedic topics are potentially rewarding and which are not. This allows them to evade topics involving a potential for disagreement and to seek out those that will allow various forms of affiliation. In example (26) (INVOLVEMENT) (p. 224), Jens introduces ‘the students’ involvement in their studies’ as a topical bid. In doing this he can rely on previous reports by Hilde in which she has displayed a certain enthusiasm for her studies. Yet, the introduction is tentative and hedged: “not always equally-- or very great involvement right?”. Only when Hilde produces an emphatic agreement — “no it’s frightening, I think don’t you” — does he present a stronger claim: “this is what in a way ought to be our consuming passion”. In this way, the talk about students’ involvement provides Jens and Hilde with an occasion to mutually display enthusiasm concerning their studies and their subject. They achieve the positive politeness effects of claiming common point of view (and thus similarity), which is primarily positive affect (cf. 2.3.2). Encyclopedic topic introductions allow the participants to enter a substantial topic space without focusing directly on either of them. As the talk proceeds, they may evaluate whether to get more personally involved in the matter or to withdraw and redirect the topic. In the example discussed above, we remember that both Jens and Hilde expand on the topic by presenting reports about their personal experiences. This allows a finely tuned negotiation of the level of intimacy. If the topic is potentially threatening to one of the participants, he or she may contribute to maintaining a general and impersonal perspective on the matters. This strategy will save the face, but create a temporary state of anonymity and distance in the relationship. Conversely, if the topic reveals shared attitudes or expertise the participants may expand on these matters, thus stressing their similarity and common ground. The estab-

242

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

lishment of common ground and affiliation is negotiated in a stepwise fashion. As noted by Goffman: When individuals are unfamiliar with each other’s opinions and statuses, a feeling-out process occurs whereby one individual admits his views or statuses to another a little at a time. After dropping his guard just a little he waits for the other to show reason why it is safe for him to do this, and after this reassurance he can safely drop his guard a little bit more. By phrasing each step in the admission in an ambiguous way, the individual is in position to halt the procedure of dropping his front at the point where he gets no confirmation from the other [...] (Goffman 1959:192-3)

It is not always evident whether a topic will yield common ground and common interests. The participants are confined to more or less qualified guessing. In example (18) (ULF LUNDELL) (p. 206), Charlotte tells about going to a concert with Ulf Lundell. Anna seems to take this as evidence that she likes him, and introduces a new topic by asking whether she listens to him. However, Charlotte responds negatively. When Anna goes on to mention some names of album titles, she replies that they do not “ring a bell” (“säger mej ingenting”). The response to the topic introduction thus displays a lack of common knowledge (and interest) within that specific area. The reaction to this failure in finding common ground is closing the topic quite rapidly and changing to a new one. The two examples reviewed here, (18) (ULF LUNDELL) and (26) (INVOLVEMENT), show the participants’ orientation to establishing similarity and common ground. They choose encyclopedic topics that they have reasons to expect will yield a potential for affiliation. And those topics that actually establish common expertise and attitudes are expanded, whereas those that do not are closed down and abandoned. Encyclopedic topics have a great affiliative potential. First, they allow displays of common expertise. In developing an encyclopedic topic conversationalists may discover an area about which they both have a certain degree of specialized background knowledge. This allows them to mutually identify with a common cultural community. Sometimes displaying common expertise may even present evidence of a common membership that was not already established (cf. 6.7.2). Establishing and exploiting common community membership contributes to both familiarity (by expanding their common ground) and solidarity (by invoking group solidarity). Second, encyclopedic topics have a potential for alignment in the expression of common attitudes. By presenting similar evaluations of the matters

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

243

under discussion, the participants exhibit similarity. Finally, common involvement in an encyclopedic topic may display common interests. Similarity in attitudes and interests provides a motivation for mutual liking (cf. 2.3.2). Here is an example of how an encyclopedic topic can work as a social accelerator. The topic is introduced by a remark on the lack of contact between natural and social scientists at the University. The excerpt starts in the middle of this topic. (35) SCIENCE (4:1568-1596) M: .. de ’sier jo også det er en voldsom M: ’kri=se innenfor na’turvitenskapene, i og med at .. [de] har faktisk funnet ’ut .. at ... ’kaosteorien ikke lar seg== be’skrive. S: M:

S: M: S: M: S: M:

M: S:

M: S: M:

[’mm.] .. ’mm. .. at .. de er ’nødt til å ’bruke .. [..] .. på en måte ’historiene eller de de s- ’små his’toriene for .. å sette ’spørsmål, [’mm.] [[ og= ]] lissom ’peke mot en helt ny ’vei nå, [[ ’mm. ]] .. ’mm. .. og ’der= ’der har jo også de .. veldig mye å lære av den’mm. av huma’nistiske ’vitenskaper [for’såvidt.] [ja ’heilt klart.] ’ja. ...(1.2)

(0) også det at= at store ’fysikera og sånn i dag ’innrømme [at] dem ikke ’ane ka dem ’held på med, [’mm.] ... ’mm. ((DRIKKER)) .. det er jo ganske= .. fan[ ’tast]isk da. [ ’mm. ] ((DRIKKER)) ’mm. ((DRIKKER)) ...(1.9) ((DRIKKER))

.. they ’say also that there’s a gigantic ’crisis within the natural ’sciences, given that .. [they] have actually found ’out .. that ... the ’chaos theory doesn’t lend itself== to de’scription. S: [’mm.] .. ’mm. M: .. that .. they are ’forced to ’use .. [..] .. sort of the ’stories or the the s’small stories to .. bring into question, S: [’mm.] M: [[and=]] sort of ’point out a whole new di’rection now, S: [[’mm.]] .. ’mm. M: .. and ’there= ’there they have also .. very much to learn from theS: ’mm. M: from the hu’manities [as a matter of ’fact.] [yeah abso’lutely.] M: ’yeah. ...(1.2)

S: (0) and that= that great ’physicists and people ad’mit [that] they haven’t got a ’clue as to what they’re ’doing, M: [ ’mm. ] … ’mm. ((DRINKS)) S: .. that’s pretty= .. a[’maz]ing. M: [ ’mm. ] ((DRINKS)) ’mm. ((DRINKS)) …(1.9) ((DRINKS))

244

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

M:

<EMP noe ’vi ’alltid har ’visst. EMP> [ @@@@@@@ ]

M:

S: M:

[ .. <@ ja @> @@@@@ ] .. <@ ’ikke noe nytt for ’oss. @> [ @@ ] [ @ ] @@

S: M:

S:

S:

CONVERSATION <EMP something ’we have ’always ’known. EMP> [ @@@@@@@ ] [ .. <@ yeah @> @@@@@ ] .. <@ ’no news to ’us. @> [ @@ ] [ @ ] @@

Here Marta points out a problem in the natural sciences — how to describe the chaos theory — and Sven joins in with a statement that goes in the same direction, namely that great physicists admit that they haven’t got any idea of what they are doing. These two reports are different in many respects, but they make a common point in that they focus on certain inadequacies within the natural sciences. The interlocutors thereby present assumptions that exploit their common membership in an academic community. They may be said to display high involvement in the topic by using strong evaluative adjectives. Marta describes the crisis as “gigantic” (“voldsom”) and Sven finds the natural scientists’ bewilderment “amazing”. Marta produces her last statement with emphatic stress, and the following laughter is loud and extended. They also agree with each other’s evaluations. When Marta says that the natural sciences have much to learn from the humanities Sven agrees emphatically: “yeah absolutely” (“ja heilt klart”). And Marta responds to Sven’s evaluation (“that’s pretty amazing”) with a double acknowledgement: “mm ... mm”. The peak of this affiliating section is achieved with Marta’s comment: “something ‘we have ‘always ‘known”. This is a blatant claim of superiority over the natural sciences and generates mutual laughter. Her remark claims solidarity between them both by stressing their co-membership in a specific cultural community and by drawing on specialized background knowledge that is unique to members of this community. The laughter has affiliative effects in creating a common attitudinal stance. The relational potential of encyclopedic topics is thus the establishment of common expertise (common ground), common attitudes and common interests. This is achieved through claiming specialized common ground, seeking agreement and displaying topical involvement. These topics do not contribute very much to familiarity (sharing of personal information), but have their potential in creating solidarity and positive affect. Sharing interests, attitudes and areas of expertise is also a form of acquaintance. Personal relationships may very well develop on this basis without much sharing of

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

245

personal information. This form of acquaintance is typical of relations between colleagues, students and members of hobby associations (sports clubs, pet clubs, choirs and cultural magazines). Here people may have regular contact involving deeply involved discussions within their topic of expertise knowing hardly anything about each other’s personal or social background. Encyclopedic topics thus have a certain potential for establishing and developing a personal relationship between the parties. However, they also involve greater risks of threat to face in that they may exhibit dissimilarity between the participants. Strong involvement in the topic may lead to competitive or antagonistic modes of talk (cf. 4.7.4). In discussing an encyclopedic topic, the participants will sometimes have to choose between showing consideration for the other and showing involvement in the topic. This is just the choice that was presented in 2.3.3 between considerateness style and high involvement style. If the participants operate within a considerate frame of talk (based on the deference strategy), disagreement and other displays of dissimilarity will be threatening to the relation. However, within high involvement style (based on the camaraderie strategy), such discrepancies are not experienced as equally threatening because the communicative style contextualizes interpersonal closeness. Let us first consider an example in which differing assessments are treated as a problem and mitigated by face redressing strategies. Anna is telling about India, where she has travelled: (36) INDIA (1:1468–1506) A: ... indierna dom är ... såna sprudlande folk som aldri ger upp.

C: A:

A:

... så där. ...(1.5) så är dom fruktansvärt många,

... the Indians they are ... these incredibly vibrant people who never give up. ...(1.2) in a way. and even the ... very poorest, ...(1.5) have a pride like they, ...(1.2) e= they wash themselves, ...(1.2) e= every day and=, ... mhm, they are .. happy and hardworking and, ... like that. ...(1.5) and they’re so awfully many,

och man kan bli uppgiven för, ...(1.9) för att ...(1.4) det är så korrumperat land,

and you can almost give up, ...(1.9) cause ...(1.4) it’s such a corrupt country,

...(1.2) på nåt vis. .. och till och med dom ... allra fattigaste, ...(1.5) har en stolthet liksom dom, ...(1.2) e= dom tvättar sig, ...(1.2) e= varje dag och=, ... mhm, C: dom är .. glada och arbetsamma och, A:

246

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

...(1.6) det är bara muter muter muter och, ...(1.2) såna .. stora ... skillnader i-...(1.0) mellan sociala klasser och så där. C:

A: C: A:

C:

A: C: A:

.. och annars ... n- när jag tänker på C: Indien, så tänker jag att det är smutsigt. ...(1.3) att det är mycket-jaha. A: många flugor som är överallt och, C: ...(2.2) det är ju-A: ...(2.4) det är ju dammigt i och med att det är ett varmt .. och torrt ... land på många ställen. ...(1.2) men eh= ...(3.3) nej d- .. smutsigt, .. nej det tycker jag inte. ... eller ja, ...(1.3) med= Skandinavien kanske det är smutsigt, ...(1.3) mhm, C: .. nej jag kan ha ju fel bild, jag vet inte. ... har aldri varit där. ... men om du jämför med-A: ...(2.0) [m-] [Pa]kistan till exempel. C: ... ja som i Pakista=n, A: ... ja fast dom ...(1.7) eh= -...(6.5) det är så svårt å jämföra, Indien är så enormt stort. .. det är ju nästan som Europa.

CONVERSATION …(1.6) there’s just bribes bribes bribes and, …(1.2) such .. huge ... differences in-...(1.0) between social classes and things. .. and besides ... w- when I think of India, I think of it as dirty. …(1.3) that there’s a lot of-okay. flies all over the place and, ...(2.2) of course it’s -...(2.4) it’s dusty seeing that it’s a hot .. and dry ... country in many parts. ...(1.2) but eh= ...(3.3) no d- .. dirty, .. no I don’t find it dirty. ... or well, ...(1.3) with= Scandinavia perhaps it’s dirty, ...(1.3) mhm, ..no I might have the wrong picture, I don’t know. ... I’ve never been there. ... but if you compare with -...(2.0) [m-] [Pa]kistan for instance. ... yeah like in Pakista=n, ... yeah although they ...(1.7) eh= -...(6.5) it’s so difficult to compare, India is so enormously big. .. I mean it’s almost like Europe.

In the beginning of the excerpt Anna presents both positive and negative evaluations of various aspects of Indian society. However, her basic orientation is positive. Before this, when the topic is launched, she says: “I thought it was just marvellous there” (“jag tyckte det var jättehärligt där”, l. 1454). It is worth noting that it is after her negative assessments (concerning corruption and class barriers) that Charlotte presents her negative impressions of India. In this way, they are presented as in line with Anna’s assessments and not in opposition to them. She also presents her evaluative comments as her own personal impressions (“when I think of India”).

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

247

Anna’s response is delayed by two fairly long gaps and a false start.44 It begins with a partial agreement — “of course ((…)) it’s dusty” — and only then presents the diverging assessment: “no I don’t find it dirty”. These prefatory features are typical dispreference markers (Levinson 1983, Pomerantz 1984). Also after her disagreement she relativizes her position by adding that it depends on what you compare with. The partial agreement and the relativization of her opinion may be considered as politeness strategies maximizing agreement and minimizing disagreement. Charlotte also engages in mitigating activity. First she says that she “might have the wrong picture” thereby minimizing the assertiveness of her claim. Then she adds that she has never been there. This emphasizes her lack of experience, and thus implicitly Anna’s authority on the matter. Both Anna and Charlotte deal with the evaluative divergence by becoming unassertive and by hedging their opinions. These are negative politeness strategies of showing deference and emphasizing the autonomy of the addressee. In terms of conversational style this corresponds to the style of considerateness. In a relationship based on deference disagreement is problematic because it challenges the position of the interlocutor. And showing deference implies respecting and heeding the other’s views and opinions. The logic of camaraderie is completely different. Here the participants show signs of positive affect to signal closeness and good intentions. Disagreement is not as problematic, because it is seen as a sign of openness and sincerity. In Lakoff’s words, in a camaraderie system “there is no holding back, nothing is too terrible to say” (Lakoff 1990:39). The directness and spontaneity of camaraderie and the associated high involvement style can be associated with the positive politeness strategies of cooperation and reflexivity, most specifically with the strategy “Be optimistic” (cf. 2.3.2). The outcome of this strategy is “presumptuous or ’optimistic’ expressions of FTAs” (Brown & Levinson 1987:126). We shall now consider an excerpt in which disagreement seems to be treated as unproblematic. Ragnhild and Victoria are discussing courses offered at the University this term and have come around to Language Standardization: (37) LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION (3:859–903) R: .. det var noen jeg kjenner som tok R: det i ’fjor, V: .. ’ja, V: R: .. og som hadde lissom samme R: forventninger til ... til det som

.. there was someone I know who took it last ’year, .. ’yeah, .. and who had sort of the same expectations to ... to it as ’I had sort of,

248

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

’meg lissom, at man hører ’språknormering,

V: R:

V: R: V: R: V: R: V: R: V: R: V: R:

V:

R: V: R:

V:

R: V:

R:

at ’det er interessant og ’spennende, .. ’ja. .. at man kanskje ville ta opp noen sånne etiske problemstillinger ’rundt det og. ... men det er lissom ikke det de driver med i det ’hele tatt. ... (SVELG) det er syn’taksen? .. ja det er bare syn’taks. .. ’ja. (0) ’ja. ... ja det ’visste jeg forsåvidt. (0) P> (0) og jeg syns det= ... jeg syns ’det er ’spennende jeg. .. ’ja, (0) [men jeg syns --] [men så] liker jække ’Berg heller.

V: R:

V: R: V: R: V: R: V: R: V: R:

.. <@ nei- -V: .. akkurat @> @= [ <@ ’nei, R: .. det skal jeg kanskje ikke snakke så ’høyt om. @> @= ] [ ] @= V: nei jeg syns han er helt ’grei jeg asså. ... jeg har [ikke] noe problemer med [’det.] [’ja.] [’nei.] R: .. men -V: .. jeg syns han har lissom sånn litt R: sånn arrogant== .. hoven= ’tone jeg, [som jeg ikke] ... ’fikser. [ja ’akkurat.] V: (0) nei jeg ha- -’liker ham, (0) P> R: (0) liker ham rett og ’slett, V: .. syns han er -’ja, .. helt ’ålreit. .. ’mm. R:

CONVERSATION

that you hear ’Language Standardization, that ’that is interesting and ex’citing, .. ’yeah. .. that they would maybe raise some ethical issues a’bout it and. ... but that is sort of not what they do at ’all. ... (SWALLOW) it’s the ’syntax? .. yeah its just ’syntax. .. ’yeah. (0) ’yeah. ... yeah actually I ’knew that. (0) P> (0) and I think it= ... ’I myself think ’that’s ’interesting. .. ’yeah, (0) [but I think --] [but then] I don’t like ’Berg either. .. <@ no- -.. right @> @= [<@ ’no, .. that is something I probably ought not say a’loud. @> @=] [] @= no I think he’s quite o’kay actually. ... I don’t [have] any problems with [’that.] [’yeah.] [’no.] .. but -.. I think he’s got kinda like an arrogant== .. stuck up= ’attitude, [that I can’t] ... stand. [yeah ’right.] (0) no I ha- -’like him, (0) P> (0) simply ’like him, .. think he’s -’well, .. quite o’kay. .. ’mm.

TOPIC INTRODUCTION V:

(0) men= ...(1.5) P> ... nei for jeg (HARK) jeg har jobbet med= .. teksting for= .. for ’fjernsyn,

249

(0) but= ...(1.5) P> ... well cause I (CLEARS THROAT) I have worked with= .. subtitling for= .. for ’television,

In talking about her expectations concerning the subject Language Standardization, Ragnhild mentions ‘ethical issues’ as something that would be “interesting and exciting”. However, she continues: “but that’s sort of not what they do at all”. Rather, they agree, “it’s just syntax”. By means of an implicature Ragnhild’s evaluation seems to be that syntax is not interesting. Victoria responds to this with a directly opposite assessment: “‘I think ‘that’s ’interesting”. The contrast is emphasized by the use of a right dislocation of the personal pronoun ‘I’ (‘jeg’) in Norwegian (rendered in English by “I myself”). This response is not produced in a typical dispreferred format. There is a false start, but this might be attributable to other things. There are no extended gaps, no hedging of the disagreement and no relativization of her position. Nor does Ragnhild back down from her position, but goes on to present another evaluation that goes in the same direction as her former, namely a negative assessment of the professor (“but then I don’t like Berg either”). This generates an acknowledgement from Victoria followed by ample and extended laughter. What makes this funny to Victoria is probably that it constitutes such a direct threat to a member of a group to which their ‘overhearer’ (that is, me) also belongs. Ragnhild voices this interpretation by saying that she probably ought not say that aloud. This interpretation seems to be endorsed in that it generates further mutual laughter. After the metacomment and the laughing it would have been possible for Victoria not to take a stand on Ragnhild’s assessment but to continue with something else. For instance, she could treat the talk about Berg as a side sequence and continue to talk about the subject of Language Standardization. However, she takes up the issue, and the pattern we saw above repeats itself. Victoria goes bald on record with a diverging assessment: “no I think he’s quite okay actually, I don’t have any problems with that”. There are no markers of dispreference and no face redressing moves. This is met by an explanation by Ragnhild of why she does not like him, but no retreat on her position. On the contrary, her explanation presents compelling reasons for not liking him (his “arrogant” and “stuck up” attitude). And once more Victoria disagrees, bald on record and without perceptible delay. She may even be seen to upgrade her positive evaluation of him from finding him “quite okay” to

250

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

saying that she likes him. She upgrades even more by repeating it: “simply like him”. None of the parties go further with this divergence. Instead, Victoria makes a metastatement about how this connects to their prior topic and she then returns to the topic that originally triggered the talk about Language Standardization. The pattern throughout this excerpt is that Ragnhild and Victoria disagree but do little or nothing to reduce the divergence or to compensate for it in other ways. In addition, there are no indications that this creates unease, hostility or the like. They simply do not treat the expressions of disagreement as face threatening acts. This can only be explained as resulting from an ‘optimistic’ or ‘camaraderie’ strategy. They express spontaneously and directly their thoughts and feelings and thereby both presuppose and create a close relationship in which small divergences are acceptable (and maybe even enticing). Ragnhild is so spontaneous that she does not consider the possible effects of her utterance on the experimenter, and their subsequent laughter also seems spontaneous and hearty rather than embarrassed or restrained. In this way, disagreement and divergences may be treated as a result of high involvement in the topic and thus as an incitement to discussion rather than as a threat to the relationship. The outcome will to a large extent depend on the established closeness (or a willingness to establish it then and there). The interlocutors may use a conversational style that signals closeness (‘camaraderie’), involving the use of positive politeness as a “metaphorical extension of intimacy” (Brown & Levinson 1987:103; cf. 2.3.2). This means presupposing solidarity and positive affect and thus being “optimistic” about their mutual rights and obligations. In such a frame of talk (minor) disagreements are considered inoffensive and do not need to be mitigated or compensated for. However, if the participants have not achieved conversational closeness they will be obliged to show deference. This involves using negative politeness strategies that emphasize the autonomy and independence of the interlocutor. In this perspective, the challenge represented by disagreement is considered an imposition that should be avoided or mitigated. The result is elaborate redressive action in the form of negative politeness strategies. 5.8.3 Attentiveness and reciprocity in personal topics Just like presentation-eliciting questions, other-oriented topic introductions are equivocal as to their effects on face (cf. 4.7.1). On the one hand, they may

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

251

constitute a ‘gift’ of attention and a display of interest (the positive politeness strategy of attentiveness). On the other, they may constitute a potential threat of intrusion on the interlocutor’s territory (negative face). As Goffman (1967b:73) puts it: To ask after an individual’s health, his family’s well-being, or the state of his affairs, is to present him with a sign of sympathetic concern; but in a certain way to make this presentation is to invade the individual’s personal reserve, as will be made clear if an actor of wrong status asks him these questions, or if a recent event has made such a question painful to answer.

The speaker has to weigh these conflicting concerns and find questions that display interest in the other without intruding into his or her personal life. The stereotypical questions that strangers ask (that is, presentation-eliciting questions) can be seen as a standardized solution to this dilemma. They concern more or less public information, such as occupation, family status, place of residence, etc. This has already been thoroughly treated in Chapter 4 in connection with introductions of the presentation-eliciting sequence. Here we can just add that the popularity of these topic introductions (amounting to 47% of the topic introductions in the corpus) testifies to their pertinence in this type of conversation. The introductions both put personal matters on the table — thus contributing to familiarity — and they display the initiator’s interest in the other — thus contributing to emotional involvement. The fact that almost one out of two topic introductions is other-oriented shows the participants’ orientation to the activity of getting acquainted. This is further supported by the introduction conditions. That other-oriented topics are introduceable in their own right (constituting non-coherent shifts) may be seen as resulting from their relevance to the communicative activity. In other words, it is the goal of the overriding activity which may be seen as providing the ‘legitimation’ of introducing the personal matters of the other as a potential topic. The introduction of self-oriented topics can also be seen as guided by the positive politeness strategy of attentiveness. As we have seen, these introductions appear in different sequential environments in conversations between acquainted and unacquainted pairs. Whereas acquainted pairs may introduce such topics as first topics or as non-coherent topics, unacquainted pairs always exploit some connection to prior discourse. This might be explained by face considerations. To introduce a self-oriented topic is a potential threat to the face of the

252

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

hearer in that the speaker is not attentive to him or her. On the contrary, s/he attends to him- or herself and his/her own interests. This may be legitimate in a solidary relationship, where a mutual concern for one another is already established as an expectation. Between unacquainted interlocutors, however, such solidarity cannot be taken for granted. Rather, it has to be displayed and achieved in the conversation itself. In order to start talking about oneself legitimately without appearing nonattentive to the other one needs some justification. This is provided by the local discourse context. Some topical matter already broached is construed as an occasion for introducing the self-related matter. In this way, the speaker takes a line of action in which s/he does not appear merely self-attentive, but also attentive to and involved in the current topic. The motivation for choosing self-oriented topics is the potential for introducing personal matters and thus contributing to the process of establishing familiarity. In talking about themselves, the participants will readily assess which topics are both potentially interesting to the other and in line with the self-image they wish to present. Another strategy that relates to the introduction of personal topics, is to “assume or assert reciprocity” (Brown & Levinson 1987:129). There is a very clear reciprocity effect in personal topic introductions — both self-oriented and other-oriented — in the corpus. Other-oriented topic-initial questions are very often returned. This is manifested in some of the examples treated previously in this chapter (cf. also 4.5): Example (2) and (3) (pp. 169-170): H: Har du tenkt å bli lærer?

J:

((…)) Du da?

Example (9) (p. 185): C: Har du någon pojkvän? ((…)) A: Har du någon som sitter i Växjö och=

H:

J: C: A:

Are you planning to become a teacher? ((…)) How about you? Do you have a boy friend? ((…)) Do you have someone who’s sitting in Växjö

In the first excerpt the return question is even followed by a metacomment expressing Jens’s feeling of obligation to ask:

TOPIC INTRODUCTION (38) TEACHER (2:719–715) J: .. ’du da? .. jeg må nesten [’spørre --] H: [nei jeg= --] nei æ= -’æ vil bli lærer,

J: H:

253

.. ’what about ’you? .. I probably should [’ask --] [well I= --]

well I= -’I wanna be a teacher,

It is difficult to imagine other reasons why Jens should feel an obligation to ask than the fact that Hilde has just asked him and has taken time to hear about his future plans. In this way, his metacomment may be seen as a display of his awareness about the norms of conversational genre. In the discussion of excerpt (3) (CAREER) above (of which this is a part), it was noted that the elliptical form of the question exploits topic organizational principles in order to be anaphorically linked to Hilde’s previous question (“are you planning to become a teacher”). We may now argue that the expectation of reciprocity of other-oriented topic introductions may be one cue enabling them to establish this link. Reciprocity serves both to avoid threats and to reduce interpersonal distance. The expectation of reciprocity minimizes the threat of intrusion by making access to personal information mutual. This means that conversationalists will not be motivated to ask personal questions that they are not prepared to answer themselves. On the other hand, reciprocity contributes to establishing solidarity by inviting mutual displays of attentiveness. By reciprocating the topic-initiating question, the participants show that they are equally interested in each other. As for the self-oriented topics, we noted that analogy is one of the main legitimations for introducing such talk. Analogous stories or points operate on the basis of reciprocity. When one party has told a story, the other person thereby receives the right to tell another story. In example (28) (THE TRAIN) (p. 227) and (29) (BEDCLOTHES) (p. 228) we had an instance of this: First Charlotte tells about her journey to Oslo, and then Anna presents her story (“I also came yesterday but I got a room and stuff”). The reciprocal telling of stories may be considered a way of creating familiarity and solidarity. By producing a second story conversationalists confirm the reportability of such stories and show appreciation of the first teller’s story. Furthermore, they display their understanding of the point of the previous story by making an analogous point. Finally, they create common

254

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

ground by making it clear that they have similar experiences and perhaps even similar evaluations of such experiences. We have noted that second stories are made to ‘fit’ the first and are interpreted in the light of them. This relation of analogy is also brought about by the expectation of reciprocity. In situations where one does not assume solidarity (and thus reciprocity) with the co-participant, one would have to be prepared for a second story from the adversary which did not match one’s own point. Sacks gives an example of such a ‘second story’ that, though similar, does not match the first (construed example): A:

I was driving along and I saw a car smashed up and I went over to see what happened. There were all these people lying on the street. I stayed there for a while.

B:

I was in an accident one time and I was lying there on the street and all these people came over and stood around gawking at me. It was really awful. (Sacks 1992, vol. 2:5)

I would propose that we do not expect such second stories in situations where we presuppose solidarity, but that they may very well occur in adversarial conversations. So my claim is that when one self-oriented topic (story, point) follows another one by the co-participant, it is expected to be analogous in some respect in cases where one has reason to assume reciprocity. My data thus indicates that reciprocity is a guiding principle for the introduction of personal topics. But is this more characteristic of conversations between unacquainted than between acquainted interlocutors? Politeness theory presents reasons to expect an affirmative answer. In stable intimate and solidary relationships, the parties’ respective faces have been supported to such a degree by the other that they are less sensitive to occasional, minor threats. This explains the occurrence of such things as bald-onrecord requests, overt disagreement and joking insults among close friends (Brown & Levinson 1987:229; cf. 5.8.2 above). Therefore, they will hardly be so dependent upon repeated manifestations of reciprocal attention and respect in order to assume a joint commitment to mutual rights and obligations. This means that we can expect less strict reciprocity on a local level in conversations between intimates. The fact that acquainted pairs introduce self-oriented topics in the form of news announcements — thus violating the maxim of being attentive to the other — also confirms the tendency that acquainted pairs are less dependent on local manifestations of positive politeness.

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

255

I do not have comparative data for making a contrastive analysis, but I find some support for this assumption in the findings of researchers within Social Penetration theory (cf. 2.2.1). Morton (1978), for instance, has compared conversations between spouses to conversations between strangers. Her results indicate that spouses show significantly less reciprocity in conversation than do strangers. 5.8.4 Conclusion The choice of different neutral and personal topics is determined by the two competing goals of saving face on the one hand and developing familiarity and solidarity on the other. The other-oriented topic introductions that take the form of presentation-eliciting questions seem to be the standardized solution to this communicative dilemma. They directly develop familiarity by soliciting diary information. The threat of intrusion is compensated for by the reciprocal format of the initiations. Furthermore, they do not need any external legitimation and thus represent a continually accessible resource for introducing new topics at topic transition relevance places. Setting talk is the other topic category that may be introduced by means of non-coherent shifts. It is legitimized as a relevant topic by the immediately accessible common ground it establishes, and thus the solidarity it creates among the participants. However, this talk does not develop familiarity and establishes a relative anonymity between the interlocutors. This might explain why setting talk is normally transitory, leaving the floor open to more faceinvolving topics. Encyclopedic topics and self-oriented topics are more constrained as to when they can be appropriately introduced. They need to be linked to the prior discourse as a legitimation for their introduction. These restrictions may be explained by their implications for the interpersonal relationship. Encyclopedic topics do not necessarily develop familiarity and solidarity and, furthermore, do not guarantee a common point of reference (such as setting talk). Self-oriented topic introductions develop familiarity, but not solidarity, since the initiator does not show interest in or attention to the co-participant. Whereas encyclopedic topics are introduced by associative extensions, selforiented ones more often depend on relations of analogy, thus exploiting the expectation of reciprocity. Once they are appropriately introduced, these topic types have a potential

256

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

for creating familiarity and solidarity: encyclopedic topics by establishing common expertise and attitudes, and self-oriented topics by focusing on diary information. Furthermore, they are the topic types that have the greatest potential for creating topical involvement and positive affect. The establishment of shared expertise may yield such a positive emotional response, and even (moderate) disagreement may contribute to the same. Self-oriented topic introductions are signs of involvement in that the introducer volunteers information and thus displays a certain expressivity and spontaneity. They are also likely to be more reportable than other-oriented topics because the introducer has privileged access to the diary and may more easily assess which features are potentially most interesting and newsworthy.

Chapter 6

Side sequences and the establishment of common ground 6.1 Introduction Conversationalists have to keep track continuously of their current common ground in order to know what can be taken for granted and what has to be presented explicitly. For unacquainted interlocutors it might be difficult to assess potential common ground. Yet, they are forced to make specific choices concerning the level of explicitness of their utterances. This leads them to proceed by trial and error, basing their references on conjectures about their common knowledge. When there is a mismatch between the supposed and the actual background knowledge, one of two things might happen: the addressee may accommodate the utterance by adjusting the set of previously held background assumptions (Lewis 1979, cf. 2.3.4). In that case, the conversation goes on as if there were no mismatch. Or else the mismatch may lead to a break in the stream of discourse, in which potential asymmetries of background knowledge are dealt with. The partners temporarily leave the topic of the discourse to align their contextual resources. The information supplied or elicited in these side sequences is marked as background information in that it is not presented as relevant in its own right, but only as support for some presentation in the previous or subsequent discourse. The talk about the background information is abandoned once it has supplied the necessary background for continuing the main topic. What happens in such sequences is that the background is foregrounded or made explicit in a special way. This routinely happens when necessary background assumptions are not mutually manifest to the participants, such as in the following example:45

258 (1) C:

A: A: C:

GETTING ACQUAINTED KARL JOHAN (1:118-124) ja= vi== va- ’gick runt lite, ... försökte ’hitta till Karl ’Johan, .. den [’gatan,] [till?] .. den här ’gågatan. mm, .. det tog oss ...(1.1) nån ’timma <@ eller så, @@@

IN

C:

A: A: C:

CONVERSATION

yeah= we== wer- ’strolled around a bit, ... tried to ’find Karl ’Johan, .. that [’street,] [find?] .. that pe’destrian street. mm, .. it took us ...(1.1) an ’hour <@ or so, @@@

A background assumption required to interpret Charlotte’s initial utterance is that Karl Johan is the name of a street in Oslo.46 However, Charlotte obviously does not have evidence that this assumption is in the common ground, and so she supplies an additional explanation: “that street”. This reveals itself to be a necessary clarification, as Anna simultaneously performs a ‘questioning repeat’ (Jefferson 1972); that is, she repeats part of Charlotte’s phrase with question intonation (“find?”). Anna then produces evidence that she nevertheless has heard Charlotte’s clarification (“I see”) and, furthermore, identified the referent (the high pitch on “jaha” (“I see”) and the additional information about the street, namely that it is a pedestrian street). Charlotte acknowledges Anna’s recognition (“mm”) and returns to the initial project of telling about her walk in the city. The excursions to the background typically take the form of side sequences, such as in this example. One of the participants in the conversation introduces a temporary break in the ongoing joint project to deal with the synchronization of background assumptions, and then resumes the original joint project from the point at which it was broken off. Side sequences allow conversationalists to negotiate common ground on-line, while pursuing the main activity of the interaction. Indeed, as Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs ([1986] 1992:164) note, side sequences are “one of the commonest and most versatile grounding devices available”. The term side sequence was proposed by Jefferson (1972) to cover a general category of insertions into an established activity (be it conversational or not): In the course of some on-going activity (for example, a game, a discussion), there are occurrences one might feel are not ‘part’ of that activity but which appear to be in some sense relevant. Such an occurrence constitutes a break in the activity — specifically, a ‘break’ in contrast to a ‘termination’; that is, the on-going activity will resume. (Jefferson 1972:294)

SIDE SEQUENCES

259

I will use Jefferson’s characterization, but specify certain concepts that are central to defining side sequences. First, the “on-going activity” will be defined as the original joint project of the conversation. This will also be called the main project (or main sequence) to distinguish it from the side sequence. The main sequence is superordinate in that it provides the relevance of the side sequence (occasions it) while it does not itself get its relevance from it (is not occasioned by it) (cf. 6.6). The “break” will be defined as a suspension of the main sequence, due to a rupture in the coherence or the projected action sequence of the conversation. This chapter explores some of the characteristics of side sequences and their role in the processes of establishing common ground and getting acquainted. The first part (6.2–6.5) contains a general description of side sequences and their communicative functions and sequential properties. The last part (6.6–6.7) relates them to the establishment of common ground and interpersonal relationships.

6.2 General characteristics of side sequences To further specify Jefferson’s notions, I propose the following characteristics of side sequences: 1. A side sequences constitutes a suspension of the on-going joint project. 2. The task carried out in the side sequence is not part of the main project, but is relevant to (parts of) it. The relation may be either one of sequential implicativeness or merely a parenthetical relation. It may be either anaphoric or cataphoric. 3. The main project resumes once the side sequence is completed. 4. The side sequence consists minimally of one interactional contribution (presentation and acceptance), but may include a series or a sequence of turns. 5. It may be self- or other-initiated 6. It may be introduced either by presenting or by soliciting information. The first four points may be considered the core identifying criteria, whereas the last two constitute a basis for subdividing the side sequences into different interactional classes. In this section (6.2), I will discuss the central characteristics, whereas the interactional classes will be presented in the next section (6.3).

260

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

6.2.1 Suspension of the main project The first criterion is that there is a suspension of the on-going joint project, and this will appear as a rupture in the sequential structures embodying the communicative activity. This may manifest itself in conversation by interruption of various sequential units, such as minimal contributions (presentation and acceptance), adjacency pairs or narratives. The side sequence may interfere with the syntactic requirements of a sentence, the conditional relevance of a second pair part of an adjacency pair, or the structural projections of a genre (such as a narrative). In example (22) of Chapter 4 (repeated here), a side sequence separates the parts of an adjacency pair: (2) A:

C: A: C:

A: C: A:

ACCENT (1: 834-858) ...(1.0) har du=-jag= måste fråga om det är en .. dialekt eller om du har ett annat modersmål eller så. .. brytning? ... ja=, ja där kom det, vänta, ... det tog dej en halvtimma, !wow==. [annars får man höra det] direkt. @@@ [nej= men ja- jag-- ] nej .. [[jag k- e=]] [[jo men jag var]] tvu-- !aj ... ja- för jag har nämligen själv fått frågan e-... par gånger av e=,

A:

C: A: C:

A: C: A:

... invandrare som har frågat mej om jag är, ...(1.0) om jag är från ... nåt annat land. ... !det är jag ju inte. ... så ... då är det ju min dialekt så dom--

C:

.. därför är jag lite rädd å slänga meur mej det också <@ om det bara [är en dialekt. @>@] [nej .. det är jag van.] C: ... nej jag har brytning,

...(1.0) do you have=-I= have to ask whether it’s a .. dialect or whether you have another mother tongue or what. .. accent? ... yeah=, yeah there it came, wait, ... it took you half an hour, !wow==. [usually people tell me] at once. @@@ [no= but I- I --] no .. [[I c- e=]] [[hey but I was]] oblige-- !oops ... I- cause you see I have been asked that question a- ... couple of times myself by e=, ... immigrants that have asked me if I’m, ..(1.0) if I’m from ... some other country. ... and of course I’m !not. ... so ... then it’s my dialect that they -.. that’s why I’m a bit afraid of coming out with it too <@ if it’s just [a dialect. @>@] [well .. I’m used to that.] ... anyway I do have an accent,

SIDE SEQUENCES e= jag ... f- ... flyttade till p- -från Polen till Sverige, med mina föräldra när jag var tolv.

261

e= I ... m- ... moved to p- -from Poland to Sweden, with my parents when I was twelve.

Here the initial question about Charlotte’s dialect or mother tongue is followed by two side sequences and answered only several turns later. The conditional relevance created by the first pair part of the adjacency pair is not cancelled, but is sustained through the turns of the side sequence, and taken up at the end. First comes a repair sequence, introduced by Charlotte (C: “accent?” A: “yeah.”). After this Charlotte could have answered the question, but instead she introduces a new side sequence, this time a metacomment concerning Anna’s question. The comment takes the form of an exclamation about the fact that it took Anna so long to ask. The exclamation is followed by some efforts by Anna to justify why she has hesitated to ask before. In what sense do these side sequences break off the ongoing sequence? Mainly by displaying that they are not possible answers to the question, thus that they do not comply with the action projected by the first part of the adjacency pair. The first side sequence is introduced by a single word with question intonation. The intonation in itself provides evidence that this is not an answer. Furthermore, the one word produced is a possible reformulation or replacement of some of the expressions used in the question (“dialect”, “other mother tongue”) and this makes the utterance recognizable as a repair initiation and not an answer. Anna shows that she accepts the reformulation by a minimal acknowledgement token. The second insertion is also problematic as a potential answer to the question. Among other things it contains two deictic expressions which are not possible to see as referring anaphorically to prior discourse referents (‘there’ and ‘it’ in “there it came”). Charlotte’s comment: “there it came, wait, ... it took you half an hour, wow==, usually people tell me at once” seems to confirm implicitly that she does have an accent. What people usually tell her at once is not stated explicitly, but a plausible inference is that it is that she has an accent. And if people usually tell her at once that she has an accent, then it is a plausible inference that this is because she in fact does have an accent. However, although this comment might give rise to such an inference, and consequently would have answered Anna’s question, the comment is not treated as an answer. In her response, Anna does not relate the comment to the focus of her initial question, but sustains the metacommunicative focus. Nor does Charlotte seem to expect Anna to treat the comment as an answer to her

262

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

question; for after Anna has produced the metacomment, justifying her question, Charlotte produces an explicit answer to the question (“I do have an accent”). In this way, both of them treat the inserted sequence as not addressing the issue raised in the question. Even though they could have considered it as implicitly answering the question they do not do so and thereby display an orientation to the main sequence as suspended. Although these two insertions are related to the main project (the adjacency pair) introduced by the preceding question, they are not part of it. They do not contribute to fulfilling the conditional relevance set up by the first pair part. Rather, they deal more or less directly with the conditions for completing the joint project. This aspect concerns the relevance of the side sequence to the main sequence and is what we turn to in the next subsection. 6.2.2 Relevance to the main project The content of a side sequence is relevant to the main project. The primary relevance of side sequences is to ground utterances of the main project in the participants’ common ground. In the example above, the repair sequence deals with a problem in the understanding of the question. It is only when the participants have arrived at a joint construal of the question as asking about Charlotte’s accent, that they have established the focus of the question as common ground. The metacomment following the repair sequence deals with the appropriateness of the question and how it may be dealt with without jeopardizing the relationship. In both cases, the side sequences are related to the main project, in clearing up problems of understanding and negotiating the relational implications. Side sequences may be more or less directly addressed to the sequential progression of the main sequence. Some insertions deal with matters intrinsic to the sequential organization of the activity they are embedded in and are thus sequentially implicative. Others deal with matters that are incidental or external to the sequential organization of the surrounding discourse and will be called parenthetical. In this way, we can distinguish between side sequences which are consequential for the surrounding sequence qua sequence, and those which are just related to it without, however, contributing to its progression. As an illustration, let us consider side sequences interpolated between the first and the second pair parts of an adjacency pair. A repair sequence (such as the first insertion in (2): C: “accent?” A: “yeah”) seeks to establish a joint

SIDE SEQUENCES

263

construal of the first pair part. Only when Charlotte has arrived at a construal of what Anna is asking about can she proceed to answering the question. The side sequence is thus consequential for the continuation of the sequence. Other side sequences deal with matters that are incidental to the organization of the surrounding act sequence. The second insertion in (2) (“yeah there it came...”) is an example of this. It neither contributes to repairing the first pair part (nothing gets corrected or replaced in the question), nor does it establish the conditions for the formulation of the second pair part. It is not addressed to the preceding question as a first pair part of an adjacency pair, but as a contribution at the current stage of this particular conversation. It focuses on the placement of the question within the conversation, and on its recurrence in this sort of conversation. These matters are extrinsic to the sequential organization of the adjacency pair as such. (More on this in 6.5.2 below.) What these sequences have in common, however, is that they provide contextual resources for interpreting the main sequence. They ground the main project in common assumptions that are to serve as a context for the surrounding discourse. The relevance of side sequences to the main sequence excludes pure asides from the category. Asides may for instance be comments triggered by events in the setting (cf. 5.2.5 and 6.2.5). These are non-coherent with the surrounding talk and are thus not even parenthetically related to the main sequence. The side sequence may relate to the main sequence in different ways. It may either contain a metacomment, including repair of an item in the main sequence (as in (1)) or a comment monitoring the comprehensibility, appropriateness, relevance, etc. of some aspect of the main sequence (such as the second insertion in (2)). Furthermore, it may include additional information related to the topic in the main sequence. This information may constitute a digression (a parenthetical recontextualization of some matter) or a misplaced sequence, that is, information that cannot be properly fitted into the discourse at the current stage of the main project and therefore has to be interpolated into some other part. These communicative functions are explored in more detail in section 6.4 below. 6.2.3 Resumption of the main project Side sequences are not definable solely in relation to the prior sequence. People sometimes truncate syntactic units even if there is no side sequence

264

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

intervening. And questions do not always introduce adjacency pairs (for example rhetorical questions). Looking only at the relation to the prior discourse, one cannot, then, say for sure whether one has to do with a suspension or a termination. The analysis of side sequences has to be based on the participants’ own treatment of the sequence in subsequent discourse. Only when the original sequence has been resumed by one of the parties is the intervening sequence construed as a side sequence (and not, for instance, a topic leap). In this way, a side sequence is a ‘transformable object’ that acquires its status only when it has been closed off (Jefferson 1972:308). As noted above, Charlotte’s answer in (2) (“I do have an accent”) might be redundant from an informational point of view since Charlotte’s side sequence implicitly confirms that she does have an accent. However, the answer is not redundant as a sequential marker. It links on to the initial question and thereby marks the return to the main sequence. So for a sequence to acquire status as a side sequence, it has to be marked as one by the fact that the initial joint project is resumed. When Charlotte answers the question she introduces the answer with the word ‘nej’ (literally ‘no’) (“nej jag har brytning” — “no I do have an accent”). However, this ‘nej’ cannot be part of the answer to the question whether or not she has an accent, since what follows is an affirmative answer. Rather, the initial word must be considered as a discourse marker signalling a shift in activity levels from side sequence back to main sequence. Thus, ‘nei’ is used here as a return marker, which is one of the pragmatic functions it can have (Skarbø 1997). There are several linguistic markers of entry into and exit from side sequences. As we saw in (1), a questioning repeat is a conventional introduction of a repair sequence. And there is a whole range of return markers, such as, for Norwegian, ‘uansett’, ‘i alle fall’, ‘i hvert fall’ (with the English equivalent ‘anyway’): (3) B:

SAILING (5: 560–573) ...(1.0) æ ’hørt om sånn <@ derre @> B: ’bløffe med ’tur, .. nån som nån som skulla ’over ’Skagerak da ikkje sant, som æ mene-ja det ’er jo åpent ’hav, æ har faktisk aldri ’seilt i åpent ’hav asså, sånn ’ordentlig at du virkelig ikkje ser ’land,

...(1.0) I’ve ’heard of that <@ kind of @> ’bluff to be on a ’trip, .. someone who someone who was to cross the ’Skagerak right, which I mean-well it ’is open sea, actually I’ve never ’sailed in the open ’sea, you know ’properly so that you really don’t see ’land,

SIDE SEQUENCES L: B: L: B:

.. nei. .. ’uansett men, (0)

...(1.5) men e= .. midt ’utpå der liksom, så ’vist det sæ jo at, det ’var jo egentlig ingen som ha ’prøvd det der ’ordentlig før asså.

L: B: L: B:

265

.. right. .. ’anyway but, (0)

...(1.5) but e= .. right ’out there in the middle sort of, it turned ’out that, in fact there ’was no one who had ’really ’tried it properly before.

In the middle of a narrative about the sailors who were to cross the Skagerak (the sea between Norway and Denmark) Bjørn inserts a report about his own experience of sailing out at sea. After a short acknowledgement by Lars he marks the return to the narrative by the discourse marker ‘uansett’ (‘anyway’).47 Also syntactic and intonational clues may be used to mark off the side sequence from the surrounding sequence and signal shifts of activity level. Sometimes a side sequence breaks off a syntactic unit mid course. In such cases the interruption of the utterance in progress is itself a signal of suspension of the main sequence. And the resumption will usually repeat the syntactic unit from the beginning (or a paraphrase of it). The repetition may then serve as a resumption signal, indicating a return to the main sequence. Side sequences may also be marked for their parenthetical character by intonational patterns. Especially short self-initiated side sequences are often produced with parenthetical intonation, that is, accelerated pace and lowered pitch and amplitude relative to the surrounding discourse. The following example shows these syntactic and intonational boundary markers: (4) S:

M: S: M: S: M: S:

AUTOMATION (4: 375–386) .. det var en kompis av meg som fikk sånn .. ’jobb, han skulle .. ’utbedre= -.. .. <X så han [fikk jobb -- X>] ((SVELG)) [auto] .. mo’sjon? .. automa’sjon. .. ’åh? (0) sånn som ’automatisere be’drifta <X og sånn X>. (0) ja akku’rat. .. ’ja? (0) og han== fikk jobb på den ’kornsiloen for å= ’gjøre om ’dataanlegget demmers,

S:

.. there was this friend of mine who got like a .. ’job, he was supposed to .. im’prove= -.. .. <X so he [got a job --X>] M: ((SWALLOW)) [auto] .. ’motion? S: ..auto’mation. M: .. ’oh? S: (0) someone who ’automatizes ’companies <X and things X>. M: (0) yeah e’xactly. .. uh ’huh? S: (0) and he== got a job in that ’grain silo to= ’modify their com’puter system,

266

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Here we have two insertions in Sven’s narrative. First, in the middle of an incomplete sentence (“he was supposed to repair”), Sven himself inserts a comment presenting additional information about his friend (“he is an automation engineer you see”). When the side sequence is over he returns by repeating part of his earlier utterance (“he got a job”). The side sequence is also marked off from the rest by parenthetical intonation. As Sven is returning to the narrative Marta introduces another side sequence, this time a repair sequence. After Sven has explained what an automation engineer is Marta produces two minimal responses. The first is an acknowledgement of Sven’s explanation (“ja akkurat” — “yeah exactly”). But after that she produces another minimal response, this time with rising intonation (“ja?” — “uh huh?”). The intonation gives this response token an eliciting character, prompting Sven to continue. However, since the side sequence is complete (having been closed by Marta’s acknowledgement) she can only be eliciting a continuation of the main sequence. Sven once again returns to the narrative by repeating his words from the main sequence (“he got a job”). Although we might imagine that he could have continued by using other words, the repetition itself seems to indicate that he is resuming the main sequence from the point it was broken off. In both these cases, then, intonation and repetition of a syntactic unit play an important role in marking the boundaries between main and side sequence.48 6.2.4 Internal organization The criteria presented in the subsections above concern the relation between the side sequence and the main sequence. The final characteristic concerns the internal organization of the insertion. Just as side sequences may be inserted into many different types of joint projects, so they may themselves consist of various types of joint projects of variable complexity. The side sequence is an interactional achievement in that it has to be jointly construed as an insertion, and as a specific type of insertion (with respect to sequential implicativeness and communicative function) before the main sequence can be resumed. The smallest constituent that may be considered a side sequence is thus a minimal contribution, that is, a presentation and an acceptance. The acceptance is produced by another speaker than the one performing the presentation and may consist of a separate turn, a continuer or a non-verbal acknowledgement token (such as a nod) (Clark & Schaefer 1992, cf. 2.1.3).

SIDE SEQUENCES

267

On the other hand, side sequences may be composed of extended turns or by a sequence of turns. In some cases side sequences may themselves contain side sequences, or they may be followed by other side sequences before the participants return to the main sequence (such as in (2)). The only size limitation seems to be the time the participants can focus on something else while at the same time keeping the thread of the main sequence open in memory so that they can return directly to it. At some point this opportunity is lost and the participants are obliged to explicitly reintroduce the former topic if they want to return to it. In such cases we no longer have a side sequence but a topic leap. 6.2.5 Delimitations Side sequences may be confounded with other types of sequences. These are sequences that have certain common traits with side sequences, but nevertheless are distinct phenomena. In this part I will attempt to distinguish side sequences from repair sequences, insert expansions, asides and topic reintroductions. Repair sequences present a problem or ‘trouble source’ in the prior discourse and propose a candidate correction or replacement of it (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977). However, side sequences may include other things than repair. For instance, Sven’s comment on his friend in the last example ((4) AUTOMATION) does not involve any correction or replacement of any item in the narrative. Rather, it represents an addition to it. So repair is just one of the things that might be accomplished in side sequences. Other communicative functions are explored in 6.4. Repair may also be made outside of side sequences, as for instance restarts and other editing phenomena that do not occur between the parts of some joint project. Another related phenomenon is insertion sequences (Schegloff 1972b) — recently renamed insert expansions (Schegloff, in prep.). An insert expansion may be considered a subtype of side sequences, defined not by communicative function (as repair sequences), but by sequential properties. It is restricted to cases in which a sequence (minimally an adjacency pair) intervenes between the first pair part and the second pair part of an adjacency pair, is sequentially implicative, and is initiated by the recipient of the first pair part (Schegloff, in prep.). The first side sequence in (2) (ACCENT) fits the criteria, but not the second, which is not an adjacency pair. The side sequences in (4) (AUTOMA-

268

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

TION)

are not insert expansions, since they do not intervene between the parts of an adjacency pair. Nor does the following example, since it is introduced by the same person who produces the first pair part of the adjacency pair:

(5) M:

S: M: S: M:

EXAM (4: 440–445) .. hvordan gikk det forresten med ek’samen? skulle ikke du= opp i ’ex phil? (0) ’jo. .. ’jo. ... æ ’trur det gikk ’bra da. .. ’ja.

M:

.. by the way how did the e’xam go?

weren’t you= supposed to take the ’ex phil? S: (0) ’yeah. M: .. ’yeah. S: ... well I think it went all ’right. M: .. ’yeah.

Insertion types which do not comply with the requirements of insert expansions are called ‘incidental’ or ‘parenthetical’ sequences by Schegloff (in prep.). He thus creates a rigid division between those insertions which are inherent and those which are incidental to adjacency pair organization. In doing this he neglects the fact that they have a fundamental functional property in common, namely to jointly suspend a sequence in progress in order to activate relevant contextual resources for interpreting it while simultaneously providing for its subsequent resumption. My position is that the side sequence is the more fundamental interactional mechanism, and that insert expansions may be regarded as one of several subtypes of it. The different types may be classified according to concepts such as sequential implicativeness, self- or other-initiation, anaphoric or cataphoric coherence (cf. 6.3 – 6.5 below). Asides differ from side sequences in that they do not relate to the main project. They are not occasioned or triggered by anything in the prior utterances, but by some discourse-external stimulus. In the previous chapter, examples (10) and (11) DOORBELL (pp. 186-187), we considered an aside triggered by one of the interlocutors going to open the door. When the practical business was completed, the prior topic was resumed. Asides do not involve any coherence links, neither to the prior nor to the subsequent discourse. The delimitation of side sequences can also pose problems regarding topics that are abandoned and then taken up again later in the conversation. We need to be able to distinguish a temporary ‘break’ from a ‘termination’ + ‘reinitiation of the same joint project/topic’. The linguistic markers may be of help here. In cases where the participants reintroduce a prior project or topic, we will find more elaborate introductions. The previous joint project or topic has to be explicitly mentioned or alluded to in order to be activated as a

SIDE SEQUENCES

269

reinitiated topic. Side sequences normally allow the participants to return directly to the prior joint project without explicitly reactivating it. The possible length of side sequences is limited by constraints on attention, since the initial sequence must be kept activated in memory until it is resumed. After some time it cannot be considered as activated any more and therefore has to be reactivated explicitly if one wants to return to the topic. So the explicitness of the return marker can give us a criterion for delimiting side sequences as opposed to reinitiations. Let us consider an example of reinitiation. First, the topic is introduced for the first time. Lars asks Bjørn whether he has seen the new office premises of Cultura: (6) L: B:

L: B: L: B:

PREMISES (5: 669–683) har du vært oppe og ’sett lo’kalan eller? ... der ’oppe, ja æ ’var med m vel ...(1.0) ’første ’dagen, og .. og ’pussa opp da. .. åja? .. mm. (0) ja men ’da får du jo en liten sur’prise. ... ja ’det gjør æ nok, æ har bare vært og ’grunna, og= ... ’vaska. .. ja, .. ja det ’det gjør æ nok. ...(1.5) ja, .. nei æ har et sånt derre= ...(1.5) ’møkkarygg asså. som har lissom flippa ’ut igjen,

L: B:

L: B: L: B:

have you been up there and ’seen the ’premises? ... up ’there, yeah I took ’part m well ...(1.0) the ’first ’day, in .. in the ’decorating. .. oh yeah? .. mm. (0) yeah but ’then you’ll have a bit of a sur’prise. ... yeah I probably ’will, I’ve only ’grounded, and= ... ’washed down. .. yeah, .. yeah I I probably ’will. ...(1.5) yeah, .. no I have this ...(1.5) ’back that’s really no good. that has sort of screwed ’up again,

The topic takes a direction where Bjørn’s back problems and his involvement in the magazine are developed, so that Bjørn never gets to know what the “surprise” consists of. At a later stage in the conversation (ca. 5 minutes later), he reintroduces the topic. To do this, however, he has to reactivate the topic, and does so by explicitly reintroducing the statement made by Lars previously, this time in the form of a question: (7) B:

PREMISES AGAIN (5: 841–845) ...(9.5) nei får æ mæ ei ’overraskelse der oppe asså,

B:

...(9.5) well so will I have a big sur’prise up there then,

270

L:

GETTING ACQUAINTED .. ka .. ka dokker ha ’gjort? ...(2.3)

(0) nei det er gjort ’mye ’der,

IN

L:

CONVERSATION .. what .. what have you ’done? ...(2.3)

(0) well quite a lot’s been done ’there,

In this way, reinitiations have more elaborate ways of reintroducing the previous matter than do resumptions after side sequences. Resumptions after side sequences take the form of continuations of the prior sequence (Jefferson 1972:319). A continuation links on directly to the prior sequence, possibly preceded by just a brief resumption marker. In this way, the side sequence as a category is distinguishable from both asides and ‘topic leap + reintroduction’. On the other hand, it subsumes certain other sequence types previously described, such as insert expansions and repair sequences.

6.3 Interactional patterns In the literature a typical side sequence is one in which the hearer intervenes to solicit clarification. This section presents a taxonomy of side sequences that involves a variety of interactional patterns including also speaker-initiated ones. The present chapter thus argues that side sequences are both semantically and interactionally more diversified than current accounts suggest. I will first present the various interactional modalities, and then turn to the content of the side sequences and their communicative functions in 6.4. I propose a categorization of side sequences based on two interactional criteria. First, whether they are initiated by the speaker or by the hearer, and, secondly, whether they include a solicitation or a presentation of information. This gives us these four basic types: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Self-initiated presentations Self-initiated solicitations Other-initiated presentations Other-initiated solicitations

These will be treated in turn. But first the notions of self- versus other-initiated sequences need to be defined more closely. A side sequence is self-initiated when the person introducing it is the same as the person having produced the last substantial contribution of the main sequence (or a part of it). That the prior turn must be substantial means that it must make an informative contri-

SIDE SEQUENCES

271

bution to the current joint project and not be a mere display of understanding or a continuer. It does not mean, however, that the turn needs to be complete. Often a side sequence will curtail a turn constructional unit under way, which is then taken up and completed when the side sequence is brought to an end. An other-initiated side sequence is one in which some other participant than the speaker of the prior contribution of the main sequence is the one who introduces the side sequence. Solicitations are requests for information, definable in the same terms as strong initiatives (cf. 4.3). The category of presentations of information then includes the rest of the speech acts used to initiate side sequences. 6.3.1 Self-initiated presentations In self-initiated presentations the current speaker interrupts the sequence in progress to supply additional information, repair his or her own previous utterance, make a meta-comment or the like. The side sequence is usually short and marked by parenthetical intonation (lowered pitch/volume and/or accelerated pace). Here is a typical instance: (8) S:

M: S: M: S: M: S:

ARTICLE (4:1597–1610) .. da æ sku ’skriv den ar’tikkelen om den herre= ’mikrobiologien da, .. om ’endosymbiose og ’gaia, ] [åh gjør du ’det?] ’ja. akku’rat ja. og [ da== .. da ’tenkt æ at æ ] skull= --

S:

.. when I was going to ’write that ’article about this= micro bi’ology, .. about ’endosymbiosis and ’gaia, ] M: [oh is ’that so?] S: ’yeah. M: yeah e’xactly. S: and [then== .. then I ’thought that] I=’d -[ ’tøft. M: [’great. ’ja? .. ’mm. ] ’yeah? .. ’mm.] .. eller noe av det ’første æ ’skreiv da, S: .. or some of the ’first things I ’wrote, æ hadd hadd .. æ hadd hadd på en måte I’d I’d .. I’d I’d sort of the ’feeling ’følelsen av at= that= biolo’gi kan du ’sjå pra- fra så mang bi’ology can be seen prom- from so ’punkta, many ’angles, at æ burde kanskje skrive helt kort that perhaps I ought to write quite !mitt forhold til biolo’gi da, briefly about !my relation to bi’ology,

Here Sven’s main project is to talk about what he is writing in the article on

272

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

microbiology. However, he stops in the middle of a syntactic unit to make explicit something that was merely presupposed in the original telling (namely, that he is writing an article) and to give some additional background about the article (that he is writing it for Cultura). The self-initiated presentation is produced with a parenthetical intonational quality. It is followed by a change of state token (Heritage 1984b) by Marta (“åh”–“oh”) and a question and/or exclamation (“is ’that so?”). These parts of the contribution work together to indicate that the information is new to her. The question is answered minimally by Sven and his answer is acknowledged by Marta. Sven then returns to the initial project of telling about what he is writing in the article, while Marta is still adding yet another response to Sven’s statement in the form of an assessment (“great”). Example (1) (KARL JOHAN) (p. 258) is also of this type. Charlotte supplies additional information about the discourse referent ‘Karl Johan’ before continuing her story. Anna responds by an acknowledgement token (“ja!ha”–“I !see”) and a display of her reference assignment (“that pedestrian street”) which may be seen as a reformulation of Charlotte’s explanation (“that street”). The typical response to a self-initiated presentation is a short acknowledgement in the form of a continuer (as in the example above), a repetition or a reformulation (as in (1)). 6.3.2 Self-initiated solicitations Self-initiated solicitations involve a rupture in the sequence in progress where the speaker stops to ask his interlocutor a question. Example (5) above includes such an instance (repeated here): (9) M:

S: M: S: M:

EXAM (4: 440–445) .. hvordan gikk det forresten med ek’samen? skulle ikke du= opp i ’ex phil? (0) ’jo. .. ’jo. ... æ ’trur det gikk ’bra da. .. ’ja.

M:

.. by the way how did the e’xam go?

weren’t you taking= the ’ex phil? S: (0) ’yeah. M: .. ’yeah. S: ... well I think it went all ’right. M: .. ’yeah.

Here Marta asks two questions in a row. However, they are not of equal status. The second addresses a presupposition in the first question (that Sven has taken an exam) and thus seeks to establish one of the preparatory conditions of the first question. It is formulated as a request for confirmation of something

SIDE SEQUENCES

273

Marta assumed (background information). Sven treats the second question as interpolated in that he answers it first and only then answers the initial question. In this case, the speaker sought confirmation for part of her own background knowledge. But the question may also check on the background knowledge, attitudes, etc. of the interlocutor. The speaker checks the partner’s knowledge or understanding before continuing the original activity. Here is an example of such a ‘partner check’: (10) REAL THING (5:970–979) B: ...(4.0) så det-men e= ja mm ... nei æ ska e=-kjenne du== Real ’Thing==? de e jazz=& L: ja B: &<X greie ja X> ja ja ja ja ... æ ska spille no ’sånne greia no da, !ende’lig asså.

B:

L: B:

...(4.0) so it -but e= yeah mm ... well I’m gonna e=-do you know== Real ’Thing==? it’s jazz=& yeah &<X stuff yeah X> yeah yeah yeah right ... I’m gonna play some of ’that sort of stuff now, !finally.

This is a classical case of grounding, in which mutual knowledge of the referent has to be established before the talk can proceed. The side sequence is introduced by a question, truncating the main speaker’s own turn-constructional unit. The question seems to be recognized by Lars as aimed at merely establishing common ground in that he gives only a minimal answer. He gives Bjørn a ‘go-ahead’ to continue and leaves it at that. Had he seen Bjørn’s previous false start as merely an aborted utterance without sequential implications, the question could have been a topic-initiating question. In this case, a more expanded response might have been expected. As shown in Chapter 4, topic proffering questions typically engender extended responses. However, Lars seems to recognize the parenthetical character of the sequence and consequently produces the minimal amount of information needed for the original speaker to know whether he can go on or not. 6.3.3 Other-initiated presentations The other-initiated presentations involve an insertion by the hearer into a joint project proposed by the speaker. In the following example Marta interrupts

274

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Sven to display her familiarity with a concept referred to in his prior contribution: (11) ENDOSYMBIOSIS (4: 1061–1076) S: .. nei hu vart jo .. hu vart jo ’utledd nærmest, når hu ’kom med det herre i= -... trur det var i ’nitten seksti’to. M: .. ’ja? S: ... [hu] kalla det for ’endosymbiose da. M: [å’ja.] S: .. men i dag da [[ så har -- ]] M: [[ ’akkurat ]] ja, det begrepet ’kjenner jeg. S: .. [ ’ja. ] M: [ ’ja. ] eller hvert fall [[ ’hørt om. ]] S: [[ i dag ]] har dem aksep’tert det da, M: .. ’ja. [ .. ’visst. ] S: [ bio’logan da, ]

S:

.. you see she was .. she was virtually ’ridiculed, when she pre’sented this in= -... think it was in nineteen sixty’two M: .. ’yeah? S: ... [she] called it endosymbi’osis. M: [’right.] S: .. but today [[she has -- ]] M: [[ yeah ]] ’right, I ’know that term. S: .. [ ’yeah ] M: [ ’yeah ] or at least [[ ’heard of it. ]] S: [[today ]] they’ve ac’cepted it, M: .. ’yeah. [.. ’right. ] S: [ that is the bi’ologists, ]

Here Marta interrupts Sven in the middle of his turn constructional unit. The side sequence she introduces involves a display of her familiarity with the concept ‘endosymbiosis’. Until now she has been producing weak signals of understanding in the form of continuers. At this point, however, she produces a stronger signal. She explicitly asserts not only that she understands what Sven is saying, but also that she has some background knowledge of the referent. This display does not come at the first transition relevance place. And when Sven self-selects to continue, she lets pass the natural occasion for producing a display of understanding. That she subsequently interrupts him to produce this display shows that presenting specialized common ground is such a vital concern that she is willing to break the turn-taking rules to achieve it. The other-initiated presentation is here, as in most other instances, responded to by a minimal acknowledgement token before the initial joint project is resumed. 6.3.4 Other-initiated solicitations The other-initiated solicitations are probably the side sequences that have received the most extensive treatment, in part because of their frequency in

SIDE SEQUENCES

275

repair sequences. They may solicit more information on some item in the other’s discourse or include a metacommunicative question concerning the initial speaker’s utterance act, meaning or proposed joint project. In (2) (p. 260), Charlotte’s inserted question (“accent?”) proposes a specific construal of Anna’s initial question (as concerning Charlotte’s accent). When this is accepted by Anna, they have established a joint construal of the question. It is thus the meaning of Anna’s question which is negotiated. In the next example, it is additional background information which is asked for: (12) CECILIA (1:149–177) C: och på ’tåget så såg jag en ’tjej, ... jag tyckte ’ja=, ... ja man ’tänkte inte mer på det, men i ’Göteborg, så satt hon ’också där, .. med en stor ’resväska, .. och jag tänkte, ja= det kan- det kan=ske=, .. skulle .. på samma ’kurs, så jag ’frågade henne, hon ’skulle dit, A: ja’ha, C: så ’bestämde vi oss att .. vi skulle dela på ’taxi, ... från [’stationen] ’hit, A: [mhm] C: så ’gjorde vi det, ... gjorde vi [och--] A: [vem] av dom- ’är det? C: vad ’sa du? A: ’vem .. är det. C: det är Ce’cilia, ...(1.5) hon är ’korthårig ljus, ... ’kort ’hår. A: ja ’just det, som hade blommig ’klänning? C: mm, A: mm, C: och när vi kom ’hit, så ’visade det sej att jag inte har nåt- nåt ’rum,

C:

A: C:

A: C: A: C: A: C:

A: C: A: C:

and on the ’train I saw a ’girl, ... I thought ’yeah=, ... well I didn’t ’think any more about it, but in Gothenburg, she was ’also sitting there, .. with this big ’bag, .. and I thought, yeah= it may- it may=be=, .. was going .. to the same ’course, so I ’asked her, she was ’going there, u’hu, so we de’cided to .. share a ’taxi, ... from the [’station] and up ’here, [mhm] so we did ’that, ... we did [and--] [who] ’is it? what did you ’say? ’who .. is it. it’s Ce’cilia, ...(1.5) she’s got short ’hair fair, ... ’short ’hair. yeah e’xactly, who had a flowery ’dress? mm, mm, and when we came ’here, it turned ’out that I didn’t have a- a ’room,

276

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Here Charlotte is telling about her trip to Oslo the previous day. In her story, she reports meeting another course participant on the train. Anna is also a course participant, and they have all met the same day for the opening of the course. In this way, the identity of the person referred to in the story might be known to Anna. This is reflected in her question, in that she asks “which one of them is it”. Also the present tense of the verb indicates relevance to the present situation and not only to the story. Invoking their common knowledge of the group, she may be seen as asking for an identification relative to this knowledge. This is exactly what Charlotte does. She gives a name and a description of what she looks like. This is tailored to the sort of knowledge Anna might have of her from the opening. There, they had introduced themselves, so name and physical appearance are what might be available to them. Anna confirms this construal of her question by adding additional characteristics of her appearance that morning. Clothes are a clue to identifying a person only in relation to a specific occasion. By the fact that each of them confirms the characteristics presented by the other, they establish the identity of the person as common ground. At this point Charlotte continues her story and thus closes the side sequence. 6.3.5 Frequency The four interactional formats identified above have unequal distribution. The most frequent ones in the data are the self-initiated presentations and the otherinitiated solicitations. This is probably because they constitute the main resources for conversational repair. Self-initiated self-repair typically takes the form of self-initiated presentations, whereas other-initiated self-repairs are usually introduced by other-initiated solicitations (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977). However, the concern of this chapter is not primarily repair work at the lower levels of coordination (the locutionary act) but rather the negotiation of meaning and joint projects. It is at this level that the differences in community membership have the greatest consequences and require foregrounding of the background. The formats presented here all exhibit the same basic characteristics of side sequences presented above. In spite of their differences in interactional patterns they are thus fundamentally alike. We now move to some further ways of differentiating these sequences, first according to their communicative functions (6.4) and secondly according to their relations to the surrounding discourse (6.5).

SIDE SEQUENCES

277

6.4 Communicative functions It was mentioned above that repair sequences have been the main type of side sequences studied. However, they do not constitute the only type. Rather they are a special type of metacommunicative sequence aimed at assuring common ground based on linguistic co-presence, that is, establishing mutual manifestness of assumptions expressed in, or implied by, prior discourse. In the following, side sequences will be categorized according to their communicative functions. Some are meta-communicative, such as repair sequences and a type I will call monitor sequences. These concern the communication process itself and thus involve a departure from the informational focus of the talk. Others are concerned with aspects of the joint project established in the main sequence and are not metacommunicative. These will be called digressions, misplaced sequences and resource scanners. The types will be treated in turn below. 6.4.1 Repair sequences Repair sequences deal with some problem in the prior discourse. They are designed to both locate the problem and to offer a candidate replacement (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks 1977). The problem may arise at different levels of communication (Clark 1996:146). It may consist in establishing: – – – – – –

joint attention to the phonetic act of uttering something recognition of the words uttered (the phatic act) the sense and reference of the words uttered (the rhetic act) the locutionary act of expressing a proposition the proposed illocutionary act the proposed joint project (or perlocutionary act)

In the following excerpt there are problems at several levels and a whole series of repair sequences is required before the main sequence can be resumed:

278

GETTING ACQUAINTED

(13) THE LAKE (1:1950–1982) A: ...(6.0) har du varit uppe vid den där sjön än? C: ... vad sa du? A: .. har du varit uppe vid sjön? ...(1.5) Sognvann. ((SIC)) C: ...(2.5) idag? A: ...(2.0) Överhuvudtaget. C: ...(1.5) ute på sjön, eller vid sjön, eller vad sa-- [@@] A: [<@ ’vid sjön. @>] ...(1.5) om du har-C: ... (KREMT) A: .. v- .. [varit vid sjön.] C: [vad menar du] då? A: ...(2.2) den här sjön som ligger vid [... Kringsjå?] C: [jaså,] (SMATT) nej .. nej. .. nej det har jag inte. A: (0) nej förlåt jag .. bytte ämne. det var bara [att jag]...(1.2) [[jag har varit]]& C: [mhm] [[<X nei jag-- X>]] A: &så badsugen så länge och så. C: ...(2.3) har du solat där i dag? A:

C:

A: C:

...(1.2) nej. ...(1.0) @ <@ är jag solbränd? @> [@@@@@@@] [@@@@@ det börjar gå] dåligt. @@@ det här. ...(2.5)

...(2.0) [<X nej jag bara-- X>] [du kj--] ... du kjänner Stig och Theresa sa du,

IN

A: C: A: C: A: C:

A: C: A: C: A: C:

A:

C: A: C: A:

C:

A: C:

CONVERSATION

...(6.0) have you been up by that lake yet? ... what did you say? .. have you been up by the lake? ...(1.5) Sognvann. ((SIC)) ...(2.5) today? ...(2.0) ever. ...(1.5) out on the lake, or by the lake, or what did you-- [@@] [<@ ’by the lake. @>] ...(1.5) if you have-... (CLEARS THROAT) .. b- .. [been by the lake.] [what do you mean] then? ...(2.2) this lake that’s near [... Kringsjå?] [oh right,] (CLICK) no.. no. .. no I haven’t. (0) no sorry I .. changed the topic. it was just [that I] ...(1.2) [[I’ve been]]& [mhm] [[<X no I-X>]] &longing to swim so long and things. ...(2.3) have you sunbathed there today? ...(1.2) no. ...(1.0) @ <@ am I sunburnt? @> [@@@@@@@] [@@@@@ it is beginning to go] badly. @@@ this. ...(2.5)

...(2.0) [<X no I was just-- X>] [you kn--] ... you know Stig and Theresa you said,

First there is a request for repetition (“what did you say?”), signalling a problem of recognition of the words uttered (the phatic act). Anna repeats her question with a rather similar wording. An extended gap of 1.5 seconds occurs, which Anna seems to interpret as a symptom of trouble. As no

SIDE SEQUENCES

279

response is forthcoming, she makes a self-initiated repair, adding a more specific referring expression designating the referent of “the lake”, namely “Sognvann”. This time she thus makes a repair of the rhetic act of referring. Another extended gap occurs (2.5 seconds) before Charlotte initiates another repair sequence: “today?”. This concerns the contextual enrichment of the utterance, that is, establishing the relevant proposition expressed, the locutionary act. Anna specifies the scope of her question (“at all”) but Charlotte is still bewildered about how to answer it. She makes another request for repair of the wording of the question (“out on the lake or by the lake or what did you--”). This question is followed by a short laughter, indicating (most probably) embarrassment. Anna repeats her wording (in a laughing voice), but when a 1.5 second gap follows, she repeats the whole question once more. Charlotte makes yet another request for repair in asking: “what do you mean then?”. Exactly what Charlotte does not understand is not clear from her question, but Anna responds with a new specification of the referent ‘the lake’: “this lake that lies by Kringsjå”. Even before she gets to the prepositional phrase designating the location of the lake Charlotte makes a display of understanding in the form of a change-of-state token (“jaså” – “oh right”). Once this understanding is achieved and displayed she goes on to answer the original question preceding the set of repair sequences. This example illustrates some of the levels of action a side sequence may be used to repair. It also illustrates what it means that repair is metacommunicative and that it deals with problems of talk. In addressing the issue of arriving at a joint construal of Anna’s question it deals primarily with the process of communication itself and not with the joint project established in the main sequence. Repair is concerned with problems in talk. In the example, this is evident by Anna’s comment following the side sequences. She takes the blame for the misunderstanding by apologizing (“sorry”) and accusing herself of having “changed the topic”. She also adds an account of why she asked (“it was just that I’ve been longing to swim so long”). 6.4.2 Monitor sequences The metacommunicative monitors are not designed to solve a problem in the prior discourse, but merely to monitor various aspects of the communication process. This may include the processes of utterance production and interpretation, or the interpretation of prior or following utterances. Such comments may

280

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

deal with the processes of formulating or understanding previous or upcoming utterances. A very frequent type of monitor sequence is when the speaker stops in the production of a complex turn unit to signal problems of production: (14) GRÜNEWALD (4:1456–1463) S: ... asså d- det er så ’spennende S: perspek’tiv han= -en sånn ’sveitsisk ’vitenskapshistoriker som heter Jacques= ... <X ’Grünewald X> ... æ ’veit itj koss det ’uttales. M: S: M: S:

.. ’nei. (0) men= .. han sier at== den ’Gaiateorien da, .. [’mm.] [er] vår tids største his’toriske og ’vitenskapelige revolu’sjon da,

M: S: M: S:

... i- it’s such an ex’citing per’spective he= -this ’Swiss historian of ’science who’s called Jacques= ... <X ’Grünewald X> ... I don’t ’know how to pro’nounce it. .. ’no. (0) but= .. he says that== that ’Gaia theory, .. [’mm.] [is] the biggest his’torical and scien’tific revo’lution of our ’times,

Sven interrupts his exposition to interpolate a metacomment about his uncertainty about the pronounciation of a Swiss name. The side sequence thus foregrounds an aspect of the process of formulating, that is, pronouncing, the previous utterance. In (2) (ACCENT) (p. 260) Charlotte’s metacomment (“there it came, wait, ... it took you half an hour, wow==, usually people tell me at once @@@”) concerns the timing and the appropriateness of Anna’s accent question. It deals with the fact that the question might be construed as face-threatening (cf. analysis of this example in 4.7.1, p. 141f). In this way, the side sequence monitors the relational import of a contribution. Repair and monitor sequences are both metacommunicative. The communicative functions treated below do not pertain to the meta-level but deal with the ‘official business’ of he main sequence. 6.4.3 Digressions What I call a digression is an associative excursion from the topic of the main sequence. It is triggered by some item in the main sequence, but does not itself contribute to the joint project pursued there. This may for instance involve a peripheral discourse referent being recontextualized and made the center of attention for a limited period of time before the original topical focus is resumed.

SIDE SEQUENCES

281

Excerpt (12) (CECILIA) (p. 275) is an example of a digression. Charlotte is telling about a student she met on the train who was going to the same course as she was and their experiences on the way to the campus. In the middle of this narrative Anna asks a question about who this person was. This information is not necessary to understand the story itself. It is relevant to Anna on other grounds, namely because she also participates in the course and may be able to identify her. The discourse referent is introduced in the indefinite form (“a girl”), and thus not presented as uniquely identifiable to the hearer (Gundel, Hedberg & Zacharski 1993). This means that the narrative is not dependent upon the hearer identifying (uniquely) the referent of the noun phrase. It is enough that she creates a representation of a referent of the type ‘girl’ (“type identifiable”, Gundel et al. 1993). This can be contrasted with the noun phrase in (1) (KARL JOHAN) (p. 258). Here, the referring expression is a proper name. This has the same referential status as definite expressions in that it signals that the hearer should be able to identify uniquely the speaker’s intended referent. So the noun phrase in (1) presupposes mutual establishment of the referent’s identity, whereas the one in (12) does not. However, as the narrative in (12) proceeds Anna discovers that she might be able to identify the referent after all; and so she asks. The information obtained through the side sequence gives her a fuller appreciation of the story but is not necessary for understanding it. So when she asks who the girl was, she does not develop the joint project of the narrative any further. Presenting associations may be a systematic way of developing a topic in new directions in what is called gradual topic shifts (cf. 5.4.3). However, associative side sequences are temporary excursions, and the main topic (here the narrative) is at some point resumed from the point where it was broken off. 6.4.4 Misplaced sequences In misplaced sequences the information presented in the side sequence is necessary to pursue the main sequence. However, the sequential requirements of the main sequence prevent it from being fitted properly into the conversation at the current stage. The solution to this problem is to make a break in the current sequence and present or solicit the information in a side sequence. It is thus topically relevant, but sequentially misplaced. The side sequence is in such cases a ‘misplacement marker’ (Schegloff & Sacks 1973). We find an illustrative example of a misplaced sequence in the next

282

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

example. Prior to this excerpt, Victoria and Ragnhild have been talking for a while about intercultural differences in dating and courting conventions. (15) SPANISH DATING (3:414–428) V: men så .. så= er det en annen= bekjent da, som som bor i ’Spania nå, som [ holder ] på med noe== .. oppgave=-& R: [ ’mm. ] V: &.. studier han skal ’avslutte der, R: .. ’mm. V: .. og så s- fortalte han til en venninne av meg på tele’fonen, for han var nå blitt !sammen med en ’spansk [’dame,] R: [<@ ’ja, @> ’ja.] V: og så sa han ...(1.5) egentlig så er det !akkurat det samme som .. i ’Norge sa han, bare atte ... det tar litt lengre ’tid. .. <@ for @> @ i Norge så -hva var det han ’sa? så= hopper du til køys etter den første ’kvelden, men her ta- her må du vente i tre ’uker.

V:

R: V: R: V:

R: V:

but then .. then= there’s someone= else I know, living living in ’Spain now, who’s [ doing ] some== .. dissertation=-& [’mm.] & .. studies he’s ’finishing there, .. ’mm. .. and then he s- told a friend of mine on the ’phone, cause he was now going !out with a ’Spanish [’woman,] [<@ ’yeah @> ’yeah.] and then he said ...(1.5) in fact it’s e!xactly the same as .. in ’Norway he said, just that ... it takes a bit ’longer. .. <@ cause @> @ in Norway you -what did he ’say? you= jump into bed after the first ’evening, but here it- here you got to wait for three ’weeks.

Victoria projects a report on what it is the man told her friend. However, what follows is not that report but a further presentation of the acquaintance. This is misplaced in that it comes in a position where something else is projected. The side sequence adds the information that her acquaintance was now having a relationship with a Spanish woman. Apparently, what he reportedly says about courting in Spain is to be understood as based on this experience. In this way, the information presented in the side sequence is necessary as a background for understanding what he said on the telephone. However, having already introduced his report (“and then he told a friend of mine on the phone”), Victoria cannot fit this piece of information into the turn as it has currently been designed. The misplacement may be seen as oriented to by the recipient (Ragnhild) in that she produces continuers (“ja, ja”) — implying that she does not see the report as having been made yet. Moreover Victoria displays that her insertion is not to be seen as the report itself. After the side sequence she produces a new

SIDE SEQUENCES

283

introduction to the report (“and then he said”) rather than just producing the report (which was already projected). The information about the man’s relationship with a Spanish woman is typically the sort of information that is a part of the presentation of a character, whereas Victoria has already introduced the action. In Labov & Waletzky’s (1967) terms, it is a component of the orientation phase, whereas Victoria at present is in the complication phase. In fact, she has quite an elaborate presentation of the character in the first lines of the excerpt. And the information about his relationship could easily have been fitted into this part, for instance like this: (16) SPANISH DATING (Modified from (15)) V: men så .. så= er det en annen= bekjent da, som som bor i ’Spania nå, som [ holder ] på med noe== .. oppgave=-& R: [ ’mm. ] V: &.. studier han skal ’avslutte der, og han er !sammen med en ’spansk ’dame, R: .. ’mm. V: .. og så s- fortalte han til en venninne av meg på tele’fonen,

V:

R: V:

R: V:

but then .. then= there’s someone= else I know, living living in ’Spain now, that’s [ doing ] some== .. dissertation=-& [’mm.] & .. studies he’s ’terminating there, and he is !dating a ’Spanish ’woman, .. ’mm. .. and then he s- told a friend of mine on the ’phone,

In this way, the additional presentation of the character is misplaced in relation to the sequential structure of the narrative genre. This forces Victoria to make a break in the complication phase and insert it by means of a side sequence. Moreover, in narratives misplaced sequences are common when the main sequence contains a presupposition that is not as of yet shared by the participants. In such cases the speaker often inserts a side sequence to make explicit this information or the hearer interpolates a question. Example (5) is an instance of this (repeated here for convenience): (17) EXAM (4: 440–445) M: .. hvordan gikk det forresten med ek’samen? skulle ikke du= opp i ’ex phil? S: (0) ’jo. M: .. ’jo. S: ... æ ’trur det gikk ’bra da. M: .. ’ja.

M:

.. by the way how did the e’xam go?

weren’t you taking= the ’ex phil? S: (0) ’yeah. M: .. ’yeah. S: ... well I think it went all ’right. M: .. ’yeah.

284

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Marta’s question includes the presupposition that Sven has passed an exam. The subsequent side sequence addresses this presupposition and asks for an explicit confirmation that this is in fact the case. 6.4.5 Resource scanner The final type of communicative function that will be mentioned here is the scanning (establishment) of contextual resources for talking about the topic at hand. By contextual resources I mean background knowledge and attitudes related to the topic. Here is a typical case: (18) TRIANGELEN (ex. from Börestam Uhlmann’s (1995) data: Gro & Liv, l. 85-90) Gro: Kor bor du hen no da Gro: So where do you live now Liv: Eh vet du hvor Triangelen er hen Liv: Eh do you know where Triangelen is Gro: Ja ja Gro: Yeah sure Liv: Mm de- det e like forbi der ((gest)) Liv: Mm i- it’s just past there ((gesture)) Gro: Ja Gro: Yeah Liv: Så ligger det et kollegium Liv: There’s a residence

In explaining where she lives, Liv proposes to use Triangelen as a reference point. However, before doing so, she inserts a side sequence to inquire whether or not Gro knows where it is. This sequence is not misplaced. There is no other more “natural” position for it. Nor is it a digression. The side sequence is consequential for the way the main sequence is pursued. Liv’s answer to Gro’s initial question (“So where do you live now?”) is dependent on the answer she gets in the side sequence. If Gro does not know where Triangelen is, she will not be able to use it in explaining where she lives. The side sequence thus establishes whether or not they have the required common background knowledge to pursue the joint project in a certain way. We find another instance of this in (10) (REAL THING) (p. 273). Here Bjørn asks whether Lars knows the band Real Thing. Being the primary speaker he obtains information about the hearer’s knowledge of a specific referent before proceeding to use it in the main sequence. It is thus an indication of what he can presuppose in the following. The side sequence is here consequential for the pursuit of the main sequence in that Bjørn makes the formulation of his subsequent report contingent on Lars’s answer to his question. The side sequences above are all used to establish necessary expertise for continuing the main sequence in a certain way. However, resource scanners

SIDE SEQUENCES

285

may also be used to establish the lack of background knowledge of something to assure that a report in the main sequence is not already known to the recipient. Here is an example: (19) SPECIALIZATION (4:658–676) S: ...(1.7) det= det ’føles som om det e det eneste ’faget æ kan ’ta. M: .. o’key. S: (0) det e i’dehistorie lissom, for da [’får] du ... da får du en sånn ’bredde da. M: [’ja.] .. S: ..

M: .. ’ja. S: ... med sånn= .. spesielle -du får en sånn for’dypnings=..’del da, M: .. ’mm. S: .. du- -har du- ... ’tatt det eller? M: .. ’nei, .. [jeg] ’har ikke det. S: [’nei.] .. men æ trur -noe sånn som halvparten av pensum får du velg ’sjøl da, M: .. ja ’riktig.

S:

...(1.7) it= it ’feels as if it is the only ’subject I can ’take. M: .. o’kay. S: (0) it’s History of I’deas sort of, cause then [you] ’get ... then you get a broad orien’tation. M: [’yeah.] .. S: ..

M: .. ’yeah. S: ... with like= .. special -you get like a speciali’zation= .. ’part, M: .. ’mm. S: .. you- -have you ’taken it? M: .. ’no, .. [I] ’haven’t. S: [’no.] .. but I think -something like half the reading you get to choose your’self. M: .. yeah ’right.

The excerpt starts with Sven’s claim that History of Ideas seems to be the only subject he can take. The rest of the excerpt may be considered a justification of this standpoint. The first reason for studying it is the broad orientation and the second is the opportunity to specialize. Before specifying the size of the specialization part he asks Marta whether she has studied it. This is not directly a question about her background knowledge. However, nor is it likely to be a mere associative excursion — a digression. Rather, he may be seen as asking this as a way to assess what she might be expected to know about the curriculum. If she has studied History of Ideas she will be likely to know the extent of the specialization part and it will not be necessary for him to specify it. In this way, it may be considered a resource scanner. Here the scanner is not used to establish common expertise but to check that a certain piece of information is not already known to the interlocutor. In (11) (ENDOSYMBIOSIS) (p. 274), Marta displays that she knows — or at

286

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

least has heard of — the concept ‘endosymbiosis’. However, Sven’s exposition is formulated so that it does not require background knowledge of this referent. He presents it in a format that does not claim (unique) identifiability: “she called it endosymbiosis”. So here Marta’s display of expertise is volunteered and does not constitute a prerequisite for continuing the main sequence. Rather, it is a display that their common expertise is in fact greater than Sven seems to expect. In these examples we thus see different uses of the resource scanner. What is common to them is that a side sequence is used to check or display background knowledge of the matters treated in the main sequence. This may be crucial for assessing the level of explicitness to be adopted in the subsequent part of the main sequence (cf. 6.1) 6.4.6 Summary The preceding discussion of communicative functions yields a classification of side sequences as presented in Figure 5. There is a first distinction between those that are and those that are not metacommunicative. The metacommunicative sequences are concerned with either repair or with monitoring the communication process. The sequences that are not metacommunicative are either digressions, resource scanners or misplaced sequences.

side sequences

+metacommunicative

repair sequences

monitors

–metacommunicative

misplaced sequences

Figure 5. Communicative functions of side sequences

digressions

resource scanners

SIDE SEQUENCES

287

This classification is not intended to exhaust the communicative functions of side sequences. There are types of side sequences described by others that do not occur in my data and which are not included in the figure above. One is the type of insertion sequence identified by Merritt (1976) in service encounters: (20) (from Merritt 1976:333) Customer: May I have a bottle of Mich? Server: Are you twenty one? Customer: No. Server: No.

Here the sequence is not metacommunicative, it is not misplaced and neither is it a digression or a background scanner. Rather it adds specifications or conditions that are required to answer the initial question. The types of side sequences behave differently with respect to coherence relations to surrounding discourse and sequential implicativeness. This is the focus of the next section.

6.5 Coherence and sequential relations The side sequence is related to the main sequence in various ways. In a content perspective it is coherent with parts of the main sequence, either the preceding or the subsequent one. In an action perspective it may or may not be required to pursue the activity in the main sequence, that is, it is either sequentially implicative or parenthetical. These two aspects of the relation of a side sequence to surrounding discourse will be taken up in the following subsections. 6.5.1 Anaphoric and cataphoric relations Since side sequences produce a break in the communicative activity which they are embedded in, they also create a shift in the coherence of the talk. However, the shift in coherence is not total. In the definition above, side sequences were limited to insertions that were somehow related to the main sequence. As a consequence, they also establish certain coherence relations with some part of the surrounding discourse — the preceding or the following. This means that a side sequence is always somehow coherent with some part of the surrounding discourse, though never totally. In accordance with the discussion of coherence relations in the chapter on topic (5.4.2) we may say that side sequences are non-

288

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

focally coherent with some part of the surrounding discourse. They establish both continuity, by referring anaphorically or cataphorically to (parts of) the main sequence, and discontinuity, by changing the focus on the topic. This explains how participants can recognize a rupture with the current joint project. They recognize that an utterance violates the principle of local connectedness (cf. 5.2.3). Whether this initiates a side sequence or a topic shift only emerges as they negotiate a possible joint resumption of the initial project (cf. 5.3.2). Most of the side sequences are oriented towards the previous discourse and deal with the comprehensibility, appropriateness or relevance of a previous segment of discourse. By this fact they establish coherence relations with the preceding discourse. These insertions I propose to call anaphoric. By contrast, cataphoric insertions deal with establishing the conditions for success of a subsequent contribution and display coherence with it. We begin with an example of an anaphoric insertion: (21) INTERNSHIP (1:529–538) A: (H) ja= jag har precis skrivit en ... en A: e= rap’port, .. från min prak’tik, ... jag var en månad på e= .. krimi’nalavdelningen i ’Stockholm. .. ...(1.2) och e= .. gjorde en ’kartläggning av deras ... ’texter, ... och så ska man skriva en rap’port av det, .. som ...(1.0) ’kriminalavdelningen får sen. ... och e= ... då .. ’började jag med första ka’pitlet, ..

(H) I= I have just written a ... a e= re’port, .. from my ’internship, ... I was a month at e= .. the ’criminal section in ’Stockholm. .. ...(1.2) and e= .. made a ’survey of their ... ’texts, ... and then one is supposed to write a re’port on it, .. that ...(1.0) the ’criminal section gets afterwards. ... and e= ... then .. I ’started with the first chapter, ..

The side sequence here may be considered a misplaced sequence, presenting the referential identification of the referring expression “my internship” in the main sequence. It elaborates on a previously introduced referent, and is thus oriented backwards, anaphoric. The insertion changes the topical focus of the talk, from a narrative about the writing of the report to a narrative about the internship. This, from being just a background for situating the report in the

SIDE SEQUENCES

289

main sequence, becomes the focal matter of talk of the insertion. We thus have a process of recontextualization (cf. 5.4.3). At the end of the side sequence, when the talk returns to the initial narrative, there is another shift in coherence. The resumption of the main sequence goes: “and e= ... then.. I ’started with the first chapter” (which is probably a speech error (metathesis) and should have been: “I started the first chapter with ...”). This utterance contains several anaphoric references. However, they do not refer back to the side sequence, but to the first part of the main sequence. There is a definite reference to “the first chapter”, which depends for its identification on a bridging inference from the referent “a report” in the section preceding the side sequence. There is a mention of “a report” also in the side sequence, but this is a generic reference, and it is framed within an utterance in the present tense and with an impersonal subject: “one is supposed to...”. In the resumption, by contrast, Anna uses a temporal adverb (“then”) referring to a specific moment in the past, a personal subject (“I”) and a verb in the past tense (“started”). This corresponds to the focus of the main sequence, and not to the last part of the side sequence. What we have seen here, then, is that this side sequence is anaphoric in that it displays cohesive links from the side sequence back to the first part of the main sequence, but not forward to the subsequent part of it. The side sequence establishes a connection, but also represents a coherence break in that it recontextualizes a referent in the main sequence and thus shifts the topical focus. In other cases, the side sequence may be cataphoric and project the relevance of some item in the subsequent part of the main sequence. Excerpt (18) (TRIANGELEN) (p. 284) is an example of this. Here the side sequence is oriented forwards and includes no links to the previous question. The establishment of “Triangelen” as a common geographical reference point is exploited in Liv’s subsequent explanation of where she lives and is referred to indirectly in the pro-adverb “there”. Forward and backward orientation has previously been described by Schegloff (1990, in prep.) with respect to insertion sequences. He calls repair sequences ‘post-firsts’ in that they are oriented backwards, addressing the first pair part of the adjacency pair. Cataphoric insertion sequences, such as the example above, are called ‘pre-seconds’ in that they prepare and condition the production of the second pair part.

290

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

The cataphoric type has certain common traits with pre-sequences. They are both designed to check that certain background conditions apply for producing a certain speech act. Furthermore, they solicit a response in the form of a ‘go ahead signal’, that is, a minimal response signalling whether the initiator can continue or not. In example (10) (REAL THING) (p. 273) above, we see that Lars does not elaborate on his knowledge of Real Thing. He produces just a minimal answer, and it is Bjørn who elaborates on the topic. The difference between pre-sequences and cataphoric side sequences is mainly that side sequences come in at a point where the main sequence has already been initiated. Some types of side sequences are always anaphoric. These are repair sequences and digressions. Misplaced sequences, resource scanners and monitors may be either the one or the other. As we have seen, the misplaced sequence in (21) (INTERNSHIP) is anaphoric. However, the one in (15) (SPANISH DATING) (p. 282) is primarily cataphoric. The insertion (“cause he was now dating a Spanish woman”) achieves its relevance as background for the subsequent report on dating in Spain. Likewise, resource scanners may relate either backwards or forwards. In (11) (ENDOSYMBIOSIS) (p. 274) the side sequence relates to a referent already introduced in Sven’s prior turn, whereas in (18) (TRIANGELEN) (p. 284) the referent inquired about is not yet presented. The metacommunicative monitor in (14) (GRÜNEWALD) (p. 280) is anaphoric. We have not yet considered an example of a cataphoric monitor sequence, but here is one: (22) THE STORY (1:1560-1565) A: och det var lite dumt för jag hade--

C: A:

A:

... @ .. <@ nu kommer historien här, @> [@@@@] [@@@@] <X få höra. X> C: nämen jo vänt, A: först när jag kom till Nepal så hade jag--

and it was a bit infortunate cause I had-... @ .. <@ now here comes the story @> [@@@@] [@@@@] <X tell me. X> no but wait, first when I came to Nepal I had--

Here Anna breaks off an utterance to announce explicitly that she will present a story (the background for this announcement is explained in connection with (26) below). This metacomment prepares Charlotte for what is coming up and thus guides her interpretation of the following utterances. The pattern of anaphoric and cataphoric potentials for the different types of side sequences is summed up in Table 14.

291

SIDE SEQUENCES Table 14. Cohesive orientation of side sequence types ONLY ANAPHORIC

ONLY CATAPHORIC

Repairs Digressions

EITHER – OR Monitors Resource scanners Misplaced sequences

6.5.2 Sequential implicativeness Side sequences may be either sequentially implicative or merely parenthetical. Sequential implicativeness is defined by Schegloff & Sacks (1974:239) in the following way: By ‘sequential implicativeness’ is meant that an utterance projects for the sequentially following turn(s) the relevance of a determinate range of occurrences (be they utterance types, activities, speaker selections, etc.). It thus has sequentially organized implications.

Sequentially implicative side sequences contribute to the projection of the relevant next turn and are thus consequential for the progression of the main sequence. Parenthetical sequences do not alter the sequential structure of the main sequence but allow it to proceed unaltered along the lines projected prior to the insertion. Let us consider once more example (3) (repeated here): (23) SAILING (5: 560–573) B: ...(1.0) æ ’hørt om sånn <@ derre @> B: ’bløffe med ’tur, .. nån som nån som skulla ’over ’Skagerak da ikkje sant, som æ mene-ja det ’er jo åpent ’hav, æ har faktisk aldri ’seilt i åpent ’hav asså, sånn ’ordentlig at du virkelig ikkje ser ’land, L: .. nei. L: B: .. ’uansett men, B: L: (0)

L: B: ...(1.5) men e= B: .. midt ’utpå der liksom, så ’vist det sæ jo at, det ’var jo egentlig ingen som ha ’prøvd det der ’ordentlig før asså.

...(1.0) I’ve ’heard of that <@ kind of @> ’bluff to be on a ’trip, .. someone who someone who were to cross the ’Skagerak right, which I mean-well it ’is open sea, actually I’ve never ’sailed in open ’sea, you know ’properly so that you really don’t see ’land, .. right. .. ’anyway but, (0)

...(1.5) but e= .. way ’out there sort of, it ap’peared that, there actually ’was noone who had ’really ’tried it before.

292

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

The insertion here comes in the middle of a narrative. It does not present information that contributes to the narrative but is a mere associative excursion into Bjørn’s own experience. Once this digression is completed the narrative is resumed from the point it was broken off. The side sequence does not alter anything in the structure or the content of the narrative and might well be omitted without consequences for the narrative. It is parenthetical. The return marker used here, “uansett” (“anyway”), is a conventional signal that the insertion is parenthetical. Schegloff (in prep.) calls ‘anyway’ a “right hand parenthesis marker”. It is not used when the insertion is sequentially implicative. Side sequences may also be marked as parenthetical in the introduction. This may be done by ‘misplacement markers’ such as ‘by the way’. These are also used only for parenthetical sequences. Sequentially implicative insertions are consequential for the pursuit of the main sequence. An original project may be altered or even cancelled as a result of the side sequence. For instance, if Sven had answered ‘no’ to Marta’s inserted question in (17) EXAM (p. 283) (“weren’t you taking the ex phil?”) the original question (“how did the exam go?”) would not be answerable and the projected second pair part of the adjacency pair would be cancelled by that fact. Here is an actual example in which the side sequence leads to a modification of the original project: (24) INXS (1:924–930) C: ...(1.5) (H) !men men ’konsert säger du, C:

A: C:

A:

...(1.5) är du intresserad-lyssnar du på INXS (/inek’ses/)? ...(1.5) ne=j det kan jag inte påstå. @@@@ men du kanske vill gå på konserten ändå? @ <@ ja .. det är mycket möjligt. @>

C:

den tjugetredje .. spelar dom i Oslo,

C:

A: C:

A:

...(1.5) (H) !but but ’concert you were saying, ...(1.5) are you interested -do you listen to INXS (/inek’ses/)? ...(1.5) no= I can’t say I do. @@@@ but you would perhaps like to go to the concert anyway? <@ @ yeah .. that’s quite possible. @> the twenty-third .. they’re playing in Oslo,

The initial part of the main sequence is broken off, but it is complete enough to project that it will be a proposal having to do with a concert. The side sequence seeks to establish Anna’s familiarity with a band (INXS). This is a cataphoric insertion and thus seeks a ‘go-ahead’ to proceed with the proposal. However, Anna’s answer is negative. The 1.5 second gap preceding this response and Charlotte’s subsequent laughter are indicators of the dispreferred character of

SIDE SEQUENCES

293

this response. The side sequence has consequences for how Charlotte continues the main sequence. She cannot just overlook it and go on with the proposal as projected. She does in fact make the proposal, but it is formulated with reference to Anna’s report in the side sequence. She asks whether Anna would like to go to the concert “anyway”. Thus, the proposal is made, but it is modified to take account of Anna’s report in the side sequence. Misplaced sequences are presented as integral parts of the main sequence, although misplaced, and are thus sequentially implicative. Repair sequences also have sequential implications. In establishing a specific joint construal of a prior utterance it has consequences for how that utterance is responded to. In (2) (ACCENT) (p. 260) Anna’s prior question (“I have to ask whether it’s a dialect or whether you have another mother tongue or something”) is jointly construed in the repair sequence as a question about “accent”. This is clearly consequential for how the question is to be answered. Digressions are typically parenthetical, as in (23) (SAILING) (p. 291) above. They are merely associative and do not have consequences for the sequential progression of the main sequence. Metacommunicative monitors and resource scanners may be either or. Example (22) (THE STORY) (p. 290) contains a cataphoric monitor (“now here comes the story”) which has consequences both for the production and the recipiency of what follows. The speaker takes the responsibility for producing a story, and the hearer, by accepting, takes on the status as a story recipient (with the ensuing rights and obligations). The monitor in (2) (“there it came ...”), however, is incidental to the sequential organization of the main sequence as an adjacency pair. Resource scanners are sequentially implicative when they establish cataphorically the conditions of the following part of the main sequence. This is the case in (10) (REAL THING) (p. 273), in which the side sequence establishes familiarity with a certain type of music (‘Real Thing’) that allows Bjørn to proceed by using this as a reference point for describing what sort of music he is going to play. In other cases, such as in example (11) (ENDOSYMBIOSIS) (p. 274), resource scanners are incidental to the sequential progression of the main sequence and thus parenthetical. This gives us the pattern of insertion type paired with sequential implicativenes that is illustrated in Table 15.

294

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Table 15 Relevance to main sequence of different types of side sequences ALWAYS SEQUENTIALLY

ALWAYS PARENTHETICAL

EITHER – OR

Digressions

Monitors Resource scanners

IMPLICATIVE

Repairs Misplaced sequences

6.6 The side sequence as a grounding device What sort of things are being expressed in side sequences? The present chapter argues that it is background information, that is, information that at the current stage of the conversation is not relevant in its own right, but only as a background, or context, for some other piece of information. They contain what Ariel (1988a) calls ‘non-dominant propositions’, that is, propositions which are pragmatically dependent on other, more dominant propositions and get communicated in relation to these. We have already considered some evidence that side sequences have a non-dominant position. They are sequentially dependent on another sequence, and many have a non-prominent, parenthetical intonation pattern. We shall explore here the ways in which the content of the side sequences may be seen as informationally dependent or backgrounded relative to information contained in the main sequence. One of the characteristic features of side sequences is that there are relevance relations between the main and the side sequences. One way we can see that the information in the side sequence is not relevant in its own right — that it is backgrounded, contextual, and dependent — is that the relevance relation between the side sequence and the main sequence is not symmetrical, so that the side sequence is relevant for understanding or contextualizing the main sequence, but not the other way around. For instance, we often find cases where presuppositions in the main sequence are subsequently spelled out explicitly in a side sequence, as in example (21) (p. 288), in which the referent of the expression “my internship” is presented in the side sequence. However, we do not find that presuppositions in a side sequence are spelled out subsequently in the main sequence. If there is presupposed information in the side sequence that is not mutually manifest to the interactants, it will rather be taken up in a new side sequence to the side sequence (which then becomes the main sequence relative to that one). This happens in (21), of which I render an excerpt:

SIDE SEQUENCES (25) INTERNSHIP (EXCERPT) (1:531–534) A: ... jag var en månad på e= .. krimi’nal- A: avdelningen i ’Stockholm. .. ...(1.2) och e= .. gjorde en ’kartläggning av deras ... ’texter,

295

... I was a month at e= .. the ’criminal section in ’Stockholm. .. ...(1.2) and e= .. made a ’survey of their ... ’texts,

The reference in the insertion to “the criminal section” is anchored in a new side sequence: “the criminal section of the police” before the side sequence is continued. In this way, side sequences are conventional means of supplying additional information that proposes to give a richer understanding of the main sequence, whereas the main sequence is not tailored to supplement information to what is presented in the side sequence. The side sequence thus establishes a background of contextual information, relative to which some focal matter is to be interpreted. The focal matter may be any constituent part of the joint project pursued in the main sequence. By presenting background information in this way, the focal matter is grounded, that is, fitted into a frame of mutual assumptions. By studying what the interactants supply as background information, we can see which sources of common ground are lacking for the interlocutors to continue the main sequence. The side sequences thus index what sorts of mutual background knowledge are insufficient for the current communicative purposes of the interactants. Grounding is establishing common ground sufficient for ‘current purposes’. The current purposes may be continuing the main sequence, and, as we have seen, the set of sequentially implicative side sequences are explicable as motivated by this purpose. However, parenthetical sequences cannot be considered as motivated by these goals. Their relevance must be sought beyond the purposes of pursuing the main project. When Anna and Charlotte in collaboration establish the identity of ‘the girl on the train’ in (12) (p. 275), they ground the discourse referent in their frame of reference as course participants. As we have seen above, this is not required for Charlotte to continue her narrative. That they, all the same, take the time to establish this piece of mutual knowledge then becomes an index of which other goals the participants have. In this case, the digression may for instance be seen as an index of a wish to get information about the other course participants for purposes of future interaction. The grounding process as displayed in side sequences may thus reveal both the sources of common ground not available to the interactants and their

296

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

orientation to pursuing certain personal goals in the conversation. What I will argue is that one goal frequently manifested in parenthetical side sequences is that of presenting and soliciting personal information, that is, establishing familiarity. But first I will investigate the types of information provided by the side sequences. The information presented is, as noted, background information. In this way, side sequences are devices to create context. The potential context of an utterance is infinite. So in the side sequences the interlocutors choose and present some aspects of the context that are relevant to interpreting the focal matter. The potential context may be represented as a set of frames surrounding the utterance and from which contextual information might be selected (see Figure 6). individual diary encyclopedia common diary communicative event

focalevent event focal focal event

Figure 6. Contextual domains for grounding utterances

The side sequence thus presents information from one of these sources of information to create the relevant context for a specific utterance. The sources are ordered by degree of accessibility to unacquainted persons. Some sources (such as the current communicative event) are accessible by the mere co-presence of the interlocutors, whereas others require a higher or lesser degree of familiarity. Assumptions based on a shared diary require merely a shared history of co-presence. Reference to the encyclopedia requires mutual knowledge of community memberships, and the individual diary is the least accessible in that it requires prior sharing of biographical information. These contextual domains will be considered in turn below.

SIDE SEQUENCES

297

6.6.1 Communicative event From time to time the interlocutors ground their utterances in features of the communicative event itself. This includes the physical and the linguistic contexts. The co-presence of the interlocutors allows them to treat as mutual knowledge all the linguistic and physical features attended to in common during the interaction. However, there are many things both in the prior discourse and in the physical surroundings for which the participants do not have sufficient evidence to suppose that it is mutually attended to. In these cases the features might need to be made explicit to be invoked as context for some utterance. This is the case with the metacommunicative monitors. They foreground some aspect of the communicative event that is not in the participants’ current focus of attention. (26) THE STORY (1:1560-1565) A: och det var lite dumt för jag hade--

C: A:

A:

... @ .. <@ nu kommer historien här, @> [@@@@] [@@@@] <X få höra. X> C: nämen jo vänt, A: först när jag kom till Nepal så hade jag--

and it was a bit infortunate cause I had-... @ .. <@ now here comes the story @> [@@@@] [@@@@] <X tell me. X> no but wait, first when I came to Nepal I had--

Here Anna stops to announce that what she is about to tell is a story. Furthermore, she signals that it is some extraordinary story (note the laughter quality and the subsequent mutual laughter). It is also an allusion to an earlier part of the conversation, in which Charlotte, upon learning that Anna has travelled in Asia, asks her whether she has any stories to tell from the journey. (27) STORIES (1: 1439–1450) C: vad hände-.. har du några historier å berätta. ...(1.8) från resan. A: ...(2.0) (SMATT) ... ja= ... @@@ många historier. ...(1.6) em= ...(3.5) (SMATT) ...(2.0) @@ det verkar så tragiskt, när man .. man tänker på dom här, .. drastiska saker som hände så, ...(2.2) bli sjuk och så där. ...(2.0) men e= ...(1.5) ja=, ...(1.3) <X va ska vi säga, X>

C:

A:

what happened-.. do you have any stories to tell. ...(1.8) from the journey. ...(2.0) (CLICK) ... well= ... @@@ a number of stories. ...(1.6) em= ...(3.5) (CLICK) ...(2.0) @@ it seems so tragic, when you .. you think about these, .. drastic things that happened then, ...(2.2) getting ill and things. ...(2.0) but e= ...(1.5) yeah=, ...(1.3) <X what shall we say, X>

298

GETTING ACQUAINTED .. ’Indien var det väl som, ...(1.8) gjorde starkast intryck får jag säga.

IN

CONVERSATION .. ’India was probably what, ...(1.8) made the greatest impression I would say.

At this point Anna does not actually tell any stories. She goes on to talk in an expository way about the countries she visited. So when she later on says “now here comes the story” it can be interpreted as a signal that what she is now about to present is what Charlotte requested earlier in the conversation. The side sequence makes mutually manifest to the participants what sort of communicative activity Anna is engaging in. This foregrounds a feature of the current communicative event which may help Charlotte interpret or appreciate the main sequence in an appropriate way. Anna creates metacommunicatively a story-telling frame for the surrounding discourse. We also find a metacomment of this sort in (2) (ACCENT), concerning Anna’s accent question. Charlotte relates the question to the communicative event by drawing their attention to the fact that they are 30 minutes into the conversation and implicitly that they are engaged in a first conversation. The metacomment makes it mutually known to them that the question is highly expectable and habitual for Charlotte in first conversations. It is thus simultaneously grounded in her personal experience, that is, her individual diary. As noted above, it is the appropriateness of the question which is negotiated. The metacomment recontextualizes Anna’s question by establishing its appropriateness relative to the current communicative event. By grounding an utterance in the communicative event the interlocutors exploit a mutually accessible source of common ground. Their co-presence itself warrants the possibility of creating the common ground needed for the grounding. Consequently, this sort of grounding does not distinguish the informational resources of acquainted pairs from those of unacquainted ones. They all have equal access to this sort of information. However, as we shall see below, the use of these side sequences may have different relational implications that might be relevant to the process of getting acquainted. 6.6.2 Common diary Another source of grounding utterances is diary information that is common to the interactants. Information based on physical and linguistic co-presence prior to the communicative event itself may be called common diary information. The fundamental difference between strangers and acquaintances or friends is

SIDE SEQUENCES

299

that the latter have a shared history of interaction (linguistic or other). The diary is organized so that personal/biographical information is indexed with entries for which other individuals share the same information (Clark & Marshall [1981] 1992:54). The more two people have experienced together, the more information they will have stored in their common diary, that is, the part of their respective diaries which is indexed with both their names. The interlocutors in the corpus do not have a shared history of interaction. In a couple of cases, however, they have been physically co-present in the past. Some of the students have attended an introductory class together, and may exploit this source of mutual knowledge. For instance, in (12) (CECILIA) (p. 275) they exploit their physical co-presence earlier that day to try to identify Charlotte’s companion in her travel story. In (17) (p. 283) Marta grounds her question about Sven’s exam in the assumption that he was taking the ex. phil. exam. This assumption is based on Sven’s own report at a prior meeting of the editorial board.49 So the question is grounded in assumed common ground based on linguistic co-presence. In another case, the very lack of a common diary is used as a resource for drawing inferences about the interlocutor: (28) SCANDINAVIAN (2:225–230) H: ...(2.0) men ’du har ikke tatt .. nordisk ’grunnfag i ’fjor? æ meine .. siden ikke vi ’kjenne hverandre, så må jo de= -J: .. ’nei, jeg er faktisk ny -.. eller jeg kom hit nå= .. <X denne ’hausten X> da.

H:

J:

...(2.0) but ’you didn’t take .. the’first year of Scandinavian ’last year? I mean .. since we don’t ’know each other, then that has to= -.. ’no, I’m actually new -.. or I came here now= .. well <X this ’fall. X>

Meeting in connection with the first course of the second year of the subject Scandinavian Studies, it is not implausible to expect that the interlocutor might be continuing from the first year courses. However, here Hilde can exploit her experience from attending the first year last term and the fact that they do not know each other to infer that Jens did not take Scandinavian last year (as she did herself). Her question to Jens is in the negative (“you didn’t take...”) and thus reveals her assumption that he does not come directly from the first year. Not having established as common ground her evidence for this assumption, she produces a side sequence that grounds the question in their lack of common diary information.

300

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

6.6.3 Encyclopedia Unacquainted pairs have limited knowledge about their respective community memberships, even if this is one thing they put much effort into establishing in the first part of their conversations (cf. Chapter 4). The consequence of this is that they cannot know exactly what encyclopedic knowledge they can consider accessible to the other. Some encyclopedic information is restrained to fairly restricted groups of people, while some is near to universal. So the group of people knowing the meaning of ‘endosymbiosis’ (11) is generally expected to be only those having some background in biology or being otherwise acquainted with the field (such as Sven). And knowing the band ‘Real Thing’ (10) is to be expected only from individuals with a certain familiarity with jazz. On the other hand, knowing that Karl Johan is the main street of Oslo (1) is to be expected merely on the basis of nationality, that is, being a Norwegian. Anna and Charlotte’s problem is that they are not Norwegians and are only visiting Oslo. In spite of the fact that unacquainted persons may not have much information about each other’s encyclopedia, they are obliged to make specific choices of referring expressions, and these will inevitably signal whether they consider the referent mutually accessible or not. As noted at the outset of this chapter, this may lead to either over- or underestimation of the interlocutor’s contextual resources. In this situation side sequences constitute an important tool for adjustment and synchronization of background assumptions. Here is an example, in which Sven is talking about the biologist Lynn Margulis: (29) GAIA (4:1080–1093) S: .. men så hu har så stor ’fantasi da,

S:

M: S:

M: S:

M: S: M: S:

.. ’mm. .. hu fabu’lere videre om -hu har ’blitt med på den derre ’Gaiateorien hvis du har hørt om ’den? .. ’ja=, ... [’mulig.] [med] James ’Lovelock. .. at jorda er en ’superorganisme. .. ’ja, ’akkurat. .. og hu= ’hu= .. ligg imellom ’der da,

M: S: M: S:

.. but then she has such a great imagi’nation, .. ’mm. .. she goes on ’speculating about -she’s into this ’Gaia theory if you ’ve heard about ’that? .. ’yeah=, ... [’possibly.] [with] James ’Lovelock. .. that the earth is a ’superorganism. .. ’yeah, ’right. .. and that’s= ’that’s= .. where she ’is,

SIDE SEQUENCES M: S:

.. ’mm. .. og ’fabulere om ... om ’ting,

M: S:

301

.. ’mm. .. ’speculating about .. about ’things,

Sven first presents the referent in the definite form (“den derre Gaiateorien” — “this Gaia theory”) but immediately adds a question explicitly addressing the identifiability of the referent. This question introduces a resource scanner. Marta’s response is positive, but the lengthening of the vowel indicates a certain hesitation. Sven adds more information by mentioning another central figure in the theory (James Lovelock), but still no signal of recognition is forthcoming from Marta. He continues adding information, this time a central thesis of the theory (“that the earth is a superorganism”). Here Marta produces a recognition marker and the main sequence resumes. In introducing Gaia theory Sven chooses a form of the referring expression which presupposes mutual identifiability. However, he immediately introduces a side sequence which explicitly addresses the question whether or not Marta has the sufficient amount of background knowledge. In this way, the problem of ascertaining the contextual resources of the addressee is dealt with by performing a ‘partner check’ as the talk proceeds. The interactants may also adopt other strategies for assuring manifestness of background assumptions. In (11) (p. 274) the concept ‘endosymbiosis’ is presented as not familiar to the interlocutor. Sven first describes the phenomenon itself, and only then goes on to say: “she called it endosymbiosis”. However, Marta introduces a side sequence to signal that she in fact has heard of the concept, so that the potential common ground is in fact larger than Sven seems to expect. And example (1) is a case in which the discourse referent is at first presented as uniquely identifiable to the addressee. Only when positive evidence of understanding is not given by Anna, does Charlotte introduce a side sequence to give additional cues to identifying the referent. In this way, side sequences are used in many different ways to negotiate common ground. But common to these uses is that they establish for the interactants what encyclopedic knowledge may be taken for granted and what may not. Where a lacuna is discovered, the side sequence may be used to supply the information needed for the main sequence to proceed along the projected lines. Side sequences are thus a device allowing the participants in a conversation to negotiate common ground on-line as the talk proceeds. In this way, they can adjust the level of explicitness continuously as the common contextual resources are manifested in the discourse.

302

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

6.6.4 Individual diary The most frequent use of side sequences in the corpus is to add individual diary information. The information may concern the speaker (as in (21): “I was a month at the criminal section...”) or some other matter (as in (15): “he was now going out with a Spanish woman”). What makes it diary information is that the person presenting it has acquired it by personal experience and cannot count it as mutual knowledge within a general community of people. Personal diary information not indexed with the interlocutor’s name (that is, not included in their common diary) cannot be taken for granted in the conversation. So what is needed of background knowledge concerning one of the participants’ diary has to be presented in the discourse itself. The side sequences containing diary information are mainly misplaced sequences and digressions. Here are a couple of instances: (30) TRAIN (1:144-153) C: jag .. åkte ’tåg i går-... tog ’tåg från= e= ja ’Växjö,

A: C:

C:

mhm, A: och på ’tåget så såg jag en ’tjej, C: ... jag tyckte ’ja=, ... ja man ’tänkte inte mer på det, men i ’Göteborg så satt hon ’också där,

I .. travelled by ’train yesterday-... took the train from= e= well ’Växjö, mhm, and on the ’train I saw a ’girl, ... I thought ’yeah=, ... well I didn’t ’think any more about it, but in Gothenburg she was ’also sitting there,

Here the interlocutor has to be informed that there was a change of trains in Gothenburg to understand why Charlotte reports it as something not obviously expectable that “the girl” was still sitting there after Gothenburg. Consequently this is a misplaced sequence. Digressions might also provide a background for the main sequence, but not one that is essential to understanding it. So when Charlotte in the same example inserts “I come from Växjö”, this is not crucial to understanding that she took the train from Växjö the day before. However, it gives additional background information and helps the interlocutor infer such things as why she took the train from Växjö. Seen in isolation, it might seem strange that interlocutors should interrupt their ongoing talk to present or solicit ‘unnecessary’ background information.

SIDE SEQUENCES

303

But when we consider the fact that much of this information contributes to self-presentation, and even such crucial matters as occupation and origin, it becomes clear that the relevance of the side sequences cannot only be seen in relation to the local main sequence. We have to take into consideration also the global purposes of the conversation. In this light backgrounded self-presentation might be an efficient strategy indeed for getting acquainted without foregrounding the lack of acquaintance. This will be explored further in the next section.

6.7 Side sequences and acquaintance There are mainly two functions of the side sequences in the data that display an orientation to establishing acquaintance between the participants. First there are the self-presentations that are presented in digressions, that is, that are volunteered or solicited by a participant without being required by the ongoing talk. Second, there are the resource scanners that deal directly with establishing common expertise and, thereby, common community memberships. 6.7.1 Associative self-presentations To approach the question of how side sequences may be used to develop the social relation we shall consider a new excerpt. Bjørn and Lars are talking about how they got onto the editorial board of Cultura. (31) FRIEND (5:162-200) B: .. ja .. men e= åssen kom ’du inn i dette ’her a? L: nei e kjenner ’også sånn e ’Roar e litt sånn e= ... peri’fert da, .. han e kjenner-...(1.0) eller e- .. ja ’hva skal e si, !kjente en god kame’rat av me, som ’nå .. bor i ’Bergen. B: .. akkurat. L: som gikk på ’nordisk sam’tidig med Roar. ... [så]-B: [å] ’kæm ’da? L: ... Jørn ’Stordal?

B: L:

B: L:

B: L:

.. yeah .. but e= how did ’you get into ’this then? well I ’also sort of know e ’Roar e a bit e= ... at a ‘distance, .. he e knows-...(1.0) or e- .. so ’what shall I say, !knew a good ’friend of mine, who’s now .. living in ’Bergen. .. right. who did Scandi’navian at the same ’time as Roar. ... [so]-[oh] ’who? ... Jørn ’Stordal?

304 B:

L:

B:

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

...(1.5) ja da gjekk han ’hovedfag da, B: eller [tok--] [nei] han-.. nei han ’gikk e=-.. han t- han flytta te ’Bergen og tar ’hovedfag der ’nå. ... så han ’gikk på=-.. gud e= .. e kjenner [’egentlig ikke helt--] [<EMP ’Jørn ’Stordal? EMP>] ja nei fordi fordi ’æ gikk sammen med Roar på ’grunnfag nemlig,

L:

B:

.. og og ’Jo... [’faktisk.] L: B: L:

[ja] .. ja ’riktig. .. ja. ...(0.9) m men e= .. asså ’Stordal <X de X> tok e=-.. ja han ’gikk på ’Blindern mens Roar holdt ’på med [’hovedfaget.]

L: B: L:

B: L: B: L:

[ja ja] .. ja, ja. ja ja, .. så det var lissom når ’Roar var i ferd med å ’avslutte. .. ja, ... ’tror e. .. hmm. .. så men uansett så så traff e= ’Roar og=, (0) ja (0) og han ’lurte på om e eventuelt var interes’sert, ...(1.5) og== .. ’så kom vi til’bake te det nå på ’nyåret. .. hm.

B: L: B: L:

B: L: B: L: B: L:

B:

B: L: B: L: B: L:

B:

CONVERSATION ...(1.5) okay well then he was at the ’graduate level, or [took--] [no] he-.. no he ’was e=-.. he t- he moved to ’Bergen and is doing his ’graduate studies there ’now. ... so he ’was at the=-.. gosh e= .. I ’actually [don’t really know --] [<EMP ’Jørn ’Stordal? EMP>] yeah no cause cause ’I was at the ’first year together with Roar you see, .. and and ’Jo ... [’actually.] [yeah] .. yeah ’right. .. yeah. ...(0.9) b- but e= .. ’Stordal <X they X> took e=-.. yeah he ’was at ’Blindern while Roar was doing his [’graduate studies.] [uhu uhu] .. yeah, yeah. uhu uhu, .. so that was sort of when ’Roar was about to ’finish. .. yeah, ... I ’think. .. hmm. .. so but anyway I= met ’Roar and=, (0) yeah (0) and he ’wondered if I might be ’interested, ...(1.5) and== .. ’then we came ’back to it now in the New ’Year. hm.

The side sequence in this excerpt does not contribute to the joint project established in the main sequence, that is, that Lars tell how he “got into” Cultura. Instead, they seek to identify a potential common acquaintance. This is a digression; it concerns the subject matter of the main sequence but is not

SIDE SEQUENCES

305

crucial to pursuing it. So if this side sequence cannot be explained as a device for remedying problems in the main sequence, then what can it be seen as motivated by? In the beginning of the excerpt Lars introduces a discourse referent in the indefinite form, thus marked as not identifiable from their current common ground: “a good friend of mine who’s now living in Bergen”. The person is presented as an acquaintance of Roar, who is also their common acquaintance. Bjørn accepts this presentation by producing an acknowledgement token (“akkurat”—“right”). At this stage he thus passes over the possibility of asking for identification of the referent. It is only at the point when the additional information is given that he did Scandinavian Studies together with Roar that Lars inserts his question. This establishes the question as occasioned by the last utterance. The answer is produced with a ‘try marker’ (Sacks & Schegloff 1979), that is, with question intonation. The try marker is an invitation to the other to confirm or deny the identifiability of the referent. In this way, Lars displays his understanding of Bjørn’s question as searching for a potentially identifiable referent. The 1.5 second gap following the presentation of the name shows a failure of immediate recognition and the subsequent response implies the same. The response takes the form of a conclusion by the introductory “then” and simply states that he must have been at the graduate level (with Roar). The way Bjørn can make this count as a disconfirmation of the proposed identification is by implicitly expressing that he would have recognized the referent otherwise. Thereby he implies that he has extensive knowledge of the name of the individuals in the rest of the set. Lars denies Bjørn’s conclusion, presenting evidence that his acquaintance is taking the graduate level in Bergen. He subsequently softens the denial somewhat by stating his relative ignorance of the matter. However, Lars continues to construe this as a problem to be solved by emphatically repeating the name with question intonation, thus displaying ‘wondering’. He then presents explicitly his knowledge of the matter, namely that Roar and himself did the first year together, which also is the evidence he had for concluding the way he did above. Lars finally solves the puzzle by indicating that Jørn and Roar were not at the same level. Having thus established that Bjørn will not, after all, be able to identify the referent, Lars returns to the main project, and marks the boundary by the discourse marker ‘anyway’ (‘uansett’). Through this long side sequence both parties work hard to make the

306

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

referent identifiable to Bjørn. What would they have achieved if they had succeeded? This case is parallel to (9) (p. 272), where Anna and Charlotte manage to establish the referent of the “girl in the train” as common ground. In that case, the identification did not have traceable consequences for the rest of Charlotte’s narrative. So Bjørn and Lars evidently do not have the pursuit of the main sequence as their motivation for engaging in the identification endeavor. Rather, the relevance of this sequence is at another level — not at the local, sequential level, but at the relational level. What Lars and Bjørn do in the side sequence is to try to identify a common acquaintance. This is reported to be a fairly typical activity for strangers getting acquainted (Kellermann & Lim 1989). In fact, in 4 of the 5 conversations in my data such sequences occur. Whereas knowing the person referred to as Jørn Stordal is not necessary to continue the joint project of the main sequence, it might be considered useful for drawing inferences about Lars. Lars calls him a “good friend” and they may thus be expected to have certain common interests, knowledge or attitudes and even a common diary, including their experiences together. We have previously considered how establishing certain community memberships might be ‘inference rich’ — allowing a wide range of inferences about a person’s encyclopedic knowledge. It might here be suggested that establishing common acquaintances is also an inference rich piece of information, only this time concerning the diary of the other. It justifies making certain additional inferences about one another concerning such things as biography and individual interests or attitudes. The basis for drawing them is the assumption of a shared history of interaction and a certain degree of similarity — or at least compatibility. The inference-rich character of knowing someone in common accounts for its usefulness as a conversational resource. Discovering common acquaintances is a resource for introducing personal talk as an appropriate current topic. In this way, it may contribute to acquaintance between the parties also by occasioning further self-presentation. What is achieved by establishing a common acquaintance is thus increased familiarity. Consequently the effort to establish common acquaintances might be seen as displaying a common orientation by the participants towards getting acquainted. This may be ascribed not to aspects of the local, sequential context, but to the global communicative activity of the interaction. And this orientation explains why interlocutors can set aside the immediate

SIDE SEQUENCES

307

concerns of the ongoing talk to produce side sequences of the type above. The digressions are not redundant or unnecessary, but contribute to a level of activity above the concerns of the current local sequence. In the continuation of the excerpt above there is another interesting digression: (32) HISTORY OF IDEAS (5:199–216) L: ...(1.5) og== .. ’så kom vi til’bake te det nå på ’nyåret. B: .. hm. L: .. e går e går på i’dehistorie,

L: B: L:

.. e holder på med [’hoved]fag der. B: L: B: L: B: L: B: L:

B: L:

[hm] hm, ...(1.0) så ...(1.0) [[så--]] [[’flott]] .. ’jøss ’ja,

B:

... ja, ... ja men ’det e- det e ’bra. .. ja, .. ja, .. det e-...(1.5) (SMATT) så ’sånn er ’det. ... så= ...(1.7) får vi ’se hva ’det byr på.

L: B:

... ja ja .. ja .. har du ’skreve no spesi’elt? ...(1.0) ingenting.

B:

L: B:

L: B: L:

L:

...(1.5) and== .. ’then we came ’back to it now in the New ’Year. hm. .. I’m doing I’m doing History of I’deas, .. doing my [’graduate] studies there. [hm] hm, ...(1.0) so ...(1.0) [[so--]] [[’terrific]] .. my ’God ’yeah, ... yeah, ... yeah but ’that’s that’s ’great. .. yeah, .. yeah, .. that’s -...(1.5) (SMACK) so ’that’s how it ’is. ... then= ...(1.7) we’ll ’see what ’that has to offer. ... uhu uhu .. yeah .. have you ’written anything ’special? ...(1.0) nothing.

The same considerations apply to this side sequence. Here the side sequence is more obviously relevant for the acquaintance process and its relation to the main sequence seems even more opaque. It seems that the information about Lars’s studies might be offering some explanation for why they “came back to it in the New Year”, but the causality involved is not evident. The insertion is not elaborated any further and is only met with repeated assessments by Bjørn (“flott, jøss [...] men det er bra” — “terrific, my God [...] but that’s great”). It is also not clear whether Bjørn intends to return to the main sequence in his subsequent utterance or if he is still in the side sequence: “we’ll see what that has to offer”. The ambiguity lies in the anaphor “that” which might refer both to his studies and to his joining Cultura. But at least the next utterance is

308

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

oriented towards the activity in the culture magazine (writing articles) and so is back to the main sequence. The information provided in the side sequence is of the most prototypical self-presentational sort found in the conversations. It establishes Bjørn’s current occupation, and thus his community memberships as a student, a student of the History of Ideas, and as a student at the Graduate level of this subject. Charlotte’s insertion in (30) (p. 302) “I come from Växjö” is of the same sort. She uses an occasion created by the main sequence to supply selfpresentational information even though it is not required by the ongoing talk. But having an appropriate occasion for inserting personal information does not explain why the interactants actually choose to use the occasion. Are there reasons for the interactants to present personal information as an occasioned association rather than to wait for an explicit question from the other? Well, first there is the problem of establishing the reportability of selfpresentational information (cf. 4.6.4). The self-presentator cannot introduce self-presentational information without some sort of occasioning, either by the ongoing topical talk or by a question from the interlocutor. However, he may not be sure that the interlocutor will ask for the personal information that he is interested in getting on the table. The side sequence exploits the possibility of using the ongoing discourse as an occasion to introduce self-oriented personal information. Secondly, it was also noted in the previous chapter that the self-presentational sequence has some negative relational effects in laying bare the unacquaintedness of the interactants (cf. 4.7.1). In the side sequence the self-presentation is in a backgrounded environment and thus less insisted upon. Third, side sequences have a great potential for introducing new mentionables without explicitly changing the topic. They may project a gradual change in the topic by introducing mentionables with a potential for subsequent elaboration. This is in fact what happens with the last side sequence above. It is exploited for gradually turning to Lars’s studies rather than his involvement in Cultura: (33) B: L: B: L:

THESIS (5: 215-230) .. har du ’skreve no spesi’elt? ...(1.0) ingenting. (0) <X nja X>.. nei nei, ...(1.0) e ’har ikke ’det. ... nei nå ’nå skal e begynne på ...(1.0) (H) på denne ’oppgaven ’nå,

B: L: B: L:

.. have you ’written anything ’special? ...(1.0) nothing. (0) <X well X> .. no right, ...(1.0) I ’haven’t. ... no now ’now I’m going to start writing this ...(1.0) (H) this ’thesis ’now,

SIDE SEQUENCES B: L:

B: B: L: B:

L:

...(1.0) ja ja. ... så= ...(0.8) e har ’egentlig ’mer enn nok å helde- holde ’på med akkurat ’nå. ...(1.3)

...(2.0)

...(1.0)

((DRIKKER)) ...(2.5) ja ’oppgaven ja, .. kor ’langt har du kommet i i’dehistorien, asså= .. nei asså e tok e= ’fellespensum og=,

309

B: L:

...(1.0) yeah right. ... so= ...(0.8) I ’really have ’more than enough to d- do right ’now.

B:

...(1.3)

...(2.0)

...(1.0)

((DRINKS)) ...(2.5) yeah your ’thesis right, .. how ’far have you got in the History of I’deas, I mean= .. well I took e= the basic cur’riculum and=,

B: L: B:

L:

First Lars himself exploits the common ground established in the side sequence by referring to his thesis as a reason for not writing articles for Cultura. No more mentionables related to the magazine are introduced, and a topic transition relevance place occurs. Bjørn now exploits the recent mention of Lars’s studies and recontextualizes this as a new focus of attention and a new potential topic. In this way, the side sequence serves as a resource for the participants to generate mentionables for further topic development. 6.7.2 Community membership It was noted above that resource scanners could be directly concerned with establishing the participants’ respective states of knowledge of a matter under discussion or a field of expertise (cf. 6.4.5). Here we shall consider a long excerpt including several side sequences which deal with a certain field of expertise, namely jazz. Bjørn has previously told Lars that he has a professional education in classical guitar. Here Lars opens a new topic with reference to this fact: (34) THE BAND (5:951–1031) L: ...(3.1) (SMATT) men du har ikke med de gi’taren, det er jo en .. ’svakhet [’med dæ.] B: [ne=i] nei nei æ har ikkje ’det asså. ... vi får ’se. ... ka som ’skjer. ...(1.0) æ e lissom ...(1.6) ganske sånn e=--

L:

B:

...(3.1) (CLICK) but you didn’t bring your gui’tar, that’s a .. weak ’point [of ’yours.] [no=] no no I ’haven’t. ... we’ll ’see. ... what ’happens. ...(1.0) I’m sort of ...(1.6) pretty much e=--

310

L: B:

L: B: L: B: B:

L: B:

L: B:

L: B:

L: B:

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

... asså æ e jo ’el-gitarist mæst ’no asså ikkje sant, spe- spiller i ’band og sånt da, og ellers så så så æ e jo= .. ’klassisk gita’rist, og det æ omtrent ... ikkje har jobba med idet heile ’tatt, det e jo sånn derre type== ja sp-.. spille ’vise og= sånne greier, det e ikkje min ... greie i det ’heile tatt. nei, L: så æ e lissom meir sånn-B: ... æ må inn i en eller anna ’sammenheng da. [ja.] L: [som] ’ikkje e sånn som det ’her. B: ...(1.0) så .. ’sånn e ’det lissom. ja L: ...(4.0) så det-B: men e= ja mm ... nei æ ska e=-B: kjenne du== Real ’Thing==? de e jazz=& ja L: &<X greie ja X> B: ja ja ja ja ... æ ska spille no ’sånne greia no da, !ende’lig asså. æ jobba med no ’lignandes for noen ’år sida, åja. ...(1.0) ’det glede æ mæ ’stort til. ’det e jo= vældig= sosi’alt og alt det ’der ikkje sant, ja. men det e en fire ’stykka <X og så nei ’det e sant X> vi bli=r vi blir ’tre.

L: B:

L: B:

... så dere skal ’prøve å lage et morsomt L: ’band? .. ja det blir .. i første omgang bare en- B: ’en ’jobb lissom,

CONVERSATION ... that is I’m mainly an ’el-guitarist ’now right, ple- playing in a ’band and things, and besides I I I’m a= .. ’classical gui’tarist, and what I have almost ... not worked with at ’all, is kinda like== well pl- .. playing ’songs and= things like that, that’s not my ... thing at ’all. no, so I’m sort of more like-... I have to be in some sort of context. [yeah.] [that’s] ’not like ’this. ...(1.0) so .. ’that’s ’that sort of. yeah ...(4.0) so it -but e= yeah mm ... well I’m gonna e=-do you know== Real ’Thing==? it’s jazz=& yeah &<X stuff yeah X> yeah yeah yeah right ... I’m gonna play some of ’that sort of stuff now, !finally. I worked with something ’similar some ’years ago, right. ...(1.0) so I’m ’really looking forward to ’that. ’that’s= very= ’sociable and all ’that right, yeah. but we’re four ’guys <X and then no ’that’s rightX> we’ll be=we’ll be ’three. ... so you guys are ’trying to make a cool ’band? .. yeah it’ll be .. for the time being just a- ’gig sort of,

SIDE SEQUENCES som vi tar vældig på ’hælen og sånn, men e men e== de e en e== .. ameri’kaner da, som har .. emi’grert hit, og ’tatt med sæ ’Hammond-orgelet sitt da. L:

.. å ja en med .. ’B3 [eller no sånn?]

L:

B:

[ja ja] ’B3 [[ikkje sant,]] [[akkurat.]] som veie altså-æ veit ikkje æ ka det ’koste å ta over æ, .. det koster ’penger ja? ja æ ’har ikkje ’spurt n. ...(1.6) ’heilt ’sinnssykt. men e= ja hvertfall han ’har ’det ikkje sant, og= ja, .. ja det kan bli ’bra ’det.

det blir nye -.. var det ’Emerson ’Lake and ’Palmer? ... ja ja ja, som= dreiv og-.. jaja. nu vel æ håpe da ’virkelig ikkje ’det. .. @@@@@

B:

L: B:

L: B:

L: B: L:

B:

L:

L: B:

L: B:

L: B: L:

B:

L:

311

that we take very on the ’fly like, but e but e== there’s an e== .. A’merican guy, who has .. ’emigrated here, and brought a’long his ’Hammondorgan. oh yeah a guy with .. a B’3 [or something?] [yeah yeah] B’3 [[right,]] [[right.]] that weighs like-I don’t know what it ’costs to bring over, .. it costs a ’bomb yeah? yeah I ’haven’t ’asked him. ...(1.6) ’just ’crazy. but e= yeah anyway he ’has ’done it right, and= yeah, .. yeah that might turn out ’real ’good.

it’ll be the new -.. was it ’Emerson ’Lake and ’Palmer? ... yeah right right, that= used to-.. yeah right. well I sin’cerely hope ’not. .. @@@@@

Bjørn here talks about his experience as a musician, which he has also done previously in the conversation. He makes clear his areas of expertise, namely as a classical guitarist and as an electric guitarist. But when he is about to tell Lars about the sort of music that he is going to play, he has no clues as to Lars’s familiarity with jazz. Lars has not, either here or previously, presented his background in music. In other words, there is a situation in which Bjørn is established as an insider in a field of community-specific expertise, whereas Lars’s status is not yet established as common ground. In this situation Bjørn might choose between several strategies. He might talk as if to an outsider, he may take the chance of talking as if to an insider, or he may try to find out whether Lars is the one or the other. The side sequence

312

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

(“Do you know Real Thing?”) realizes the latter alternative.50 The question is not a general, self-presentational one such as the ones we find in the selfpresentational sequence (for instance: “What sort of music do you like?”). Rather, Bjørn asks Lars about a specific piece of inside information. In this way he tries to find a way of characterizing a certain style of music that will be both economical and yet understandable to both. Explaining this style to an outsider would be a much more demanding task. In this example the background is foregrounded. The side sequence indexes the participants’ lack of common ground in that they have to establish explicitly what is normally inferred on the basis of community membership or physical or linguistic co-presence. Making their state of knowledge on encyclopedic matters explicit in this way, they display that they do not have the contextual resources that acquainted interactants exploit. Certainly, there are background assumptions that acquainted people do not share either, but in those cases they usually know that they do not share them and present the information as new to the interlocutor. It is thus precisely the uncertainty about which assumptions are mutually manifest that makes the lack of acquaintance apparent. In the next side sequence, it is Lars who takes the initiative to display that he has some inside information related to the same field of expertise. In this digression, he asks for confirmation of his assumption that it might be a B3organ. This is once again a very specific piece of expert knowledge. But this time it was not necessary to understand the main sequence, such as in the first side sequence. A B3 is a type of hammond organ and thus the side sequence involves specification of a referent in the main sequence. In seeking this specification, Bjørn also changes from an outsider designation (“hammond organ”) to an insider designation (“B3”), from a common noun included in the lexicon of most members of a language community to a model name, that is, a proper name. In this way, he once again displays inside knowledge of jazz. One might speculate what was the motivation for introducing the side sequence, the need for the specification or the wish to display the expert knowledge. There are indications in the surrounding discourse that make the latter interpretation plausible. From the prior side sequence Lars knows that Bjørn, in introducing a topic involving reference to jazz, has problems in assessing what can be taken for granted. It is then not unlikely that he uses an occasion that naturally comes up to display some more inside information that might help Bjørn assess his background knowledge. Two pieces of inside

SIDE SEQUENCES

313

knowledge give Bjørn reasons to infer that Lars belongs to the community of jazz adepts and thus possesses the encyclopedic knowledge associated with this community. The last side sequence may be considered in the same light. Lars seeks to associate Bjørn’s new ‘band’ with a band from music history (Emerson, Lake and Palmer). Having started the comparison (“it’ll be the new”), he breaks off to seek confirmation from Bjørn that it really is this band that might display a parallel to his band (“was it Emerson Lake and Palmer?”). However, the question is so elliptical that it is not possible to see what he bases the comparison on. Bjørn starts a collaborative completion (“that used to”) but also stops before completing. He then gives an affirmative answer, implying that he and Lars are thinking of the same thing, in spite of the elliptical formulation. After this, he returns to the main sequence, and comments on Lars’s suggestion of them being the new Emerson, Lake and Palmer (“I sincerely hope not”). Here again, Lars has the opportunity to display his expertise (this time in music history) in engaging in a side sequence that is primarily relevant to the main sequence. These side sequences display an orientation by the interlocutors to establishing common ground in the form of community specific encyclopedic information in order to be able to talk efficiently and appropriately about an encyclopedic topic. But the processes of establishing community membership and choosing the appropriate words relative to the current common ground are intertwined and work both ways. This fits with Clark’s observations cited in 2.3.4, repeated here: Ordinarily, two strangers need to establish which communities they are both members of before they can choose words in talking to each other. [...] Other times, they choose words from a lexicon to signal what communities they are members of. People appear to have a variety of conversational strategies for displaying and inferring shared lexicons — and other shared practices — and these change with the participants, their purposes, and the circumstances. (Clark, 1998)

The self-presentational sequence accounts for how strangers explicitly establish community memberships. Side sequences may be used to establish online the community memberships needed for choosing the appropriate degree of explicitness in the ongoing sequence. In the present examples this is done implicitly by soliciting and displaying familiarity with specific referents of the main sequence. So by using side sequences to monitor the understandability

314

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

and familiarity of single lexical items, the interactants simultaneously establish community co-memberships and mutual manifestness of entire ‘chapters’ of their encyclopedia. Do strangers establish common community memberships in order to infer areas of common expertise, communal lexicons, etc., or do they display common expertise, familiarity with the same encyclopedic information in order to infer common community memberships? Politeness theory suggests that both goals are relevant for getting acquainted. The mere belonging to a common community establishes a certain degree of solidarity between the members, and might thus be a goal in itself. However, community co-membership also gives rise to inferences about common encyclopedic knowledge and thus develops familiarity. So there are both relational and informational motivations for establishing community co-memberships and they are relevant not only for the general goal of getting acquainted, but also for the local goals of pursuing the conversation. Side sequences may be considered one of the techniques strangers have to establish common community memberships on-line without engaging in the self-presentational sequence. They are locally occasioned and adapted to the requirements or relevancies of the local sequential context. This allows them to do the job of establishing co-membership while focusing on topic specific, local matters. The increased familiarity and solidarity are achieved as byproducts of the communication of topic specific information. In this way, the participants get acquainted without doing explicit ‘getting-acquainted-talk’. Their anonymity and the distance between them is not made the focus of attention such as it is in the self-presentational sequence. This has relational advantages in itself. Common background information is presupposed and established explicitly only when local concerns require it. The side sequence is a mechanism that allows strangers to talk as if they had more common ground than they actually have. When problems arise, the side sequence may be used to adjust and up-date the common ground relative to what is required by the current concerns of the interaction.

6.8 Conclusion Side sequences are occasioned by some item in the main sequence. Repair and misplaced sequences are the ones which most directly deal with the projec-

SIDE SEQUENCES

315

tions of the local sequence. The other sequence types may also be used for purposes that are related to the more global activity of the conversation. Many of these display an orientation by the participants towards establishing familiarity and solidarity, that is, getting acquainted. Monitors may be used to reflect on the process of communication, and to topicalize aspects of the conversation that are of importance for establishing solidarity and familiarity. As noted with respect to example (2) (ACCENT) (cf. also 4.7.1), conversationalists may employ this type of side sequence to mitigate face threats and to negotiate the relational import of a contribution. Resource scanners are directly relevant to unacquainted parties in that they facilitate the establishment of specific contextual resources (background information) relevant for pursuing the topic at hand. This allows the participants to adjust the level of explicitness according to the informational needs of the interlocutor. In this way, they avoid the potential face threats of taking too much or too little for granted, that is, of seeming to patronize their interlocutors or of ‘talking over their heads’. Although the establishment of common expertise has the immediate objective of pursuing the main topic efficiently and ‘harmoniously’, it also has effects for the acquaintance process in itself. Common expertise is a source for inferring community co-membership and thus a contribution to the establishment of solidarity. Finally, digressions may be, and frequently are, used to add or solicit personal, biographical information associatively related to the topic in progress. This allows for self-presentation as an occasioned activity without having to resort to the self-presentational sequence. Whereas resource scanners mainly contribute to establishing community affiliation, digressions may be used to present diary information, that is, individual characteristics and biography.

Chapter 7

Routine, variation, and success in first conversations 7.1 Introduction The procedures analyzed in the previous chapters may be considered a system of resources and constraints associated with the activity of getting acquainted in conversation. As noted in 2.1.2, a communicative activity is above all definable by the constraints it imposes on the contributions. The procedures identified in this book are thus constitutive of the genre of ‘getting-acquainted conversations’. First, they are solutions to local communicative problems raised by the fact that the interlocutors are unacquainted. Second, the procedures display the orientation of the interlocutors to the goal of establishing acquaintance. In this chapter, I will attempt to outline in what way, and to what degree, the identified procedures characterize the conversations as a whole. I will do this by contrasting two of the conversations, pointing to their individual characteristics in the deployment of the procedures. The conversations chosen for such case studies are number 1 (Anna & Charlotte) and number 4 (Sven & Marta), which in many respects represent the opposite extremes in the corpus when it comes to the exploitation of the resources at hand. The aim of the analysis is to show, on the one hand, to what degree the conversations are routinized, constrained, and thus similar to each other. On the other hand, the aim is to show their flexibility and idiosyncracies, and thus the variation between them. The question I will attempt to answer in doing this is: to what degree are first conversations routinized vs. flexible as a result of the resources and constraints involved in the procedures of self-presentation, topic introduction, and side sequences?

318

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Before engaging in the case studies of the conversations I will just recapitulate what the resources and constraints involved are. The self-presentational sequence has been shown to be a resource for engaging in personal talk and doing so without threatening face. Furthermore, it gives opportunities for establishing common ground and for developing topics that include both parties’ cultural expertise. The constraints imposed by the sequence are several. First, it is the only appropriate procedure for initiating personal talk as a brand new topic. Second, there are constraints on the individual contributions, such as how personal the introductory question may be or how short the response ought to be. Third, there are constraints on when it is appropriate to employ the sequence, making the initial part of the conversations its typical location. The procedures for introducing topics in first conversations provide the interlocutors with resources for generating personal as well as ‘neutral’ talk. There are certain topic spheres which are more or less continually relevant for exploitation, such as the setting or the interlocutor. But there are also constraints, so that self-oriented and encyclopedic topics are restricted to positions where they can be made relevant, occasioned, by prior talk. Side sequences are a resource for negotiating mutual background knowledge on-line while pursuing some topic. As we have seen, it may also be used to display community related expertise or personal diary information and may thus constitute a resource for self-presentation. Another issue that will be addressed is the possible situation- and activity-specific nature of acquaintanceship. The question is whether the process of getting acquainted is functionally adapted to the (other) purposes of the present and future encounters. It is to be expected that people, to a certain extent, get acquainted in a way that reflects their purposes of interaction. The participants in my conversations differ somewhat from each other in their situation and may anticipate different types of contact in the future. The prospective co-members of the editorial board (Sven & Marta, Bjørn & Lars) may be expected to get acquainted in a way that will facilitate their future interaction as board members. These conversations may thus be expected to be different from the way the summer school students (Anna & Charlotte) get acquainted. The case studies in this chapter may thus give some indications as to what is generic to the activity of getting acquainted and what is motivated by the situational characteristics and the purposes of other (present or future) joint activities.

ROUTINE, VARIATION,

AND

SUCCESS

319

Finally, I will comment on indices of success and failure in the acquaintance-making process. This means that I will attempt to indicate to what degree the individual pairs actually ‘hit it off’. There will always be a potential for mutual liking in a first encounter. Strangers may get acquainted without displaying mutual affect, but they also have the possibility of laying the foundations for more than mere acquaintance (cf. 2.2.3). There are often reports by people that they sometimes have a special feeling of contact and understanding with a new acquaintance. Characterizations may range from ‘good vibrations’ to ‘love at first sight’. In folk wisdom this is often associated with something beyond explanation — ‘magic’, ‘vibrations’, or ‘chemistry’. I do not claim to be able to unravel these mysterious phenomena, but I will attempt to show some indices of involvement and ‘conversational happiness’ (Auchlin 1991) on the one hand and of relational unease on the other. This will be held up against the participants’ own reports on the outcome of the conversation in the post-recording interviews (cf. Appendix 2). The two conversations I will be analyzing below are summarized in Appendix 3.

7.2 Anna and Charlotte Anna and Charlotte are the participants in the corpus who seem to have most difficulties in their talk. They also are the ones, together with Jens and Hilde, who most often make use of the self-presentational sequence. First I address the issue of routinization vs. flexibility. Anna and Charlotte make relatively frequent use of the self-presentational sequence. I have identified in all 16 instances of it. This is in line with the high solicitation profile of this conversation, as demonstrated in 4.3. The solicitation coefficient is 19 whereas the mean for all the conversations is 16. Most of the self-presentational sequences occur between lines 315 and 1150 but there is another cluster from line 1990 to line 2190. In other words, the interlocutors do not start off by doing self-presentation (except exchanging names), but they do it extensively in the first part of the conversation (cf. 4.5). The very beginning is characterized by topics related to their ‘here-and-now’. They talk about how they got to the restaurant, what Anna had been doing earlier the same day, and their respective journeys to Oslo the day before. In comparison with the other conversations, Anna and Charlotte thus

320

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

structure large parts of the conversation by means of the routine procedures of self-presentation. These stretches thereby take on a relatively routinized character and also contextualize strongly the conversation as accomplishing the activity of getting acquainted. The focus of the self-presentational sequences is mostly on occupation (studies, summer jobs), origin (place of residence, language background) and personal relations (family members, boyfriends). Thus, their self-presentations constitute them primarily as students and as participants in various private networks. Other aspects of social identity, such as membership in other cultural communities or ‘extra-curricular’ activities (hobbies, interests), are not foregrounded. As noted in Chapter 4, the self-presentational sequence has primarily a ‘catalyst’ function in that it is oriented towards generating mentionables for topical talk. Some of the self-presentational sequences in this conversation generate elaborate topics, such as Anna’s training as a ‘language consultant’ and Charlotte’s report on her experiences with boyfriends. The topics that generate elaborate talk are generally ‘A-events’ (Labov [1969] 1972), that is, topics about which only one of the participants has extensive knowledge. These are personal topics, and many of them are narratives (the journey to Oslo, the Lundell concert, the hike in Nepal, cf. Appendix 3). This creates an asymmetric participation format, in which one party remains the primary speaker for an extended period of time. There is one instance of an extended topic which develops into an ‘AB-event’, that is, a topic about which both parties have knowledge and thus may contribute to. This is an encyclopedic topic concerning the recent changes in Eastern Europe (l. 1731–1847). The very fact that the self-presentational sequences are so often reinitiated is an indicator that many of them fail to yield ‘rich topics’. Especially in one part (l. 978–1146) do the participants initiate several new topics that are fairly quickly exhausted. These concern summer jobs, place of residence and family background. This creates a high degree of fragmentation. And when, much later in the conversation, Charlotte asks about Anna’s ‘civil status’, it also appears in a period of frequent topic shifts and after the embarrassment caused by the problems with the talk about the ‘Sognvann’ lake.51 The mocking, ironic form of this introduction has previously been interpreted as a certain unease about having to retreat to the use of the self-presentational sequence at this advanced stage of the conversation.52 Thus, there are several parts of the conversation in which the repeated use of the routine formula may

ROUTINE, VARIATION,

AND

SUCCESS

321

be interpreted as a symptom of failure to establish rich, extended topics. Routine contrasts with spontaneity, and spontaneity and volubility are considered features of high involvement style (cf. 2.3.3). Having to repeatedly return to the self-presentational sequence to get mentionables for new topics is then a symptom that the topics already broached do not involve the participants. Also, it shows that the conversation up to that point has not yielded other mentionables that could be topicalized. In this way, a high degree of fragmentation and routinization may be interpreted as indexing lack of involvement. This is supported by the fact that, in parts of this conversation, fragmentation is accompanied by other indices of unease (cf. Charlotte’s metacomment in (1) below (THE LAKE) that “this is beginning to go badly”). In Chapter 2 conversational involvement was characterized as a strategy of creating affective commitment. The failure of establishing involved talk may thus be seen as a failure in establishing mutual affect. In this way, a less involved conversation may be considered less successful in terms of establishing a close, affective relation between the participants. This would be in line with Anna’s and Charlotte’s reports in the post-recording interview, in which they both said that they felt somewhat different and that they did not get very well acquainted during the conversation (cf. Appendix 2). In fact, all the other informants reported “having much in common”, “being on the same wavelength”, or the like. Anna and Charlotte were the only ones who reported not having much in common (Charlotte) and not being on the same wavelength (Anna). Not all parts of the conversation are fragmented and routinized. There is a large section which contains extended topics. This is from line 1146 on, where Charlotte starts telling about her travels that year. After a while the focus is shifted to Anna, but apart from a short period (l. 1404–1431) the focus on travelling is more or less maintained until line 1721. This appears, then, to be an especially rich topic. In trying to explain what provides the relevance of this topic and its relative richness, it is tempting to point to the occasion of the encounter. As noted, the participants meet as Swedes abroad, and they have just accomplished a journey to Oslo. We have already noted that Charlotte’s account of her journey to Oslo in the beginning of the conversation directly refers to this occasion (l. 143–300). In this way, the individuality of the conversation — what makes it different and not routine-like — may be explained by situation-specific characteristics. The conversation is not uniquely a conversation between strangers, it is also a conversation between students, between Swedes abroad, between summer school participants, etc.

322

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Thus, the participants’ opportunity to draw on other aspects of their situated identities is a resource for generating flexible and involved talk and for avoiding the routine character of conventional self-presentation. In sum, then, Anna and Charlotte make extensive use of the routine formulae for conversations between unacquainted interlocutors throughout their conversation. Some of self-presentational sequences generate extended topics but mostly asymmetric ones (A-events). Many of them fail to generate elaborate talk and result in repeated sequences of elicited self-presentation. Also, the participants return to this activity at a rather advanced stage of the conversation and show symptoms of a certain unease with this. All in all, the routine character of the conversation seems to mark a lack of involvement. As for the situation-specific aspects of the conversation, they are salient both in the topic introductions and in the self-presentational sequences. The requests for self-presentation focus on characteristics that are closely related to the occasion of the encounter, such as their status as students. The topics that generate extended talk concern travel and thus connect to their situation as tourists. It has been noted above that involvement seems to be low in certain parts of the conversation. This comes in addition to certain other symptoms of conversational unease which appear in instances of misunderstandings, disagreements and sensitive topics. Two of the embarrassing moments of this conversation occur in sensitive topics. One is when Anna raises Charlotte’s accent as a new topic. Charlotte shows signs of mild exasperation at being asked about this and Anna engages in several rounds of remedial work. The other is when Charlotte asks whether Anna has a boyfriend. Anna answers very hesitantly and her reply ends in embarrassed laughter. These episodes have been rendered and analyzed elsewhere.53 There are also other instances of problematic talk that contain signs of unease. One of them is example (13) of Chapter 6 (repeated here): (1) THE LAKE (1:1950–1982) A: ...(6.0) har du varit uppe vid den där sjön än? C: ... vad sa du? A: .. har du varit uppe vid sjön? ...(1.5) Sognvann. ((SIC)) C: ...(2.5) idag? A: ...(2.0) Överhuvudtaget.

A: C: A: C: A:

...(6.0) have you been up by that lake yet? ... what did you say? .. have you been up by the lake? ...(1.5) Sognvann. ((SIC)) ...(2.5) today? ...(2.0) ever.

ROUTINE, VARIATION, C:

A: C: A: C: A: C:

A:

C: A: C: A:

C:

A: C:

...(1.5) ute på sjön, C: eller vid sjön, eller vad sa-- [@@] [<@ ’vid sjön. @>] A: ...(1.5) om du har-... (KREMT) C: .. v- .. [varit vid sjön.] A: [vad menar du] då? C: ...(2.2) den här sjön som ligger vid A: [... Kringsjå?] [jaså,] C: (SMATT) nej .. nej. .. nej det har jag inte. (0) nej förlåt jag .. bytte ämne. A: det var bara [att jag]...(1.2) [[jag har varit]]& [mhm] [[<X nei jag-- C: X>]] &så badsugen så länge och så. A: ...(2.3) har du solat där i dag? C: ...(1.2) nej. ...(1.0) @ <@ är jag solbränd? @> [@@@@@@@] [@@@@@ det börjar gå] dåligt. @@@ det här. ...(2.5)

...(2.0) [<X nej jag bara-- X>] [du kj--] ... du kjänner Stig och Theresa sa du,

A:

C:

A: C:

AND

SUCCESS

323

...(1.5) out on the lake, or by the lake, or what did you-- [@@] [<@ ’by the lake. @>] ...(1.5) if you have-... (CLEARS THROAT) .. b- .. [been by the lake.] [what do you mean] then? ...(2.2) this lake that’s near [... Kringsjå?] [oh right,] (CLICK) no.. no. .. no I haven’t. (0) no sorry I .. changed the topic. it was just [that I] ...(1.2) [[I’ve been]]& [mhm] [[<X no I-X>]] &longing to swim so long and things. ...(2.3) have you sunbathed there today? ...(1.2) no. ...(1.0) @ <@ am I sunburnt? @> [@@@@@@@] [@@@@@ it is beginning to go] badly. @@@ this. ...(2.5)

...(2.0) [<X no I was just-- X>] [you kn--] ... you know Stig and Theresa you said,

First there is a long side sequence containing several unsuccessful attempts at repair. Although Charlotte is the one having trouble, Anna takes the blame and apologizes for having changed the topic (this despite the fact that she did so in a quite legitimate way). She continues by indicating why she asked the (topic initial) question. A 2.3 second gap occurs and then Charlotte asks whether Anna has sunbathed there. Anna answers negatively and then asks in a laughing voice whether she is sunburnt. This can be considered a request for an account of why Charlotte asked. Thus, for the second time in this short period, the point of the question is treated as non-transparent, thus requiring an account of its motivation. This leads to mutual laughter, which must be

324

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

interpreted as expressing embarrassment with the situation (there are no obviously humorous points being made). The question is followed by a metacomment expressing more or less the same thing, that is, embarrassment with the course of the conversation. This assessment is followed by extended gaps and a (phonetically reduced) minimal response, making closure of the topic a relevant next action. Anna seems to attempt to return to the topic and present yet another account (“nej jag bara--” — “no I just--”) but she starts in overlap with Charlotte and breaks off. Charlotte is given access to the floor and a new topic is introduced. This selection of some of the ‘unhappy’ moments of the conversation is of course not characteristic of the conversation as a whole, but it corroborates the impression experienced by both me as analyst and Anna and Charlotte as participants that they did not get very close during their talk. They found few rich topics, returned frequently to the routine formula of self-presentation and experienced several moments of misunderstanding and unease. The relative failure may be interpreted as due partly to face threats (misunderstandings and sensitive topics), partly to lack of involvement (the reliance on routine). The result is that a relatively low degree of affective commitment is established in the discourse.

7.3 Marta and Sven Marta and Sven’s conversation differs from the prior conversation in that the talk seems far more involved and less stereotyped. It has the lowest number of instances of the self-presentational sequence in the corpus, only 3 in all. These occur in a cluster from line 547 to line 760 (cf. 4.5). All the topic introductions in this part are carried out by means of the self-presentational sequence. As in conversation 1 the participants start by other topics but come around to selfpresentation within a reasonably short spate of time. In both conversations the self-presentational sequences appear in clusters. This may in part be a result of the reciprocity effect noted in the chapter on topic (cf. 5.8.3). When one person has asked for information about the other it becomes relevant (and maybe even expected) that the other do the same. All three sequences concern Sven’s and Marta’s studies, more specifically what subjects they have taken and their plans for further studies. In contrast to Anna and Charlotte they do not ask about more ‘civil’, or private, aspects of

ROUTINE, VARIATION,

AND

SUCCESS

325

identity (such as geographical and family background). Though they meet as members of the editorial board it is their identities as students they find relevant to establish. This is in contrast to Bjørn and Lars who start by asking about each other’s connections to the culture magazine. Yet, the focus on status as students may be seen as motivated by the occasion of their encounter. They have been asked to join the editorial board much on the basis of their academic competence and network. Their status as members of the board is thus intimately associated with their status as students with a certain specialization. Consequently, their requests for self-presentation seem more to corroborate than to invalidate the suggestion that the self-presentational sequences are motivated by situation- and activity-specific features of the encounter. As in the previous conversation, Marta and Sven use the here-and-now situation as the resource for generating the first topics of the conversation. They talk about the recording situation and about Marta’s problems with the tram. This generates a series of new topics about ways of getting around in Oslo (on foot vs. bicycle vs. trams) and parts of the city and buildings. In the chapter on topic (5.7.1) it was noted that 4 of the 5 conversations started by setting talk. There is thus a tendency that setting talk precedes self-presentation. The participants seem highly opportunistic in choosing topics. They seem to simply choose first whatever is nearest at hand — usually something in the setting — and only subsequently proceed to the routines of selfpresentation. Marta and Sven find more rich topics than do Anna and Charlotte. As noted in the chapter on topic (5.5), they have the fewest topic shifts in relation to time of talk, with an average of one shift per 2.00 minutes whereas Anna and Charlotte in average change topic every 1 minute and 20 seconds. One reason why they do not return to additional self-presentational sequences may be that the ones they do employ generate such rich topics. As Marta explicitly states, their areas of study “have much in common” (l. 894) and provide resources for much talk. From the line where she makes this the focus of a new topic and to the end of the recording (l. 1723) — almost half of the conversation — there are only four topic shifts, and these are all recontextualizations of the ongoing topic. The talk is almost exclusively focused on encyclopedic matters (history of ideas, biology, natural vs. humanistic sciences, etc.). Thus, for these participants the self-presentational sequence is indeed a catalyst that establishes common interests and resources for further topical talk. All in all, there is just one part where the conversation is organized by the

326

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

routine procedures of self-presentation. The richness of the topics generated makes the conversation less conventional and routinized than the previous one. Their status as unacquainted and the activity of getting acquainted are less foregrounded. The conversation is not only less routinized but also less personal. 42 % of the topic introductions are encyclopedic, as opposed to only 6 % in the other conversation. Also, many of the encyclopedic topic introductions, especially towards the end, introduce the most extended topics of the conversation, whereas those in Anna and Charlotte’s conversation are much shorter. So it seems fair to say that a significant part of Marta and Sven’s conversation is concerned with encyclopedic matters whereas Anna and Charlotte’s is not. This raises an interesting question about these conversations. To what degree can two people involved in a discussion of an encyclopedic topic be said to be ‘getting acquainted’? It is worth noting here that both Marta and Sven said in the post-recording interview that they had not got to know each other very well during the conversation, since they had not been talking about personal matters (cf. Appendix 2). Thus, it seems that they equate getting acquainted with exchanging personal information. On the other hand, they reported that they were much alike, laughing at the same things (Sven) and having much common background (Marta). This shows that they have, after all, got some impression of their respective backgrounds and sense of humour. ‘Getting acquainted’ for Marta and Sven thus seems to be the same as exchanging personal information. And, true enough, this is not what they were concerned with in their conversation. However, as noted in the chapter on topic (5.7.2), encyclopedic topics may involve indirect self-presentation in that the participants display interests, attitudes, expertise, etc., in the talk. And, as noted in the previous chapter (6.7.2), the use of community specific language (for instance technical jazz terminology) in the discussion of a topic may be a way of displaying community membership. Thus, encyclopedic topics also involve self-presentation and contribute to creating familiarity between the interactants. It was concluded in the chapter on self-presentation that these sequences have something in common with the convention of an exposition phase in drama, whereas the passage to involvement in a topic was compared to the plot of the play. In some sense, then, we can say that Marta and Sven devote less time to the exposition and start more in medias res. They engage in the plot and expose their ‘characters’ in action rather than in explicit presentation.

ROUTINE, VARIATION,

AND

SUCCESS

327

In my technical definition, acquaintance includes more than mutual knowledge of personal information. And it is especially on the affect level that encyclopedic topics have a potential for affiliation. It is not just any encyclopedic topic which has this potential, but those that generate (positively valenced) involvement of the participants. Mutual involvement in the topic is a way of displaying a common set of affective/evaluative standards, such as common interests, attitudes, preferences, and taste. Thus, mutual involvement in an encyclopedic topic is a form of affective bonding. And experiencing an interesting discussion together may create just as strong bonds between the participants as knowing a great deal of personal information about each other. Engaging in encyclopedic talk is thus opposed to the strategy of self-presentational sequences but may nevertheless be seen as a way of getting acquainted. It does not contribute equally much to familiarity, but rather has its strength in allowing affective bonding. And since self-presentation has been described as a catalyst that has involved topical talk as its preferred outcome, the strategy employed by Sven and Marta may seem even more powerful than the more conventional strategy of Anna and Charlotte. The importance of encyclopedic topics in this conversation may further be seen in the light of the characteristics of the encounter. Marta and Sven will be dealing with each other in the future as co-members of an editorial board. This is almost as much of an institutional relationship as of a personal one. This could be a reason why personal characteristics are so little foregrounded, and that instead they focus on academic expertise. The conversation represents a type of talk and a type of relation between the participants that seem fitted to the type of conversations they will be likely to have in the future as board members. In this way, this conversation is not just shaped by the activity of getting acquainted, but also by the activities characteristic of the social network they are joining. Finally, let us turn to the question of the success of the conversation in relational terms. As noted in the analysis of conversation 1, a large number of rich topics and few self-presentational sequences may be interpreted as evidence of involvement in the topic. This would indicate that Marta and Sven are involved in the talk. Furthermore, we may consider their reports in the post-recording interviews. As noted, they both report that they have much in common, and Marta even states explicitly in the conversation that their fields of study have a lot in common. Sven mentions as an example of their similarity that they “laugh at the same things”.

328

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Laughter is not interpretable as expressing the same thing in every context, rather it can be a sign of many things, including such different phenomena as humour and embarrassment (Schegloff 1993). However, there are four instances in the conversation where Marta and Sven laugh extensively and loudly in unison, and the laughter occurs after an utterance that may well be interpreted as expressing a humorous point. I will analyse one of the instances here that might be of the type Sven has in mind when he links similarity to a common sense of humor. It is example (35) from Chapter 5 (repeated here). The excerpt occurs at a point where they have been discussing differences between human and natural sciences for a time. (2) SCIENCE (4:1568-1596.) M: .. de ’sier jo også det er en voldsom ’kri=se innenfor na’turvitenskapene, i og med at .. [de] har faktisk funnet ’ut .. at ... ’kaosteorien ikke lar seg== be”skrive. S: M:

S: M: S: M: S: M:

M: S:

[“mm.] .. ’mm. .. at .. de er ’nødt til å “bruke .. [..] .. på en måte ’historiene eller de de s- ’små his’toriene for .. å sette ’spørsmål, [’mm.] [[ og= ]] lissom ’peke mot en helt ny ’vei nå, [[ ’mm. ]] .. ’mm. .. og ’der= ’der har jo også de .. veldig mye å lære av den’mm. av huma’nistiske ’vitenskaper [for’såvidt.] [ja ’heilt klart.] ’ja. ...(1.2)

(0) også det at= at store ’fysikera og sånn i dag ’innrømme [at] dem ikke ’ane ka dem ’held på med,

M:

[’mm.] ... ’mm. ((DRIKKER))

M:

.. they ’say also that there’s a gigantic ’crisis within the natural ’sciences, given that .. [they] have actually found ’out .. that ... the ’chaos theory doesn’t lend itself== to de’scription. S: [“mm.] .. ’mm. M: .. that .. they are ’forced to ’use .. [..] .. sort of the ’stories or the the s- ’small stories to .. bring into question, S: [’mm.] M: [[and=]] sort of ’point out a whole new di’rection now, S: [[’mm.]] .. ’mm. M: .. and ’there= ’there they have also .. very much to learn from theS: ’mm. M: from the hu’manities [as a matter of ’fact.] [yeah abso’lutely.] M: ’yeah. ...(1.2)

S: (0) and that= that great ’physicists and people ad’mit [that] they haven’t got a ’clue as to what they’re ’doing, M: [ ’mm. ] … ’mm. ((DRINKS))

ROUTINE, VARIATION, S: M:

M: S: M: S:

.. det er jo ganske= .. fan[ ’tast]isk da. [ ’mm. ] ((DRIKKER)) ’mm. ((DRIKKER)) ...(1.9) ((DRIKKER)) <EMP noe ’vi ’alltid har ’visst. EMP> [ @@@@@@@ ] [ .. <@ ja @> @@@@@ ] .. <@ ’ikke noe nytt for ’oss. @> [ @@ ] [ @ ] @@

AND

SUCCESS

329

S: M:

.. that’s pretty= .. a[’maz]ing. [ ’mm. ] ((DRINKS)) ’mm. ((DRINKS)) …(1.9) ((DRINKS)) M: <EMP something ’we have ’always ’known. EMP> [ @@@@@@@ ] S: [ .. <@ yeah @> @@@@@ ] M: .. <@ ’no news to ’us. @> [ @@ ] S:

[ @ ] @@

Here Marta points to a problem in the natural sciences — how to describe the chaos theory — and Sven joins in with a statement that goes in the same direction, namely that great physicists admit that they have not got any idea of what they are doing. The utterance that generates the laughter (“something ’we have ’always ’known”) creates an alignment between Sven and Marta as students in the humanities. Marta no longer talks about human sciences in general but uses the personal pronoun ‘we’. Her statement furthermore indicates a certain superiority in being members of the humanist collectivity rather than natural scientists. Her utterance may be interpreted as conveying that humanists have always known the inadequacies of natural science.54 The laughter is then interpretable as a reaction to the baldness and immodesty of the claim. For this to be funny, they need to share a great deal of background knowledge about the epistemology of human sciences and their rivalry with natural sciences. Thus, in Goffman’s (1983) words, Marta is ‘celebrating’ their common understanding by “employ[ing] allusive phrases that only the recipient would immediately understand”, cf. 2.3.4. It may seem unfair to excerpt moments of ‘unease’ from one conversation and an instance of successful bonding and humor from another and use this as evidence that one conversation is relationally more successful than the other. However, there are no moments of unease comparable to those of Anna and Charlotte in Sven and Marta’s conversation. And although Anna and Charlotte also have good laughs from time to time, their own impression of the conversation was that on the whole they did not get along very well, whereas Sven and Marta both report having a lot in common and Sven even mentions humor as one sort of evidence of this. One feature of involved discourse mentioned in the theoretical exposition is that it might be ‘aggressive’ (cf. Lakoff 1990, cited in 2.3.3). In involved talk about a topic, the participants are more self-oriented and struggle more to

330

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

get their views on the agenda. Here high involvement style contrasts with considerateness style and may lead to dominance by one of the parties. In the conversation between Marta and Sven there are some parts that are characterized by this. Especially towards the end, when the talk is predominantly about encyclopedic topics, it is first and foremost Sven who gets his topics accepted and discussed. The talk about biology and Gaia theory is motivated by an article that Sven is in the process of writing and is thus an A-event for him. In this part he occupies most of the floor time. Marta also participates actively, but mostly as a secondary speaker, asking questions and reacting to his statements. When the topic turns towards the relation between natural and human sciences, they are again more on a par. I have not examined this issue in detail, but the participants themselves draw the same picture in the postrecording interview. Sven says that he dominated in the conversation and Marta that they talked mostly about Sven’s topic so that it was natural that he was the most active party.

7.4 Conclusion All in all, Anna and Charlotte’s conversation is characterized by more considerateness and less involvement than Marta and Sven’s. It is more conventional and routinized in that it makes extensive use of the self-presentational sequence. It also seems less successful in relational terms in that Anna and Charlotte fail to establish many rich topics and they have quite a few moments of conversational unease. Marta and Sven quickly find rich topics and show many signs of involvement in their talk. Their conversation thus contextualizes to a lesser degree their status as unacquainted. Both conversations may be seen as organized not only by reference to the activity of getting acquainted, but also to the specific characteristics of the encounters. Anna and Charlotte meet as Swedish students abroad and devote a large portion of talk to differences between Norway and Sweden, the journey to Norway, and other journeys they have made. Marta and Sven meet as prospective members of the editorial board of Cultura, and this is reflected in their preoccupation with encyclopedic topics and their relative neglect of features of private identity. The aim of this analysis has been to show some of the variation involved in first conversations. The procedures outlined in the previous chapters are

ROUTINE, VARIATION,

AND

SUCCESS

331

there as resources but different participants in different contexts make different use of them and thus create unique conversations that differ considerably. The self-presentational sequence is present in all the conversations in the corpus but is used to a greater or lesser extent. It appears as the conventionalized way of initiating personal talk in such conversations. Thus, more explicit self-presentation makes the conversation more routinized and conventional, whereas less of it makes the conversation more original and idiosyncratic.

Chapter 8

Conclusion It was noted at the outset of this study (cf. 2.1.2) that it cannot be taken for granted that people actually do orient to ‘getting acquainted’ as a relevant activity in a first conversation. Throughout the analyses I have tried to show how, in particular cases, the conversationalists may be seen as orienting to their unacquaintedness as consequential for their talk and how they work to get acquainted. The unacquaintedness involves certain restrictions on the conversational contributions and leads to certain genre-specific solutions to communicative tasks. The use of side sequences to negotiate the level of explicitness and the restrictions on topic introductions are examples of this. In addition, the goal of getting acquainted is displayed in the use of selfpresentational sequences, where sharing personal information is the central and explicit concern of the talk. Through these analyses, then, it has been shown that the interpersonal relationship between the participants is consequential for this type of conversation. Certain restrictions on the conversational contributions can be seen as constituting and reflecting their status as unacquainted. Furthermore, a set of conversational sequences and moves has been identified which realizes the goal of getting acquainted. In this way, ‘getting acquainted’ has the properties of a communicative activity: it includes a conventional goal and a set of conversational constraints and procedures embodying it. The relation between the conversational acts and sequences on the one hand and the goal of the activity on the other is reflexive, so that the actual (sequences of) acts both constitute and reflect the conventional goal of the activity. That the goal is conventional means that the activity is to a certain extent routinized and thus recognizable to the participants. The routinized character of the conversational procedures does not, however, indicate strict pre-patterning of the conversations. The deployment of the procedures is relatively flexible, so that each conversation retains a strong sense of uniqueness. The

334

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

most predictable features of the conversations seem to be the presence of at least some self-presentational sequences (with ‘occupation’ and ‘geographical origin’ as the most common foci of inquiry) and the absence of brand new selforiented topic introductions. Apart from this, the time and effort devoted to self-presentation, encyclopedic topics and setting talk vary considerably from conversation to conversation. The reflexive relation between act and activity has been a heuristic for the analysis (cf. 3.1.3). However, the analysis has been physically separated into two parts, the first dealing with a detailed description of the sequential characteristics of the procedures, and the second with interpretation in the light of pragmatic theories and a theoretical understanding of acquaintance as an interpersonal relationship. This has yielded an analysis which pays more attention to the details of the interactional procedures than is common in social-psychological studies of first conversations (Berger & Bradac 1982, Kellermann & Lim 1989) or linguistic studies (Schneider 1987). On the other hand, the pragmatic interpretation goes beyond what is found in the CA tradition (Maynard & Zimmerman 1984). The analysis thus presents a more integrative and encompassing perspective than what is found in previous studies. The description of sequential structure in the corpus has yielded insights at several levels. At a general level, it has contributed to the understanding of topic organization and the structure and function of side sequences. At a more specific level, it has provided an account of the procedures involved in this special type of conversation. I will here sum up the findings that are specifically related to the communicative activity of getting acquainted. The self-presentational sequence is perhaps the most characteristic feature of these conversations. It constitutes a resource that interactants use massively to share personal information and is thus the clearest display of the participants’ orientation towards getting acquainted. In addition, it is a resource for introducing new topics into the conversation. It consists of an introductory question which belongs to a restricted set of self-presentational questions, involving community membership or biographical information. The response may come in an expanded or in a minimal format, the former purporting acceptance and the latter declination of the topic proffer. The third position also includes an option of decling, namely an acknowledgement token, and two topicalizing moves, the continuation elicitor and the selforiented comment. In both the second and the third position, the topicalizing

CONCLUSION

335

moves are preferred to the declining options. This sequence thus shows the interactional and conversational characteristics of one form self-presentation takes in first conversations. Topic organization in first conversations also provides the participants with both resources and constraints. Other-oriented topic introductions (including self-presentational sequences) and setting talk are the least constrained and most frequently used procedures for introducing topics. Encyclopedic and selforiented topic introductions are restricted to positions where they may be seen as emerging from prior talk, that is, as occasioned. This yields genre-specific constraints on topic introductions and represents a corrective to the prior literature on topic organization, in which self-oriented introductions, such as ‘news announcements’ (Button & Casey 1985), have been considered general techniques of topic introduction. Side sequences have been shown to be a resource for unacquainted participants in talking within the constraints of limited personal common ground. The limitations in mutual background knowledge may present the speaker with a problem of assessing the informational needs of the interlocutor. In this situation certain side sequences, especially metacommunicative monitors, resource scanners and digressions, may be used, as the need arises, to establish the participants’ expertise (or lack thereof). This may be accomplished either directly, by explicitly stating one’s knowledge of some matter, or indirectly, by displaying expert knowledge or by using ‘insider’ vocabulary. In addition, side sequences may be used for associative excursions into personal and biographical matters and thus constitute another locus and technique for self-presentation. The interpretation of the moves of these sequences has proved the utility and coherence of an account of interpersonal relationships founded on the concepts of solidarity, familiarity and (positive) affect. This account is in accordance with pragmatic theories of politeness, involvement and common ground and thus represents an integrated interpretive framework for the study of interpersonal relations in conversation. The interpretive framework has contributed to an understanding of the conversational sequences as functionally adapted to the goal of getting acquainted. It motivates the constraints imposed on the procedures and it explains why the resources are exploited the way they are. Establishing personal common ground, that is, familiarity, is a central concern of many of the conversational procedures identified. It is the inherent

336

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

goal of the self-presentational sequence. Side sequences may also convey personal information, which may be presented not as relevant in itself but merely as a background for the topic of the main sequence. This constitutes a backgrounded or indirect mode of self-presentation, establishing personal common ground for the purposes of the current conversational activity. Finally, the dominance of personal over neutral topic introductions may be seen as a reflection of the participants’ preoccupation with developing familiarity. The effort put into establishing personal common ground is one of the points showing significant variation in the corpus. Some pairs (especially Anna – Charlotte and Jens – Hilde) deal extensively with self-presentation in proposing personal topics and in using the self-presentational sequence. Others (especially Sven – Marta) are more engaged in encyclopedic topics and do not ask as many presentation-eliciting questions. However, these pairs seem to be the ones who most extensively use side sequences to negotiate personal common ground. This suggests two opposite overall strategies: either to attend extensively to soliciting self-presentation and let this basis of personal common ground develop into topics which are more mutually involving. Or else, one may concentrate on finding mutually involving topics that only require common encyclopedic knowledge, and solicit or supply personal background information in side sequences as the need arises. As for the establishment of solidarity and positive affect, the conversationalists seem overwhelmingly oriented towards honoring and enhancing the other’s face and promoting cooperativeness. The politeness strategy of being attentive to the interlocutor is realized in the practice of asking presentationeliciting questions and in the preference for topicalizing the self-presentation of the other. Also the dominance of other-oriented topic introductions may be interpreted as a realization of this strategy. The topical focus of presentationeliciting questions may be seen as motivated by a concern to avoid facethreatening matters. They concern personal characteristics (community memberships, biographical information) that in our culture are not considered to be of a sensitive character. Also the use of setting talk as a conversational ‘starter’ shows an orientation to avoiding face-threatening topics. Claiming common ground is another positive politeness strategy that is massively present in the sequences investigated. In the self-presentational sequence, it is the self-oriented comment which most clearly realizes this strategy. The common ground established by the self-oriented comment may be used to engage in a more symmetric mode of talk and facilitates mutual

CONCLUSION

337

involvement in the topic. Side sequences are also means to establish common ground (common expertise, attitudes, interests) and thus also serve to create solidarity between the interactants. Creating topical involvement also contributes to solidarity and positive affect, mainly by presupposing a relation of reciprocity and cooperativeness. Involvement is signalled among other things by self-oriented contributions. Self-oriented comments (in the self-presentational sequence) and self-oriented topic introductions may be seen as manifestations of topical involvement in that the speaker presupposes interest by the hearer. These contributions contrast with the other-orientation of presentation-eliciting questions (and the rest of the other-oriented topic introductions) conveying rather an attitude of considerateness. There is an inherent tension between other-orientation and self-orientation, between considerateness style and involvement style. The mode of talk may be consequential for whether such things as disagreement and competitiveness are treated as stimulating or threatening. In using the selfpresentational sequence the interactants basically operate within a considerateness frame. However, when the sequence leads to the establishment of some field of common interests, expertise, attitudes or knowledge, it has the potential for generating involved talk, characterized by self-orientation and mutual self-selection. In this way, the considerate style seems to be the default for the unacquainted participants in my corpus, whereas involvement style may be developed as a result of some evidence of common knowledge or common perspectives. In sum, then, getting acquainted means establishing personal common ground, solidarity, and potentially also positive affect. The conversational sequences described in this thesis all contribute fundamentally to these goals and display the participants’ orientation to their status as unacquainted and their efforts towards getting acquainted.

Appendix 1

Presentation and evaluation of the data

The recording situation The conversations in the corpus are elicited and arranged to a certain extent but may be characterized as ‘semi-natural’. The informants were chosen among people who were entering a common social network and who were by that fact likely candidates for getting acquainted in the normal course of events. The recordings were arranged in a natural setting for sociable talk, such as a restaurant or a private home, and the conversations took place in connection with their entry into the new group. The guiding principles for arranging the recordings were: • • • • •

The participants should not have talked to each other before. The participants should meet on the occasion of one of them or both being in the process of joining a new social network. The nature of the social network should make it natural for the participants to get in contact for sociable talk in the normal course of events. The social network should be such that the participants would be having contact regularly in a certain period of time in the future. The setting should be a natural location for sociable talk.

The motivation for setting up these requirements is to create a maximally naturalistic setting and to secure a certain homogeneity of the conversations. The requirement of a prospective social network is set up to delimit these conversations from other genres, such as the variety of small talk that occurs between strangers meeting accidentally on travels, in waiting rooms, etc. By having to relate to the other person on subsequent occasions, the face of the participants is more at stake: On the one hand, the risks of losing face are more serious, and on the other, there is a greater potential for developing a deeper relationship (such as friendship). This suggests that the two situations most probably involve different procedures for talk. In the one case, there is an inherent motivation for getting acquainted, while in the other the personal focus may be more backgrounded. The specific characteristics of the setting studied here is thus not merely that the participants are strangers, but that they are about to start a relationship (be it only a minimal bond of ‘acquaintance’). The conversations were audio-taped. In retrospect I see that a visual record would have

340

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

been preferable for certain purposes, such as capturing non-vocal signals of understanding and participation (gaze, nods, facial expression, etc.). However, the additional effort involved in transcribing and interpreting these data would have limited the total amount of data I could have gathered. Furthermore, it is possible that the presence of videocameras would have increased the informants’ awareness of being recorded and thus would have affected the quality of the data. The informants were told that I was carrying out research on communication between unacquainted persons. They were instructed that they were not supposed to play a specific role or try to conform to any preconceptions of the type of talk; on the contrary, it was stressed that they might talk about anything they like, including the fact that they were being recorded, that the conversation was arranged or whatever (and they did, too). I also informed them about how long I would be recording. The microphones were small ‘bugs’ attached to their clothes, and the rest of the recording equipment was left out of sight. I withdrew to a place out of sight of the participants once I had given the instructions. More specific descriptions of the individual recordings are presented below. Conversation 1: Anna and Charlotte are two Swedish students attending a summer school of Norwegian language and literature at the University of Oslo. The participants, approximately 20 in all, had arrived from all parts of Sweden and Finland and did not know each other in advance. They were going to live at the same student dormitory and attend classes together during the day time. During lunch the first day, I inquired whether any of the students would be interested in having a free dinner at a restaurant with one of the other participants and letting me record the conversation. Several students volunteered, and two of them were chosen who had not talked to each other previously. The recording was carried out that evening at a local restaurant. Conversations 2 and 3: Jens, Hilde, Ragnhild, and Victoria are students at the University of Oslo. They were all picked out in connection with the first course of a new level of studies, the Norwegian Second year (‘mellomfag’). They had previously been studying in different groups, but were now going to attend a linguistics course together in a class of about 15 students. The same procedure for eliciting volunteers and staging the recordings was used as with Anna and Charlotte. Conversations 4 and 5: Marta and Bjørn are members of the editorial board of an idealistic, non-profit culture magazine, Cultura. Sven and Lars have been invited to become members. In connection with a party arranged by the board, the old and the new members agreed to come in advance and meet. One of the pairs met in the home where the party was going to take place, the other in a nearby bar. After the recordings I had a short, informal interview with each of the participants individually to have their reactions to the conversation and the recording situation (rendered in Appendix 2). They signed an agreement allowing me to use the recording for research purposes and I asked some questions concerning their impressions of the conversation. The first question concerned the influence of being recorded. The answers varied a great deal, and the two extremes were Sven and Lars. Sven said that the microphone did not affect him at all, whereas Lars said he had it “in the back of his head” all the time. The rest reported that they thought about the recording from time to time — most in the beginning and less or not at all after a while. The way they felt that this influenced their talk was reportedly that they increased their attention to avoiding silence (Anna) and they were more conscious about

APPENDIX 1

341

choosing ‘appropriate’ topics (Hilde, Ragnhild) and avoiding sensitive topics (Victoria). Other questions concerned their assessment of the acquaintance process: Did they feel they had a lot in common and did they get to know each other well during the conversation? Anna and Charlotte both reported that they felt somewhat different from each other and that they did not get very well acquainted. Both reported the impression that Charlotte was more willing to be personal than Anna. Jens and Hilde had the impression that they were “on the same wavelength”, had much in common and got well acquainted. Victoria and Ragnhild both reported having ‘good vibrations’ and feeling alike as types. Marta and Sven said they had a lot in common, such as humor and background, but that they did not talk so much about personal affairs, so that they did not feel that they got very well acquainted during the conversation. Finally, Lars and Bjørn reported that they had a lot of mutual interests and had good contact, but that they did not talk much about personal matters. The general tendency was that the two persons in each pair had more or less identical assessments of the situation. The last questions concerned the social situation. Did they have an agreeable impression of the encounter, and were there any problems or disfluencies in the conversation? Anna reported that she had been a bit tired and out of shape for talking. The rest said they had had a good time and enjoyed the conversation. Ragnhild and Jens remarked that they had experienced a special ease in talking with their partner. Lars reported a feeling that Bjørn had been a bit more concerned about keeping the conversation going and avoiding silences than himself. An important point to evaluate is to what degree the recording situation influenced the talk of the participants. It is obvious that the participants’ awareness of the arranged character of the conversation and the fact that it was being recorded had some influence on the actual talk produced. My reasons for staging the conversations were that ethical and practical concerns made it problematic to find naturally occurring conversations of this sort and record them surreptitiously. So the question is whether the situations are naturalistic enough to be representative of the type of discourse I intend to describe. The problems cluster around three main issues: • • •

the awareness of being recorded the arranged character of the encounter the knowledge of the research project

The influence of these factors seem to go in the same direction. They all contribute to an increased meta-awareness by the participants of their talk. As was seen from the postrecording interviews, this is also the sort of influence the informants reported the recording to have on their behaviour. Meta-awareness may inhibit spontaneity and naturalness, so it is important to reduce it to a minimum. There are at least two different ways of trying to create a naturalistic conversation. One is by staging a role-play, in which the participants act as if they are in a natural setting and are not being recorded. I believe this increases meta-awareness rather than reduces it. So what I have chosen to do is the other option, which consists in admitting the experimental characteristics of the setting as integral parts of it and letting the informants take it into account during their talk. The artificial character should none the less be reduced to a minimum by making the setting as naturalistic as possible. It is my argument that this way of carrying out the recording demystifies the situation and reduces the meta-

342

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

awareness of the participants. This is supported by the fact that many of the informants openly commented on the recording situation and the experimental purpose of the encounter during the conversation. Thus, at least they did not make an effort to suppress the awareness of the recording. Knowledge of the research project may also influence the participants. The information I gave about the project was a correct, but very general presentation, such as “communication between unacquainted persons”. There were mainly practical reasons for giving this information. It seemed difficult to motivate the very specific layout of the encounter without explaining the purpose of the study. However, in retrospect it does seem that this might have increased the meta-awareness of the participants and made them more sensitive to the specific genre they were engaged in. One of the pairs explicitly words this metaawareness, while others give certain implicit signals which seem to indicate a metareflection on the genre employed. Here is what Ragnhild and Victoria say about the recording situation: (1) V:

MEETING SITUATION (3: 249-278) .. V: .. nei det ble jo så s- -jeg jeg har gått og tenkt på den -... akkurat den derre ’møtesituasjonen, .. som vi kom til å .. ’stå overfor ’her da,

R: V:

(0) <@ ’ja. @> (0) <@ at det på en eller annen måte ble jo litt spesble litt spesi’elt. @> @ ((SVAK LATTER I BAKGRUNNEN FRA R)) .. ja det hadde kanskje vært lettere eller riktigere på en måte om man bare -...(1.4) bare ’møttes, .. ’lissom. .. ja fordi -(0) ’mm. (0) ja det blir jo litt ’annerledes. (0) ’mm. særlig når vi kunne få .. såpass god tid på å ’tenke på det. <@ ’ja. [det var det- -’ja. @>] [[

]] [jeg tenkte på sånne <X derre X>] [[ ’klassiske spørsmål, .. hva hva [’spør] man hverandre om

R:

V: R: V: R:

V:

R:

<X lissom X>? ]]

R: V:

R:

V: R: V: R:

V:

R:

.. .. well it got so s- -I I’ve been thinking about that -... just that ’meeting situation, .. that we were going to .. well ’face ’here, (0) <@ ’yeah. @> (0) <@ that in some ways it was going to be a bit spec- a bit special. @> @ ((SOFT BACKGROUND LAUGHTER FROM R)) .. yeah it would perhaps have been easier or better in a way if we just -...(1.4) just ’met, .. ’sort of. .. yeah cause -(0) ’mm (0) yeah it gets a bit ’different. (0) ’mm especially when we could get .. that much time to ’think about it. <@ ’yeah. [that was the- -’yeah. @>] [[

]] [I thought of <X those X>] [[’classical questions, .. what what [does] one ’ask each other <X sort of X> ?]]

APPENDIX 1 V:

R: V:

[<@ ’ja.] V: .. ’riktig. @> .. [[tenke]] over den møtesituasjonen i det ’hele tatt. [[<@ ja- -- @>]] R: (0) mm ’mm. .. og d- jeg tenkte på ’navn, V: og .. .. men= --

343 [<@ ’yeah.] .. ’right. @> [[think]] of that meeting situation in general. [[<@ yeah- -- @>]] (0) mm ’mm. .. and th- I thought about ’names, and .. .. but= --

As can be seen, both Ragnhild and Victoria had reflected on the conversation and its genre characteristics prior to the encounter. This might suggest that a method of organizing the encounters without revealing the true intentions of the research project ought to have been found. However, the mere fact that they word their reflections seems to indicate that they do not feel too inhibited by being recorded.

The informants The informants represent a rather homogeneous group. They are in a similar situation and have a similar background. They are between 21 and 36 years of age and live in urban surroundings. All of them are engaged in, or have accomplished, an academic education. As for the sex of the participants, there is a certain repartitioning. The corpus consists of 2 mixed conversations and 3 conversations between participants of the same sex — 1 between males and 2 between females. All the conversations but one are between Norwegian native speakers. The exception is conversation 1, between Anna and Charlotte, who speak Swedish. Anna is a native speaker, while Charlotte moved to Sweden from Poland at the age of 12 and speaks with a slight accent. The linguistic variation itself should not have serious consequences for my study, as I operate at a level of abstraction above the actual linguistic realization in one variety rather than another. There might, however, be reason to ask whether Charlotte’s Polish background could influence her communicative repertoire in a way that would affect discourse structures. Here, decisive answers are hard to give but there is reason to believe that the sort of structures and strategies studied here are easily acquired by a person from a not too remote culture during ten years of adult life in Sweden. The selection of informants is a function of the objectives of the research. If one is studying linguistic variation the informants will be chosen according to systematic variation in social or geographical characteristics (origin, age, status). My study is not of this type. Rather, it is an exploratory study which seeks to discern common linguistic patterns and strategies in a set of conversations that are individually unique. My aim is thus not to describe variation but to see what makes a set of conversations alike. In this case, the background variables should rather be homogeneous, so that the likeness between the conversations is made salient.

344

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

An obvious objection to using a corpus with such a homogeneous group of informants is that it creates problems for generalizing the results. The way people are seen to get acquainted in this study cannot automatically be said to be valid for others such as children, older generations, or people from rural areas. However, the strategies and procedures described here are explained as rationally motivated by general goals of politeness and efficiency. This should indicate that there is a more general validity than just the social group covered by the informants. Yet, it is a reality that there may be local and generational differences in assessments of politeness, concerning such things as for instance what constitutes a face-threatening topic. Having commented on the homogeneity of the corpus, I now turn to the diversity involved in it. The variation is mainly in the setting of the conversations. The participants meet on different occasions. And these occasions may be more or less useful as sources for drawing inferences about each other. The participants are defined as unacquainted on the basis that they have not talked to each other previously. But of course this does not mean that they do not know (or assume) anything about each other. The community membership involved in the very occasion of their meeting is an important source of inferences. For instance, it is to be expected that the community co-membership involved in being members of the same idealistic culture magazine is more ‘inference-rich’ than that of being coparticipants in a summer school. This affects anticipations and hypotheses about the other person’s knowledge, attitudes and taste. I will here try to spell out some types of inferences it is likely that the participants will make about each other. The members of the editorial board of Cultura are probably those who have the richest sources of inferences about common ground. Knowing the profile of the magazine, they are in a position of hypothesizing certain quite specific things about each other’s encyclopedia, such as cultural values, familiarity with certain personalities, theories and works within the cultural sphere, and general principles of aesthetic preferences. In addition, they may draw inferences about each other’s diary, concerning such things as acquaintance with one or more of the other members of the editorial board, a trajectory of higher education, and residence in an urban or suburban area. The Norwegian students of the mellomfag level are probably those that come closest in having reasons for anticipating a large common ground. They have co-membership in the general community of students at the University of Oslo, and they have a more specific common group membership in being students of the same subject with a common first year education behind them. On the basis of this they may have expectations about academic interests, career plans, economical and housing conditions, and familiarity with university facilities. The two Swedish students are expected to have rather less common ground. They come from different parts of Sweden, and they are not even sure that they are pursuing the same sorts of studies. However, their co-presence at this summer course in Oslo gives them reasons to draw inferences about each other’s diary concerning the journey to Norway and the accommodation at the student dormitory. Another point of diversity in the data is the varying degree of solidarity involved by the different social networks. The solidarity will be a function of two factors: first, the solidarity inherent in the community co-membership, and second, the solidarity involved in the expectations of future contact. As a general tendency, there are reasons to expect that the

APPENDIX 1

345

smaller and the tighter the community, the stronger the solidarity. The inherent solidarity is the sort of solidarity expected merely by belonging to the same community, such as the community of students, of Norwegians or Swedes abroad, or of magazine co-workers. The solidarity involved in the expectations of future contact will expectedly be proportional with the tightness and the frequency of the future contact. Here again the editorial board members are those who have the best starting point. They belong to a small group with tight personal ties and frequent meetings for a long period of time in the future. But next after them, the Swedish students probably have stronger incentives for solidarity than the Norwegian students. They are fellow compatriots alone abroad, and they belong to a group that will be spending much of the time of the day together for the next 4 weeks. The Norwegian students do not belong to so tight a group, and they are not alone in the outside world. However, there is more solidarity implied by the common membership in the more restricted community of students affiliated in the Department of Scandinavian Studies. It is most likely that this variation in the occasion of the encounter will influence the talk. It is to be expected that with an increasing expectation of a large common ground, the participants will resort less to self-presentation and they will find topics that include them both more quickly. Such individual differences between the conversations are to some extent explored in Chapter 7. It is important to stress, however, that the differences are differences of degree and not of principle. Though the different participants have unequal resources for computing common ground and solidarity, they still have to establish these things in the conversation. This means that the techniques and strategies explored in this study may be more or less pervasive in the different conversations but they are all the same the basic procedures that all the participants in the corpus use in establishing common ground, introducing topics, and presenting themselves. Finally, it may be added that the diversity in settings reflects a reality of the type of discourse studied here: People meet and get acquainted on a whole range of different occasions. And if there are some basic procedures for getting acquainted they must be applicable in all these sorts of situations. I am thus searching for strategies and procedures that are conventionalized enough to be recognized as ‘the same’ in the different conversations, yet flexible enough to be adaptable to the different specific settings. The variation in the sex of the participants is likely to yield certain gender differences in the talk. However, the data are not extensive enough to ground claims on gender variation.

Appendix 2

Post-recording interviews The post-recording interviews were made immediately after the conversations took place. One person at a time was taken aside and asked to answer some questions about his or her impressions of the conversation. The answers were not tape-recorded and are therefore based on my notes during the interviews.

Anna Anna (23 years), Swedish. Studies to be a language consultant in Stockholm. She and Charlotte meet as participants in a summer school of Norwegian at the University of Oslo. They have seen each other earlier the same day in a class at the University which included a presentation of names. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? I thought about it from time to time, but forgot it for periods of time. I probably was somewhat influenced, especially in that I got more afraid of silences than I would have been otherwise. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? I felt that I was not willing to be as personal as Charlotte, so that from time to time I had the feeling of playing a role. Do you feel that you had a good time? Well, so so. I was a little tired after having talked to so many new people today. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? No, we were probably rather different as types, even though we are to some extent in the same situation as students. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation? No, not really. We did not really get on the same wavelength, we were probably a bit too different. Charlotte Charlotte (21 years), Swedish with Polish background. Student at a teachers’ college in Växjö in the south of Sweden. Is in the same situation as Anna.

348

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? I didn’t think about it much. There was some giggling in the beginning, but then I didn’t think any more about it. I did not feel influenced by it. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? Yes, it flowed easily, although it came to a stop from time to time. There were no special problems. Do you feel that you had a good time? Yes, it was easy to talk and agreeable. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? I don’t know. We did not talk about background. We are probably not very alike. Anna was perhaps not so personal, so it’s hard to say. I don’t think we have so much in common. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation? No, it was mostly superficial talk and not so personal.

Jens Jens (23 years) from Vestfold. Has studied in Bø until recently. Has just started in a class of Scandinavian Studies in the second year together with Hilde. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? Partly. I thought about the microphone a bit, but it did not influence me so much. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? Yes. Hilde is a lively girl and easy to talk to. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? I recognized many thoughts, so we probably had quite a lot in common. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation? Yes, I felt we got on the same wavelength. Who did you feel was most active, and took the most initiatives? Not that much difference, but she was perhaps the most active.

Hilde Hilde (23 years) from Bodø, has lived and studied in Oslo for 3 years. Has just started a class of Scandinavian Studies in the second year together with Jens. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? It maybe influenced the choice of topics a little bit, so that we did not get lost in endless digressions. We talked about something proper. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? No problems.

APPENDIX 2

349

Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? Yes. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation? Yes, I felt that we were on the same wavelength. Who did you feel was most active, and took the most initiatives? Neither.

Victoria Victoria – 36 years old, from Oslo. Has just started in a class of Scandinavian Studies in the second year together with Ragnhild. They were at a class together the day before, and have seen each other at two lectures since, but have not talked together. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? I thought a bit about the conversation before coming here, but not so much during it. But perhaps a little bit as to talking about certain topics, such as teachers in the department. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? We talked together well. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? Yes. Ragnhild was someone that I had intended to try to get in contact with in any case. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation, that you were on the same wavelength? Yes, we had a good contact. ‘There is something there’. Who did you feel was most active, and took the most initiatives? No, we were equally active.

Ragnhild Ragnhild – 24 years, from Vestfold. Has just started in a class of Scandinavian Studies in the second year together with Victoria. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? I thought about it in the beginning. I felt that I had to keep the conversation going about something proper. I thought a bit about what I was saying. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? The conversation flowed easily, more easily than with many others. We were ‘in tune’. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? We have much in common. We are in a rather different situation in life, but are pretty similar types. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation, that you were on the same wavelength?

350

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Yes, we were well ‘in tune’. Who did you feel was most active, and took the most initiatives? She was most active in the beginning, but then there was not much difference.

Sven Sven – 24 years old. student at the first year, History of Ideas. A new member of the editorial board of Cultura. Meets Marta in a private home in advance of a party given by the board. They have previously attended a meeting of the board together. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? No. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? No problems, good start, got well started. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? We are pretty much alike and have much in common. For instance, we laugh at the same things. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation, that you were on the same wavelength? We did not really get to know each other much personally, since we talked about our subjects most of the time. Who did you feel was most active, and took the most initiatives? I probably dominated and had some long monologues myself.

Marta Marta – 29 years old, student at the graduate level, Scandinavian Studies. New member of the editorial board of the culture magazine Cultura. Meets Sven in a private home in advance of a party arranged by the editorial board. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? In the beginning, but not as we went along. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? No problems at all. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? More alike than you would think. Much common background. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation, that you were on the same wavelength? No, we talked about common areas of interest, not about personal things. Who did you feel was most active, and took the most initiatives? We talked most about Sven’s topic, so he was naturally the most active.

APPENDIX 2

351

Lars Lars – ca. 27 years old. Student at the graduate level, History of Ideas. New member of the editorial board of Cultura. Meets Bjørn at a café in advance of a party arranged by the editorial board in a private home. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? Definitively. It lies in the back of your head. I have worked with radio so I am used to relating to microphones. But I mean I tried to be natural. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? Good flow, did not feel any pressure. Perhaps Bjørn was somewhat more concerned with not letting the conversation stop. It was a pleasant conversation. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? I felt that there was a basis for talking more about many things: common interests such as music, Cultura, etc. There were quite a few points of contact. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation, that you were on the same wavelength? No, the conversation was not so personal, perhaps a bit because of the microphone, which made you more conscious about it than you would have been in other cases. But I don’t think it would have been natural to be so much more personal anyhow.

Bjørn Bjørn – 31 years old, musician and youth club leader. Member of the editorial board of Cultura. Meets Lars at a café in advance of a party arranged by the editorial board in a private home. Did you feel influenced by the microphone? Did you think about it, and did it make the conversation unnatural? No. Beforehand I had thought a bit about the situation, but not much in the course of the conversation. It was more the fact that the situation was arranged that possibly influenced the conversation. In some ways it became more of a sort of interview situation than associative development of the conversation. Was it easy to talk? Were there any special problems? Did the talk flow easily? Very easily. Do you think that you were alike with respect to background and personality? Lots of common interests. It is difficult to say whether we are alike or different, but we complement each other well. We had good contact. Do you feel that you got to know each other well during the conversation, that you were on the same wavelength? Yes, a bit. It was not a very personal conversation, but that would not have been so very natural either.

Appendix 3

Summaries of conversation 1 and 4 In Chapter 7 there is a contrastive case analysis of conversation 1 and 4. Here is a short and somewhat sketchy summary of the conversations.

Conversation 1: Anna & Charlotte Anna and Charlotte meet in a restaurant. Charlotte starts the conversation by asking what they should order. Anna does not respond to this, but instead says that she has to ask for Charlotte’s name.55 After an exchange of names they return to the menus and talk for a while about what to order. Having made their choices, Anna asks whether Charlotte had gone to the city that day after the lecture. Charlotte confirms this and starts telling Anna about the trip. At one point, Anna wants to know who she went with and whether she knew them from before. Charlotte informs her that she had met one of them on the train the day before, going to Oslo. She uses this as an occasion to introduce an elaborate narrative about her journey and her problems with getting a room at the student dormitory (l. 147–341). Anna goes on to tell about her problems with the room at the dormitory (301–345).56 The waiter comes to take their orders, and afterwards Charlotte uses a question to the waiter about the price of a bottle of wine to report that she has been shopping in a Norwegian store and that it was extremely expensive. At the next topic transition relevance place, Charlotte asks what Anna studies. This generates extended talk about her studies for becoming a ‘language consultant’ (l.426–539). Shortly afterwards, she returns the question. Charlotte is in a teacher’s college, but does not talk much about her training. Instead the topic develops into a humorous narrative about her plans for becoming a teacher in Haparanda in Northern Sweden and marrying a wealthy Lapp (l. 549–707).57 The waiter serves the wine, and this gives rise to some comments (l. 726–745). At the next topic transition relevance place, Charlotte volunteers a new narrative, this time about a concert she attended with two friends where they had had a lot to drink.58 Anna follows up the narrative with a question about whether Charlotte is familiar with the artist, Ulf Lundell. However, Charlotte says that she is not and the topic is quickly exhausted. Now Anna asks a question about Charlotte’s accent (l. 829).59 Charlotte tells Anna about her Polish background and Anna repeatedly states that her accent is not strong. Charlotte introduces the next topic by linking on to the prior talk about the concert. She asks whether Anna listens to INXS, but gets a negative answer. Yet, she proposes that they go to a concert this

354

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

band will be giving in Oslo in the near future. Anna accepts, but mentions that she is somewhat short of money for the time being. This leads to further talk related to finances, more specifically student loans and summer jobs. Anna’s report that she will work on her parents’ house this summer makes Charlotte ask how she lives. She tells her that she has a small apartment and returns the question. Having exchanged information about their place of residence, they now exchange questions about their respective families. Anna uses Charlotte’s talk about her family to bring in a question whether she has been back to Poland. Charlotte tells her about her contact with her family in Poland and goes on to say that she will be abroad for five months this year. This leads to an extended account of her travels (l. 1146–1261). Anna responds to this by saying that she travelled a lot the year after she finished school. Charlotte asks about her journey and Anna elaborates on her itinerary, which was various countries in Asia. Charlotte asks her whether she has any stories to tell from the trip (l. 1439).60 Anna tells about her time in India. After a more general discussion about India Charlotte asks how Nepal was. In characterizing this country Anna suddenly announces that now she has found a story to tell (l. 1561). She then produces an extended and dramatic narrative about a hike in the Nepali mountains (l. 1565–1684). Charlotte responds by telling about a time she once walked in the mountains in Poland. Anna expresses her surprise that there are high mountains in Poland, and the topic develops into talk about how little people know about Eastern Europe. This evolves into a discussion about the recent political changes in these countries. At the next topic transition relevance place, Charlotte returns to Anna’s journey and inquires as to how she managed to put up with the attitude to women in Pakistan. Anna tells about what it was like to travel alone as a woman there. The next topic is introduced by Anna. She asks whether Charlotte has been “up by the lake”. Charlotte does not understand and several rounds of repair are necessary before she can answer the question.61 She then brings up Anna’s acquaintance with two of the other course participants — Stig and Theresa — which was mentioned earlier in the conversation. Anna says she knows them quite well but this does not generate an extended topic either. Charlotte asks if Anna is twenty-two years old. They exchange information about their age. Then Charlotte introduces yet another topic, namely Anna’s civil status, before she shifts over to boyfriends.62 Anna comments rather briefly on this, but Charlotte gives an extensive account about her love relationships. She goes on to say that she actually wants to be single for the time being in order to develop personally. After this Anna asks whether Charlotte’s parents are married.63 She goes on to develop an argument that people with divorced parents often have doubts about life-long relationships. Shortly afterwards the tape recorder is turned off.

Conversation 4: Marta and Sven Marta and Sven meet in a private home before a party given by the editorial board of Cultura. Marta arrives late and is somewhat out of breath. Marta starts the conversation by asking Sven whether he has done something like this before. Some lines are exchanged about their expectations concerning the recording. As I bring Marta a beer, I tell her to relax

APPENDIX 3

355

and have a cigarette. She introduces a new topic by announcing that Oslo Tramway Company is a source of “so much annoyance”. Sven asks what she means, and she goes on to talk about the complications that resulted in her late arrival (l. 126–169).64 Sven links on to this and reports his impression that people from Oslo (he is from Steinkjær) are reluctant to walk and always take the tram. Marta concludes that she might as well have walked here. They toast and take a drink from their glasses. Marta reintroduces the topic by saying that she usually uses her bike. Sven reports that his bike is broken and that he walks everywhere. Marta links on to this and asks which route he takes when he walks to where they are now. His description of this leads to some comments about some of the quarters and buildings he passes, especially some silos. They discuss how these could be used for other things, and also mention other industrial buildings that have been alternatively used. At the next TTRP Marta asks Sven how his exam went (l. 440). She knew from a prior meeting of the editorial board that Sven was taking the ‘examen philosophicum’. Sven reports on this and goes on to inquire as to whether Marta had passed this exam in Oslo. She confirms this and starts to reflect on the changes in the curriculum since she passed it (l. 475–546). She then asks about which classes Sven has taken before, and he goes on to account for his academic career. In line 619 I interfere because there is a problem with one of the microphones. After a short interruption Marta resumes the conversation by asking which topics Sven wants to pursue in his studies of History of Ideas. Sven answers that he has not got any clear preferences yet but that he would like to find something he is interested in and study it in depth. He draws a parallel to when he studied Comparative Literature. Then he started out being interested in the literary works but ended up completely absorbed by theory. In line 760 he asks what Marta has studied. She accounts for her various studies (Comparative Literature, Theater and Scandinavian Studies) and goes on to reflect somewhat on the pros and cons of studying at the Graduate level (‘hovedfag’). Sven comments on this by stating that he feels History of Ideas is the only subject he would like to pursue at this level. In line 873 the door bell has been ringing for some time and Marta goes to open the door.65 When she returns she introduces a new topic by stating that she finds that Comparative Literature and History of Ideas have much in common. They discuss the relation between these subjects for a while (l. 894–944). Marta says that History of Ideas may be a good basis also for other studies and goes on to mention an economist she knows who used it as a basis for studies in economy. Sven draws a parallel by telling her about how the subject has made him interested in biology and a new theory of evolution. He goes on with a lengthy exposition about Lynn Margulis and Gaia theory (l. 996–1208). He continues by comparing this with Darwinism, and here Marta joins in with some reflections on the reluctance of civilized man to accept being put on a par with the other animals. Sven joins in with some more reflections on this. In line 1366 there is a TTRP and Marta recontextualizes the topic by stating that there is little contact between researchers within natural and human sciences. She draws in some modern authors that accentuate the biological conditions of human life, and Sven seconds her by adding some more literary sources. Marta stresses the importance of having a larger perspective on life than is usual in Western individualistic mentality, and Sven returns to Gaia theory and shows how the idea of the universe as a superorganism changes our conventional world view. He goes on to reflect on how knowledge from the natural sciences

356

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

seems more concrete and solid than knowledge in human sciences. Marta says that with new theories such as chaos theory a crisis has emerged in the natural sciences and that natural scientists here have much to learn from researchers in the humanities. Sven agrees and adds that many great physicists today concede that they do not really understand what they are doing.66 Sven starts to tell Marta that he is writing an article about this for Cultura and that he wishes to start by presenting himself as an outsider to biology. He sees biology as a struggle to refine man’s sensory apparatus. And new instruments generate new ideas and theories. In this way science never stops. Herbert Spencer formulated the dictum of the ‘survival of the fittest’, but Margulis rather argues that cooperation is the way of nature. But this can be just as dangerous in that it may legitimize oppression of non-cooperative individuals. The authority of the natural sciences might thus be dangerous. All the time while Sven is elaborating on this Marta is a highly participatory listener but does not contribute significantly to developing the topic herself.

Notes 1.

Another type of first conversation that is not treated here, is service encounters of various sorts, that is, conversations between unacquainted persons in institutional or mercantile contexts. Nor are conversations in ‘instrumental’ contexts, that is, people talking in support of some practical activity they are engaged in (such as pushing a car or playing football).

2.

Here cited from Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, New York: Gramercy 1996.

3.

Austin can be said to have been more concerned with the interactional aspects of speech acts, especially in stressing the role of uptake. In this connection he says: “Unless a certain effect is achieved, the illocutionary act will not have been happily, successfully performed” (Austin 1975:116). See Sbisà (1992) for further elaboration of this point.

4.

The distinction between giving and giving off is explained like this: “The first involves verbal symbols or their substitutes which he uses admittedly and solely to convey the information that he and the others are known to attach to these symbols. [...] The second involves a wide range of action that others can treat as symptomatic of the actor, the expectation being that the action was performed for reasons other than the information conveyed in this way.” (Goffman 1959:2)

5.

Examples given in Giles et al. (1991:7) are: utterance length, speech rate, information density, vocal intensity, pausing frequencies and lengths, response latency, self-disclosure, jokes, gesture, head nodding and facial affect, posture.

6.

This division parallels the distinction in Habermas (1984) between the subjective world, the social world and the objective world.

7.

The pluses are marks of the importance of a dimension in one sort of relationship relative to in another. They are also meant to illustrate the minimal degree of the dimensions, so that it is not precluded that, for instance, two actual acquaintances develop more affect than what is the case between two given friends.

8.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1996) originally suggested the term ‘anti-FTAs’ for such acts, but later revised it to ‘face flattering acts’. Lately she has changed to using the term that I have proposed, cf. Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1997.

9.

The connection between style and politeness is made explicit by Leech (1983), who formulates his politeness theory as part of an ‘interpersonal rhetoric’.

10.

This use of the term ‘involvement’ contrasts with that of Goffman (1963) and Gumperz (1982). For these, involvement is more or less synonymous with ‘engagement’ (in conversation): “To be engaged in an occasioned activity means to sustain some kind of cognitive and affective engrossment in it, some mobilization of one’s psychobiological

358

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

resources; in short, it means to be involved in it” (Goffman 1963:36). I am using it more or less in the sense of Tannen, Chafe and Lakoff. 11.

There are certain parallels here with positive and negative politeness strategies. Involvement strategies seem to involve positive politeness whereas considerateness seems to involve negative politeness.

12.

There is a development in Tannen’s work from a focus on more interactional phenomena in 1984 toward more within-turn phenomena in 1989, due to an increased interest in ‘poetic’ effects. The first three entries on the list are taken from the former book and the last three are mostly from the latter. This seems to involve a change in focus on involvement. From being predominantly concerned with interpersonal involvement, Tannen becomes increasingly concerned with topical involvement. It is primarily the interactional and interpersonal aspects of involvement which will be of relevance for my study.

13.

Clark even claims that all words in principle are part of communal lexicons, that is, that each lexical entry must have a representation not only of the forms and meanings of the entry, but also of the community to which it belongs.

14.

Garfinkel has since developed ethnomethodology in new directions that are not reflected in the practice of conversation analysts.

15.

This rule is formulated as follows: “[...] given the recognizable production of a first pair part, on its first possible completion its speaker should stop and a next speaker should start and produce a second pair part from the pair type the first is recognizably a member of” (Schegloff & Sacks 1974:239).

16.

Here it might be in order to take some reservations about the use of the terms induction and deduction. It is unlikely that science can proceed by either pure induction or pure deduction. Inductivists cannot observe ‘facts’ in the data without applying some theoretical perspective in constituting (choosing, defining, delimiting) something as data. And deductivists will be highly unlikely to formulate productive hypotheses if they do not make extensive use of experiential knowledge (e.g. some puzzling observation). Both modes of inquiry involve a crucial element of abduction, that is, an inferential step from some initial puzzling fact to some hypothesized state of affairs (proposition, rule) that would explain it (Givón 1989). And this step is itself neither purely inductive nor purely deductive. In distinguishing between inductivist and deductivist approaches I only mean to point to different weightings of the data or the theory respectively as the point of departure for formulating theoretical claims.

17.

Many of the technical terms used are symptomatic of this. For instance the term ‘adjacency pair’ focuses uniquely on a structural characteristic, adjacent placement. A functionalist would be more inclined to use function as the basis for a label. The speech act analyst van Rees (1992a) has proposed an alternative term which is more focused on the relation between the parts, namely ‘matching pair’. I have followed this suggestion in proposing a Norwegian term, namely ‘avpasset par’ (Svennevig et al. 1995).

18.

In addition the urgency of the task will be of importance (p. 94f).

19.

This excerpt is analysed more in detail in Chapter 4, example (16), p. 120.

20.

This excerpt is analysed more in detail in Chapter 5, example (3), p. 170.

NOTES

359

21.

In the conversations there are many references to academic levels and degrees. For the uninitiated in the Norwegian university system it might be useful to know the following: Before entering studies of academic subjects students have to take a preparatory exam, the ‘ex. phil.’ (examen philosophicum), usually at the end of the first semester at the University. In the Humanities they then choose a subject (History, French, Linguistics etc.) and concentrate on this during the first year (‘grunnfag’). After this exam they may pursue the subject to the next level (‘mellomfag’), which is one semester. When they have three ‘grunnfag’ exams and one one ‘mellomfag’ exam they receive the degree ‘Cand. Mag.’ (Candidatus Magisterii). After this they may choose to specialize further in the subject which they have pursued to the second (‘mellomfag’) level. This specialization is the Graduate level (‘hovedfag’) and is stipulated to two years of study (including work on a dissertation), leading tp the degree ‘Cand. Philol.’ (Candidatus Philologiae). A year of pedagogical studies is required if one wants to become a teacher. In the text I use the following translations: grunnfag first year (studies) mellomfag second year (studies) hovedfag graduate studies

22.

The parts of the conversations where third parties intervene are omitted in the analysis. So are parts where the participants are engaged in practical setting talk, such as discussing the menu. This is to eliminate the random effects of the different recording situations. Some situations require more attention from the participants towards practical tasks (such as ordering food) than others.

23.

The distinction between continuers and minimal responses is discussed in more detail in Linell & Gustavsson (1987:62f).

24.

This fits with the analysis of the rest of this sequence, cf. example (21) below. There, Charlotte shows willingness to enter into the private topic of boyfriends, whereas Anna shows reluctance towards doing so.

25.

Button & Casey do not specify the character of their corpus, but from their examples it seems to be from talk among friends.

26.

In Linell & Gustavsson’s (1987) terminology, the initiator is the interactionally dominant party (the one producing the strongest initiatives, cf. 4.3), whereas the self-presentator dominates semantically (introduces most new content words) and quantitatively (produces the largest amount of talk).

27.

One such form of occasioning is described by Pomerantz (1980) as ‘telling my side’. One party makes a comment in which s/he tells his or her experience (‘my side’) of an event to which the other has the primary access — for instance: “Yer line’s been busy”. This is used as a ‘fishing device’ to get the other to produce a report about the same event from his/her perspective (‘your side’), such as “Yeuh my father’s wife called me”. Social psychologists have also noted this mechanism concerning self-disclosure. By self-disclosing oneself, one provides an occasion for the other to make a self-disclosure as well (Berger & Bradac 1982).

28.

French original: “Tout comme les jeux, les échanges communicatifs sont à la fois coopératifs, et compétitifs (les participants étant à la fois des partenaires, et des adversaires)”

360

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

29.

In writing “partly constitutive of” I mean that the sequence represents one way of getting acquainted. There certainly are others in addition.

30.

Having access to inside information about Cultura, I can reveal that the legendary past of the premises consists in having accommodated an environmentalist organization famous in the seventies for organizing a protest movement of civil disobedience against the construction of a dam across the river Alta. The demonstrators, which included famous public persons and academics, chained themselves together and attempted to obstruct the construction workers from doing their job.

31.

This works much like the ‘preliminaries to preliminaries’ described by Schegloff (1980), where certain pre-sequences, such as “Can I ask you a question?”, do not generate the projected action as the next turn, but instead introduce another preliminary sequence that in turn leads up to the projected action.

32.

Grice himself seems to have considered relevance to pertain to a wider context but some of his interpreters — such as Tracy & Moran (1983) — consider just the local discourse context.

33.

Schegloff & Sacks (1974) call them ‘possible pre-closings’ because they may also precede entry into the closing of the entire conversation.

34.

The Danish original goes: “den reproducerende emnehandling leder emnet tilbage til udgangspunktet for den netop gennemløbne emnesekvens. Det er således et signal om, at den talende opfatter emnet som udtømt og ikke ønsker at udvikle det.”

35.

Heritage and Watson call them ‘formulations’.

36.

Schiffrin labels them ‘entity topic’ and ‘interactive topic’ respectively.

37.

The discourse referent ‘I’ appears also in the second stretch, but reference to oneself as a speaker is very common in all topics and thus is not a very distinctive trait.

38.

In this book coherence is used to designate relations between parts of the discourse (”cotext”) and not the grounding of discourse in any aspect of context (co-text, situation and background knowledge) as in, for instance, Korolija (1998).

39.

The distinction between local and non-local discourse context is an analytical construction. Linell & Gustavsson (1987) propose that the local discourse context should include the two last substantial turns at talk.

40.

Note that the figures only represent disjunctive topic shifts. Gradual topic shifts are not reflected here.

41.

The setting topics analyzed here are those introduced by the unacquainted participants themselves. Left out is setting talk introduced by third parties, such as the waiter (in conversations 1-3), and me (J), arranging the technical equipment and giving instructions.

42.

A personal anecdote may serve as an example. One morning I was taking the commuter train to Oslo. Despite the fact that the compartment was full of people it was completely silent. As we pass the freeway, which is completely jammed with cars, the conductor comes on the intercom and says something like this: “If you look to the right you can see what you avoid by taking the train. Next station, Skøyen.” The next moment a large portion of the passengers were engaged in lively conversation!

NOTES

361

43.

It involves Charlotte commenting on her experience of seeing Anna on the tram on the way to the restaurant but not being allowed to talk to her.

44.

A note of caution is in place concerning the silences in this excerpt. The participants are eating, and there is a tendency throughout that the silences are longer than usual.

45.

Throughout this chapter the side sequences are marked in bold.

46.

Karl Johan street is the main street in Oslo and, therefore, quite well known. But for Swedes (such as Charlotte and Anna), Karl Johan is first and foremost the name of a famous king, who ruled Sweden and Norway during the Union period.

47.

Other examples of these return markers can be found in (31) (p. 303) and (34) (p. 309) (after the second side sequence).

48.

For other examples of repetition as a resumption marker, see excerpts (10), (11) and (22). Parenthetical intonation as a side sequence marker can also be found in (8), (25) and (30).

49.

The informants were chosen on the basis that they had not talked to each other before. In this case, it turned out that they had already attended a meeting of the editorial board together. It is a question whether one should consider this as having talked together. The talk during a meeting of the editorial board is a multi-party conversation of a mainly taskoriented type. Sven and Marta themselves reported not having talked to each other previously. In any case, they have a common diary that includes linguistic co-presence.

50.

Note that it has yet another embedded side sequence within it. Just after Bjørn asks the question he starts giving clues as to what he has in mind (“it’s jazz … stuff”). However, Lars answers the question before Bjørn completes his expansion.

51.

Cf. (13) (THE LAKE) in Chapter 6, p. 278.

52.

Cf. (16) (WIDOW) in Chapter 4, p. 120.

53.

Cf. (21) (BOYFRIEND) p. 138 and (22) (ACCENT) p. 141 in Chapter 4.

54.

Another interpretation might have been that humanists have always known what they were doing. However, in the light of her subsequent reformulation (“’no news to ’us”), this seems less plausible.

55.

Cf. (19) in Chapter 5, p. 219.

56.

Cf. (29) (BEDCLOTHES) in Chapter 5, p. 228.

57.

Cf. (6) (HAPARANDA) in Chapter 4, p. 104.

58.

Cf. (18) (ULF LUNDELL) in Chapter 5, p. 206.

59.

Cf. (22) (ACCENT) in Chapter 4, p. 141.

60.

Cf. (27) (STORIES) in Chapter 6, p. 297.

61.

Cf. (13) (THE LAKE) in Chapter 6, p. 278.

62.

Cf. (16) (WIDOW) in Chapter 4, p. 120.

63.

Cf. (20) (DIVORCED PARENTS) in Chapter 4, p. 131.

64.

Cf. (7) (THE TRAM) in Chapter 5, p. 178.

362

GETTING ACQUAINTED

65.

Cf. (10) (DOORBELL) in Chapter 5, p. 186.

66.

Cf. (35) (SCIENCE) in Chapter 5, p. 243.

IN

CONVERSATION

References Adelswärd, Viveka 1995 “Institutionella samtal – struktur, moral och rationalitet”. Folkmålsstudier 36: 109–138. Altman, Irwin & Taylor, Dalmas A. 1973 Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ariel, Mira 1988a “Retrieving propositions from context: why and how”. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 567–600. 1988b “Referring and accessibility”. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87. Atkinson, Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds) 1984 Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auchlin, Antoine 1991 “Le bonheur conversationnel: fondements, enjeux et domaines”. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 12: 103–126. Austin, John L. [1962] 1975 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bateson, Gregory [1955] 1985 “A theory of play and fantasy”. In Semiotics: An Introductory Reader, R. Innis (ed.), 129–144. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Baxter, Leslie A. 1984 “An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness”. Human Communication Research 10: 427-456. Berger, Charles R. 1992 “Uncertainty and social interaction”. Communication Yearbook 16: 491– 502. Berger, Charles R. & Bradac, James J. 1982 Language and Social Knowledge: Uncertainty in Interpersonal Relations. London: Edward Arnold. Bergmann, Jörg R. 1990 “On the local sensitivity of conversation”. In Marková & Foppa (1990), 201–226. Besnier, Niko 1994 “Involvement in linguistic practice: an ethnographic appraisal”. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 279–299. Bilmes, Jack 1993 “Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature. Toward an empirical prag-

364

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

matics”. Pragmatics 3: 387-410. Boden, Deirdre & Bielby, Denise D. 1986 “The way it was: Topical organization in elderly conversation”. Language & Communication 6: 73-89. Börestam Uhlmann, Ulla 1994 Skandinaver samtalar: Språkliga og interaktionella strategier i samtal mellan danskar, norrmän och svenskar. Universitetet i Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk. Brown, Gillian & Yule, George 1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Julie L. & Rogers, Edna 1991 “Openness, uncertainty, and intimacy: An epistemological reformulation”. In Miscommunication and Problematic Talk, N. Coupland, H. Giles & J.M. Wiemann (eds), 146–165. London: Sage Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger & Gilman, Albert 1972 “The pronouns of power and solidarity“. In Giglioli (1972), 252–282. 1989 “Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies”. Language in Society 18: 159-212. Bublitz, Wolfram 1988 Supportive Fellow-speakers and Cooperative Conversations: Discourse Topics and Topical Actions, Participant Roles and ‘Recipient Action’ in a Particular Type of Everyday Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Button, Graham 1987 “Moving out of closings”. In Button & Lee (1987), 101–151. Button, Graham & Lee, John R. (eds) 1987 Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Button, Graham & Casey, Neil 1984 “Generating topic: the use of topic initial elicitors”. In Atkinson & Heritage (1984), 167–190. 1985 “Topic nomination and topic pursuit”. Human Studies 8: 3–55. 1988 “Topic initiation: Business-at-hand”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 61–92. Caffi, Claudia & Janney, Richard W. 1994 “Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication”. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 325–373. Chafe, Wallace 1982 “Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature”. In Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, D. Tannen (ed.), 35-53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

REFERENCES

365

Chafe, Wallace & Danielewicz, Jane 1987 “Properties of spoken and written language”. In Comprehending Oral and Written Language, R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (eds), 83–113. New York: Academic Press. Chametzky, Robert 1992 “Pragmatics, prediction, and Relevance”. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 63–72. Chilton, Paul 1987 “Co-operation and non-co-operation: Ethical and political aspects of pragmatics“. Language & Communication 7: 221-239. Clark, Herbert H (ed.) 1992 Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press & CSLI. Clark, Herbert H. 1994 “Discourse in production”. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, M.A. Gernsbacher (ed.), 985–1021. San Diego: Academic Press. 1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998 “Communal lexicons”. In Context in Language Learning and Language Understanding, K. Malmkjær & J. Williams (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E. 1991 “Grounding in communication”. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (eds), 127–149. Washington DC: APA Books. Clark, Herbert H. & Carlson, Thomas B. [1981]1992 “Context for Comprehension”. In Clark (1992), 60–77. Clark, Herbert H. & Haviland, Susan E. 1977 “Comprehension and the given–new contract”. In Discourse Production and Comprehension, R.O. Freedle (ed.), 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Clark, Herbert H. & Marshall, Catherine M. [1981] 1992 “Definite reference and mutual knowledge”. In Clark (1992), 9–59. Clark, Herbert H. & Schaefer, Edward F. [1987] 1992 “Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers”. In Clark (1992), 275–298. [1989] 1992 “Contributing to discourse”. In Clark (1992), 144–175. 1992 “Dealing with overhearers”. In Clark (1992), 248–274. Clark, Herbert H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna [1986] 1992 “Referring as a collaborative process”. In Clark (1992), 107–143. Coulthard, Malcolm & Brazil, David [1979] 1992 “Exchange structure”. In Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed.), 50–78. London: Longman. Coupland, Nikolas, Coupland, Justine, Giles, Howard & Henwood, Karen 1991 “Intergenerational talk: Goal consonance and intergroup dissonance”. In Understanding Face-to-face Interaction: Issues Linking Goals and Discourse, K. Tracy (ed.), 79–100. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Coupland, Justine, Coupland, Nikolas & Robinson, Jeffrey D. 1992 ““How are you?”: Negotiating phatic communion“. Language in Society 21: 207-230.

366

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Craig, Robert T. 1990 “Multiple goals in discourse: an epilogue”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9: 163–170. Craig, Robert T. & Tracy, Karen (eds) 1983 Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure, and Strategy. London: Sage. Crow, Bryan K. 1983 “Topic shifts in couples’ conversations”. In Craig & Tracy (1983), 136– 155. Dascal, Marcelo 1992 “On the pragmatic structure of conversation”. In Searle et al. (1992), 35–55. Derlega, Valerian, Winstead, Barbara, Wong, Paul & Greenspan, Michael 1987 “Self-disclosure and relationship development. An attributional analysis”. In Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research, M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (eds), 172–187. London: Sage. van Dijk, Teun A. 1977 Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman. Du Bois, John, Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Paolino, Danae & Cumming, Susanna 1991 “Discourse transcription”. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Barbara. 1993 “Outline of discourse transcription”. In Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, J.A. Edwards & M.D. Lampert (ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Duck, Steve 1984 Friends for Life: The Psychology of Close Relationships. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Duck, Steve & Pittman, Garth 1994 “Social and personal relationships”. In Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (2. edition), M.L. Knapp & G.R. Miller (eds), 676–695. London: Sage. Duncan, Starkey & Fiske, Donald W. 1977 Face-to-face Interaction: Research, Methods and Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds) 1992 Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Faarlund, Jan Terje 1987 “Om beskriving og forklaring i lingvistisk teori”. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 5: 13-28. Farr, Rob 1990 “The social psychology of the prefix ‘inter-’: A prologue to the study of dialogue”. In Marková & Foppa (1990), 25–44. Finell, Anne 1992 “The repertoire of topic changers in personal, intimate letters: a diachronic study of Osborne and Woolf”. In Topics in English Linguistics, J. Svartvik

REFERENCES

367

& H. Wekker (eds), 720–735. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Flyvbjerg, Bent 1991 Rationalitet og magt. Vol. 1: Det konkretes videnskab. København: Akademisk forlag. Foppa, Klaus 1990 “Topic progression and intention”. In Marková & Foppa (1990), 178–200. Fraser, Bruce 1990 “Perspectives on politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219-236. Fretheim, Thorstein 1991 “Formal and functional differences between S-internal and S-external modal particles in Norwegian”. Multilingua 10: 175–200. Gadamer, Hans-Georg 1975 Truth and Method. New York: Seabury Press. Gallois, Cynthia 1994 “Group membership, social rules, and power: A social-psychological perspective on emotional communication”. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 301– 324. Garfinkel, Harold [1967] 1984 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. [1972] 1986 “Remarks on ethnomethodology“. In Directions in Sociolinguistics, J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (ed.), 301–324. New York: Academic Press. Geluykens, Ronald 1993 “Topic introduction in English conversation”. Transactions of the Philological Society 91: 181–214. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann & Givón, T. (eds) 1995 Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giglioli, Pier Paolo (ed.) 1972 Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nikolas & Coupland, Justine 1991 “Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence”. In Contexts of Accommodation, H. Giles, N. Coupland & J. Coupland (eds), 1–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ginsberg, Dorothy, Gottman, John & Parker, Jeffrey 1986 “The importance of friendship”. In Conversations of Friends: Speculations on Affective Development, J. Gottman & J. Parker (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Givón, T. 1989 Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1995 “Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind”. In Gernsbacher & Givón (1995), 59–116. Goffman, Erving 1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. 1963 Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.

368

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

1967a “On face-work”. In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, 5–46. New York: Pantheon. 1967b “The nature of deference and demeanor”. In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, 47–96. New York: Pantheon. 1972 “The neglected situation”. In Giglioli (1972), 61–66. [1976] 1981 “Replies and responses”. In Forms of Talk, 5–77. Oxford: Blackwell. [1979] 1981 “Footing”. In Forms of Talk, 124–159. Oxford: Blackwell. 1983 “Felicity’s condition”. In American Journal of Sociology 89: 1–53. Goodwin, Charles & Duranti, Alessandro 1992 “Rethinking context: an introduction”. In Duranti & Goodwin (1992), 1–43. Greatbatch, D. 1988 “A turn-taking system for British news interviews”. Language in Society 17: 401–430. Grice, H. Paul [1975] 1989 “Logic and conversation”. In Studies in the Way of Words, 22–40. London: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, John J. 1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992 “Contextualization and understanding”. In Duranti & Goodwin (1992), 229–252. 1995 “Mutual inferencing in conversation”. In Marková, Graumann & Foppa (1995), 101–123. Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron 1993 “Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse”. Language 69: 274–307. Habermas, Jürgen 1984 The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Heinemann. Heinemann, Trine & Simonsen, Christian 1996 ”Emnekohærens”. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Århus University. Heritage, John 1984a Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1984b “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement”. In Atkinson & Heritage (1984), 299–345. 1987 “Ethnomethodology”. In Social Theory Today, A. Giddens & J. Turner (eds), 224–272. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, John & Watson, D. R. 1979 “Formulations as conversational objects”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 123–162. New York: Irvington. Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990 “Topic drift”. In Conversational Organization and Its Development, B. Dorval (ed.), 3–22. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Holtgraves, Thomas 1990 “The language of self-disclosure“. In Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, H. Giles & W.P. Robinson (eds), 191–207. Chichester: Wiley.

REFERENCES

369

Honeycutt, James M. 1992 “Components and functions of communication during initial interaction, with extrapolations to beyond”. Communication Yearbook 16, 461–490. Jacobs, Scott & Jackson, Sally 1983 “Speech act structure in conversation. Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence”. In Craig & Tracy (1983), 47–65. Jefferson, Gail 1972 “Side sequences”. In Studies in Social Interaction, D. Sudnow (ed.), 295– 331. New York: The Free Press. 1978 “Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation”. In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, J. Schenkein (ed.), 219–248. New York: Academic Press. 1984a “On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately nextpositioned matters”. In Atkinson & Heritage (1984), 191–221. 1984b “Notes on the systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’”. Papers in Linguistics 17, 197–216. 1993 “Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature”. In Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 1–30. Jefferson, Gail; Harvey Sacks & Emanuel Schegloff 1987 “Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy”. In Button & Lee (1987), 152–203. Johansen, Marianne 1994 “Emnehandlinger i funktion – om organiseringen af emner i en samtale”. NyS (Nydanske Studier og Almen Kommunikationsteori) 18: 39–61. Katriel, Tamar & Dascal, Marcelo 1989 “Speaker”s commitment and involvement in discourse”. In From Sign to Text: A Semiotic View of Communication, Y. Tobin (ed.), 275–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Keenan, Elinor & Schieffelin, Bambi 1976 “Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topic in the conversation of children and adults”. In Subject and Topic, C. Li & S. Thompson (eds), 337–384. New York: Academic Press. Kellermann, Kathy & Lim, Tae-Seop 1989 “Conversational acquaintance: The flexibility of routinized behaviors”. In Rethinking Communication. Vol. 2: Paradigm Exemplars, B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. O’Keefe & E. Wartella (eds), 172–192. London: Sage. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine 1986 L’implicite. Paris: Armand Colin. 1987 “La mise en places”. In Décrire la conversation, J. Cosnier & C. KerbratOrecchioni (eds). Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon. 1990 Les interactions verbales. Tome 1. Paris: Armand Colin. 1992 Les interactions verbales. Tome 2. Paris: Armand Colin. 1994 Les interactions verbales. Tome 3. Paris: Armand Colin. 1996 La conversation. Paris: Seuil. 1997 “A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction”. Pragmatics 7: 1–20.

370

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Knapp, Mark L. 1978 Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Komter, Martha 1986 “Token up-dates: The reiteration of mutual knowledge in the opening stages of job interviews”. Human Studies 9: 247–259. Krauss, Robert M., Fussell, Susan R. & Chen, Yihsiu 1995 “Coordination of perspective in dialogue: Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes”. In Marková, Graumann & Foppa (1995), 124–148. Korolija, Natascha & Linell, Per 1996 “Episodes: coding and analysing coherence in multiparty conversation”. Linguistics 34: 799–831. Korolija, Natascha 1998 Episodes in Talk: Constructing Coherence in Multiparty Conversation. [Linköping Studies in Arts and Science 171], Linköping University. Labov, William [1969] 1972 “The study of language in its social context”. In Giglioli (1972), 283–308. 1972 “The transformation of experience in narrative syntax”. In Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular, 354–396. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William & Waletzky, Joshua 1967 “Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience”. In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, J. Helm (ed.), 12–44. Seattle: University of Seattle Press. Lakoff, Robin T. 1979 “Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style”. In Language, Sex and Gender: Does la Différence Make a Difference?, J. Orasanu, M. K. Slater & L. L. Adler (eds), 53–78. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1989 “The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse”. Multilingua 8: 101-129. 1990 Talking Power: The Politics of Language in our Lives. New York: Basic Books. Laver, John 1975 “Communicative functions of phatic communion“. In Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction, A. Kendon, R. M. Harris & M. R. Key (eds), 215–237. The Hague: Mouton. 1981 “Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting”. In Conversational Routine, F. Coulmas (ed.), 289–305. The Hague: Mouton. Leech, Geoffrey 1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988 “Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation”. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, P. Drew & A. Wootton (eds), 161–227. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

REFERENCES

371

[1979] 1992 “Activity types and language”. In Talk at Work, P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds), 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, Daivd 1991 “Scorekeeping in a language game”. In Pragmatics. A Reader, S. Davis (ed.), 416–427. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lind, Marianne 1996 “Pragmatiske partikler i diskursanalytisk perspektiv. Bruken av partikkelen jo i et norsk talemålsmateriale”. In Ottósson et al. (1996), 177–190. Linell, Per 1998 Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Linell, Per & Bredmar, Margareta 1996 “Reconstructing topical sensitivity: Aspects of face-work in talks between midwives and expectant mothers”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29: 347–379. Linell, Per & Gustavsson, Lennart 1987 Initiativ och respons: Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens. Linköping: Tema Kommunikation. Linell, Per, Gustavsson, Lennart & Juvonen, Päivi 1988 “Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: A presentation of Initiative-Response Analysis”. Linguistics 26: 415–442. Linell, Per & Korolija, Natascha 1995 “On the division of communicative labour within episodes in aphasic discourse”. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 11: 143-165. Linell, Per & Marková, Ivana 1993 “Acts in discourse: From monological speech acts to dialogical inter-acts”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 23: 173-195. Luckmann, Thomas 1992 “On the communicative adjustment of perspectives, dialogue and communicative genres”. In The Dialogical Alternative: Towards a Theory of Language and Mind, A. H. Wold (ed.), 219–234. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Lyons, John 1981 Language, Meaning & Context. Suffolk: Fontana. Malinowski, Bronislaw 1923 “The problem of meaning in primitive languages”. In The Meaning of Meaning C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards, 296–336. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Marková, Ivana 1990 “Introduction”. In Marková & Foppa (1990), 1–23. Marková, Ivana & Foppa, Klaus (eds) 1990 The Dynamics of Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 1992 Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Marková, Ivana, Graumann, Carl & Foppa, Klaus (eds) 1995 Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

372

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

Maynard, Douglas 1980 “Placement of topic changes in conversation”. Semiotica 30: 263–290. 1989 “Perspective-display sequences in conversation”. Western Journal of Speech Communication 53: 91–113. Maynard, Douglas & Zimmerman, Don 1984 “Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships”. Social Psychology Quarterly 47: 301–316. Melander Marttala, Ulla 1995 “Ämnesbegreppet inom samtalsforskningen. En översikt över teorier och modeller”. [Solid 3], Uppsala University, FUMS. Merritt, M. 1976 “On questions following questions in service encounters”. Language in Society 5: 315–357. Mey, Jacob L. 1993 Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Morton, Teru L. 1978 “Intimacy and reciprocity of exchange: A comparison of spouses and strangers”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 72–81. Nofsinger, Robert E. 1991 Everyday Conversation. London: Sage. Ottósson, Kjartan G., Fjeld, Ruth V. & Torp, Arne (eds) 1996 The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 9. Oslo: Novus. Penman, Robyn 1990 “Facework & politeness: multiple goals in courtroom discourse”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9: 15-38. Planalp, Sally 1993 “Friends’ and acquaintances’ conversations II: Coded differences”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10: 339-354. Planalp, Sally & Benson, Anne 1992 “Friends’ and acquaintances’ conversations I: Perceived differences”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9: 483-506. Planalp, Sally & Garvin-Doxas, Kathy 1994 “Using mutual knowledge in conversation: Friends as experts on each other”. In Dynamics of Relationships, S. Duck (ed.), 1–26. London: Sage. Pomerantz, Anita 1980 “Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing device’”. Sociological Inquiry 50: 186-198. 1984 “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes”. In Atkinson & Heritage (1984), 57–101. Prince, Ellen F. 1981 “Toward a taxonomy of given-new information”. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–255. New York: Academic Press. Psathas, George 1992 “The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson”. In Watson & Seiler (1992), 99–122.

REFERENCES

373

1995. Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. London: Sage (Qualitative research methods series 35). van Rees, Agnes 1992a The Use of Language in Conversation. Asterdam: SICSAT (International Society for the Study of Argumentation). 1992b “The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining conversational phenomena: A response to some conversation analytical critics”. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 31–47. Roger, Derek & Bull, Peter (eds) 1989 Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Rommetveit, Ragnar 1990 “On axiomatic features of a dialogical approach to language and mind”. In Marková & Foppa (1990), 83–104. 1992 “Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication”. In The Dialogical Alternative: Towards a Theory of Language and Mind, A.H. Wold (ed.), 19–44. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Sacks, Harvey 1984 “Notes on methodology”. In Atkinson & Heritage (1984), 21–27. 1987 “On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation”. In Button & Lee (1987), 54–69. 1992 Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols., ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel & Jefferson, Gail 1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation”. Language 50: 695–737. Sanford, Anthony J. & Moxey, Linda M. 1995 “Aspects of coherence in written language: a psychological perspective”. In Gernsbacher & Givón (1995), 161–188. Sarangi, Srikant K. & Slembrouck, Stefaan 1992 “Non-cooperation in communication: A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 117-154. Sbisà, Marina 1992 “Speech acts, effects and responses”. In Searle et al. (1992), 101–111. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1972a “Sequencing in conversational openings”. In Directions in Sociolinguistics, J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds), 346–380. New York: Academic Press. 1972b “Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place”. In Studies in Social Interaction, D. Sudnow (ed.), 75–119. New York: The Free Press. 1980 “Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’” Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–152. 1982 “Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences”. In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk [GURT 1981], D. Tannen (ed.), 71–93. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

374

GETTING ACQUAINTED 1984

IN

CONVERSATION

“On some questions and ambiguities in conversation”. In Atkinson & Heritage (1984), 28–52. 1986 “The routine as achievement”. Human Studies 9: 111–151. 1988a “Goffman and the analysis of conversation”. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, P. Drew & A. Wootton (eds), 89–135. Boston: Northeastern University Press. 1988b “Presequences and indirection. Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55-62. 1990 “On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talkin-interaction”. In Conversational Organization and Its Development, B. Dorval (ed.), 51–77. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1992a “In another context”. In Duranti & Goodwin (1992), 191–228. 1992b “Introduction”. In Sacks (1992, vol. 2), ix–lii. 1992c “To Searle on conversation: A note in return”. In Searle et al. (1992), 113– 127. 1993 “Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 101-128. (in prep.) “Sequence organization”. Manuscript, section of work in progress with the working title Talking in Interaction: An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey 1977 “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation”. Language 53: 361-382. Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Sacks, Harvey 1974 “Opening up closings”. In Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings, R. Turner (ed.), 233–264. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Schiffrin, Deborah 1987a “Discovering the context of an utterance”. Linguistics 25: 11–32. 1987b “Toward an empirical base in pragmatics”. Language in Society 16: 381– 397. 1988 “Sociolinguistic approaches to discourse: Topic and reference in narrative”. In Linguistic Change & Contact, K. Ferrara et al. (eds). Special issue of Texas Linguistic Forum 30: 1–17. 1994 Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Schlenker, Barry R. 1984 “Identities, identifications, and relationships”. In Communication, Intimacy, and Close Relationships, V.J. Derlega (ed.), 71–104. Orlando: Academic Press. Schneider, Klaus P. 1987 “Topic selection in phatic communication”. Multilingua 6: 247–256. 1988 Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Marburg: Hitzeroth. Schutz, Alfred 1970 On Phenomenology and Social Relations. (Selected writings edited by Helmut R. Wagner). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

REFERENCES

375

Searle, John R. 1969 Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979 Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992 “Conversation”. In Searle et al. (1992), 7–29. Searle, John R. et al. (eds) 1992 (On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sinclair, John & Coulthard, Malcolm 1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skarbø, Marit G. 1997 ”Ja og nei – pragmatiske partikler eller svarord?” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Scandinavian Studies and Comparative Literature, University of Oslo. Slugoski, Ben R. & Turnbull, William 1988 “Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7: 101-121. Spencer-Oatey, Helen 1996 “Reconsidering power and distance”. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 1-24. Sperber Dan & Wilson, Deirdre 1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. 1995 ”Postface”. In Relevance: Communication and Cognition. (2. edition) Oxford: Blackwell. Stenström, Anna-Brita 1994 An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman. Svennevig, Jan 1989 “Betydning og mening i skriftlig og muntlig språk”. Norskrift 62: 27–45. 1993 “Kontekstbegrepet i skrift/tale-forskningen”. In Tekst i kontekst, T. Fretheim, L.S. Evensen & E. Sivertsen (eds), 189–202. Oslo: Novus. 1996 “Emneprogresjon i samtaler mellom ukjente”. In Ottósson et al. (1996), 298–314. Svennevig, Jan, Sandvik, Margareth & Vagle, Wenche 1995 Tilnærminger til tekst: Modeller for språklig tekstanalyse. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag/LNU. Tannen, Deborah 1984 Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1986 That’s Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks your Relations with Others. New York: William Morrow. 1989 Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993 “What”s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations”. In Framing in Discourse, D. Tannen (ed.), 14–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, Dalmas A. & Altman, Irwin 1987 “Communication in interpersonal relationships. Social penetration pro-

376

GETTING ACQUAINTED

IN

CONVERSATION

cesses”. In Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research, M.E. Roloff & G.R. Miller (eds), 257–277. London: Sage. Taylor, Talbot J. & Cameron, Deborah 1987 Analysing Conversation: Rules and Units in the Structure of Talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Tracy, Karen 1990 “The many faces of facework”. In Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (eds), 209–226. Chichester: John Wiley. Tracy, Karen & Moran III, John P. 1983 “Conversational relevance in multiple-goal settings”. In Craig & Tracy (1983), 116–135. Turnbull, William 1992 “A conversation approach to explanation, with emphasis on politeness and accounting”. In Explaining One’s Self to Others: Reason-Giving in a Social Context, M. McLaughlin, M.J. Cody & S.J. Read (eds), 105–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vagle, Wenche, Sandvik, Margareth & Svennevig, Jan 1993 Tekst og kontekst: En innføring i tekstlingvistikk og pragmatikk. Oslo: Cappelen/LNU. Wardhaugh, Ronald 1985 How Conversation Works. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Watson, Graham & Seiler, Robert M. (eds) 1992 Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology. London: Sage. Watson, Rodney 1992 “The understanding of language use in everyday life: Is there a common ground?” In Watson & Seiler (1992), 1–20. Watts, Richard J. 1989 “Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behaviour”. Multilingua 8: 131-166. Watzlawick, Paul, Beavin, Janet H. & Jackson, Don D. 1967 Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: Norton. Wierzbicka, Anna 1991 Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wittgenstein, Ludwig [1953]1988 Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Subject Index A A- and B-events 57, 320 accommodation 23f acknowledgement token 105ff acquaintance 36f, 58f, 134f activities 8, 10ff, 84, 92, 134f affect 30f, 33ff, 43, 49f, 146, 148, 159f, 321 agreement 155–160, 193, 237–240 alignment 148, 193f asides 186f, 268f assessments 192f, 237–240, 245ff asymmetry 133, 146f, 320 B background information 257f, 284ff, 294ff biographical information 102f, 233 C camaraderie 50f, 247ff categorization 59, 101, 215, 232f co-construction 25, 48, 67 coherence 183f, 194–196, 200ff, 287ff anaphoric relations 287ff cataphoric relations 287ff focal coherence 204f, 213f local coherence 204f, 213f common ground 42f, 54ff, 115, 148ff, 231, 242ff, 294ff communal common ground 56 personal common ground 56 community membership 56f, 60f, 101ff, 148, 242–244, 309ff connectedness 181ff, 204f considerateness style 51, 153–155

context 11f, 66f, 296ff contextualization cues 11, 47 continuation elicitor 108ff, 143–145 conversation 8, 18 conversational organization 16ff, 74ff cooperation 13f, 42f, 78 cultural community 56 D deference 50f, 247 description 79, 83–86 dialogism 18f, 21f, 48 diary 56, 298ff, 302f, 306 disagreement 155–160, 245ff discourse markers, see particles distance 28f, 34f, 41, 45ff E emic/etic approaches 68f empirical analysis 65f, 73f encyclopedia 56, 224–226, 300ff, 314 ethnomethodology 64 evaluation 52f, 154 explanation 70, 76–82, 86–88 explicitness 52f, 62, 257, 301 F face 23, 78 face enhancing acts 44 face threatening acts (FTAs) 41, 130, 137–143 face work 43f, 48 negative face 40, 137 positive face 40, 140ff familiarity 33ff, 252, 306 frames 11, 128f

378

GETTING ACQUAINTED

friendship 35ff, 58f FTA, see face function 75f, 86f G gender 345 genre 12 goal 13f grounding 57, 258, 263, 294ff I identity 129ff, 136f implicature 62, 182, 184 inductivism 65f, 83 inference-rich categories 59f, 95, 130 Initiative Response Analysis 93f insert expansions 267f interpersonal relationships 25ff, 33ff interview, see post-recording interview involvement 49ff, 153–160, 240, 250, 321, 327–330 J joint action 15f joint activity, see activities joint construal 16f, 203f joint project 15f, 168, 259f M maxims 87, 182, 184 meaning 74ff mentionability, see reportability metacommunication 85f, 121, 127, 143, 279f methodology 64ff, 82–88 minimal responses 105ff, 188ff mutual knowledge 55f N narratives 52f, 176, 253f news announcements 176f, 216 norms 67f, 78f

IN

CONVERSATION

O occasioning 129, 200, 214, 225, 229 P participant orientation 69f, 85f, 92, 167, 242 participants 9f, 89, 343ff particles 62, 175, 195, 264f phases of conversation 116ff phatic communion 37f politeness 39ff, 78f, 81f negative politeness 41 positive politeness 41ff, 136f, 146f, 237ff, 251f post-recording interview 89, 321, 325f, 340f, 347ff power 28, 41 pragmatic principles 71f, 79f, 87, 172ff, 186f preference 80–82, 124 presentation phase 57 presentation-eliciting question 101ff, 136–143 presupposition 62, 154, 166f, 301, 314 procedural information 186–188 procedure 11f, 66f, 85 progressivity 184ff projectability 176ff Q quantitative/qualitative analysis 69, 85f questions 93f, 101ff, 118f R rationalism 73 rationality 77–79 reciprocity 133, 147, 154, 252ff, 324 recontextualization 200, 205–210, 229 recording situation 88f, 219f, 339ff reference 61, 202f, 220, 301 reflexivity 18f, 67, 161 relationships, see interpersonal relationships

SUBJECT INDEX repair 267, 277–279 repetition 190f reportability 173ff return markers 264ff role 22f rules 79–81, 87 S self 20ff, 33 self-disclosure 2ff, 20f, 137 self-oriented comment 110ff, 147ff self-presentation 22, 103, 129ff, 146f, 303–308, 313f, 320 self-presentational sequence 99ff, 232, 319f, 324f sequential organization 17f, 68, 74ff, 168ff, 262f, 291ff setting 8f setting talk 216f, 325 side sequences 124–129, 198–200, 258f digressions 280f, 303ff misplaced sequences 281–284 monitor sequences 279f other-initiated displays 273f other-initiated solicitations 274f parenthetical sequences 291f repair sequences 277–279 resource scanners 284–286 self-initiated displays 271f self-initiated solicitations 272 sequential implicativeness 291ff similarity 24, 29f, 43, 113–115, 148, 242ff situation 8f, 321f, 325 small talk 38, 217, 226

379

Social Penetration Theory 2f, 20ff, 26f, 137 Social Psychology 2f, 31f solidarity 28f, 32ff, 43, 147, 154f, 250 speech acts 14f, 74–76 stories, see narratives strategy 87f style 49ff T topic encyclopedic topics 218, 224ff, 240ff, 325f first topics 117f gradual topic shift 209f, 235 other-oriented topics 218, 231ff process view of topic 167–172 product view of topic 164–167 self-oriented topics 218, 227ff sensitive topics 137ff, 234f, 322f setting topics 217ff, 236ff topic closure 188ff, 223 topic introduction 117, 122ff, 171 topic leaps 195ff, 212ff topic proffering sequences 123f topic reintroduction 205, 214, 269f topic transition relevance places 188ff, 212ff topicalizers 108f, 173f turn-taking 17, 132ff, 188ff U uncertainty reduction 3f, 27 understanding 16f, 58, 73ff

Author Index A Altman, Irwin 2, 20f Ariel, Mira 61f, 294 Austin, John L. 14, 71, 73, 357 B Baxter, Leslie A. 30 Beavin, Janet H. 38 Benson, Anne 58 Berger, Charles R. 2, 20f, 26f, 334 Bergmann, Jörg R. 216, 220 Besnier, Niko 53 Bielby, Denise D. 24 Bilmes, Jack 73 Boden, Deirdre 24 Bradac, James J. 2, 20f, 26f, 334 Bredmar, Margareta 234f Brennan, Susan E. 57 Brown, Gillian 166f Brown, Julie L. 21, 32 Brown, Penelope 14, 19, 29ff, 40–46, 73, 78–82, 137, 148, 154f, 237, 247 Brown, Roger 28ff, 48 Bublitz, Wolfram 167f Button, Graham 123, 176f, 234 C Caffi, Claudia 34, 50, 53f Cameron, Deborah 78f Casey, Neil 123, 176f, 234 Chafe, Wallace 49f Chen, Yihsiu 61 Chilton, Paul 13, 78 Clark, Herbert H. 13–16, 19, 55–61, 168, 184, 258, 299, 313, 358 Coulthard, Malcolm 71 Coupland, Justine 24, 38, 357

Coupland, Nikolas 24, 38, 357 Crow, Bryan K. 209f D Dascal, Marcelo 50 van Dijk, Teun A. 164–166 Du Bois, John ix Duck, Steve 2 Duncan, Starkey 68f F Fiske, Donald W. 68f Foppa, Klaus 22 Fretheim, Thorstein 61 Fussell, Susan R. 61 G Gadamer, Hans-Georg 11 Garfinkel, Harold 64 Garvin-Doxas, Kathy 58f, 61 Geluykens, Ronald 165 Giles, Howard 24, 357 Gilman, Albert 28ff, 48 Ginsberg, Dorothy 32 Givón, T 202f, 358 Goffman, Erving 8-10, 22f, 25, 32, 36, 38, 60, 235f, 242, 251, 329, 357f Gottman, John 32 Grice, H. Paul 13ff, 77–80, 182, 184 Gumperz, John J. 11, 235f, 357 Gundel, Jeanette K. 61 Gustavsson, Lennart 93f, 204, 359f H Habermas, Jürgen 77, 357 Haviland, Susan E. 184 Hedberg, Nancy 61

382

GETTING ACQUAINTED

Heinemann, Trine 214f Heritage, John 17, 64f, 67f Holtgraves, Thomas 2, 20 Honeycutt, James M. 3 J Jackson, Don D. 38 Jackson, Sally 76 Jacobs, Scott 76 Janney, Richard W. 34, 50, 53f Jefferson, Gail 17, 69, 181, 192, 209f, 258f, 264, 267, 276f Juvonen, Päivi 93 K Katriel, Tamar 50 Keenan, Elinor 166f Kellermann, Kathy 3f Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine 44, 155, 357 Knapp, Mark L. 2, 20, 26f Korolija, Natascha 122, 168, 360 Krauss, Robert M. 61 L Labov, William 53, 57, 93, 154, 176, 192 Lakoff, Robin T. 49–51, 247, 329 Laver, John 23, 38, 217, 236 Leech, Geoffrey 39f, 78, 80, 357 Levinson, Stephen C. 10f, 14, 19, 29ff, 40–46, 73–75, 78–82, 137, 148, 154f, 237, 247 Lewis, David 62 Lim, Tae-Seop 3f Lind, Marianne 61 Linell, Per 12, 19, 93f, 122, 168, 204f, 234f, 359f Luckmann, Thomas 12 M Malinowski, Bronislaw 37f Marková, Ivana 19, 22 Marshall, Catherine M. 55f, 58, 61, 299 Maynard, Douglas 4f, 18, 59f, 161, 173, 188f, 202, 215f, 229, 231f, 240, 334

IN

CONVERSATION

Mey, Jacob L. 77 Morton, Teru L. 255 Moxey, Linda M. 202f P Parker, Jeffrey 32 Penman, Robyn 43f Planalp, Sally 58–61 Pomerantz, Anita 80f, 359 Psathas, George 66, 68–70, 168 R Robinson, Jeffrey D. 38 Rogers, Edna 21, 32 Rommetveit, Ragnar 19, 22 S Sacks, Harvey 17, 52, 59, 64f, 68f, 101f, 115, 123, 165f, 176, 181f, 191, 209, 217, 234f, 254, 267, 291, 305, 358 Sanford, Anthony J. 202f Sarangi, Srikant K. 13, 78 Schaefer, Edward F. 57 Schegloff, Emanuel 12, 17, 65–69, 92, 123f, 167f, 181f, 192, 235, 267, 289, 291f, 305, 358 Schieffelin, Bambi 166f Schiffrin, Deborah 73, 75, 202 Schneider, Klaus P. 5, 38, 217, 226, 334 Schutz, Alfred 54f, 58 Searle, John R. 14f, 71, 73 Simonsen, Christian 214f Sinclair, John 71 Skarbø, Marit G. 264 Slembrouck, Stefaan 13, 78 Slugoski, Ben R. 30f, 48 Spencer-Oatey, Helen 29, 32f Sperber Dan 62 Stenström, Anna-Brita 203 T Tannen, Deborah 24, 49–54, 153, 165, 358 Taylor, Dalmas A. 2, 20f Taylor, Talbot J. 78f

AUTHOR INDEX Turnbull, William 30f, 48 W Waletzky, Joshua 176, 192 Wardhaugh, Ronald 59f, 236 Watzlawick, Paul 38 Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna 258 Wilson, Deirdre 62 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 10f

383

Y Yule, George 166f Z Zacharski, Ron 61 Zimmerman, Don 4f, 59f, 161, 173, 215f, 229, 231f, 240, 334

In the PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1. WALTER, Bettyruth: The Jury Summation as Speech Genre: An Ethnographic Study of What it Means to Those who Use it. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988. 2. BARTON, Ellen: Nonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 3. OLEKSY, Wieslaw (ed.): Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 4. RAFFLER-ENGEL, Walburga von (ed.): Doctor-Patient Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 5. THELIN, Nils B. (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 6. VERSCHUEREN, Jef (ed.): Selected Papers from the 1987 International Pragmatics Conference. Vol. I: Pragmatics at Issue. Vol. II: Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Vol. III: The Pragmatics of Intercultural and International Communication (ed. with Jan Blommaert). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 7. LINDENFELD, Jacqueline: Speech and Sociability at French Urban Market Places. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 8. YOUNG, Lynne: Language as Behaviour, Language as Code: A Study of Academic English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 9. LUKE, Kang-Kwong: Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 10. MURRAY, Denise E.: Conversation for Action. The computer terminal as medium of communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 11. LUONG, Hy V.: Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings. The Vietnamese system of person reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 12. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): Discourse Particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 13. NUYTS, Jan, A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN and Co VET (eds): Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: a functional view. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 14. SCHWARTZ, Ursula: Young Children’s Dyadic Pretend Play. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 15. KOMTER, Martha: Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 16. MANN, William C. and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 17. PIÉRAUT-LE BONNIEC, Gilberte and Marlene DOLITSKY (eds): Language Bases ... Discourse Bases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 18. JOHNSTONE, Barbara: Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Paradigms, syntagms and the ecology of language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 19. BAKER, Carolyn D. and Allan LUKE (eds): Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Papers of the XII World Congress on Reading. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 20. NUYTS, Jan: Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. On cognition, functionalism, and grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 21. SEARLE, John R. et al.: (On) Searle on Conversation. Compiled and introduced by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992.

22. AUER, Peter and Aldo Di LUZIO (eds): The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 23. FORTESCUE, Michael, Peter HARDER and Lars KRISTOFFERSEN (eds): Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Papers from the Functional Grammar Conference, Copenhagen, 1990. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 24. MAYNARD, Senko K.: Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 25. COUPER-KUHLEN, Elizabeth: English Speech Rhythm. Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 26. STYGALL, Gail: Trial Language. A study in differential discourse processing. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1994. 27. SUTER, Hans Jürg: The Wedding Report: A Prototypical Approach to the Study of Traditional Text Types. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 28. VAN DE WALLE, Lieve: Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 29. BARSKY, Robert F.: Constructing a Productive Other: Discourse theory and the convention refugee hearing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 30. WORTHAM, Stanton E.F.: Acting Out Participant Examples in the Classroom. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 31. WILDGEN, Wolfgang: Process, Image and Meaning. A realistic model of the meanings of sentences and narrative texts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 32. SHIBATANI, Masayoshi and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 33. GOOSSENS, Louis, Paul PAUWELS, Brygida RUDZKA-OSTYN, Anne-Marie SIMONVANDENBERGEN and Johan VANPARYS: By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 34. BARBE, Katharina: Irony in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 35. JUCKER, Andreas H. (ed.): Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 36. CHILTON, Paul, Mikhail V. ILYIN and Jacob MEY: Political Discourse in Transition in Eastern and Western Europe (1989-1991). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 37. CARSTON, Robyn and Seiji UCHIDA (eds): Relevance Theory. Applications and implications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 38. FRETHEIM, Thorstein and Jeanette K. GUNDEL (eds): Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 39. HERRING, Susan (ed.): Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 40. DIAMOND, Julie: Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a closeknit social network. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 41. VENTOLA, Eija and Anna MAURANEN, (eds): Academic Writing. Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 42. WODAK, Ruth and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds): Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 43. JANSSEN, Theo A.J.M. and Wim van der WURFF (eds): Reported Speech. Forms and functions of the verb. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 44. BARGIELA-CHIAPPINI, Francesca and Sandra J. HARRIS: Managing Language. The

discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 45. PALTRIDGE, Brian: Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 46. GEORGAKOPOULOU, Alexandra: Narrative Performances. A study of Modern Greek storytelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 47. CHESTERMAN, Andrew: Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 48. KAMIO, Akio: Territory of Information. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 49. KURZON, Dennis: Discourse of Silence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 50. GRENOBLE, Lenore: Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 51. BOULIMA, Jamila: Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 52. GILLIS, Steven and Annick DE HOUWER (eds): The Acquisition of Dutch. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1998. 53. MOSEGAARD HANSEN, Maj-Britt: The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 54. HYLAND, Ken: Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 55. ALLWOOD, Jens and Peter Gärdenfors (eds): Cognitive Semantics. Meaning and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 56. TANAKA, Hiroko: Language, Culture and Social Interaction. Turn-taking in Japanese and Anglo-American English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 57 JUCKER, Andreas H. and Yael ZIV (eds): Discourse Markers. Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 58. ROUCHOTA, Villy and Andreas H. JUCKER (eds): Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 59. KAMIO, Akio and Ken-ichi TAKAMI (eds): Function and Structure. In honor of Susumu Kuno. 1999. 60. JACOBS, Geert: Preformulating the News. An analysis of the metapragmatics of press releases. 1999. 61. MILLS, Margaret H. (ed.): Slavic Gender Linguistics. 1999. 62. TZANNE, Angeliki: Talking at Cross-Purposes. The dynamics of miscommunication. 2000. 63. BUBLITZ, Wolfram, Uta LENK and Eija VENTOLA (eds.): Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it.Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24-27 April 1997. 1999. 64. SVENNEVIG, Jan: Getting Acquainted in Conversation. A study of initial interactions. 1999. 65. COOREN, François: The Organizing Dimension of Communication. 2000. 66. JUCKER, Andreas H., Gerd FRITZ and Franz LEBSANFT (eds.): Historical Dialogue Analysis. 1999. 67. TAAVITSAINEN, Irma, Gunnel MELCHERS and Päivi PAHTA (eds.): Dimensions of Writing in Nonstandard English. 1999. 68. ARNOVICK, Leslie: Diachronic Pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. 1999.

69. NOH, Eun-Ju: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metarepresentation in English. A relevance-theoretic account. 2000. 70. SORJONEN, Marja-Leena: Recipient Activities Particles nii(n) and joo as Responses in Finnish Conversation. n.y.p. 71. GÓMEZ-GONZÁLEZ, María Ángeles: The Theme-Topic Interface. Evidence from English. 2001. 72. MARMARIDOU, Sophia S.A.: Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. 2000. 73. HESTER, Stephen and David FRANCIS (eds.): Local Educational Order. Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. 2000. 74. TROSBORG, Anna (ed.): Analysing Professional Genres. 2000. 75. PILKINGTON, Adrian: Poetic Effects. A relevance theory perspective. 2000. 76. MATSUI, Tomoko: Bridging and Relevance. 2000. 77. VANDERVEKEN, Daniel and Susumu KUBO (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. n.y.p. 78. SELL, Roger D. : Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. 2000. 79. ANDERSEN, Gisle and Thorstein FRETHEIM (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. 80. UNGERER, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. 81. DI LUZIO, Aldo, Susanne GÜNTHNER and Franca ORLETTI (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. n.y.p. 82. KHALIL, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. 83. MÁRQUEZ REITER, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. 84. ANDERSEN, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. 85. COLLINS, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. 86. IFANTIDOU, Elly: Evidentials and Relevance. n.y.p. 87. MUSHIN, Ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. n.y.p. 88. BAYRAKTAROGLU, Arin and Maria SIFIANOU (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. n.y.p. 89. ITAKURA, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. n.y.p. 90. KENESEI, István and Robert M. HARNISH (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. 91. GROSS, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. n.y.p. 92. GARDNER, Rod: When Listeners Talk. n.y.p. 93. BARON, Bettina and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on feminity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. n.y.p.