of the second party, otherwise the first party's motivation for telling the story is vitiated (cf. "Well, never mind. It's not important," just in case the story prefacing fails to acomplish its aim). Similarly, establishing the transactional significance of many statements (other than stories) is accomplished by the use of idioms.
(to be continued)
Notes for Chapter 2:  (9/72) Investigatory Practices of Conversationalists

The problem that concerns us here is essentially the question of how do persons go about their routine business of finding something out while conversing or through conversing with each other. Without thinking too deeply about the problem we raise here it would seem that the solution could be rather straightforward. That is, if A wants to know the time, he may turn to B and ask what time it is. In some cases a question-answer strategy will succeed quite readily. However, even a superficial analysis of the problem will indicate right off that this particular solution will not work at all in some other routine cases. B may have reasons for withholding the answer because he does not wish A to know it or does not wish A to know that he knows the answer, in which cases he will use various strategies to avoid answering by deflecting the question, by pretending he did not hear or did not understand, by being evasive or ambiguous, or whatever. In that case, A's question-answer strategy will fail, and he will then give up, use another strategy, or postpone the attempt.

There is also the problem of how to formulate the question in order to find out something. In some cases where the issue of delicacy is relevant, A's success in getting B to tell him something may hinge on A's style or manner of broaching the subject. And in still some other cases A may know only vaguely what there is to be found out even though he knows there is something to be found and finally, A may not have anything on his mind at all but merely wishes to ascertain whether or not there is something he should be finding out. There is thus a whole range of problems to be looked at in connection with this question of how persons go about finding things out in and through conversational activities. We wish to analyze these problems in such a way as to show that conversationalists are constantly on the look-out for picking up information about each other and each other's environment and do so by practicing various kinds of investigatory strategies, and we wish to describe the nature of these activities.

To begin with, let us inquire about why it is that finding things out is important to conversationalists, why it matters to them to the extent that participants are forever oriented to doing such a thing. The problem is much broader than the issue of how to go about finding out specific sorts of bits of information such as what time it is or when George called or who said that. For it is the case that persons are expected to be knowledgeable about certain matters and it is upon expectations of this sort that a whole range of other conversational activities turn on for their possible execution. For instance, it makes a great deal of difference as to what happens in a conversation when the parties involved are differentially knowledgeable. If A and B are intimates, but C is not, then A and B cannot readily talk in the presence of C about matters that they otherwise would, matters that are perhaps too personal to be discussed with a stranger, or which require a shared background knowledge. There is then this business of how A and B get to the point where they can come to discuss certain matters with each other and how they are able to uphold such a relationship in view of the fact that they only see each other from time to time, even if it is daily, and they each are involved with a set of other persons with whom they interact separately. Furthermore, expectations about what a person is knowledgeable about are important in such routine activities as reporting, giving an account, or relating a story. Thus, a person relating an event in which he was somehow involved will typically use such indexical statements as "George was late for work again this morning" where the other parties to the conversation are expected to know (a) that it is George Simpson and not George Hendrix that is being referred to and (b) that George Simpson has been late for work in the past and that that has been a problem. Similarly, if the storyteller makes such statements as "the robber escaped via the fire exit staircase" it shows to the others that he knows what he is talking about since there indeed is such an open staircase in the building where the robbery took place, and therefore, he maintains the credibility value of other parts of the story in a way which would not be the case if he had said "The robbers took the color T.V." when it is known to the others that there was only a black and white television set in that home. If such a thing should happen, conversationalists will be seen to begin to worry about a credibility gap, and will right off attempt to correct it if possible (e.g., "You mean the black and white T.V."; "Yeah,"--making it out to be a mere slip of the tongue) or if that is not possible, will in some other ways attempt to explain the difference by making it out to be an unimportant detail and making sure that it casts no doubt on other "important" parts of the account.

It is plain, therefore, that being knowledgeable in particular ways about particular matters is of great importance to bringing off routine conversations successfully and we shall now examine the work that participants do to retain a proper knowledgeable status vis-a-vis others, that is, how they go about finding things out in and through conversation.

We shall consider three categories of events relating to three types of situations which we shall refer to as the cooperative situation, the neutral situation, and the adversary situation. In the cooperative situation all parties involved are jointly concerned with cooperating in the maintenance of a relationship whereby they keep each other informed about any new piece of information that should come up in the course of one's day-to-day activities. Superimposed upon the expectation that the parties be knowledgeable about relevant matters is another expectation that they will keep each other informed about any new relevant matter that may happen to come up. Thus, if some newsworthy event should happen to a member of such an intimate group, it is expected that he inform the others of this, and it can be seen that this latter expectation is closely related to the first expectation. That is, intimates will see it as their obligation to inform others of a newsworthy item, and to the extent that this obligation is observed, to that extent it contributes in a positive way to the expectation that parties be knowledgeable about each other's affairs. And as Sacks (1970) points out in connection with his discussion of telephone calls, intimates will go to all kinds of trouble to justify why they haven't called to inform some intimate of some newsworthy item that was found out through a third party, so as not to endanger their status as parties who have the kind of cooperative relationship vis-a-vis maintaining each other in a state of being kept informed (cf. "Hello."; "George?"; "Where have you been! I've been trying to call you all day yesterday to tell you that . . .").

In the adversary situation, the reverse holds, where B is trying to hide something from A, and will engage in all sorts of diversionary tactics to prevent A from knowing something. Strangers may be involved such that information item X is not of the sort that one would want the other to know about, for whatever reason, or intimates may be involved in a competitive situation such that a piece of information X is to be kept from B because it may be used against him in some way, or because he would lose face, or because it is considered to be C's secret," or whatever other reason may be involved.

In the neutral situation, A is trying to find out something from B for reasons that are personally relevant to him at any particular time and the nature of the information is such that B has no particular stake either in keeping it from A or has no particular prior obligation to keep A informed about it.

Now, the sorts of work that participants will do to find things out or to inform each other will be different in each of these three situations. One way of examining this business is to focus on the structure and function of transactional idioms that are used by participants in their investigatory practices. We shall see that such an examination will embroil us in a whole new set of factors that are important for conversations, such as setting-up tactics by which we mean to refer to such problems as how to raise a particular topic one wishes to raise, at which point in the conversation is it to be done, and how one is to assess whether or not the intended topic has been successfully raised.

To begin with, let us focus on a set of events that occur at the beginning of conversations that may be related to this issue. Consider such a common routine as "Hi.; Hi; How are you?; Fine. And you?; Not too bad. What's new?; Oh, nothing. What's new with you?; Nothing." What's going on in such an exchange? One thing that is plainly going on is that the participants are getting into the business of striking up a conversation and in order to accomplish that they go through this kind of a routine. But to understand in a deeper sense what is going on we must look at a particular exchange such as this one as a member of a class of events that occur at the beginning of conversations that has to do with the attempt to get to the beginning of the conversation. Thus, such routines must be seen in terms of what it is that they accomplish for the purpose of getting into the beginning of a conversation, as for instance, getting to the first topic of this conversation. Thus, the second utterance of the first party "How are you?" can be seen as an opportunity he is providing to the second party to get on to a first topic, just in case the second party wants to avail himself of the opportunity. If he doesn't wish to do so he may decline the offer by saying "Fine. And you?" Now, it is the second party that extends the same opportunity to the first party of getting on to the first topic, just in case he should wish to do so. If he chooses to decline, the first party then can say "Not too bad. What's new?", thus giving the other a second chance to raise a first topic. Again, the second party may decline, and simultaneously return the ball to the first party by saying "Oh, nothing. What's new with you?", which can again be declined by saying "Nothing." At this point, the two parties have reached a critical point in the conversation. They have gone through several times the routine of offering the other the opportunity of raising a first topic, but no first topic has been raised by either. Now, they are standing around being still in a standing conversation but with nothing to talk about. In that case, they are in danger of becoming embarrassed unless one of them does something either to come up with a first topic or ending the conversation right then and there by going into a leave-taking routine. If the latter happens, not only have they failed in beginning a conversation and therefore getting on to some topic either of them or both wished to get on to, but also, they have gone through a topicless exchange which can be variously embarrassing since it indicates that they have the kind of meaningless relationship where they have nothing to say to each other.

If, however, one of the parties chooses to avail himself of the opportunity of raising a first topic, his immediate problem, then, is which topic and how. Now, if A has a particular topic on his mind that he wishes to discuss with B, he may do so right off at the first opportunity (cf."Say, you know I'm planning to go on a sabbatical next semester. Do you know when the deadline is for applications?") But, as Sacks (1970) points out there may be a number of reasons why he may not wish to make this topic the first topic of the conversation, because he does not wish to make it out to be such an important thing as deserving the status of a first topic, given the fact that first topics do potentially have that kind of importance status, since people do tend to remember things like that (cf. "It was the first thing he told me.") and it is the case that some topics must be treated as first topics, if at all, it being odd to say something about it later in the conversation (cf. "By the way, did you hear that my house burned down last night."). So, it may be necessary for the person introducing a first topic to stay away from the topic he really is concerned about, and instead, he must find a way of introducing some other topic.

There are thus avoidance tactics that a party uses to postpone a topic he wishes to introduce and avoidance tactics designed to prevent the other party from introducing a topic you know he wants to introduce, as well as the reverse case where they mutually help each other to get on to something. Again, we can examine transactional idioms participants use to carry these things off in a successful manner. Take for instance, such things as "Well, how is your mother?" or "What's new with the Carlson case?" or "Have you heard about your promotion application yet?" These sorts of, vague openers are safer than more direct attacks on the topic such as "Is your mother still in the hospital?" (whereupon he may be informed that she had gone home two days before and lose face in that he did not know something an intimate should have known), or Has your promotion gone through" (which may get the reply that it has been turned down with possible loss of face to both parties).

There are then these various sorts of ways that a participant can broach a topic without directly referring to it, or beat around the bush as a way of leaving it up to the other how extensively he wishes to go into it, or postponing or delaying certain specific references, all of which has to do with setting-up transactions whose purpose it is to get on to something else in an indirect way, yet getting on to it.

There are also all sorts of ways which participants use to hide the fact that they are not knowledgeable about a matter they figure they ought to know about. Mere silence or a performed assent to "You know?" are simple tactics to avoid revealing one's ignorance in which cases the person banks upon the fact that later parts of the conversations will be informative as to what he now misses, or else, that the topic will change before he is found out, and though we have not examined this in detail, it occurs to us that ordinary conversatlons are structured in such a way as to allow parties to collude in each other's ignorance by using appropriate clues as to when it is in order to switch topics for the purpose of avoiding the mutually embarrassing consequences of the discovery that one or Both parties are less knowledgeable about something than what would be expected by prior claims.
[to be continued]

(continue here)