[Invited contribution to a jubilee volume in honor of Professor D. Kostic, Founder of the Institute for Experimental Phonetics, Yugoslavia, August 1978.]
There is no need to review here the history of
"psycholinguistics" but only to point out, that it is only in this
decade, that psycholinguists have begun the study of natural talk.À We were trained as graduate students in the
North American intellectual climate of a pragmatized structuralism and
functionalism.À BYG was indoctrinated in
the descriptive and applied linguistics of Bloomfield and Fries, and LAJ was
trained in the psychology of neuropsychological behaviorism (Lambert, Hebb,
Osgood).À The psycholinguistics of the
1950's was preoccupied with conditioning and semiotics:À the acquisition of sign-function and its
semantic features.À The word was the
methodological unit of inquiry as shown by the topics of the investigations of
that period:À the effects of word-frequency;
similarity and synonymy word-association clustering effects; verbal learning of
pained associates; tachistoscopic perception of words and their emotionality
value; Atlases of semantic differentiation; stimulus generalization; phonetic
articulation; semantic satiation; and many others where the word was the unit
for investigating the psycholinguistic laws of language behavior (see James
& Miron, 1967, for representative articles).
However,
two separate developments in the 1960's helped clarify the idea that the laws
of language behavior are to be found beyond the unit of the word.À One development was the spread of the
Ethnomethodology School, and the second, the importation of ideas from the British
School.À Both introduced a new paradigm,
which allowed a methodology of natural talk.
In our own
history, we encountered the ethnomethodological school through the work of
Goffman, Garfinkel, and Sacks (see References).À From their writings we acquired conceptual tools for studying
language behavior as a sociopsychological phenomenon; that is, that language
behavior in natural situations was a spontaneous, reactive phenomenon.À Discourse production was to be seen as a natural
biological phenomenon, hence, responsive to environmental effects.À Sociologists Goffman, Garfinkel, and Sacks
took social organization on the daily round as the basis for defining the
functional units of language behavior.À
As sociologists, they viewed the analysis of natural talk as a task in
uncovering the effective social stimuli that made possible the successful
accomplishment of ordinary transactional routines.À Discourse production thus became a medium for transactional
exchanges.À The unit of analysis thus
becomes the transaction; not the word, but an 'exchange of words'!!
The second development that shifted our theoretical position
from the word to the exchange was the work of the British Ordinary Language School
(see Stein- berg & James, 1971, for representative articles).À Here we acquired the idea that discourse and
talk operate through ethnosemantic conventions - the meaning of the message is
carried along with the universalized support of presuppositions and
implications. Thus, the unit of language behavior must relate to the social
context of the situation.À There exist
operational rituals for transaction topical exchanges, and these commonly held
operations provide a motivational direction to talk.
In summary, then, we started with the word as the unit, and
we moved beyond it, to the transactional exchange. We would like to discuss
some theoretical and practical issues involving this new focus for
psycholinguistics. The accompanying table presents the focal issues in our own
theoretical development.
DecadeÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Unit of AnalysisÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Theoretical Issues
1940'sÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ basic patternsÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ grammatical form classes
and contrastive structural analyses;
Àdevelopmental hierarchies
1950'sÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ the wordÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ psycholinguistics; conditioning;
semiotics; acquisition of sign-function
1960'sÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ (i) the exchangeÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ethnornethodology; social
organization on the daily round
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ (ii) the transactionÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ordinary language philosophy; speech acts theory
1970'sÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ the situated displayÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ethnosemanties; argument logic;
role-type
Shifting
focus from the word to the exchange is accompanied by the realization that all
discourse is interactional discourse, i. e., discourse is produced by more than
one individual.À This is of course most
obvious in the study of conversation where it appears that participants take
turns at talk:À it is clear that the
discourse visible in a transcript is interactionally produced.À But this is equally true in both writing and
in interior dialog where there appears to be only one person producing the
discourse. However, it is a matter of common observation that writers change
their discourse in response to the intended or imagined audience, showing that
it too is a form of interactionally produced discourse.À In self-talk (or interior dialog), the
person acts as if there is an audience:À
reports of interior dialog produce transcript-like segments in which the
person addresses himself or herself using the pronouns [I, you, we] along with
the appropriate verb form, thus indicating that the discourse produced in
self-talk is also a derivative form of interactional discourse.
The analysis of interactional discourse hinges on the
recognition that discourse production is a spontaneous reactive
phenomenon.À By analyzing the
organizational structure of interactional discourse one in effect investigates
the structure and operation of a social psychological phenomenon.À The laws of social interaction are uncovered
through a close analysis of the setting in which the discourse is a by-product.À Discourse is thus seen as a medium within which
interactions are transacted.À This
presupposes the notion that a discourse intervention by a participant counts as
a move.À The functional significance of
discourse derives therefore from its significance as a transactional move.À Pre-established rituals of talk organize
transactional moves.À These procedural
operations are acquired as part of one's ordinary social competence on the
daily round. We would like to explore so theoretical issues that arise from
this perspective.
II Theoretical
Issues
The primary
theoretical issue that arises as one moves beyond the word to the social
exchange, is the explanation of connectedness at two separate levels of
operation.À The idea of 'having an
exchange of words' implies the minimal dyadic arrangement, and we follow the
ethnomethodologists in the technique of dividing conversational exchanges into
turns at talk, or talking turns. ÀThe
taling turn (TT) is one level of organization for interactional discourse, i.
e., discourse produced by more than one talker.
Another level of organization for the connectedness of
natural discourse is what we would call the "within turn"
organization, i. e., the discourse produced by a single individual during his
turn at talk. The following diagram depicts this description and points to some
implications.
CONNECTEDNESS
IN INTERACTIONAL
DISCOURSE
(= NATURAL TALK)
(DYNAMIC LEVELS)
Betwen Tuun PrinciplesÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Within
Turn Principles
1. Participant-oriented
featuresÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 1.
Situated comment is minimal topic
ÀÀÀ (= ethnomethodology).ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀÀÀÀunit.
2. Exchanges are managed.ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2.
A move raises a contention point.
3. Episodes are situated.ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3.
Topicalization is the resolution of
ÀÀÀÀ contention
points.
4. Transactional function
given by
ÀÀÀ exchanges slot, i. e., locus.
13 Zbornik radova
THEORETICAL ISSUES
A.À Sequencing devices.ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ A. Utterance
units are moves.
B.À Boundary limits.ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ B. Topic
has transactional function.
C.À Transactional moves.ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ C. Topic = labeled
topical elements.
D.À Face-work.
E.À Relationship history (reputation; identity).
F.À Community-Cataloguing Practices (CC'S).
We shall
explore here only the theoretical implications of between-turn connectedness
and present the direction of our current work dealing with the social
psychology of language behavior or, "sociopsycholinguistics."
III Some
Syntactic Properties of Conversational Interaction
A first practical issue to be resolved about the common phenomenon
of conversation is represented by the question, "What's going on in the
conversation?"À We follow here the
ethnomethodological dictum that the answer to this question must exclude anything,
which cannot be demonstrated to be a feature to which participants are
oriented.À This stricture insures that
the theoretical explanation objectively matches the actual units that govern
the organization of verbal exchanges.À By
"actual units" we mean to designate the features of the social
exchange which conversationalists are oriented to notice by virtue of their
common socialization training. In other words, the phenomenon of conversation
is viewed as a managed exchange - managed by the participants according to
shared rituals of operation.À The
question then arises as to how the interactional exchange is successfully managed
by the participants; more specifically, what mechanisms are there for
regulating the sequence of turns in a conversation? The mechanisms to be
described must be mechanism that are actually used, and these are perforce
dependent on the noticing of the participants when to talk, when to say what, when
to acknowledge, disagree, change topics, and so on.
To proceed with this task, then, we begin by defining the
minimal unit of exchange as a situated episode.À An "episode" is a sociopsychological concept.À It derives from Goffman's work on the nature
of ritual behavior on the "daily round." All social behavior is
situated in time and place.À A
"setting" is defined as a time/place specification for routine
activities in a community. For example, our students in social psychology are
given the exercise of recording, minute by minute, the course of a day. Here is
a sample:
TimeÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Place,
Circumstance, Activity
7:35 A.M.ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ (i) 5 min.; (ii) at home; (iii) me
and Rob; (iv) talking about what to have for breakfast.
7:50 A.M.ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ (i) 15 min.; (ii) in bathroom; (iii) me;
(iv) doing personal chores.
8:15 A.M.ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ (i) 25 min., (ii) in the living room;
(iii) me and Rob; (iv) eating breakfast.
etc.
With this
technique, which we call logging activities, one can arrive at a local
ethnography of community settings.À It
is, in other words, a daily round map that empirically specifies the available
settings in a community.À With such a
map as a reference point, episodes may now be investigated as a function of the
setting within which the exchange occurs.À
The following diagram depicts these relationships:
STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTSÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ FUNCTIONAL
COMPONENTS
community
map of available settingsÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ritual
or routinized operational
obtained through records of
loggingÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ sequences
called "episodes" on the
activities (= time/place
specifications).ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ daily
round and localized on the
community map of available settings.
We shall
present a transcript segment, prepared by a student, and illustrate some
techniques that are possible for investigating the functional components of situated
episodes (Winskowski, 1977).
Transcript
segment:À A and B are friends in their
early twenties.À B is A's boyfriend and has
come to pick up A at her house.À As the
doorbell rings, A opens the door, holding a tape recorder in her hands.
1. B:À Hi.À
[opening front door.]
2. B:À What's up?À
[gesturing to the tape recorder.]
3. A:À I'm taperecording you.
4. B:À Are you kidding me?
5. A:À Nope.
6. B:À But what am I supposed to say?
7. A:À Whatever you want.À [walking in the kitchen.]
8. B:À Well, what a nice bunch of groceries you've
got.À [said in the exaggerated tone of
Little Red Riding
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Hood, exaggerated tone, seeing two
shopping bags on the table]
9. A.À How 'bout that.
10.
B:À That's very nice.
11.
A:À Amusing, eh?
12.
B:À Uh, huh.
13.
A:À I got most of my gear together
except I gotta get something of ...
14. C:À Randy, you're on time.À What's wrong with you? [C is A's mother who
just walked into the kitchen]
15. B:À No, I'm not.À I'm fifteen minutes late.
16.
A:À You're fifteen minutes late, you
know.À Did you know that.
17.
D:À Hi, Randy.À [D is A's father who walked in with C in (14)]
18.
B:À Hi.
ÀÀÀÀÀ etc. etc.
The accompanying table
presents a first-order analysis of the structural and functional components of
this transcript segment.
ÀÀÀÀÀ STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTSÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ FUNCTIONAL
COMPONENTS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ EPISODAL SEQUENCE
TALKING TURNSÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ SETTING
LOCALEÀÀÀÀ ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ OF OPERATION
ÀÀÀÀÀ 1? 2ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ front door exchangeÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ greeting sequence
ÀÀÀÀÀ 3-?12ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ walking
into the kitchenÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ playtalk
sequence
ÀÀÀÀÀ 13ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ in
the kitchenÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ interrupted
topic switch
ÀÀÀÀÀ 14?15ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ in the kitchenÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ greeting sequence
ÀÀÀÀÀ 16ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ in
the kitchenÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ playtalk
intervention
ÀÀÀÀÀ 17?18ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ in the kitchenÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ greeting sequence
Note that we?ve arranged the interactional discourse recorded on the
tape in terms of six parts, which we call bracketed segments of the
conversation.À The first segment
comprises the structural units of talking turns 1 and 2, which occurred at the
front door. This setting is familiar to the participants:À both share common ritual sequences known as
?greeting? ? a ritual that occurs when two acquainted participants suddenly
find themselves in face-to-face contact.À
In other words, TT?s (?taking turns?) 1 and 2 are structurally localized
(episodal openers) and functionally standardized (greeting).
To demonstrate the funcional properties of this
syntactic œslot? one need only consider alternative forms that might occur
there without change of function: e.g.,
a1:À What?s up?
a2:À Hi.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ a3:À Well, whatcha got here?
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ A:ÀÀÀÀÀ HiÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ B:
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ a4:À I?ll wait for you in the car.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ a5:À Hello, there, sweetheart.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ etc.
The set of alternatives
a is a form class whose items distribute themselves over variable topical
dimensions, but remain functionally equivalent, being each a greeting response,
thanks to their structural location as episodal openers.
This observation leads
us to a fundamental principle of interactional discourse production, namely,
that transactional function and topical content are independent.À For
example, TT (11), has a form class aa, as follows:
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ aa1:À Uh, huh.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ aa2:À You think so?
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ aa3:À Not really.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 11.À Amusing, eh?ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 12.
B:
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ aa4:À Fantastic!
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ aa5:À Yup.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ etc.
The
sum of the sets of alternatives available in a talking turn, i.e.,
S [a, aa, aaa...i]TT
may be called the display repertoire
of the verbalizing community.À Through
socialization, training, and experience, a conversationalist acquires a
certain portion of the culturally available display repertoire.À Individual variations exist in available
responses to a talking turn.À Skilled
conversationalists have available a greater range of the verbalizing
community?s display repertoire than those who are less skilled.À We may speak here of social or transactional
competence.À One strategy in becoming a
better œtransactional engineer? would presumably be to (i) catalogue the set of
alternatives available in particular conversational slots, and (ii) learn
them.À Step (i) amounts to making a
local ethnography of social settings by some natural history technique (as in?
logging activities?, discussed above).À
Step (ii) amounts to becoming acculturated, i. e. learning standardized
patterns of topical interventions.À The
latter may be recognized as the perennial problem of the young, the visitors,
and the foreigners:À ?What shall I say,
When, and How?!??À Assimilation and
re-educational training can be viewed as attempts to enlarge an individual?s
set of alternatives in interactional discourse ? but enlarge in a particular
direction, namely, the direction of greater overlap between the individual?s
current performances and the target œnorm?.À
This element is not fixed, but operates within a œrange of normalcy?
(Goffman?s term).À Episodal exchanges
are progressive, i.e. they wind down from œopenings? to œclosings? (Sacks;
Shegloff).À At any point within this
sequence a participant may find himself ?at a loss for words.? This is a ?normal?
occurrence on the daily round.À Yet
because episodes perforce wind down, there must be mechanisms for re-starting so
that the closing exchange may ultimately occur.À This mechanism also operates when one is œat a loss for words?,
at which time one restarts, viz., begins a new bracketed section of the
conversation.
We
can summarize the above considerations by stating the following empirical
hypotheses about the character of conversational interaction:
Hypothesis 1: participants as particularized surface variations of a form
class the items of which have the same transactional significance or function treat
verbalized utterances in a talking turn treat verbalized utterances in a
talking turn.
Hypothesis 2:À
The first pair of talking turns, i. e. the first ?adjacency pair?
(Sacks? term), in a conversational episode is treated by participants as a
greeting opener.
Hypothesis 3:À The transactional or functional
significance of a talking turn is jointly recognized by participants in
accordance with a transactional code which they share by virtue of their common
membership in a verbalizing community.
We may state a fourth hypothesis upon considering TT (2) in which participant B says, ?What?s up? ? while gesturing towards the tape recorder held up by A upon opening the front door.
Hypothesis 4:À
Any publicly noticeable change in the ?normalcy? status of the environment
(Goffman?s term) is a routinely available candidate for being made the topic of
an utterance in a talking turn.
When we consider that the utterances in one talking turn have a
functional relation to utterances in adjacent turns (before and after), we are
led to a notion, discussed by Sacks and others, known as ?the setting-up-move.?
Hypothesis 5:À
There is a class of utterances, known as general purpose inquiries, that
when uttered in a talking turn, will be treated by participants as serving to
set-up the immediately next alternating talking turn such that it will contain
a move that will constitute a justificatory comment on a readily noticeable
environmental event.
Hypothesis 6:À
If a talking turn is made up of an utterance of the class belonging to a
general purpose inquiry, it will be seen by participants to serve as a
setting-up move for the utterance in the immediately next alternating talking
turn such that it, in turn, will be seen as a directed response, a supportive
move, a reply, a remedy.
The fifth
and sixth hypotheses are general formulations that have the merit of showing up
the common structural basis of a large class of conversational events that
relate to the sequential aspects of alternating talking turns.À Next, when we consider talking turns (3) ?
(12), we note that they constitute a bracketed segment of the episodal
exchange.À This leads us to the
formulation of the next hypothesis.
Hypothesis 7:À
There is a class of conversational events in the form of an exchange of
alternating talking turns that is bracketed from other parts of the conversation,
and where the bracketed exchange is seen by participants as specifically
different from adjoining conversational material, this difference being that it
is to be seen as semi-serious or ?play talk? in contradistinction to the rest
which is seen as serious.
The seven hypotheses
outlined above imply the existence of three types of functional mechanisms in
conversational interaction.À First, we
may mention the mechanism of sequencing devices.À Given that talk proceeds through time, the events that take place
in it must be ordered in some way, and a description of these ordering
procedures is what?s called for in the elaboration of conversational sequencing
devices.À Second, we may mention the
mechanism of boundary limits in bracketed sections of conversation.À The function of boundary limits is to
indicate to participants where some event begins and where it ends.À We?ve reviewed some of the elements of
boundary limits, namely, talking turns, adjacency ? pairs, opening sections, and
closing sections, and play talk sections. Third, we may mention the mechanism
of transactional moves.À The function of
transactional moves is to indicate to participants the significance of a
conversational display (utterance or gesture) for their relationship, i.e. for their behavioral or interactional
implications.À Thus, sequencing
devices, boundary limits, and transactional moves are theoretical mechanisms
that are available to participants for ordering the sequence of talking turn
utterances within a conversational episode.À
The elaborations of these mechanisms in Hypotheses 1 through 7, stated
above, attempt to show that conversational displays (in gestures or in
utterances) are treatable as transactional moves whose significance derives
from their structural properties, that is to say, their locus of occurrence in
the conversation.À By ?locus? we mean
such things as sequence of talking turns, boundary limits of the bracketed
section they belong to, place of that section within the overall episode, and
type of relationship of participants as implied by previous history of joint
conversational episodes.
We have reached here a
crucial stage in our theory building.À
Since the list of empirical hypotheses (as proposed above) is
potentially open-ended or indefinitely large, we need an explanatory mechanism
that accounts for the occurrence of an indefinitely large number of
transactional sequences, as one observes regularly in the continuing round of
episodes on the daily schedule.À In
other words the listing of empirical hypotheses about natural talk is a
descriptive stage of data processing (taxonomy?).À We now need a process-valued function that sets talking matter in
motion, and direct movement towards an objectively identifiable goal.À We shall refer to this post-taxonomic phase
as the psychodynamics of talk.
Goffman?s elaborated notions on ?face work? serves as the starting point for our proposal relating to the motivational dynamics of talk.À The dialectic of offense and remedy is posited as the generating mechanism. Utterances and gestures are displays, or display presentations, or performances.À Displays are organized as moves in transactional sequences.À Moves have direct œface work? implications; i.e. moves are indices to a person?s transactional reputation.À Each utterance or gesture displayed within a talking turn carries a tram actional function.À The transactional value of a talking intervention is either positive or negative.À When positive, the move counts as a remedy; when negative, it counts as an offense.
The dialectic of remedy
and offense provides us with the theoretical starting point for evolving and
explanatory account for the connectedness between talking turns in a
conversational episode.À We have pointed
out at the outset of this section that the answer to, ?What?s going on in this
conversation?? must allow only elements which pertain to what the participant
themselves orient to, as the episode winds down to a closing.À We need therefore a notation system for
recording the occurrences of noticing
during talk.À Let us call this type of
record a relationship history.
It is intuitively valid that the transactants to an episode have a coding system for keeping track of the episode?s evolution.À Thus, topics that occur earlier are pre-supposed in subsequent bracketed sections of the conversation. As well, there is left an impression of the quality of the transactional face work ? whether pleasant, friendly, involving, or their opposites.À And finally, there is a sense of the episode?s context, in time, place, and schedule on the daily round.
It is, then, intuitively
valid to presuppose, in natural talk, the existence of methods participants use
to keep track of the directionality and cumulative value of each other?s face
work.À This cumulative record serves to
reify the mediating mechanisms of interactions, i.e. the reputation and
identity of co-transactants.
Relationship
history is the cumulative record of episodal interactions between two
individuals.À Individuals use standard
methods of keeping track.À Oarfinkel
calls these methods ?accounting practices? while we refer to them as ?community
cataloguing practices? or ?CCP?s? (see James & Gordon, 1975?77).
To recapitulate, we are proposing that the directional syntax, which generates the organizational sequencing of transactional moves in social episodes, is the dialectic of offense and remedy in face work.À This motivational dynamic gives a goal-orientation to conversational exchanges, and accounts for the natural winding down of all episodes.À Participants have standardized methods for keeping a cumulative record of each other?s relationship history.À These standardized methods for keeping track reify reputation and identity.À Now we are proposing to investigate these cataloguing-practices that must form part of ordinary social competence on the daily round.À By generating such data we are preparing the components needed for explaining the connectedness of utterances in interactional discourse.À The explanation of this connectedness will involve explaining, (i) how participants keep track of what?s going on, i.e. the features of the setting they orient to, notice, and code into a cumulative record; (ii) how the cumulative record reifies the natural phenomena of reputation and identity; and (iii) how reputation and identity provide a mechanism for relating moves to each other, i.e. for explaining the connectedness of utterances in a conversation.
We can only present here
a brief account of our work thus far, but in any case, that work is only
initial, our interest here being, to offer some possible directions, which we
are finding fruitful (James & Gordon, 1978; 1979).
The Daily Round Archives
or ?DRA? as our students refer to it, can be viewed as a local ethnography of a
community?s daily round cataloguing-practices.À
What gets kept track of provides the investigator with the data needed
to map the social settings and indicate their œsociodynamic value?, i.e. their
influencing effects on the behavior of participants.À The DRA files at the University of Hawaii are prepared and
catalogued by students who are trained in psycholinguistic techniques applied
to the natural history description of community life. We have been using
ethnosemantic-sampling techniques for building a cumulative catalog of social
occasions on the daily round of our students.À
A portion of the current taxonomy is shown in the accompanying table:
DRA CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
I.ÀÀÀ MAJOR
CLASSIFICATION LEVEL
ZONE 1: ÀBIOGRAPHIC RECORD
ZONE 2:À TRIBE
ZONE 3:À ROLE
ZONE 4: ÀPSYCHOHISTORY
ZONE 5: ÀTERRITORIALITY
ZONE 6: ÀAPPEARANCE
ZONE 1: ÀBIOGRAPHIC
RECORD
ZONE 2: ÀTRIBE
À2A MY TALK
À2B CONNECTIONS
À2C FAMILY TREE
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3A ÀLOGGING ACTIVITIES
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3B SITUATED INTERIOR DIALOGUE
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3C SITUATED STANDARDIZED IMAGININGS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3D SITUATED PSYCHOLOGIZINGS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3E SITUATED SENSATIONS AND FEELINGS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3F SITUATED FEELING ARGUMENTS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3G SITUATED FANTASY/DAYDREAM EPISODES
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 3J ÀSOCIAL MEMBERSHIPS
ÀÀÀÀÀ À4A
SITUATED ATTRIBUTIONS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 4B SITUATED EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 4C SITUATED JUDGMENTS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 4D INTERVIEWING THE SELF
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5A REGULAR LISTS AND BELONGINGS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5B ROUTINE CONCERNS: SELECTED
INVENTORIES
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5C NOTICING OBSERVATIONS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5D DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTIONS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5E TRANSACTIONAL STRATEGIES: EPISODES
WHEN I:
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5F DECLARATIONS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5G SLOGANS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5H EPITHETS
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5I HANGOUTS AND GROUP ACTIVITIES
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5J REPORTING JOINT ACTIVITIES
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 5K NON-JOINT ACTIVITIES
ÀÀÀÀÀ ZONE 6:À APPEARANCE
ÀÀÀÀÀ À6A
INTERVIEWING OTHERS
MICRO-CLASSIFICATION LEVELS
ÀÀÀÀÀ ZONE 1:À BIOGRAPHIC RECORD
ÀÀÀÀÀ 1A MY VITA
À 1A1 Current Status in Community
À 1A2 Background
À 1A3 Topic Focus
À 1A4 Personal
À 1A4.1 Ambitions
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ À 1A4.3 Fears
ÀÀÀÀÀ ZONE 2:À TRIBE
ÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2A MY TALK
ÀÀ 2A1 Analysis of Argument Logic
ÀÀ 2A1.1 Schema of Argument Structure
ÀÀ 2A1.2 Description of Operational Talking
Procedures.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2A2 Analysis of Relationship
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2A2.3 Tabulation of Pair Types
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2A2.4 Tabulation of Role Types
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2A3 Analysis of Sequence
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2A3.1 Schema for Move
Embeddings
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2A4.1 Discourse Analysis
2A4.2 Tabulation of Derivative Relations
2A4.3 Tabulation of
Implicit Meanings
2A4.4 Tabulation of the
Rhythm of Exchange
2A4.5 Transactional
Engineering Through Talk
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ 2A5 Analysis of Topic
2A5.1 Breakdown of
Topics Exchanged
2A5.2 Topical
Annotations
2A5.3 Topical Chart of
Transcript
2A5.4 Topicalization Dynamics
2A6 Transcript Annotations
2A6. 1 Explanations