UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The social organization of conversational narrative : a methodological contribution to linguistic discourse… Spielmann, Roger Willson 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A1 S66.pdf [ 13.29MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096657.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096657-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096657-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096657-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096657-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096657-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096657-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096657-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096657.ris

Full Text

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF CONVERSATIONAL NARRATIVE: A Methodological Contribution to Linguistic Discourse Analysis v i a Conversational Analysis by ROGER WILLSON SPIELMANN B.A., Warner Pacific College, 1976 M.A., University of Texas, Arlington, 1977 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FU^TJJLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Sociology)  We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1984 /(S) Roger Willson Spielmann, 1984  In  presenting  an  advanced  the  Library  I  this  degree shall  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by  his  of  this  thesis at  it  may  representatives.  written  for  freely  permission  purposes  thesis  financial  is  of  C  The U n i v e r s i t y  of  British  10  O C T .  1  my  of  Columbia,  British  by  for  gain  Q-y  shall  the  that  not  requirements 1 agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying  t h e Head o f  understood  Columbia  2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  of  for extensive  be g r a n t e d  It  fulfilment  available  permission.  Department  Date  partial  the U n i v e r s i t y  make  that  in  of  this  or  that  study. thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t  my  ABSTRACT  This thesis examines s t o r i e s bold i n natural conversation with an interest i n discovering and describing s o c i a l features of conversational discourse.  Sociology  narrative structures, in  discourse  and  has  begun  to  develop  a  and t h i s interest p a r a l l e l s seeks  to  make  the  strong  interest  the current  sociological  conversational analysis relevant to discourse a n a l y s i s ,  in  interest  enterprise  of  particularly in  r e l a t i o n to narrative. The data years  for  (1979-83).  this  study were collected  over a period of  Approximately 19 hours of tape-recorded  recorded i n a v a r i e t y of  situations  were c o l l e c t e d .  four  conversations  After  a lengthy  period of l i s t e n i n g to the tapes, instances where stories are told were isolated tellings,  and and  transcribed, responses  and were  structural subjected  features  to  formal  of  prefacings,  analysis.  The  a n a l y t i c a l techniques used i n this study were f i r s t developed by Harvey Sacks and h i s students. the discourse for  describing  The contribution of t h i s study i s  analyst with a set ethnographic  of well-defined discovery  features  which  procedures  influence discourse.  ethnographic interest has two d i s t i n c t i v e features; t o members' p r a c t i c e s ,  to provide  The  (1) i t i s oriented  and (2) i t i s 'micro' i n character, oriented to a  close reading of interactions i n context.  ii  In characters  the  analytical  may  be  chapters  formulated  (3-6),  the  thesis  i n the narratives  explores  and what  i n t e r a c t i o n a l work gets done (Chapter 3 ) , the interactional of c o l l a t e r a l  information i n narrative t e l l i n g  how narratives get generated narrative response  from p r i o r ongoing  chapter  methodology  summarising and  i t s original  findings  of  importance  talk  (Chapter 5 ) , and Throughout the  i n r e l a t i n g the findings of the study  with current findings i n discourse analysis. a  kinds of  sequences (Chapter 4 ) ,  types and preferences (Chapter 6 ) .  thesis an interest i s maintained  how  contribution  the study  findings i n discourse analysis.  iii  The thesis concludes with and  relating  the  to recent methodologies  and  TABLE OF CONTENTS  v^ix  PREFACE CHAPTER ONE: LINGUISTIC DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS  1  Introductory Remarks  1  Scope of the Study  7  LINGUISTIC DISCOURSE ANALYSIS  10  Bloomfield, Chomsky, and Beyond  12  Assumptions About Language in Linguistic Discourse Analysis  16  Discourse Types  18  Monologue and Repartee  23  Linguistic Pragmatics  26  CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS  28  The Goffman Factor  29  Ethnomethodology  35  Sacksian Analysis  38  Differences Between Conversational Analysis and Linguistic Discourse Analysis  40  METHODOLOGY  46  Conclusion  48 iv  CHAPTER TTO:  CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING  55  Studies i n Narrative  55  Sacksian Studies i n Conversational Storytelling  61  Production and Recognition i n Conversational Storytelling...68 Conclusion  71  CHAPTER THREE: FIRST MENTION CHARACTER REFERENCES IN NARRATIVE DISCOURSE A Linguistic Treatment of Formulating Character  77 77  A Conversational Analysis Treatment of Formulating Character  89  Formulating Character i n Conversation  93  Formulating Character i n Conversational Storytelling  95  Non-Recognitional Reference Procedures  97  Non-Recognitionals as Recognitionals Recognitional Reference Procedures Conclusion  106 Ill 118  CHAPTER FOUR: COLLATERAL INFORMATION IN NARRATIVES  124  A Linguistic Treatment of Collateral  125  A Conversational Analysis Treatment of Collateral  133  Alternative Activity Assessment Procedures..  139  Activity Assessment as an Interactional Resource  148  Conclusion  157 v  CHAPTER FIVE: PRE-NARRATIVE SEQUENCING AS AN INTERACTIONAL RESOURCE  163  A Linguistic Treatment of Pre-Narrative Sequencing  164  A Conversational Analysis Treatment of Pre-Narrative Sequencing  168  The Sequencing Problem.  177  Solution to the Sequencing Problem  185  Pre-Narrative Resources  195  Conclusion  204  CHAPTER SIX: NARRATIVE RESPONSE PREFERENCES A Linguistic Treatment of Recipient Responses  209 210  A Conversational Analysis Treatment of Recipient Responses  215  Action Chains  216  Acceptance Response Procedures  224  Dispreferred Response Procedures  233  Conclusion  246  CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUDING REMARKS  251  BIBLIOGRAPHY  260  APPENDIX 1  270  APPENDIX II  273  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  In the production of any work of t h i s type one incurs many debts of g r a t i t u d e ,  far more than can be recognized i n the Acknowledgements.  I wish to express my indebtedness  to the following people, among many  who contributed to making t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n p o s s i b l e . The advice special attention.  and assistance of my a d v i s o r ,  Roy Turner, deserve  He helped me to grasp what I consider to be basic  concepts r e l a t e d to the study of conversational i n t e r a c t i o n , and he had an e f f e c t both d i r e c t and prominent on the shape of t h i s study. I  wish to o f f e r a s p e c i a l  thanks to J . V . P o w e l l ,  acquired an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y perspective study.  which i s  frcm whom I  important to  I consider him to be a model of the s p i r i t of open,  and penetrating  inquiry.  His l i f e ,  as  a scholar and as  a  this  critical, personal  f r i e n d , has been exemplary to me, and h i s investment of time, thought, and care i n my development  as  a  scholar  is  deeply  appreciated.  I  consider him a f r i e n d i n the deepest sense of the word. I am g r a t e f u l to those who a l s o invested i n me and i n t h i s study: t o E l v i Whittaker f o r her w i l l i n g n e s s to remain on my committee frcm s t a r t to f i n i s h ;  t o H o l l y Gardner f o r her f r i e n d s h i p and expertise as a  student  conversation;  of  live  to  my friends  Jim Weisenburg, Steve  Congdon, Doug Wagoner, and David A l e g u i r e , a l l e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y to t h i s study.  vii  of  whom contributed  F i n a l l y , my  wife,  Ruth, deserves special mention for her love,  encouragement, and personal s a c r i f i c e s over the past few years. tribute  to her that we  survived  this process  better prepared for the future as a couple.  i n t a c t and,  It is a  hopefully,  Her insights into discourse  contributed greatly to the development of my thinking.  She i s a model  to me of the integration of i n t e l l e c t u a l and s p i r i t u a l commitment which i s highly admired, but r a r e l y attained.  viii  PREFACE This  i s a study of some features of discourse via conversational  analysis.  The topic  for this  listening  to many hours  study came about  of recorded  transcripts,  and talking with colleagues.  starts'.  first  I  as a  result of  conversations,  examining  There were many  'false  became interested i n the topic of conversational  storytelling  out of a broader interest i n locating and describing  interactional  methods and procedures which people use i n carrying out  their everyday business. started  At some point particular features of stories  to jump out at me,  and my interests became  more  focused.  First, I discovered that many of the features of narratives treated by linguists  interested  conversational  i n discourse  analysis,  could  also  and treated differently.  be  treated  Secondly,  seemed to be an important dimension missing from linguistic studies,  a dimension  basically  neglected.  recognized  as important  describe  that  there  discourse  linguists but  That dimension has to do with ethnographic and  interactional concerns i n discourse. and  by  by  dimension  Finally,  i n relation  I began to search out  to previous  studies i n  linguistic discourse analysis. The discovery our  research procedures employed i n this study were aimed at the of members' methods and practices which seem to go beyond  member intuitions and understandings of conversational work.  In  the analytical chapters i t seemed reasonable to suggest that the sorts of  things  going  on when someone  generates  ix  a  narrative  i n live  conversation  are  n o t t h i n g s t h a t we  c o u l d say we  t h a t were i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e e x p l i c i t l y known. it  'already  knew'  or  T h a t i s , i n no way  can  be c l a i m e d t h a t I m e r e l y s t a r t e d o u t w i t h something I a l r e a d y knew  about  narratives  research  and t h e n r e f i n e d and  procedures  observations procedures  were  aimed a t t h e  and  understandings  have  implications  of  that  feature  any  discovery  for  findings  of  Rather,  work.  which  These  concern  adequately  a  study  described  i n t e r a c t i o n a l l y substantiated,  actual conversational transcripts.  my  non-intuitive  F u r t h e r , I t o o k i t as a  c l a i m t o have l o c a t e d and  o f n a r r a t i v e s be  i t .  conversational  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t ' s " s k i l l " o r "work." policy  elaborated  a  d e r i v e d from  I attempted t o show t h a t  located  f e a t u r e s were a v a i l a b l e t o be o r i e n t e d t o b y p a r t i c i p a n t s .  I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e import o f t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t i t c o n t r i b u t e s t o the  growing  body o f l i t e r a t u r e i n l i n g u i s t i c d i s c o u r s e  analysis  w e l l as t o t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t b y s t u d e n t s o f conversation  in  the everyday a c t i v i t y o f  t h i s s t u d y may its  live  committed t o l o c a t i n g and d e s c r i b i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n as t h e t e c h n i c a l accomplishment o f involved  as  'talking together'.  be seen t o be i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y .  The  members As  such,  exact nature  c o n t r i b u t i o n t o l i n g u i s t i c d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s and  of  conversational  a n a l y s i s i s made c l e a r i n C h a p t e r 1.  This  s t u d y r e g a r d s c o n v e r s a t i o n as an e s s e n t i a l l y  interactional  activity.  I f o c u s e d on t h e s e q u e n t i a l emergence o f one  conversational  activity  from  sequences, context relevance  of  turn-by-turn  talk,  r e s p o n s e sequences, and  structural  features  of  telling  formulating characters, a l l i n the  narratives t o l d i n l i v e conversation.  The  meaning  o f l o c a t i n g and d e s c r i b i n g f e a t u r e s o f n a r r a t i v e s i s n o t x  and a  matter  to be determined merely by examining the particulars  recounting.  of some  I t i s perhaps better conceived as a social activity that  is interactionally achieved, negotiated i n and through the particulars of a situation. the  It i s hoped that this study can be seen to have laid  groundwork  for locating  and describing the  features  of  this  interactional work i n one conversational activity. While the substantive focus of this study i s on the phenomenon of narratives, my major concern has not been merely to describe i n detail the workings of an activity.  Rather, my aim has been to recommend the  importance  of investigating a commonplace activity of  under  auspices of an analytical apparatus which seeks  the  everyday activities as the accomplishment of members. in  this  study a  detailed  study  characterized methods and interaction. activity  sociological framework begins of  emerge  interaction,  a  one  from  as  and recognition.  a  matter  of  everyday  a  framework recipients'  procedures for understanding and sustaining the I have pointed to a treatment of  treat  ongoing  conversational  that exposes and takes as i t s central topic the practice  production  of  to  life  I believe that  by a set of descriptions of narrators' and  members participating  study  conversational  to  everyday  concern  in  of its  It i s hoped that the importance of this  i s informed by the fact that such research treats as i t s topic  inquiry  an activity of social l i f e that i s generally  granted by people,  taken-for-  and not merely that i t makes accessible to formal  inquiry the achieved character of everyday l i f e . xi  CHAPTER 1: LINGUISTIC DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS  Introductory Remarks  In  recent years,  language,  as  sociology has developed a strong  interest  in  witness the growth o f s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s w i t h i t s v a r i o u s  t h e o r e t i c a l and methodological approaches.  S o c i o l o g i s t s who study i n  d e t a i l the conventional ways i n which people i n t e r a c t w i t h one another commonly demonstrate t h i s concern (Goffman,  1955,  1963,  1967, 1971,  1974, 1981; G a r f i r i k e l , 1967; Sacks, 1972, 1974, 1978; Schegloff,  1972;  Jefferson,  time,  1978;  linguistics  has  necessary, sociology  Turner,  1970,  1972,  1976).  At  come t o share a sense t h a t a j o i n t  the same venture  may  and has looked towards s o c i o l o g y and anthropology.  Within  there has been considerable research i n t o the s t r u c t u r e  conversation,  and  this  parallels l i n g u i s t i c interest i n  be  of  discourse.  Nevertheless, the a c t u a l contact between sociology and l i n g u i s t i c s has been  small,  in  part  because o f the  specialist  training  in  both  disciplines. There have been some recent attempts by s o c i o l o g i s t s t o i n t e g r a t e l i n g u i s t i c s w i t h sociology ( C i c o u r e l , 1982; Goffman, 1981). ended  1974;  Grimshaw, 1981; Gumperz,  For the most p a r t , however, these attempts have  up as an attack on l i n g u i s t i c formalisms and the absence o f  ethnographic  dimension  from l i n g u i s t i c analyses.  1  The former  is  an a  matter  of taste,  believe two  the latter perhaps more  substantive.  However,  that a more f r u i t f u l dialogue can be established between  disciplines,  and  I  bring  my  training i n both  I the  disciplines,  sociology and linguistics, to this study. In  the  ethnographic studies  preceding paragraph I noted that there seems to dimension missing from much of linguistics.  Linguists are perhaps  more aware than sociologists of the need to integrate,  in  is  There  a number of invitations which have been extended from  the linguistic community to sociology. Discourse  that there  lacking from their repertoire of analytical tools. fact,  that  a weakness and that there i s something needed to be  picked up on from the sociological perspective.  something  an  Throughout  in linguistic discourse analysis there i s a recognition  this i s , indeed,  are,  be  (1983),  For example, i n The Grammar of  Robert Longacre ends the chapter on repartee  with  the conroent: M l that we have written here needs eventually to be supplemented by and compared with the current research into the nature of live conversation (1983:75). Larry  Jones  (1983),  too,  writes  about  the  need  for  linguistic vision which encompasses the social sciences. One of the new frontiers of linguistics, discourse analysis, i s i n fact a part of a larger frontier, the study of how people think and how they express their thoughts... In exploring this new territory, the discourse linguist...who chooses to remain close to his own linguistic...border w i l l be, I believe, infinitely the poorer (p. 137).  2  a  broader  He writes:  Another  linguist,  interdisciplinary  Wilbur  Pickering,  brings  the  issue  of  i n t e g r a t i o n i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s t o the  f o r e f r o n t o f current l i n g u i s t i c concern.  He w r i t e s :  While I i n s i s t t h a t s i t u a t i o n and c u l t u r e are p a r t o f the p r i o r context upon which given information [ i n a d i s c o u r s e ] may be based, I f r e e l y confess that I do not know how t o handle i t (1979:170). and, I am entering a p l e a t h a t more l i n g u i s t s r e c ognize both the l e g i t i m a c y and n e c e s s i t y o f grappling w i t h the r o l e o f s i t u a t i o n and c u l t u r e i n discourse a n a l y s i s (1979:170).  This  study  is  linguistic  intended t o be one step towards  discourse  analysis  with  conversational a n a l y s i s i n p a r t i c u l a r ,  the  sociology  in  integration general,  of and  and may, i n p a r t , be seen as a  response t o an i n v i t a t i o n . Linguistics  has much t o o f f e r the s o c i o l o g i s t i n t e r e s t e d i n  the  a n a l y s i s o f discourse, and l a t e r i n t h i s chapter I describe a key area o f c o n t r i b u t i o n from l i n g u i s t i c s t o s o c i o l o g y .  Sociology,  much t o o f f e r the l i n g u i s t i n t e r e s t e d i n discourse, that  this  making  a  discourse  thesis  responds t o the "need" mentioned  too,  and i t i s my hope by  methodological and t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o  Longacre  example,  by  linguistic  analysis.  Some o f the issues a r i s i n g i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s issues  has  which have been attended t o f o r some time i n one  sociology.  issue i n discourse a n a l y s i s i s the need t o  3  are For  distinguish  between  the linguistic  forms of utterances  perform i n discourse (McTear, 1979).  and the actions  they  In the section on conversational  analysis i n Chapter 2, we see how the issue has been quite powerfully treated i n sociology. be  /Another issue i s how form and function need to  analytically integrated  (Pickering, with  i n order to show their  1978; Jones, 1983; Longacre, 1983).  interdependence  This issue has to do  the way i n which utterances and the actions  they  related sequentially to one another i n a cohesive text.  perform are The issue as  formulated by sociology focuses on interactional a b i l i t i e s rather than just  linguistic  invitation, has  abilities.  I t i s my thesis,  i n response  to the  that a sociological treatment of live conversational data  much to offer the discourse linguist i n terms of methodology as  well as theory. meant by this  Perhaps the most effective way to make clear what i s i s to provide the reader with  an overview of the  material covered i n this thesis. In Chapter 1, a general overview of linguistic discourse analysis i s presented. be  In this overview, while pointing out what I consider to  the major strands of discourse analysis,  I focus my attention on  one group,  the text grammarians, specifically following the school of  discourse  analysis  which  features  Robert  recognizable head and including Linda Jones, Pickering, discourse relation  to name but a few. analysis  I  focus on the  Longacre  as the most  Larry Jones,  and Wilbur  In my review of this  school of  basic  to the analysis of narratives.  issues,  particularly i n  I then  make the bridge  between linguistic discourse a n a l y s i s and conversational analysis, and show the similarities and differences between these perspectives.  4  two analytical  I n C h a p t e r 2, storytelling. storytelling, linguistic feature  I review the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o  The d a t a f o r t h i s s t u d y i s c o n f i n e d t o c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and  t h e g e n e r a l format i s t o p r o v i d e t h e r e a d e r w i t h a  treatment  might  be  conversational  o f a d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e and t h e n show  handled  analysis.  from  in  themselves  analysis. extend  sociological  value  and  linguistic  that  limitations  using  of  each  I n so d o i n g , I p r e s e n t a n a l y s e s w h i c h  contribution t o the  discourse  how  perspective  field  of  T h a t i s t o say, i n t h e a n a l y t i c a l c h a p t e r s  transformed  a n a l y s i s b u t show how  conversational I do n o t m e r e l y  the  issues  are  i n t h e o r e t i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g ways.  Chapter the  a  a  The  d i s t i n c t i v e t r e a t m e n t a r e shown. are  conversational  3 begins  thesis.  In  the a n a l y t i c a l section,  this  chapter,  which i s t h e h e a r t  I examine f i r s t  mention  of  character  f o r m u l a t i o n s when s t o r y c h a r a c t e r s a r e f i r s t mentioned i n n a r r a t i v e s , by  presenting  a  linguistic  treatment o f  first  mention  character  reference  and t h e n t u r n i n g t o a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s t r e a t m e n t  the  issue.  same  linguistic  In  t h i s chapter  (3) and t h e n e x t  (4), I  of  give  d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s treatment o f formulating character  and  the use o f c o l l a t e r a l information i n n a r r a t i v e s t o l d i n Algonquin, language  i n w h i c h I am c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g .  n a r r a t i v e s i n Algonquin literature. conversational  Among  i s , i n itself,  the  phenomena  The t r e a t m e n t I g i v e  a to  a contribution t o the discourse  given  special  attention  in  my  a n a l y s i s treatment o f formulating c h a r a c t e r i n E n g l i s h  n a r r a t i v e s a r e ways i n which c h a r a c t e r s may be formulated, preferences,  a  and  the  formulation  p o s s i b l i t y o f a r e v e r s a l o f preferences  c e r t a i n genre o f n a r r a t i v e .  5  in  a  4  Chapter  investigates  information—information  the a n a l y t i c a l  within  t e l l i n g about what d i d happen, same  analytical  o f t h e i s s u e and  treatment  of  work  which  c o l l a t e r a l information  discourse  Chapter  5,  gets  I  examine  storyteller  sequencing  I s s u e s i n c l u d e how  t h e use o f t r i g g e r  linguistic analysis on  who  concerns  in  noticeable.  In  acceptance  Chapter  methodological  7, and  via  this  inserts  linguistic  a n a l y s i s as a f e a t u r e o f r e p a r t e e  particular  involved  discourse  pre-  are or  In a l i n g u i s t i c treatment perhaps  chapter a t t e n t i o n i s focused and  on  d i s p r e fe r r e d  the  action response  storytelling.  theoretical contributions to l i n g u i s t i c  a  phenomenon by  which  I c o n c l u d e t h e s t u d y w i t h an e x a m i n a t i o n o f  conversational  by  utterances.  response procedures,  investigates in  the  n a r r a t i v e s emerge from t u r n -  t h e need f o r t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c d i m e n s i o n i s  procedures i n conversational  same  done by a  (deep) s t r u c t u r e o f d i a l o g u e .  repartee  analysis  a  S p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i s focused  i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse  the n o t i o n a l  In  presenting  6 i n v e s t i g a t e s r e c i p i e n t response preferences  Chapter  chains,  first  of The  a n a l y s i s , again r e s t r i c t i n g the l a t t e r a n a l y s i s t o  b y - t u r n t a l k and  most  instead  into a narrative.  n a r r a t i v e sequencing.  of  which,  a n a l y s i s f o l l o w e d b y a t r e a t m e n t o f t h o s e same c o n c e r n s  conversational  treated  collateral  then turning t o a conversational  t h e same i s s u e .  interactional  storytelling  of  t e l l s about what d i d n o t happen.  format i s a p p l i e d ;  treatment  In  a  concept  analysis. phenomenon  Each treated  discourse  analytical by  those  chapter linguists  a n a l y s i s i n r e l a t i o n t o the treatment  a s o c i o l o g i s t doing conversational  6  the  of  the  analysis.  An  investigation  of the ways i n which these issues are dealt  conversational constitutive  analysis  serves  to make visible  features of discourse,  as well  with i n  some  of the  as revealing  many  intricate, finely coordinated processes which occur with them.  Scope of the Study The years  data  (1979-1983).  conversations. his  for this study were collected over a period of four I collected  over  19 hours  of tape-recorded  I wish to thank David Meguire for giving me some of  conversational tapes which are included i n the corpus  of data.  Both the tapes given to me and the ones I collected were recorded i n a variety  of situations.  conversations, told.  I began  /After a lengthy period of listening to these to isolate instances where  narratives were  In re-listening to these instances and transcribing  began  them, I  to notice structural features of prefacings, tellings, and  responses.  In this study I subject some of those features to formal  analysis. Earlier  I said that this study i s intended as a contribution to  linguistic discourse analysis by providing the discourse linguist with a  set of discovery procedures  cultural  for explicating  features which influence live discourse.  'ethnographic dimension' throughout this study, to  ethnographic and I refer  to the  and I want the reader  know from the outset what I mean by ' ethnography'.  In a general  sense, I use the term 'ethnography' to refer to the work of describing a culture.  Ethnographic research typically follows a general pattern;  the researcher v i s i t s a culture other than his or her own, spends time in  close contact with everyday behaviour, 7  makes observations,  asks  questions, of  the  and so on, a l l of which leads to an account or description  culture.  traditional  In  definition  this  study I build upon  of 'ethnography'.  exemplified by James Spradley (1979).  and  depart  from  This traditional  a  use i s  He writes:  The essential core of ethnography i s [the] concern with the meaning of actions and events to the people we seek to understand. Seme of these meanings are directly expressed i n language; many are taken for granted and communicated only indirectly through word and action. But i n every society people make constant use of these complex meaning systems to organize their behavior, to understand themselves and others, and to make sense out of the world i n which they l i v e . These systems of meaning constitute their culture; ethnography always implies a theory of culture (p.5). My  understanding  describe,  of  'culture',  what  ethnography  i s derived from Garfinkel (1967) and c l a r i f i e d  Eglin (1978).  seeks by  to  Peter  He writes:  Members' knowledge—culture—is methodological, or knowledge how, where the 'how' i s interpretational. Members know their society as methods of (pre-reflectively) interpreting i t s objects, where those methods or methodologies are language games, such as conversation, and their settings. Insofar as such methodological games comprise typical reasons, motives, and intentions (in addition to ways of assigning sense and reference), then far from being mental events, properties or states, these are instead interactional 'states' through and through (p.16).  In  relation  to describing features of one's own culture from  sociological point of view, claims.  Roy Turner (1974) makes some  He writes:  8  a  interesting  S o c i o l o g i s t s must (and do) employ t h e i r exp e r t i s e i n employing and recognizing methodological procedures f o r accomplishing a c t i v i t i e s . . . [ a n d t h a t ] the task o f the s o c i o l o g i s t i n a n a l y z i n g n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g scenes i s not t o deny h i s competence but t o e x p l i c a t e i t . . . S u c h exp l i c a t i o n provides f o r a cumulative e n t e r p r i s e , i n t h a t the uncovering o f members' procedures f o r doing a c t i v i t i e s permits us both t o r e p l i c a t e our o r i g i n a l data and t o generate new instances t h a t f e l l o w members w i l l f i n d recognizable (p.214). The linguist  contribution of with  a  set  of  this  study i s t o  provide  w e l l - d e f i n e d discovery  the  discourse  procedures  d i s c o v e r i n g and d e s c r i b i n g ethnographic features which have a on  discourse  in  the form o f categories u s e f u l i n  formal  for  bearing analysis.  I t i s my t h e s i s t h a t discourse l i n g u i s t s are c u r r e n t l y looking outside the boundary o f t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e f o r these discovery that  conversational  looking  for.  features; above), is  analysis  has  what the  My own ethnographic  procedures,  discourse  interest  has  linguist  reading  o f i n t e r a c t i o n s i n context.  My a n a l y s i s  discourse l i n g u i s t more than j u s t i n s i g h t f u l examples,  but t o a  offers  the  and the r a i s o n  d ' e t r e o f t h i s t h e s i s i s based on a f e l t need i n l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s ( r e c a l l the comments by Longacre,  quote,  meaning t h a t my a n a l y s i s  not o r i e n t e d t o o v e r a l l o r general behavioural p a t t e r n s ,  close  is  two d i s t i n c t i v e  (1) i t i s o r i e n t e d t o member p r a c t i c e s (see E g l i n ' s and (2) i t i s 'micro' i n character,  and  discourse  Jones, and P i c k e r i n g c i t e d  e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter).  LINGUISTIC DISCCURSE ANALYSIS I want t o begin by making c l e a r e x a c t l y what I mean when I to  ' l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s ' .  9  R e c a l l t h a t t h i s study  refer is  a  methodological and t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o discourse a n a l y s i s from a sociological perspective.  I n any spoken t e x t there are three l e v e l s  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n which I recognize as b a s i c t o l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s : phonology, these  (2) grammar,  levels  form  larger  concerns  (3) and d i s c o u r s e .  W i t h i n phonology and  combining  grammar—the  the  Within discourse a n a l y s i s , however, v e r y  has been agreed upon between the major t r a d i t i o n s o f discourse  analysis.  There are no agreed l a b e l s and few agreed s t r u c t u r e s .  When  reading  literature  I  discourse  get  about  about the  analysis  assumptions  as  discourse  rarity.  Wilbur  (1979),  suggests  discriminate, abstraction, discourse  of  in are  much as  based  language.  Pickering,  perspectives The  the not  linguistic 'models'  upon  assumptions may be  differing  derived  the  from  but a d i s t i n c t discourse 'model' i s a  in  A Framework f o r  and describe a l l o f the f a c t o r s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o  the  meaning,  a n a l y s i s i s a means  evoked  whatever s i z e " ( p . 8 ) .  by a  In his  spoken  to  Analysis at,  total  "discourse  Discourse  (or  perspective,  written) discourse  a n a l y s i s aims t o d i s c o v e r and describe as n e a r l y a complete r o s t e r possible  of  get  or  that  analysis  impression t h a t there  grammatical models o f language,  to  to  traditional  o f d e s c r i p t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s — t h e l a b e l s and s t r u c t u r e o f  u n i t s are w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . little  The s t r u c t u r e i n each o f  can be expressed i n terms o f small u n i t s units.  (1)  as  o f the f a c t o r s t h a t may reasonably be expected t o c o n t r i b u t e a b s t r a c t i o n t h a t a discourse i s designed t o  evoke.  In  his  study, as i n most o f the other studies c i t e d i n t h i s chapter, there i s no mention o f a discourse 'model', how  the  analyst  perspective  he  views language. writes  b u t there are numerous mentions o f In  Robert  t h a t he has "borrowed  10  Longacre's extensively  discourse bits  and  pieces from the l i n g u i s t i c s everywhere" (1977a:24), 1 that  h i s view o f language i s s t i l l "tagmemic".  w h i l e iriaintaining  Joseph Grimes,  too,  w h i l e a l l o w i n g t h a t "the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s I make.. . r e l a t e t o the f a m i l y of t h e o r i e s c u r r e n t l y known as generative semantics" (1975:30),  never  bothers t o s p e c i f y what any o f those t h e o r i e s i n the ' f a m i l y ' a r e . conclusion  is  identified  w i t h models o r t h e o r i e s as w i t h an attempt t o provide  necessary  t h a t l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s cannot be  descriptive  above-sentence  work  level  i n order t o b e t t e r  s t r u c t u r a l features i n  understand  language  so  much the  how  work.  t h e o r e t i c a l models. read  seem  to  be  g e n e r a l l y speaking,  the  Thus,  while I r e f e r t o two d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n s i n discourse a n a l y s i s , not b e l i e v e t h a t discourse analysts are,  My  I do  tied to  On the c o n t r a r y , discourse analyses which I have f o l l o w i n g more i n the  steps  of  the  descriptive  l i n g u i s t i c s o f the B l o o m f i e l d i a n t r a d i t i o n , w h i l e examining s t r u c t u r e s beyond the sentence l e v e l . and  theories  in  Perhaps one reason f o r the l a c k o f models  l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s i s  related  d i f f i c u l t y o f saying anything powerful a t the discourse l e v e l  to  the  without  seme way o f f o r m a l i z i n g i n t e r a c t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s . Through  the  rest  of  this  chapter I  progression frcm B l c o m f i e l d t o Chomsky, analysis.  Secondly,  I  first  review  the  and frcm Chomsky t o discourse  w i l l discuss what I consider t o be the  f r u i t f u l t r a d i t i o n o f discourse a n a l y s i s , Longacre.  will  most  the school headed by Robert  In Chapter 2, I w i l l examine some o f the discourse analyses  of n a r r a t i v e which feature the a n a l y s i s o f l i v e conversation.  11  Bloomfield, Chomsky, and Beyond Until recently,  the early 1970's, discourse received very l i t t l e  attention by linguists and sociolinguists. I  want  to  In the next few paragraphs  distinguish the different lines of development  leading to current discourse study i n linguistics.  of  ideas  What follows i s a  brief history from Leonard Bloomfield to current discourse analysis. In the 1930's, Bloomfield limited his grammatical analysis to the sentence as the largest unit of description.  Bloomfield,  Franz  an  Boaz and  development  Edward  from  Sapir,  represents  along with  important  line  structural linguistics to current discourse  In his b r i l l i a n t book Language (1933),  of  study*  he defined the "sentence"  as,  "an independent form,  not included i n any larger (complex) linguistic  form"  inhibiting nature of  (p.170).  however, from  The  discouraged  attempting  to  Bloomfield's  definition,  later linguists in the structuralist analyze linguistic levels beyond  This i s not meant to be a severe criticism.  tradition  the  sentence.  As Grimes (1975) notes:  Restriction of a f i e l d i s essential for any kind of scientific thinking. If someone wishes to focus on what happens within certain bounds, anyone else who accepts the rules of the game has to agree to those bounds...At the time Bloomfield wrote, sticking to the sentence was probably the wisest thing he could have done (p.3). Thus, Bloomfield  Bloomfield i s seen as an important trend setter, the structuralist tradition i s but one trend.  post-Bloomfieldian describe  the  era,  grammar  linguists with few exceptions of  a language only up to  the  but from During the  continued level  of  to the  sentence.  In the early 1960's, however, H.A. Gleason allowed for the  importance  of  supra-sentence grammars but held that their 12  practical  d e l i n e a t i o n was impossible t o undertake a t the t i m e .  I n 1970, Z e l l i g  H a r r i s s t r e s s e d t h a t l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s had not gone beyond the l e v e l of  the sentence and t h a t l i n g u i s t i c methodology up t o t h a t  not  pursued  sentences.  a  description of  Even  earlier,  Harris  the  structural  had published  time  relations an  had  between  article  called  "Discourse A n a l y s i s " (1952) i n which he attempted t o work out a formal method  for  the a n a l y s i s o f connected speech.  But h i s  attempts  to  encourage l i n g u i s t s t o address the need f o r discourse a n a l y s i s were not greeted w i t h p a r t i c u l a r enthusiasm.  And as r e c e n t l y as 1977, Malcolm  Coulthard claimed t h a t " i t may w e l l be t h a t any p u r e l y formal a n a l y s i s above  the  rank  o f sentence i s impossible"  (p.3).  He d i d  admit,  however, t h a t t o be s u c c e s s f u l , a n a l y s i s beyond the sentence l e v e l can o n l y be described i n semantic terms. The  emphasis  promoted second  by  sentence grammars i n  l i n g u i s t i c s was  the transformational-generative model  line  Chomsky  on  of  (1965),  development i n my tJiiriking,  as  of  widely  grammar,  developed  which assigns s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s t o  sentences by a systematic a p p l i c a t i o n o f a set o f r u l e s .  the  by Noam individual  And, though  Chomsky and others have since r e f i n e d t h i s model and departed from i t , d e s c r i p t i o n s seldom consider s t r u c t u r e beyond the sentence l e v e l . According t o Chomsky, an  underlying  processes his  (deep structure) and a  system  f o r c r e a t i n g forms on the surface s t r u c t u r e .  Aspects  considered  system  language i s a formal system which includes  o f the Theory o f Syntax (1965),  of  rules  Especially i n  t h i s formal  system  t o e x i s t apart from any a c t u a l language utterance  p a r t o f the n a t i v e speaker o f the language.  13  and  on  is the  Chomsky claims t h a t both  the  deep  structure  and  the r u l e s and processes  for  surface  s t r u c t u r e are a p a r t o f what a n a t i v e speaker  his  her language.  or  generative t r a d i t i o n , character the  L i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s i n the  deriving 'knows'  the about  transformational-  then, c o n s i s t s o f attempting t o r e c o n s t r u c t the  o f the underlying s t r u c t u r e and d i s c o v e r i n g and  d e r i v a t i o n process ( b a s i c a l l y ,  the  rules),  specifying  between  the  deep  s t r u c t u r e and the surface s t r u c t u r e . Part on  the  For  o f a speaker's c a p a c i t y t o generate new sentences i s speaker's a b i l i t y t o say the same things i n  example,  rearranging  I  can  say,  "The  different  World  ways.  Series".  a few words I can convey the same t h i n g by  World Series was won by the Cubs". deep  Cubs won the  based  saying,  By "The  These two sentences share the same  s t r u c t u r e b u t d i f f e r e n t surface  structures.  Chomsky  suggests  t h a t we are able t o make sense out o f sentences because the context i n which  they  structure generated. to  are to  produced  the  deep  Furthermore,  enables structure  us t o  look  from which  beyond the  the  surface  sentences  are  he was e x p l i c i t i n r e s t r i c t i n g h i s i n t e r e s t  the formal aspects o f language (syntax) and t h a t t h i s  restriction  i s necessary i n order t o extend the scope o f a d e s c r i p t i o n o f grammar. One represents  should  take note t h a t the Chomskyan t r a d i t i o n by  the t o t a l family o f t h e o r i e s t h a t are both generative  transformational. analysis the  social years  Sociolinguistics  almost by a c c i d e n t .  structural  techniques  no means  and  analysis  of  has  ventured  into  W i l l i a m Labov (1967) began t o speech  with  sociological  showed how l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a b l e s could be  variables.  discourse combine sampling  related  Gumperz (1982) suggests t h a t w i t h i n the past  a new s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c approach t o discourse has  14  and  developed,  to few an  approach which distinguishes between individual variations and social variability.  Studies  by Hymes (1972),  Blom  and Gumperz  (1972),  Sankoff and Cedergren (1976), Ervin-Tripp and Mitche11-Kernan (1977), Sankoff (1980),  Green and Wallat (1981),  and Gumperz (1982), to name  but a few, represent the attempt by sociolinguists to "account for the communicative functions of linguistic variability and for i t s relation to  speakers' goals  assumptions  about  without reference  to untestable  functionalist  conformity or noncomformance to closed systems of  norms" (Gumperz, 1982:29). With this brief historical outline of developments i n linguistics and  sociolinguistics I have attempted to distinguish  lines  of development  discourse.  the important  of ideas which have lead to an interest i n  Gumperz (1982) perhaps sums up best the point of departure  from descriptive linguistics to discourse analysis.  He writes:  We must draw a distinction between meaning, i.e. context free semantic information obtained through analysis, i n which linguistic data are treated as texts, which can be coded i n words and listed i n dictionaries, on the one hand, and interpretation...Interpretation always depends on information conveyed through multiple levels or channels of signalling, and involves inferences based on linguistic features that from the perspective of text based analysis count as marginal, or semantically i n s i g n i f i cant (p.207).  The is  way I visualize linguistic discourse analysis i n this study  as an attempt to extend the procedures and analytical  categories  used i n descriptive linguistics beyond the unit of the sentence. essential  procedures used are;  syntactic  categories  (1) the isolation of a set of basic  or units of discourse  15  The  for analysis,  (2) the  stating of a set of rules which differentiate coherent discourses from ill-formed or incoherent discourses, constructed  by the analyst)  and (3) taking a text (sometimes  and giving an analysis  structural features of the discourse. by  the text grammarians,  students,  as opposed  theory.  as  These basic procedures are used  under which I classify  while  and h i s  been  neglected by  the work of the latter has been severely c r i t i c i z e d  being fundamentally misconceived  Levinson,  Longacre  to those who base their work on speech act  The work of the former has basically  sociology,  of a l l the  1983).  (Turner, 1975; Gardner, 1982;  In this study, my concern i s with the work being  done by text grammarians,  specifically Longacre and his students, and  -#ithmaking .linguistic discourse analysis s o c i o l o g i c a l l y relevant. From this point on,  when I refer to 'linguistic discourse analysis',  I am  referring to the work of the text grammarians following Longacre.  /Assumptions About Language i n Linguistic Discourse Analysis I  now  discourse example,  turn  to a discussion of assumptions  analysis.  The assumptions  are different  from  of the text  those  to the text grammarian,  filtering  out two different things:  regarding  what  available  to the speaker  decisions  i n a way that communicates with  speaker  makes,  formational  the decisions a speaker can make and the  for implementing  structures  that are  the results  of those  another person  (Grimes,  Grimes refers to these decisions which the  and the relations between them,  structure  act theorist.  we can say most about language by  and what not to say,  1978; Gavin, 1980).  language i n  grammarian for  of the speech  According  1975,  about  or the  semantic 16  as the underlying  structure  (1975).  The  relation  between t h i s underlying s t r u c t u r e and the speech forms  that  are uttered, i s c a l l e d the transformation. One assumption shared by both the t e x t grammarians and the speech a c t t h e o r i s t s i s t h a t , i n everyday l i f e , we a l l use d i f f e r e n t types o f speech  in  example,  different  circumstances.  w i l l adopt  one  just  schoolteacher,  when r e l a x i n g w i t h f r i e n d s over a  We say most o f what we say i n s t r i n g s o f sentences, random s t r i n g s .  constrain scale  later  There  for  k i n d o f speech when being interviewed  for a job and a d i f f e r e n t type beer.  A public  are  features o f  language  utterances i n r e l a t i o n t o e a r l i e r  ones,  but  not  which  may  and  large  s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n which i n d i v i d u a l utterances p l a y t h e i r  parts  (Grimes, 1975, 1978; Longacre, 1983). Not  only  circumstances,  do  we  use d i f f e r e n t types  of  speech  in  different  b u t we may have marked r e a c t i o n s when a discourse type  i s used i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y .  For example, we may inwardly chuckle a t the  lady who addresses a pet as i f i t were a c h i l d , o r a t the army o f f i c e r who  talks  factors  to  everyone w i t h an a u t h o r i t a t i v e  voice.  The  i n such s i t u a t i o n s are the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  the  and the one being spoken t o , and the nature o f the message. doing  discourse studies are i n t e r e s t e d i n e x p l i c a t i n g and  discourse something,  'types',  e.g.  if  relevant speaker Linguists  describing  a speaker i s exhorting a hearer  to  c e r t a i n discourse types o r forms w i l l be appropriate.  one i s arguing,  instructing,  o r passing on information,  w i l l be more f i t t i n g .  17  do If  other types  Discourse Types What  are  some examples o f 'discourse types' i n  discourse  literature?  discourse  analysis  types:  narrative,  events  Procedural  and contends t h a t there are s i x  discourse  major  recent  discourse  procedural, h o r t a t o r y , explanatory, argumentative,  usually  of  1983).  N a r r a t i v e discourse recounts a s e r i e s  ordered c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y and i n  discourse  accomplishing  linguistic  Longacre has been a t the f o r e f r o n t o f  and conversation (1976, of  the  is  designed  past  to give instructions  some task o r achieving  attempts  the  of  an  tense.  as  object.  to  the  Hortatory  t o i n f l u e n c e conduct w h i l e explanatory  discourse  seeks t o provide information r e q u i r e d i n p a r t i c u l a r circumstances, and often  does  so by  providing detailed  descriptions.  discourse  tries  frequent  contrast  discourse  takes p l a c e between two o r more  Argumentative  t o prove something t o a hearer and tends t o between  two  opposing  ideas. people.  Conversational Oddly,  Longacre expresses i n t e r e s t i n t h i s l a s t discourse type, is  generally  texts.  exhibit  although  h i s analysis  l i m i t e d t o the other f i v e and r e l i e s mainly on  edited  i n each o f h i s l a s t two books, however, he r e f e r s t o the work  o f Sacks,  Schegloff,  conversational discourse  J e f f e r s o n and others involved i n the venture o f  analysis  as something t h a t i s l a c k i n g  a n a l y s i s and which should be pursued.  in  linguistic  We s h a l l r e t u r n  to  t h i s i s s u e momentarily. A on  l i n g u i s t b r i n g s h i s own d i s t i n c t i v e mode o f reasoning t o  h i s perspective o f 'language'.  Generally speaking,  a n a l y s t sees d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s and contextual  influence,  bear  the discourse constituency,  and matching o f complex r e l a t i o n s , and t r i e s t o g e n e r a l i z e about them. In  h i s 1975 book The Thread o f Discourse, 18  Joseph Grimes attempts  to  show  the s o r t s o f t h i n g s a l i n g u i s t could f i n d out by l o o k i n g  sentences. the  He d i v i d e s discourse i n t o s i x areas,  beyond  which correspond t o  s i x p a r t s o f h i s Papers on Discourse (1978).  First,  there  are  studies on morphology where c e r t a i n morphological information i s shown t o t i e i n w i t h the t o t a l s t r u c t u r e o f d i s c o u r s e . categories they  are  agreement. Norman  Some morphological  add information about the s p e c i f i c l e x i c a l items t o  which  attached w h i l e others i n d i c a t e s y n t a c t i c constructions In  Price  "Nchimburu N a r r a t i v e Events i n concludes  that  in  the  Time",  Nchimburu  and  for  example,  language  personal  n a r r a t i v e has three time-oriented p a r t s : f i r s t , the n a r r a t o r gives the narration  i n a time s e t t i n g ,  then r e l a t e s a sequence o f events,  and  ends up by r e l a t i n g the whole back t o the present t i m e . The  second  area o f discourse study i n Grimes' 1978  w i t h reference, focused mainly on p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n .  book  deals  The studies show  t h a t there appear t o be two d i s t i n c t s t r a t e g i e s t h a t languages use f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g and maintaining reference. way as i n E n g l i s h , from  the  reference  Some s t r a t e g i e s work the same  where the reference o f one word i s normally  nearest candidate word before i t . in  Other languages  terms o f a thematic p o l i c y i n which  one  taken manage  reference  is  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from other references when introduced, and a s p e c i a l set of  terms  refer  to  i t no matter how many  have  been  t h i r d area o f discourse a n a l y s i s i n these studies show  that  mentioned more r e c e n t l y . The  other  things  2  some languages have a c l e a r - c u t d i s t i n c t i o n among kinds o f discourses, such  as  discussed  argumentative,  etc.  earlier  between  explanatory,  A f o u r t h area demonstrates how some  19  hortatory, discourses  are f u l l of particle words that mean nothing i n themselves,  but which  act  as pointers to discourse structure when considered i n a larger 3 context. In many Algonquian languages (in which I work) there exists a related phenomenon. according to Grimes, is  used  In the f i f t h area of discourse analysis  a systematic repetition pattern called 'linkage'  either to join together two consecutive sentences within a 4  paragraph or to show the boundary between paragraphs. i s composed of a miscellany of other  Finally, the  sixth  area  linguistic  which  turn out to be simple to explain using discourse  signals  contexts and  5  d i f f i c u l t to explain without them. Longacre grarimatical discourse  insists  that  i t i s impossible to achieve  analysis of a language without level  features.  In a recent  a correct  accounting  lecture  for  its  (1980), Longacre  maintains that discourse analysis used to be regarded as an option for the  linguist i n supplementing the description of lower levels  phrase,  clause).  He contends  that  i t i s now understood  (word,  by most  linguists that a l l work on the lower levels i s lacking i n perspective and  considered inadequate when the higher level of discourse has not  been analyzed.  He asks, "How can one describe the verb morphology of  a language when one cannot predict where one uses a given verb form?", and,  "How  obligatory are  can one describe a transitive clause i n terms of what i s and what i s optional when the conditions  not specified?"  Longacre contends that the answers  questions require a discourse perspective. is  no longer 6 necessity. Despite  considered  this  for optionality  Thus,  to be a luxury for  history of neglect 20  to these  discourse analysis  the linguist  but a  for structures beyond the  sentence, linguists are now attempting to do analyses at the discourse level.  A major assumption of those linguists currently working on  discourse kinds  i s that different parts of discourse communicate  of information (Grimes,  1978; Freedle,  different  1979; Hurtig, 1977;  Longacre, 1982). For example, the distinction between different kinds of information i n narrative discourse can be broken down into analytical separated  units.  Narratives  various  are characterized by having  participants and having the "telling matching  well-  the time".  That i s , the sequence i n which events are told matches the sequence i n which the events actually happened. In of  this section I want to distinguish my assumptions from  linguists  pursuing discourse studies while contrasting  analysis with conversational analysis.  those  discourse  In a recent edition of Notes  on Linguistics (No. 20, October, 1981), a discourse questionnaire was published  which  discourse  analysts when examining a particular discourse.  will the  gives the reader an idea of the questions  asked by First,  look at discourse types i n the questionnaire and then  we  consider  material relating to the analysis of stories which w i l l provide a  point  for contrasting conversational  analysis  with  linguistic  discourse analysis. In the 'discourse types' section of the questionnaire, question  has to do with what discourse types can be  distinguished i n the language being something  i s done;  analyzed:  descriptive—what something i s like;  or makes a point;  21  grammatically  e.g., procedural—how  what someone should do and commands to do things; someone persuades  the f i r s t  hortatory—  argumentative—how  and conversation—how  people  utilize  interactional strategies.  discourse t y p e . another?  When  and  used?  each  For example, what features d i s t i n g u i s h one type from i s a p a r t i c u l a r discourse type used?  aspects o f discourse, used,  The next questions r e l a t e t o  the questions i n c l u d e :  for  other  when should pronouns be  when should t i t l e s o r names be used?  When should ' t h e ' be used?  As  How o f t e n are names  As f o r event reference, i s there a  way o f marking an event t o show t h a t i t has been p r e v i o u s l y mentioned? I s there a way o f marking an event t o show t h a t i t was expected? often  are  conjunctions l i k e 'and' and 'then' used?  l o g i c a l conjunctions used? kinds  How  How o f t e n  are  A l l o f these considerations r e l a t e t o the  o f things t h a t l i n g u i s t s doing discourse a n a l y s i s  are  looking  for. I n r e l a t i o n t o the discourse a n a l y s i s o f ' s t o r i e s ' , specific  i n t e r e s t t o us i n t h i s study,  which i s  the l i n g u i s t doing  of  discourse  a n a l y s i s seeks t o discover and describe how speakers sign-on and s i g n off  to  their  audiences,  s t o r i e s and where,  how speakers make side oomments  in  their  how characters are introduced, how major and minor  characters are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , where background information most o f t e n occurs,  how s t o r y a c t i o n i s introduced,  signalled,  and  considerations perspective,  how conclusions are done. when analyzing  how the end o f the a c t i o n i s There are  s t o r i e s from a  various  linguistic  other  discourse  b u t i t i s hoped t h a t the reader i s s u f f i c i e n t l y informed  from the above as t o what questions a l i n g u i s t might ask about a s t o r y text.  Thus,  we  can see t h a t the discourse l i n g u i s t i s  e x p l i c a t e and describe a formula f o r a complete s t o r y , between  w r i t t e n and spoken forms,  speakers when t e l l i n g a s t o r y .  22  seeking  to  the d i f f e r e n c e  and p o s s i b l e options a v a i l a b l e  to  Monologue and Repartee Those analyze  linguists  working  on discourse a n a l y s i s have  tended  to  i t as monologue and t o ignore the f a c t t h a t an i n t e r a c t i o n a l  perspective  might  discourse.  Longacre stands out as one who has attempted a l i n g u i s t i c  treatment  also  o f repartee,  (Longacre, 1983).  be  appropriate  for  written  (and  o r the n o t i o n a l (deep) s t r u c t u r e o f  spoken)  dialogue  He w r i t e s :  One o f the most i n t r i c a t e problems i n discourse a n a l y s i s i s t h a t concerning the r e l a t i o n o f dialogue t o monologue. The viewpoint taken here i s t h a t the two are r e l a t e d but somewhat autonomous s t r u c t u r e s (1983:43). Longacre  goes  on t o describe the u n i t s o f  dialogue  as:  utterance,  exchange, dialogue paragraph, and dialogue o r dramatic d i s c o u r s e , such as c o n v e r s a t i o n . word,  phrase,  He p o s i t s the u n i t s o f monologue as: morpheme, stem, c l a u s e , sentence, paragraph, and discourse (1983).  In  r e l a t i n g these two types o f discourse s t r u c t u r e s he w r i t e s : The utterance i s the u n i t bounded by what a s i n g l e speaker says. /As such, i t i s the u n i t which i s r e l e v a n t t o t u r n - t a k i n g , r e p a i r , and other concerns o f the student o f l i v e i n t e r a c t i o n (Sacks, Schegloff, and J e f f e r s o n , 1978; Schegloff, 1979). The utterance can be o f any monologue s i z e u n i t from morpheme t o d i s c o u r s e . . . There are dialogue discourses (conversation, drama) and there are monologue discourses (1983:43). From concerns  Longacre  we  can  begin t o g a i n  an  appreciation  o f l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s and one c r u c i a l area  differentiates  Longacre's approach from other l i n g u i s t i c 23  of  the which  approaches.  Even Longacre admits, conversation  however, t h a t h i s studies do not d e a l w i t h l i v e  and sees t h i s as a weakness o f  discourse  analysis.  He  writes: We content o u r s e l v e s . . . w i t h m a t e r i a l t h a t i s a step o r two removed from l i v e conv e r s a t i o n , i . e . reported o r composed conv e r s a t i o n as i t occurs i n o r a l o r w r i t t e n t e x t s (1983:44).  It  i s evident t h a t not a l l discourses are o f the same s o r t .  The  s i x major types o f discourse as p o s i t e d by Longacre a l l d i f f e r i n more o r l e s s obvious ways.  There a r e ,  however,  s i m i l a r i t i e s between the  s i x types. I n t h a t one o f the f i r s t tasks o f the discourse l i n g u i s t i s to  classify  structures broad  discourse types and describe the o f discourse types,  classifications  discourse types.  and  notional  and  surface  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s need t o i n c l u d e both  also  more  delicate  specification  of  Longacre w r i t e s :  The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n [ o f discourse types] n e e d s . . . t o a l l o w f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s between n o t i o n a l (deep o r semantic structures) and surface s t r u c t u r e s . . . I n b r i e f , n o t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s o f discourse r e l a t e more c l e a r l y t o the o v e r a l l purpose o f the d i s c o u r s e , w h i l e surface s t r u c t u r e s have t o do more w i t h a d i s c o u r s e ' s formal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (1983:3). In  The  progression (1976).  Grammar o f Discourse of  thought  (1983),  Longacre  he began i n An Anatomy o f  continues Speech  the  Notions  I n the former he proposes t h a t a l l k i n d s o f discourses can be  classified  along  two b a s i c  parameters:  (1)  contingent  temporal  succession,  and (2) agent o r i e n t a t i o n .  description  o f a framework o f s e q u e n t i a l succession i n which what  24  The f i r s t has t o do w i t h the is  reported  i n a discourse i s contingent on previous events or  doings.  Agent orientation has to do with the identification of agent reference running through a discourse. He writes: These two parameters intersect so as to give us a four-way classification of discourse types: Narrative discourse...is plus i n respect to both parameters. Procedural discourse ...is plus i n respect to contingent succession (the steps of a procedure are ordered) but minus i n respect to agent orientation (attention i s on what i s done or made, not on who does i t ) . Behavioral discourse... i s minus i n regard to contingent succession but plus i n regard to agent orientation ( i t deals with how people did or should behave). Expository discourse i s minus in respect to both parameters (1983:3). Longacre  parameters  of  contingent temporal succession and agent orientation are too broad  to  be  i s the  first  to admit that  of much use to the discourse linguist.  parameter,  projection, which has  the  two  Thus, he posits another  to do with a situation or  which i s contemplated or anticipated but not realized. taking this  the discourse type NARRATIVE, study,  For  example,  which i s of special interest to  narrative as a broad category can be further  into prophecy,  action  classified  which i s plus projection, and storytelling,  minus projection i n that the events are represented as having  which i s already  taken place. Finally, has  Longacre posits one more parameter:  tension.  Tension  to do with how a discourse reflects a struggle or polarization of  some sort.  This fourth parameter i s of particular interest to  study i n that i t i s relevant to a l l genres of narrative discourse.  25  this  L i n g u i s t i c Pragmatics Earlier  I  said  that linguists interested i n  the  analysis  discourse  have tended t o neglect the ethnographic dimension i n  studies.  In  Larry  Jones  working recent of  Pragmatic  Aspects o f E n g l i s h Text  begins t o r e c t i f y t h i s s i t u a t i o n .  within  the  regarding the "message-receiver". by  examining  the  Jones i s a  linguist  analysis  "message-sender's"  and  dimension assumptions  the e f f e c t s o f such assumptions on the grammatical  Longacre  his  I n so doing, he contexts the study  semantic s t r u c t u r e o f w r i t t e n t e x t s . of  (1983),  study focuses l i n g u i s t i c a t t e n t i o n on one important the  their  Structure  Longacre school o f discourse  the communication s i t u a t i o n :  of  and  He i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , I b e l i e v e ,  school o f a n a l y s i s which has sensed  the  need  for  i n c l u d i n g an ethnographic dimension when doing discourse a n a l y s i s . Jones'  study  hearer/reader  demonstrates  that  background knowledge  about t h a t knowledge i s p o s s i b l e . pragmatics  of  discourse,  interested  i n discourse.  and  a  and  linguistic  treatment  speaker/author  assumptions  The study i s a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the has  much t o  offer  the  sociologist  Jones provides a t h e o r e t i c a l base f o r  study o f pragmatic aspects o f E n g l i s h discourse s t r u c t u r e by a  system  for  of  c a t e g o r i z i n g types o f  He w r i t e s :  I n recent years various l i n g u i s t s have developed systems f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f discourses i n order t o account f o r s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between various t e x t s . . . However, there i s i n c r e a s i n g evidence t h a t some a d d i t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t o r y scheme i s needed t o account f o r s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n utterances t h a t stem from the communicat i o n s i t u a t i o n i n which they occur. For example, the frequency and complexity o f 26  offering  ccranunication s i t u a t i o n s  a f f e c t the s t r u c t u r e o f discourse d i f f e r e n t l y .  the  that  explanatory comments i n the context o f an utterance i s affected by whether t h a t u t t e r ance i s constructed i n a face-to-face s i t u a t i o n o r not (1983:9-10). Jones  suggests some r e l a t i v e l y new methodological t o o l s f o r  analysis  of  discourse.  One  such c o n t r i b u t i o n has t o do  i s o l a t i o n o f author comments as a group f o r s p e c i a l study. his  a n a l y s i s o f explanatory comments w i t h i n a discourse,  the  with  the  Also,  in  he proposes  the p r i n c i p l e t h a t the knowledge assumed t o be unknown t o a reader can be explained i n terms o f knowledge assumed t o be known t o him o r  her,  which goes a long way toward e x p l a i n i n g the how o f author assumptions. Finally,  his  occurrence  study and  suggests some o f the f a c t o r s which  d i s t r i b t u i o n of  utterances i n d i s c o u r s e .  demonstratives  control  and  the  extraposition  He w r i t e s :  The discovery o f the functions o f various s y n t a c t i c constructions (such as the functions o f m o d i f i e r s and p a r t i c u l a r sentence types) i s a c r u c i a l task o f discourse a n a l y s i s (1983:117). Jones' perspective  study  is  one  the  coming  a  s o c i o l o g i s t i n t e r e s t e d i n discourse  analysis.  some b a s i c l i m i t a t i o n s t o Jones' study,  himself,  and the  which data  are  linguistic getting  at  and such a study should be r e q u i r e d reading  however,  Foremost,  from  which analyzes discourse w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n  pragmatic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , for  o f the f i r s t  common i n  There  are,  which he p o i n t s out  l i n g u i s t i c discourse  analysis.  f o r the study i s composed o f e d i t e d t e x t s  only,  thus he chooses not t o examine n a t u r a l conversation o r l i v e d i s c o u r s e . One reason f o r t h i s l i m i t a t i o n i s ,  I b e l i e v e , t h a t t h i s i s an area i n  which the l i n g u i s t a n a l y z i n g discourse l a c k s the methodological t o o l s . R e c a l l t h a t Longacre (1983) admits as much. And Jones w r i t e s :  27  I t seems t o me t h a t the structures of a written more markedly by author the absence o f feedback s i t u a t i o n (1983:3). Certainly this  grammatical and semantic t e x t may be i n f l u e n c e d assumptions due t o i n the conraunication  t h i s i s an area i n which sociology has much t o  thesis  methodology  offer,  i s one attempt t o provide the discourse l i n g u i s t w i t h for  t r e a t i n g l i v e conversation and an i n c l u s i o n  of  and a the  ethnographic dimension i n discourse a n a l y s i s .  CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS Whereas Longacre and h i s colleagues begin w i t h a conception o f  a  t e x t as a u n i t superordinate t o l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s and r e q u i r e t h a t this  o r g a n i z a t i o n be e x p l i c a t e d ,  with  l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e b u t w i t h the n o t i o n o f l i v e  expressive  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s begins discourse  o f members' competence, and proposes t h a t members'  not as  actions  and utterances are features o f the s o c i a l l y organized s e t t i n g s o f t h e i r use. or  For example, words do not have unchanging meanings a t a l l times on  a l l occasions o f t h e i r use.  particular  what they mean  occasion o f use r e q u i r e s the taken-f or-granted  work on the p a r t o f members. granted,  Rather,  unexamined ways,  on  any  analytical  T h i s work i s u s u a l l y done i n taken-f o r and i t i s the task o f the  conversational  a n a l y s t t o d i s c o v e r and describe t h i s work. Earlier on  I s a i d t h a t sociology has o f f e r e d d i f f e r e n t perspectives  the s o c i a l world and t h a t s o c i o l o g i s t s who study  becoming  increasingly  conversation  interested  in  the  interaction  analysis  of  are  natural  aimed a t the d i s c o v e r y o f members' methods and p r a c t i c e s  28  used  i n conversation.  traditions  I reviewed what I consider to be two major  i n linguistics for analyzing discourse and focused on the  approach  of Robert Longacre and his students.  analysis  has much to offer students of live conversation.  area  Linguistic  discourse One such  of contribution relates to how conversationalists make use of  linguistic  units i n turn-taking.  Sacks,  Schegloff,  and Jefferson  write: How projection of unit-types i s acccomplished, which allows such "no-gap" starts by next speakers, i s an important question on which we have been working. I t seems to us an area to which linguists can make major contributions. Our characterization i n the rules, and i n the subsequent discussion, leaves the matter of how projection i s done open (1978:51, emphases itdne). In  reviewing  for the reader the  conversational analysis,  methodology  and theory of  I begin with a discussion of Erving Goffman,  Harold Garfinkel and ethnomethodology,  after which I offer the reader  my thoughts on what I consider to be the similarities and differences between linguistic discourse analysis and conversational analysis. The Goffman Factor Erving engaged  i s perhaps the best-known of the sociologists  i n seeking to provide a systematic conceptual scheme for the  observation In  Goffman  and analysis of the organization of social  this chapter we w i l l examine a key concept  work, ' and propose that, correct,  h i s observations  interaction.  of Goffman's,  'face-  i f what Goffman says about 'face-work' i s have  implications  structures which deserve further investigation.  29  for  conversational  While I  do  I do not endeavor t o provide a thorough review o f Goffman,  wish t o  highlight  some  aspects • • o f  writings,  his  p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n t o some i n t e r a c t i o n a l features which we examine f u r t h e r i n the a n a l y t i c chapters. us i s Goffman 1 s paper,  "On Face-work:  i n S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n " (1955). person  Of immediate importance t o  An A n a l y s i s o f R i t u a l Elements  I n t h i s paper Goffman proposes t h a t a  i n i t i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e s h i s o r her r o l e i n an i n t e r a c t i o n ;  is,  a person presents a s p e c i f i c ' f a c e ' .  'in  face'  or  the  t o 'maintain face' whenever t h a t  i n t e r a c t i o n . The  inappropriate ' f a c e ' , of f a c e ' .  person  that  A person may be s a i d t o be person  presents  i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t ' f a c e ' t h a t i s accepted and supported by in  will  who presents  an  an  others  inconsistent  or  on the other hand, may be considered t o be 'out  Goffman w r i t e s : A person who can maintain face i n the c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n i s someone who abstained from c e r t a i n a c t i o n s i n the p a s t t h a t would have been d i f f i c u l t t o face up t o l a t e r (1967:7).  and, A person may be s a i d t o be 'out o f face' when he p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a contact w i t h others w i t h out having ready a l i n e o f the k i n d p a r t i c i p a n t s i n such s i t u a t i o n s are expected t o take (1967:8). Goffman by  a  person  situations There  uses the term 'face-work' t o describe the a c t i o n s t o r e p a i r h i s o r her image by  avoiding  or  t h a t threaten the ' f a c e ' t h a t a person wants  seems  t o be a tendency,  ' f a c e ' but t o p r o t e c t o t h e r s '  too,  'face' as w e l l .  correcting to  not o n l y t o p r o t e c t  taken  project. one's  own  A t y p i c a l example would  be when someone t r i p s over a doorstep, thus momentarily l o s i n g ' f a c e ' , not  only  possible,  w i l l t h a t person t r y t o cover up the clumsiness as much b u t others may pretend not t o have n o t i c e d . 30  as  Goffman f e e l s  that  such  'face-saving' i s an e s s e n t i a l  force  holding  interaction  together. Throughout  some o f Goffman"s l a t e r works the i n i t i a l concept  'face-work'  i s b u i l t upon and r e f i n e d .  Interaction  R i t u a l (1967),  When reading Stigma  R e l a t i o n s i n P u b l i c (1971),  degree Frame A n a l y s i s (1974),  the  out i n Goffman's w r i t i n g s ,  analysis  conversation,  and t o  some  One p a r t i c u l a r feature which  and which i s o f i n t e r e s t t o us  o f s t o r i e s t o l d i n the is  (1963),  the reader i s struck w i t h the r e c u r r i n g  theme o f the importance o f 'face-work'. stands  of  course  of naturally-occurring  t h a t 'face-work' techniques are not l i m i t e d t o  one who i s 'out o f f a c e ' .  in  the  Goffman w r i t e s :  J u s t as the member o f any group i s expected t o have s e l f - r e s p e c t , so a l s o he i s expected t o s u s t a i n a standard o f considerateness; he i s expected t o go t o c e r t a i n lengths t o save the f e e l i n g s and the face o f others present, and he i s expected t o do t h i s w i l l i n g l y and spontaneously because o f emotional i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the others and t h e i r f e e l i n g s . In consequence, he i s d i s i n c l i n e d t o witness the defacement o f [the] other (1967:10). But i s t h i s true? that  I f so,  how do we know?  we can recognize the l a c k o f s u b s t a n t i a l e m p i r i c a l 'provings  possibilities' major  i n Goffman's w r i t i n g s .  a  I n the a n a l y t i c a l chapters  concern w i l l be t o examine these claims by  resource o f n a t u r a l conversation. is  I t i s at t h i s point  convincing  'ring  drawing  from  of a the  I n a l l o f Goffman's w r i t i n g s there  o f t r u t h ' t o what he  conclusions be e m p i r i c a l l y substantiated?  says.  But  can  his  While i n no way t a k i n g away  from the importance o f Goffman's work, I w i l l be involved i n grounding the  findings  Chapter 3,  o f t h i s study i n n a t u r a l l y - o c c u r r i n g  interaction.  In  f o r example, I show t h a t the above c l a i m by Goffman can be 31  corroborated e m p i r i c a l l y . story  I n some s t o r y t e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n s , a t l e a s t ,  r e c i p i e n t s can be shown t o be o b l i g e d t o s u s t a i n a standard  considerateness  and t h a t people w i l l u t i l i z e techniques t o  of  save  the  r e c a l l t h a t he provides i n  The  f e e l i n g s and face o f others i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s . Pursuing Presentation work  Goffman a b i t f u r t h e r ,  o f S e l f i n Everyday L i f e (1959) a summary o f much o f the  t h a t has been done i n the area o f the ' s e l f  up t o t h a t t i m e . in  as a s o c i a l  entity  Goffman o f t e n employs a metaphor t o examine the ways  which people make s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n s observable t o one another as  matter  of  stage.  course:  consider o r d i n a r y l i f e as being l i k e  P a r t i c u l a r l y i n Presentation o f S e l f ,  'person'  as  an a c t o r on the stage having the problem o f the  to  audience as the r e l e v a n t character  Goffman  maintains t h a t we convince our audiences,  whom we i n t e r a c t ,  t h a t we are. who we are,  i n the same s o r t o f way.  a  his  presenting  in  the  'play'.  those people  with  and what we take ourselves  There i s ,  Goffman's 'dramaturgical' approach.  on  Goffman presents  himself  t o be,  life  a  o f course,  much more t o  However, f o r our purposes we w i l l  presuppose t h a t the reader i s f a m i l i a r enough w i t h Goffman's work t h a t we  need not delve i n t o i t much f u r t h e r .  The importance o f t h i s body  o f work w i l l become more apparent i n the a n a l y t i c chapters. To about  reiterate,  in  Goffman's terms a person does not  h i s o r her everyday business,  merely  go  b u t goes about i t constrained t o  s u s t a i n a c e r t a i n image o f t h a t person's  'self  i n the eyes o f o t h e r s .  This ' face-work' i s continuously necessary i n t h a t l o c a l circumstances will  i n v a r i a b l y r e f l e c t upon a person,  vary unexpectedly.  and these circumstances  will  Thus, an i n d i v i d u a l c o n s t a n t l y employs techniques  32  t o defend one's image o f the ' s e l f such instances,  when circumstances warrant i t .  people may f i n d themselves i n a p o s i t i o n where  linage o f h i s or her ' s e l f  In  one's  i s at variance w i t h what i s being p r o j e c t e d  v i a , e . g . the t e l l i n g o f a s t o r y i n conversation. In  Forms  o f Talk (1981),  Goffman makes statements  which  have  implications  f o r l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s and which are o f i n t e r e s t t o  my  concerns  t h i s study.  in  Forms  of  in  Talk,  I n the a r t i c l e "Response C r i e s "  he questions the p o s s i b i l i t y o f applying  s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s t o conversation.  found  linguistic  I n the a r t i c l e he discusses some  types o f utterances which are d i f f i c u l t t o f i t i n t o the  understanding  o f speaker-hearer as proposed i n conversational a n a l y s i s . Throughout the course o f a conversational encounter members ought to long  s u s t a i n involvement i n what i s being s a i d and t o make sure t h a t no periods o f time pass where no one o r more than one i s  conversational ' t u r n ' no  (Sacks,  Shegloff,  Jefferson,  1978).  t a l k i s t a k i n g p l a c e i n a conversational encounter,  conversationalists  can  s t i l l be i n what Goffman c a l l s  t a l k " (Goffman, 1981:130).  taking  Even when  however, a  a  "state  the of  He w r i t e s :  Once one assumes t h a t an encounter w i l l have features o f i t s o w n . . . t h e n i t becomes p l a i n t h a t any c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , any instantaneous s l i c e focusing on t a l k i n g , not a t a l k , n e c e s s a r i l y misses important f e a t u r e s . C e r t a i n i s s u e s , such as the work done i n summoni n g s , the f a c t o r o f t o p i c a l i t y , the b u i l d i n g up o f an information s t a t e known t o be common t o the p a r t i c i p a n t s . . . s e e m e s p e c i a l l y dependent on the question o f the u n i t as a whole (1983: 130-131). Goffman's  t h e s i s i s t h a t a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f conversational  interaction,  examining  "moments 33  of  talk",  neglects  the  real  i n t e r a c t i o n a l character o f a " s t a t e o f t a l k " .  The concept o f a " s t a t e  of t a l k " i s important t o my understanding o f how t o go about analyzing l i v e conversation.  I n h i s a r t i c l e "Radio T a l k " (1981), Goffman begins  t o f u r t h e r define t h i s " s t a t e o f t a l k " .  He w r i t e s :  The underlying framework o f t a l k production i s l e s s a matter o f phrase r e p e r t o i r e than frame space. A speaker's budget o f standard utterances can be d i v i d e d i n t o f u n c t i o n c l a s s e s , each c l a s s p r o v i d i n g expressions through which he can e x h i b i t an alignment he takes t o the events a t hand, a f o o t i n g , a combination o f production format and p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t a t u s (1981:325). While i n a " s t a t e o f t a l k " ,  then, c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s are able t o d e a l  with  whatever occurs i n the conversation,  take,  by s u s t a i n i n g o r changing f o o t i n g .  whatever d i r e c t i o n i t  may  As I show i n the a n a l y t i c a l  chapters, c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s w i l l show a preference f o r s e l e c t i n g t h a t footing  o r stance which provides the l e a s t s e l f - t h r e a t e n i n g  under the circumstances,  position  o r , as Goffman puts i t , "the most defensible  alignment he can muster" (1981:325). A l l o f which leads us t o the f o l l o w i n g 'problem': Goffman and, as we  will  see,  Garfinkel  and  ethnaxiethodology,  ethnographic dimension o f conversational i n t e r a c t i o n , is  to  discourse  'invitation' discourse live  linguists  to  from Longacre,  analyses  vital  importance  which I c i t e d e a r l i e r ,  need t o be supplemented by those  conversation).  ethnomethodology  be o f  have,  in  However, turn,  Goffman,  neglected  the  an aspect which  l e f t out i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s but s t i l l considered  some  into  attend  (recall  that  the  linguistic  doing  research  Garfinkel,  relevant  by  findings  and in  l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s and t h e i r studies l a c k the p r e c i s i o n and 34  d e t a i l provided by l i n g u i s t i c s .  How, then, can the gap be f i l l e d ?  It  i s my t h e s i s t h a t t h i s gap can be bridged by t u r n i n g t o conversational a n a l y s i s i n order t o provide the discourse l i n g u i s t w i t h a methodology f o r d e a l i n g w i t h the f i r s t type o f discourse a n a l y s i s , NARRATIVE. Before r e t u r n i n g t o t h i s 'problem', the  contribution of  interactional  Harold  though, I w i l l f i r s t examine  Garfinkel  to  the  ethnographic  dimension o f discourse by p r o v i d i n g the reader  and  with  a  c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f ethncmetliodology.  ETHNCMETH0DCO3GY Harold  Garfinkel's  Etlmcniethodology,  initial  1967)  was  policy  concerned  statement  (Studies  w i t h the study  of  in  members'  methods o f p r a c t i c a l , common sense reasoning and takes as i t s p o i n t o f departure  the  everyday l i f e . are  made  which  Schutzean  n o t i o n o f the experience o f  produce and categorize these everyday 8  to  us  That i s ,  produce and conceptualize them. our world, what  which  we  methods  activities  the events i n our  because o f the ways i n  world  of  activities  and commonplace by v i r t u e o f the  f o r what they a r e . sense  the  G a r f i n k e l suggests t h a t members' everyday  recognizable  members  events make  7  daily  by and  lives  simultaneously  Through our work o f making sense  of  a common s o c i a l world i s accomplished and we make i t c l e a r  i t i s we are doing,  making  a premise,  making,  members  e.g.  t e l l i n g a story,  or whatever. can  handle  asking a  question,  By using the same methods o f sense-  such  things  as  misunderstandings  or  disagreements by making i t c l e a r t h a t , f o r example, we d o n ' t know what someone i s t a l k i n g about,  or t h a t we do not agree w i t h them, e t c . 35  In  effect, their  G a r f i n k e l suggests t h a t members have t o accomplish o r achieve s o c i a l world and t h a t the events i n our d a i l y l i v e s as  societal  members make sense t o us because o f the ways we simultaneously produce 9 and perceive them. Turner, f o l l o w i n g G a r f i n k e l , w r i t e s : Members provide f o r the r e c o g n i t i o n o f 'what they are doing' by invoking c u l t u r a l l y provided resources (1970:187), and t h a t , a c t i v i t i e s are t o be e l u c i d a t e d as the features o r i e n t e d t o by members i n doing and recognizing a c t i v i t i e s , and assessing t h e i r appropriateness (1970:187). The  studies  initiated  by G a r f i n k e l give  primacy  to  locating  d e s c r i b i n g the competence and knowledge o f s o c i a l members, for-granted  assumptions  experience.  He w r i t e s :  which d e l i m i t a member's  and  the taken-  interpretation  of  The a c t i v i t i e s whereby members produce and manage s e t t i n g s o f organized everyday aff a i r s are i d e n t i c a l w i t h members' procedures f o r making those scenes 'account-able' (1967:1).  G a r f i n k e l makes the p o i n t t h a t people do not n e c e s s a r i l y separate the those  circumstances events  o f s o c i a l events from t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s  are.  Here  Garfinkel' s  program  'reflexivity'  in  we  touch upon a  statement.  fundamental  When G a r f i n k e l  h i s w r i t i n g s he i s r e f e r r i n g t o t h i s  of  what  concept talks  of  about  embedding  of  circumstances i n d e s c r i p t i o n s o r accounts, and o f accounts coming from w i t h i n circumstances o f s o c i a l events and s o c i a l arrangements. say,  then,  We may  t h a t the methods under examination are p a r t o f a l l sense-  making so t h a t an attempt t o l o c a t e and describe them i s i t s e l f a 36  new  waiting-to-be-analyzed though,  instance  o r procedure.  10  most  part,  members use these procedures or methods i n taken-for-granted,  unformulated,  and unexairdned ways.  The s o c i a l world i s 'out  somewhere f o r most people, something ' o b j e c t i v e ' . r a r e l y viewed as a concerted accomplishment, of  For the  there'  The s o c i a l world i s  a product, o r an outcome  the use o f commonly used members' methods.  I t i s the task o f the  ethncmethodologist t o l o c a t e and describe these methods. Language provides us w i t h a v e h i c l e f o r understanding and d e a l i n g with  the  complexities o f human l i f e .  communicating w i t h one another. and v e n t i l a t e our f e e l i n g s , on our c u l t u r e ' s s t o r i e s . and  elaborate t o o l .  practical  reasoning  Garfinkel's  interest  I t i s our primary medium  We use i t t o s e t t l e our  for  differences  t o t e l l about our experiences and t o pass As such, language can become a complicated  One o f the b a s i c considerations i n the study o f revolves around members' use o f i n something l i k e ' t a l k '  everyday  becomes  talk.  apparent  by  noting h i s view o f language as a means f o r accomplishing s o c i a l order. B u i l d i n g upon G a r f i n k e l , D. Lawrence Weider (1974) w r i t e s : One important method o f accomplishing a s e t t i n g ' s a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . . . i s the member's use o f the i d e a o f rule-governed conduct i n t a l k i n g about t h e i r own a f f a i r s among one another (p.34). G a r f i n k e l ' s i n t e r e s t i n t a l k i s not merely i n the use o f language as  a  means  for  r e p o r t i n g on s o c i a l a c t i v i t y ,  but  rather  i n how  language i s employed t o accomplish s o c i a l order as a feature o f s o c i a l reality. activities  H i s concern i s w i t h the methods members use t o c a r r y out the o f everyday l i f e and the v a r i e d p r a c t i c e s by which  make recognizable t o others t h a t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s are 37  rational,  people that  the ways i n which people c o n t i n u a l l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y account f o r what they  do  are  r a t i o n a l and o r d i n a r y .  This  accounting  is  directly  r e l a t e d t o conversation i n t h a t people do many things by t a l k i n g about them.  SACKSIAN ANALYSIS This analysis of t a l k ,  t h i s 'conversational a n a l y s i s ' ,  the most successful avenue o f ethncmethodological research.  has been The work  which has done the most i n making t a l k i n t o a t o p i c f o r study has been that  produced  by  Harvey  Sacks  and  those  influenced  by  him.  'Conversational a n a l y s i s ' was developed and r e f i n e d by the l a t e Harvey Sacks  beginning  students  (e.g.  Pomerantz, natural other  in  and  the e a r l y 1960's and continues  Schegloff, Goldberg,  conversation disciplines  Sacksian  Jefferson, among o t h e r s ) .  (i.e.  linguistics, analysis  a c c e s s i b l e and t i g h t l y - k n i t school, 11 attention: interaction. earliest  through  Ryave,  Schenkein,  attention  to  have  of  recently  anthropology,  seems  his  Although the a n a l y s i s  has received increased  conversational  Sacks'  Turner,  on  in  education),  become  the  most  mostly due t o i t s unique focus o f  i n t e r e s t was concerned w i t h the  phenomenon  of  d e s c r i p t i o n . I t may be taken t h a t i n and through t h e i r t a l k people are continually  d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r s o c i a l world t o one  and everything i s d e s c r i b a b l e :  feelings,  and  so  Anything  things people have done o r want t o do,  events they have seen or not seen, mind,  another.  on.  attitudes,  Sacks  motivations, s t a t e s o f  interlocks quite  nicely  G a r f i n k e l by implying t h a t i t would not be misleading t o t h i n k o f  38  with the  'social  w o r l d ' as c o n s t i t u t e d by i t s a b i l i t y t o describe i t s e l f .  becomes  obvious  that  description  is a  basic  constituent  It  of  our  everyday a c t i v i t i e s . Two major attention  issues  frcm Sacks;  of a  sociolinguistic  nature  have  received  (1) membership categories o f speakers-hearers,  i n which the attempt i s made t o go beyond the surface a n a l y s i s o f t a l k by  proposing a l i n k a g e between members' language categories  members  'do  d e s c r i p t i o n ' and accomplish  s e q u e n t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f conversation. are  seen  as  using  s o c i a l knowledge  reasoning  in  three  ways:  conversational stories,  utterances  etc.;  (b)  activities;  and,  (2)  According t o Sacks, and  practical,  (a) t o recognize as  and how  possible  and  instances  of  people  common  make  the  sense  recognizable things  like  t o accomplish conversational a c t i v i t i e s such  as  g a i n i n g a t u r n a t speaking, c l o s i n g a conversation, and so f o r t h ; and, (c)  to  'do* a v a s t number o f a c t i v i t i e s such as  criticizing, the  complaining,  etc.  joking,  premising,  The s t u d i e s c a r r i e d out by Sacks i n  e x p l o r a t i o n o f the o r d e r l i n e s s o f conversation suggest  that  the  accomplished character o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t a l k stands up t o formal analysis. Sacks interaction, study.  made with  it  explicit  that  his  concern  was  with  social  conversation o f f e r i n g the best opportunity f o r i t s  Schegloff and Sacks w r i t e :  T h i s work [ o f conversational a n a l y s i s ] i s p a r t o f a program o f work u n d e r t a k e n . . . t o explore the p o s s i b i l i t y o f achieving a n a t u r a l i s t i c observational d i s c i p l i n e t h a t could d e a l w i t h the d e t a i l s o f s o c i a l a c t i o n ( s ) r i g o r o u s l y , e m p i r i c a l l y , and f o r m a l l y . . . O u r a t t e n t i o n has been focused 39  on conversational materials; suffice i t to say, this i s not because of a special i n terest i n language, or any theoretical primacy we accord conversation.. .but i n the ways i n which any actions accomplished i n conversation require reference to the properties and organization of conversation for understanding and analysis, both by participants and by professional investigators (1974:233-234).  /Among the many interactional tasks performed i n conversation to which  Sacks pays attention are  the following: the adjacency-pair  phenomenon, the organization of topics i n conversation, transform  operations,  preference  reference  and ordinary  pronouns as  understandings,  for 'recipient design' in storytelling,  the  the analysis of  puns, the technical features of joke-telling, and many more.  Differences Between Conversational Analysis and Linguistic Discourse Analysis  In  this  similarities grammarian the  section between  school  I want to narrow down the differences and linguistic  discourse  analytical  i n the  text  of Longacre and conversational analysis following  work of Harvey Sacks and h i s students.  discourse  analysis  analysis  i s an attempt  categories  Generally,  to extend  linguistic  the techniques  and  i n descriptive linguistics to the analysis of  units beyond the sentence. The basic procedures employed are; (1) the isolation  of a  analysis,  (2) the discovery and description of as nearly a complete  roster  set of basic categories or units  of discourse for  as possible of the factors that may reasonably be expected to  contribute  to the function of the discourse, 40  and (3) the formulation  of  a  set o f r u l e s r e l a t e d t o the  types.  Other  features  of  function o f  individual  l i n g u i s t i c discourse  discourse  analysis  which  I  mentioned e a r l i e r i n c l u d e ; (a) the tendency t o take one o r two w r i t t e n texts  and  to  attempt t o g i v e an in-depth a n a l y s i s  of  all  of  the  features i n t h a t ' t y p e ' o f t e x t , and (b) an appeal t o i n t u i t i o n about, for  example,  what i s a coherent o r well-formed discourse and what i s  not. In contrast,  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s f o l l o w i n g the work o f Sacks  and h i s students i s an e m p i r i c a l approach t o discourse a n a l y s i s seeks  to  avoid  premature  theory  c o n s t r u c t i o n and  which  which uses  basically  i n d u c t i v e methodology;  recurring  patterns i n many n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g conversations.  emphasis to  attempting t o d i s c o v e r and describe  i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i s on what can a c t u a l l y be  occur  acceptable  in if  conversational  discourse, it  were  analysis  not on what one would guess t o t o occur. not  a  Also,  there i s  be  a  t o base one 1 s a n a l y s i s on  The found  odd  or  tendency  in  one  or  two  conversational t e x t s , but t o examine many t e x t s from l i v e conversation in  order  to  d i s c o v e r the systematic p r o p e r t i e s  of  the  sequential  o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t a l k , and the ways i n which utterances are designed t o manage place  such sequences i n of  analysis  the  discourse  places  emphasis  conversational linguist's on  the  use  interaction. of  rules,  Finally,  in  conversational  i n t e r a c t i o n a l and  inferential  consequences o f the choices made between a l t e r n a t i v e utterances.  The different  focus o f Sacksian conversational a n a l y s i s , from t h a t o f l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s .  then,  is  Those engaged  i n discourse a n a l y s i s from a l i n g u i s t i c perspective define t h e i r 41  quite  task  as  the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f 'discourse types' which are abstracted  edited 1976,  texts  l e a d i n g t o general s t r u c t u r a l  regularities  1983; Markels, 1981; Jones, 1983; Gavin, 1980).  from  (Longacre,  Conversational  analysts approach language phenomena from a d i f f e r e n t perspective than the  discourse  study  is  linguist.  not  focused  I n conversational a n a l y s i s the on the competence o f  a  object  speaker  to  of  produce  grammatical sentences o r well-formed discourse i n h i s o r her language. While  conversational  require  that  activities  analysts  ability,  recognize t h a t  persons  acquire  a t t e n t i o n i s not focused on language  accomplished v i a language.  o f language use and a language user,  but  and on  Instead o f developing a model conversational a n a l y s t s seek  to  e x p l i c a t e and describe i n t e r a c t i o n a l a b i l i t i e s . In  l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s a t t e n t i o n i s focused  linguistic analysis  structures seeks  conversation, systematics' activities verbal  located i n a discourse,  t o l o c a t e and describe seeking  which  to  get accomplished.  how i t  is  conversational structures or  that  in  'simplest  conversational  S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i s t o a large extent and  described—not merely l i n g u i s t i c features b u t i n t e r a c t i o n a l ones.  We  not,  after  conversation. gun  and  Students  all,  Orderly  for  machineries  the  located  are  interaction.  interactional  construct  provide  while  upon  dealing  I t i s not,  features o f t a l k may be  with  a  deterministic  unfolding  of  f o r example, l i k e p u l l i n g the t r i g g e r on a  n o t i n g the wholly p r e d i c t a b l e unfolding  that  takes  place.  o f Sacks would agree t h a t there are o r d e r l y and conventional  r e l a t i o n s between utterance types, and t h a t the task o f the a n a l y s t i s 12 to  d i s c o v e r those r e l a t i o n s and e l u c i d a t e them.  That task  includes  f i n d i n g when these r e l a t i o n s are ignored, r e j e c t e d , thrown back on the 42  speaker,  and so o n .  is  questions  that  For example, one  common feature o f conversation  deserve answers.  feature o f conversation,  When we recognize  that  as  Nevertheless,  the  structures  i n conversational i n t e r a c t i o n should be able t o take care  as w e l l .  structures,  I n one sense t h a t i s the task o f the  not  to  a  however, we have t o remember t h a t many times  questions are not followed by answers. located  this  predict  that,  f o r example,  of  discovering  95%  of  the  of time  questions w i l l be followed by answers, but t o provide f o r what becomes available  in  conversation  f o r whatever  can  happen.  Furthermore,  conversational a n a l y s i s does not t r y t o p r e d i c t what persons can o r what k i n d s o f moods they are i n . a person can o r cannot say.  say,  No c o n s t r a i n t s can be put on what  The aim o f conversational a n a l y s i s i s not  intended t o g i v e one an expertise i n 'understanding' a d i s c o u r s e .  It  i s not intended t o f i n d out 'what was r e a l l y meant' i n a conversation. Conversational  a n a l y s i s i s intended t o do provings o f  to  what  show  that  seems  t o be going on i n  possibilities,  a  conversation 13 p o s s i b i l i t y , and where t h a t takes some k i n d o f p r o o f . Conversational a n a l y s i s attends t o the a n a l y s i s o f of  talk  by  attempting t o demonstrate how  located i n the t a l k i t s e l f . needed.  In effect,  'understandings'  may  get  realized  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l features, on  in  be  no a d d i t i o n a l information i s  Turner (1970) has shown t h a t every utterance i n conversation  o r i e n t t o and p i c k up o n .  meaning  a  understandings  has a s o c i a l - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l feature attached t o i t t h a t other can  is  peoples'  conversation  or  Insofar as i n t e n t i o n s ,  through  a  upon  motives, these  then the f o l l o w i n g may be argued:  minds gets r e a l i z e d , talk,  reliance  even  to  a  large  though t h i s r e a l i z a t i o n 43  members and  socialwhat goes  extent, might  through not  be  recognized by the members Insofar discourse  as  discourse  themselves.  14  analysis i s  concerned  a  major  methodological  difference  conversational a n a l y s i s and discourse a n a l y s i s .  which  seek  notes, which  exists  to  type.  the  communicative  R e c a l l t h a t discourse  purpose  Conversational a n a l y s t s ,  of  a  however,  factors  particular as  Schegloff  are concerned w i t h " f i n d i n g a set o f formal p r a c t i c e s a  world  of particular specific scenes... i s  e x h i b i t e d " (1972:117).  in  between  t o discover and describe a complete r o s t e r o f  contribute  discourse  explicating  features by r u l e s which a t t e s t t o a member's competence  communicating,  analysts  with  through  accomplished  and  This i s confirmed by Turner:  The k i n d o f a n a l y s i s we must pursue as students o f conversational order i s d i rected t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f an apparatus which i s usable on m a t e r i a l s other than the data i t i n i t i a l l y handles (1976:233). I t pays, too, t o note the scope and l i m i t a t i o n s o f conversational analysis—what analysis  is  i t i s and i s not intended t o not,  after a l l ,  handle.  Conversational  t r y i n g t o construct a methodology  f i g u r i n g out 'what was meant' i n a p a r t i c u l a r conversation. interested  in  l o c a t i n g and d e s c r i b i n g formal c o g n i t i v e  I t i s not  features  language or i n c o n t r i b u t i n g t o p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c grammars o r in  macro-level language debates.  seek talk, the  for  of  engaging  What conversational a n a l y s i s  does  t o do i s t o provide i n s i g h t i n t o the i n t e r a c t i o n a l character  of  something which i s b a s i c a l l y neglected by discourse a n a l y s t s i n text  important  grammarian  school o f a n a l y s i s but which i s  and recommended f o r f u r t h e r  Jones, 1983; P i c k e r i n g , 1979). 44  study  (cf.  recognized Longacre,  as  1983;  There discourse  are,  however,  analysis  seme  s i m i l a r i t i e s between  and c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s .  linguistic  I n seme  discourse  models, f o r example, discourse functions apply not o n l y t o the meaning of  a  contexted  discourse,  utterance b u t a l s o t o the other  Sinclair  fulfill  various  either  in  the  and how utterances may precede, f o l l o w , and r e l a t e t o each  other.  response,  utterances  and  be  and  Coulthard (1975) suggest  functions i n discourse,  that  e.g.  questions  t o make a s l o t f o r  t h a t discourse a c t s may be viewed as moves  i n i t i a t i n g o r responding.  can  which  There i s a p a r a l l e l here  a can  with  Sacks' work w i t h adjacency-pairs (1967;  1972),  p a r t provides f o r the second p a i r - p a r t .  In such instances the l a c k o f  a second p a i r - p a r t would be n o t i c e a b l e .  Y e t the s i m i l a r i t i e s between  discourse  where the f i r s t p a i r -  a n a l y s i s and conversational a n a l y s i s  remain minimal.  /As  Schegloff and Sacks t e l l us: F i n d i n g an utterance t o be an answer, t o be accomplishing answering, cannot be achieved by reference t o p h o n o l o g i c a l , s y n t a c t i c , semantic, o r l o g i c a l features o f the utterance i t s e l f , but o n l y by c o n s u l t i n g i t s s e q u e n t i a l placement, e . g . i t s placement a f t e r a question (1973:299). I n a s i m i l a r v e i n , E g l i n (1978) w r i t e s : Conversational a n a l y s i s i s p r i o r t o semantics and syntax; t h a t i s , t h a t the sense and reference o f an utterance p a r t i s dependent upon what a c t i o n the utterance i s performing (p. 18). Furthermore, Turner (1970) argued years ago t h a t utterances cannot "be treated  as  reports  or  descriptions  without  reference  to  the  i n t e r a c t i o n a l l o c a t i o n o f the utterance i n question" (p.173). To  reiterate,  conversational 45  a n a l y s i s b u i l d s upon G a r f i n k e l ' s  initial  formulation of ethncmethodology  that s o c i a l through  structures  are  interaction.  achieved,  (1967) by holding to the view  sustained,  Conversational  and displayed  analysts are  i n and  interested  i n how  language i s employed to accomplish s o c i a l order as a feature of reality,  social  i n a narrower sense, t h i s i n t e r e s t has to do w i t h how people  continually display  and c o n s i s t e n t l y  their activities  as  account  for what they do and how they  r a t i o n a l and o r d i n a r y .  This accounting  r e l a t e s to t a l k i n that people do many things by t a l k i n g about Upon a n a l y s i s  i t i s claimed that t a l k e x h i b i t s many o r d e r l y  them.  features,  not so much features of language as features of i n t e r r a c t i o n .  METHODOLOGY Recall discourse first  that  the purpose of my d i s s e r t a t i o n  is  l i n g u i s t with a set of discovery procedures  type  of  dissertation  is  discourse  as  posited  not a substantive  by  Longacre,  conversational  to provide  the  for t r e a t i n g  the  NARRATIVE.  analysis  piece,  methodological w i t h respect to making conversational a n a l y s i s to l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s . dissertation  will  NARRATIVE i n l i v e Before  proceeding  methodology conclude  which  this  be  on  interactional which  the a n a l y t i c a l  is  chapter  but  relevant  E a r l i e r I said that the focus of my  conversation, to  This  and ethnographic I  refer  chapters  to  as  to  conversational  with  my  assumptions  analysis about  i n t e r a c t i o n i n general and about n a r r a t i v e s p e c i f i c a l l y .  of  STORYTELLING.  I want to o u t l i n e  central  46  features  and  the then  conversational  The  methodology  conversational a n a l y s i s .  which  I  use  in  this  study  is  basic  to  The two basic methods used i n conversational  a n a l y s i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are: (1)  Examining conversational t r a n s c r i p t s i n order to discover r e c u r r i n g patterns and d e s c r i b i n g the systematic properties of those p a t t e r n s . Conversational a n a l y s i s attempts to locate some p a r t i c u l a r organization and i s o l a t e i t s systematic features by demonstrating p a r t i c i p a n t s ' o r i e n t a t i o n to those features, and  (2) Discovering what problems the e x p l i c a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n solves and what problems i t r a i s e s . That i s , what i m p l i c a t i o n s does i t have for the existence of further s o l u t i o n s to further problems. In listening  this to  study, and  I  used  transcribing  the the  transcripts for recurring patterns,  above  methodology  conversational  as  follows:  tapes,  searching  l o c a t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r conversational  o r g a n i z a t i o n , discovering the systematic  features of that o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  and d e s c r i b i n g i t s formal properties by demonstrating the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' o r i e n t a t i o n to those p r o p e r t i e s . employed  i n conversational  In my a n a l y s i s ,  members'  i n t e r a c t i o n and researchers'  procedures methods  for  discovering those procedures can be described i n terms of three kinds of orientations:  (1)  r e c i p i e n t design,  (2) membership a n a l y s i s ,  and  (3)  a c t i v i t y a n a l y s i s , each of which I discuss i n d e t a i l i n the a n a l y t i c a l chapters.  47  The  above paragraph i m p l i e s a recommendation as t o how t o  searching  for  chapters.  This  one  ought  t o the issues formulated  in  the  recommendation i s t h a t when analyzing a  to  transcripts the  solutions  begin  by  examining  and  comparing  o f n a t u r a l conversation i n order t o  'how' o f t e l l i n g and l i s t e n i n g .  analytic  conversation  recordings  l o c a t e and  The s t o r i e s subjected t o  in  t h i s study are drawn from a corpus o f about 250 15  captured  on  tape.  patterns  i n order t o d i s c o v e r and describe the systematic  the  From these s t o r i e s I  organization  organization  of  conversation,  of  conversational  conversation  searched  narrative,  r e l a t i n g to narratives  for  and  describe  analysis  of  begin  formal stories  recurring properties  the  sequential  told  in  live  and the ways i n which utterances are designed t o manage  such sequences. Conclusion Linguistic  discourse a n a l y s i s has much t o o f f e r the  interested  i n the study o f d i s c o u r s e .  sociology  has  been  somewhat  For the most  negligent  in  c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s , of  Longacre and h i s students.  discourse analysis In  builds  up  a  part,  of  interested  linguistic  in  discourse  that  basis.  he makes the q u i t e v a l i d  argument t h a t : There i s a need f o r a s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c theory which accounts f o r the communicative functions o f l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a b i l i t y and f o r i t s r e l a t i o n t o speakers' goals without reference t o un48  the  p a r t i c u l a r l y the work  and proceeds t o dismiss l i n g u i s t i c f i n d i n g s on  the recent study o f John Gumperz (1982),  however,  appropriating  Often the s o c i o l o g i s t  ' straw-man' image  sociologist  t e s t a b l e f u n c t i o n a l i s t assumptions about conformity o r noncomformance t o closed systems o f norms. Since speaking i s i n t e r a c t i n g , such a theory must u l t i m a t e l y draw i t s b a s i c postulates from what we know about i n t e r a c t i o n (1982:29).  There much  of  i s an i n t e r a c t i o n a l ,  ethnographic dimension missing  the work being done i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse  analysis  from which  sociology i s equipped t o d e a l w i t h and t h i s study o f f e r s the discourse l i n g u i s t a methodology f o r d e a l i n g w i t h the discourse type with  respect t o making conversational a n a l y s i s r e l e v a n t t o l i n g u i s t i c  discourse  analysis.  In  making  a  methodological  c o n t r i b u t i o n t o l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s , an  NARRATIVE,  i n v i t a t i o n from l i n g u i s t i c s f o r h e l p .  and  theoretical  t h i s study responds t o  I f i t were the  case  that  discourse l i n g u i s t s were not concerned w i t h an i n t e r a c t i o n a l treatment of  the issues d e a l t w i t h i n t h e i r analyses,  would not be considered necessary. be  true.  Discourse  dimension,  but  I find,  then such a c o n t r i b u t i o n however, the opposite t o  l i n g u i s t s are i n t e r e s t e d  lack  the  analytical  tools  in  the  for  dealing  i n t e r a c t i o n a l and ethnographic concerns i n d i s c o u r s e . chapter on  dimension  being c a r r i e d out i n l i n g u i s t i c s and  o f discourse as t r e a t e d i n s o c i o l o g y .  fill  that  gap  by  offering  with  E a r l i e r i n the  I noted t h a t there i s a gap between the d e s c r i p t i v e  discourse  to  ethnographic  the  analyses  ethnographic  T h i s study attempts  conversational  analysis  as  a  methodological and a n a l y t i c a l t o o l t o the discourse l i n g u i s t . Following my i n t r o d u c t o r y remarks I set out t o review the l i n e o f progression noted  major  perspective;  from  d e s c r i p t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s t o discourse  approaches  to  studying  (1) t e x t grammar,  discourse  from  analysis. a  and (2) speech-act theory. 49  I  linguistic I  then  focused  on one perspective frcm the former;  f o l l o w i n g the a n a l y t i c a l  perspective o f Robert Longacre and h i s students.  I believe that t h i s  school o f l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s i s the most productive and one t h a t recognizes the need f o r an ethnographic dimension w i t h a  concern  for  I  interaction.  return  to  this  Throughout discourse  the a n a l y t i c a l chapters ( 3 - 6 )  perspective  by  providing a  treatment  o f a feature o f discourse and then o f f e r i n g an  treatment  of  and  ethnomethodology  compared  and  discourse My purpose  linguistic alternative  the same feature v i a conversational a n a l y s i s .  t r a c e d the l i n e o f progression from E r v i n g Goffman, to  contrasted  analysis in  conversational  Harold  analysis,  after  the a n a l y t i c a l perspective  of  w i t h the perspective o f conversational  doing  t h i s was t o show the  need  for  will  Then  I  Garfinkel which  I  linguistic analysis.  including  an  ethnographic dimension i n t o l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s , a need t h a t is  already  recognized by those l i n g u i s t s i n the Longacre  discourse a n a l y s i s .  school  of  I n the next chapter, I focus on previous studies  o f n a r r a t i v e i n the l i n g u i s t i c and s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e .  50  Footnotes: Chapter 1_ 1 Tagmemic theory, b a s i c a l l y , begins w i t h the assumption t h a t there i s "an analogy between a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i e t y , as a whole, and a language" ( P i k e , 1967:643). The analogy has f i v e components: (1) the s t r u c t u r e o f each can be detected o n l y by observing i n d i v i d u a l s and groups i n t e r a c t i n g , (2) each language o r s o c i e t y i s r e l a t i v e l y independent o f other languages and s o c i e t i e s , although "there may be f r u i t f u l contact between d i f f e r e n t languages by way o f b i l i n g u a l s , and contact between s o c i e t i e s through i n d i v i d u a l s b i - s o c i a l l y o r i e n t e d " (Pike, 1967:643), (3) both k i n d s o f structures are r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e , (4) the s t r u c t u r e o f a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i e t y comprises a set o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n a network, and (5) components o f the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , i n c l u d i n g language, are s t r u c t u r e d i n three modes. The three modes are; the feature mode, the manifestation mode, and the distribution mode. P i k e ' s v e r s i o n o f tagmemic theory can be summarized, then, i n two main i d e a s . The f i r s t i s t h a t behavior can be described from both the emic and the e t i c viewpoints, and, secondly, s o c i a l components are t r i m o d a l l y s t r u c t u r e d ( P i k e , 1967). 2  For example, Toba (1978) shows t h a t i n the Khaling language (Eastern Nepal) p a r t i c i p a n t focus d i s t i n g u i s h e s event oriented n a r r a t i v e s from p a r t i c i p a n t o r i e n t e d n a r r a t i v e s . P a r t i c i p a n t focus i s a k i n d o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h a t i d e n t i f i e s p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h regard t o t h e i r importance i n the n a r r a t i v e . I n K h a l i n g , p a r t i c i p a n t s ' f o c a l o r nonfocal status may be s i g n a l l e d by the use o f noun phrases and pronominalization. I n the Kaje language (Nigeria) a s t o r y t e l l e r may use a s p e c i f i c pronoun i n the verb phrase t o r e f e r t o any one o f s e v e r a l t h i r d person referents (McKinney, 1978). 3 Lakoff (1971) i n i t i a l l y pointed out t h a t i n s i t u a t i o n s where the speaker wishes the hearer t o do something, E n g l i s h uses modal ' w i l l ' , 'may', ' m i g h t ' , o r 'should' attached t o the main verb t o o b t a i n a c e r t a i n degree o f p o l i t e n e s s . Morton (1978) found t h a t i n the P a r j i language (India) speakers use f i v e d i f f e r e n t performative a r t i c l e s f o r the sole purpose o f informing hearers about the speaker's a t t i t u d e t o h i s o r her hearer and t o the information t h a t i s being g i v e n . 4 For example, i n many languages there seem t o be 'cohesion markers' which occur i n c e r t a i n c l a u s e s . They are cohesive i n the sense t h a t they may r e f e r t o t h i n g s t h a t have been s a i d e a r l i e r i n a n a r r a t i v e . A t the same time they provide a p o i n t o f departure f o r the next set o f utterances o r the next paragraph, i f one i s analyzing an e d i t e d t e x t ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan, 1976; Jones, 1977; Strahm, 1978).  51  5 For example, Marlene Schulze demonstrates how r h e t o r i c a l questions are used t o organize discourse i n the Sunwar (Nepal) language. One k i n d o f r h e t o r i c a l question i s used t o capture o r recapture the hearer's attention. Another k i n d o f r h e t o r i c a l question i s used f o r i d e n t i f y i n g characters, events, o r s e t t i n g s and t o impress on the hearer some s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t e o f these. 6  I n h i s 1977 a r t i c l e , " A Discourse M a n i f e s t o " , Longacre w r i t e s : I t seems t o me there i s more a t stake than simply the f a c t t h a t discourse p e r spective i s needed t o round out l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s on any l e v e l , and t h a t t h i s [ d i s course a n a l y s i s ] i s an area o f growing i n t e r e s t w i t h i n the f i e l d as a whole (p. 27).  7 From the beginning, G a r f i n k e l ' s major concern was t o focus on the 'background expectancies' o f s i t u a t i o n s which makes i n t e r a c t i o n p o s s i b l e and which makes s o c i a l r e a l i t y an ongoing accomplishment (1967). People do hundreds o f things every day, and these things are viewed by G a r f i n k e l as p r a c t i c a l accomplishments which deserve as much a t t e n t i o n by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s as are more extraordinary phenomena. 8  G a r f i n k e l assumes t h a t the s o c i a l world i s c o n s t a n t l y being created by people and t h a t t h i s continuous c r e a t i o n i s not a problem f o r them. That i s t o say, through t h e i r use o f taken-for-granted, ccmmon sense knowledge about how the world works and how people can manage t h e i r a f f a i r s i n acceptable ways, members o f a s o c i e t y can be seen t o be c r e a t i n g the s o c i e t y . He w r i t e s t h a t h i s studies a r e : . . . d i r e c t e d t o the tasks o f l e a r n i n g how members'actual, o r d i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s c o n s i s t o f methods t o make p r a c t i c a l a c t i o n s , p r a c t i c a l circumstances, commonsense [ s i c ] knowledge o f s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s , and p r a c t i c a l s o c i o l o g i c a l reasoning analyzable; and o f d i s c o v e r i n g the formal p r o p e r t i e s o f commonp l a c e , p r a c t i c a l commonsense [ s i c ] a c t i o n s 'from w i t h i n ' a c t u a l s e t t i n g s as ongoing accomplishments o f those s e t t i n g s ( 1 9 6 9 : v i i i ) . 9 For those s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s i n t e r e s t e d i n studying the everyday world, G a r f i n k e l ' s program suggests t h a t everywhere one looks one can see people going about t h e i r o r d i n a r y business performing f a m i l i a r , unremarkable a c t i v i t i e s , and t h a t these a c t i v i t i e s are the v e r y crux o f the s o c i a l w o r l d . I n t h a t the a b i l i t y o f people t o s u c c e s s f u l l y perform these a c t i v i t i e s i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h others i s what makes the s o c i a l world p o s s i b l e , one ought t o take these p r a c t i c a l a c t i o n s and examine them f o r how they are accomplished (1967). 52  10 As G a r f i n k e l suggests, not o n l y s o c i e t a l members, but a l s o sociologists, l i n g u i s t s , o r anyone, operate i n t h i s manner. I n t h i s way anyone can d e r i v e ' o b j e c t i v e ' , general statements about the s o c i a l world. 11 Those analysts f o l l o w i n g the Sacksian t r a d i t i o n study what people say, the accounts they g i v e , i n order t o d i s c o v e r how the s t r u c t u r a l features o f s i t u a t i o n s are produced, and maintained i n a manner which 'makes sense' t o p a r t i c i p a n t s .  12  Simply p u t , the concern o f the conversational a n a l y s t i s w i t h the methods people use t o c a r r y out the a c t i v i t i e s o f everyday l i f e and the p r a c t i c e s by which they convey t o others t h a t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s are r a t i o n a l and o r d i n a r y . The crux o f the matter i s t h a t people do many t h i n g s by t a l k i n g about them (Turner, 1970). 13  Sacks et a l . w r i t e i n r e l a t i o n t o t u r n - t a k i n g : While understanding o f other t u r n ' s t a l k are d i s p l a y e d t o c o p a r t i c i p a n t s , they are a v a i l a b l e as w e l l t o p r o f e s s i o n a l a n a l y s t s , who are t h e r e by afforded a proof c r i t e r i o n . . . f o r the a n a l y s i s o f what a t u r n ' s t a l k i s occupied w i t h . Since i t i s the p a r t i e s ' understandings o f p r i o r t u r n ' s t a l k that i s relevant to t h e i r construction of next t u r n s , i t i s t h e i r understandings t h a t are wanted f o r a n a l y s i s . The d i s p l a y o f those understandings i n the t a l k i n subsequent turns affords a resource f o r the a n a l y s i s o f p r i o r t u r n s , and a proof procedure f o r the p r o f e s s i o n a l analyses o f p r i o r t u r n s , resources i n t r i n s i c t o the data themselves (1978:45).  14  This p o i n t s t o a major d i f f e r e n c e between conversational a n a l y s i s and discourse a n a l y s i s frcm a s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c perspective as w e l l . Gumperz (1982) w r i t e s : We must draw a b a s i c d i s t i n c t i o n between meaning...and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i . e . the s i t u a t e d assessment o f i n t e n t (p.207). Surely we can agree w i t h Gumperz t h a t the content o f meaning i s situational, t h a t meaning i s generated i n a s i t u a t i o n and i s reflexively reinforced i n t a l k . Although Gumperz i s not from e i t h e r 53  the l i n g u i s t i c discourse school o r conversational a n a l y s i s , h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c theory and methodology has helped shape my own perspective on language over the y e a r s . 15  I e s p e c i a l l y want t o thank David A l e g u i r e f o r making some o f h i s tapes a v a i l a b l e t o me. During 1975-1976, A l e g u i r e tape-recorded conversations i n a v a r i e t y o f informal s e t t i n g s . I have 19 hours o f tape-recorded conversations. Besides those g i v e n t o me by A l e g u i r e , I recorded various f r i e n d s and f a m i l y members i n informal s e t t i n g s . My own recordings, about 5 hours worth, were recorded between 1979-1983.  54  CHAPTER 2: CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING  Much of the recent interest i n storytelling and was  originally  anthropological pioneering  story  sparked by the structural analysis of 1 circles.  It seems natural to  grammars  folktales i n  first  mention the  monograph on the structure of Russian fairytales  Propp (1968,  by  V.  originally published i n 1928). He isolated 31 narrative  categories  or  functions such as  villainy.  He  described  a  departure,  struggle,  return,  'function' as "an act of a  and  character,  defined  from the point of view of i t s significance for the course of  action"  (1968:21).  Propp claimed that functions served as  constant  categories or elements of a tale which are independent of the specific characters or circumstances i n which they are found. Studies i n Narrative In which  mentioning Propp and others we are discussing  differs  treats  stories  conversation.  storytelling  from narration i n which we are interested, i n that Propp which were not told There  i n the  are elements, however,  course of  i n some of the works  which have been important to developments i n conversational B.  Colby  analyzing  natural  analysis.  (1973) b u i l t upon and departed from the work of Propp i n Inuit  folktales and introduced the notion of a grammar of  stories marked by sequence and selection rules.  Propp had presented a  sequence  of functions which could be discovered i n folktales but his  analysis  could not account for the numerous exceptions to the normal 55  sequence. However,  In contrast, the  C o l b y ' s a n a l y s i s had some generative  generative  capacity  of h i s analysis  was  power.  limited  to  2  v a l i d a t i n g the genuineness o f b a s i c n a r r a t i v e u n i t s .  Thus, both Propp  and Colby represent an attempt t o develop a f u n c t i o n a l methodology f o r analyzing  story  structures,  but  neither,  i n my mind,  were  very  successful due t o the l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e g o a l s . Recent develop  i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s has  ' s t o r y grammars',  structure for  research  analyses which provide f o r the  o f simple s t o r i e s and the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f  comprehension and  recall  (Rumelhart,  structures  Thorndyke,  1977;  Mandler,  1978; Mandler and Johnson, 1977; S t e i n and Glenn, 1979).  each  these  of  studies the focus i s on an a n a l y s i s o f  to  underlying  such  1975;  tried  higher  In  level  3  organizational structures i n s t o r i e s .  For example,  Thorndyke (1977)  attempted t o show t h a t s t o r i e s have a s u p r a s e n t e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e l i s t e n e r s are s e n s i t i v e t o . analysts with  I s a i d i n the l a s t chapter t h a t discourse  working from a generative semantic perspective are concerned  e x p l i c a t i n g and d e s c r i b i n g these  beyond-the-sentence  and the studies mentioned here a t t e s t t o t h a t g o a l . to  which  emphasize  that  these studies are concerned  features,  However, we wish  only  with  language  competence and not i n t e r a c t i o n a l a b i l i t i e s . I want t o mention the work o f two other researchers before moving on  to  the  Kintsch  analysis of stories t o l d  and  T.A.  van  in  natural  conversation.  D i j k (1978) have argued t h a t an  analysis  w. of  p r o p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n a s t o r y ( ' p r o p o s i t i o n ' r e f e r r i n g t o the meaning o f a  sentence),  discourse  does  structure,  not  adequately  explain  important  elements  such as an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y t o summarize  56  of a  text.  Kintsch  account  and  van  D i j k take i t as t h e i r goal t o  f o r the features which e s t a b l i s h a t e x t as a  be  able  coherent  and a l l o w i t t o be defined i n terms o f discourse t o p i c s .  to  whole  Of i n t e r e s t  t o us i s t h a t K i n t s c h and van D i j k have suggested t h a t people who hear a  story,  o r read a s t o r y ,  hear/read i t w i t h a c e r t a i n world-view o r  set o f expectations about the s t o r y ' s s t r u c t u r e . (1977),  According t o K i n t s c h  s t o r i e s are formed as a sequence o f episodes,  consists  of  claims,  an e x p o s i t i o n ,  further,  that  a complication,  and a  each o f  which  resolution.  He  l i s t e n e r s segment the s t o r i e s they hear  s t o r y categories which i n v o l v e s both formal l i n g u i s t i c cues and o f f e r e d by the content o f the s t o r y .  into those  A formal cue could be something  l i k e "now" o r " w e l l " , o r connectors such as " b u t " , "however", and "so" t h a t connect whole s t o r y categories r a t h e r than s i n g l e sentences.  In  a recent a r t i c l e , van D i j k (1982) t r e a t s episodes as semantic u n i t s o f discourse,  represented  the  surface  structure  language.  An episode o f a discourse i s considered by van D i j k t o be a related  l a r g e r theme.  spoken  paragraphs,  with  of  boundary markers i n both  by  generally  sequence  clear  in  p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t may be  For example,  subsumed  and  written  under  some  any change o f time, p l a c e , p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  o r events g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e s a new episode. The  following  d i f f e r i n t h a t the s t o r i e s they analyzed i n  research  are drawn from n a t u r a l conversation.  Waletsky  (1966),  stories found  told to  attempted placed  on  be the  using  ' s t o r y ' as an  W i l l i a m Labov and  analytic  unit,  i n conversation and demonstrated t h a t composed o f formal ambitious  properties.  Janet  p r o j e c t o f accounting f o r  o r a l n a r r a t i v e s by the s o c i a l context and  57  their J.  investigated  stories Eisner the the  can  be  (1975)  constraints narrator's  involvement.  She claims t h a t " i t i s the n a r r a t o r ' s involvement i n the  n a r r a t i v e which determines the kinds o f n a r r a t i v e s produced" and  t h a t there are four k i n d s o f o r a l n a r r a t i v e :  vicarious story. in  experience,  personal experience,  (1975:v)  uninvolved  report,  and group experience  or  I n r e l a t i o n t o conversational s t o r y t e l l i n g , o f i n t e r e s t t o us  t h i s study i s E i s n e r ' s a t t e n t i o n given t o the process o f s e l e c t i o n  and r e - o r d e r i n g o f events through which the s t o r y t e l l e r transforms the original  event  transformations story.  into  the  narrated  event.  By  making  these  a s t o r y t e l l e r can cue the hearer t o the p o i n t o f  the  I n terms o f discourse features, E i s n e r discusses the uses and  forms o f reported speech w i t h i n the s t r u c t u r e o f a s t o r y and concludes that  storytellers  are r e s o u r c e f u l language users who shape  and i t s s t r u c t u r e t o f i t t h e i r t e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n s . close  to  describing  constrained  by  her  interactional  abilities,  language  She a t times comes but  i n t e n t t o discover grammatical  seems  to  features  be  within  stories. Kenneth 'grammar  Gavin  (1980)  a l s o works toward the c o n s t r u c t i o n  of  o f s t o r i e s ' and proposes t h a t s t o r y grammars operate on  a the  premise t h a t they can provide the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r any w e l l formed s t o r y . of  story  structure,  sentences?  Again,  analysis, than  and note  (2) how do they r e l a t e  to  a  grammar  t h a t the concerns o f those doing  within  that  the Sacksian  conversational  tradition.  that  I  said  analysts are not t r y i n g  'what was r e a l l y meant' i n a conversation. however,  (1) what are the b a s i c u n i t s of  discourse  even on s t o r i e s t o l d i n n a t u r a l conversation, are d i f f e r e n t  those  example,  H i s concern i s t w o - f o l d :  to  for  interpret  I do f i n d i t i n t e r e s t i n g ,  Gavin claims consistent use o f a t l e a s t a  58  earlier,  rudimentary  s t o r y s t r u c t u r e a t a l l age l e v e l s . The l a s t group o f w r i t e r s I discuss come c l o s e s t , the  i n t e r e s t s o f those doing conversational a n a l y s i s from a  perspective.  Nessa  Wolfson  narrative  Labov  to  by  historical  present  conversational past  tense  (1976,  report  tense  in  the  on the  use  of  the  conversational  in  conversational  storytelling  type  of  repetition.  She  performance"  in  the  work  sequence present  story  which she c a l l s  from  refers  storytelling.  and  is  referentially Wolfson suggests  to  a  "performed  another.  story"  this kind of  story  as  a  or folktales.  The use o f the  off  conversational  conversational  to  make the choice o f whether or  historical  Wolf son  conversational storytelling other  tenses one  act  may  to  be  edited  Wolfson demonstrates t h a t i t i s the s t o r y t e l l e r not  present tense as a means o f  to  claimed  historical  that present  the tense  alternation and  other  use  the  organizing  s t o r y and where i n the s t o r y t o make the tense switches. article  and  historical  s t o r i e s t o l d i n n a t u r a l conversation as opposed  obliged  a  "structured  tense i s a good example o f a discourse feature which  texts  in  a s i d e s , motions and gestures, and  o f organizing the n a r r a t i v e by s e t t i n g 5  in  is  The  which the switching between past and present  found  who  on  conversational 4  h i s t o r i c a l present tense occurs o n l y  contains features such as dialogue,  does  work  h i s t o r i c a l present tense may s u b s t i t u t e f o r the simple  conversational  specific  Sacksian  1978) b u i l d s upon the  equivalent t o the past tense when used i n t h i s way. that  i n my mind, t o  a  I n a recent between tenses  the in  a  i s a "performance feature which functions along w i t h the  features i n t h i s set t o g i v e s t r u c t u r e and drama t o  being performed" (1978:217). 59  the  story  Livia  P o l a n y i (1979) takes a d i f f e r e n t approach t o s t o r i e s  told  i n the course o f n a t u r a l conversation and claims t h a t what s t o r i e s can be  'about'  is  conversation material  6  important. tellers have  ought  that  t o have as i t s ' p o i n t ' o n l y  considered  by  c u l t u r a l members  to  a  story  told  culturally be  in  salient  self-evidently  S t o r i e s may a l s o be changed i n the course o f t e l l i n g  as  and hearers negotiate f o r what a s t o r y w i l l be agreed upon t o  been  about.  structure  of  integrated corrraents  a  into  She c l a i m s ,  further,  that i n  our  s t o r y i s composed o f devices which  "may  the  or  telling  o f the s t o r y  itself  culture be  the  either  included  made by the n a r r a t o r frcm outside the frame o f  (1979:209). acts  c u l t u r a l l y constrained,  the  in  story"  She considers a ' d e v i c e ' t o be a type o f statement which  from outside the s t o r y t o i n d i c a t e t h a t a c e r t a i n p a r t  of  the  story  contains information c r u c i a l t o understanding why the s t o r y was  told.  Labov (1972) and Longacre (1976) use ' d e v i c e ' i n the same way,  to  r e f e r t o the use o f reported speech,  phrases,  increased use o f m o d i f i e r s ,  such as,  'Get t h i s ,  in  our  story,  culture  r e p e t i t i o n o f key  and so f o r t h  t h i s i s the funny p a r t ' ) .  words  ( e . g . a statement  /According t o P o l a n y i ,  there i s u s u a l l y more than one device present 7  and more than one p i e c e o f information i s h i g h l i g h t e d .  research  or  in  a  Her  focuses upon examining s t o r i e s t o l d i n conversation w i t h  an  i n t e r e s t i n understanding how s t o r i e s can t e l l something o f the values and c u l t u r e o f a people. None o f the studies discussed thus f a r , with  however,  are  i n t e r a c t i o n a l a b i l i t i e s but w i t h language competence,  p o s s i b l e exceptions o f Wolfson and P o l a n y i .  60  concerned with  the  Even these, though, have  little  to  Although  o f f e r i n terms o f understanding Wolfson and P o l a n y i ,  interactional  abilities.  and t o a l e s s e r degree Labov,  seek t o  draw a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t o r y t e l l i n g and c u l t u r a l knowledge, is  a  puzzling  knowledge'.  equivocality  First,  the  i n their  use  of  the  term  there  'cultural  term i s scmetimes used t o r e f e r t o t y p i f i e d  members' experiences and, secondly, i t i s used as the 'knowing how' o f acxxarcplishing a c t i v i t i e s such as t e l l i n g s t o r i e s .  As Sacks (1978) has  noted, both aspects are o f t e n i n t r i c a t e l y connected.  For example,  the  t o p i c o f a s t o r y ( f i r s t aspect) i s r e l a t e d t o the t o p i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of  the  conversation  However,  the  tained.  i n which the s t o r y  distinction  A  story  between  the  is  told  two  aspects  aspect).  must be main-  may serve t o transmit ' t y p i c a l experiences'  thus p l a y a p a r t i n s o c i a l i z a t i o n (Spielmann, 'knowing t h a t ' .  (second  The second aspect,  1981).  and  T h i s aspect i s  'knowing how', i s independent o f  the p a r t i c u l a r ' t h a t ' that i s being t o l d . To r e i t e r a t e ,  the w r i t e r s discussed above show l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n  s t o r y t e l l i n g as an i n t e r a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , structure  but focus instead on s t o r y  and/or the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t o r y t e l l i n g  knowledge.  and  cultural  I now wish t o examine the work o f Sacks and those who have  analyzed  stories  told  in  natural  conversation  from  a  Sacksian  perspective.  Sacksian Studies i n Conversational S t o r y t e l l i n g Harvey late  sixties  lectures his  Sacks began examining s t o r i e s t o l d i n conversation i n the and  h i s work i s w e l l represented  in  his 8  from the F a l l of 1970 and the Spring o f 1971.  lectures  edited  by G a i l J e f f e r s o n and 61  published  unpublished In  one  of  posthumously,  Sacks that  begins w i t h the seme b a s i c features o f s t o r i e s i n our they  are  ways  characteristically The  story  (1978:259).  9  is  that  stories  report an experience i n which the t e l l e r  figures.  often  of  packaging  organized  experiences  around  the  and  culture,  teller's  circumstances  Then Sacks' concerns t u r n t o i n t e r a c t i o n .  He w r i t e s :  Not o n l y does t e l l e r f i g u r e i n the s t o r y , and f i g u r e w i t h the s t o r y organized around h i s circumstances, but i t ' s p r e t t y much t e l l e r ' s business t o t e l l the s t o r y w i t h r e spect t o i t s import f o r him, and i t i s h i s involvement i n i t t h a t provides f o r the s t o r y ' s t e l l i n g . That i s , t e l l e r can t e l l i t t o someone who knows and cares about him, and maybe r e c i p i e n t can t e l l i t t o someone who a l s o knows and cares about the i n i t i a l t e l l e r , but i t goes very l i t t l e f u r t h e r than t h a t (1978:261). Sacks display  goes on t o suggest t h a t the r e c i p i e n t o f a s t o r y ought  his  utterance  or  her  understanding o f the s t o r y w i t h  which does ' s t o r y understanding'.  10  One form o f  understanding c o u l d be an ' a p p r e c i a t i o n ' utterance, have  been  could  funny t o s e e ' .  involve recipient  recipient (Sacks,  has 1970,  mentions  that  t e l l i n g a second  an experience s i m i l a r t o Lecture 5; a  story  e.g.  Another form o f d i s p l a y i n g in  Ryave, ought  the 11  1978). to  be  some k i n d  story original  In Sacks  of  displaying  'That  must  understanding in  which  the  storyteller's  I n the same a r t i c l e , Sacks fitted  into  the  ongoing  conversation, so t h a t s t o r i e s may be seen t o be c a r e f u l l y placed Jefferson,  to  (cf.  1978; Gardner and Spielmann, 1980).  r e l a t i o n t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s t o r i e s t o l d i n conversation, points  out t h a t one important t h i n g t h a t i s  noticeable  about  s t o r i e s i s t h a t people design large p a r t s o f t h e i r s t o r i e s f o r various  62  i n t e r a c t i o n a l and r e c i p i e n t - d e s i g n e d purposes, that  people  and i t o f t e n turns out  d o n ' t r e a l i z e t h a t they are doing  that  designing.  seems t h a t people are g e n e r a l l y unaware t h a t they are designing stories They  their  o r t h a t they are engaging i n d e l i c a t e and s u b t l e i n t e r a c t i o n .  j u s t do i t ,  economical usually the  It  and more o f t e n than not they do i t i n an  fashion.  One t h i n g ,  then,  about s t o r i e s i s t h a t  have an organized economy without any s p e c i f i c  part  of  extremely  the t e l l e r t h a t t h a t i s what  is  they  knowledge  being  done.  on  Sacks  writes: Then a s t o r y comes o f f and i t has an observedly marked o r g a n i z a t i o n t o i t . . . and the very t e l l e r can be struck by t h a t . What the t e l l e r may say i s , 'Wow, how e l e g a n t l y organized my s t o r y w a s l ' which he can o n l y say by v i r t u e o f the f a c t t h a t he had no idea t h a t he had organized, i t . Now the argument goes: t h a t the economical o r g a n i z a t i o n o f a s t o r y i s f o r some purpose (1971:3:23). In examining the sequential aspects o f s t o r y forms Sacks suggests t h a t s t o r y t e l l i n g i s composed o f three s e r i a l l y ordered and adjacently placed types o f sequences: sequence, features  and of  (3) risky  (1) the preface sequence,  the  response sequence.  or  dangerous d i s c l o s u r e  (2) the t e l l i n g  Our concern w i t h stories  will  have  the us  focusing on a l l three sequences. Jefferson utterances with  (1978)  demonstrates  how a s e r i e s  of  conversational  can be s e q u e n t i a l l y analyzed as p a r t s o f a  'storytelling'  the t a l k being used t o engage conversational c o - p a r t i c i p a n t s  as  s t o r y r e c i p i e n t s "and t o negotiate whether, and how, the s t o r y w i l l be told,  whether i t i s completed o r i n progress,  amounted  to  and w h a t . . . i t w i l l have  as a conversational event" (p.237). 63  She  locates  two  features o f s t o r i e s which are integrated w i t h t u r n - b y - t u r n s t o r i e s are ' l o c a l l y occasioned' talk,  and  (2)  talk:  (1)  i n t h a t they emerge from t u r n - b y - t u r n  upon completion s t o r i e s re-engage t u r n - b y - t u r n  talk.  She w r i t e s : The l o c a l occasioning o f a s t o r y by ongoing t u r n - b y - t u r n t a l k can have two d i s c r e t e aspects; (a) a s t o r y i s ' t r i g g e r e d ' i n the course o f t a l k , and (b) a s t o r y i s methodically introduced i n t o t u r n - b y - t u r n t a l k (1978:220). Jefferson told  builds  here upon Sacks' ideas about how  w i t h a s e n s i t i v i t y t o the l o c a l conversational  which  they  involve  are  shifts  told. in  stories  contexts  One t h i n g about s t o r y t e l l i n g s i s  the  state of  talk  from  get  within  that  turn-by-turn  they  talk  to  s t o r y t e l l i n g and then back t o t u r n - b y - t u r n t a l k . Storytelling  in  conversation  c a l l s a 'preface sequence'.  p r o p e r l y begins w i t h  what  Sacks  He suggests t h a t ;  The preface can take a minimal length o f two t u r n s , the f i r s t i n v o l v i n g t a l k by the intending t e l l e r and the second by an intended r e c i p i e n t (1974:340). For example, (1) A : Did I t e l l you what happened t o me i n Mexico l a s t month? (2) B: No, what happened? This minimal sequence begins w i t h A , an utterance B,  offer  (2),  question and, to  producing  (1) t h a t does the work o f o f f e r i n g t o t e l l a s t o r y .  i n utterance  A's  the intending t e l l e r ,  Then  responds t o A ' s i n i t i a l o f f e r w i t h an answer t o  i n turn,  t e l l a story.  produces a r e l e v a n t 'acceptance' o f  Sacks suggests t h a t i f an o f f e r t o  64  tell  A's a  story  is  followed by an utterance by the  intended  recipient which  accepts/rejects the story offer, then: The preface sequence can take a rrdnimal length, be two turns long, and thereafter the telling sequence can be undertaken, intending t e l l e r reacquiring the floor for that project (1974:341). It seems reasonable to suggest that, preface  sequence,  minimal  form.  expansion  a  preface  since we can have a minimal  sequence may be  expanded  beyond i t s  Sacks (1974) argues that the source for this type  of  involves the intended story recipient making use  of  often  the i n i t i a l utterance of offering a story to either reject or  somehow  delay the t e l l i n g . (3) A: Did I t e l l you what happened to me i n Mexico last month? (4) B: Listen, I'd like to hear about i t but I'm really i n a rush. Note  in this sequence A offers to t e l l a story and B responds to  offer  with  an  utterance  (4) which does the work of  delaying the telling of the story.  proceed parts  a  actual  story has been prefaced and  accepted,  to  the  by the t e l l e r .  the course of the  response  telling  for  the  need  the story  not  The t e l l i n g can then take a minimum of  65  may  sequencing,  carries no such obligation and place talk within  or  ... :  teller  Although the preface and  necessarily involve some conversational  telling  recipient provided  ' '• ~  directly to the t e l l i n g .  will  rejecting  A story i s offered but the telling  i s delayed. ^  Once  A's  be one  teller  turn.  I t i s common, however, f o r s t o r y r e c i p i e n t s t o t a l k 14 w i t h i n the t e l l i n g sequence. Sacks suggests one reason f o r t h i s : Since responses t o s t o r i e s r e q u i r e an understanding o f them and can r e v e a l the f a i l u r e thereof, a r e c i p i e n t who f e e l s a f a i l u r e i n the s t o r y ' s course and can i n t r u d e t o seek c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s motivat e d t o do so because he can thereby be aided i n avoiding a misresponse (1974:345). Goffman (1974) agrees t h a t a s t o r y , "be  as a r e p l a y i n g , w i l l u s u a l l y  seme-thing t h a t l i s t e n e r s can emphatically i n s e r t themselves i n t o ,  v i c a r i o u s l y re-experiencing what took p l a c e " (p.504). member i s engaged i n a s t o r y t e l l i n g , story  recipient  Goffman  suggests  a  version  of  /Also,  when  a  t h a t member i s presenting t o the  something  that  actually  t h a t when a person i s engaging i n the  happened.  activity  of  storytelling, The means [the t e l l e r ] employs [ t o t e l l the s t o r y ] may be i n t r i n s i c a l l y t h e a t r i c a l , not because he n e c e s s a r i l y exaggerates o r follows a s c r i p t , but because he may have t o engage i n something that i s a dramatization...to r e p l a y i t (1974:504). Ryave  (1978) p o i n t s out t h a t the a c t u a l t e l l i n g o f a s t o r y ,  the  recounting p o r t i o n , " i s notable f o r i t s p a r t i c u l a r d e l i n e a t i o n o f some event,  u s u a l l y r e q u i r i n g a number o f utterances t i e d together by some  developing course o f a c t i o n " (p. 127). series  He pays some a t t e n t i o n t o how a  o f s t o r i e s gets generated by suggesting t h a t the  relationship  between two o r more s t o r i e s t o l d i n succession i n v o l v e s more than mere s e q u e n t i a l adjacency. display  a  That i s , people t e l l i n g second s t o r i e s ought t o  r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s i g n i f i c a n c e between t h e i r s t o r y  one(s) t o l d before t h e i r s .  and  the  He notes that one procedure f o r d i s p l a y i n g 66  a r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s i g n i f i c a n c e i s t o organize the second s t o r y through the use o f a s i g n i f i c a n c e statement. Goffman  (1981),  storyteller  too,  notes  t h a t a s t o r y t e l l i n g requires  the  t o embed i n h i s o r her own utterances the utterances  and  a c t i o n s o f the characters i n the s t o r y .  As f o r the t e l l i n g aspect on  a s t o r y t e l l i n g occasion, he w r i t e s : The t e l l e r i s l i k e l y t o break n a r r a t i v e frame a t s t r a t e g i c j u n c t u r e s : t o recap f o r new l i s t e n e r s , t o provide...encouragement t o l i s t e n e r s t o w a i t f o r the punch l i n e , o r g r a t u i t o u s characteri z a t i o n s o f various protagonists i n the t a l e ; o r t o backtrack a c o r r e c t i o n f o r any f e l t f a i l u r e t o s u s t a i n n a r r a t i v e requirements such as contextu a l d e t a i l , proper temporal sequencing, dramatic b u i l d - u p , and so f o r t h (1981:152). Finally,  s t o r y endings are,  i n most cases,  a l s o accompanied by  response sequences which a c t t o c l o s e the s t o r y t e l l i n g . number  of  There are  techniques a v a i l a b l e t o people f o r responding t o a  a  story.  One such technique i s ' s t o r y a p p r e c i a t i o n ' . (5)  A:  [STORY] and then I got out o f there f a s t !  (6)  B:  Gee, t h a t must have been a scary experience.  I n t h i s sequence A produces a t y p i c a l s t o r y c l o s i n g i n (5)  and B responds i n (6) w i t h an utterance t h a t accomplishes  appreciation'. talk  utterance  "what  As Goffman suggests,  'story  whenever a member i s engaged i n  h i s l i s t e n e r s are o b l i g e d t o do i s t o show some k i n d  audience a p p r e c i a t i o n " (1974:503).  of  This type o f device i s i n d i c a t i v e  o f the v a r i o u s ways a v a i l a b l e t o members f o r responding t o a s t o r y . One  thing  to  notice i s that, 67  along w i t h the production o f  a  storytelling, sequences, and the  1  there  are  certain  story-bound  activities:  preface  response sequences, the r e p o r t i n g o f seme event o r events,  l o c a l o c c a s i o n i n g ' o f s t o r i e s i n t h a t they emerge from  b y - t u r n t a l k (Jefferson,  1978).  turn-  That i s , the a c t i v i t y o f s t o r y t e l l i n g  provides f o r the p r o p r i e t y and expectations o f these a c t i v i t i e s , so as t o be both cause and consequence o f the a c t i v i t y . demonstrable  i n t h a t members can,  midst o f i t s t e l l i n g , procedures resources  a  terminate a s t o r y i n the  o r be i n t e r r u p t e d by hearers.  inherent i n the 'how' o f s t o r y t e l l i n g ,  The production then,  by which members are able t o recognize t h a t  are i n v o l v e d i n the a c t i v i t y . as  i n fact,  This observation i s  provide the  other  members  To w i t , t h a t something i s recognizable  ' s t o r y t e l l i n g 1 depends on members d i s p l a y i n g the a c t i v i t y as  a  'storytelling'.  Production and Recognition i n Conversational S t o r y t e l l i n g  The roots  in 15  story' .  ideas about s t o r y t e l l i n g developed i n t h i s study have the  i n t u i t i v e understanding o f what i t means  'tell  a  People seem t o be capable o f managing the tasks involved i n  t e l l i n g stories. not  to  their  much o f  I n f a c t , i t appears evident t h a t t e l l i n g s t o r i e s  a problem f o r most people.  They j u s t  tell  them.  is It  r e q u i r e s no complicated forethought f o r i t s successful achievement and i t can be attempted without much thought t o f a i l u r e . and  listen  t o many s t o r i e s every day without  ever  Most o f us t e l l really  thinking  about i t .  There i s , however, a k i n d o f problem involved nevertheless.  That i s :  how i s i t done?  The 'problem' i s an a n a l y t i c one:  what i s  the nature o f the work r o u t i n e l y executed by people t e l l i n g s t o r i e s ? 68  Recall methods,  that  the  this  ways,  study  the  i s not 'about'  procedures  involved  understanding o f everyday conversation, as a  storytelling in  the  w i t h a focus on  but  the  telling  and  storytelling  the concerted accomplishment o f members (anyone sharing mastery o f natural  matter stories.  language and a cornmon c u l t u r e ) i n v o l v i n g themselves  of 16  everyday occurrence i n the production and  as  recognition  One t h i n g we w i l l make c l e a r i s t h a t members r e l y  a of  on  an  elaborate c o l l e c t i o n o f methods i n the accomplishment o f s t o r y t e l l i n g . Our  interests  methods  for  ongoing,  will the  telling  production and r e c o g n i t i o n o f 17  situated  'recognition'  acccmplishment.  are  involves  (production)  i n v o l v e us i n an examination  some  members'  storytelling  as  an  The notions o f 'production' and  invoked t o underline the f a c t co-conversationalists  and  of  i n o r i e n t i n g t o the  that  doing  both i n doing activity  story-  the  activity  (recognition).  Our  i n t e r e s t i n the production and r e c o g n i t i o n o f s t o r y t e l l i n g i s informed by the f a c t t h a t members, these  dimensions  interactional the  lack  dealing That being  i n the midst o f t e l l i n g s t o r i e s ,  o f the phenomenon.  In fact,  that  attend t o  attention  consequences f o r the problem o f s t o r y t e l l i n g , 18  o f such a t t e n t i o n .  A fundamental concept  as  which  produced  production  and  must  accountable.  f o r example,  be  a 'storytelling',  recognized as such. continually  and  It is  evident  it  that  this  available  and  Being i n v o l v e d i n an a c t i v i t y such as s t o r y t e l l i n g a l s o These c o n s t r a i n t s  and i n s t r u c t i o n s , some o f which we w i l l be considering in  are  1967).  depends upon  consistently  provides f o r a set o f c o n s t r a i n t s and i n s t r u c t i o n s .  chapters,  does  we  w i t h i s t h a t the world i s a world o f work ( G a r f i n k e l ,  something i s ,  has  turn  provide  f o r the b a s i s o f the 69  i n the ensuing  doing  and  seeing  (production short,  19 storytelling.  and r e c o g n i t i o n ) o f the a c t i v i t y o f  it  takes  some i n t e r a c t i o n a l work t o s u c c e s s f u l l y  'storytelling'.  Our general question then becomes:  In  achieve  a  how do members  r o u t i n e l y go about producing a s t o r y t e l l i n g ? What  I  members'  am  place,  for  production and  in  a its  and other people,  1978;  Jefferson,  such  and there are proper and  1978).  of  ongoing  This observation makes  c l e a r t h a t i n a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f r e c o g n i t i o n work f o r f a c t o r s such  as time, and  its  occasions f o r a s t o r y t o be t o l d i n the midst  conversation (Ryave, it  in  is  the achievement o f a ' s t o r y t e l l i n g ' r e s t s upon  as time,  expectable  both  storytelling  A s t o r y t e l l i n g i s , a f t e r a l l , an i n t e r a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y .  i s t o say,  factors  i s t h a t the a c t i v i t y o f  accomplishment,  recognition. That  saying  place,  and other people,  i t i s a v a i l a b l e f o r people t o see  account f o r an a c t i v i t y such as s t o r y t e l l i n g without having example,  20  ask  'storytelling'.  them  in  Further,  an  interview i f  it  really  is  to, a  i t seems reasonable t o suggest t h a t the  a c t i v i t y o f s t o r y t e l l i n g cannot be randomly done anytime, anywhere, o r with  anybody.  features  This r a i s e s another general q u e s t i o n :  that  are  conversationalists  in  provided by order  to  a  setting  recognize  the  what are  the  invoked  by  and  conventionality of  storytelling? One chapters  thing  I  (3-6)  wish t o focus some a t t e n t i o n on is  the  use  of  membership  in  the  categories  analytic for  the  establishment o f who can expectedly be involved i n a s t o r y t e l l i n g w i t h whom and how t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n may r e v e a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l features the  activity  (Sacks,  1972a;  1978).  I n the review o f  of  linguistic  discourse a n a l y s i s and the review o f research on n a r r a t i v e i n the l a s t 70  chapter fact,  I examined instances which demonstrated t h a t people attend  provide  t o the a c t u a l i t y t h a t c e r t a i n  f o r the occasion o f s t o r y t e l l i n g s ,  categorial  do,  incumbencies  so t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n work  can be p a r t o f the i n t e r a c t i o n a l character o f a s t o r y t e l l i n g . turn  in  This i n  provides f o r the r e c o g n i z a b i l i t y o f a s t o r y t e l l i n g as based upon  other f a c t o r s , such as the a v a i l a b i l i t y o r properness o f some category 21 set. Conclusion The  reader can begin t o see the d e l i c a c y o f the k i n d o f a n a l y t i c  work i n which I am i n v o l v e d when I attempt t o l o c a t e and describe  the  features o f an a c t i v i t y .  I n conversational s t o r y t e l l i n g the n o t i c i n g  of  incumbencies among  potential  categorial  conversationalists  i n v o l v e q u i t e focused a t t e n t i o n t o the p r o g r e s s i v e l y - r e v e a l e d i n which the a c t i v i t y i s t a k i n g p l a c e . narratives attentions.  must  be  sensitive  in  its  may  setting  I take i t t h a t the a n a l y s i s o f treatment  of  these  member  As Harvey Sacks t e l l s us:  What one ought t o seek t o b u i l d i s an apparatus which w i l l provide f o r how i t i s t h a t any a c t i v i t i e s , which members do i n such a way as t o be recognizable t o such as members, are done, and done recognizably. Such an apparatus w i l l , o f course, have t o generate and provide f o r the recogn i z a b i l i t y o f more than j u s t p o s s i b l e d e s c r i p t i o n s (1972:332). I  have already noted t h a t the primary focus o f t h i s study i s  to  concentrate on and attempt t o l o c a t e and describe those features which are  built  into  narratives t o l d i n natural  71  conversation  and  which  members  must  stories.  be  assumed t o c o n s u l t i n order t o make sense  of  such  Roy Turner (1972) w r i t e s : I take i t as a b s o l u t e l y fundamental i n the a n a l y s i s o f conversational t r a n s c r i p t s t h a t the a n a l y s t s h a l l e x p l i c a t e not (or not only) the s y n t a c t i c p r o p e r t i e s o f utterances and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s , but p r i m a r i l y such procedures f o r d i s p l a y i n g or invoking s o c i a l - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l features as p a r t i c i p a n t s must be assumed t o employ i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e i r own and 'processing' others' utterances (p.453).  This  study  conversational 22 particular.  analysis  published  years or so.  to  telling  a  basic  knowledge  i n general and the work o f Harvey  and  unpublished,  of  Sacks  in  I focused a t t e n t i o n on  the  produced over the past  ten  As f o r the l a t t e r , I concentrated p r i m a r i l y on the work  Sacks on s t o r y t e l l i n g .  point  presupposes  With regard t o the former,  literature,  of  necessarily  I n examining the l i t e r a t u r e I made  it  focus a t t e n t i o n upon some o f the ways which people who s t o r i e s have a t t h e i r d i s p o s a l f o r s u s t e i n i n g and  a are  protecting  the ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n when a s t o r y gets generated. The (Chapters  next  chapter begins the a n a l y t i c a l s e c t i o n  3-6).  I  examine  f i r s t mention character  of  this  study  references  in  n a r r a t i v e s , f i r s t presenting a l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s treatment o f the phenomenon,  followed by a conversational a n a l y s i s treatment o f  the same i s s u e .  72  NOTES: CHAPTER 2 1 Researchers frcm a v a r i e t y o f d i s c i p l i n e s are i n t e r e s t e d i n s t o r i e s and s t o r y s t r u c t u r e . The f o l l o w i n g are some o f the group who deal w i t h the formal aspect o f n a r r a t i v e s : Propp (1928), Dundes (1962), Greimas (1971), van D i j k (1972), L a k o f f (1972), P i k e and P i k e (1977), Rumelhart (1978), and Gavin (1980), t o name but a few. 2  I t h i n k i t i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t i n v e s t i g a t o r s o f s t o r y s t r u c t u r e have t y p i c a l l y r e l i e d on t h e i r i n t u i t i v e impressions i n a r r i v i n g a t the formal categories which are used as the b a s i c a n a l y t i c elements o f t h e i r grammars, such as Colby (1973), S t e i n and Glenn (1977), K i n t s c h and Green (1978). 3  In an a r t i c l e by Rumelhart (1977), f o r example, he described a process o f understanding a n a r r a t i v e as equivalent t o s e l e c t i n g a s t o r y schema, v e r i f y i n g i t s correspondence t o the n a r r a t i v e u n i t , and determining whether i t gives an adequate account o f the s t o r y o r t e x t . 4  She w r i t e s : The b a s i c t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t i s t h a t i n the study o f the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l h i s t o r i c a l present one sees a p e r f e c t example o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e and language use. The methodol o g i c a l consequence o f [ t h i s study] i s t h a t i t i s o n l y through the study o f language use t h a t one may f u l l y analyze the l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e , j u s t as one must understand the l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e i n order t o uncover the r u l e s o f i t s use (p.215).  5 What I t h i n k i s important here i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the use o f the conversational h i s t o r i c a l present tense, but the s h i f t between tenses ( c . f . Spielmann and Gardner, 1979). 6  For P o l a n y i , a s t o r y i s defined as the " l i n g u i s t i c encoding o f past experience i n order t o e x p l a i n something about, o r by means o f , the events o r s t a t e s described" (p.208). 7 P o l a n y i takes a more o r l e s s l i n g u i s t i c discourse approach i n her study by c l a i m i n g t h a t s t o r i e s c o n t a i n three kinds o f information, each one a c t i n g t o c o n t e x t u a l i z e the o t h e r : temporal information 73  (Sacks' " c a n o n i c a l " form), information.  d e s c r i p t i v e information,  and  evaluative  8 Much o f the work by Sacks on s t o r y t e l l i n g i s i n the form o f unpublished l e c t u r e s (Spring 1970, l e c t u r e s 1-8, and F a l l 1971, l e c t u r e s 1-16). 9  I n a Spring 1970 l e c t u r e (#1), Sacks makes the p o i n t t h a t people monitor scenes f o r t h e i r storyable p o s s i b i l i t i e s . That i s , one can be i n v o l v e d i n some a c t i v i t y i n which one can determine a t the time o f the a c t i v i t y t h a t i t could l a t e r be t o l d as a s t o r y . 10  Simply p u t , there are ways f o r s t o r y t e l l e r s t o b u i l d i n t o t h e i r s t o r i e s a requirement f o r l i s t e n i n g t o them and f o r i n s t r u c t i n g s t o r y r e c i p i e n t s about what i s going t o be t o l d about and what i n t e r e s t it may have f o r r e c i p i e n t (Spring 1970, l e c t u r e 2 ) . 11  S u r e l y i t would take some work by a s t o r y r e c i p i e n t t o achieve a second s t o r y , work which would be grounded i n paying a t t e n t i o n t o the f i r s t s t o r y , and then using t h i s a t t e n t i o n t o b u i l d a second s t o r y which r e l a t e s t o the f i r s t s t o r y . 12  Ryave notes t h a t the meaning and relevance o f a d e s c r i p t i o n o f an event i n s t o r y form i s not "a pregiven matter t o be a n a l y t i c a l l y determined s o l e l y by i n s p e c t i n g the p a r t i c u l a r s o f some recounting, but is i t s e l f best conceived as a s o c i a l a c t i v i t y t h a t is i n t e r a c t i o n a l l y negotiated and managed i n and through the emerging p a r t i c u l a r s o f a s i t u a t i o n " (1978:130). 13 A r e l a t e d p o i n t : one way t o get a s t o r y s t a r t e d i s t o announce a time o r p l a c e , e . g . 'One n i g h t ' , o r 'Once when I went t o Quebec'. Such a preface leaves l i t t l e doubt t h a t a s t o r y i s forliicoming. 14  Sacks suggests t h a t one way a s t o r y can be seen as o r d e r l y i s t h a t i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y intended by the t e l l e r t h a t r e c i p i e n t may j o i n in. That i s , one s o r t o f o r d e r l i n e s s i n a s t o r y t e l l i n g i s t h a t a s t o r y r e c i p i e n t may t a l k a t v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n a s t o r y t e l l i n g , the r e c i p i e n t t a l k o r i e n t e d t o recognizing t h a t a s t o r y i s being t o l d (Lecture 2, Spring 1970).  15  By ' s t o r y ' I mean, f o l l o w i n g Sacks, the t e l l i n g o f some event(s) i n n a t u r a l conversation. A l a n Ryave (1978) suggests t h a t t h i s should be taken t o mean the t e l l i n g o f some event or events i n more than one utterance. He w r i t e s : 74  When I speak o f the ' t e l l i n g o f a s t o r y i n conversation' I have i n mind not o n l y the utterances o f the s t o r y t e l l e r , but a l s o the ccrtments made i n the course o f a s t o r y p r e sentation by those who are the r e c i p i e n t s o f the s t o r y (1978:131). Ryave claims t h a t t h i s s o r t o f t e l l e r - r e c i p i e n t i n t e r a c t i o n during the course o f a s t o r y t e l l i n g can a f f e c t the in-progress u n f o l d i n g o f the story, thus p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t i n g the sense t h a t a s e r i e s o f utterances might o b t a i n . Further, he suggests t h a t a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g feature between s t o r i e s t o l d i n conversation as opposed t o , for example, s t o r i e s t o l d i n performance s i t u a t i o n s , i s that recipients may comment during the t e l l i n g . This feature affirms the sense i n which s t o r y t e l l i n g i n conversation can be seen t o be an i n t e r a c t i o n a l accomplishment. 16  I t should be noted, however, t h a t these methods are employed by members i n taken f o r granted, unformulated, and unexamined ways. For most people the s o c i a l world i s 'out t h e r e ' , ' g i v e n ' , and ' o b j e c t i v e ' . I t i s g e n e r a l l y not viewed as a product, an outcome o f standardly a v a i l a b l e members' methods ( c f . G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970). 17  G a r f i n k e l (1967) proposes t h a t the events i n our everyday l i v e s make sense t o us because o f the ways we simultaneously produce and perceive them, t h a t the f a m i l i a r events and commonplace scenes o f our l i v e s are recognizably f a m i l i a r by v i r t u e o f the methods by which people produce and recognize these events and scenes f o r what they are. 18  Simply put, t h i s r o u t i n e , unproblematic, and unformulated a t t e n t i o n t o everyday events i s the product o f sense-making work on our p a r t . Through our methods f o r doing t h i s sense-making work we accomplish a common s o c i a l world ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967; G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970). 19  The i d e a here i s not new, but i s derived from G a r f i n k e l (1967) and s t a t e d s u c c i n c t l y by E g l i n (1978), t h a t i s , t h a t members' knowledge o f t h e i r society, that i s ' c u l t u r e ' , i s methodological r a t h e r than substantive. Eglin writes: Members use the l o c a t i o n o f a c u l t u r a l p a r t i c u l a r — p e r s o n , event, utterance— t o decide upon i t s sense, o r a s s i g n i t a d e f i n i t e s e n s e . . . B y l o c a t i o n I mean p o s i t i o n i n g o r placement i n a v a r i e t y o f contexts o r s e t t i n g s , e c o l o g i c a l , temporal, s e q u e n t i a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , o c c a s i o n a l (1978:1). 75  20  Here the n o t i o n o f ' i n d e x i c a l i t y ' a r i s e s . For example, words do not have unchanging meanings a t a l l times, on a l l occasions o f t h e i r use. Thus people have t o ' r e p a i r ' i n d e x i c a l i t y by producing d e s c r i p t i o n s o r ' g l o s s e s ' which provide l i s t e n e r s w i t h the resources f o r understanding 'what's happening' i n the i n t e r a c t i o n , e . g . t h a t a s t o r y i s being t o l d ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967; G a r f i n k e l and Sacks, 1970). G a r f i n k e l ' s use o f ' i n d e x i c a l i t y ' draws a t t e n t i o n t o the occasioned nature o f everyday s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s and stresses the p a r t i c u l a r nature o f each and every s o c i a l happening and event. 21  I n h i s 1972 paper, 'An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the U s a b i l i t y o f Conversational Data for Doing S o c i o l o g y ' , Sacks analyzes c a l l s t o a s u i c i d e prevention center and claims t h a t the m a t e r i a l s e l i c i t e d are, "some c o l l e c t i o n s o f membership categories" (p.31). By " c a t e g o r i z a t i o n device" he means: That c o l l e c t i o n o f membership categories t h a t may be a p p l i e d t o some p o p u l a t i o n . . . so as t o p r o v i d e , by the use o f some r u l e s f o r a p p l i c a t i o n , f o r the p a i r i n g o f a t l e a s t a p o p u l a t i o n member and a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n device member. A device i s then a c o l l e c t i o n p l u s r u l e s o f a p p l i c a t i o n (p.32). Simply p u t , the b a s i c concept used i n Sacks' a n a l y s i s i s i d e n t i t y or ' c a t e g o r y ' . For any person, there i s a l a r g e number o f categories f o r ' c o r r e c t l y ' d e s c r i b i n g t h a t person. For example, the reader may be describable as a 'man' o r 'woman', a ' s o n ' o r 'daughter', a ' b l o n d e ' , a 'rock and r o l l f a n ' , 'middle-aged', a 'sociologist' or ' a n t h r o p o l o g i s t ' and so o n . A key i s s u e i n Sacksian a n a l y s i s , then, i s how members can m e t h o d i c a l l y s e l e c t an appropriate category on a p a r t i c u l a r occasion. Furthermore, members methodically s e l e c t a s i n g l e category from a group o f r e l a t e d c a t e g o r i e s . Such a group i s known as a Membership C a t e g o r i z a t i o n Device (MCD), a c o l l e c t i o n o f categories which 'go together' i n the sense t h a t when a category from a c e r t a i n device i s c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d t o a person, i t can be heard t o exclude them from being i d e n t i f i e d w i t h some other category from the same d e v i c e . 22 Sacks' e a r l i e s t work on the s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t a l k was concerned w i t h the phenomenon o f d e s c r i p t i o n ; t h a t i s , i n t h e i r t a l k people are c o n t i n u a l l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r s o c i a l world t o one another (1963, 1967). Thus, people may describe such things as events they have seen, t h i n g s they have done, t h e i r f e e l i n g s , attitudes, o p i n i o n s , and so f o r t h . We may regard d e s c r i p t i o n s , then, as a b a s i c feature o f a l l o f our everyday a c t i v i t i e s . The whole p o i n t o f G a r f i n k e l ' s n o t i o n o f ' r e f l e x i v i t y ' i s t h a t our everyday a c t i v i t i e s are 'accountable phenomena', and t h a t , through the ways i n which we do everyday a c t i v i t i e s , the a c t i v i t i e s provide f o r the d e s c r i b a b i l i t y o f our s o c i a l world ( G a r f i n k e l , 1967). 76  CHAPTER 3: FIRST MENTION CHARACTER REFERENCES IN NARRATIVE DISCOURSE  This  chapter  examines  character  formulations  in  narrative  discourse w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n d i s c o v e r i n g and d e s c r i b i n g f i r s t mention references  techniques  chapter  present a treatment o f character formulations as found  the  I  and preferences.  I n the f i r s t p a r t  l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g  After  demonstrating  handled  by  this in  NARRATIVE.  t o the reader how character formulations may  linguistic  phenomenon  to  of  discourse  analysis,  I  examine  the  from the perspective o f conversational a n a l y s i s .  be  same At  the  end  o f t h i s chapter I r e l a t e the two d i f f e r e n t analyses and show how  the  methodology  used  i n conversational a n a l y s i s i s  useful  to  the  discourse l i n g u i s t .  A L i n g u i s t i c Discourse Treatment o f Formulating Character There literature  are which  a  number  of  in  the  linguistic  have o f f e r e d a n a l y t i c a l treatments  character i n n a r r a t i v e s 1978;  of studies  of  English  formulating  (Jones, 1983; Schram and Jones, 1979; Maibaum,  Markels, 1981; Caughley, 1978; Toba, 1978; Newman, 1978).  these studies have t o do w i t h formulating character  other  discourse  than and  English, Longacre  although  Jones (1983) focuses  (1983) o f f e r s  identification i n English narratives.  some  comments  in  Most  languages  exclusively on  participant  I n t h i s s e c t i o n I f i r s t examine  the f i n d i n g s i n the former group, f e a t u r i n g non-English n a r r a t i v e s .  77  on  In her article, Maibaum  "Participants i n J i r e l Narrative" (1978), /Anita  demonstrates how participants i n J i r e l  identified.  narratives  are  The f i r s t character i n J i r e l narratives i s introduced i n  the main setting and i s usually the main character of the story as far as the plot i s concerned,  or what the story i s about.  The character  may be introduced by a noun, a noun phrase, or a proper name. Maibaum gives  various examples from J i r e l of grammatical features  which she  considers  requisite to character formulation.  For example,  when a  character  i s introduced i n a narrative the indefinite -jyik,  meaning  "a certain" or "one" i s always included, kwa-lo" an  (person old-female-certain be-past-stative-report) "there was  old lady".  that  e.g. "Mi gamma-jyik wot-a-  In narratives with only one participant (character),  participant also has to be reidentified at story end (in written  texts, i n the last paragraph). In  his article,  (1978),  John Newman concludes that, when characters are formulated i n  narratives, the  "a t i t l e construction i s usually used at the beginning of  discourse  narrative's  singular  with  subject".  Rabbit  Gwabarwa a skins  to introduce  by name"  (p.95).  the neutral pronoun  a, meaning  "third  He gives an example from a narrative  The  sinlalama binma a sikama",  (Rabbit he  good, he split-past-distributive. which translates,  which he then cut up.  person  folk  and Hyena: Ayu a kasama bwautha hamatha, n  close-past-focus), skins,  the character  main character i s formulated i n a subject noun phrase by  name together  about  "Participant Orientation In Longuda Folk Tales"  tale  silgin.  search-past-focus  Time of festival their i t  "The rabbit looked for the good  At that time i t was the time of their  festival." 78  I n the Algonquin language,  f i r s t mention character references i n  n a r r a t i v e discourse may be i n the form o f proper names, nouns, o r noun phrases.  However,  Algonquin i s d i f f e r e n t from E n g l i s h i n t h a t f i r s t  reference t o a character w i l l normally cone before the verb, the from,  provided  n a r r a t i v e information i s new t o the r e c i p i e n t ( s ) as d i s t i n g u i s h e d i.e.  legends,  Subsequent  character  which  are u s u a l l y well-known t o  references  come  after  f o l l o w i n g examples from my Algonquin m a t e r i a l s .  the  recipient(s).  verb.  Note  the  1  Text 27: Papidan Dac Pikogan Mazinahigan 22 January 1982 27.1 27.1  Nigodin ikwe owidjiwagoban odabinodj i j iman One time a woman she-went-^with-him h e r - c h i l d - o b v  (ogwizisan) k i d j i nda odewewadj oseesikak (her son-obv) i n - o r d e r - t h a t they go-to v i s i t w i t h h e r - o l d e r - b r o t h e r aa ikwe. t h a t woman.  27.2 27.2  M i dac aa oseesan aa T h a t ' s why then t h a t older-brother-obv t h a t  ikwe nabewikoban woman was-a-man  acidj and  o g i inan ini he-said-to-him t h a t  k i t c i mididogoban. r e a l l y he-was-big.  abinodjijan: child-obv:  "Pijan "Come  27.3 27.3  Nabe Man  ooma, here,  kiga takonin." 27.4 Mi dac aa ockinawes f u t I-hold-you-on-my-knee." 2 7 . ' T h a t ' s why then t h a t boy o g i nakwetawan he-answered-him  ini that  naben, man-obv,  "Kawin tawatesinon "Not there-is-room-neg  k i d j i k i takonijian, oza i n - o r d e r - t h a t +ki you-hold-me-on-your-knee, because k i k i t c i misad your b i g stomach  aja tagwan..." already i s t h e r e . . . . "  79  dac then  Text 29: Papidan Pikogan Mazinahigan 29 Feb. 1982 29.1 29.1  Niwidjitajxkemagan My neighbour  kawin kikendjigadesinon not it-is-known-neg e tagwanig +conj i t - i s  ozo. tail.  odaian k i t c i opiwawiwan, his dog-obv really he-is-hairy,  adi e tagwanig octigwan where +conj i t - i s his-head  29.2 29.2  acidj adi and where  K i t c i wedan mega Really easy because  k i d j i kikenimadj. 29.3 in-order-that you-know-him. 29.3  Wikobidaw ozo, kicpin dac Pull-it tail, i f then  magwamiJc, mi i i octigwan.... he-bites-you, that's what that one head  Text 24: Makwa Adisokan Anna Mowatt February, 1982 24.1 24.1  Makwa Bear  e adisokanaganiwidj. +conj story-is-told.  kokcm k i widamage old-lady +past told  ega not  nabe. man. nabe, man,  kokcm acidj old lady and  Nopamig ta j ikewagoban In the bush they-were-staying  dac nabe then man  24.4 Kegapitc nigodin 24.4 After awhile once "o, (ni) k i t c i nunwendam "oh, I'm really happy  nibawana." ikido aawe I-dreamed-about-him." said that dac then  acidj and  owidigemagan anawe his spouse that  e kijebawagag ikido aawe +conj it-is-morning said that e kijebawagan. o, makwa -fconj it-is-morning. Oh, bear nabe. man.  kokom, "kiga wiwisin i i old-lady, "You fut w i l l be hungry that  ka inabadaman. Kawin nunocisinon +conj-past you-dream-it. Not it-is-good-neg  80  K i t c i weckadj Really long-ago  e minocig +conj it-is-good  makwa pawanadj. 24.3 bear he-dreams-about-him. 4.3 weckadj long-ago  24.2 24.2  24.5 24.5  "o" ikido "oh" said  ka pawanadj makwa" +conj-past you-drearn-about-it bear" k i t c i kokcm. 24.6 r e a l l y o l d - l a d y . 24.6 nabe. man.  24.7 24.7  aawe that  "An dac w i n i i " i k i d o "Why not" said  Minawadj dac i k i d o Again then s a i d  "kikikendan na? "Do you know?  ikido said  dac then  aawe that  aawe k i t c i kokom, that r e a l l y old-lady,  Makwa kawin w i s i n i s i kabe p i b o n . Bear not he-eats-neg a l l w i n t e r .  Mi e t a Only  niba. Mi dac i i ega minocig makwa he-sleeps. T h a t ' s why then t h a t not (con j ) i t - i s - g o o d bear pawanadj." you-dream-about-him."  In Text 27, woman), 27.3.  [Story continues]  f o r example, note t h a t the main character, "ikwe" (a  i s mentioned before the verb i n 2 7 . 1 , as i s "nabe" (a man) i n A l s o , the demonstrative "aa" (that one) i s never used i n f i r s t  mention reference,  but o n l y i n subsequent references,  as i n 27.4 "aa  ockinawes" (that young man), and i n 27.1, "aa ikwe" (that woman) a f t e r the  woman had  character, mentioned  been introduced.  "niwidjitajikemagan odaian" before  references. story  already  In  text  29,  the  (my neighbor's  the verb i n 29.1 and a f t e r the verb  first  dog),  in  is  subsequent  In t e x t 24, considering 24.1 an utterance about what the  i s 'about',  24.2 contains the i n i t i a l  character  formulation,  "kokom" (an o l d l a d y ) , before the verb, " k i widamage" ( + p a s t - t e l l ) .  Recall that I said e a r l i e r that, mention  character  subsequent  references  usually  i n Algonquin n a r r a t i v e s , occur before  the  references normally o c c u r r i n g a f t e r the verb,  following.  81  first  verb as  in  with the  Text 28: Waboz Adisokan Anna Mowatt January, 1982 28.1 Pejik awiag teban weckadj. One person exist-past long time ago. 28.2 K i t c i mane wisiniwagoban aa anicinabe... Really a lot he-was-eating that Indian...  After f i r s t mention character reference i n Algonquin, references  normally occur after the verb,  character i s i n i t i a l l y introduced, Then  as i n 28.  occur following the verb,  eating) "aa anicinabe" (that guy).  First, the  "pejik awiag" (somebody), i n 28.1.  i n 28.2, and throughout the rest of the text,  references  subsequent  the subsequent  i . e . "wisiniwagoban"  There seem to be,  (he was  however, seme  exceptions which may be explained i n terms of hierarchy and whether or not the character i s a main character or minor character. to  the former,  Algonquin, and  there  seems to be a hierarchy  With regard  of importance i n  with people being regarded as more important than animals,  animals  more important than things.  I t appears that the  first  mention reference procedure only occurs before the verb i n the case of people  and that the reference procedure i s reversed i n the  animals,  the f i r s t  mention  hierarchical characters.  occurring after  the verb with  Consider the following.  Text 23: Kokokoo acitc Pibwanazi Pikogan Mazinaigan 22 Kenositc Kisis, 1982 23.1 Kagwedjimakaniwagoban kokokoo acitc pibwanazi, They-^were-asked owl and night-hawk "Awenen kin ke odawesizimian 82  case of  ani pimadizian?"  lower  Who  you +conj-fut your-animal how y o u - l i v e  inagamiwagoban kokooo a c i t c p i b w a n a z i . . . they-said-to-them owl and night-hawk [ s t o r y continues]  Text 33: Nabemik Anicinabewigoban Pikogan Mazinaigan P a r t 1, February 19, 1982 33.1 Nigodin One time  pabamosegoban nopimig he^was-walking-around bush  33.2 Ikwewan dac woman-obv then  amik. a beaver  ini ka mikawadjin... t h a t one +conj-past found-him...  [Story continues] Note after  the  (beaver) walking (owl)  in  both  instances t h a t the animal characters  verb i n f i r s t mention  position,  e.g.  33.1  are  placed  where  "amik  i s f i r s t r e f e r r e d t o a f t e r the verb "pabamosegoban" (he around),  and 23.1,  where two animal  characters,  was  "kokokoo"  and "pibwanazi" (night-hawk) are introduced f o l l o w i n g the  "kakwedjimakaniwagoban"  (They  were asked),  a reversed  verb  position  in  r e l a t i o n t o people c h a r a c t e r s . The hierarchy of importance i s a feature o f Algonquin which a c t s as a window t o the Algonquin world-view,  but  which i s beyond the scope o f t h i s chapter. Furthermore, Algonquin n a r r a t i v e s f a l l back on a t l e a s t one b a s i c k i n d o f background i n f o r m a t i o n :  conventional r o l e expectations  are invoked when characters are named.  That i s , a set o f general r o l e  expectations are attached t o a character. example,  names  of  animal  information about t h e i r s i z e , may  connote  associating  characters habits,  I n Algonquin legends, may  carry  the  and environment.  conventional c u l t u r a l evaluations o f them w i t h such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as, 83  which  the  e.g.  for  real-world A l s o , names  participants, cleverness  vs.  s t u p i d i t y , quickness v s . slowness, o r w i t h expectations about the r o l e in  the  legend  that  the character can  be  expected  to  play.  In  Algonquin, "wagoc" (fox) can always be expected t o be the t r i c k s t e r o r hero,  and  "pijiw"  (lynx)  t o be the one who gets  tricked  or  the  villain. My purpose i n drawing from my Algonquin m a t e r i a l s i s t o show how f i r s t mention references i n n a r r a t i v e discourse may be t r e a t e d from linguistic  perspective.  a  A f u l l - b l o w n l i n g u i s t i c discourse treatment  o f f i r s t mention reference i n Algonquin would, o f course, be much more comprehensive.  I t i s hoped, however, t h a t the reader can begin t o see  how the d i s c o v e r y o f the functions o f v a r i o u s s y n t a c t i c is  a c r u c i a l task o f l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s .  associated  constructions Thus,  w i t h f i r s t mention character references c e r t a i n  constructions,  to  have  syntactic  such as f i r s t mention character reference d i s t r i b u t i o n  i n r e l a t i o n t o p r e d i c a t i o n , t o my knowledge i s a c o n t r i b u t i o n squarely i n l i n e w i t h one o f the c h i e f aims o f discourse study.  In  the paragraphs above I have given a b r i e f glimpse o f the k i n d  o f treatment t h a t discourse l i n g u i s t s g i v e character i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n non-English n a r r a t i v e s .  Throughout these discourse studies there are  recurring  themes  interest:  maintaining  reference t o the main  of  introducing character,  main  characters,  introducing  secondary  J  characters,  reidentification of  characters, and so o n . basic  difference  conversational with  edited  s e q u e n t i a l mention  of  R e c a l l t h a t I s a i d i n the f i r s t chapter t h a t a  between  analysis texts,  characters,  linguistic  discourse  analysis  i s t h a t the former deals almost  u s u a l l y w r i t t e n t e x t s such as 84  and  exclusively  written  stories,  folktales,  e t c . , w h i l e the l a t t e r deals w i t h unedited t e x t s from l i v e  conversation.  Still,  recognizing that  important discourse c o n s i d e r a t i o n , relate  the  findings  conversation.  from  edited,  live  conversation  is  an  discourse studies often attempt t o written  texts  to  features  of  For example, Caughley (1978), f o l l o w i n g h i s a n a l y s i s o f  formulating character i n Chepang, w r i t e s : Conversation, which occupies a major p a r t o f n a r r a t i v e s , i s a l s o important i n i d e n t i f y i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s . I t i s not p o s s i b l e t o o u t l i n e the complete i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a l system f o r conv e r s a t i o n h e r e , but the use o f k i n s h i p terms and vocatives i s an e x p l i c i t though i n d i r e c t way o f i d e n t i f y i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s (1978:173). These  discourse studies are l i n g u i s t i c a l l y r e l e v a n t and h e l p  provide  a complete understanding o f how w r i t t e n and spoken  "works"  i n the languages under i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  to  discourse  I now want t o examine  studies i n E n g l i s h which have d i r e c t relevance t o t h i s study. In  recent  conclusion discourse  years s e v e r a l discourse l i n g u i s t s have  that differs  the f i r s t reference t o a character frcm  most o f the subsequent  character (Schram and Jones, 1979; Jones, 1983). of  E n g l i s h Text Structure (1983),  in  English  discourse  a  references  to  the  narrative to  that  I n Pragmatic Aspects  L a r r y Jones examines the r e l a t i o n s  between the form o f  formulations and speaker/author assumptions.  first  mention  He w r i t e s :  The various ways i n which Ca character] can be mentioned f o r the f i r s t time i n a discourse i s shown t o c o r r e l a t e w i t h d i f f e r e n t assumprt i o n s on the a u t h o r ' s [ o r speaker's] p a r t regarding the r e a d e r ' s [or h e a r e r ' s ] p r i o r knowledge o f the [character] (1983:49).  85  in  come  character  In  h i s study,  Jones examines four grammatical features o f f i r s t  mention references i n E n g l i s h n a r r a t i v e s : indefinite articles, The  use  (1) d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s ,  (3) possessive pronouns,  and (4) proper  (2)  names.  o f the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e i n formulating character i n E n g l i s h  indicates  t h a t the character i s i n the h e a r e r ' s  that  t h a t the character i s i n s i g h t o r otherwise known t o be the  is,  referent then  frame,  "The guy over there was walking across the s t r e e t  suddenly  car." the  e.g.  foregrounded  s t a r t e d t u r n i n g cartwheels.  He was almost h i t  by  The i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the character i s not h e a r e r ' s foregrounded frame,  rushes  over  pronoun  e.g.  "Then a guy i n a  t o him and helps him a c r o s s " .  clown  The use o f a  i n formulating character functions the same as  a in  suit  possessive  the  definite  article.  That i s ,  indicates  t h a t the speaker/author assumes t h a t the character i s  of  and  a possessive pronoun before a character reference  the h e a r e r ' s / r e a d e r ' s understanding o f the  narrative,  part  e.g.  "His  partner came along and stopped t r a f f i c u n t i l they were s a f e l y a c r o s s . " The  use  of  proper names when formulating  s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t t o me i n t h i s chapter, contains  character,  which  is  of  i n d i c a t e s t h a t the n a r r a t i v e  a l l the necessary features o f the character associated  with  the name. The analysis trying means  reader can  to to  contribute to  further  unfamiliar with  begin  do.  studies  t o get a f e e l f o r what  in  linguistic  discourse  discourse  analysts  R e c a l l t h a t P i c k e r i n g sees discourse a n a l y s i s  d i s c o v e r and describe a l l o f the l i n g u i s t i c  formulating character i n n a r r a t i v e s .  86  as  features  t o the t o t a l meaning o f a discourse (1979:8). examine Jones' treatment o f proper names i n  are a  that  I now want relation  to  First,  Jones  formulating  makes i t c l e a r that the use o f proper  character  i n narratives  function  names  when  differently  formulations containing nouns o r pronouns (1983:61).  than  He writes:  The l i n g u i s t i c status o f proper names has been h o t l y debated among the various philosophers o f language...The aspect o f proper names which i n t e r e s t s us here i s the f a c t that "proper names are l o g i c a l l y connected with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the object t o which they r e f e r " (Searle, 1958:96). That i s , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a person...are intimately associated with the name o f that person. A name, by i t s e l f , has only l i m i t e d meaning t o us unless we can associate with that name a person having c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Likewise, the f i r s t mention use o f a name...can only communicate t o the [hearer] i f he i s able t o associate with that name a person who has c e r t a i n characterist i c s (1983:61-62).  Jones when  i s making the basic premise that the use o f a proper  name  formulating character i n narratives assumes that the hearer i s  expected  t o discern a l l the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the named person which  are necessary f o r understanding the story/narrative. this  premise  characteristics  a  storyteller  ought  to  make  that the hearer needs t o know.  In keeping with explicit  those  Furthermore,  Jones  makes  the point that a s t o r y t e l l e r may leave i m p l i c i t o r unmentioned  those  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s associated  with a name that  the  storyteller  already assumes are understood by the hearer.  There formulating linguists importance narratives. character  i s , then,  a  character interested  sense o f some kind o f function  i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse  And  Jones  references,  analysis.  i n the study o f discourse  o f understanding  namely;  87  That i s ,  do  recognize  the  may  be  formulated  in  the functions  of  first  how characters  specifies  related t o  (1) formulating characters  mention by name  indicates the  that  the n a r r a t i v e contains a l l the necessary  character  hearer/reader  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e name, knows  features  o r (2) i n d i c a t e s  a l l o r some o f t h e n e c e s s a r y  that  features  the  already.  These a r e c l a i m s w h i c h a r e a n a l y t i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g and w h i c h the discourse analyst with a beginning  of  provide  f o r examining one a s p e c t o f t h e  p r a g m a t i c knowledge o f E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g a u t h o r s / s t o r y t e l l e r s .  In of  h i sanalysis,  Jones d e s c r i b e s t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e form  f i r s t m e n t i o n c h a r a c t e r r e f e r e n c e s and n a r r a t o r  assumptions,  t h e v a r i o u s ways i n w h i c h a c h a r a c t e r c a n be f o r m u l a t e d as  related  to  the  d i f f e r e n t assumptions  on  the  i n a discourse  narrator's  r e g a r d i n g t h e h e a r e r ' s p r i o r knowledge o f t h e c h a r a c t e r . invaluable  as  necessary  a  contribution to a roster  f o r understanding  English.  part  H i s study i s  linguistic  how t h i s a s p e c t o f d i s c o u r s e  features 'works'  in  A n o t h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n o f Jones' s t u d y i s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a  discourse  orientation  references.  to  the  implied  study  of  first  mention  character  Most s t u d i e s i n l i n g u i s t i c s o f f o r m u l a t i n g c h a r a c t e r have  d e a l t w i t h i n d i v i d u a l sentences.  and  of  and  The n o t i o n t h a t a l l t h e assumptions  i n a d i s c o u r s e about f o r m u l a t i n g c h a r a c t e r c a n be  described,  discovered  assumptions w h i c h g i v e a n i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e  author's  e s t i m a t e o f h i s o r h e r r e a d e r ' s knowledge about t h e c h a r a c t e r s i n t h e narrative,  i s an  idea  not  p r e v i o u s l y attended  to  in  linguistic  analysis.  However, even a c u r s o r y r e a d i n g o f Jones' a n a l y s i s would i n d i c a t e that he  there  i s much more t o t h e i s s u e o f f o r m u l a t i n g  begins  t o uncover.  Furthermore,  t h e way c h a r a c t e r s a r e f o r m u l a t e d  88  character  than  t h e assumption i s made t h a t  i n w r i t t e n , e d i t e d t e x t s i s t h e same  as i n l i v e conversation.  He w r i t e s :  I a n t i c i p a t e t h a t the a n a l y s i s o f cues and o f f i r s t mention [character] references i n general w i l l apply t o o r a l conversational a n a l y s i s , as w e l l as t o w r i t t e n t e x t s as I have done here (1983:73). This  would be n i c e ,  provide  the  reader  formulating analysis  but i s i t true? with  a  I n the  conversational  following analysis  treatment  character i n n a r r a t i v e s from l i v e conversation.  In  I show how a treatment o f formulating character from  conversation  discovers  features o f formulating character  thus f a r unformulated i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s , the  section  discourse  linguist  with  a  methodology  for  of the  actual  which  and  I  are  provides  explicating  the  ethnographic and i n t e r a c t i o n a l dimension o f t h i s feature o f n a r r a t i v e .  A Conversational A n a l y s i s Treatment o f Formulating Character For the discourse l i n g u i s t there i s an i n t e r e s t i n t y i n g features of  a discourse type t o d i s t i n c t i o n s already made w i t h i n  That seeks  is  t o say,  to  the l i n g u i s t i n t e r e s t e d i n the study  discover  constructions  and describe the functions o f  (such  as  the functions o f  linguistics. of  discourse  various  syntactic  modifiers  and  particular  sentence t y p e s ) , and considers such discovery and d e s c r i p t i o n as a key task o f discourse a n a l y s i s 1979).  For  example,  Jones'  analysis  constructions indefinite  in  of  (Jones,  1983;  Longacre,  1983; P i c k e r i n g ,  i n r e l a t i o n t o the discourse author  comments  vis-a-vis  type certain  E n g l i s h (such as the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  articles  when formulating character  NARRATIVE,  in  definite  written  provides us w i t h an example o f the discourse l i n g u i s t ' s t a s k . 89  syntactic and  texts),  There  is,  however,  a deeper issue i n v o l v e d ,  and i t i s a t t h i s  p o i n t t h a t conversational a n a l y s i s may be seen as a valuable t o o l the discourse l i n g u i s t .  Rather than seeking t o t i e discourse  for  features  t o already e x i s t i n g categories i n l i n g u i s t i c s , such as when Jones t i e s f i r s t mention character references t o e x i s t i n g s y n t a c t i c features such as  definite  forth,  and i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s ,  conversational  differently.  analysis  possessive  pronouns,  goes about the discovery  and  task  much  Conversational a n a l y s i s s t a r t s w i t h i n t e r a c t i o n a l issues  and c a t e g o r i e s , then examines what p o s s i b i l i t i e s can be embodied, by d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s , So then,  so  possessive pronouns,  e.g.  proper names or whatever.  f o r some purposes, d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s and proper names may be  interchangeable, understand  but before such a c l a i m can be made we have t o f i r s t  their interactional function.  I f we begin our  discourse  a n a l y s i s w i t h e x i s t i n g l i n g u i s t i c features such as a r t i c l e s , pronouns, and  names,  notion  as our b a s i c a n a l y t i c a l c a t e g o r i e s ,  t h a t speaker d e c i s i o n s can be embodied i n more than  Conversational  analysis  starts with interactional  what speaker assumes hearer knows, d e c i s i o n s i n a v a r i e t y o f ways. one out",  we neglect the b a s i c  might say, or  narrator  properties,  way. e.g.  and thus i s able t o embody speaker For example, i n n a r r a t i v e discourse,  "So t h i s guy who l i v e s across the s t r e e t came t o h e l p  "So  Tony came over t o h e l p o u t " ,  knows  the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t knows.  opportunity  one  depending  on  what  the  But we do not  have  the  t o d i s c o v e r these k i n d s o f discourse features i f we s t a r t  w i t h a r t i c l e s , pronouns, and proper names as our master c a t e g o r i e s . C e r t a i n l y there i s a r e c i p i e n t design t o w r i t t e n t e x t s as w e l l as t o l i v e conversation.  A feature such as r e c i p i e n t design i s important  90  in  the  analysis  analysis  seems  of,  e.g.  narratives.  But  materials  for  as  w e l l as t o l i v e  categories r e l e v a n t  conversation.  it  enough  but t h a t one needs an ethnographic dimension  analyzing conversation.  to  Certainly  be the case t h a t l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s i s good  written texts,  as  In conversational a n a l y s i s ,  d i f f e r e n t a n a l y t i c a l categories are proposed,  cannot  discourse  t o want t o t r e a t such ethnographic considerations  something t o be added on t o l i n g u i s t i c s .  written  linguistic  for  On the contrary, ethnographic considerations  are important i n the a n a l y s i s o f w r i t t e n t e x t s as w e l l .  There i s  an  ethnography o f w r i t i n g j u s t as there i s an ethnography o f speech. There analysis claim  is  a  p u z z l i n g e q u i v o c a l i t y i n the  literature  that  "all  supplemented  i n relation to this  by...the  is  linguistic  saying,  current  noted,  both  Recall  research  in  effect,  "We'll  Longacre's  eventually  the  analyze  and you analyze the data  then w e ' l l i n t e g r a t e the t w o . " aspects  into  discourse  nature  to  of  be live  On the one hand, i t seems t h a t the discourse  categories,  categories,  issue.  t h a t we have w r i t t e n here needs  conversation" (1983:75). linguist  linguistic  are  But,  i n t r i c a t e l y connected.  the  using  data  using  ethnographic  as Sacks (1978) has In  relation  to  r e c i p i e n t design i n w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s , f o r example, a category such as 'genre' may be important.  I f one were t o p i c k up a book o f fables and  open i t t o any page and read, make  "Fox went down t o the house," one would  sense out o f t h a t sentence d i f f e r e n t l y than i f i t w e r e a sentence  i n a detective novel.  /As a sentence i n a f a b l e ,  "Fox" i s understood  by almost any reader as an animal and n o t , e . g . " M r . Pox the mailman," or  whatever.  read,  "The  I f one were t o open a d e t e c t i v e novel t o any page Inspector nodded a p p r o v i n g l y , " one would know  91  that  and "The  Inspector"  is  certainly  investigator. what we c a l l  not  How i s i t known? 1  genre'.  analysis of written texts.  the  category  o f ' genre',  typology,  ordinary narratives.  food  e.g.  but  a  police  By our common sense understanding o f 1  genre 1 i s important i n  The discourse l i n g u i s t a l s o  but  i t s . use u s u a l l y r e f e r s t o  invokes its  own  d i s t i n g u i s h i n g parables and r i d d l e s  from  I am using 'genre' i n t h i s chapter t o r e f e r  literary  form which readers recognize  stories,  romances,  to  inspector  Thus a category such as  the  analytical  a  fairytales, etc.  and  select,  e.g.  to  detective  Hence, my use o f 'genre'  refers  a set o f expectations which a reader can employ i n order t o make a  text i n t e l l i g i b l e . In  this  something  study,  conversational  analysis i s  not  presented  t h a t can be 'added on' t o some l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s ,  but i s  presented such t h a t the discourse l i n g u i s t may want t o reconsider n o t i o n o f what i s r e l e v a n t as an a n a l y t i c a l category, consider  discarding  some  as  the  and may wish t o  l i n g u i s t i c categories f o r the  purpose  at  hand.  Such a c l a i m i s not as r a d i c a l as i t may sound and i s , i n f a c t ,  being  seriously  linguists. more  Recall  linguists  grappling  considered by some o f the more  with  analysis. forthcoming"  Only  P i c k e r i n g ' s comment;  recognize  both  the  of  by  role  grappling  (1979:170).  the  discourse  " I am e n t e r i n g a p l e a  legitimacy  situation  prominent  and  and  culture  w i t h the problem w i l l  necessity in  that of  discourse  solutions  be  This study o f f e r s the discourse l i n g u i s t a  methodology f o r analyzing discourse, a methodology which i s b u i l t upon s i t u a t i o n a l , c u l t u r a l , and i n t e r a c t i o n a l f a c t o r s .  92  Thus  far  analysis  we have seen t h a t l i n g u i s t s i n t e r e s t e d  provide  narrative. looking  one k i n d o f treatment o f formulating  for  to  the  provide  clues in  considerations  discourse  and  character  ways i n conversational I  begin  character  in  formulated  in  a  in  in  however,  that  that  The claims made by quite  which seem t o govern l i v e  extrapolate,  formulating  are,  are  claims which may be o f  s o c i o l o g i s t i n t e r e s t e d i n discourse  for further analysis.  in  linguists  patterns o f character references i n n a r r a t i v e s and  interest  interested  discourse  character  We saw i n the l a s t s e c t i o n t h a t discourse  some a n a l y t i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g claims are made,  merely  in  linguists  different  conversation.  from One  t h i s s e c t i o n I show how the  gets transformed i n t h e o r e t i c a l l y  they  the  cannot  issue  of  interesting  analysis.  conversational  storytelling conversation.  analysis  by f i r s t Then  I  treatment  of  formulating  examining  how characters  get  compare  how characters  get  formulated i n conversation w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f how characters may be formulated  in  conversational s t o r y t e l l i n g  situations.  Finally,  I  examine one genre o f n a r r a t i v e i n which formulation preferences may be reversed.  Formulating Character i n Conversation  Sacks  and Schegloff (1979) note t h a t ,  referring  to  involving  the  design,  other persons use two use  i n conversation,  preferences,  o f a s i n g l e reference  form,  (1) and  i n v o l v i n g the preference f o r ' r e c o g n i t i o n a l s '  write:  93  persons  minimization, (2)  recipient  (names).  They  For reference t o any person, there i s a l a r g e set o f reference forms t h a t can do the work o f r e f e r r i n g t o t h a t one ( e . g . he, Joe, a guy, my u n c l e , someone, H a r r y ' s c o u s i n , the d e n t i s t , the man who came t o d i n n e r , e t c . ) . Reference forms are combinable, and on seme occasions are used i n combination. But massively i n conversation, references i n reference o c casions are accomplished by the use o f a s i n g l e reference form (1979:16-17). The s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the preference f o r minimization i n r e f e r r i n g to  other  people i n conversation goes l i k e t h i s :  reference  i s t o be done,  reference  form.  The  on  i t should p r e f e r a b l y be done w i t h a  s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the preference f o r  design when r e f e r r i n g t o people goes l i k e t h i s : prefer  occasions  recognitionals.  when single  recipient  i f they are p o s s i b l e ,  One t h i n g Sacks and Schegloff p o i n t  out  in  reference t o t h i s preference i s t h a t names may be used because (a) the person r e f e r r e d t o may be known by the hearer,  and/or (b) the speaker  may wish  in  to  refer  Furthermore, recognition  they is  preferences,  to  suggest  in  that  the person l a t e r an  doubt. being,  on  organization for  Thus, persons  there  is  the  conversation.  dealing an  with  ordering o f  have a preference  for  when the  achieving  r e c o g n i t i o n over using a n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l reference form. It  should be noted t h a t the preferences  recipient  design  for  i n the domain o f conversational  expression s p e c i f i c t o other domains as w e l l .  ndnimization  and  s t o r y t e l l i n g have  As f o r the  preference  for the use o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l s , they are commonly used when the speaker supposes  that  the hearer may know the person being r e f e r r e d  evidenced by the use o f names. number  of  reference  terms  The p o i n t i s t h i s : available  94  for  any  to,  as  there are a l a r g e possible  referent,  nonrecxxjnitional  and r e c o g n i t i o n a l forms which are a v a i l a b l e  speaker f o r any r e f e r e n t .  to  any  We f i n d , too, t h a t there i s a heavy use o f  f i r s t names when people r e f e r t o other people i n conversation which we take  as evidence f o r a preference f o r the use o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l s  Sacks and Schegloff, being  referred  to  1979).  (cf.  Names are not o n l y used when the person  i s know t o the h e a r e r .  They may  also  be  used  i n i t i a l l y when the hearer does not know the person whom the speaker i s referring  to.  purposes,  as  hearer  I n such cases the name may be used f o r we w i l l see from the t r a n s c r i p t s ,  interactional  thereby arming  the  w i t h the resources they may t h e r e a f t e r be r e q u i r e d t o have  in  order t o make sense o f what i s being s a i d . One how store  example o f a t y p i c a l preference r u l e may be found i n n o t i n g  i t seems t o be a p r e f e r r e d p r a c t i c e t o answer the telephone o f w i t h the name o f the s t o r e .  Bay and they were t o answer,  I f one were t o c a l l Sears o r  a The  ' H e l l o ? ' , then you would have t o do some  work t o f i n d out i f you had c a l l e d the r i g h t p l a c e .  I t could take two  or more c o n v e r s a t i o n a l ' t u r n s ' t o accomplish what could be done i n one ' t u r n ' were the person t o answer the phone w i t h ' S e a r s ' , o r 'The B a y ' . T h a t ' s not t o say t h a t there i s any ' n a t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t ' o r some thing  on  the answerer,  such  b u t there seems t o be a preference r u l e  for  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l phone answering: answer w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s name.  2  Formulating Character i n Conversational S t o r y t e l l i n g Storytellers  are  faced w i t h a number o f tasks when formulating  characters i n t h e i r s t o r i e s (see the next page f o r what i s meant by 'formulation'),  tasks  a  which i n v o l v e g e t t i n g characters i n and out o f  t h e i r s t o r i e s , p r e s e r v i n g them throughout the t e l l i n g , and so on. 95  The  tasks  involved require careful t e l l e r attention  and  management  in  order t o get those tasks accomplished. When we speak o f a s t o r y t e l l e r ' s task o f formulating  character,  we mean the i s s u e o f how people are a p p r o p r i a t e l y i d e n t i f i e d i n The problem o f formulating character i s t h i s : reference  is  made,  however,  for any person t o which  there i s a set o f terms each o f which may  c o r r e c t way o f r e f e r r i n g t o t h a t person. use,  talk.  be  a  On an a c t u a l occasion o f i t s  not any member o f the set i s appropriate.  How i s i t ,  then, t h a t on p a r t i c u l a r occasions o f use seme reference term from the set  is  selected  and  other  terms  are  rejected?  Alternative  d e s c r i p t i o n s make up a c o l l e c t i o n from which a choice i s made when the person  involved i s  particular item  not  be  question.  heard  the  for  person  someone could be membershipped as a  'the l a d y next d o o r ' , ' n e i g h b o r ' , or whatever.  a f i n i t e l i s t o f terms, specify  Rather,  discovering  analysis and  any it in  'wife',  correct  The term ' c o l l e c t i o n ' i s not meant t o imply and our a n a l y s i s i s not concerned w i t h t r y i n g  what other formulations might be used i n other  the  a  We r e f e r t o  s e l e c t i o n o f a d e s c r i p t i o n from a c o l l e c t i o n o f p o s s i b l y  ones as a ' f o r m u l a t i o n ' .  of  one can imagine circumstances i n which  as a proper way o f i d e n t i f y i n g  For example,  'lawyer',  to  The choice  reference term i s not made a r b i t r a r i l y because,  from the c o l l e c t i o n ,  would  the  r e f e r r e d t o i n conversation.  we  develop  in  d e s c r i b i n g the methods  this which  chapter  is  storytellers  contexts. aimed  at  telling  s t o r i e s use i n s e l e c t i n g appropriate character d e s c r i p t i o n s . I n a minimal sense, character references i n s t o r y t e l l i n g i n s t r u c t recipients  to  attend  t o such matters as (a) what the s t o r y  96  may  be  'about',  (b) who  characters  will  introduced  formulations  be doing what to whom, and will  figure  into  the  (c) how the  story.  Character  figure into the story-as-a-whole and, frcm examining  a  number of character formulations, we can construct a technical version of  how  character introductions may be organized and how  have a bearing on the ongoing interaction. In natural  this chapter, conversation  then,  they might  3  I examine a number of stories  with an interest i n explicating and describing  the reference organization for formulating story characters. exaniine how  told i n  I  first  character formulations are done i n a l l kinds of stories  told i n conversation before turning my attention to the interactional work  which  gets  particular  done by the way characters  genre of narratives.  questions:  what  storytellers  kinds  formulate  recognitionals?  in a  I deal primarily with the following  of preference  rules are operating  story characters?  Of non-recognitionals?  following non-recognitionals?  are formulated  Finally,  Are there  when  subclasses of  When do recognitionals occur i s there an ordering to such  cxDmbinations?  NQN-RECOGNITIONAL REFERENCE PROCEDURES Note introduce describe  i n the following storytelling fragments their  story characters  not unlike Sacks  for referring to other persons  single reference form.  how  storytellers and Schegloff  i n conversation,  First, using non-recognitionals.  97  using  a  (1-4) A:  W e l l , t h e r e ' s another l i t t l e one t h a t happened on the f i r s t day. There was t h i s guy t h a t ' s about your h e i g h t . . . •  B:  When do you p l a y t h i s week?  A:  We're sposed t o p l a y Doherty's Thursday and then Saturday i t ' s G i n g e r ' s Sexy Sauna  B:  They have a team?  A:  Yeah, but i t must be made up o f c l i e n t s , t h e r e ' s , I doubt t h e r e ' s any guys working there  B:  Yeah  A:  Man, I wonder what goes on i n one o f those places?  B:  Yeah, I went t o one once  (10)  Noooooool L"  Yeah, i t wasn't my i d e a , I was w i t h a guy from work ' n we went out f o r a few beers ' n , I dunno, we decided t o go t o a movie, b u t we passed t h i s massage place ' n he s a i d he always wanted t o t r y one so I ended up going w i t h h i m . I know i t was wrong, but [  A: B:  (5)  C  A: B:  (1)  (15) —  (20)  So what was i t l i k e ? I t was no b i g d e a l r e a l l y . . .  (1-2) L o u i s e : One n i g h t (1.0) I was w i t h t h i s guy t h a t I l i k e d a r e a l l o t an' uhh (3.0) we had come back from the show, we had gone t o the Ash Grove f o r awhile ' n we were gonna park. A n ' I c a n ' t stand a c a r , ' n he has a small car 98  (1)  (5)  Mm hm  Ken:  L o u i s e : So we walked t o the back, ' n we j u s t went i n t o the back house, ' n we staved there h a l f the n i g h t (1.0) we d i d n ' t go t o bed w i t h each other, but i t was so comfortable ' n so n i c e Ken:  Mm hm  L o u i s e : Y'know? There's everything p e r f e c t  (1-5) A:  I had been working l i k e crazy f o r (3.0) about a week ' n a h a l f ' n I had a day o f f comin' ' n I was wiped o u t , j u s t a b s o l u t e l y dead and desperate f o r t h i s day o f f . The morning o f the day o f f my boss c a l l e d me. S i c k , r i g h t ? [STORY]  (H-2) P:  . . . b u t I ' v e had two experiences, one w i t h a g i r l who I met i n a bar and talked to for a w h i l e . . .  . . . S o I went, okay, g i v e i t a chance, ' n the chance came l a s t week and, uhh t h i s g i r l , w e l l , the g i r l t h a t I was going out w i t h t h a t you f e l t t h a t I f e l t g u i l t y about... (H-3) J:  One time I was d r i v i n ' home from the movies ' n I was d r i v i n ' because my boyfriend smashed up h i s car [STORY]  (III-3) A:  (10)  . . . ' n i t s t a r t s out w i t h , w i t h a l i t t l e c h a r t t o i l l u s t r a t e uhhh the experimental method (1.0) ' n the chart shows uhhhm, those who do marijuana on one a x i s ' n memory on the other, r i g h t ? Okay? 99  (15)  D:  ((laughs))  A:  So, some guy p u t s up h i s hand [STORY]  (IV-3) B:  So what was, what was y o u r uhhh tupperware p a r t y a l l about?  A:  Oh, i t was k i n d a f u n  B:  What happened t h e r e ?  A:  (1.0) w e l l , f i r s t o f a l l , okay, t h e r e was a l a d y t h e r e t h a t k i n d a , a tupperware d e a l e r t h a t t a k e s charge o f t h e p a r t y [STORY]  (IV-4)  We  B:  So what was t h e d e a l ?  A:  W e l l , t h i s f e l l o w was d o i n g t h i s experiment  have  i t a v a i l a b l e from t h e s e fragments t o l o c a t e t h e use  m i n i m a l n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l s ; e.g. " t h i s guy", "a g i r l " , "this  girl",  examples  "some  guy",  "a l a d y " ,  the s t o r y t e l l e r follows the preference  introducing story characters. in  the  and s o on.  stories  are  of  "my b o y f r i e n d " ,  In a l l o f  these  f o r itiinimization  in  F u r t h e r , we c a n see t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r s  introduced  by  non-recognitional  forms.  The  s i n g u l a r f e a t u r e o f t h e r e f e r e n c e terms used i n t h e above fragments i s that,  from t h e r e c i p i e n t s ' p o i n t o f view,  anyone. use  I noted e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter t h a t ,  of  the  recipients cases  t h e y c o u l d r e f e r t o almost  this  non-recognitional  form does  the  i n conversation, work  of  instructing  not t o search f o r the i d e n t i t y o f the character. may be due t o t h e t e l l e r ' s assumption t h a t t h e  the  In  most  recipient  does n o t know t h e r e f e r r e d - t o c h a r a c t e r , t h e assumption t h a t t h e s t o r y  100  recipient  does not need t o know the c h a r a c t e r 1 s i d e n t i t y i n order  understand  or because the s t o r y t e l l e r d i d not 4 story character's i d e n t i t y either. In  the  IX-1  respective  story,  and  we have i t a v a i l a b l e  1-2,  notice  know  the  that  the  s t o r y t e l l e r s employ n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l reference forms when  formulating s t o r y c h a r a c t e r s . are,  to  to  foremost,  instructing  The s t o r y t e l l e r s i n these their  transcripts  r e c i p i e n t s not t o search f o r  i d e n t i t y o f the other people i n t h e i r s t o r i e s .  the  The reader may r e c a l l  when I examined instances o f the use o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l s i n s t o r y t e l l i n g situations employed  earlier the  in  t h i s chapter t h a t when a  recipient  recognitional  was i n s t r u c t e d t o t r y t o f i n d  i d e n t i t y o f the person being r e f e r r e d t o .  from  it  was the  When s t o r y t e l l e r s employed  non-reoognitionals the r e c i p i e n t was i n s t r u c t e d not t o t r y t o f i n d out who i s being r e f e r r e d t o . I  note  later  on  in  this  chapter  that  storytellers  character formulations by reference t o s t o r y r e c i p i e n t s , storytellers  t o themselves and the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t s .  one  of  selection,  evidence  materials  f o r the r e c i p i e n t from which  design  a case may  combinations o f pronouns and r e l a t i o n a l terms. IX-1, that  the  where I f i n d  employing terms such as "my b o y f r i e n d " o r "my boss"  reference kind  design  term s e l e c t e d ,  " t h i s guy",  be  That of  constitutes  identification  made by  locating  I n 1-2, however, as i n  i n s t r u c t s the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t  the s t o r y t e l l e r i s r e f e r r i n g t o someone t h a t the r e c i p i e n t  not t r y t o f i n d out the i d e n t i t y o f , storyteller  assumes  the main reasons being t h a t  the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t does not know the  being r e f e r r e d t o o r does not need t o know.  101  by  need the  character  There i s , however, a deeper i s s u e h e r e : i f one i s going t o employ a n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l form i n a s t o r y t e l l i n g , about  choosing  one p a r t i c u l a r non-recognitional  recognitional?  Earlier  non-recognitionals.  When  with  t o choose from.  a  storyteller  chooses  then,  another  to  non-  formulate  a  there are a number o f  S t o r y t e l l e r s can do q u i t e d i f f e r e n t  r e c o g n i t i o n a l s and non-recognitionals,  interactional  over  i n t h i s chapter I located d i f f e r e n t kinds o f  character w i t h a n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l form, options  how does a s t o r y t e l l e r go  and d i f f e r e n t  things  kinds  of  work get done by choosing one k i n d o f non-recognitional  over another. Returning t o 1 - 2 , the reader may r e c a l l t h a t the other person i n Louise's  s t o r y i s formulated as " t h i s guy t h a t I l i k e d a  real  lot".  Note t h a t there seems t o be somewhat o f a ' r i s k ' i n Louise t e l l i n g her story.  The  'risk'  accepted way, favor  of  'adult'  a r i s e s from the abandoning o f  'parking'  as  an  as seen by teenagers, f o r teenagers t o negotiate sex i n  going way  t o an unchaperoned house,  which may be seen  o r l o c a t i o n f o r n e g o t i a t i n g sex.  It is  this  as  an  part  of  L o u i s e ' s s t o r y t h a t could be construed by Ken as r i s k y and p o t e n t i a l l y threaten that  Louise's  I  liked  affectional as  such,  with'  face.  By formulating the character as " t h i s  a real lot",  Louise informs Ken t h a t  r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the guy.  there  was  guy an  I n formulating the character  the formulation t i e s 'what happened' w i t h 'who i t  happened  i n a way which has an obvious r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the t o p i c o f  the  s t o r y — r e p o r t i n g on a date and the occurrence o f sex on the date.  By  formulating lot",  then,  relationship  the  guy she was w i t h as " t h i s guy t h a t I  Louise between  informs  Ken t h a t  there  was  liked an  a  af fectional  her and the guy which provides grounds f o r 102  real  the  recipient, though  Ken, t o understand the business o f the s t o r y .  she  liked  was t e l l i n g about going out w i t h j u s t any  him  "a  real  lot."  She thus informs  Ken by  I t ' s not as  guy,  but  her  she  character  formulation t h a t what she was w i l l i n g t o do on t h a t occasion w i t h  the  guy  she  she l i k e d a r e a l l o t i s not something t h a t he should suppose  would do on any occasion w i t h j u s t anyone. Furthermore,  she was under no c o n s t r a i n t t o c h a r a c t e r i z e the guy  she was w i t h as someone she r e a l l y l i k e d .  That i s , t h a t she l i k e d the  guy a l o t i s not a feature o f the course-of-events i n her s t o r y . formulation locates  Her  o f the guy she was w i t h as " t h i s guy I l i k e d a r e a l  a  condition for  her doing  what  she  did.  lot"  The way  she  formulates  her date a l s o has much t o do w i t h the person she's t e l l i n g  the  to—a f e l l o w teenager and a  story  formulation  male.  Thus,  her  character  does the work o f p r o t e c t i n g her ' face' by d e l i m i t i n g  implications with  just  girl'  or  thing  with.  o f 'what happened' . anyone,  I t was not something she would  thus she ought not be accused o f being  a  a v a i l a b l e t o Ken (or one o f Ken's friends) t o do Just  as t e l l i n g about 'what d i d n ' t  defuse a d i s p r e f e r r e d response,  the  happen'  do  'loose  the  same  helps  to  as we saw i n the l a s t chapter, so can  formulating the guy she was w i t h as " t h i s guy t h a t I l i k e d a r e a l l o t " h e l p t o b u i l d a defensive design i n t o her s t o r y .  I t i s n ' t , after a l l ,  like  he was j u s t " t h i s guy" o r "some guy I met i n a b a r " .  that  I  liked  a r e a l l o t " provides a p o s s i b l e way  of  happened' p r e c i s e l y by way o f seeing who was i n v o l v e d . formulated  as  "This guy  seeing  'what  The character  such may be used as grounds f o r the r e c i p i e n t  to  Louise and " t h i s guy" as people who would do j u s t what they d i d . combination  o f the way she formulates her date and the t e l l i n g  103  see The about  'what  didn't  resources  happen'  for  the  goes a long way  recipient  to  do  in his  p r o v i d i n g the part  in  necessary  sustaining  and  p r o t e c t i n g the ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n and i n s u r i n g t h a t Louise i s allowed t o save I is  'face'. s a i d e a r l i e r t h a t "a guy from work" i s an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which  recipient  designed i n the sense t h a t i t proceeds from  the  claim  t h a t the person being referred, t o i s presumably not known by the s t o r y recipient.  Further,  such a n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l formulation  the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t not t o t r y t o f i n d out who i t i s .  instructs  What we want t o  t r y t o f i n d out now i s how the s t o r y t e l l e r , B, went about choosing the formulation " a guy from work".  As features o f "a guy from work",  have i t a v a i l a b l e t o see t h a t the person i s i d e n t i f i e d as a male, that  we and  there i s a c a t e g o r i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the sense t h a t "from work"  binds them together. business couple  of of  people),  These features have an apparent r e l a t i o n t o the  the s t o r y , beers  as  having  together (a normal ' a f t e r work' a c t i v i t y  which s e t s up the more focused c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f  t o go t o a movie together. relate  a l e i s u r e a c t i v i t y t h a t began  'what  happened'  for  a  many  deciding  The s t o r y i s t o l d i n such a fashion as t o with  'who i t happened  with'.  B  did  not  undertake the p r o j e c t o f going t o a massage p a r l o r by h i m s e l f , and the a c t i v i t y i s presented as something t h a t ,  i n a l l liklihood,  would not  have happened had i t not been f o r the "guy from work". We can begin t o see from the above character formulations t h a t we may  have  some  recognitional  grounds f o r expanding upon the o r g a n i z a t i o n  character  references.  For  example,  character formulations i n Set A w i t h those i n Set B.  104  of  non-  compare  the  Set A (1-2) L:  One n i g h t (1.0) I was w i t h t h i s guy — t h a t I l i k e d a r e a l l o t [STORY]  (1-4) A:  There was t h i s guy t h a t ' s about your h e i g h t [STORY]  (HI-3) A:  So, some guy puts up h i s hand [STORY]  (IV-3) A:  w e l l , f i r s t o f a l l , okay, there was t h i s lady there [STORY]  Set B (1-5) A:  The morning o f my day o f f , my boss c a l l e d me [STORY]  (II-2) P:  Yeah, ' n when I was i n grade eleven o r grade twelve I guess, one o f the teachers a t the school [STORY] —  (II-3) J:  One time I was d r i v i n ' home from the movies ' n I was d r i v i n ' because my boyfriend smashed up h i s car [STORY]  (V-1) B:  I remember one time we t r i e d t o s k i p out o f PE, me and C a r o l , and she, the teacher, came i n t o [STORY]  105  In  Set  A  recognitionals issue no  (1^4, with  III-3,  and I V - 3 ) ,  we f i n d the  gender b u i l t i n t o them.  use  of  I t i s not so  non-  much an  o f i d e n t i f y i n g characters as male and female but t h a t there  categorial  characters.  relationship  between the s t o r y t e l l e r  and  the  is  story  I n set B, however, the s t o r y characters are introduced by  some k i n d o f c a t e g o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p : "my boss", "my b o y f r i e n d " , "the teacher",  and so o n .  uses  non-recognitionals.  for  recognitional, terms One  We can begin t o see t h a t there may be d i f f e r e n t Almost a l l reference terms  are  non-  and there are s u r e l y many ways o f o r g a n i z i n g reference  which do not t u r n on the f a c t t h a t they are t h i n g we want t o look a t i s :  can a  non-recognitional.  non-recognitional  reference  term be used t o do the work o f a r e c o g n i t i o n a l ?  NON-RECOGNITIONALS AS RECOGNITONALS The  reader  i s encouraged t o examine the  following  transcripts  before proceeding t o the ensuing a n a l y s i s . (1-5) A: W e l l , t h e r e ' s another l i t t l e one t h a t happened on the f i r s t day [STORY] •  (1)  A : Anyway, I had been working l i k e crazy f o r (3.0) about a week and a h a l f , ' n I had a day o f f coming, ' n I was wiped r i g h t o u t , jus a b s o l u t e l y dead, ' n desperate f o r t h i s day o f f . The morning o f the day o f f , my boss c a l l e d me. S i c k , r i g h t ? He says, "You g o t t a go i n " , he says, "because, because i n the pen the teachers have t o a l s o be j a i l e r s , l i k e we got the key ' n we g o t t a open the p l a c e , y'know (1.0)  106  D: D i d n ' t somebody e l s e have t o be responsible?  (30)  A : W e l l , i t ' s a c t u a l l y w o r k s — i t a c t u a l l y works w e l l because we d i d n ' t a l l o w bars i n the u n i v e r s i t y area so t h a t made i t r e a l l y good, but i t a l s o meant t h a t i f y o u ' r e the o n l y guy there, you're s i t t i n ' there w i t h f i f t y inmates and you got the key out, so I wasn't—y'know, I wasn't f e e l i n g very secure at a l l c D: yeah So anyway I go wandering i n , on t h i s , on t h i s (52) p i c k up the key a t the f r o n t gate, p i c k up the m a i l , go through a l l those gates, p i c k up the main key ' n t h i s i s a—this i s a b i g mother, y'know t h a t ' s a huge t h i n g , t h a t f i t s i n a huge l o c k w i t h a b i g metal tag on i t , y'know, you might as w e l l wear a neon s i g n t h a t says, " I ' m c a r r y i n g the key" (simultaneous laughter) so, so I go i n . open up the p l a c e , s t a r t the coffee, r i g h t ? S i t t i n g (60) there j u s t s h i t t i n g my drawers, they s t a r t t o troop i n , r i g h t ? "Where's C l a r k ? " " C l a r k ' s s i c k today", r i g h t ? "Oh good, we got t h i s guy today" (hehe) So, here I am, ' n C l a r k had s a i d over the phone, he s a i d , "Y'know, i t ' s r e a l l y important t o get t o know the guys", so [STORY] (II-2) P: One t h i n g I d i d get to—exposed t o since I saw you l a s t was a book c a l l e d Linda Goodman's Sun Signs o r something l i k e t h a t ' n i t ' s a  (1)  [  D:  astrology  P: Yeah, ' n when I was i n grade eleven o r grade (5) twelve I guess, one o f the teachers a t the school he di—he d i d n ' t l i k e me very much, but he i n v i t e d me t o see t h i s l e c t u r e a t the planetarium t h a t was put on f o r people on the school board, i t was a p r i v a t e l e c t u r e but I was one o f the (10) students t h a t was i n v i t e d t o t h i s , ' n i t was a (1.0) t h i n g t o b a s i c a l l y refute any, any o f the v a l i d i t y o f astrology, so I ' v e always c a r r i e d t h a t w i t h me, there we go c a r r y i n g things w i t h you, so (15) D: P:  C  yeah [  so I ' v e always f e l t a l i t t l e b i t (2.0) y'know, weird f e e l i n g s about people who come out w i t h "What s i g n are you?" ' n a l l o f a sudden you— t h e y ' r e completely turned o f f an' walk away (20) 107  (1.0) but I ' v e had two experiences, one w i t h a g i r l who I met i n a bar and I t a l k e d t o f o r awhile ' n a l l o f a sudden she came up t o me and t o l d me t h a t I was a p i s c e s on the cusp o f aquarius ' n I d i d n ' t know what she meant but as i t turned out (25) I am, so I went, "Okay, g i v e i t a chance", ' n the chance came l a s t week and, uhh, t h i s g i r l , w e l l , the g i r l t h a t I was going out w i t h t h a t you f e l t t h a t I f e l t g u i l t y about, she read me, she read me a p a r t i n the book about the p i s c e s male, who I i s , (30) and uhh god, i t was j u s t so r i g h t on, p a r t s o f i t , ' n one p a r t o f i t was t h a t I'm not the k i n d o f person who confides i n people and yet I love people c o n f i d i n g i n me  [  D:  hmmmm  [  P:  In one  SO [STORY CONTINUES]  1-5,  A r e l i e s upon h i s •employer-employee' r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h  character  boss",  later  thing  that  in  the s t o r y who ends up g e t t i n g  being transformed i n t o a Sacks  and  introduced  recognitional,  Schegloff (1979)  note  in  as  "my  " C l a r k " . One  relation  to  the  preference f o r the use o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l s i n conversation, i s t h a t they found  a  heavy  conversational  reliance  on  storytelling  names,  usually  first  there seems t o be a  when the s t o r y t e l l e r i s formulating c h a r a c t e r .  names.  similar In 1-5,  In  preference f o r example,  I 'hear' A saying something l i k e , "The morning o f my day o f f my boss, who you d o n ' t know, c a l l e d me".  Then l a t e r on i n the t e l l i n g when h i s  boss  i s again r e f e r r e d t o he i s r e f e r r e d t o as " C l a r k " .  that  A transforms "my boss" i n t o " C l a r k " ,  name  when he found t h a t he c o u l d .  hearer,  D,  to  have  the  thus employing h i s  That i s ,  resources  So we  find boss's  A has set i t up f o r the  available  to  tie  the  later  r e c o g n i t i o n a l " C l a r k " t o the e a r l i e r n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l "my b o s s " . could have,  after a l l ,  r e f e r r e d t o h i s boss by category again,  "They s t a r t t o troop i n , r i g h t ?  Where's your boss?  108  A i.e.  He's s i c k today",  o r something l i k e t h a t .  One i s s u e i n such a case would be:  i f A had  made h i s s t o r y audience say, "Where's your boss?", would not the s t o r y recipient  have i t a v a i l a b l e t o hear t h i s as the t e l l e r ' s s u b s t i t u t i o n  made t o accrarmodate him as r e c i p i e n t ? to  In 1-5, A f i n d s t h a t he i s able  use " C l a r k " a t t h i s p o i n t i n the t e l l i n g because he  has  the  resources for D t o t i e the name " C l a r k " t o the e a r l i e r 5 t o "my b o s s " . There i s another issue h e r e . some  extent,  to  provided reference  Recipients must be r e l i e d on, t o  be able t o perform transforms on r e c o g n i t i o n a l s  order t o l o c a t e explanatory category memberships.  in  Even when names are  used, r e c i p i e n t s need t o be able t o perform transforms on them t o f i n d what  category membership i s explanatory o f what i s being  for  example,  said.  I were t o t e l l a s t o r y about something my w i f e  If,  did  to  someone who knows my w i f e and used her name when r e f e r r i n g t o h e r ,  it  i s by v i r t u e o f the f a c t t h a t the person I am t e l l i n g the s t o r y t o can transform wife' how  my w i f e ' s name,  that it  'Ruth',  'my  the r e c i p i e n t can see why i t i s I'm t e l l i n g the s t o r y  i s she d i d what she d i d .  recipients  i n t o the category membership  Even when names  are  used,  or  then,  have t o be able t o perform transforms on them i n order  to  see what the explanatory membership i s t h a t i s being invoked. I n the conversational fragments presented thus f a r , to  see  d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f non-recognitionals by,  " t h i s guy",  "a l a d y " ,  "my b o y f r i e n d " ,  (2) r e l a t i o n s h i p c a t e g o r i a l s ,  (3) profession c a t e g o r i a l s ,  anyone, i . e . "someone".  (1)  we can begin gender,  i.e.  i . e . "my boss",  "the teacher",  and  (4)  We may now reformulate the i s s u e as: i s there  a preference ordering t o the d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f non-recognitionals?  109  We may begin t o answer the above question by suggesting t h a t , A  1-5,  marker  selected  a  c a t e g o r i a l term preceded by  the  in  pre-categorial  "my" because i t was the c a t e g o r i a l "boss" on which  the  story  6  turns.  In  II-3,  we  find J selecting a  relationship  categorial,  " b o y f r i e n d " , which i s a l s o preceded by the p r e - c a t e g o r i a l marker "my". As  in  J's  1-5,  s t o r y turns on the r e l a t i o n s h i p r a t h e r than  policeman  for  identity.  engaging  i n a category-bound a c t i v i t y between ' b o y f r i e n d - g i r l f r i e n d ' ,  namely,  s i t t i n g very c l o s e t o each other i n a c a r , which provides f o r to  him as  conversational  J was stopped by the  the  person's  referring  After a l l ,  on  "my b o y f r i e n d " .  storytelling  It  may w e l l  be  that  there i s a preference f o r the use  in  of  n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l expressing a category membership between t e l l e r story  a and  character when t h a t t e l l e r - c h a r a c t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s generative  o f the s t o r y . Note, she  was  too,  t h a t J does not simply t e l l her s t o r y r e c i p i e n t t h a t  out d r i v i n g w i t h a " f r i e n d " o r "a guy",  although she  presumably  have selected a reference term from a number o f  identities  from the d i f f e r e n t kinds o f  could have used h i s name. randomly not  from  J's  disinterest  or  Or  she  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s not  selected from a set o f p o s s i b l e reference terms,  s t o r y t e l l i n g i s selected. formulate  different  non-recognitionals.  That i s t o say,  could  i n d i f f e r e n c e t h a t a reference  and i t term  is  in  a  Rather, i n r e l a t i o n t o d e c i d i n g upon how t o  a s t o r y character, the relevance o f the term selected may be  considered t o be provided by the s t o r y t e l l i n g occasion. Thus of  f a r I have i d e n t i f i e d and begun t o describe d i f f e r e n t k i n d s  non-recognitionals  and  have  suggested t h a t  any  kind  of  non-  r e c o g n i t i o n a l may take preference over the use o f a name when the non110  r e c o g n i t i o n a l term i s c r u c i a l t o t h e t e l l i n g o f t h e s t o r y . I n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n I d e s c r i b e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r t h e use o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l s when i n i t i a l l y formulating story characters.  RECOGNITIONS REFERENCE PROCEDURES  We now t u r n t o i n s t a n c e s where s t o r y c h a r a c t e r s a r e i n t r o d u c e d b y name.  (II-D C:  He [Rob] was j u s t — w e went t o t h i s — y o u remember Ewen P i t t , d i d you, y e a h w e l l [STORY]  (III-D A:  ...Two days l a t e r I g o t a phone c a l l a t e l e v e n o ' c l o c k a t n i g h t from a guy b y — h e s a i d h i s name was S t e v e Dogood [STORY]  (III-5) A:  Yeah, I went t o have l u n c h w i t h Bev 'n we h a d a l o n g t a l k [STORY]  (IV-1) B:  D a v i d , y o u know P a t ' s David, he uhhh l i k e y o u know how k i d s a r e [STORY]  (V-1) A:  T h e r e was a s u b s t i t u t e t e a c h e r when T u r n e r was away [STORY]  (V-2) J:  Good o l e Perks, I was g o i n g b y t h e r e a g a i n today, h e always s i t s t h e r e i n  111  h i s o f f i c e [STORY] (V-4) A:  So we were v i s i t i n g the P r u d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g (1.0) ' n we were walking o u t , I t h i n k i t was j u s t Dan and me ' n [STORY]  These  fragments deserve f u r t h e r comment.  In I I - l ,  C chooses t o  use a r e c o g n i t i o n a l w i t h an accompanying upward i n t o n a t i o n a l  contour,  such  remember  as i s commonly used when formulating a question,  Ewen P i t t ,  d i d you?"  Sacks and Schegloff  "You  (1979) demonstrate t h a t the  use  o f t h i s k i n d o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l attempt or ' t r y marker' argues  the  preference  f o r use o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l s i n  conversation.  for  However,  t h i s does not mean t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n a l s are selected by t e l l e r s o n l y i n those cases where i t i s assumed t h a t the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t s may know the referred-to the  character and t h a t non-recognitionals are used o n l y when  s t o r y t e l l e r b e l i e v e s t h a t the hearers d o n ' t know the  character.  As the f o l l o w i n g fragments demonstrate,  a  referred-to storyteller's  character formulation i s more complex than t h i s . (H-2) P:  . . . ' n the chance came l a s t week and, uhh t h i s g i r l , w e l l , the g i r l t h a t I * was going out w i t h t h a t you f e l t t h a t I f e l t g u i l t y about, she [STORY]  (HI-2) A:  In  Two days l a t e r I got a phone c a l l a t eleven o ' c l o c k a t n i g h t from a guy by—he s a i d h i s name was Steve Dogcod, * ' n I s a i d [STORY]  III-2,  we  f i n d t h a t A formulates a s t o r y character  112  with  a  ccrnbination  of  a  non-recognitional,  " t h i s guy",  c h a r a c t e r ' s name,  standard  telling  i n w h i c h i t i s advantageous  employ  occasions  followed  fare f o r recognitionals.  a recognitional reference  T h e r e seem t o be  f o r the s t o r y t e l l e r  form even when t h e  t h a t t h e s t o r y r e c i p i e n t does n o t know t h e p e r s o n b e i n g  to.  Then  telling.  In  find III-2,  to  storyteller  know  we  by the  t h a t t h e name may be a n i m p o r t a n t  may  referred  part  o f the  we see t h a t A ' s u s e o f a name f o l l o w i n g  a  non-  r e c o g n i t i o n a l t e l l s t h e r e c i p i e n t something about how A h e a r d t h e name at  the  t i m e o f t h e event,  "Dogcod" It's  would  t h a t h e was i n c r e d u l o u s  be o f f e r i n g h i m a j o b a t  part o f the story.  a  t h a t a guy  correctional  named  institute.  So t h e u s e o f a name h e r e i s n o t j u s t a way  o f g e t t i n g the character i n t o the story as a recognizable,  b u t i t s use  f i g u r e s a s a p a r t o f t h e s t o r y i t s e l f , a p a r t w h i c h may have been i f A had merely used a n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l Vic  called  me".  Another  d i f f e r e n t character Vic  c a l l e d me".  formulation  have  i . e . "Some guy from U  i s s u e h e r e i s t h a t i t would  formulation  would  invite  B  be  t o search  then,  f o r who " S t e v e  t h a t such  upon  a  a  Dogood" i s ,  known t o t h e r e c i p i e n t .  i s something e l s e happening i n t h e s e i n s t a n c e s  touched  quite  i f A h a d s a i d , "So Steve Dogood from U  I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o suggest,  assuming t h a t h e i s a p e r s o n  There  form,  lost  which  b u t which we have n o t y e t d e s c r i b e d .  we  That i s ,  CHARACTER FORMULATION PREFERENCES MAY BE USED IN COMBINATION,  BUT NOT  JUST  a  ANY COMBINATION.  recognitional the  reference  formulation  formulated  remains  The above,  III-2,  form f o l l o w e d  shows t h e u s e o f  by a recognitional  'non-recognitional'  non-  form,  yet  i n that the person i s  a s " t h i s guy" and remains e s s e n t i a l l y a f o r m u l a t i o n  which  c o u l d r e l a t e t o anyone a s f a r a s t h e s t o r y r e c i p i e n t i s c o n c e r n e d .  113  He  just  happens  offering  A,  example may  to  have a funny name i n r e l a t i o n t o  and  the  job  t h a t name f i g u r e s i n the s t o r y i t s e l f .  a l s o o f f e r s a h i n t t h a t there are oases when a  be followed by a n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l .  The f o l l o w i n g  he  The  was above  recognitional hypothetical  example i s s u r e l y p l a u s i b l e .  A:  Yesterday Steve Congdon, I d o n ' t t h i n k you know the guy, and I were on our way t o the Cubs game when [STORY]  Recipient or  determining whether a formulation i s non-recognitional  recognitional,  interactional Whereas,  then,  location  f o r example,  can  o n l y be achieved  o f the formulation  by  considering  i n question i n the  the talk.  we may consider the above h y p o t h e t i c a l example  t o be a combination o f a r e c o g n i t i o n a l followed by a non-recognitional which  stands  following heard  as  a non-recognitional  character  formulation,  the  would c e r t a i n l y be c o n s t i t u t e d as the same combination  as an instance o f a r e c o g n i t i o n a l i n t h a t the t e l l e r  and  instructs  the hearer t o search f o r the i d e n t i t y o f "the guy w i t h the p a t c h " , who we take i t A assumes r e c i p i e n t should recognize.  A:  So Doug Wagoner, y'know, the guy w i t h the patch? he met us a t the b a l l p a r k and offered t o [STORY]  One k i n d o f common t h i n g t h a t happens when formulating in  character  conversational s t o r y t e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n s i s when a s t o r y t e l l e r  think  that  the r e c i p i e n t knows who the t e l l e r i s going t o  i n t o the s t o r y . which  the  will  introduce  Then i t ' s common t o f i n d the use o f a ' t r y marker' i n  storyteller  r e f e r s t o a name as a B.4  recognitional  with  a  q u e s t i o n added, the  guy  e.g.  "You remember Ewen P i t t , d i d you?" o r , "y'know,  with the patch?"  materials  i s that  the  One t h i n g t h a t becomes ' t r y marker'  evident  organization  preference  o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r t h e u s e o f names o v e r 7 i f r e c o g n i t i o n i s p o s s i b l e , t r y t o achieve i t .  frcm  supports  our the  non-recognitionals—  E a r l i e r I examined some i n s t a n c e s o f s t o r i e s t o l d i n c o n v e r s a t i o n in  which  teller  assumed  introduced, story  the  that  I n t h e f o l l o w i n g example,  knew  the  n o t e how  the character with a non-recognitional  when t h e c h a r a c t e r , the  the story recipient  character  being  the  form,  storyteller " t h i s dude",  a s i t t u r n s o u t l a t e r i n t h e t e l l i n g , i s known b y  s t o r y r e c i p i e n t s a l l along,  knew h i m when t e l l e r f o r m u l a t e d  and t h e s t o r y t e l l e r knew h i m a s " t h i s dude".  (VT-3) K:  the  b u t because t h e c h a r a c t e r ' s name f i g u r e d a s a p a r t o f t h e  itself.  formulates  s t o r y t e l l e r s e l e c t e d a r e c o g n i t i o n a l n o t because  The b e s t p l a y e r I e v e r saw, man, t h i s dude b r o u g h t h i s own c h e e r i n g s e c t i o n from P h i l l y , man, and I never even h e a r d o f him. Before t h e game t h e y s t a r t e d screamin', 'Jesus, Black Jesus1 Black Jesus1' I thought, who was t h i s dude? He was about s i x - t h r e e and t h e f i r s t p l a y o f t h e game h e g o t a rebound o n t h e d e f e n s i v e end o f t h e c o u r t and s t a r t e d s p i n n i n ' , man, he spun f o u r t i m e s 1 Now h e ' s n i n e t y f e e t from t h e hoop and t h i s dude i s s p i n n i n ' 1 W e l l , on t h e f o u r t h s p i n h e throws t h e b a l l i n a hook motion, i t bounced a t m i d - c o u r t and t h e n i t j u s t r o s e , and t h e r e was a guy a t t h e o t h e r end r u n n i n ' f u l l speed and h e caught i t i n s t r i d e and l a i d i t i n . A f u l l - c o u r t bounce passI A f t e r I saw t h a t I c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d a l l t h e 'Black J e s u s ' s t u f f . I didn't find o u t t h e dude's r e a l name u n t i l way l a t e r . i t was E a r l Monroe1  115  that  they  In  such c a s e s where t h e name o f t h e c h a r a c t e r  figures i n the story i t s e l f ,  being  introduced  t h e n t h e s t o r y t e l l e r may choose t o s e l e c t  the  non-preferred  form depending upon r e c o g n i t i o n a l a v a i l a b i l i t y  the  time o f t h e episode being recounted.  We h e a r i t t h a t  K  at  didn't  introduce  " t h i s dude" a s " E a r l Monroe" when i n i t i a l l y f o r m u l a t i n g t h e  character  i n t h e s t o r y because a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e p i s o d e  know  i t was E a r l Monroe.  itself,  i . e . "I'm  K  didn't  Such a n o r g a n i z a t i o n f i g u r e s i n t h e  n o t t e l l i n g y o u h i s name a t t h e s t a r t  story  because  I  d i d n ' t know i t t h e n e i t h e r " .  Earlier,  in  I I - 2 , we  found t h e s t o r y t e l l e r employing  r e c o g n i t i o n a l form i n f o r m u l a t i n g knows  about  formulation, you  by  previous  a s t o r y c h a r a c t e r who t h e  reference.  g i r l who I met i n a b a r " ,  formulation  P  transformed  into  to  D  uses  a modification device  so t h a t " t h i s  girl"  " t h e g i r l t h a t I was g o i n g o u t w i t h t h a t  remember'  "read  you  gets felt  The m o d i f i c a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n a c t s a s  t e c h n i q u e whereby a s t o r y t e l l e r may  ' suddenly  "a  However, i n t h e l a t t e r  correct  i t t h a t i t i s a common e x p e r i e n c e i n c o n v e r s a t i o n  didn't  one  t h e f i r s t b e i n g about  and t h e second about " t h i s g i r l " t h a t  I f e l t g u i l t y about".  interaction.  cn  One t h i n g t h a t i s happening h e r e  me a p a r t i n t h e book about t h e p i s c e s male".  take  recipient  I want t o c o n c e n t r a t e  i s t h a t P i s t a l k i n g about two e x p e r i e n c e s ,  repairing  non-  " t h i s g i r l , w e l l , t h e g i r l t h a t I was g o i n g o u t w i t h t h a t  f e l t t h a t I f e l t g u i l t y about".  that  a  something t h a t i s r e l e v a n t  himself. for a  to  a We  speaker  the  ongoing  I n t h i s i n s t a n c e i t appears t h a t P a t f i r s t f i g u r e d t h a t  know t h e p e r s o n P f o r m u l a t e d  remembers t h a t h e had,  i n fact,  116  as " t h i s  girl".  P  suddenly  referred t o "this g i r l " before  t o D,  either  earlier  i n the conversation or a t some other time.  Thus  finds i t possible to refer to " t h i s g i r l " i n r e l a t i o n to that formulation.  earlier  P makes use, then, o f an e a r l i e r statement t o D i n order  t o t i e a s t o r y character t o a previous i n c i d e n t . with  he  another  instance  which  supports  the  Thus we are provided preference  rule:  if  r e c o g n i t i o n i s p o s s i b l e , t r y t o achieve i t . Earlier  I  said  that  character  formulations  subject t o combination and/or accumulation. reference  to  are  expandable,  We have already seen how  a s t o r y character may i n c l u d e a combination  terms,  e.g.  " t h i s dude"—"Earl Monroe",  have  a l s o noted how i d e n t i t i e s may be accumulated wherein a reference  form  is  followed  chapter  I  have  conversational recognitionals  "my b o s s " — " C l a r k " ,  of  by other i n f o r m a t i o n . been  examining  storytelling  and  Up t o t h i s  and so o n . We  point  in  the  formulation  preferences  in  describing  subclasses  of  and n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l s .  For s t o r y t e l l e r s f a c i n g  the  task o f i n t r o d u c i n g characters i n t o t h e i r s t o r i e s we f i n d a preference f o r the use o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l s . preference of  the  There i s a l s o an o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r  the  f o r r e c o g n i t i o n a l s when the r e c o g n i t i o n a l f i g u r e s as  story,  as i n II1-2,  w i t h the use o f "Steve Dogood".  part I  am  proposing, then, t h a t there are preference r u l e s operating i n r e l a t i o n to  character  there  is  Further,  formulations i n conversational  an o r d e r i n g t o the d i f f e r e n t kinds the  storytelling of  that  non-recognitionals.  formulation o f persons i n s t o r i e s follows the same k i n d  o f o r d e r i n g and l o g i c as i t does i n conversation i n g e n e r a l . my c o n t r i b u t i o n turns on (1) expanding upon  Sacks  earlier  conversation,  work  and  on  reference  to  persons  in  and  Thus f a r Schegloffs and  (2)  beginning the development o f a d e s c r i p t i o n o f formulating character i n 117  conversational s t o r y t e l l i n g . grounds  I n so doing I have noted t h a t there are  f o r two preferences f o r s t o r y t e l l e r s i n formulating character  and an o r g a n i z a t i o n which each can m o b i l i z e .  CONCLUSION In  this  chapter  I  first  mention  character  as  treated  i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse  analysis  and  references provided  the  have  examined  then  reader w i t h a conversational a n a l y s i s treatment o f  same phenomenon.  I suggested t h a t the a n a l y s i s o f f e r e d by  the  linguists  i n t e r e s t e d i n discourse features l a y s the foundation f o r more in-depth analysis  which i n c l u d e s a concern f o r features o f i n t e r a c t i o n as w e l l  as features o f language.  I t r a c e d the l i n e o f progression from f i r s t  mention character references as they work i n conversation according t o Sacks  and  Schegloff  (1979),  t o the  methods  storytellers  use  to  formulate character i n n a r r a t i v e s . When  a  formulation this  story  gets  generated  chapter  I  nujiimization  narrative noted,  l o c a t e d two preferences f o r  have  the  seme  Earlier  performing  this  in  task:  I claimed t h a t the preference  expression t o other domains  characters as  well.  in I  t h a t f i r s t mention character references i n n a r r a t i v e  i n s t r u c t n a r r a t i v e r e c i p i e n t s t o attend t o such matters  (a) what the s t o r y may be ' a b o u t ' , and  conversation,  and r e c i p i e n t design i n formulating  discourse  further,  discourse  natural  o f other characters may have t o be o f f e r e d .  r e c o g n i t i o n a l s and n o n - r e c o g n i t i o n a l s . for  in  (b) who w i l l be doing what t o whom,  (c) how the character(s) w i l l f i g u r e i n t o the s t o r y . preference r u l e s operating i n f i r s t mention character  118  as  I discovered references  in  narrative  discourse,  recognitionals,  and  I  I  described  claimed  some  that  sub-classes  there  is  an  of  non-  ordering  to  integration  of  combinations. The  significance  linguistic analysis  discourse vis-a-vis  discourse. there  is  For an  analytical articles,  discoveries with findings  frcm  conversational  the l i n g u i s t i n t e r e s t e d i n the study  possessive  pronouns,  analysis,  of  narrative  linguistics,  proper  in  names,  narrative discourse,  discourse  e.g.  based  and so o n .  But  categorial  starts  e.g.  what speaker assumes hearer  membership.  So  then,  w i t h i n t e r a c t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s and  speaker d e c i s i o n s i n more than one way, the s t r e e t " o r "Tony",  in  the issues are formulated i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l  categories, on  to  indefinite  an i n t e r e s t i n t y i n g features o f n a r r a t i v e discourse  interactional  analysis  its  f i r s t mention character references  categories already made i n  with  knows  t h i s chapter l i e s i n  i n t e r e s t i n t y i n g features o f  conversational terms,  of  to  already  conversational  can  thus  embody  e . g . choosing "the guy across  depending on what speaker knows hearer  knows,  something we would not l e a r n i f we s t a r t e d w i t h an a n l y s i s o f d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s o r proper names. My a n a l y s i s o f f i r s t mention character reference i n n a r r a t i v e has offered  several  structure. the  isolation  live  the  larger  of  storytellers'  character  as a group f o r s p e c i a l study.  conversation seems t o me t o o f f e r  structures texts.  to  study  of  discourse  What seems the most obvious methodological c o n t r i b u t i o n i s  conversation in  contributions  which  That  the  are  obscured o r neglected  transformations 119  formulations  in  live  The study o f n a r r a t i v e s insights  into  discourse  when analyzing  i n n a r r a t i v e discourse  edited  from  the  narrative analyzed  i t s e l f t o membership categories can be taken  and  i n terms o f t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n o f a s t o r y t e l l e r ' s strategy i s ,  as f a r as I can t e l l from the discourse l i t e r a t u r e , one  together  a new i d e a ,  which I would assume w i l l prove e s p e c i a l l y valuable i n the  and study  o f the pragmatic i n f l u e n c e i n l i v e s t o r y t e l l i n g . Secondly,  by  i n d i c a t i n g v a r i o u s procedures used  to  formulate  character i n n a r r a t i v e s , t h i s chapter suggests an informal methodology f o r d i s c o v e r i n g and d e s c r i b i n g such procedures. be  described  design, to  i n terms o f three k i n d s o f o r i e n t a t i o n ;  (1)  recipient  i n t h a t a s t o r y t e l l e r ' s character formulation ought t o  the  story  storytellers which  This methodology can  recipient(s),  ought  members  make  (2)  membership  t o take i n t o account the o f themselves  and  analysis,  member  their  in  cater that  categorizations  recipients,  and  (3)  a c t i v i t y a n a l y s i s , i n t h a t people ought t o produce recognizable t o p i c s i n t h e i r t a l k i n and through formulations o f characters, o b j e c t s , and events.  The strongest o r i e n t a t i o n i n Sacksian conversational a n a l y s i s  deals w i t h 'membership c a t e g o r i e s ' , explicating  and  describing  and t h i s chapter r e l i e s h e a v i l y on  common  repertoires  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s and the r u l e s o f t h e i r use.  of  personal  By r e c o g n i z i n g the types  o f devices which frequently mark character formulations i n n a r r a t i v e s , one can q u i c k l y i d e n t i f y p a r t s o f a s t o r y t e l l i n g which are p o t e n t i a l l y character formulations. A freely to  number o f l i n g u i s t s i n t e r e s t e d i n the study o f discourse  have  admitted t h a t c u r r e n t l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s has tended  n e g l e c t ethnographic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,  t h e i r analyses.  situation,  and c u l t u r e  in  I n recent studies (Jones, 1983; Longacre, 1983), some  120  linguists  have  something  to  attempted be  Conversational  added  to treat on  to  ethnographic  existing  ethnography  discourse  linguistic  as  categories.  a n a l y s i s claims t h a t doing discourse a n a l y s i s may mean  changing one's n o t i o n o f what i s r e l e v a n t . that  considerations  Surely i t i s not the case  i s needed f o r conversational a n a l y s i s but  analysis.  C e r t a i n l y there i s an ethnography  not  of  for  written  t e x t s as s u r e l y as there i s an ethnography o f conversation, and I have claimed  as  methodology  much i n  this  is  by  suggesting  an  structures.  the next chapter I examine another feature o f discourse which  t r e a t e d i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse analysis—COLLATERAL  After  alternative  w i t h categories u s e f u l i n formal a n a l y s i s f o r d i s c o v e r i n g  and d e s c r i b i n g discourse In  chapter  reviewing a  INFORMATION,  I  linguistic  discourse  treatment  show how the same feature can be  INFORMATION.  of  treated  d i f f e r e n t a n a l y t i c a l categories i n conversational a n a l y s i s .  121  COLLATERAL by  using  NOTES TO CHAPTER 3  1  I wish t o thank my w i f e , Ruth Spielmann, f o r sharing her i n s i g h t s w i t h me on how characters may be formulated i n Algonquin narratives. 2  Schegloff (1979) notes t h a t an organizational selfi d e n t i f i c a t i o n , e . g . The Bay, i n d i c a t e s t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s relevant. The p o i n t here i s t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n may not be important, even w i t h the p o s s i b l e use o f a nonrecognitional s e l f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by name, e.g. " M r . Brown speaking", w h i l e identification i s . 3  G a r f i n k e l and Sacks (1970) argue t h a t a member has it a v a i l a b l e t o t r e a t some p a r t o f a conversation as "an occasion t o describe t h a t conversation, t o e x p l a i n i t , or c h a r a c t e r i z e i t , . . . o r f u r n i s h the g i s t o f i t " (p.35Q). I n t h e i r terminology, a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t may use some p a r t o f a conversation as an occasion t o "formulate" the conversation. Our i n t e r e s t i n t h i s chapter i s t o focus on some instances i n which the formulation o f characters i n Class I I s t o r y t e l l i n g s b u i l d s i n t o the achievement o f conversational order and which does some i n t e r a c t i o n a l work. 4 Sacks and Schegloff (1979) w r i t e : A nonrecognitional having been done, r e c i p i e n t may f i n d from other sources p r o vided i n the t a l k t h a t he might know the r e f e r r e d - t o , w h i l e seeing t h a t the speaker need not have supposed t h a t he would. He may then seek t o confirm h i s s u s p i c i o n by o f f e r i n g the name o r by asking f o r i t , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y o f f e r i n g some b a s i s f o r independently knowing the r e f e r r e d - t o , as i n the f o l l o w i n g : B: Wh-what i s y e r f r i e n d ' s name? son l i v e s i n Sherman Oaks. A : Uh Wenzel B: (Mh-mh) no. And uh, i f she uh 122  Cuz my  A : She l i v e s on Hartzuk B: No, I d o n ' t even know t h a t s t r e e t 5  I n our m a t e r i a l s we f i n d t h a t f i r s t names are not j u s t used when they are known. They may a l s o be used a t an i n t r o d u c t o r y formulation f o r reference t o a t a l a t e r t i m e . A name, then, when not known by r e c i p i e n t , may provide the r e c i p i e n t w i t h the resources t h a t the r e c i p i e n t may need l a t e r on i n a s t o r y t o keep track of already-referred-to characters. As Sacks and Schegloff (1979) w r i t e : The strength o f the p r e f e r e n c e . . . i n v o l v e [ s ] not o n l y maximum e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the use o f r e c o g n i t i o n a l s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h seme current s t a t e o f " i f p o s s i b l e " , b u t . . . i n v o l v e [ s ] as w e l l an i n t e r e s t i n expanding the scope o f p o s s i b i l i t y (p. 17). 6  A p r e - c a t e g o r i a l marker u s u a l l y makes i t a v a i l a b l e f o r the recipient t o search the r e l a t i o n s h i p boundaries for possible recognition. That i s , the use o f a p r e - c a t e g o r i a l l i k e 'my' makes i t a v a i l a b l e f o r r e c i p i e n t s t o search f o r i d e n t i t i e s . 7  As f o r the 'try-marker' feature, note t h a t :  Sacks and Schegloff (1979)  The existence and cemmon use o f such a form...bears on a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the concurrence o f the preferences f o r minimi z a t i o n and r e c i p i e n t d e s i g n . . . S i n c e the try-marker engenders a sequence, i n v o l v i n g a t l e a s t r e c i p i e n t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f recogn i t i o n . . . the try-marker i s evidence f o r the preference f o r r e c o g n i t i o n a l s being stronger than the preference f o r nunimization (p. 19).  123  CHAPTER 4 : COLLATERAL INFORMATION IN NARRATIVES  When n a r r a t i v e s are t o l d i n conversation, some o f the information included  may  narrative,  not n e c e s s a r i l y be p a r t o f the c o u r s e - o f - a c t i o n i n  but  may stand outside o f the course-of-action  the  reporting.  Grimes (1975) r e f e r s t o t h i s k i n d o f information as BACKGROUND. of  Much  t h i s BACKGROUND information i s used t o c l a r i f y a n a r r a t i v e and  explain  other information i n the n a r r a t i v e .  accounts  often  involve  These  explanations  t h i n g s t h a t the n a r r a t o r f e e l s  need  to  to or be  c l a r i f i e d i n order t o avoid r e c i p i e n t misunderstanding. One k i n d o f t h i n g t h a t happens t o s t o r i e s t o l d i n conversation i s that  their  r e c i p i e n t s may perform  transforms  on  them,  transforms  employed t o f i g u r e out the sense o f what they have been t o l d (Sharrock and Turner,  1978).  I n e f f e c t , when a s t o r y gets t o l d i t follows t h a t  the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t may have t o do some ' f i g u r i n g out' o f the s t o r y i n order  t o get the sense o f i t , 1  was  told.  may  place  I t i s t h i s k i n d o f ' p o t e n t i a l transform o p e r a t i o n ' a  dispref erred  storyteller recipient  conversational narrative  t o understand what went on and why  method  told  in  in  jeopardy  response. by  live  this  conversation,  teller's  producing 'problem':  to  chapter,  I  a  possible  describe  which  could  lead  may be defused w i t h i n the  the t e l l i n g sequence o f the n a r r a t i v e .  towards  leading  which  which p o s s i b l e r e c i p i e n t transforms  d i s p r e f e r r e d r e c i p i e n t response, of  In  by  The a n a l y s i s i s  124  on to  a a a  structure directed  an understanding o f how s t o r y t e l l e r s attend how t o p r o t e c t against a p o s s i b l e  it  to  a  dispreferred  response a t s t o r y completion by b u i l d i n g a defense mechanism i n t o  the  t e l l i n g sequence so as t o s u s t a i n and p r o t e c t the ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n . Specifically,  this  chapter  examines instances where n a r r a t o r s  tell  about things t h a t d i d not happen (termed COLLATERAL information i n the linguistic  discourse l i t e r a t u r e ) i n n a r r a t i v e s which c o n t a i n  information.  In  'risky'  such s t o r i e s the a n a l y t i c a l issues are w e l l - d e f i n e d  and perhaps more r e a d i l y grasped.  A L i n g u i s t i c Treatment o f C o l l a t e r a l E a r l i e r I s a i d t h a t l i n g u i s t i c s has much t o o f f e r the s o c i o l o g i s t interested  in  sociology  have  analysis.  It's  one  of  those  (1975),  was  narratives.  the  analysis of discourse.  been t r e a t e d f o r some time  what  linguistic  issues.  Joseph Grimes,  i n The Thread  of  in  discourse is  Discourse  one o f the f i r s t t o describe c o l l a t e r a l informationn i n Some information i n a n a r r a t i v e , instead o f t e l l i n g about t e l l s about what d i d not happen.  Grimes  t h a t the main f u n c t i o n o f c o l l a t e r a l information i s t o set actually  happened. about  in  arising  treatment o f c o l l a t e r a l information i n discourse  what happened i n the s t o r y , notes  Some issues  does  happen  in a  narrative  with  what  might  One example he uses i s from a Saramaccan t e x t i n a  a canoe t r i p t h a t ended when the canoe capsized i n the  off have story  rapids.  One p a r t o f the n a r r a t i v e i s as f o l l o w s . The canoe overturned. The father d i d n ' t d i e , the mother d i d n ' t d i e , the c h i l d r e n d i d n ' t d i e . Instead, they a l l escaped t o l a n d . Grimes  writes  narrative,  about  the  use  of  information i n  this  "By t e l l i n g what d i d not happen t o the p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  [the  125  collateral  narrator]  throws  their  escape  into  relief"  (1975:64).  He  then  attempts to describe a roster of the grammatical forms associated with collateral information. ADVERSATIVES imply  are a form of negation i n Grimes' roster  parallel but disjoint action.  His example,  pickles but we brought mustard," implies, and  that  "They brought  "They did not bring mustard  we did not bring pickles." /ADVERSATIVES can also imply that  speaker  assumes  the hearer to have  inferred something  plausible but that did not i n fact happen. late but were received immediately," implies, that you,  the hearer,  His example,  the  that i s  "We arrived  "I, the speaker, think  must expect that i f we were to arrive late the  logical thing would be for our reception to be postponed.  Contrary to  your expectation, we were received immediately." In the Algonquin language,  we can see how collateral information  in a non-English narrative might be treated.  In the following story,  note the three instances of collateral information (see Appendix for a complete transcript).  Text 20: Moz Adisokan 20.1 20.1  Abitibi sagaigan Abitibi lake  20.2 20.2  E mibizowagiban tcimanikag nibapam +oonj we-^were-driving-by i n the canoe my father  e widjiwag. 20.3 •fconj I-am-^th-him. 20.3 20.4 20.4  Mi dac kawin That's why then not  k i t c i sagakwaban. really there-were-branches.  nigi odji nisa nimozom. I +past came kill-him my moose.  Onidjani, nitam nigi wabama. Female-moose, f i r s t I +past see-him. nid odji kagwe packiziwasi, I came try shoot-him-neg, 20.5 20.5  126  E abanabiag... +conj we-look-back...  oza because  nidigcmin. 20.15 t h e y - t e l l - u s . 20.15  Kawin Not  k i d inendagozisi you-are-allowed-neg  k i d j i nisadj noz. 20.16 i n - o r d e r - t h a t y o u - k i l l - h i m moose. 20.16 e i j i anokiwag acitc +conj t h u s we-trap and  dac n i d inendagozinan t h e n I-am-allowed  k i d j i nisag nimozom. i n - o r d e r - t h a t I - k i l l - h i m my moose. wi tebwetasi. want he-believe-me-neg.  N i g i kagwe widamawa ocma I +past t r y t e l l - h i m h e r e  20.18 20.18  20.17 20.17  Mi dac T h a t ' s why  Ka ega Not  kakina then a l l  ogi odapinanan, podadjigan, +past he-took-them, m o o s e - c a l l ,  acitc and  kakina o g i pozitonawa e v e r y t h i n g +past they-loaded-them  odabanikag. in-the-car.  dac then  nigi kiwebizcmin minawadj we-excl +past go-back a g a i n  dac then packiziganan guns  wasakonendj i g a n , lights, 20.19 20.19  Panima Have-to  ka i j i pagodjinakeag + c o n j - p a s t t h u s we-load-him  k i d j i wabadaag, adi ka i j i nisaiag moz i n - o r d e r - t h a t we-show-hLm where +conj-past t h u s w e - k i l l - h i m moose nibapam ninawid. my f a t h e r u s - e x c l . kegon. thing.  20.21 20.21  20.20 20.20  O g i pozitonawa okadan, t h e y +past loaded-them l e g s ,  Kawin kegon Nothing  od o d j i ickonasinawa. 20.22 t h e y comes l e a v e - i t - b e h i n d . 20.22  Mi ka i j i madj idowadj i n . 20.23 T h a t ' s why +conj-past t h u s t h e y - t o o k - i t - a w a y . 20.23 panima n i g i ijiwinigog. h a v e - t o I +past they-take-me. nid  o d j i kibahogosi.  20.24 20.24  20.25  he came lock-me-me-up-neg. 20.25 panima ega dac have-to not(conj) then  kakina every  Cochrane Cochrane  Kawin Not  Kegad  n i g i kibaogo  A l m o s t he +past  lock-me-up  nigi ojibiodizonan I +past s i g n  kidji sagaaman... in-oder-that I-leave-it...  In narrator  the  first  instance o f c o l l a t e r a l  information  (20.4),  g i v e s an a c c o u n t f o r why he d i d n ' t immediately t r y t o  127  the shoot  the  moose  he  packiziwasi, him,  saw osa  in  the  forest,  " M i dac  kawin n i d o d j i  kagwe  k i t c i sagakwaban" (That's why I d i d n ' t t r y t o shoot  [because] there were too many branches [ i n my way]).  I n 20.17,  we f i n d another utterance c o n t a i n i n g c o l l a t e r a l information,  "Ka  ega  dac  Then  in  in  the  wi  20.23  tebwetasi" (So then he d i d n ' t want t o b e l i e v e me).  we  find  narrative, [lock  me  a t h i r d instance o f  "Kawin  nidodji  up]).  constructed  information  kibahagosi" (He d i d n ' t throw me  In Mgonquin,  with  collateral  negatives  as  in  almost  many  in  languages,  always  contain  jail  utterances collateral  information.  One reason f o r t h i s , a reason  which places emphasis on  the  of  a  function  perspective,  is  COLLATERAL as viewed from that  highlighting device. significance narrative.  only  collateral  discourse  information can  be  linguist's  useful  as  a  I n Algonquin, events t h a t do not take place have in  relation  t o what a c t u a l l y does  happen  C o l l a t e r a l information i n Algonquin n a r r a t i v e s  in  a  contributes  t o a h i g h l i g h t i n g e f f e c t by focusing r e c i p i e n t a t t e n t i o n on what  else  might happen i n the place o f what d i d not happen. In  English,  information presuppose  and or  QUESTIONS are o f t e n used f o r i n d i c a t i n g can be t r e a t e d w i t h regard t o the  assume  v i s - a - v i s what  they  inquire  collateral  information about.  writes: When d i d John get here? presupposes t h a t John d i d get here, so t h a t the area o f u n c e r t a i n t y i s r e s t r i c t e d t o the time o f h i s a r r i v a l . When d i d you stop beating your wife? i s more complex; i t assumes t h a t you have a w i f e , t h a t there was a time when you beat h e r , and t h a t there was a time a f t e r which you no longer beat h e r . The question i s d i r e c t e d toward a s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t time. The presuppositions i n a question are almost l i k e conditions l a i d down by the speaker f o r the hearer t o g i v e an acceptable answer. 128  they  Grimes  I f the hearer accepts the presuppositions, then he can g i v e the m i s s i n g information t h a t i s r e q u i r e d ; i f not, he i s i n a bind (1975:66). /According events take  t o events and, place,  Furthermore, what  t o Grimes,  is  spelled  out  "collateral  the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f  collateral  in  c o l l a t e r a l information r e l a t e s non-  by p r o v i d i n g a range o f non-events t h a t  heightens  likely  then,  what  actually  information has the e f f e c t  t o happen i n a n a r r a t i v e when the advance.  information  Grimes  notes  i s not very  happens.  anticipating  alternatives  that,  different  of  might  in  this  from  are  respect,  foreshadowing"  (p.65). In upon  The  Grammar o f Discourse (1983),  Longacre begins t o  the n o t i o n o f c o l l a t e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n .  features with  of narratives,  regard  to  In  analyzing  expand  structural  Longacre d i v i d e s n a r r a t i v e s i n t o seven p a r t s  notional  (deep)  background information o f time,  structure;  (1)  Exposition—where  place and p a r t i c i p a n t s i s g i v e n ,  (2)  I n c i t i n g Moment—when the planned and p r e d i c t a b l e i s broken up i n some manner, or  (3) Developing C o n f l i c t — i n which the s i t u a t i o n  deteriorates,  everything which the  depending  comes t o a head,  on one's  d e t a i l s o f the r e s o l u t i o n , to  some  sort  of  Climax—where happens  (6) F i n a l Suspense—which works out and (7) Conclusion—which b r i n g s  end.  Each  notional  corresponds w i t h n a r r a t i v e surface s t r u c t u r e s , (deep  (4)  (5) Denouement—a c r u c i a l event  makes r e s o l u t i o n p o s s i b l e ,  story  viewpoint,  intensifies,  part  e.g.  of  discourse  I n c i t i n g Moment  structure) w i t h Pre-peak Episode (surface s t r u c t u r e ) .  n a r r a t i v e s c o n t a i n a l l seven p a r t s ,  Not a l l  but a well-developed n a r r a t i v e i s  l i k e l y t o have many or a l l o f them since each p a r t contributes t o success o f the n a r r a t i v e . 129  the  the  In d e s c r i b i n g main l i n e versus supportive m a t e r i a l i n d i s c o u r s e , Longacre  makes the c l a i m t h a t ,  distinctions  among  " i t i s impossible t o make  discourse  types  material]  into  made  d i s t i n c t i o n between  the  account" (p.14).  without  structural  taking  [supportive  He c i t e s Grimes as having types  of  information i n  already  which  distinction  i s made between events and non-events ( c o l l a t e r a l ) .  example  collateral  of  information which  he  uses  in  a The  discussing  supportive m a t e r i a l i s a passage from Mark Twain. I n a minute a t h i r d slave was s t r u g g l i n g i n the a i r . I t was d r e a d f u l . I turned away my head f o r a moment, and when I turned back I missed the K i n g l They were b l i n d f o l d i n g himl I was p a r a l y z e d ; I c o u l d n ' t move, I was choking, my tongue was p e t r i f i e d . They f i n i s h e d b l i n d f o l d i n g him, they l e d him under the rope. I c o u l d n ' t shake o f f t h a t c l i n g i n g impotence. But when I saw them put the noose around h i s neck, then everything l e t go i n me and I made a s p r i n g t o the rescue—and as I made i t I shot one more glance abroad—by George 1 here they came, a - t i t l i n g 1 — f i v e hundred mailed and b e l t e d k n i g h t s on b i c y c l e s I (1964:240). Longacre events  (what  material the  notes  happened)  which  i n this are  (non-events).  discourse  paragraph  that  reported  along  some  course-of-action  with  seme  a  he  describes  supportive  the  other  function.  clauses  These  excluded frcm the c o u r s e - o f - a c t i o n (event-line) a n a l y s i s , this  supportive  A f t e r d e l i n e a t i n g the main l i n e m a t e r i a l  (events), have  paragraph  information supports the c o u r s e - o f - a c t i o n .  in  in  the  clauses  are  even though  He then comments on  one clause which contains c o l l a t e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n , the clause b e i n g , " I c o u l d n ' t shake o f f t h a t c l i n g i n g impotence", this collateral"  (1982:16).  130  by saying, "Grimes c a l l s  Larry  Jones  attends  examination  of  discourse.  He contends t h a t ,  the  the  to  the treatment  pragmatics  of  author  of  COLLATERAL  comments  in  in  his  narrative  by the author comments o f a discourse,  a n a l y s t i s able t o d i s c o v e r and describe many o f the  assumptions  the author o f t h a t t e x t made concerning h i s or her intended reader and the t o p i c o f the d i s c o u r s e . Wilbur  Pickering  PROMINENCE.  treats  collateral  He begins by saying,  under  the  heading  "we can o n l y perceive something i f  i t stands out from i t s background" (1979:40),  and t h a t there seems t o  be a problem o f terminology i n l i n g u i s t i c s w i t h regard t o Some l i n g u i s t s use the terms " t o p i c " , " f o c u s " , in  the  linguistic  confusion.  He  literature  chooses  to  Kathleen Callow (1974).  with  use  of  broad  PROMINENCE.  "theme", and "emphasis" ranges  the use o f  of  overlap  PROMINENCE offered  and by  She w r i t e s :  The term p r o m i n e n c e . . . r e f e r s t o any device which gives c e r t a i n events, p a r t i c i p a n t s , or objects more s i g n i f i c a n c e than others i n the same context (p.50). In feature  linguistic of  Pickering, most  discourse a n a l y s i s ,  STRATEGY reflects  human behavior:  is  also  i t is  the to  "a b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f communication and  of  has a purpose"  STRATEGY,  that  according  it  important.  recognized  (1979:70).  This  comment  r e l a t e s t o an assumption made by most discourse l i n g u i s t s ;  namely,  speaker  Principle.  o r author ought t o f o l l o w the Gricean Cooperative  That i s t o say, his  a speaker or author ought t o t r y t o be meaningful  o r communication.  (1975),  and  conversational  W r i t e r s l i k e G r i c e (1975),  Sadock (1978), implicature,  131  in  Gordon and Lakoff  have been concerned w i t h the or,  a  notion  of  the way t h a t hearers can conclude a  lot  of  George  implicit Huttar  information on the b a s i s o f what  (1982),  a  gives the f o l l o w i n g example t o  speaker  says.  illustrate  a  treatment o f conversational i m p l i c a t u r e . A:  I'm out o f  B:  There's a garage around the corner.  Huttar argues t h a t ,  gas.  because garages are thought by members o f A ' s and  B's c u l t u r e t o be places where you can get gas where you need i t , above p a i r o f utterances "hang together".  the  I f B d i d not b e l i e v e t h a t ,  he might be g u i l t y o f i g n o r i n g G r i c e ' s maxim: 'Be R e l e v a n t ' .  STRATEGY  relates  in  to  collateral narrative factors  the  about as  to  that  has t o do w i t h the s p e c i f i c s e l e c t i o n o f information i n what d i d not happen,  the  h e a r e r ' s share, trying  use o f c o l l a t e r a l information i n discourse  which i s  influenced  speaker's judgment as t o what knowledge h i s the t o p i c o f the n a r r a t i v e ,  communicate.  attention  to  the  analysis,  an  area which,  These  ethnographic  I said e a r l i e r ,  l i n g u i s t i c discourse s t u d i e s .  or  and what the speaker  considerations dimension  by  in  begin  to  linguistic  pay  a  such her is some  discourse  i s p a i n f u l l y missing frcm  Even when attempting t o attend t o  the  ethnographic dimension, then, discourse l i n g u i s t s are u s u a l l y bound by edited t e x t s .  W r i t t e n , e d i t e d t e x t s have recognized conventions t h a t  d i s t i n g u i s h them from conversation.  Thus, i n w r i t t e n t e x t s there w i l l  n e c e s s a r i l y be a d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n between the two.  For example,  Martha  Duff (1973) describes c o n t r a s t i v e features o f w r i t t e n and o r a l  texts.  She w r i t e s : A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature o f the w r i t t e n t e x t i s t h a t i t shows c l e a r e r o r g a n i z a t i o n than the o r a l t e x t . This i s because the author has had 132  time to plan the development of the story which results i n the lack of...hesitation words...and abnormal ordering of words and sentences due to afterthought (p. 2). I said earlier that there i s an ethnography of writing as as there i s an ethnography of speaking, analysis texts.  surely  but that linguistic discourse  has tended to neglect ethnographic considerations i n written The  discourse linguist Pickering formulates this problem  in  linguistic discourse analysis very succinctly. While I insist that situation and culture are part of the prior context upon which given i n formation [in a narrative] may be based, I freely confess that I do not know how to handle i t (1979:170). And  this i s the crux of the matter i n linguistic  discourse  analysis  and i n i t s treatment of a feature such as COLLATERAL: the recognition of it.  the lack of the contextual factor, but not knowing how to  handle  Pickering concludes: I am entering a plea that more linguists recognize both the legitimacy and necessity of grappling with the role of situation and culture i n discourse analysis (1979:170).  A CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS TREATMENT OF COLLATERAL  In  linguistic discourse analysis there seems to be a notion that  narratives units.  can  be  Lacking  consideration  in  analyzed as i f they the  discourse  were  literature  self-contained on  narrative  speech is  a  of why people would want to generate a narrative i n the  133  first  place.  This  consideration  i s not a small  matter,  for without  the discourse analyst lacks a theory  of  such a  conversation  which would lead one to make the ethnographic connection between the social function of t e l l i n g about past experiences with the purpose(s) of  members  engaged  i n conversational  interaction.  Certainly  narratives i n l i v e conversation cannot be adequately analyzed taking  without  into account the f i t between the generated narrative and the  conversation i n which i t i s embedded. In  conversational  analysis,  our understanding  of narrative  structures i s expanded by making the connection between narratives and the  surrounding conversation via the use of social  issue  identities.  of social identity i s important i n sociology.  chapter  I said  identities example,  that  any one person can have  The  In the last  a number  of social  that can be applied to that person at any one time.  For  someone could be identified as a "wife", "lawyer", "the lady  next door", "neighbor", or whatever, and that the related-ness between identity categories that 'go together', e.g. "employer-employee", i s a major  interactional resource i n the construction and sustaining of  social  order.  In relation to narratives told i n live  they are more than mere displays of verbal s k i l l .  conversation,  Rather, narratives  can be used i n a number of interactional ways, e.g. presenting oneself as a certain kind of person, offering advice, and so on. In stories  examining my  materials i t became noticeable  the storyteller  transpired,  not only  the course-of-action,  tells  about  that  i n many  the events which  but they also t e l l about what did  not happen, which i s referred to by discourse linguists as COLLATERAL, embedded i n the course-of-action sequence. 134  As my point of departure,  consider the f o l l o w i n g . (1-2) Louise:  One n i g h t (1.0) I was w i t h t h i s guy t h a t I l i k e d a r e a l l o t , an uhh (3.0) we had come back from the show, we had gone t o the Ash Grove f o r awhile ' n we were gonna park. A n ' I c a n ' t stand a c a r , ' n he has a small car  Ken:  Mm hm  Louise:  So we walked t o the back, ' n we j u s t went i n t o the back house ' n we stayed there h a l f the n i g h t (1.0) we d i d n ' t go t o bed w i t h each other b u t , i t was so comfortable ' n so n i c e  Ken:  Mm hm  Louise:  Y'know? t h e r e ' s everything p e r f e c t  Note  in  recipient,  the  Ken,  above to  a  sequence  point  that  of decision  Louise in  brings the  the  story  course-of-action  sequence a t which p o i n t p o s s i b i l i t i e s are i n v e s t i g a t e d which set apart what  a c t u a l l y happened frcm what might have happened.  She does t h i s  twice i n the s t o r y , " ' n we were gonna p a r k " , and, "we d i d n ' t go t o bed with  each  including actions  other". this  that  Further,  we  can see from  the  transcript  c o l l a t e r a l information i n the n a r r a t i v e might or might not take place l a t e r on  may  in  the  how  predict story.  That k i n d o f o r g a n i z a t i o n has the e f f e c t o f s e t t i n g up a l t e r n a t i v e s what e v e n t u a l l y gets t o be done.  to  As l i n g u i s t i c discourse s t u d i e s have  shown, a t a p o i n t i n a s t o r y where the s t o r y t e l l e r includes c o l l a t e r a l information,  the  f a c t t h a t 'what d i d not happen' i s mentioned  'what happened' i n a s t o r y stand o u t . a  different  kind  of  story  if  135  she  makes  In 1-2, Louise would be t e l l i n g had  not  included  collateral  information i n her n a r r a t i v e .  The f o l l o w i n g i s L o u i s e ' s s t o r y without  the c o l l a t e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Louise:  By  One n i g h t I was w i t h t h i s guy t h a t I l i k e d a r e a l l o t , an uhh we had come back frcm the show, we had gone t o the Ash Grove f o r a w h i l e , so we walked back t o the house, an' we j u s t stayed i n the back house h a l f the n i g h t . I t was so comfortable ' n so n i c e .  including  didn't  happen',  action  events,  collateral a  information and  telling  s t o r y t e l l e r may r e l a t e non-events  heightening some s i g n i f i c a n t aspect o f 'what happened'.  There's some  done  i n 1-2 by t e l l i n g about what  prelude t o what d i d . different  without those a l t e r n a t i v e s .  different  to  bus".  the  happen  a  k i n d s o f people.  Comparing the t r a n s c r i p t w i t h  Further,  i t ' s not  i.e.  like  k i n d o f work gets done then?  as  providing  "We were gonna take our  Cubs game b u t i t was snowing so we ended up  What  as  i t ' s as i f Louise comes across  grounds f o r merely not doing something, car  didn't  And we can see t h a t the s t o r y sounds q u i t e a b i t  the h y p o t h e t i c a l t r a n s c r i p t above, two  such  course-ofalternatives  being  provision of  to  'what  non-event  work  the  about  taking  the  To t h i s end I analyze  the  f o l l o w i n g s t o r i e s i n order t o demonstrate and describe the nature o f a storyteller's storytelling teller  assessment occasions,  of after  alternative a c t i v i t i e s  on  which I s p e l l out i n  some  procedure f o r i n c l u d i n g c o l l a t e r a l information i n a  as a means o f assessing a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s .  (IX-1) B:  When do you p l a y t h i s week?  136  disclosure detail  a  narrative  A:  We're sposed t o p l a y Doherty's Thursday and then Saturday i t ' s G i n g e r ' s Sexy Sauna  B:  They have a team?  A:  Yeah, but i t must be made up o f c l i e n t s — t h e r e ' s , I doubt t h e r e ' s any guys working there  B:  Yeah  A:  Man, I wonder what goes on i n one o f those places?  B:  Yeah, I went t o one once c Nboooooool  A: B:  [  Yeah, i t wasn't my i d e a , I was w i t h a guy from work ' n we went out f o r a few beers ' n , I dunno, we decided t o go see a movie, but we passed t h i s massage place ' n he s a i d he always wanted t o t r y one so I ended up going w i t h him. I know i t was wrong but  I  A: B:  So what was i t l i k e ? I t was no b i g d e a l r e a l l y , t h i s g i r l came i n wearin' c u t o f f s but no top and proceeded t o g i v e me the treatment, the f u l l treatment,  A:  I think I ' d be too embarrassed t o go t o one o f those places  B:  Yeah, i t was d i f f e r e n t , I wouldn't do i t again  A:  I heard G i n g e r ' s i s gonna have t o c l o s e down because o f i t s l o c a t i o n . . .  C  (1-2) Louise:  One n i g h t (1.0) I was w i t h t h i s guy t h a t I l i k e d a r e a l l o t , an' uhhh (3.0) we had come back from the show, we had gone t o the Ash Grove f o r a w h i l e , ' n we were gonna park. A n ' I c a n ' t stand a c a r , ' n he has a small car  Ken:  Mm hm  Louise:  So we walked t o the back, ' n we j u s t went i n t o the back house ' n we stayed 137  there h a l f the n i g h t (1.0) we d i d n ' t go t o bed w i t h each other b u t , i t was so comfortable and so n i c e Ken:  Mm hm  Louise:  Y'know, t h e r e ' s everything p e r f e c t  Some s t o r i e s t o l d i n conversation i n v o l v e r i s k - t a k i n g , are  ways  of  containing  dealing  with ' r i s k ' .  risk-taking  analytical  sequences  I  said  help  us  earlier to  that  better  issues being discussed i n t h i s chapter.  and there stories  grasp  the  One problem for  s t o r y t e l l e r s on c e r t a i n s t o r y t e l l i n g occasions i s not n e c e s s a r i l y  that  the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t may openly express shock o r dismay i n the response sequence o r t h a t the r e c i p i e n t may go away and t e l l someone e l s e , that  an  interactional  storyteller  'defense'  trouble on  may  arise.  Thus,  such occasions which  is  any built  s t r u c t u r e o f the s t o r y as p a r t o f the t e l l i n g sequence the  possibility  characterize narrative short-term  of  the  which  kind into  2  concern.  the  We may  structure  contains some r i s k - t a k i n g as being o r i e n t e d  interactional  of  i s directed to  a d i s p r e f erred response a t s t o r y end.  t e l l e r ' s defensive posture i n the  but  The danger o f i n c l u d i n g  of to  a the  'risky'  information i n a n a r r a t i v e l i e s not o n l y i n the p o s s i b i l i t y o f changes i n the t e l l e r - r e c i p i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  reputation,  gossip, and so on, 3  but i n the p o s s i b l e c o l l a p s e o f the ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n . interaction are  sustained and protected on such occasions?  a v a i l a b l e t o a s t o r y t e l l e r f o r defusing a  recipient  response  possible  How i s  What methods dispreferred  at s t o r y end by attending t o t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y  the t e l l i n g sequence?  138  the  in  ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES In  analyzing  relationships  the  above  t r a n s c r i p t s note  that  relationships  becomes  happening i n these s t o r i e s . are  recounting  dangerous  rather  sequences.  apparent First,  personal Second,  in  note  sexual  storytellers troubles  are  in  interaction. describe  nature.  Further,  They  both s t o r i e s the  Recall  to  what  is  are  somewhat  storyteller  is  F i n a l l y , i t can be observed t h a t  by  opening themselves up  relation  of  for  i n both s t o r i e s the s t o r y t e l l e r s  each s t o r y d i s p l a y s a r e l a t e d t o p i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n , a  of  Appreciation  by t a k i n g  experiences.  i m p l i c a t e d as a p r i n c i p a l c h a r a c t e r .  of  sorts  between t e l l i n g about 'what happened' and t e l l i n g about  'what d i d n ' t happen' are a n a l y t i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g . these  the  sustaining  telling to and  namely, their  possible  t o events  stories  the  conversational  protecting  the  ongoing  t h a t i n t h i s chapter I am seeking t o l o c a t e  how s t o r y t e l l e r s may employ c o l l a t e r a l information i n order t o solve the problem o f how someone  and their  narratives  in  telling  disclosure  s t o r y o r i e n t s t o the ' r i s k y ' nature o f the s t o r y so as  a to  transform the r e s u l t s o f t h a t o r i e n t a t i o n i n t o the work o f e l i c i t i n g a preferred  response  frcm the s t o r y  recipient,  thus  sustaining  and  p r o t e c t i n g the ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n . Implied  in  the  formulated  problem  is  the  beginning  recommendation as t o how t o begin t o search f o r a s o l u t i o n . of  obvious  feature o f the s t o r i e s I i n v e s t i g a t e i n t h i s  of  a  One k i n d chapter  is  t h a t the s t o r y t e l l e r i n c l u d e s c o l l a t e r a l information i n the n a r r a t i v e , which  tells  about what d i d not happen during the recounting  course-of-action,  which  t e l l s about what d i d happen.  139  Let  of us  the note  these cases. (IX-1) I was w i t h t h i s guy from work ' n we went out f o r a few beers ' n , I dunno, we decided t o go t o a movie b u t we passed t h i s [STORY]  B:  (1-2) Louise:  One n i g h t (1.0) I was w i t h t h i s guy t h a t I l i k e d a r e a l l o t an' uhh (3.0) we had come back from the show, we had gone t o the Ash Grove f o r a w h i l e , ' n we were gonna p a r k . . .  Louise:  . . . ' n we stayed there h a l f the n i g h t (1.0) we d i d n ' t go t o bed w i t h each other b u t , i t was so c o m f o r t a b l e . . .  From  the above s t o r y fragments we may note t h a t i n some  stories  the s t o r y t e l l e r may choose t o t e l l about 'what d i d n ' t happen'. begin  t o see the import o f t h i s observation by n o t i c i n g t h a t i n many  s t o r i e s the s t o r y t e l l e r may t e l l e x c l u s i v e l y about 'what d i d Recall not then,  t h a t the s t o r i e s i n the l a s t chapter,  contain  c o l l a t e r a l information.  why would  something done  f o r the most p a r t ,  We have i t a v a i l a b l e  to  someone i n the midst o f t e l l i n g a s t o r y  t h a t d i d not happen?  see, choose  tell  about  What k i n d s o f i n t e r a c t i o n a l work get  when a s t o r y t e l l e r t e l l s about what d i d not  conversations  did  I n the case o f the former we might  happen?  there be a p l a c e i n a s t o r y f o r something t h a t d i d n ' t all,  happen'.  t h a t someone i n v o l v e d i n t e l l i n g a s t o r y may o r may not  t o t e l l about what d i d not happen. ask:  We may  happen?  How can After  are f u l l o f people t e l l i n g about what they d i d o r  what happened t o them.  I t r u s t t h a t these p r e l i m i n a r y questions w i l l  140  lead us t o deeper i s s u e s . Up to  t o t h i s p o i n t I have suggested sinrply t h a t i t i s not  unusual  f i n d instances o f s t o r y t e l l i n g i n conversation i n which the t e l l e r  i n c l u d e s c o l l a t e r a l information and t e l l s about something t h a t d i d not take p l a c e .  A more important observation, however, and one t h a t Sacks  made c l e a r i n h i s o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s o f L o u i s e ' s s t o r y i n h i s l e c t u r e s , i s t h a t not o n l y i s 'what d i d n ' t happen' t o l d about i n some instances, but  this  stories this In  recounting  o f 'what d i d n ' t happen' i s  positioned  i n my m a t e r i a l s as a l t e r n a t i v e t o what d i d  collateral  happen,  information i s presented as a r e j e c t e d  pursuing t h i s observation we may f i r s t note t h a t i n  Determining  Persons'  Resources  for  Describing Behavioral Episodes" (1972), people  Depicting,  that  "Tactics  Contriving,  make sense out o f observable s i g h t s i n which other people  which  how c e r t a i n occurrences d i s p l a y t h a t an  demonstrates  can i n d i c a t e i t s own nature, an o b s e r v a t i o n a l 'problem': witnessed a c t i v i t y ?  in  and  are  conversation activity  what k i n d o f a c t i v i t y i t i s , o r i e n t e d t o how do people go about making sense o f  a  He presents the f o l l o w i n g conversational fragment  gives us an idea o f the k i n d o f work people must be assumed in  for  Sheldon Twer i n v e s t i g a t e s how  He presents an example from n a t u r a l  engage  so  the  alternative.  apparently a c t i v e .  which  in  order t o 'make sense' o f an  everyday  activity.  to The  people i n the conversation are i n v o l v e d i n making sense o f a cartoon. (Twer: 4.57-4.62) M:  huh oh i n t h i s eh ( ( w h i s p e r s ) ) . . . i n t h i s eh c a r i c a t u r e t h e r e ' s — t h e r e ' s t h i s troop uh o f Boy Scouts—uh t h e r e ' s four o f them and t h e i r scoutmaster and what i t i s i t ' s a paper d r i v e  C:  Mhmm 141  M:  An hehehe the funny t h i n g about i t i s t h a t t h e y ' r e a l l i n back o f the ah the t r u c k w i t h a l l the magazines and uh h e ' s ( )  C: M:  What to  as  en a l l the s t u f f and i n s t e a d o f working t h e y ' r e huh reading comics  Twer gets a t i n t h i s example i s a s t r u c t u r e which he r e f e r s  'Instead o f A , B ' , which we w i l l  alternatives'.  He goes  on  characterize  t o note t h a t the  terms  ' r e a d i n g ' occupy p o s i t i o n s A and B i n the utterance. are  structured  by  the ' i n s t e a d o f  as  'assessing  'working'  and  These p o s i t i o n s  as i n 'Instead o f  A',  A being  f i l l e d by a c l a s s o f p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s , B being f i l l e d by a c l a s s o f a c t i v i t i e s which may be seen as a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the a c t i v i t i e s i n c l a s s A.  Not o n l y do they stand as a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s b u t they can a l s o  stand together. and  That i s ,  i t seems reasonable t o suggest t h a t the  B a c t i v i t i e s chosen by M i n Twer's example shows t h a t things  be c l a s s i f i e d together, a group,  A can  t h a t names o f a c t i v i t i e s can be c l a s s i f i e d as  one feature being t h a t they can stand as a l t e r n a t i v e s i n the  'Instead o f A , B' s t r u c t u r e .  He w r i t e s :  People h o l d expectations t h a t persons e n gaged i n i n t e r a c t i o n are c o n s t a n t l y n o t i c i n g , f i g u r i n g out observables, and performi n g a c t i o n s t h a t are i n accord w i t h what they ' s e e ' . C e r t a i n occurrences demonstrate t h a t a behaviour can i n d i c a t e t h a t i t s [ s i c ] behavior o r i e n t e d t o an observation 'problem' whose nature and s o l u t i o n are a t l e a s t i n f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o witnesses o f the behaviour (1972:342).  The  point  for  the  reader t o n o t i c e here i s  describe  their  activities in  conversational 142  that  people  interaction,  such  who as  happens  in  storytelling situations,  a c t i o n r a t h e r than another a c t i o n , another a c t i o n .  have c r i t e r i a f o r choosing  one  o r one a c t i o n as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o  Furthermore, a c t i o n s can be made t o belong where they  occur i n d e s c r i p t i o n s .  Twer r e f e r s t o these p o s i t i o n s o f d e s c r i p t i o n s  as ' a c t i o n spots' and suggests t h a t people d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s can know,  f i n d , o r suggest p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h a t a c t i v i t y ' s occurrence.  These  'action  'have  happened'.  have  spots' are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y f i l l e d Twer  by  things  attempts t o describe some f a c i l i t i e s  that people  f o r d e s c r i b i n g an a c t i v i t y and a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y knowing  the d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l t e l l , how i t w i l l inform, and what i t w i l l  what 'mean'  to a recipient. In  t h a t Twer's i n t e r e s t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned w i t h occasions  i n which people t a l k about ' b e h a v i o r a l e p i s o d e s ' , to  proposes  t h a t the a n a l y s i s o f such d e s c r i p t i o n s permits a formulation  a  such  natural  relation  of  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s t o r y t e l l i n g as one  there i s a  occasion.  set o f features o f behaviour t h a t people apparently  He  attend  to  when they t r y t o 'make sense' o f such d e s c r i p t i o n s .  With the above comments i n mind, in  1-2.  l e t us r e t u r n t o L o u i s e ' s s t o r y  We have i t a v a i l a b l e t o see t h a t Louise uses a v a r i a t i o n o f  Twer's assessment o f a l t e r n a t i v e s s t r u c t u r e (Instead o f A , first,  the  Note,  t h a t , i n t u i t i v e l y , other choices o f a c t i v i t i e s f o r A , what d i d  not happen, is,  B).  would not make the same k i n d o f sense as ' p a r k i n g ' .  A choice o f ' p a r k i n g ' i s not merely chosen a t random but  chosen as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o what ended up g e t t i n g done, back house'.  That is  'going t o the  Implied here i s the n o t i o n t h a t when someone uses such a  s t r u c t u r e there e x i s t some k i n d o f c r i t e r i a f o r choosing one 143  activity  as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o another. as an ' a c t i o n s p o t ' . they  doing?'  examples  the  For example,  to  earlier.  t o answer the question, 'What are  n o t i o n o f 'doing' which i s invoked  from n a t u r a l  beginning  Twer r e f e r s t o B, 'what i s being done',  search  conversation provides us w i t h f o r a s o l u t i o n t o the  in  the  above  materials  'problem'  I  for  formulated  How so?  I n the m a t e r i a l s I am drawing from i n t h i s chapter, 1-2 and I X - 1 , one a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t y i s accepted and another r e j e c t e d .  The reader  has i t a v a i l a b l e t o see t h a t a s t r u c t u r e s i m i l a r t o Twer's 'Instead o f A, B' s t r u c t u r e i s being employed, w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t .  In  1-2  an  and I X - 1 ,  alternative assessed.  the c o n s t r a i n t provides f o r the q u e s t i o n :  a c t i v i t y presented?  In 1-2 and I X - 1 ,  why i s  alternatives  are  Not o n l y are a l t e r n a t i v e s assessed a t the time o f the event  b u t they are reported as assessed a t the time o f the t e l l i n g . l e c t u r e s . Sacks maintained that  does  That  is,  In h i s  t h a t i f an event i s a l t e r n a t i v e t o another  not n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t the other i s a l t e r n a t i v e t o while  Louise i n 1-2 reports 'going t o the back  alternative  to 'parking',  parlour  alternative  as  house'  and B i n IX-1 reports going t o to  going t o a movie,  if  a  Louise  it. as  massage had  gone  ' p a r k i n g ' and B and the guy he was w i t h had gone t o a movie,  i t would  indeed  done  have  alternatives parlour'.  been odd t o r e p o r t t h a t these a c t i v i t i e s to  'going  t o the back house' and 'going t o  And t h i s i s the crux o f the matter.  it  we w i l l  interactional  be  able t o begin  work which  gets  done  to  c o l l a t e r a l information i n h i s o r her s t o r y . 144  technicalize  when a  a  as  massage  Contained w i t h i n t h i s  observation i s a p o t e n t i a l s o l u t i o n t o the formulated with  were  'problem', some  storyteller  of  and the  includes  Let  us  f i r s t suppose t h a t i n 1-2 and IX-1 the s t o r y t e l l e r s  had  not i n c l u d e d c o l l a t e r a l information, t h a t i s , l e f t out the p a r t s about 'what d i d n ' t happen'. story  recipients  storytellers  respective  t o i n t e r p r e t the s t o r i e s as s t o r i e s about  are  how  the k i n d o f people who would normally do what  were t e l l i n g about. of  Then i t would be a v a i l a b l e f o r the  L o u i s e , f o r example, could be viewed as the k i n d  engage i n sexual a c t i v i t i e s . I n 1-2,  contributes  analysis, kind  of  defensive house  Louise girl  situation.  Both Louise and Ken are seventeen years  with can  design her  t o her  boyfriend.  story As  about  going  Sacks  a n t i c i p a t e t h a t Ken might t h i n k o f her as  the  an  adult  sexual  A f t e r a l l , t h a t ' s what makes the s t o r y k i n d o f ' r i s k y ' i n t h a t the normal place f o r teenagers t o negotiate sex  (i.e.  a car),  makes  sure she attends t o the defensive design o f her s t o r y i n  was abandoned i n favor o f an a d u l t p l a c e .  Thus Louise  something  with  "this  "this  she would normally and  regularly  do.  Further,  aspect o f the a c t i v i t y i s somewhat minimized i n t h a t  different  guy than  guy",  that I l i k e d a r e a l l o t " .  That i s  perhaps  formulating him as "a guy I know" o r "a  the  the was  a  lot  which would make i t a v a i l a b l e f o r Ken t o t h i n k t h a t As  or she it  way Louise p o s i t i o n s 'what d i d n ' t happen' she makes i t c l e a r  t o Ken t h a t she would normally u t i l i z e the normal place f o r to  and  she  friend"  i s n ' t choosy about who she engages i n sexual s i t u a t i o n s w i t h . is,  order  inform Ken t h a t 'what happened' was spontaneous and unplanned  sexual  an his  in  noted  to in  who might normally p a r t i c i p a t e  the f i r s t p l a c e ,  not  to  then w i t h the i n c l u s i o n o f 'what d i d n ' t happen' Louise  a  unchaperoned  to  they  teenager who would normally use an unchaperoned house i n order  old.  the  negotiate  sex,  in  a parked c a r , 145  but t h a t  due  to  teenagers extenuating  circumstances place By  t h i s one time she happened t o have abandoned the normal  f o r teenagers t o negotiate sex and opted f o r an ' a d u l t '  t e l l i n g about 'what d i d n ' t happen',  recipient with  then,  t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e s were assessed,  resources  she informs the  story  thus p r o v i d i n g r e c i p i e n t  f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g her a c t i o n s as being  would not normally do,  place.  something  and t h i s work gets done by o r i e n t i n g t o  she local  teenage standards. Furthermore, transcript  of  the  1-2  reader  that  has  i t available  Louise t e l l s about  to  notice  another  in  activity  the that  ' d i d n ' t happen', another p i e c e o f c o l l a t e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Having t o l d about going t o "the back house", bed  with  each o t h e r " ,  she goes on t o say, "we d i d n ' t go t o  another instance o f the  use  of  collateral  information which Louise f e e l s needs t o be made e x p l i c i t . after  all,  statement of  that  they had gone t o bed  t o the c o n t r a r y .  'what d i d n ' t happen',  that, is  assume  except  Ken c o u l d , for  Louise's  I f Louise had not included t h i s instance Ken might have thought,  what e l s e would she do?"  " I f she  would  I n e f f e c t , Louise knows t h a t what she  t e l l i n g about may be considered t o be somewhat abnormal  f o r a teenager f o r reasons we examined e a r l i e r . her  recounting  information, some  of  'what  that i s ,  technical  occurrence  e.g.  sexual  that  teenagers. sharp  two  'what d i d n ' t happen'.  instances  behaviour  she embeds i n of  collateral  What we have, then, are to  o f 'abnormal' behaviour by teenage  a c t i v i t y was negotiated i n an abnormal  isolate  a  standards, place  for  These resources provide the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t w i t h a r a t h e r  specification  project,  happened'  Thus,  resources put i n t o operation i n order  particular  do  of  what k i n d s o f terms Louise has  for  such  t h a t by her having gone t o 'the back house' f o r engaging 146  a in  sexual  activity,  they  had  yet not going t o bed w i t h her b o y f r i e n d ,  originally  considered  employing the  teenagers t o negotiate s e x — i n a parked c a r .  and  that  normal p l a c e  These  for  resources,  too,  lend c r e d i b i l i t y to L o u i s e ' s defensive design t o her s t o r y i n t h a t , by telling  about  negative  'what  d i d n ' t happen',  she can perhaps ward o f f  r e c i p i e n t inferences which c o u l d be drawn from the  any  specific  event t h a t she i s t e l l i n g about. As a prelude t o the next s e c t i o n , IX-1 had  as problematic by imagining what h i s s t o r y would be l i k e left  activities, The  l e t us now render B ' s s t o r y i n  first  out a  'what d i d n ' t happen', decision  thing  an  assessment  of  it  another.  available  assume t h a t attending a massage p a r l o u r i s not n e c e s s a r i l y an a c t i v i t y for B t o participate i n . 'make  sense' o f B ' s s t o r y .  he  alternative  t o abandon one p r o j e c t i n favor o f  we may note i s t h a t A would have  if  to  unusual  T h a t ' s one k i n d o f way t h a t A could  We can begin t o j u s t i f y t h i s observation  by c o n s u l t i n g Turner and Sharrock (1978).  They w r i t e :  One o f the fates o f s t o r i e s . . . i s t h a t t h e i r r e c i p i e n t s may perform transforms on them, e i t h e r i n r e t e l l i n g s o r ' i n t e r p r e t i v e l y ' , t h a t i s , i n f i g u r i n g out f o r themselves the sense o f what they have been t o l d (p. 187). and, We assume nevertheless the p o s s i b i l i t y o f transforms c o n s t r a i n t e l l e r s and t h a t they may employ devices intended t o cons t r a i n the reworkings t h a t t h e i r t e l l i n g s may undergo (p. 187).  I n t h i s chapter I am seeking t o l o c a t e and describe one o f 'devices'  available  to  storytellers 147  to  direct  a  those  recipient's  interpretive work, the  story  telling  and what the story i s about.  about 'what didn't happen',  organization 'what  the recipient's 'making sense' of what happened i n In IX-1,  for example,  B instructs A via  of the story that there was a rejected  happened'.  Then,  one  constraint  placed  by  the temporal alternative  on  a  to  recipient's  interpretive work i s that the recipient has no available resources for interpreting  'what  storyteller.  On  happened'  as something that i s normal  the contrary,  alternatives device,  by  for the  employing the assessment of  the recipient i s clearly instructed to interpret  'what happened' as something distinctly unusual and not something that the storyteller would normally do.  ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT AS AN INTERACTIONAL RESOURCE Thus  far I have noted  that  storytellers  sometimes  include  collateral information i n their narratives, telling about 'what didn't happen' other,  as alternative to something that did happen. i f i t happens, would  alternative rejected  to the f i r s t .  generally  In 1-2,  not be  However,  presented  the  as an  Louise presents 'parking' as a  alternative and 'going to the back house' as an  which f i l l s the 'action spot' i n her story.  alternative  In IX-1 B presents 'going  to a movie' as a rejected alternative and 'going to a massage parlour' as  an alternative which f i l l s the 'action spot' i n B's  'going  to the back house' and 'going to a massage  accepted alternatives.  Our question becomes:  story. parlour'  Both are  what interactional work  is getting done by the storytellers' alternative activity assessments? In  1-2,  what i t was Louise and her boyfriend eventually got to  148  do,  they d i d by being  course would  of activity, have  What  they  somehow d i v e r t e d b r d e r a i l e d from a t h e category-bound a c t i v i t y o f  'parking',  that  been a n a t u r a l c o u r s e o f a c t i v i t y f o r t e e n a g e r s t o  take.  ultimately did,  status o f Louise' s story, their  being  prescribed  derailed  w h i c h i s what makes f o r t h e  was something t h a t came about b y v i r t u e  from something e l s e .  a c t i v i t y was p r o p o s e d ,  'risky'  'parking',  A 'natural'  course  of of  i n the proper sequential s l o t , a f t e r  h a v i n g gone t o a movie on a d a t e , and t h a t p r o j e c t g e t s d e r a i l e d .  The  p r o j e c t o f n e g o t i a t i n g sex h a d a l r e a d y been o r i e n t e d t o b y L o u i s e  and  her  boyfriend,  activity  "'n  we  were gonna p a r k " .  One f e a t u r e  of  Louise's  assessment w h i c h we want t o p a y c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n t o  spontaneous  nature.  alternative  There  activity  i s an  assessment,  innocence an  implied  innocence  in  linked  isi t s Louise's  with  the  spontaneous n a t u r e o f what she and h e r b o y f r i e n d ended up d o i n g .  I s a i d e a r l i e r that Louise's generally their  d i s l i k e f o r parking  would n o t have been s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n t o d e r a i l  p r o j e c t o f n e g o t i a t i n g sex,  another  i n a 'small c a r '  way  to  go  from  except t h a t i t turns out there  about c o m p l e t i n g  the  project,  location.  Further,  delimited  e x c e p t under s e v e r e and e x t e n u a t i n g  an  is  alternative  t h e s t a t u s o f s u c h a p r o j e c t would n o t n o r m a l l y be circumstances.  all,  i n o u r s o c i e t y we c a n count on t h e i n g e n u i t y o f  wish  to  explore  them  their sexuality.  After  teenagers  I t j u s t s o happens t h a t  who  i n our  c u l t u r e a c a r i s g e n e r a l l y t h e most a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n f o r t e e n a g e r s to  negotiate  sex.  T h a t i s n o t t o s a y t h a t a sweeping c l a i m may  be  made s u c h a s : A l l t e e n a g e r s w i l l always f i n d a p l a c e t o n e g o t i a t e s e x . I t i s t o say, sexual  however,  intimacies  t h a t f o r those involved i n the e x p l o r a t i o n o f  together,  t h e teenager u s u a l l y has  149  a  'problem':  where t o do i t so as not t o get 'caught'? such  a  consideration,  contributed  to  the  fear  of  We take i t t h a t i t i s j u s t  'getting  caught',  the a c t i v i t y o f ' p a r k i n g ' becoming  a  which  has  category-bound  a c t i v i t y among teenagers. Another  c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h a t a feature such as  spontaneity  the c o u r s e - o f - a c t i o n sequence i n a s t o r y can imply an innocence, 'I  d i d n ' t t h i n k about i t beforehand,  story  I just did i t ' .  In  in e.g.  1-2,  the  r e c i p i e n t c o u l d s u r e l y r e l a t e t o t h a t spontaneous g i v i n g - i n  internal  impulse,  to  temptation,  in  light of  the  to  circumstances.  C e r t a i n l y i t would seem odd t o consider abandonment o f the p r o j e c t a viable alternative. reasonable  to  Given the a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s i t would seem  another  teenager  t o choose  the  alternative  unchaperoned house f o r f u r t h e r i n g the ongoing p r o j e c t .  of  In  IX-1  ' n so n i c e " . a s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r e can be located by which B  'assessment  presents  with  a  After a l l , guy  displays  to  the  And depending on who h e ' s t e l l i n g the s t o r y t o ,  say, another guy  narrative  'A'  B could have t o l d about how a f t e r work he went  would not n e c e s s a r i l y be a r i s k y s t o r y .  story.  that  unplanned a l t e r n a t i v e t o the  from work f o r a couple o f beers and then went  massage p a r l o u r .  to,  movie'.  o f a l t e r n a t i v e s ' s t r u c t u r e i n s t r u c t s A t o see  the ' B ' a c t i v i t y was a spontaneous, activity.  the  " i t was  'going t o a massage p a r l o u r ' as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o 'going t o a This  an  Further,  a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t y i s presented as having been ' s u c c e s s f u l ' , so comfortable,  as  What clues  I f he were t o t e l l the s t o r y  a t work i t could be something l i k e a  'bragging'  the s t o r y t e l l e r and a n a l y s t a l i k e t h a t i t  which contains r i s k y information i s the way  the  is  a  recipient  t h a t i t i s a r i s k y sequence by i n t e r j e c t i o n s throughout 150  it  the  telling  and  the  alternatives' recipient  response  structure,  that  what  d i d n ' t happen'.  sequence.  then,  a  the  'assessing  alternative  story  to  'what  The s t r u c t u r e provides f o r the r e c i p i e n t t o see t h a t I t would, a f t e r a l l , be q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t  s t o r y i f B had s a i d something l i k e ,  'The guy I was w i t h wanted t o  go  a movie but I t a l k e d him i n t o going t o a massage p a r l o u r i n s t e a d ' .  As i t i s ,  B i n s t r u c t s A t o see t h a t one a l t e r n a t i v e was r e j e c t e d  another accepted. is  using  s t o r y t e l l e r can i n s t r u c t a  happened occurred as an  a l t e r n a t i v e s were assessed.  to  By  One t h i n g B makes c l e a r by employing the s t r u c t u r e  t h a t i t was not a common p r a c t i c e t o leave work,  beers and then head f o r the massage p a r l o u r , Ken  in  1-2  and  to  see t h a t her 'going t o  the  have a couple o f  j u s t as Louise i n s t r u c t s back  house'  with  her  b o y f r i e n d was not her 'normal' l o c a t i o n f o r n e g o t i a t i n g sex. The reader has i t a v a i l a b l e t o n o t i c e , f u r t h e r , a r e l a t e d feature o f B ' s defensive design,  where B says,  "we had a few b e e r s " .  Surely  the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t has i t a v a i l a b l e t o o r i e n t t o such a statement infer  to  t h a t what one does a f t e r a "few beers" (with p o s s i b l e a l c o h o l i c  impairment o f judgment), might not be something one would normally do. The  statement,  especially  then,  "we had a few beers",  a l s o has  some power,  when combined w i t h the work t h a t i s done by t e l l i n g  about  'what d i d n ' t happen'. In to  a general sense I have confined my i n t e r e s t s i n t h i s  one p o s s i b l e feature o f n a r r a t i v e s ;  activities  in  a  IX-1  has  to  do  the assessment o f a l t e r n a t i v e  s p e c i f i e d s t o r y t e l l i n g environment  s t o r y t e l l e r ' s defensive design.  chapter  as  part  of  a  The r i s k o r i e n t e d t o i n both 1-2 and  w i t h the s t o r y t e l l e r  151  engaging  in  a  questionable  activity,  'questionable'  storyteller  and  story  according  recipient.  to I  standards have  oriented  built  upon  procedure, o r i g i n a l l y located by Sacks i n h i s l e c t u r e s , a  storyteller  sequence: This  for  building  a defensive  general  general  employable by  into  the  procedure provides f o r the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t t o  alternative  as  a  'normal'  a l t e r n a t i v e as the 'abnormal' a c t i v i t y .  of  a  by  telling  t e l l about 'what d i d n ' t happen' p r i o r t o 'what d i d happen'.  rejected  is:  design  to  if  activity  and  the  see  the  accepted  A c o r o l l a r y t o t h i s procedure  one hears a volunteered r i s k y s t o r y c o n t a i n i n g an assessment  alternative  activities,  where  that  between 'normal' and 'abnormal' a c t i v i t i e s ,  assessment  differentiates  then hear t h a t assessment  as c o n s t i t u t i n g a t l e a s t p a r t o f the s t o r y t e l l e r ' s defensive posture. One way t h a t one can get t h i s work done i s by informing the s t o r y recipient a  t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e s were concertedly assessed and t h a t i t was  conscious  project.  decision  leading t o the  achievement  of  the  original  In 1-2, f o r example, the a c t i v i t y o f n e g o t i a t i n g sex was not  abandoned,  only  t h a t one l o c a t i o n was chosen over another.  t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e l o c a t i o n which was 'abnormal' f o r a teenager.  It  was  One o f  the consequences o f i n c l u d i n g c o l l a t e r a l information i n a n a r r a t i v e i s t h a t the s t o r y t e l l e r can show, w i t h i n the t e l l i n g sequence, t h a t 'what happened'  was  innocent and spontaneous and t h a t the r e c i p i e n t  ought  not t o make a b i g d e a l o f i t . In  our s o c i e t y i t seems t h a t people engaged i n i n t e r a c t i o n  to  create and s u s t a i n a comfortable environment f o r the  As  Goffman notes,  "To conduct one's s e l f comfortably i n  and t o be f l u s t e r e d are d i r e c t l y opposed" (1967:101). in  seek  interaction. interaction  I noted e a r l i e r  t h i s chapter t h a t r e c i p i e n t s o f s t o r i e s ought t o do some work 152  to  protect  and  s u s t a i n the ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n when the i n t e r a c t i o n  threatened.  The  maintenance work. in  storyteller,  too,  I n our s o c i e t y ,  ought  to  contribute  or  defeat.  recipients  In  this  t o be embarrassed o r uncomfortable  i n t e r a c t i o n may be seen by others as evidence o f  guilt,  to  is  weakness,  s t o r y t e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n s we have  moral  seen  that  w i s h t o a v o i d p l a c i n g people t e l l i n g d i s c l o s u r e s t o r i e s i n  that p o s i t i o n .  Goffman w r i t e s :  Poise p l a y s an important r o l e i n communic a t i o n , f o r i t guarantees t h a t those present w i l l not f a i l t o p l a y t h e i r p a r t s i n i n t e r a c t i o n b u t w i l l continue as long as they are i n one another's presence (1967:104). Furthermore, Embarrassment has t o do w i t h u n f u l f i l l e d expectations...Given their social identities and the s e t t i n g , . . . p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l sense what s o r t o f conduct ought t o be maint a i n e d as the appropriate t h i n g (1967:105).  Thus not  f a r I have suggested t h a t ,  abandoned  features structure  as can  and  the  location  i n 1-2,  assessment o f and  manner.  the general p r o j e c t i s  alternatives The  turns  'assessing  a l s o be employed by s t o r y t e l l e r s t o focus  abandonment i n favor o f a d i f f e r e n t p r o j e c t .  of  alternatives' on  project  In IX-1,  One p r o j e c t  the r i s k y nature  B ' s s t o r y revolves around an o r i e n t a t i o n t o the abandoning o f  a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t y i n favor o f another. that  such  I n I X - 1 , the assessment  of alternative a c t i v i t i e s relates d i r e c t l y to t h i s issue. i s abandoned i n favor o f another p r o j e c t .  on  I n B ' s case,  i t turns out  the accepted a l t e r n a t i v e i s considered t o be 'abnormal' by A  seen i n h i s i n t e r j e c t i o n ,  one  as  'Noooool' when B f i r s t begins t o t e l l about  153  going  to  a  massage  alternatives'  structure  interjection  provides  storyteller should  The  employment  of  of  realization  for  the  story  recipient  to  a c t i v i t i e s indicates that  was temporarily abandoned. employed  work  prefiguring  of  see  after  A's  that  the  something  B  t h a t those i n a given category should not o n l y  alternative  structure  ' assessing  by B w i t h i n the t e l l i n g sequence  a c a t e g o r i a l norm but should a l s o r e a l i z e i t ,  assessment  the  i s a l i g n e d w i t h the expectation t h a t i t was  not have done,  support  parlour.  and  that  the  and  how  that  The 'assessing a l t e r n a t i v e s '  w i t h i n the t e l l i n g sequence o f a s t o r y one  possible  recipient  does  question  in  the such  situations:  what were the c o n d i t i o n s o f a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r the r e j e c t e d  alternative  and  'assessing possible  alternatives' dispreferred  prefiguring sequence  the accepted a c t i v i t y ? structure  recipient  One answer would be t h a t  can do the work o f  response  at  story  defusing  a  completion  by  a r e c i p i e n t ' s response and answering before the  the  recipient's  question  the  o f how i t came t o  be  response that  s t o r y t e l l e r would engage i n an 'abnormal' o r ' r i s k y ' a c t i v i t y .  the  In IX-  1, f o r example, i f B had t o l d a s t o r y about going t o a massage p a r l o u r i n which i t was d i s p l a y e d as a 'normal' a c t i v i t y f o r him t o engage i n , he  would be  isolating  himself  as  someone who would  p a r t i c i p a t e i n an a c t i v i t y regarded by s t o r y r e c i p i e n t as This  is  perhaps  the crux o f the matter.  normally 'abnormal'.  An a l t e r n a t i v e  assessment may t u r n on a concerted d e c i s i o n ,  activity  where there i s a  design  t o ' what happened', o r the assessment may i n s t r u c t the s t o r y r e c i p i e n t 6  of  the  then,  f o r t u i t o u s nature o f the a c t i v i t y .  general  procedure,  makes i t a v a i l a b l e f o r the s t o r y t e l l e r t o i n d i c a t e t o the s t o r y  recipient which  The  that  the  s t o r y t e l l e r knows what i s a  'normal'  activity,  can then be used t o s p e c i f i c a l l y l o c a t e 'what happened' i n 154  the  s t o r y as something d i s t i n c t l y 'abnormal' and unusual. Now I want t o t r a n s a c t a k i n d o f a n a l y t i c a l s h i f t by seeking technicalize IX-1.  the inner workings o f the procedure l o c a t e d i n  First,  storytellers takes with  recall  for  that  this  general  procedure  s t r u c t u r i n g assessments o f  on a c o n v e n t i o n a l l y used frame:  A,  1-2  t h a t the ' A ' s l o t i s f i l l e d by a c l a s s o f  by  activities  B.  Further,  regard t o the a c t i v i t i e s i n the s t r u c t u r e 'Instead o f A,  noted  and  employed  alternative  Instead o f  to  possible  B',  I  activities  w i t h the 'B' s l o t f i l l e d by a c l a s s o f a c t i v i t i e s which may be seen t o be  alternative to ' A ' .  perceive  an  happening  activity alongside  I t i s a v a i l a b l e t o anyone i n our s o c i e t y as  occurring quite  the  unfolding  incidentally,  something  course-of-action  but  p u r p o s e f u l l y engineered t o a f f e c t the outcome o f the a c t i v i t y . materials  the  assessment  is  reader  has i t a v a i l a b l e t o see t h a t  formally  related  methodologies.  negotiating  sex i s not abandoned b u t m o d i f i e d .  projects.  assesses That  1-2,  alternative  alternative  operation  In  to  the  the  not In my  alternative  projects  f o r example,  or  project  Then the  also  differentiates  to of  assessment  methodologies f o r successful achievement o f  assessment  to  sub-activities  main as  components o f an o r i g i n a l p r o j e c t . (1-2) P r o j e c t : n e g o t i a t i n g sex A l t e r n a t i v e 1: parking A l t e r n a t i v e 2: using an unchaperoned house  The  alternative  assessment  i n 1-2 r e l a t e s t o a 155  class  of  possible  l o c a t i o n s r a t h e r than a c l a s s o f p o s s i b l e p r o j e c t s . relative  to  the  alternative concerted  project  location  there are  choices.  designed  Note,  aspects  One example o f such  too, t h a t  of  possible  design  is  the  d e c i s i o n t o seek an a l t e r n a t i v e l o c a t i o n f o r completing the  p r o j e c t o f n e g o t i a t i n g sex. accomplishment  of  No h i n t o f coercion i s s p e c i f i e d , and the  the p r o j e c t i s based on a  concerted  decision  as  opposed t o being f o r t u i t o u s . I n I X - 1 , we see a d i f f e r e n t s t o r y contingency. alternatives  relates  The assessment o f  d i r e c t l y t o p r o j e c t s r a t h e r than t o  Whereas i n 1-2 l o c a t i o n s are assessed,  locations.  i n IX-1 p r o j e c t s are assessed.  (IX-1) P r o j e c t 1: going t o a movie P r o j e c t 2: attending a massage p a r l o u r  Note i n IX-1 the i m p l i c a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e features not found i n 1-2.  First,  the i m p l i c a t i o n o f c o e r c i o n ,  "So I ended up going w i t h  him",  as opposed t o being s t r i c t l y v o l u n t a r y .  Second, the f o r t u i t o u s  nature o f the a r i s i n g o f P r o j e c t 2, "We passed t h i s massage p l a c e " , i n contrast back,  with  the concerted d e c i s i o n i n 1-2,  ' n we j u s t went i n t o the back house".  "So we walked Finally,  to  the  and the major  d i f f e r e n c e between the two contingencies i n the s t o r i e s ,  the o r i g i n a l  project  favor  in  different project  o f 'going t o a movie' i s abandoned i n  project altogether. was  explicating for  IX-1  never  I n 1-2,  abandoned,  only  alternative  the  activities  156  a  we n o t i c e d t h a t the o r i g i n a l original  these features I have begun t o describe  assessing  of  in  location. an  narratives  By  organization told  in  conversation  and  storyteller  the  k i n d o f defensive work t h a t gets  i n r e l a t i o n t o p r o t e c t i n g and s u s t a i n i n g a  ' f a c e ' as w e l l as the ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n . incorporating a  which  a  storyteller's of  c o l l a t e r a l information i n t o the t e l l i n g sequence o f f e r s  that  can  for  The general procedure  p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n t o one s t o r y t e l l e r problem:  recipient  done  the s t o r y t e l l e r knows what i s  how t o inform a  'normal'  story  activity,  then be used t o s p e c i f i c a l l y l o c a t e 'what happened'  in  a  s t o r y as something d i s t i n c t l y ' abnormal'.  CONCLUSION  In  this  discourse  chapter I examine COLLATERAL information  as  analysis  treatment,  seems t h a t n a r r a t i v e s are analyzed  live  it  which are  treatment.  In  the  linguistic as  conversation.  In  my conversational  a  discourse  self-contained  r a t h e r than as a c t i v i t i e s embedded i n a n a t u r a l  COLLATERAL  narrative  t r e a t e d i n l i n g u i s t i c discourse a n a l y s i s followed by  conversational  units  in  context,  analysis  i.e.  treatment  of  I make use o f s o c i a l i d e n t i t i e s and membership  categories  t e s t i f y t o the f a c t t h a t n a r r a t i v e s and features o f  narratives  social activities,  and my a n a l y s i s stresses the s o c i a l nature o f  narratives. The  significance  conversational information discovery effectively  in  o f t h i s chapter r e l a t e s t o the i n t e g r a t i o n  analysis  with  the  linguistic  n a r r a t i v e discourse.  procedures applied  in to  157  of  I am c l a i m i n g t h a t  conversational the study  study  of  analysis  narrative  of  collateral there  are  can  be  which discourse.  These  methodolcxgical procedures,  characterized below, i l l u m i n a t e the issues  w i t h which t h i s chapter began. I  located  and  described  instances  from  naturally  occurring  conversation where a s t o r y t e l l e r t e l l s not o n l y about the events which t r a n s p i r e d but a l s o about what d i d not t r a n s p i r e .  When a s t o r y t e l l e r  t e l l s about 'what d i d n ' t happen' i n the t e l l i n g sequence (COLLATERAL), I  isolated  those  instances when c o l l a t e r a l information a c t s  assessment o f a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . differences  between  a  I noted some s i m i l a r i t i e s  storyteller's  assessment  a c t i v i t i e s and Twer's 'Instead o f A c t i v i t y A, In  b u i l d i n g upon  as  and departing from Twer,  of  and  alternative  A c t i v i t y B' I  an  claimed  structure. that  people  d e s c r i b i n g p a s t a c t i v i t i e s i n s t o r y form i n conversational i n t e r a c t i o n often  give  activity  accounts  and  that  f o r why one a c t i v i t y was these  accounts are  chosen  reflected  over  in  another  storytellers'  d e s c r i p t i o n s o f what d i d and d i d not take p l a c e . T h i s chapter o f f e r s s e v e r a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the l a r g e r study discourse c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .  of  Perhaps the most b e n e f i c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n i s  the i s o l a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e assessment a c t i v i t y procedures as a group for  special  assessment  study.  The discovery and d e s c r i p t i o n  of  alternative  a c t i v i t y procedures provides the discourse a n a l y s t w i t h  a  category u s e f u l i n formal a n a l y s i s . The various  second c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h i s chapter i s t h a t , devices a v a i l a b l e t o s t o r y t e l l e r s f o r making  alternative  activities  identifying  activity  constituent features.  i n narratives, assessments  in  by  indicating  assessments  a methodology i s offered narrative  discourse  of for via  The methodology o f f e r s a h e l p f u l s t a r t i n g p o i n t  158  in  the  a n a l y s i s o f c o l l a t e r a l information and categories  useful  in  formal a n a l y s i s . T h i r d l y , t h i s chapter contributes t o the s o c i o l o g y o f i n t e r a c t i o n by  supporting  From  the  people  a  number o f Goffman's  claims  vis-a-vis  t r a n s c r i p t s I discovered a general procedure  telling  stories  for  b u i l d i n g a defensive  'facework'. available  design  into  to the  t e l l i n g sequence so as t o p r o t e c t and s u s t a i n t h a t person's 'face' and the  ongoing  interaction.  The  general  procedure  relates  to  a  s t o r y t e l l e r t e l l i n g about assessing p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s , t e l l i n g about 'what d i d n ' t happen' p r i o r t o t e l l i n g about 'what happened'. how  I showed  t h i s procedure provides f o r a r e c i p i e n t o f a s t o r y t o hear  'what  d i d n ' t happen' as a recognizably 'normal' a c t i v i t y and 'what happened' as a recognizably 'abnormal' a c t i v i t y . in  relation  to  the  procedure:  I formulated a h e a r e r ' s maxim  i f you hear a  story  containing  d e s c r i p t i o n o f 'what d i d n ' t happen' ( c o l l a t e r a l information) p r i o r the  telling  o f 'what happened',  where the former i s a  normal a c t i v i t y and the l a t t e r recognizably abnormal, assessment  of  In  attempt  followed  by  in  as a resource i n the generation o f a n a r r a t i v e .  l i n g u i s t i c discourse a  that to  'face'.  the same a n a l y t i c a l procedure as i s used t h i s chapter, a  then hear  the next chapter I examine p r e - n a r r a t i v e sequencing  conversation  to  recognizably  a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s as a s t o r y t e l l e r ' s  p r o t e c t and s u s t a i n h i s o r her  a  treatment o f n a r r a t i v e  conversational  phenomenon.  159  analysis  use  f i r s t offering  sequencing  treatment  I  live  of  concerns the  same  NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 1  Sharrock and Turner (1978) w r i t e : One o f the fates o f s t o r i e s , n a r r a t i v e s , and anecdotes i s t h a t t h e i r r e c i p i e n t s may perform transforms on them, e i t h e r i n l a t e r r e t e l l i n g s o r 1 i n t e r p r e t i v e l y , ' that i s , i n f i g u r i n g out f o r themselves the sense o f what they have been t o l d (p. 187).  2  In t h e i r paper, 'On a Conversational Environment for Equivocality' (1978), Sharrock and Turner suggest t h a t s t o r y t e l l e r s can f i n d p o s s i b l e r e c i p i e n t transforms foreseeable. When such p o s s i b l e transforms are foreseeable, a s t o r y t e l l e r has i t a v a i l a b l e t o engage i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l work i n order t o p r o t e c t t h e i r t e l l i n g s against a transform which could f i l l the s l o t o f a d i s p r e f e r r e d response. They w r i t e : Recipient can r e c a s t the p a r t t e l l e r assigns h i m s e l f i n the t e l l i n g , w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t the whole n a r r a t i v e undergoes a ' s h i f t ' so as t o ' t e l l a d i f f e r e n t s t o r y ' ; and an assessment t h a t the remarks are equivocal can m o t i vate r e c i p i e n t t o operate the transform. Thus 'complaints' can undergo such a s h i f t , so as t o y i e l d a s t o r y now focused on complainant, and complained-againsts can correspondingly appear i n t h i s v e r s i o n as v i c t i m s (p.187). 3  For example, r e c i p i e n t 'challenge' t o a s t o r y t e l l e r ' s v e r s i o n o f 'what happened' can lead t o such a c o l l a p s e . Consider the f o l l o w i n g . A: [STORY] Anyway, I c o u l d n ' t h e l p myself, she forced me i n t o i t . B:  Sounds t o me l i k e you o n l y have yours e l f t o blame  A:  W e l l , fuck i t , i f you d o n ' t b e l i e v e me [A turns and leaves]  C e r t a i n l y everyone has been i n such a s i t u a t i o n , where the i n t e r a c t i o n 'breaks o f f w i t h hard f e e l i n g s on both s i d e s .  160  4 Goffman (1971) offers a clue to the workings of a 'defensive design' i n alternative activity assessments when he writes: When the world immediately around the i n dividual portends nothing out of the ordinary, when the world appears to allow him to continue his routines,.. .we can say that he w i l l sense that appearances are 'natural' or 'normal'. For the individual, then, normal appearances mean that i t i s safe and sound to continue on with the activity at hand... [but] when the [individual] senses that something i s unnatural or wrong, that something i s up, he i s sensing a sudden opportunity or threat i n his current situation (p.239). 5 Turner (1976) makes an interesting related point: It cannot be overemphasized that the sociologist does not stand to his conversational data as Sherlock Holmes stands to the clues which eventually lead him to a reconstruction of the crime. Our aim i s to say, i n effect, here are some methodological ways for producing and understanding the data, ways available to the participants themselves. I t i s true that as analysts we have no apparatus which w i l l yield an incorrigible reading of a conversational exchange; but that we have no such apparatus i s not i n the normal sense an admission of failure, for the production of incorrigible readings i s not the goal of such an exploration of the systematics of talk and interaction (p. 253).  6  I follow Goffman i n his use of encounters. He writes:  'design' i n interactional  If [someone] arranges to meet a friend i n a particular crowded bar at 12:45 the next afternoon, and according to the bar clock he sees his friend approaching a ininute after the appointed time, then I count as designed the fact of the co-occurrence of the two i n dividuals at that place at that time. And I count as undesigned the fact that the bar was there that day...that particular other 161  persons were present, and t h a t the sun rose t h a t morning...Although these l a t t e r elements i n the s i t u a t i o n a f f e c t the i n d i v i d u a l and h i s d e s i g n , . . . t h e s e elements are l a r g e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o whether o r not he i n p a r t i c u l a r c a r r i e s out h i s design (1971:310-311).  162  CHAPTER 5: PRE-NARRATIVE SEQUENCING AS AN  In  the  first  chapter  INTERACTIONAL RESOURCE  I s a i d t h a t one  of  the  more  relevant  problems  c u r r e n t l y being attended t o i n l i n g u i s t i c d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s  is  concerning  that  Longacre who  dialogue  t a k e s t h e v i e w t h a t t h e two a r e r e l a t e d b u t  word,  or  between  and  monologue.  (1983) i s one o f t h e f i r s t l i n g u i s t s i n t e r e s t e d i n d i s c o u r s e  structures.  of  the r e l a t i o n  somewhat  autonomous  He c l a s s i f i e s t h e u n i t s o f monologue a s : morpheme, stem,  phrase,  c l a u s e , sentence,  p a r a g r a p h , and d i s c o u r s e .  d i a l o g u e a r e : u t t e r a n c e , exchange, d i a l o g u e paragraph, and discourse.  defines says.  the As  In  r e l a t i n g t h e two  begins  of to  'exchange'.  of  structures,  ' u t t e r a n c e ' as t h e u n i t bounded b y what a s i n g l e such,  Longacre  w r i t e s t h a t the  which i s r e l e v a n t t o t u r n - t a k i n g , student  types  l i v e conversation" treat  repair,  (1983:43,  pre-narrative  'utterance'  The u n i t s dialogue Longacre speaker  " i s the  and o t h e r c o n c e r n s o f emphases  sequencing  when  mine). he  unit the  Longacre  examines  the  He w r i t e s :  An e x c h a n g e — e . g . a q u e s t i o n and a n s w e r — c a n i n v o l v e i n t e r p l a y o f v a r i o u s s i z e u n i t s , f o r example, a s e n t e n c e - s i z e q u e s t i o n can be answered b y a s i n g l e morpheme e.g., "Nol" o r b y a whole d i s c o u r s e , e.g., b y a n a r r a t i v e : "Well, h e r e ' s what happened y e s t e r d a y " (p.43).  L o n g a c r e t o u c h e s on an i s s u e w h i c h i s i n t h e r e a l m o f i n t e r e s t t o the  discourse  u n a n a l y z e d : how  linguist  but  which i s  n a r r a t i v e s get generated  163  heretofore  unformulated  and  from p r e - n a r r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e .  It  i s one o f t h o s e i s s u e s w h i c h t h e d i s c o u r s e l i n g u i s t i s h o p i n g  be  t r e a t e d b y s t u d e n t s o f l i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n and t h e n i n t e g r a t e d  research Recall  into  in  being  offered  t o students o f l i v e conversation t o c o n t r i b u t e t o  done i n l i n g u i s t i c d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s (Longacre, Huttar,  Contrary  to in  conversational development.  the  studies  1983;  Jones,  1982).  A L i n g u i s t i c Treatment o f P r e - N a r r a t i v e  interested  with  linguistics.  t h a t Longacre and o t h e r d i s c o u r s e l i n g u i s t s have  invitation  1983;  dialogue c u r r e n t l y being c a r r i e d out  can  popular  the  opinion  study  of  structures. He  Sequencing  among  discourse  Longacre  sociologists, have  is  begun  linguists to  examine  a t the f o r e f r o n t  of  this  writes:  We must n o t u n d e r e s t i m a t e t h e importance o f d i a l o g u e t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f language. How, f o r example, can we e v e r e x p l a i n s o - c a l l e d minor o r fragmentary s e n t ences t h a t B l o o m f i e l d and o t h e r s have c a t a l o g u e d a s i d e from r e c o u r s e t o d i a l o g u e ? From one p o i n t o f view, s e n t e n c e s s u c h as t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e d e f e c t i v e : "In t h e k i t c h e n " , "Yesterday", "Yes"; b u t as answers t o questions i n the context o f dialogue, they are i n no sense anomalous (1983:43-44).  Longacre goes on t o make t h e p l e a t o l i n g u i s t s i n t e r e s t e d i n d i s c o u r s e that to  t h e importance o f s t u d y i n g d i a l o g u e i s n o t m e r e l y t h a t i t e x p l a i n a few a p p a r e n t anomalies,  viewed  as  a  basic function  of  b u t t h a t d i a l o g u e ought  language:  conversational  helps to  be  exchange  between p e o p l e i n communication.  In range  current l i n g u i s t i c s , of  (Longacre,  linguistic 1983;  i t i s f a s h i o n a b l e t o d e s c r i b e t h e whole  phenomena  Jones,  1977;  in  terms  Jones, 1983;  164  of  predicate  relations  Grimes, 1975;  Pickering,  1979).  From  t h i s viewpoint,  predication.  But,  describe  l i n g u i s t i c r e l a t i o n s as p r e d i c a t i o n s ,  that  all  as  a l m o s t e v e r y grammatioal r e l a t i o n i s a  Longacre  p o i n t s out,  t h e r e i s an a b s t r a c t p r e d i c a t e  whose two  linguists  and  t h e answer.  example w h i c h r e l a t e s d i r e c t l y t o  are  one must  (which Longacre terms  components a r e t h e q u e s t i o n  following  if  to  assume  Repartee),  He p r o v i d e s  pre-narrative  the  discourse  sequencing:  A: What d i d you do a l l morning? B: Oh, I went downtown, shopped f o r two h o u r s , spent an h o u r a t t h e h a i r d r e s s e r ' s , and f i n a l l y had l u n c h a t K r e s g e ' s .  Then,  however,  different danger  the  t h e term PREDICATION i s s t r e t c h e d t o i n c l u d e s u c h  relations  of  involve  if  as found i n t h e above  c l a s s i f y i n g predications taxonomically  speaker exchange and  above  example,  we  conversation  there  concluded  projects  that a  a  ' j u s t happen' .  More t h a n a decade ago  n a r r a t i v e , and  are  can  align  him  a  next  which from  in  is live  which  Harvey Sacks  a  focused  conversation  and  embedded  the  in  I s a i d e a r l i e r t h a t Sacks  n a r r a t i v e can i n v o l v e a p r e f a c e story,  the  Longacre  That i s ,  sequenced o b j e c t s  i n which they are t o l d .  forthcoming  conversationalist  those  i s u s u a l l y some p r e - n a r r a t i v e t a l k from  narratives  p a r t i c u l a r context claimed  that  contexted occurrence o f n a r r a t i v e s t o l d i n that  risks  Furthermore,  have i t a v a i l a b l e t o see  n a r r a t i v e gets generated. the  one  as t o  t h o s e w h i c h do n o t .  r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t n a r r a t i v e s do n o t  on  example,  turn  o r h e r s e l f as a  in  which  in  a  which  recipient  teller a  co-  to  the  a n e x t t u r n i n w h i c h the t e l l e r produces t h e n a r r a t i v e .  F i n a l l y , a n o t h e r t u r n s l o t opens up a t s t o r y end which g i v e s t h e  165  story  r e c i p i e n t an opportunity t o t a l k by reference t o the s t o r y . Linguists interest  in  interested  in  discourse sequencing,  generation  of  linguistic  interest  narratives.  the  beginning  to  show  an  to  the  particularly in relation  There  is,  however,  a  gap  between  i n p r e - n a r r a t i v e sequencing and how a  gets generated i n ongoing t a l k . of  discourse are  narrative  Longacre provides the best treatment  dialogue from a l i n g u i s t i c perspective t h a t I have come across linguistic  dialogue,  or  discourse l i t e r a t u r e .  repartee,  note  that  In  Longacre 1 s  in  treatment  h i s treatment b r i n g s us  waterhole but does not prod us i n t o d r i n k i n g .  of  to  That i s t o say,  the while  Longacre touches on the i s s u e o f how a n a r r a t i v e may get generated his  treatment o f dialogue,  a  in  as we saw i n the example "What d i d you do  a l l morning?", he does not t r e a t p r e - n a r r a t i v e discourse as a resource for  getting  attention  a  is  n a r r a t i v e generated. that  One reason f o r  i t i s not h i s purpose  to  this  examine  lack  of  pre-narrative  discourse.  However, i n h i s treatment o f dialogue he provides us w i t h  an  of  example  requested.  one  way a n a r r a t i v e  may  get  by  being  C e r t a i n l y l i n g u i s t s i n t e r e s t e d i n discourse would  agree  t h a t there must be more t o the i s s u e than t h a t .  generated:  For example,  we account f o r the appropriateness o f a n a r r a t i v e i n  how do  discourse?  This  chapter examines p r e - n a r r a t i v e sequencing i n l i v e conversation w i t h an interest  in  discovering  and  d e s c r i b i n g how a  narrative  may  get  generated from m a t e r i a l s provided i n p r e - n a r r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e . Just narrative structures  as  discourse l i n g u i s t s are i n t e r e s t e d i n the s t r u c t u r e  discourse, and  c e r t a i n l y they are i n t e r e s t e d i n  pre-narrative  the s t r u c t u r e s which f a c i l i t a t e the generation 166  of  of  a  narrative  as  well.  sequencing  in  methodology  for  structures  I  This  discourse  chapter by  contributes  offering  the  examining p r e - n a r r a t i v e  examine  discourse.  of  linguist  a  The  kinds  important  h e l p t o supplement and b u i l d - u p t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i n t o discourse  sequencing  with  future  invitation,  between  accord  to  of  discourse  relation  in  issue  linguistic  the  and,  the  discourse  i n t h i s c h a p t e r w i l l be analysis  to  and  Longacre's  the  analysis  of  narratives.  In  text  grammarian  Longacre and h i s s t u d e n t s , set  linguistic  discourse  analysis  t h e r e e x i s t s t h e assumption t h a t t h e r e i s a  o f sequencing r u l e s w h i c h govern t h e s e q u e n t i a l  dialogue  discourse  assumption  acts  as  (Longacre, a  following  1976,  motivating  1983;  factor  for  organization  Jones,  1983).  linguistic  of This  discourse  a n a l y s i s i n t h a t t h e d i s c o u r s e l i n g u i s t seeks t o r e d u c e t h e p r o b l e m o f d i s c o u r s e sequencing t o a s e t o f r u l e s g o v e r n i n g  dialogue.  There i s a  r e l a t e d c l a i m w i t h i n s u c h an assumption, a c l a i m r e l a t i n g t o s y n t a c t i c constraints are,  i n dialogue.  however,  difficult  Cases t o s u p p o r t to  find.  A major r e a s o n  b e l i e v e , t h a t sequences i n d i a l o g u e w h i c h may or  meaningless  conversation.  when  analyzed  A:  s u c h example.  I have a f o u r t e e n y e a r o l d  B: W e l l , t h a t ' s a l l r i g h t I a l s o have a  B: Oh,  I'm  dog  sorry  167  occur  son  empirically  for this  be c o n s i d e r e d  i n i s o l a t i o n do  Sacks (1968) p r o v i d e s one  A:  such a c l a i m  is,  I  disjointed  frequently  in  Anaylzed i n i s o l a t i o n ,  t h i s d i a l o g u e may  when t h e above d i a l o g u e  i s examined i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e  i n which i t took place, i s q u i t e n a t u r a l and conversation  conversation  we have i t a v a i l a b l e t o see t h a t t h e  e a s i l y understood.  dialogue  The d i a l o g u e i s t a k e n from a  A r a i s e s some p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s which may  f o r apartment r e n t a l .  analysis  However,  i n w h i c h A i s l o o k i n g f o r an apartment t o r e n t and B  the landlord.  a n a l y s i s , we  seem m e a n i n g l e s s .  Thus,  disqualify  from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f  him  conversational  can q u e s t i o n t h e b a s i c assumption i n l i n g u i s t i c  that  is  discourse  d i s j o i n t e d o r "meaningless" d i a l o g u e e x i s t s o r can  be  predicted.  Furthermore, o r cannot be As  Sacks  I q u e s t i o n whether sequencing c o n s t r a i n t s , what can  said,  can be e x p l a i n e d i n l i n g u i s t i c  and o t h e r s  i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s have  what makes an u t t e r a n c e is  determined  1970,  1976;  discouraging dialogue the  1976).  Along  clearly  (Sacks,  can  conversational  be  shown,  1968;  Turner,  with t h i s i s s u e i s the  somewhat  development i n l i n g u i s t i c d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s  m a t e r i a l i s oftentimes  analysis  terms.  f o l l o w i n g a q u e s t i o n an "answer", f o r example,  by i t s i n t e r a c t i o n a l l o c a t i o n Eglin,  (syntactic)  shown  organization,  constructed  to  have as  my  where  from i n t u i t i o n and  obscured  basic  analysis  of  the where  features  of  pre-narrative  s e q u e n c i n g demonstrates.  A Conversational  A n a l y s i s Treatment o f P r e - N a r r a t i v e  T e l l i n g s t o r i e s and of  our  Sequencing  l i s t e n i n g t o s t o r i e s i s a commonplace f e a t u r e  everyday experience.  When p r o d u c i n g  a  story,  tellers  o b l i g e d t o d i s p l a y a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s t o r y b e i n g t o l d and  168  are the  prior  ongoing  conversation while  talk. which  Also,  the  system o f  turn-taking  a l l o w everyone t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n  preventing  overlapping  talk  is  a  normally  occasions t o a l l o w a s t o r y t e l l e r a longer  1978).  story  itself,  including  between  the s t o r y and the p r i o r t a l k , 1 suspension.  the d i s p l a y  for  conversation suspended  storytelling The  rules  turn  of  on  (Sacks,  relationship  should j u s t i f y t h a t  temporary  A s t o r y i s any recounting o f an event, and i s u s u a l l y longer than one utterance.  A s t o r y t e l l i n g g e n e r a l l y contains a preface sequence,  telling  sequence,  stories  told  in  and  response  conversation,  sequence. Jefferson  I n an  investigation  of  (1978)  demonstrates  how  s t o r i e s may be ' t r i g g e r e d ' by immediately previous t u r n - b y - t u r n  talk.  That i s , a word o r an utterance i n a conversation may produce a sudden remembering  of  a story,  and may be used by a  conversationalist  to  generate a s t o r y , t h a t s t o r y bearing a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the p r i o r t a l k . A  story  may  be methodically introduced i n t o t u r n - b y - t u r n t a l k  via  i n t e r a c t i o n a l techniques which may be used by a p o t e n t i a l  storyteller  to  talk,  show  accounting in  the  a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s t o r y and the  prior  f o r the appropriateness o f the s t o r y ' s t e l l i n g . following  conversational  fragments  how t h i s  accomplished.  Transcript A (Jefferson, 1978:221) L o t t i : (hh)en so 'hh when Duane l e f t today we took o f f our s u i t s , y'know, ' n uh—Oh ' n she gave me the most b e a u t i f u l swimsuit you've ever seen i n your l i f e  169  thus  Consider has  been  Emma:  Gave i t t o you?  L o t t i : Yeah Emaa:  Aww::: [ Lotti: A twenny two d o l l a r one Emma:  W e l l , you've g i v e n h e r a l o t i n y o u r day L o t t i  Lotti:  I know i t . 'N when we l o o k e d w-one a t W a l t e r C l a r k ' s y o u know w i r we're gonna buy one c u z [STORY]  C  Transcript B (Jefferson,, 1978:221) Roger:  The cops d o n ' t do t h a t , d o n ' t gimme that shit I l i v e i n the valley. (0.5)  Ken:  The cops, o v e r t h e h i l l . T h e r e ' s a p l a c e up i n M u l h o l l a n d where t h e y ' v e where t h e y ' r e b u i l d i n g t h o s e h o u s i n g projects?  Roger:  Oh, have y o u e v e r t a k e n them M u l h o l l a n d time t r i a l s ? uhh, y o u go up t h e r e w i t h a g i r l , a buncha g u y s ' r e up t h e r e 'n [STORY]  Transcript C (Schenkein:1:7) Ellen:  Ben:  To r e l a x d u r i n g t h i s l a s t i l l n e s s , on top o f t h e a n t i b i o t i c s [ W e l l , o n t o p o f t h e cough m e d i c i n e  Ellen:  Yeah, and t h e cough m e d i c i — i n c i d e n t a l l y , d i d I t e l l you?  Ben:  No  Ellen:  T h a t t h e d-he t o l d u s t ' g i v e uhh Snookie a t h i r d o f a t e a s p o o n o f uhh cough medecine, C h e r a c o l , i s t h e r e a — I s t h e r e a cough medecine c a l l e d C h e r a c o l ?  [  Bill:  yeah  170  c yeah  Ben: Ellen:  In by  uhh, we happen t o have V i c ' s F o r t y Four [STORY]  these examples we can see how various devices may be employed  a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t t o s i g n a l t h a t the s t o r y - t o - b e - t o l d  generated out o f the p r i o r ongoing t a l k and i s , that t a l k .  is  being  i n f a c t , a product o f  When I t a l k about a s t o r y g e t t i n g ' t r i g g e r e d ' I mean t h a t  something s a i d a t some p o i n t i n a conversation can remind someone o f a story.  A  'trigger'  storyteller  prospective  t o m e t h o d i c a l l y introduce the remembered s t o r y  turn-by-turn t a l k . to  word o r utterance may be used by a  display  into  the  I t i s p a r t o f a prospective s t o r y t e l l e r ' s business  a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s t o r y and the ongoing t a l k  order t o j u s t i f y the t e l l i n g occasion.  After a l l ,  i n conversational  i n t e r a c t i o n one does not g e n e r a l l y t o s s s t o r i e s i n t o the flow o f w i t h r e c k l e s s abandon. the  ongoing  talk. be  prior  Rather, c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n ought t o be p a i d t o  R e c a l l t h a t Jefferson  fragments talk  talk  t a l k i f one wishes t o t e l l a s t o r y i n the midst o f  'triggered'  in  the course o f t u r n - b y - t u r n t a l k .  triggers  that  (1978) makes the c l a i m t h a t a s t o r y  we can see her c l a i m i n o p e r a t i o n . which  in  the  story  is  In  the  In Transcript about  "a  may above  B,  place  the  up  in  Mulholland" i n l i n e (5) t o which the prospective s t o r y t e l l e r responds, "Oh,  have  you ever taken them Mulholland time t r i a l s ? " i n l i n e  That  sudden remembering provides an e f f e c t i v e preface f o r the  (7). story.  In T r a n s c r i p t C, the t r i g g e r word "cough medicine" i n l i n e (4) reminds E l l e n o f a s t o r y about when she gave her dog some cough medicine. Transcript  A,  the  trigger  word i s "swimsuits" i n  reminds L o t t i o f a s t o r y about purchasing a swimsuit. 171  line  (3)  In which  Note, f u r t h e r ,  t h a t i n t r a n s c r i p t s B and C  the t r i g g e r utterance i s provided by  the  e v e n t u a l r e c i p i e n t s whereas i n T r a n s c r i p t A t h e t r i g g e r u t t e r a n c e g e t s generated by t h e eventual  storyteller.  The t h i n g t o remember about a ' t r i g g e r ' word o r u t t e r a n c e i s t h a t it  provides a p o t e n t i a l s t o r y t e l l e r not only with the  t e l l i n g a s t o r y i n the course o f turn-by-turn t a l k , the some  resources  for  but a l s o provides  s t o r y t e l l e r with the resources f o r d i s p l a y i n g t h a t the s t o r y prior  t a l k a s i t s s o u r c e and may be c o n s i d e r e d t o be  a  had  direct  result o f attention paid t o that talk.  In  the  problem  data  to  be f o c u s e d upon h e r e  I w i l l be  setting  up  from some c o n v e r s a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s i n which s t o r i e s a r e  told  and t h e n show some r e s o u r c e s f o r s o l v i n g t h e p r o b l e m w h i c h may n o t immediately examination  available  at  first  glance,  y e t which  upon  a  be  closer  may be seen a s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s .  The  s t o r i e s I am u s i n g i n t h i s c h a p t e r c o n t a i n some r i s k - t a k i n g sequences. I am u s i n g t h e s e s t o r i e s because t h e i s s u e s I d e v e l o p i n t h i s a r e more c l e a r - c u t and e a s i l y g r a s p e d want  to  i n such s t o r i e s .  read through the t r a n s c r i p t s before reading  The r e a d e r may the  s e c t i o n , o t h e r w i s e t h e a n a l y s i s may be d i f f i c u l t t o f o l l o w . t r a n s c r i p t i o n conventions  i s found i n Appendix I ) .  (IX-2) W:  W e l l , we're k i n d a t r y i n ' t o g e t t h e men's p r a y e r b r e a k f a s t g o i n g a g a i n . The t h i n g got i n t o k i n d o f a r u t again o f j u s t being k i n d o f a s o c i a l time, n o t r e a l l y m e e t i n g anybody's needs, 'n I d o n ' t r e a l l y g e t o f f on g e t t i n ' up e a r l y o n a Saturday morning j u s t t o b e a t t h e — b e a t t h e bush, y'know,  172  chapter  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)  analytical (A k e y t o  R: W:  R:  W:  with a bunch of guys  (8)  Yeah, I can dig that c I enjoy that, but, y'know I don't necessarily enjoy doing i t i n a restaurant, so, y'know, there's bars to do that kind of thing i n  (9)  ((mutual laughter))  (14)  Maybe we should have a Friday night meeting at tonkin's Pub  (15) (16)  ((mutual laughter))  (17)  Hey, listen, I ' l l t e l l you a funny story, or I don't know i f i t ' s funny, i t ' s weird, but I went to the bank last week, I hadda make a deposit, 'n I rode my bike because the car was broke down, n there—the drive-in t e l l e r was the only thing open 1  C  R: W:  R: W:  R:  yeah  (10) (11) (12) (13)  (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)  'n there's a big long line of cars about five-thirty 'n I thought to myself, well I'm not gonna stay here i n line on this stupid bicycle, I'm gonna wait a l i t t l e while, and (1.0) I thought, well what am I gonna do? An' there's this tavern next to the bank [ Oh, nooocoo! c so I thought, I ' l l just go i n here, I'm sure i t ' s got a pool table a l l taverns got pool tables, 'n I went i n there and there were some pool tables so I started shootin' a game of pool (2.0) 'n I'm minding my own business, I'm not botherin' nobody, y'know  (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31)  yeah  (40)  [  (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39)  [ W:  'n, uhh, usually people leave me alone, 'n I'm just, y'know, 'n a l l of a sudden out of the corner of my eye, y'know, i t ' s kinda dark i n there, 'n I see this guy standing there just starin' at me. So I figure I'm just gonna ignore him, y'know, i f he's lookin' for trouble he's gonna look somewhere else c 173  (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48)  R: W:  R: W:  R: W:  R: W:  R: W:  R: W:  ((laughs)) ' n he j u s t doesn't go away. F i n a l l y I looked up a t him, thought I ' d smile o r , y'know, maybe the guy was a space cadet or something [ ((laughs))  [  (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54)  and, uhh, here i t i s , i t ' s an o l d f r i e n d o f mine, I h a v e n ' t seen f o r years c really 1  (55) (56) (57)  yeah, Maggie ' n him went t o school from kindergarten together, ' n I knew him from about e i g h t h grade on ' n h e ' s a b e l i e v e r ' n h e ' s kinda f a l l e n on rough times, h e ' s been married and divorced twice ' n so we chatted f o r a l i t t l e w h i l e ' n I i n v i t e d him t o come by the house someday h e ' d been l a i d o f f h i s job ' n was kinda l o n e l y so he came by then, ohh, about f i v e days l a t e r  (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) (68)  C  C  yeah  (58)  (69)  C  he stayed about s i x hours, had dinner w i t h us, chatted f o r a w h i l e , ' n uhh (1.0) y'know we got t o t a l k about some s p i r i t u a l t h i n g s a l i t t l e b i t , he expressed an i n t e r e s t t o go down t o the church, they've got a s i n g l e parents c l a s s , ' n through h i s two marriages h e ' s had three c h i l d r e n and uhhh he j u s t doesn't know what t o do w i t h h i m s e l f , he doesn't t h i n k h e ' d f i t i n t o a church, so I t o l d him about the s i n g l e parents c l a s s and a l l the divorced people ' n he s a i d h e ' d r e a l l y l i k e t o t r y i t o u t . Said h e ' d t r y t o g i v e us a c a l l which he h a s n ' t done y e t , ' n maybe t r y t o go down there [ yeah c so i t had a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t , but I thought, " w e l l , i f I went t o Pastor B i l l and asked f o r c o u n s e l l i n g about a m i n i s t r y i n taverns, y'know, i t c ((laughs)) wouldn't go over too good, here i t was 174  (70) (71) (72) (73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (81) (82) (83) (84) (85) (86) (87) (88) (89) (90) (91)  k i n d o f a weird d e a l , ' n I f e l t g u i l t y about g o i n ' i n there t o be honest w i t h ya, I f e l t g u i l t y comin' home and t e l l i n ' Maggie t h a t , y'know, I ran i n t o Mark Wagner today, w e l l , where'd you do that? W e l l , i n t h i s tavern [ yeah ((laughs))  (92) (93) (94) (95) (96) (97)  y'know? but t h a t ' s k i n d a strange, so I f i g u r e uhhh [ W e l l , I t h i n k t h a t ' s good  (99) (100)  W:  W e l l , I d o n ' t know, what are ya sposed t o do, go i n there and s t a r t handing out t r a c t s ?  (102) (103) (104)  R:  W e l l , see i f you can get a grant from the church t o pay f o r your beer, y'know?  (105) (106)  W:  Develop my m i n i s t r y ? Yeah, r i g h t . Maybe I could s t a r t CBBMS, the Conservative B a p t i s t Bar M i s s i o n Society c ((laughs))  (107) (108) (109)  W:  The Conservative B a p t i s t Beer M i s s i o n Society  (111) (112)  R:  Maybe you should ask Pastor B i l l f o r t e n minutes next Sunday n i g h t t o o u t l i n e your rninistry  (113) (114) (115)  W:  You t h i n k so? Maybe you should mention i t i n your next l e t t e r t o him. But d o n ' t mention my name!  (116) (117) (118)  R:  J u s t your i n i t a l s  (119)  W:  Yeah, r i g h t l  (120)  R: W: R:  R:  (98)  (101)  (110)  (VI-6) A:  Yeah, w e l l , Jimmy Carter s a i d he l u s t e d f o r women i n h i s heart ' n everyone got upset  (1) (2)  B:  Oh, so you subscribe t o Playboy, huh?  (3)  A:  Funnnny, i f I ever brought home a Playboy my w i f e would k i l l me  (4) (5)  175  B:  Do you (1.0) d ' y u ever look at the covers o f g i r l i e magazines?  (6) (7)  A:  I c a n ' t h e l p but look, i t ' s an occupational hazard  (8) (9)  B:  W e l l , I j u s t happened t o n o t i c e t h a t Penthouse i s doing a three-part s e r i e s on the Jer—on J e r r y F a l w e l l [ Oh, I d i d n ' t see t h a t , I ' l l have t o p i c k one up hehe  (10) (11) (12)  (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)  A:  Oh yeah, y'know one time I went t o the bush w i t h t h i s guy ' n on our way back we stopped a t mileage f i f t y - s e v e n , t h e r e ' s a cafe there ' n there was a s t r i p p e r there who was dancin' at t h i s guy's t a b l e [ I j u s t l o s t my appetite  B:  What does t h a t have t o do w i t h food?  (21)  A:  I j u s t d i d n ' t know you went t o such n i c e places  (22) (23)  B:  No, b u t , I d i d n ' t know there was a s t r i p p e r there, but I thought, how can she do that?  (24) (25)  A:  Ask h e r , d o n ' t ask me  (26)  B:  I asked my w i f e when I got back how could she do t h a t , i f I was a woman I t h i n k I ' d be too embarrassed  (27) (28) (29)  A: B:  (13) (14)  (20)  (IX-1) B:  When do you p l a y t h i s week?  (1)  A:  We're sposed t o p l a y Doherty's Thursday and then Saturday i t ' s G i n g e r ' s Sexy Sauna  (2) (3)  B:  They have a team?  (4)  A:  Yeah, but i t must be made up o f c l i e n t s — t h e r e ' s , I doubt t h e r e ' s any guys working there  (5) (6) (7)  B:  Yeah  (9)  A:  Man, I wonder what goes on i n one o f those places?  (10) (11)  176  B:  Yeah, I went to one once  (12)  c  A:  Noooooo!  (13)  [ B:  yeah, i t wasn't my idea, I was with a guy from work 'n we went out for a few beers 'n, I dunno, we decided to go to a movie, but we passed this massage place 'n he said he always wanted to try one so I ended up going with him. I know i t was wrong but uhh  (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)  So what was i t like? I t was no big deal really, this g i r l came in wearin' cutoffs but no top and proceeded to give me the treatment—the f u l l treatment  (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)  [  A: B:  c  A:  I think I'd be too embarrassed to go to (27) one of those places (28)  B:  Yeah, i t was different. I wouldn't do i t again  (29) (30)  A:  I heard Ginger's i s gonna have to close down because of i t ' s location...  (31) (32)  THE SEQUENCING PROBLEM I  said earlier that the above transcripts contain what might be  called 'risky' story sequences i n which storytellers disclose personal things about themselves and what they did, e.g. IX-2, lines (29)-(34); VI-6,  lines  relationships the their  stories  (15)-(19);  IX-1,  lines  (12)-(20).  Further, the  which exist between the topics of the conversations and which are embedded i n the  conversations  merely being sequentially adjacent.  177  extend  beyond  Our interest thus becomes  more  focused:  the study of the orders of relatedness  between  prior  talk and the t e l l i n g of story sequences which include risk-taking. take  i t that the relationships to be discovered and described may  I not  be immediately available from a f i r s t reading of the transcripts. They are  to be discovered.  although  Perhaps they are even beyond  our  intuition,  i t i s i n i t i a l l y our intuition which gets us started on  the  road to discovery. Our f i r s t question i s the following: sequences 'risky'? of A  what makes the above story  We may begin to answer this by taking note of seme  the elements of relatedness between the talk prior to the stories. first  reading of the transcripts shows that one kind of  happening i n a l l of the conversational situations: disclosing the  information i n story form which could  relationship between t e l l e r and hearer.  situation  i s 'putting something on the  also  with  no  see  potentially  'structural  constraint  line',  constraint').  (see p.  damage  The storyteller in each  that a storyteller i s t e l l i n g a  structural  is  the storyteller i s  disclosing  that could be taken as demonstrating character weakness. may  thing  something A recipient  'dangerous'  184 for  an  sequence  example  The point to note here i s that  of  a  sometimes  people  t e l l risky stories when they don't have to.  One thing I want  to do,  then, i s to examine the talk which occurs prior to the t e l l i n g  of a story to see i f there exists a relatedness between the prior talk and  the  stories  discovering how I stories  which  follow  which may  provide  a  clue  as  to  i t i s they came to be told.  said earlier that i n each conversational fragment the embedded each display a potentially related topical  178  orientation.  In  IX-2 the current t o p i c i n the t a l k p r i o r t o the s t o r y t e l l i n g i s "bars"  or  "taverns"  characterize  as  1  in  doing  a  context o f  something  good t h i n g s i n bad  we may  places'.  about  initally  In  IX-1  the  t o p i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n becomes 'massage p a r l o u r s ' i n the t a l k adjacent t o the s t o r y t e l l i n g . magazines.  In VI-6 the t a l k p r i o r t o B ' s s t o r y i s about g i r l i e  Another  related  feature  o f the s t o r i e s  is  that  each  s t o r y t e l l e r i s a p r i n c i p a l character i n the recounted events. These  observations i n themselves t e l l us very l i t t l e  relatedness suggest,  between n a r r a t i v e s and p r i o r ongoing t a l k .  as  a starting point,  t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n a l  about  the  Yet they  do  relationships  between the two elements do not ' j u s t happen', but are i n s t e a d r e s u l t s of  the  respective  attention. involved  This  conversationalists'  claim  management  would  need  to  be  listening  the t a l k as i t was proceeding i n order f o r the  storytellers generating  to  make  use o f t h a t ongoing t a l k f o r  the  when  to  assure  and  prospective purpose  In  of  fact,  c l a i m o f p r i o r studies o f conversational s t o r y t e l l i n g i s a  the  a s t o r y i n such a way t h a t the import and relevance o f the  s t o r y may be traced by the r e c i p i e n t t o the p r i o r t a l k . major  and  may be j u s t i f i e d i n p a r t by noting t h a t  conversationalists  analyzing  careful  s t o r y gets t o l d , that  the  i t i s the s t o r y t e l l e r ' s  that,  responsibility  s t o r y being t o l d i s being responsive t o and  a  to  has  a 3  definite  observable  Jefferson  (1978) has a neat example which demonstrates how s t o r y t e l l e r  inattention  relationship with  the  prior  ongoing  talk.  t o previous t a l k may r e s u l t i n a conversational ' t r o u b l e '  f o r the c o - c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s .  179  (Jefferson, 1978:229) Dan:  /Alright, except that again, you're, you're using an example of maybe one or two individuals  Roger: Yes Dan:  Uh;;m and saying well look what these people did. And the other idea i s that most schizophrenics, most psychotics are not really able to produce much of anything  Roger:  I'm not saying don't cure schi—I'm taking i t as an individual case. I'm taking this individual and referring to only=  c  c  Dan:  Mm hm, i t ' s true  Roger: =this individual Dan: 'S true, and I'm sure that his artwork uhm a l l you have to do i s go over t'Brentwood and see some very interesting artwork, I find i t interesting [ Roger: Dan: Ken:  Where at the hospital? That's right Yeah and you can also get into some of these millionaires' hou—homes. And they've bought, boughten some of these uh artworks from different places i n the world? You can look at 'em and—I mean I don't know anything about art, I can't-I can't draw that well I can draw cars, n junk like this when I want to, but uhh go into some of these houses and t h e y — i t looks like somebody took a squirtgun with paint i n i t an' just squirted i t . Justa buncha lines goin' every which way an' 'Oh isn't that t e r r i f i c ? ' 'Yeah, What i s i t ? ' y'know? 'Did your child have a good time when he was drawing that?' Whaddya mean that cost me-' y'know, hhh See but the other a l — a l t e r n a t i v e that you're giving me i s to say well look, m-m-maybe uh maybe a person has to be sick i n order to be able to see these things, 1  Dan:  Roger: No this man 180  Dan:  And I d o n ' t t h i n k  Dan:  And I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t ' s true  Roger: I d o n ' t t h i n k so e i t h e r , but t h i s m a n . . .  I n t h i s instance the s t o r y i s o r i e n t e d t o by the r e c i p i e n t s t o be 'irrelevant' What  t o the ongoing t a l k .  happened  'fit'  Thus i t i s s e q u e n t i a l l y  i s t h a t the s t o r y t e l l e r offered a s t o r y which d i d  i n t o the p r i o r t u r n - b y - t u r n t a l k .  but  schizophrenics.  Dan's  deleted.  The t o p i c i s not  Ken' s s t o r y appears t o get  not art  triggered  by  reference t o artwork as support f o r the p o t e n t i a l c r e a t i v i t y o f  schizophrenics. t a l k and,  As  such,  Ken's s t o r y has no r e l a t i o n t o the  as i s n o t i c e a b l e i n the t r a n s c r i p t , h i s s t o r y i s ignored by  Roger and Dan.  There was no o r i e n t a t i o n ,  no d i s p l a y o f a  ship,  between Ken's s t o r y and the ongoing conversation.  then,  by  between  prior  a  examining  conversational m a t e r i a l s t h a t  the  relationWe can see,  relationship  s t o r y and previous t a l k ought t o be r o u t i n e l y  negotiated.  The i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s i s t h a t the generation o f a s t o r y i n conversat i o n i s not independent o f the ongoing t a l k but i s ,  r a t h e r , a product  4 of that t a l k . G a i l Jefferson,  i n "Sequential Aspects o f S t o r y t e l l i n g "  (1978),  examines s t o r y beginnings and s t o r y endings and discovers two features by which a s t o r y can be seen t o be embedded i n t u r n - b y - t u r n t a l k . writes: The occurrence o f an utterance a t a given moment i s accountable, and a b a s i c account i s t h a t a next utterance i s produced by reference t o the occurrence o f a p r i o r , t h a t i s , i s occasioned by i t . . . T h e l o c a l 181  She  occasioning o f a story. . . c a n have two discreet aspects: (a) A story i s "triggered" i n the course o f t u r n by-turn t a l k . . . [ a n d ] (b) A story i s methodically introduced i n t o turn-by-turn t a l k . That i s , techniques are used t o d i s p l a y a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the story and p r i o r t a l k and thus account for, and propose the appropriateness of, the s t o r y ' s t e l l i n g (1978:220). With  this  follows:  o r i e n t a t i o n i n mind,  how  does  someone  go  I formulate  about  the  orienting  'problem'  to  as  pre-narrative  discourse so as to transform the r e s u l t s o f that o r i e n t a t i o n i n such a way  that a narrative gets generated?  I now turn t o an i n v e s t i g a t i o n  o f the materials from which the 'problem' a r i s e s . Before tangential  proceeding to the analysis, question:  why does  I want to b r i e f l y  anyone want to t e l l  contains r i s k y information i n the f i r s t place?  a  pursue  story  a  which  As Goffman notes i n a  recent a r t i c l e , "How an i n d i v i d u a l i n t a l k . . . c a n properly lead up t o a revealing  report has never been c l o s e l y studied" (1983:46).  materials  under i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l l o f the s t o r i e s seem to  that could e a s i l y have been suppressed. get  told?  constrained Rather, there  It's  that  the  storyteller  a  our  stories  then, d i d they come t o may  be  found  to  neither  duress  nor  structural  constraints  be  managed.  cursory examination o f the t r a n s c r i p t s reveals  story containing r i s k - t a k i n g sequences. In  be  t o t e l l the story and that that must somehow be  even are  not  How,  In the  to  that  tell  a  Then why i s i t done?  culture we f i n d that one way o f establishing oneself  the favor o f another i s by t e l l i n g something,  in  d i s c l o s i n g information, 5  which  shows the other person that he or she i s being  trusted.  One  kind o f thing that gets disclosed are ' r i s k y ' kinds o f things, such as 182  telling  a  friend  about your sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p with your  about an unusual or embarrassing personal experience. in  our  culture intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p s or any kind  between  'friends'  must involve 'trust' to  materials  to  discover  and  some  wife  pr  I take i t that  of  relationships  degree.  describe  Thus,  examining  our  sequences  we cannot leave out these kinds o f considerations from  in  interactional the  i n t e r a c t i o n a l concerns operating i n a segment o f t a l k .  With an issue  like  away  'trust'  a  r e c i p i e n t has  it  available  conversation i n which a 'risky' story was view  go  from  t o l d not so much disposed  the s t o r y t e l l e r i n a negative l i g h t as much as t o say,  good guy. We had a nice t a l k . He trusted  There i s , however, issue i s concern  "He's  a to a  me."  a deeper issue involved.  The more relevant  protecting the current i n t e r a c t i o n , and i n t h i s chapter my is  with  members' methods o f  sustaining  attending  to the sequencing 'problem' .  part  a  of  interaction,  conversationalist's which  may  work  i n t e r a c t i o n a l issue,  interaction  For example, is  to  one  protect  a l s o contribute t o some  keeping a personal r e l a t i o n s h i p going. the  to  larger  while  important  the  current  task,  But i t i s t h i s deeper  i.e. issue,  which concerns us here and which I want  to  t r e a t separately i n r e l a t i o n to pre-narrative sequencing i n discourse.  Recall  i n Goffman's treatment o f 'face-work' that,  person i s expected to have self-respect, have a c e r t a i n considerateness in  our  protect  culture the  interacts.  a  Goffman  and  or respect f o r others.  face  of  those  with  That i s to say,  certain whom  lengths that  suggests that t h i s respect for others'  183  any  a person i s a l s o expected t o  person i s expected to go to  feelings  just as  to  person face  is  willing  and  o t h e r s and  spontaneous because o f t h e e m o t i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  their feelings.  I n h i s words, a p e r s o n " . . . i s  t o w i t n e s s t h e defacement o f o t h e r s "  (1967:10).  He  with  disinclined  continues:  The combined e f f e c t o f t h e r u l e o f s e l f r e s p e c t and t h e r u l e o f c o n s i d e r a t e n e s s i s t h a t the person tends t o conduct h i m s e l f d u r i n g an e n c o u n t e r so as t o m a i n t a i n b o t h h i s own f a c e and t h e f a c e o f t h e o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s . T h i s means t h a t t h e l i n e t a k e n by each p a r t i c i p a n t i s u s u a l l y allowed t o p r e v a i l , and e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t i s a l l o w e d t o c a r r y o f f t h e r o l e he appears t o have chosen f o r hims e l f . A s t a t e where everyone t e m p o r a r i l y a c c e p t s everyone e l s e ' s l i n e i s e s t a b l i s h e d . T h i s k i n d o f mutual a c c e p t a n c e seems t o be a b a s i c s t r u c t u r a l feature o f i n t e r a c t i o n , esp e c i a l l y the i n t e r a c t i o n o f f a c e - t o - f a c e t a l k (1967:11, emphases m i n e ) .  I  now  want t o r e t u r n t o t h e a n a l y t i c a l  issues.  My  analytical  i n t e r e s t a t t h i s p o i n t i s t o i n q u i r e i n t o the s t r u c t u r a l features make  possible  sequences  the  from  generation  of  p r i o r ongoing t a l k .  a  story One  containing  that  risk-taking  o f the reasons f o r  focusing  a n a l y t i c a l a t t e n t i o n on s t o r i e s c o n t a i n i n g r i s k y sequences i s t h a t p r e - n a r r a t i v e sequencing i s s u e s a r e c l e a r - c u t and perhaps more  the  easily  grasped.  Sometimes choice  there  are  circumstances which g i v e a  b u t t o d i s c l o s e r i s k y o r dangerous i n f o r m a t i o n  I n s u c h s i t u a t i o n s t h e r e may example  of  a  a s k s him,  'what  little  i n story  form.  t o manage  constraining feature b u i l t i n t o a s i t u a t i o n  something l i k e t h e f o l l o w i n g : B,  be a p r o b l e m o f how  person  A comes home a t 4:00  "Where have you been?"  happened'.  Such  a.m.  would  An be  and h i s w i f e ,  A i s constrained to t e l l  a s i t u a t i o n c r e a t e s an environment  184  that.  B about for  the  possible t e l l i n g of a risky story. there's  something b a c k i n g  merely that  up B's  Note t h a t , question.  i n such a  I t ' s n o t as though B  a s k i n g A t o t e l l h e r something p o t e n t i a l l y her  question i s locked i n t o a  w h i c h a l l o w s B t o ask stories  embarrassing,  social-organizational  such a q u e s t i o n .  is but  framework  Thus, t h e r e a r e o c c a s i o n s when  g e t t o l d because t h e t e l l e r i s s i t u a t i o n a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d .  r e f e r t o t h a t k i n d o f t e l l i n g as a C l a s s I s t o r y : a  situation,  s o c i a l - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l framework,  I  a story locked i n t o  a n a r r a t i v e which gets  generated  out o f a s i t u a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t .  But  t h e r e i s s u r e l y a n o t h e r c l a s s o f s t o r i e s as d i s p l a y e d i n o u r  materials—Class  II  g e n e r a t e d o u t o f any am p r o p o s i n g ,  then,  s t o r i e s — w h i c h are volunteered. structural, two  c o n v e n i e n c e , C l a s s I and  They  are  not  social-organizational constraint.  c l a s s e s o f s t o r i e s which I am Class I I .  The  calling,  'problem' I f o r m u l a t e d  I for  earlier  i s g e n e r a t e d frcm C l a s s I I s t o r i e s .  S o l u t i o n t o t h e Sequencing Problem  Earlier  I  tell  a  to begin  to  upon t h i s f e a t u r e i s by examining and comparing t h e c o n t e n t s  of  s t o r y a r e t o be build the  prior  resources story, prior  s a i d t h a t the resources  for a storyteller to  found i n t h e p r i o r a d j a c e n t  talk.  t a l k and t h e f o l l o w i n g s t o r i e s i n o r d e r  One  to  way  discover  r e l a t i n g t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h i s k i n d o f s t o r y .  any talk,  story,  t o be  the For  seen a s b e i n g d e r i v e d from and o c c a s i o n e d  i t must be c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h a t t e n t i o n t o what  185  is  a by  being  talked  about.  attention  We can  That i s ,  member  they are not 'second' s t o r i e s d e r i v e d  any s t r u c t u r a l resources from a preceding s t o r y .  followed  such  F i r s t , i t should be noted t h a t i n the t r a n s c r i p t s the  s t o r i e s stand alone.  by  'second'  constraints stories. Thus  of  by examining the conversational m a t e r i a l s presented e a r l i e r  i n the chapter.  from  begin t o see the i n t r i c a c y  which  stories,  would  although  inhibit  there  any development  are of  Nor are no  they  structural  a  series  These s t o r i e s are not preceded o r followed by other  we w i l l have t o look elsewhere f o r a s o l u t i o n t o our  of  stories.  formulated  problem. I have e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t s t o r i e s (a) normally emerge from t u r n - b y turn t a l k ;  that i s ,  storytellers  they are l o c a l l y occasioned; and (b)  must pay c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n t o the ongoing t a l k i n  t o make a s t o r y ' f i t ' i n w i t h t h a t t a l k . Jefferson  (1978) and Ryave (1978),  on  foundation  this  formulated  prospective  earlier:  how does  These are b a s i c notions from  respectively.  as we search f o r a  order  solution  someone go about  I now want t o b u i l d to  the  orienting  'problem' to  pre-  n a r r a t i v e discourse so as t o transform the r e s u l t s o f t h a t o r i e n t a t i o n in  such a way t h a t a s t o r y may be generated?  formulated,  l e t us r e t u r n to I X - 2 .  With the problem  S p e c i f i c a l l y , consider the t a l k  preceding W's s t o r y .  (rx-2) W:  W e l l , we're k i n d a t r y i n g t o get the men's prayer breakfast going again. The t h i n g got i n t o k i n d o f a r u t again o f j u s t being k i n d o f a s o c i a l time, not r e a l l y meeting anybody's needs, ' n I d o n ' t r e a l l y get o f f on g e t t i n ' up e a r l y on a Saturday morning 186  thus  j u s t t o b e a t t h e — b e a t t h e bush, y'know, w i t h a bunch o f guys R:  Yeah, I c a n d i g t h a t  W:  I e n j o y t h a t , b u t , y'know, I don't n e c e s s a r i l y e n j o y d o i n g i t i n a r e s t a u r a n t , so, y'know, t h e r e ' s b a r s t o do t h a t k i n d o f t h i n g i n  c  ((mutual R:  laughter))  Maybe we s h o u l d have a F r i d a y n i g h t meeting a t tonkin's Pub ((mutual  W:  laughter))  Hey, l i s t e n , I ' l l t e l l y o u a funny  [STORY]  I n t h i s t r a n s c r i p t we c a n s e e t h e a t t e n t i o n b e i n g p a i d t o t h e two issues  ( a and b ) ,  displays talk, a  discussed  evidence  i n the previous  paragraph.  o f having paid c a r e f u l attention  That i s ,  to  the  W  ongoing  namely, h i s s t o r y i s d e r i v e d from t h e ongoing t a l k about h a v i n g  prayer  breakfast  jokingly, manages  of  in a  restaurant  and  the  suggestion,  having a prayer meeting i n a tavern.  albeit  Furthermore,  t o c o n s t r u c t h i s s t o r y from m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d  i n that  he  talk.  One i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s a t t e n t i o n i s t h a t W d i d n o t have i t i n mind t o tell  about  how  h e happened t o h e l p a f r i e n d  conversation  got started.  turn t a l k .  Note, f i r s t ,  mere s e t t i n g s ( i . e . appears  to  gatherings"  The s t o r y g e t s  spiritually  when  the  'triggered' by the turn-by-  t h a t t h e t o p i c i n t h e p r i o r t a l k goes beyond  banks,  restaurants,  etc.).  That i s , the t o p i c  be i n a s t a t e o f f l u x from " p r a y e r m e e t i n g s " i n "restaurants"  and "bars" r e s p e c t i v e l y .  to  What  "social actually  i s t h e t a l k about?  I e a r l i e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e p r e - s t o r y t a l k i n IX-2  as  'doing good t h i n g s i n bad  something  like  having a prayer meeting i n a t a v e r n .  187  places',  f o r example,  Further, W i n i t i a t e s the joking  about  "bars"  thing  in",  by t a l k i n g about how " t h e r e ' s bars t o do t h a t  s t o r y i n the very next utterance by combining two elements o f the talk  created  i n the t a l k by saying,  i n order t o extend the j o k i n g c l i m a t e  meeting i n Donkin's Pub". would  obviously  incongruent tavern.  been night  which  having a  prayer  may be r e f e r r e d t o as  meeting, 'bad',  a  in  an  bar  or  I t ' s a s t o r y , then, t h a t i s both t r i g g e r e d and s t r u c t u r e d by  invoked a  neutral friend  has  The humour turns on something which W and R  consider 'good',  setting  which  "Maybe we should have a F r i d a y  ongoing t a l k and what the t a l k i s ' a b o u t ' .  have  place  After a l l ,  vague s e t t i n g such as a "restaurant" for  or  the recounting about how he happened  W could some  to  such  help  a  s p i r i t u a l l y w h i l e w a i t i n g f o r the l i n e o f cars a t the d r i v e - i n  window a t the bank t o dwindle. materials  in  But then he would not be u t i l i z i n g the  the ongoing t a l k t o generate a s t o r y which  lead t o a conversational t r o u b l e . to  the  R then provides the a c t u a l resources f o r  ongoing  the  of  w i t h " t h a t k i n d o f t h i n g " r e f e r r i n g back t o "beating  bush w i t h a bunch o f guys". W's  kind  R to  then  That i s , i t would then be a v a i l a b l e  question the relatedness between W's s t o r y  ongoing t a l k .  could  and  The s t o r y wouldn't ' f i t ' i n t o t h a t t a l k .  the  prior  As i t i s , the  s t o r y f i t s i n t o the ongoing t a l k because i t was r e l e v a n t t o t h a t t a l k , and got generated out o f i t . Note, topical  too,  that  the s t o r y i s not o n l y preceded by the  c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f 'doing good things i n bad p l a c e s ' but  i s a l s o followed by the same c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . though  general  W wants  That i s ,  t o t e l l R a s t o r y about how he happened  i t ' s not as to  help  f r i e n d s p i r i t u a l l y but t h e r e ' s the hazard o f the t u r n - b y - t u r n t a l k  188  it  a to  deal w i t h . elements place,  On the contrary, the s t o r y gets generated out o f the very that  make  i t a somewhat r i s k y s t o r y t o t e l l i n  out o f t a l k about "prayer meetings",  about  activities  having  the  first  " t a v e r n s " , and the joking  t h e i r proper s e t t i n g s  and  the  humour  of  considering v i o l a t i n g those s e t t i n g s , about having a prayer meeting i n a tavern.  And t h i s i s the crux o f the matter.  Contained w i t h i n t h i s  observation i s the s o l u t i o n t o the formulated problem, will  and w i t h i t we  be able t o c h a r a c t e r i z e the i n t e r a c t i o n a l work a s t o r y t e l l e r can  engage  in  talk.  The  "Maybe  we should have a F r i d a y n i g h t meeting a t Donkin's Pub"  triggers  when generating a r i s k y or dangerous  story  from  ongoing  important t h i n g t o note here i s t h a t i t i s R ' s utterance,  the  story.  We may say t h a t R's  utterance  which  captures  the  essence o f the ongoing t a l k i n capsule form which then provides W w i t h the  resources f o r g e t t i n g h i s s t o r y t o l d ,  for  g e t t i n g i t t o l d but the impetus f o r g e t t i n g i t remembered i n  first  place.  relevant story, the  necessary  So  and not o n l y the resources the  R ' s utterance does the work o f reminding W o f  a l b e i t a r i s k y one, material  a  w h i l e a t the same time p r o v i d i n g  f o r g e t t i n g the s t o r y t o l d .  It's  not  the  s t o r y t e l l e r but the other who f i r s t makes a k i n d o f r i s k y comment, but does i t as a joke.  The s p e c i f i c p o i n t i s t h a t i t i s not W who  first  generates a r i s k y suggestion, but R, a l b e i t humorously. Now we have a n o t i o n ,  derived from our i n i t i a l i n t u i t i o n  about  s t o r i e s , t h a t i s a n a l y t i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g : people have i t a v a i l a b l e t o tell  ' r i s k y ' s t o r i e s when something ' r i s k y ' i s already present i n the  ongoing t a l k . want  to  check  transcripts.  Since such a n o t i o n i s derived from one t r a n s c r i p t , we and see i f i t i s perhaps  happening  in  other  story  Then we can note w i t h i n t e r a c t i o n a l i n t e r e s t whether o r 189  not 1  there i s some r i s k already being taken i n the ongoing t a l k ,  danger  i n the a i r 1 ,  which provides m a t e r i a l s f o r the generation  the r i s k y s t o r y which f o l l o w s t h a t t a l k . at  provided  sequencing  in  interactional  in  how a import  the  prior  discover i f there  evident i n the ongoing t a l k ,  a  turn-by-turn t a l k ,  s t o r y gets t r i g g e r e d , to  of  I f , a f t e r a l l , we're looking  how a prospective s t o r y t e l l e r i s able t o generate  resources  some  then i t was  story and  is  already  at  surely some  from the of risk  some danger already ' i n the a i r ' , a t the  p r e c i s e moment a t which a ' r i s k y ' s t o r y gets generated. What  I  want t o do now i s t o look a t the other t r a n s c r i p t s  from  the beginning o f t h i s chapter w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n d i s c o v e r i n g whether or  not there i s some k i n d o f danger already ' i n the a i r ' p r i o r t o the  t e l l i n g of a 'risky' story.  F i r s t , i n VI-6.  (VI-6) A:  Yeah, w e l l , Jimmy C a r t e r s a i d he l u s t e d f o r women i n h i s h e a r t ' n everybody got upset  (1) (2)  B:  Oh, so you subscribe t o Playboy, huh?  (3)  A:  Funnnny, i f I ever brought home a Playboy my w i f e would k i l l me  (4) (5)  B:  Do you (I.O) d ' y u ever look a t the covers o f g i r l i e magazines?  (6) (7)  A:  I c a n ' t h e l p but look, i t ' s an occupational hazard  (8) (9)  B:  W e l l , I j u s t happened t o n o t i c e t h a t Penthouse i s doing a t h r e e - p a r t s e r i e s on the Jer—on J e r r y F a l w e l l  (10) (11) (12)  A:  Oh, I d i d n ' t see t h a t , I ' l l have t o p i c k one up hehe  (13) (14)  B:  Oh, yeah, y'know  (15)  [  [STORY] 190  Two may  r a t h e r apparent features o f the above conversation which we  note  gets  are the l o c a l occasioning o f the s t o r y and t h a t  triggered  in  the course o f  turn-by-turn t a l k .  the As  story  for  the  utterance t h a t t r i g g e r s the s t o r y , i t appears t h a t A ' s utterance, "Oh, I  didn't  see  that,  utterance  in  something  t h a t he normally wouldn't do,  responds saying  IX-2.  I ' l l have t o p i c k one up", That i s ,  A suggests something k i n d  with a risky disclosure story. that  he  is similar of  he  something  Notice,  t h a t A i s not  too,  wouldn't look a t a Playboy magazine  I f we take A ' s utterance s t r a i g h t , t h a t might be forbidden.  but  comment Then, and  and  his  i n a j o k i n g manner. then  when he  the  B  says, But one  risk-sharing  he i s proposing t o do is  He's proposing t o do something  What he ends up doing i s  undermining h i s own comment by  joking  making about  a it.  j o k i n g about i t allows B t o take h i s utterance e i t h e r way,  B takes i t i n a r a t h e r serious way w i t h the  utterance,  (1.0) d ' y u ever look a t the covers o f g i r l i e magazines?". A ' s utterance not o n l y t r i g g e r s B ' s s t o r y , for  and  Note t h a t i n t h i s utterance A  making a very male k i n d o f statement. risky,  risky,  vein,  i s doing w i t h t h a t utterance i s b u i l d i n g  structure.  R's  i n a humorous  " . . . i f I ever brought home a Playboy my w i f e would k i l l me". thing  to  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f B ' s s t o r y .  whole was a l i t t l e r i s k y ,  "Do you I t ' s as i f  but A ' s utterance provides  Up t o t h a t p o i n t the t a l k as  but then w i t h A ' s utterance,  a  "Oh, I d i d n ' t  see t h a t , I ' l l have t o p i c k one up hehe", B has i t a v a i l a b l e t o n o t i c e that  A i s a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the r i s k y t a l k .  B then p i c k s up  on t h a t o r i e n t a t i o n t o the r i s k y t a l k on A ' s p a r t and produces a s t o r y which i s r e l e v a n t t o t h a t o r i e n t a t i o n . 191  So there i s some k i n d o f r i s k  'in  the  air'  in  t h e ongoing t a l k ,  a  risk  oriented  to  by  both  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s and p l a y e d w i t h b y b o t h , w h i c h does t h e work o f o n l y g e t t i n g t h e s t o r y remembered b u t t o l d . w h i c h has been i n t r o d u c e d risky story. story,  Not  i n t o a conversation  after  the resources  risk a  reminded o f a r i s k y  w i t h some k i n d o f r i s k a l r e a d y  f o r someone t o t e l l a r i s k y s t o r y .  present, One  may,  a l l , be reminded o f a s t o r y as a r e s u l t o f m o n i t o r i n g t a l k y e t  choose n o t t o t e l l i t o r may of talk. for  the  can remind someone o f  o n l y can a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t be  b u t t h e ongoing t a l k ,  provides  T h a t i s t o say,  not  a  I n VT-6,  have t r o u b l e i n t r o d u c i n g i t i n t o t h e  however, B i s n o t o n l y p r o v i d e d w i t h an  s t o r y t o g e t t r i g g e r e d as a r e s u l t o f m o n i t o r i n g  t a l k , he  i s a l s o p r o v i d e d w i t h an o c c a s i o n  One  ongoing  How  so?  upon w h i c h I am b u i l d i n g i s t h a t  i t  i s n o t uncommon t o f i n d i n s t a n c e s o f s t o r y t e l l i n g i n which a s t o r y  is  told  feature o f conversation  opportunity the  for telling i t .  flow  i n s u c h a manner t h a t i t can be  derived that  from t h e p r e v i o u s  B's  about  lust,  the  I n VT-6,  f o r example,  s t o r y g e t s g e n e r a t e d from a t t e n t i o n p a i d t o t h e  contents. of  talk.  seen as b e i n g o c c a s i o n e d  s k i n magazines l i k e P l a y b o y and Further,  Penthouse,  "Oh,  so you  s u b s c r i b e t o Playboy, huh?" and  see t h a t , I ' l l have t o p i c k one  up hehe".  the t a l k i s recognized,  a n o t h e r v i a j o k i n g about i t . are  actively  and  can  note  prior  talk  and n o t i c i n g  Playboy "Oh,  The  and  I didn't  I t ' s as i f what A and B  t a l k i n g about i s seen by b o t h t o be somewhat r i s k y . of  and  we have i t a v a i l a b l e t o n o t i c e t h e j o k i n g n a t u r e  r e s p o n s e s t o t h e mention o r i m p l i c a t i o n o f b o t h  Penthouse;  we  by  are  r i s k y nature  and t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n i s d i s p l a y e d t o And,  as we  n o t e d e a r l i e r , b o t h A and  concertedly displaying t h e i r  192  one  recognition  of  B  the  danger one  which i s ' i n the a i r ' i n the t a l k .  I t ' s not a case i n  i s j o k i n g about i t and t h e o t h e r i s p a s s i v e .  recognition then,  to  can see t h e same t h i n g happening i n  talk,  a s t o r y which may  be c o n s t r u c t e d from m a t e r i a l s i n t h e p r i o r t a l k as  from an o r i e n t a t i o n t o t h e r i s k y n a t u r e o f t h e  We  participant  and o r i e n t a t i o n t o t h e r i s k p r e s e n t i n t h e ongoing  B chooses t o t e l l a somewhat r i s k y s t o r y ,  seen  After  which  well  be as  talk.  LX-1.  (IX-1) B:  When do you p l a y t h i s week?  A:  We're sposed t o p l a y Doherty's Thursday and t h e n S a t u r d a y i t ' s G i n g e r ' s Sexy Sauna  B:  They have a team?  A:  Yeah, b u t i t must be made up o f c l i e n t s , t h e r e ' s , I doubt t h e r e ' s any guys working there  B;  Yeah  A:  Man, I wonder what goes on i n one those p l a c e s ?  B:  Yeah, I went t o one once  The "Man, the  I  story.  [STORY]  t h i n g t o n o t e i n IX-1  i s t h a t i t i s A's  wonder what goes on i n one o f t h o s e p l a c e s " ,  s t o r y b y B.  talk  first  important  of  We may  which t r i g g e r s  say t h a t A's u t t e r a n c e i n i t i a t e s  i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t o w h i c h B responds w i t h a r i s k y As i n IX-2 makes  recipient.  a In  and VI-6,  kind  of  utterance,  the  risky  disclosure  i t ' s not the prospective s t o r y t e l l e r  r i s k y comment  but  the  prospective  who  story  each c o n v e r s a t i o n I have so f a r n o t e d t h e f e a t u r e  of  r i s k y t a l k i n the turn-by-turn t a l k p r i o r t o the t e l l i n g o f the s t o r y .  193  I  have a l s o noted t h a t the prospective s t o r y r e c i p i e n t  provides  s t o r y t r i g g e r by o r i e n t i n g t o the r i s k y nature o f the t a l k .  the  Now l e t ' s  take i t a step f u r t h e r . If turn  we assume t h a t the t o