Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization (Studies in Discourse and Grammar)

Compliments and Compliment Responses

Studies in Discourse and Grammar Studies in Discourse and Grammar is a monograph series providing a forum for research on grammar as it emerges from and is accounted for by discourse contexts. The assumption underlying the series is that corpora reflecting language as it is actually used are necessary, not only for the verification of grammatical analyses, but also for understanding how the regularities we think of as grammar emerge from communicative needs. Research in discourse and grammar draws upon both spoken and written corpora, and it is typically, though not necessarily, quantitative. Monographs in the series propose explanations for grammatical regularities in terms of recurrent discourse patterns, which reflect communicative needs, both informational and socio-cultural.

Editors Sandra A. Thompson University of California at Santa Barbara Department of Linguistics Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA

Paul J. Hopper Carnegie Mellon University Department of English Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA

Volume 15 Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical structure and sequential organization by Andrea Golato

Compliments and Compliment Responses Grammatical structure and sequential organization

Andrea Golato University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam
/
Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Andrea Golato Compliments and Compliment Responses : Grammatical structure and sequential organization / Andrea Golato. p. cm. (Studies in Discourse and Grammar, issn 0928–8929 ; v. 15) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general. 2. Compliments. I. Title. II. Series. P299.C593G65 2004 401’.41--dc22 isbn 90 272 2625 3 (Eur.) / 1 58811 599 2 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2004046239

© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

For Peter

Table of contents

Acknowledgements Chapter 1 Preliminaries 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Sequence organization and the study of compliments 2 1.3 Interaction and grammar 4 1.4 Methodology 6 1.5 Outline of the individual chapters 6 Chapter 2 Methodology 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Instruments of data collection 12 2.2.1 Discourse completion tasks (DCTs) and questionnaires 12 2.2.2 Role-plays 15 2.2.3 Field observation 17 2.2.4 Recall protocols 19 2.2.5 Recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction 20 2.2.6 Summary on data collection procedures 21 2.3 Generalizability 22 2.4 The data for the present corpus 24 Chapter 3 Giving compliments: The design of first compliment turns 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Reference to the assessable 29 3.2.1 Locally initial reference forms in locally initial positions (NPs and 2PS Pronoun), and locally subsequent reference forms in locally subsequent positions 36 3.2.2 Locally subsequent forms in locally subsequent positions 44

xi

1

11

27

 Table of contents

3.3

3.4

3.5 3.6

3.2.3 Locally initial forms in locally subsequent positions 50 3.2.4 Locally subsequent reference forms in locally initial position 54 3.2.4.1 Demonstrative pronouns used as reference to the assessable 54 3.2.4.2 No overt reference to the assessable when reference is in locally initial position 62 3.2.5 Locally subsequent forms and locally initial forms in locally initial positions 67 3.2.6 Summary of reference to assessable 72 Syntactic features of compliment turns 73 3.3.1 Verb-first constructions 73 3.3.2 Right dislocation (endpositioning) 75 Semantic features of compliment turns 77 3.4.1 Verbs used in compliment turns 77 3.4.2 Appreciatory sounds 78 3.4.3 Adjectives 82 Topics of compliments 83 Gender 83

Chapter 4 Giving compliments: Sequential embedding and function of first compliment turns 4.1 Introduction 85 4.2 The form of an utterance (alone) does not determine its function 86 4.3 Compliments in dispreferred environments 95 4.3.1 Compliments as components of dispreferred second pair parts 95 4.3.2 Compliments as components of dispreferred first pair parts 100 4.4 Compliments in preferred environments 106 4.4.1 Compliments as parts of preferred second pair parts 106 4.4.2 Compliments as first pair parts 116 4.5 Discussion 126

85

Table of contents

Chapter 5 Compliments in multi-party interactions: Third parties providing second compliments 5.1 Introduction 133 5.2 Shape of a second compliment – Why this shape now? 134 5.2.1 Gustatory mmmh 135 5.2.2 Agreement 137 5.2.3 Response pursuit marker 141 5.2.4 Brief assessment 147 5.2.5 Discussion: What do these forms accomplish? What are some of the differences between them? 150 5.3 Placement of the turn in relation to the compliment response 152 5.4 Compliments and multi-party talk 155 5.5 Discussion 165 Chapter 6 Compliment responses 6.1 Introduction 167 6.2 Compliment responses in American English 169 6.3 Compliment responses in German 174 6.4 Systematic features of German compliment responses 185 6.4.1 Compliments in dispreferred first pair parts 185 6.4.2 Responses to compliments given as part of dispreferred second pair parts 186 6.4.3 Responses to compliments in preferred first pair parts 189 6.4.4 Responses to compliments given in preferred second pair parts 190 6.4.5 Summary of response type in relationship to function of the compliment 191 6.5 Topic and gender 191 6.6 Comparison of American and German compliment responses 193 6.6.1 American English compliment responses in contrast to German compliment responses 193 6.6.2 A cross-cultural encounter 197 6.6.3 Implications for second language acquisition and teaching 199

133

167





Table of contents

Chapter 7 Concluding discussion 7.1 Summary of the findings 201 7.2 Broader implications 207 7.2.1 Sequence organization and methodology 7.2.2 Interaction and grammar 209 7.3 Directions of future research 210 Notes References Name index Subject index

201

207

213 227 241 245

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank everyone who allowed me to tape their conversations. Human subjects protocol prevents me from listing you, but you know who you are. This book could never have been written without your kind participation. This project was supported by funds from the University of Illinois Research Board, the University of Illinois Humanities Released Time Program, and the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I am very grateful for the many levels of support I have received from my home institution. I owe much to Maria Egbert and Jürgen Streeck who first introduced me to conversation analysis and supported me throughout my graduate student career and beyond. I would also like to thank Emanuel Schegloff, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and all the participants of the 2002 Conversation Analysis Advanced Study Institute at UCLA for feedback and encouragement on early ideas of this project. I am especially grateful to family, friends, and colleagues who helped with data collection, discussed data segments and ideas with me, and critically read some or even all versions of the various chapters: Tobias Barske, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Juliane Edenstrom, Maria Egbert, Peter Golato, Inga Harren, Makoto Hayashi, Gabi Kasper, Irene Koshik, Michèle Koven, Numa Markee, Liz Martin, Peggy Miller, Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, and Brigitte and Burkhard Vlatten. I also would like to thank Sandy Thompson for providing much encouragement and feedback. I also wish to thank Isja Conen, the editor at Benjamins, for guiding me through the production process. My most heartfelt thanks goes to my husband Peter for his love, support, and inspiration which are more precious to me than I can express with words. I gratefully dedicate this book to him.

Chapter 1

Preliminaries

. Introduction Compliments have been said to “grease the social wheels” and thus to serve as “social lubricants” (Wolfson 1983: 89). We all have given compliments and we all occasionally receive them, which may account for why they have received so much attention from a wide range of researchers working in different fields and with different languages. In fact, compliments and compliment responses have been studied in detail in twelve different languages,1 and in 6 varieties of English alone. The present study extends this work to compliments and compliment responses in German. Adopting conversation analysis (CA) as its methodology, this study views complimenting and responding to compliments as social actions which are co-produced and negotiated among interactants. The study explores the following questions: How are compliment turns designed in German? Are they formulaic speech events as they are said to be in other cultures? How is a compliment introduced linguistically into the ongoing conversation? How does it emerge from the context? How do speakers refer to the object about which the compliment is made? How are compliments responded to in German? How do speakers who are neither the compliment giver nor the compliment recipient react when someone else pays a compliment? Do compliments serve different interactional functions? If so, which ones? And finally, what in the speech event determines the complimenting function of a turn? Despite an abundance of research on complimenting behavior in other languages, so far the richest source of information on complimenting in German comes from etiquette books. However, etiquette books do not necessarily provide the information one would expect. In general, etiquette books give the impression that Germans are relatively incompetent with regard to compliments: Germans are said to pay relatively few compliments (Gesteland 1999: 247–248); they are said to be surprised by the sheer number of compliments paid in other cultures2 (Gesteland 1999: 247–248); and Germans are told how not to pay compliments, i.e., they are told not to phrase comments neg-



Chapter 1

atively as in Du siehst nicht schlecht aus / ‘You don’t look bad’, but instead to phrase them positively Du bist einfach bezaubernd! / ‘You are simply charming/enchanting’ (Naumann 2001: 125). Moreover, a surprising number of etiquette books feel the need to advise their German readership not to openly criticize a friend, host, or acquaintance if one does not like a particular item for which a compliment might be expected (Hanisch 1999; Hirscher 2000: 29; Naumann 2001: 104). By giving such overt advice, etiquette books are in effect attributing the tendency to criticize to their German readers. However, the etiquette books are not in agreement as to what the preferred behavior should be. While some recommend that one should simply be quiet and not say anything (Hanisch 1999; Hirscher 2000: 29; I. Leisi & Leisi 1993: 51; Naumann 2001: 105; Rätzke 2000: 31) or say something trivial (Märtin & Boeck 1998: 134; Sucher 1996: 160), others suggest paying a compliment even if it is one that is not quite truthful (Schwarze 1994). Similar discussions (and advice) can also be found in women’s magazines and online publications (Baggertipps 2000; Bluewin 2002; Eder 2002; Flirtlehrer 2001; Für-Sie.de 2001a, 2001b; Glamour 2002; Mück 2002; News-Aktuell 2000). Despite these unpromising statements, there are clear indications from research studies that Germans do pay compliments after all. Both Göttert (1987) and Steves (1995) provide a brief history of compliments and complimenting behavior in Germany. Schwarze (1994) presents a popular-scientific account based on German native-speaker intuitions, while Duttlinger (1999) additionally provides a detailed etymology of the term. These latter publications are similar to the etiquette books in that while they do not empirically test their claims, they nonetheless offer some suggestions about social conduct in German society (Goffman 1963: 5–6). As they limit themselves to providing lists and or descriptions of presumed appropriate behavior, Schwarze (1994) and Duttlinger (1999) fail to provide “an analysis of the system of norms underlying those proprieties” (Goffman 1963: 6).

. Sequence organization and the study of compliments The present study differs from the aforementioned accounts in that it adopts an empirical approach to the study of complimenting behavior. Using recordings from naturally occurring talk-in-interaction between family and friends, this study analyzes how the social action of complimenting is realized in natural settings. It thus focuses on actual language use as observed in the recordings, rather than on intuitions or metapragmatics. Put differently, the study focuses

Preliminaries

on those elements of the interaction upon which the participants in the interaction place relevance (as displayed through their actions), rather than what an analyst might deem a relevant category. Thus, similar to Pomerantz’s work on compliment responses in American English (Pomerantz 1978), the present study utilizes a sequential account of complimenting behavior. However, while Pomerantz solely focuses on compliment responses,3 the present study is the first of its kind to analyze the entire complimenting sequence; in other words, complimenting turns and compliment response turns are studied together within the larger interactional context. This type of analysis is in line with CA’s tenet that “. . .no empirically occurring utterance ever occurs outside, or external to, some specific sequence” (Heritage & Atkinson 1984: 6). Utterances are thus analyzed as actions that are positioned within specific sequential contexts (Schegloff 1988, 1995b). Context, in turn, is not viewed as existing as an independent entity which influences participants; rather, it is viewed as locally managed and co-produced in situ by the participants in the interaction (Auer & Di Luzio 1992; Duranti & Goodwin 1992; Goodwin 1995; Schegloff 1992); or, as Drew and Heritage (1992a: 165) put it, context is “treated as inherently locally produced, incrementally developed and, by extension, as transformable at any moment.” In this view of context, the primary units of analysis are sequences defined as “courses of actions implemented through talk” (Schegloff 1995b: 3), and turns within such sequences. The underlying idea is that turns-of-talk that are positioned next to each other have “some organization” between them (Sacks 1987 [1973]: 54). Specifically, any turn-of-talk is typically heard as directed to a prior turn of talk (unless of course, the speaker signals by way of misplacement markers (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson 1974: 728) that the talk is related to other matters). That is, by producing an utterance, speakers display to their coparticipants (a) that they attended to a prior utterance (or sequence of utterances), (b) how they understood the prior utterance, and (c) how they orient to the actions expressed in prior utterances (Schegloff 1984: 37). Thus, each turn at talk is shaped by the talk produced thus far. Given that interlocutors design their current turn with an orientation to where in the interaction it is placed (Schegloff 1984: 37), it is possible to study interaction from a members’ perspective: In sum, in examining talk the analyst is immediately confronted with an organization which is implemented on a turn-by-turn basis, and through which a context of publicly displayed and continuously updated intersubjective understandings is systematically sustained. It is through this turn-by-turn character of talk that the participants display their understandings of the state of the





Chapter 1

talk for one another, and because these understandings are publicly produced, they are available for analytic treatment by social scientists. (Heritage & Atkinson 1984: 11)

Just as a first speaker uses subsequent talk by the coparticipant to determine how his or her talk was understood, so the analyst also looks at the next turn to see how prior turns were understood (a procedure Hutchby and Woffitt label next-turn proof procedure (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 15)). This ensures that the analysis is grounded in the socially organized features of talk rather than in the intuitions or assumptions of the analyst. To date, no other study of compliments has adopted an empirical approach while at the same time analyzing compliments and compliment responses together in their sequential context. It is in this regard that the present study makes a contribution to the study of talk-in-interaction beyond German and should therefore be of interest to students of language and social interaction working with different languages. The present study demonstrates the interconnectedness of compliment first and second pair parts in terms of their design and function. Furthermore, it demonstrates the interconnectedness of sequence organization, turn design, and the function of a turn. Depending on where in the larger sequence a compliment is placed (e.g., whether it is placed in a preferred or dispreferred environment), a compliment performs a different function. The different function of a compliment will in turn influence how a compliment recipient responds to the compliment and how third parties orient to the compliment sequence. Put differently, the study shows that parties to the interaction are keenly aware of the placement, design, and function of the complimenting turns, as evidenced by their agreeing remarks and by their responses to compliments.

. Interaction and grammar In studying how compliment turns are embedded linguistically in the ongoing sequence and how the complimenting turns and compliment response turns are designed, the present study also makes a contribution to the growing body of work on ‘interaction and grammar’ (Ochs, Schegloff, & Thompson 1996), also called interactional linguistics (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2001).4 In this approach, grammar is not seen as an autonomous phenomenon, but rather as an interactional phenomenon and as such intricately intertwined with social action (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2001; Schegloff et al. 1996: 44). Schegloff et

Preliminaries

al. (1996: 44) specify the following three arguments with respect to the study of interaction and grammar: “(1) grammar organizes social interaction; (2) social interaction organizes grammar, and (3) grammar is a mode of interaction.” The first argument holds that grammar provides (structural) resources for the interlocutors to accomplish certain tasks or functions with their utterances. Studies with this focus have for example analyzed the role of syntax in turndesign and in turn-taking practices (e.g., Ford 1993, 2001; Ford & Thompson 1996; Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1996b); syntax and repair (e.g., Fox, Hayashi, & Jasperson 1996; Helasvuo 2001; Schegloff 1979; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks 1977); the role of prosody in interaction (e.g., Auer & Di Luzio 1992; CouperKuhlen 1993; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 1996); and the use and functions of connectors and particles in interaction (Hakulinen 2001; Mori 1999; Scheutz 2001; Sorjonen 2001; Tanaka 2001). The second argument views grammar as shaped by the social interaction for which it is used. It is in this area in particular that grammar is viewed as a joint accomplishment of the interlocutors. Studies adopting this approach have for example investigated topics such as anaphora (Ford & Fox 1996; Fox 1987, 1996; Sacks & Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 1996a); reported discourse (CouperKuhlen 1999; Golato 2000, 2002b, 2002c; Günthner 1999; Streeck 1988); and positions of certain grammatical items such as particles and tag questions (Fox et al. 1996; Hayashi 1997; Sorjonen 2001). The third point raised by Schegloff et al. (1996) constitutes a new conceptualization of grammar, one where “the linguistic shaping of an utterance is intertwined with the changing relationships among participants over interactional time” (Schegloff et al. 1996: 44). Work of this kind comprises Goodwin’s study (Goodwin 1981) presenting sentence and clause production as an interactional achievement of listeners and speakers; Lerner’s studies on collaborative completions (Lerner 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002); and Hayashi’s work on joint utterance construction (Hayashi 1999). As the chapter outline below demonstrates, this book contributes to the body of research on interaction and grammar in all three of these areas. It adds to the discussion of grammar’s impact on interaction by analyzing in detail the functions of linguistic resources that interlocutors use in designing their compliment turns and their compliment responses. I place particular emphasis on the role of syntax, semantics, and sequence organization in creating meaning. The book also demonstrates that the unfolding interaction has an impact on grammatical choices. For example, in discussing how speakers refer to an item or characteristics on which they will compliment their coparticipant, the study extends Fox’s (1987) work on anaphora (specifically, on person refer-





Chapter 1

ence) to include reference to inanimate objects. The discussion shows that the selection of referring expressions is dependent upon the sequential context of the compliment. And lastly, the book discusses the use and function of various particles in second compliments given in multi-party talk, demonstrating how speaker alignments and misalignments are accomplished through various grammatical forms.

. Methodology Compliments and compliment responses have been studied within a number of methodological frameworks based on a variety of different data collection procedures. These frameworks and instruments of data collection are discussed in much detail in Chapter 2. Having adopted CA and recordings of naturally occurring discourse as methodological framework and data base for this book has allowed me to draw conclusions about the social act of complimenting so far not mentioned in the literature on compliments. In presenting these findings in the various chapters, I point out that others working in different frameworks did not – or rather could not – make these observations, precisely because their data would not allow for the repeated introspection of compliment sequences as they unfold on a moment-by-moment basis.

. Outline of the individual chapters Chapter 2 describes the different data collection procedures that have been used in the past for studying compliments and compliment responses. These instruments of data collection are: discourse completion tasks and questionnaires, role play, recall protocols, field observation, and recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of these instruments with respect to studying actual language use (as opposed to studying intuitions, beliefs, or symbolic action). This discussion then provides a rationale for choosing both the data collection procedure (recordings of naturally occurring data) and methodological framework (CA) for the present study. The chapter concludes with a description of the data and the participants. Chapter 3 explores how compliments are embedded in the larger sequential context of the interaction. In this regard, I focus particularly on how compliment turns are constructed. Here, at least two elements are worth con-

Preliminaries

sidering. First, when speakers pay someone a compliment, they need to refer to the assessable for the coparticipant to know what the compliment is about (which will then enable them to respond to the compliment). The chapter explores how this reference is accomplished in interaction, and which interactional functions are associated with specific reference forms. Second, speakers also need to address the positiveness of their compliment assertion. The chapter explores how this positiveness is addressed by both semantic and syntactic means and which achievements are associated with individual constructions. I show that speakers do not randomly select referring expressions in compliments, but instead select them in a very systematic fashion. In this description, I demonstrate that the traditional linguistic accounts of anaphora which are based on notions such as “topic of the conversation” and “distance to the last mentioned item” (see, for instance, Givón 1983a, 1983b) fail to account for a substantial portion of the data – as they have also failed to account for Fox’s (1987) data on person reference. The description in Chapter 3 thus follows an approach to anaphora pioneered by Fox (1987, 1996), Schegloff (1996a), and Ford and Fox (1996). This approach adopts an interactional perspective, one in which the analysis of referring expressions is based on sequence organization and the members’ orientation to each other and to the talk at hand. The chapter corroborates research findings on person reference (Fox 1987; Sacks & Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 1996a) and extends them to the organization of reference to objects. Beyond referential expressions, the syntactic and semantic design of compliments demonstrates that speakers use specific constructions in order to place additional emphasis on the assessable and to create cohesion between themselves and their coparticipant. In fact, it is argued that the design of compliments in the present data is not obviously different from general assessments; it is only the context in which they are uttered that makes their interactional function recognizable. This particular aspect is the focus of Chapter 4. In other words, Chapter 4 ties together the discussion of the structural features of compliments, with the overall sequence organization of which compliments are a part. While not disputing the “formulaic character” (Manes & Wolfson 1981) of compliment turns, Chapter 4 argues that it is not the formulaic nature of compliments alone that makes them recognizable as compliments. In fact, I demonstrate that not every turn bearing the semantic and syntactic characteristics of a compliment actually performs the action of complimenting. I argue instead that it is the placement of a potential compliment turn within the larger sequence that determines its function. In other words, in line with other conversation analytic





Chapter 1

studies (Goodwin & Goodwin 1992b; Heritage 1984b; Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998; Schegloff 1995b), I demonstrate the interconnectedness of (a) the linguistic form the utterance takes, (b) the sequential context in which it is placed, and (c) the action it is performing. It has been noted in the literature (Wolfson 1983: 88) that compliments can “strengthen or even replace other speech-act formulas” such as apologies, thanks, and greetings, while they can also serve to mitigate or soften facethreatening acts such as criticisms, requests, or directives (Holmes 1986: 488, 500; Holmes & Brown 1987: 532). An explanation of these seemingly contradictory functions has so far been based on the semantics of compliment turns or on their proximity to other speech acts (Holmes 1986: 500; Wolfson 1983). To my knowledge, Chapter 4 is the first principled account of how compliments can be heard to have both strengthening and mitigating functions. This account is based on the sequential organization of talk-in-interaction; specifically, on preference organization. The discussion shows that compliments are regularly placed in both preferred and dispreferred environments. The chapter illustrates that the placement of the compliment has an impact on the action the compliment is performing; moreover, the chapter shows how such a placement is co-produced by the interactants and how it orients to the local contingencies of the unfolding interaction. While the previous chapters have focused primarily on first compliment turns, Chapter 5 specifically analyzes compliments in multi-party talk. Of particular interest here is the orientation of third-parties to the compliments (i.e., persons other than the compliment giver and the compliment recipient). The chapter analyzes when third parties provide agreeing compliments and where they place them in the interaction. The distribution of such agreeing turns across compliment functions indicates that interlocutors are highly sensitive to the function a given compliment is performing. Additionally, the chapter also analyzes the type of agreeing turns that third parties regularly produce. It is argued that each of the different agreeing turns can be associated with a specific interactional achievement. Thus, by analyzing the various types of agreeing turns and their functions, the chapter contributes not only to our understanding of the social act of complimenting, but also to our understanding of the functions of various response tokens, such as German response tokens and modal particles. Chapter 6 focuses on the preference organization of compliment responses in German, and is patterned after Pomerantz’s (1978) CA analysis of compliments in American English. In the present study, the analysis of German compliment responses is extended to include the design of the compliment

Preliminaries

turn, its function in discourse, and connections between the design of the compliment response and the function of the complimenting turn within the larger sequence. Since both Pomerantz’s study and Chapter 6 adopt a conversation analytic framework, Chapter 6 is unique in that it allows for a cross-cultural comparison of compliment response behavior in the two cultures. The data show that while rejections and turns containing certain agreement and disagreement features are constructed similarly in German and American English, it is in agreement sequences that the two languages differ. It is suggested that in such sequences, cross-cultural communication can become problematic. I then present one such example in which a nonnative speaker of English transferred the format of a German compliment response into American English, resulting in communication problems. The chapter ends with a discussion of the implications of Chapter 6 for applied linguistics, specifically second language acquisition. Chapter 7, the conclusion of the book, has a three-part structure. It first summarizes the findings presented in the previous chapters. Next, it discusses the broader implications of such findings, in terms of sequence organization and grammar and interaction. Finally, it discusses some of the limitations of the present study and outlines avenues of future research.



Chapter 2

Methodology*

. Introduction Investigations of phenomena related to talk-in-interaction, or conversation or discourse features of any kind, are typically based upon an analysis of data. An element of such investigations which has received relatively little attention concerns the nature of the data upon which these studies are based. Presumably, studies of talk-in-interaction use databases that have been compiled using similar methods of data collection that adequately capture those features of talk that are to be investigated. Yet one simply has to browse through any of the journals devoted to the study of discourse in order to see that there are a variety of data collection procedures and methodological frameworks available to students of discourse and pragmatics. Even when limiting oneself to reviewing the body of literature on a single speech event, for instance compliments, which are the focus of this book, it becomes immediately obvious that they have been studied within various methodological frameworks, using different tools and methods of data collection including: (a) discourse completion tasks and questionnaires (e.g., Barnlund & Akari 1985; Yuan 1996), (b) recall protocols (e.g., Knapp et al. 1984), (c) role play (e.g., Saito & Beecken 1997), (d) field observation (e.g., Herbert & Straight 1989, and many others; Wolfson & Manes 1980), and (e) recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction (Golato 2002a; Pomerantz 1978; Wieland 1995). This variety of methods of data collection may not be surprising since the research on compliments does not constitute one unified field of research. Compliments and compliment responses have been studied in detail in many different languages (see introduction), and they have been studied from a variety of different perspectives as well (e.g., pragmatics, second language analysis, conversation analysis, discourse analysis, speech act theory, and speech communication).1 Despite coming from different research directions, almost all of these studies include a discussion section reporting on what people are actually saying/doing when they are responding to a compliment. Significantly, most of the studies do not claim to address intuitions concerning compliments, the value



Chapter 2

that is placed on them in a given society, etc. Instead, they purport to describe actual language use: the forms and formats of a compliment response, the comparison of compliment responses in different languages, and occasionally the applications of their findings to language teaching. Here, then, the question of selecting an appropriate method of data collection becomes crucial. I would argue that in fact, many such studies of compliments and compliment responses do not – in fact, cannot – describe actual language use, simply because their analyses are not based upon data that illustrate actual language use with sufficient granularity. In other words, due to an inappropriate choice of data collection procedure, the claims of many published articles on compliment and compliment responses may need to be attenuated. In this chapter, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method of data collection with reference to the study of compliments and compliment responses. This discussion then provides a rationale for choosing both the data collection procedure and methodological framework for the present study. The chapter concludes with a description of the data and the participants.

. Instruments of data collection In this section, I present the five data collection procedures that have been used in the past for the study of compliments and compliment responses (discourse completion tasks and questionnaires, recall protocols, role play, field observation, and recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction). This discussion is by no means an attempt to present recordings of naturally occurring data; i.e., recordings of interactions that would have taken place even without the recording equipment present2 as being the most suitable for any and all research questions; nor is it the intent of this chapter to claim that other data collection procedures are of dubious value.3 It is simply argued that compared to data collection instruments routinely used in CA studies, the other data collection instruments discussed here are inappropriate for studying actual language use. ..

Discourse completion tasks (DCTs) and questionnaires

In discourse completion tasks and (production) questionnaires, subjects are presented with a situation in which a compliment (or a compliment response) is believed to be the next relevant action. Subjects are then invited to note what they would say or how they would react in this situation. This method

Methodology

of data collection has many administrative advantages (Billmyer & Varghese 2000), for example allowing the researcher to control for certain variables (i.e., age of respondents, features of the situation, etc.) and to quickly gather large amounts of data (Beebe & Cummings 1985) without any need for transcription (Johnston, Kasper, & Ross 1998), thus making it easy to statistically compare responses from native and nonnative speakers (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984, this latter topic will be addressed further in Section 2.3 below). However, it has been pointed out in the literature that data collected with this method do not always correspond to natural data (Aston 1995; Golato 2003; Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig 1992; Holmes 1991), a criticism that has been leveled at other forms of elicited data as well (Kasper & Dahl 1991; Rose 1992; Sacks 1992: Part I: 27). The above-mentioned studies find that while some categories and responses are identical in both DCTs and in naturally occurring discourse, there are enough differences between the data sets to confirm that DCTs do not provide reliable examples of what speakers are actually doing when interacting with coparticipants. Similar to role plays (to be discussed below), DCTs are in a crucial sense metapragmatic in that they explicitly require participants not to conversationally interact, but to articulate what they believe would be situationally-appropriate responses within possible, yet imaginary, interactional settings. As such, responses within a DCT can be seen as indirectly revealing a participant’s accumulated experience within a given setting, while bearing questionable resemblance to the data which actually shaped that experience. This suggests that the DCT is a valid instrument for measuring not pragmatic action, but symbolic action.4 Relatedly, the native speaker intuitions about language collected with discourse completion tasks do not reflect real-time interactional sequences (see Golato 2003: for specific examples with regard to compliment responses in German; see Wolfson 1989: Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of various studies that address the inadequacy of intuition in pragmatic research). For example, caretakers can be observed to teach their children to say “thank you” when they receive a compliment (Herbert 1990: 207), and overtly thanking is described as appropriate behavior in manner books. Yet when comparing the intuitive notion that overt acknowledgement of thanks always follows a compliment with any of the studies of compliments as they occur naturally in American English, it becomes obvious that thanking is NOT the most frequent response at all (Pomerantz 1978).5 It follows that if the intuitive notion of “Americans say thank you” becomes the base line of comparison for a sociocultural transfer study of compliments in American and Chinese (Liu 1995), interpreting the results of such a study becomes difficult.





Chapter 2

Furthermore, interviews and discourse completion tasks do not show the interactional facets of a speech event; for example, they do not capture whether and how multi-turn sequences develop in order to fulfill a certain speech function (Beebe & Cummings 1985). In this regard, I showed in previous research (Golato 2003) that the compliment responses in the DCT experiment contain far more turn-constructional units (here, a combination of compliment response types) than are present in the compliment responses in naturally occurring data. Consequently, the responses in the DCT experiment are usually longer as well. This is a rather interesting finding since other studies have criticized written DCTs for yielding shorter responses than researchers expected to find in complimenting, thanking, and requesting behavior (Beebe & Cummings 1996; Bodman & Eisenstein 1988; Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig 1992; Rintell & Mitchell 1989; Yuan 2001).6 One possible explanation for the observations in my study would be that, since they do not have an interlocutor when filling out the questionnaire, subjects orient to this fact when writing their responses (for a similar explanation, see Yuan 2001). In naturally occurring conversation, a coparticipant might come in and take a turn at talk; when a coparticipant is not forthcoming with their turn, a speaker might select to extend his or her turn (Schegloff 1995b). In a written task of this kind where it is impossible for a coparticipant to take a turn, the informant might compensate in a similar fashion by continuing to add another turn constructional unit to their spate of talk/writing. Lastly, research has shown that discourse completion tasks may be problematic in eliciting appropriate data from speakers of non-western languages (Hinkel 1997; Rose 1994; Rose & Ono 1995). In sum, a DCT is not an on-line task in which a person uses language spontaneously and without consciously focusing on linguistic output, but is instead an off-line task in which a person has time for introspection. This crucial distinction in task types – and more importantly, the very different types of data they yield – has implications for the study of naturally-occurring speech. As mentioned above, written responses certainly do capture elements of the online organization of speech. However, for collecting data of an exclusively on-line nature, DCTs are poorly suited: they are in a sense “noisy” tasks in that by design, they also unavoidably yield off-line, metapragmatic data. Put differently, DCTs are better suited to the study of ‘what people think they would say’ than to the study of ‘what people actually do say’ in a given speech setting. If the subject of investigation concerns off-line or emic issues (Kasper 2000), for example people’s beliefs or values with respect to culture, then DCTs may very well be a good starting point, followed by detailed interviews with subjects and

Methodology

informants. However, in the context of examining real conversation, there is an inevitable confound in DCT data which cannot be resolved – that is, not unless the data are compared with audio and videotaped data collected during actual speech events. It should be clear at this point that DCTs do not cleanly and reliably inform us as to how talk-in-interaction is organized and realized in natural settings (for a similar conclusion, see Hinkel 1997). As Moerman (1974: 55) puts it when discussing language use, “folk beliefs have honorable status but they are not the same intellectual object as scientific analysis.” Despite these limitations, discourse completion tasks are widely used in the fields of pragmatics, intercultural communication, and second language acquisition, mainly because their simplicity of use and high degree of control over variables lead to easy replicability. In order to improve DCTs (particularly in order to overcome insufficient situational background information in the DCT), researchers have called for enhancing the situational prompts by providing more contextual and social clues (Billmyer & Varghese 2000). Additionally, Yuan (1996, 2001) found that orally administering DCTs yields more naturalistic speech features than the equivalent written DCT. In order to make the situation more realistic, some researchers have included listener responses in the prompt. However, it is yet not clear to which extent these responses are beneficial (in that they make the situation more realistic) or harmful (see Johnston et al. 1998 and Hinkel 1997, for a detailed discussion, in that they influence the informants’ responses). ..

Role-plays

Kasper and Dahl (1991) observe that in comparison to other forms of elicited data, open role-plays provide more naturalistic data: “They represent oral production, full operation of the turn-taking mechanism, impromptu planning decisions contingent on interlocutor input, and hence negotiation of global and local goals . . .” (p. 228). However, Kasper (2000) points out that role play (be it elicited conversation, open-ended role play, or simulation) is predominantly motivated by the researcher’s goals rather than those of the interactants. If one assumes that the purpose of the conversation is its structuring force, role-plays and naturally occurring conversation cannot be considered to be the same (Kasper 2000: 318). In addition, although speakers may be interacting with each other, the context of their interactions within role-plays is often imagined, and thus not real (Wildner-Bassett 1989). For example, consider two subjects (who may or may not know each other) directed to act out a scene of friends complimenting each other on items in their possession; the same sub-





Chapter 2

jects may then be asked to role play an interaction between teacher and student, and between employer and employee – regardless of their actual knowledge or experience in such settings. Since no correspondence can be objectively established through this type of data elicitation between how the participants give a compliment in role play and how compliments are given in normally occurring interactions, it seems more accurate to say that such participants are acting out how they imagine someone in these situations might give compliments. In other words, not only are subjects again providing their beliefs about interactions, here they may be providing beliefs about roles they have never played in real life. Even when subjects are supposed to enact roles they are familiar with, there may be discrepancies between the interactions in role play and in authentic discourse (Kasper & Dahl 1991). Moreover, it has been suggested that real roles may be interfering with imagined roles. Wildner-Bassett (1989) describes this as two discourse worlds competing with each other, and argues that such role-plays must be interpreted very carefully. She shows that what could be labeled as pragmatic breakdown/failure/interference can often be explained by the competing discourse worlds to which subjects in role-plays are exposed. In this sense then, role-plays ignore sociolinguistic variables which would otherwise matter in naturally occurring conversations. Moreover, in stark contrast to conversations in real life, role-plays are problematic in that the verbal interactions and the actions performed through language have no consequences for the role-players. That is, while it does not matter if a role-player is rude (or more direct) in a role play situation, a similar behavior in real life might very well influence any future encounters with the coparticipant. Comparative studies (e.g., Yuan 2001) of role-plays and naturally occurring conversations have indeed shown that what is said and more importantly, how it is said differ drastically in role-plays and in actual conversations. Despite the disadvantages mentioned above, role-plays are still widely used in research on interlanguage pragmatics, mostly because role-plays are online production tasks and thus have features similar to naturally occurring conversation (i.e., turn-taking, sequencing, hesitation phenomena, etc.), and because they are easy to administer, allow for comparisons across dyads, and allow for control of extra-linguistic variables such as power, status, gender, age, etc. (Kasper 2000).

Methodology

..

Field observation

The majority of studies of compliment responses use field observation with subsequent statistical analysis of the data collected. The precise procedure follows a method pioneered by Wolfson and Manes (1980) and it is used predominantly in sociolinguistics and communication studies. Field workers are asked to write down the next 20 compliments they observe in their daily lives, and to note the exact exchange as well as other contextual information (age, sex of speakers, location, etc.) as soon as possible after the exchange has taken place. Field workers are allowed to include compliments they received or gave themselves. Obviously, carefully taken field notes, most widely used in ethnographic studies, allow for the collection of indispensable contextual information (Kasper 2000). The biggest advantage of this method of data collection is that it allows the investigator to collect a very large database from a wide range of speakers and across various settings (Kasper & Dahl 1991). Having a large enough data base allows for statistical analysis, which serves as support for claims made in the study. However, there are several potential limitations in such studies. Since most field workers do not audiotape or videotape any of their conversations, they have to rely on their memory and observational skills. Trying to recall linguistic data several hours after the event will lead to “data that is limited in both quality and quantity” (Labov 1984: 30). Particularly, research has shown that hedges, intensifiers, conjunctions and modifiers seem to be recalled markedly less well than words tightly integrated into the clause (Lehrer 1989: 105). All such elements, however, are important in classifying compliment responses into different categories, as are gestures and head movements (i.e., nods, etc.). For example, if a field worker observes someone giving a compliment which is answered with a head nod and a smile, s/he might classify the response as an acceptance of the compliment. If the field worker misses the nonverbal clues, however, the compliment response may be classified as a non-response. The analyst has no way of checking observations collected this way, either for accuracy or for the presence of discourse markers or gestures. Kasper (2000: 319) probably provides the best summary of the immediate drawbacks of this method of data collection: “There is thus a real danger that memorization and taking field notes will result in recording salient and expected (or particularly unexpected) facets of the interaction, at the expense of less salient but perhaps decisive (often indexical) material.” A second drawback of many of the studies in which compliments are collected ethnographically (i.e., via field observations) is that they included data





Chapter 2

from very different settings in their analyses. For example, Herbert (1990: 202) states: “The data for the present study were collected ethnographically by students. . ., who were instructed to collect compliments and responses within the student community, in places such as classrooms, dining hall, the student union and so on.” There is a growing body of literature (see e.g., the collection by Drew & Heritage 1992b, here in particular Levinson 1992) suggesting that task-related interactions in institutional settings such as the classroom can be sequentially and functionally very different from interactions in ordinary conversation (i.e., dinner table, dining halls, etc.). Task-related compliments from teachers to students thus may (and often do) have very different functions from compliments given among friends (Manes 1983; Streeck 1979). A similar study, although with much younger children, shows that compliments in the classroom are often used by the compliment giver in order to encourage a behavior of the person who is addressed and/or by those who can hear the compliment (i.e., the other students in the classroom). The following compliment, taken from Holmes (1986: 488), is paid by a primary school teacher to Mary, a student in a class of five-year-olds: (1) C: Mary’s sitting up nicely.

Holmes notes that as a result of the compliment, the student sat up even straighter and looked pleased. Holmes observes that this compliment gave encouragement to Mary but also functioned as an indirect reprimand to the other students in the class who were not sitting up nicely in the class. Thus, one cannot simply assume that compliments serve identical functions and have the same design in ordinary and institutional talk. If compliments (or their responses) that serve different functions are categorized as being the same before undergoing statistical analysis, the results of the analysis become uncertain. As Schegloff (1993: 114) puts it: “. . .quantification is no substitute for analysis. We need to know what the phenomena are, how they are organized, and how they are related to each other as a precondition for cogently bringing methods of quantitative analysis to bear on them.” Field notes (if recorded carefully and with sensitivity to the interactional contexts mentioned above) can be useful methods of data collection when the researcher is interested in the content of compliment responses (or other speech events), and possibly in the use of syntactic or semantic features (Kasper 2000). But when the emphasis is on the interactional or discourse features of the speech event, microanalysis of audio- or video-recorded data is indispensable (Kasper 2000). Only audio- or video-recorded data allow for the sequential analysis of talk, which is crucial if one is to determine the action an utterance

Methodology

is performing (Schegloff 1995b). This point is demonstrated in detail in Chapter 4, where something that at first glance resembles an ordinary compliment to one coparticipant turns out to be a reproach to a third participant. As I argue, this action of the compliment is only retrievable if one has access to the sequential context in which the compliment turn was uttered (i.e., several turns before and after the compliment turn). Yet, when collecting compliments and compliment responses via field observation, it is the production of the compliment itself that makes the field workers take notice. They may or may not have paid close attention to the utterances produced prior to the compliment turn. Thus, they may have missed vital information necessary to determine the exact action of a given turn. .. Recall protocols In recall protocols, subjects are asked to remember the last compliment they received or gave, and to describe the situation/setting in which it occurred and exactly what was said. While this task does target natural data, researchers who use it have to contend with limitations in human memory. For instance, it has been demonstrated that bilingual speakers are not able to accurately recall which language(s) they used in a given situation (Gumperz 1982: 62). Psycholinguistic research has shown that verbatim recall of utterances is faulty, even under the most favorable of circumstances (Lehrer 1989: 105). Numerous controlled studies have demonstrated that while listeners can accurately recall the propositional content of a sentence, they will not reliably recall its syntactic structure unless specifically instructed to do so (i.e., at the outset of the experiment, Anderson 1974; Anderson & Bower 1974; Graesser & Mandler 1975; Hanson & Bellugi 1982; Johnson-Laird & Stevenson 1970; Sachs 1967, 1974; Wanner 1974). In addition to the problems related to memory, researchers using this type of data elicitation also have to contend with the problem facing researchers working with discourse completion tasks: recall protocols also fail to yield the interactional features related to a particular speech event, and thus lack a correspondence to natural data. Another problem related to this and other methodologies is that subjects are selected based on convenience, and not on principles of random selection (Yuan 2001: 275) which is more easily achieved with role-plays or discourse completion questionnaires.





Chapter 2

..

Recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction

Researchers working within the methodological framework of CA analyze talkin-interaction in order to show how patterns of communication unfold. CA data consist of non-elicited, audio-taped or videotaped face-to-face encounters and/or audiotaped spontaneous telephone conversations. The strength of CA lies in the fact that its methodology allows for the repeated and detailed analysis of utterances in their sequential context (Atkinson & Heritage 1984: 4); that is, the analysis of structures as they are used in real life – and in real time – with the added advantage of looking beyond speech, since CA also incorporates the study of bodily performance. All studies in CA investigate how the participants in the talk display understanding and orientation to the other participants’ talk. These studies always begin with an empirical observation through the analysis of individual cases. Additionally, in the analysis, “no order of detail can be dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant” (Heritage 1984b: 241), meaning that every element of the interaction (hesitation, laughter, silences, eye-gaze, body-movements, etc.) may be incorporated in the analysis. Researchers usually amass a large number of single cases (all analyzed from the perspective of the coparticipants) and describe in detail what these single cases have in common in terms of their structure, associated interactional achievement, positioning in the sequence, etc. It is true that within this methodology, it is rather painstaking to collect a large corpus of data samples which display the phenomenon being investigated (Kasper 2000; Kasper & Dahl 1991); it is also true that many studies are thus working with a corpus that is too small for statistical analysis (Yuan 2001), leading to questions of generalizability of the findings (see Section 2.3 for further discussion). In addition, the approach has been criticized because working within this paradigm makes it rather difficult (if not impossible) to control for extraneous variables such as power, status, gender, and age differences between interactants (Yuan 2001: 275). However, conversation analysts do not approach and code the data with categories which are established a priori. Rather, if categories such as gender, age, or nativeness are brought to bear on the data it is because the participants in the interaction oriented to these factors or categories as being relevant in a given sequential context (Schegloff in Wong & Olsher 2000).7 In other words, those aspects of behavior that interactants deem relevant, and consequently orient to, are the focus of attention within CA work (see also Section 2.3 in this regard). In criticisms of recordings of naturally occurring data, the observer’s paradox first noted by Labov (1972, 1984) is frequently cited (Kasper 2000). Yet as

Methodology

Kasper (2000) notes, Duranti’s (1997) extended experience with this method of data collection shows that the presence of the recording equipment becomes less of an obstacle over time, once subjects have gotten used to it. This of course means that a “prolonged engagement in the field” (Kasper 2000: 320) is advantageous. Yet another limitation that is often raised is that many studies within CA provide little information on the subjects and the contexts in the tapings (more recent studies, however, do provide such information, see for example Golato 2000, 2002a; Taleghani-Nikazm 2002a). However, the method of data analysis allows the analyst to be sure that the instances in a collection truly represent the same features and characteristics, and that such features are oriented to by the coparticipants (Atkinson & Heritage 1984: 2). Instances that do not display the same pattern as the other data samples are not discarded, but are regularly analyzed in attempts to discern why and how they might be different (Schegloff 1993, 1995a, 1996a). This close analysis of the “deviant” cases will often reveal to a researcher what all other cases have in common.8 As Schegloff (1993: 110) states, “. . .the best evidence for some phenomenon or practice can often be derived from negative cases, which may display an orientation by the participants to the very practices from which they depart.” .. Summary on data collection procedures The preceding section has demonstrated that while data collection procedures such as DCTs, role plays, field observations, and recall protocols provide researchers with data rather quickly, that data can be very different from naturalistically collected data. Thus, if one is interested in finding out how speakers pay and react to compliments in real-time interactions, if one wishes to discern the sequential organization of actual language use (in this case, how compliments are given and responded to), then DCTs, role plays, field observations, and recall protocalls are clearly inappropriate. A preferred method of data collection would involve the audio and videotaping of spontaneous, naturally occurring data. If one is interested in how speakers are using language to create meaning, or in how certain speech events (such as compliments) are organized in their natural settings, then one’s data should as closely as possible correspond to “naturally occurring interactional environments which seem to be the natural, primordial home for language use” (Schegloff 1996a: 468).





Chapter 2

. Generalizability9 Possible questions with regard to CA methodology and, more generally, to findings obtained using data from recordings of naturally occurring talk-ininteraction, concern the generalizability of their results. As I will argue, such questions are appropriate, but only when they are asked in their proper context. For instance, such questions are legitimate when asked with respect to findings from language-related behavioral studies conducted using experimental methods, e.g., psycholinguistic studies. By design, such studies are interested not so much in the performance of the participants being tested, as to whether the findings obtained are reproducible; that is, whether the behavior observed in a controlled setting would resemble the behavior of comparable samples taken from the same or similar populations. In such studies, behavior is very often measured in experiments in which participants (grouped according to, for instance, their first language) are instructed to perform various kinds of tasks which require a response (often a button-push) upon the detection of a visually- or auditorily-presented stimulus item (often a linguistic construct such as a morpheme, syllable, phoneme, clausal boundary, etc.). Response latencies to successful stimulus detections are analyzed using inferential statistics (e.g., t–tests and analyses of variance). Assuming appropriate methodology (including but not limited to: adequate sample size, proper instrumentation, use of controls or blinding, behavioral measures which yield interval-ratio data, clearly-specified procedures for the identification and handling of statistical outliers, etc.), such studies allow psycholinguists to make inferences, or probability-based assertions, about the effect of various participant- or stimulus item-related variables (here, a participant’s first language, or the linguistic status of a stimulus item, respectively) upon a task-related measure of performance (in the present example, response latency). Put differently, such studies allow researchers to make general statements about, for instance, the language processing abilities of a large population (e.g., the population of bilingual German-English speaking adults) based upon a small sample of that population (e.g., 30 adult German-English bilingual participants). In contrast to psycholinguistic and other psychometrically-oriented studies, CA methodology is similar to other qualitative research agendas in that its primary objective is not to make probability-based assertions. Rather, its goal is to comprehend the (sequential) organization of talk-in-interaction (Markee 2002; Schegloff 1993, 1995b). Accordingly, within CA methodology, data are collected not through having participants perform experimental tasks under controlled conditions, but through careful observation of interactants as they

Methodology

freely engage in conversation within natural settings. As a result, and in further contrast to psychometric studies, CA data consist of detailed records of conversational interactions in the form of video and audio tapes and transcripts thereof. Crucially, the “behaviors” noted in the transcripts bear no resemblance to the task-related, interval-ratio data collected by psycholinguists under laboratory conditions. On the contrary, in CA and in other qualitatively-oriented research, interactants are not given instructions on, for instance, how they should interact, whom they should interact with, for how long, what they should say, how they should phrase what they wish to say, etc. Were they to be used, such manipulations would only serve to ensure that the data collected did not represent naturally-occurring talk-in-interaction!10 Therefore, in experimental methodological terms, there are no controlled conditions within CA, and no manipulations of participant- or item-related variables. In fact, CA methodologists have yet to determine what, if anything, constitutes a theoretically relevant “variable” in the psychometric sense within instances of talk-in-interaction (for a detailed discussion of this point, see Schegloff 1993; and also Zimmerman 1993). Additionally, within CA there are no tasks to perform, and thus no measures of behavior to be collected and analyzed using inferential statistical procedures. Consequently, with respect to CA and other qualitatively-oriented work, questions concerning generalizability of results are entirely misplaced since they mistakenly presuppose an approach to data collection and analysis used neither within CA, nor within many other qualitative research methodologies. A further clarification to be made regarding experimental methodology and conversation analytic methodology concerns the treatment of outliers (or “deviant cases”, in CA parlance). While performing an experimental task, a participant can be observed to generate responses which are demonstrably different from those of others in the same group (i.e., which are statistical outliers), or to commit errors (i.e., to generate responses in the form of misses and false alarms, or fail to follow task instructions). While procedures in experimental studies vary concerning the treatment of statistical outliers, data representing errors is never analyzed together with data representing successful trials, but is instead removed prior to any statistical analyses. Error removal is a methodologically sound practice: errors represent instances in which a participant was not performing the task of interest to the researcher. By contrast, within the context of naturally-occurring talk-in-interaction, no data segment can be reasonably conceived of as an error. In experimental methodological terms, to the extent that they represent actual samples of conversational interaction, all data from naturally-occurring speech represent successful trials;





Chapter 2

therefore, none of them can be discarded. This means that the presence of innumerable samples cannot undo the fact that in one instance, members oriented to an item as doing something different (Schegloff 1993). Stated differently, although they are not concerned with questions of generalizability and causality, “it is incumbent on [CA] analysts to make sense of members’ behaviors, even if these do not fit the majority pattern” (Markee 2002: 5). In their efforts to comprehend the organization of interaction, conversation analysts have instead adopted an ethnomethodological perspective. For conversation analysts, this means that having a “significant finding” refers not to the probability that the event in question occurred by chance, but rather that the participants in an interaction have put significance on that particular event – that is, that the participants have demonstrated that the event is relevant to them. It follows that if conversation analysts want to claim that a linguistic item can perform a particular action, they must demonstrate that the participants in a given setting orient to this particular item as doing this action. However, bearing in mind the differences between experimental methodology and CA methodology, the fact that within naturally occurring talk an item performs a particular action within a particular setting does not – in fact cannot – imply that the same or similar items within the same or similar settings will necessarily also perform that particular action. Yet conversation analysts do not view interpersonal interactions as totally random events. Instead, CA’s largely descriptive, data-driven focus is more accurately seen as indicating the field’s efforts to achieve an adequate level of description of the organization of talk-ininteraction (see also Schegloff 1993; Zimmerman 1993). Viewed again from the perspective of experimental methodology, the heavily data-driven approach of CA represents a prudent first step in the development of a causal theory of conversational interaction.

. The data for the present corpus Given that the aim of the present study is to study language use, specifically the sequential organization of the social acts of complimenting and of responding to compliments, conversation analysis was chosen as the methodology for analyzing the German data for the present study. The data were taken from a corpus of 30 hours of non-elicited videotaped face-to-face conversations and 6 hours of audiotaped telephone conversations between close friends and family members. Participants were only video-taped during activities that they would normally engage in with each other. Such activities included house-

Methodology

hold chores, dinners, barbeques, get-togethers over drinks or coffee and cake, and card games. All speakers were from the middle or upper middle class, held or were pursuing a university degree (equivalent of the B.A. or M.A.) or held white-collar positions in Germany (e.g. social worker, sales representatives, managers, accountants; teachers, physical therapists, etc.). A total of 34 women and 27 men were recorded; and the speakers ranged in age from 23– 70 years, with the majority being in their late twenties or early thirties. In one recording, small children (age 31/2) were present and produced compliment responses (marked in the relevant segments). During one recording session involving 4 teenagers, no compliments were produced. All participants spoke standard German (some speakers had a pronounced regional accent) and came from various regions in Germany (northern Germany, eastern Germany (Dresden, Berlin, Brandenburg), central Germany, and southern Germany (both Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg). All in all, the 20 different speakers produced 62 compliment sequences. Data were transcribed using the transcription notation developed by Jefferson (Jefferson 1983, 1985). See also Sacks et al. (1974: Appendix) for an early description of the transcription notation and Atkinson and Heritage (1984: ix–xvi) for a more detailed version. In general, transcription notations in conversation analytic research capture characteristics of speech delivery, overlaps, and pauses. Since this transcription system uses capital letters to express loudness, the author refrains from capitalizing German nouns. Whenever German data is displayed, the transcript provides the original talk on the top line, the second line is an interlinear translation, and an English idiomatic translation is provided at the bottom. For easier reading, the English version is given in italics. When data samples do not stem from the author’s own corpus, the transcription notation of the original is used.



Chapter 3

Giving compliments The design of first compliment turns

. Introduction The present chapter investigates how compliments are embedded in the larger sequential context. Specifically, the question arises as to how a compliment comes off as a compliment, and how a compliment turn is constructed. Here, at least two elements are worth considering. First, how the object/talent/character trait (i.e., the assessable) is referred to by the complimenting speaker; and second, how the positiveness is expressed in the compliment by both syntactic and semantic means. In addition to discussing these questions in purely structural terms, the chapter will also explore which interactional functions and achievements are associated with the individual structures. The focus of the discussion will be on 62 first compliment turns. The term “first compliment turn” is to be understood as a compliment which is the first compliment given within a sequence. Unless otherwise noted, the present chapter does not include in the analyses those compliments in multi-party talk that were produced in agreement with a first compliment by the same or by a different speaker. The following data segment illustrates which compliments were included in the analysis and which ones were excluded. Here Tobias (T) and his wife Ricki (R) are guests at Bernhard (B) and his wife’s house. (1) [Grillen in Stade Tape 2, A 036] => C1 1

T: also erstmal an die küchenchefs? PRT first to the kitchenchefs? well first to the chefs



Chapter 3

3

=> C1 4

B: a::h= ((noise B makes when sitting)) a::h= a::h= T: =exzellent= =excellent= =excellent=

5

R: =ja. =ja. =yes.

6

B: [war gut ne? ] [was good right?] [was good right?] [

7

T: [ich sitz hier ] und fühl mich [i sit here ] and feel myself [i’m sitting here] feeling

8

T: richtich wohl correctly well really good

9

?: (

)

10 B: wieso das fleisch hat sie gekauft ich why the meat has she bought i why she bought the meat i only 11 B: hab’s nur gegrillt have+it only grilled barbecued it

Tobias’ compliment, which spans lines 1 and 4, is the first compliment in the sequence and was thus included in the analysis. Compliments that were not included in the present analysis are of the following type: (a) a coparticipant’s agreement with the compliment before the compliment recipient has responded (see line 5), (b) the compliment recipient’s response which looks like a self-compliment, such as Bernhard’s first compliment response in line 6; (c) a second compliment by the original compliment giver such as Tobias’ second compliment in lines 7–8; and (d) the final compliment response that contains a compliment to another speaker (lines 10–11). These turns (lines 5–11) will be discussed in other chapters of this book.1

Giving compliments

. Reference to the assessable When speakers pay a coparticipant a compliment, they somehow have to refer to the assessable (i.e., the object, trait, ability, characteristic, etc. that the compliment is about) for their coparticipant to know what the compliment was about, and for the coparticipant to subsequently respond to the compliment appropriately. When inspecting the compliments in the present collection with regard to how this reference is accomplished lexically, it becomes apparent that speakers can use a variety of forms, as depicted in Table 3.1. When categorizing the compliments according to the linguistic form the referring expression takes, some general observations can be made: Nearly half of the compliments are made without any overt referring expression, approxTable 3.1 Reference to the assessable Number of instances 1. Noun phrases e.g., übrigens (.) das fleisch exzellent ‘by the way (.) the meat excellent’ sybille du hast aber schöne ro:sen dieses jahr ‘sybille you have nice roses this year’

16

2. Pronouns e.g., aber du siehst wesentlich fitter aus ‘but you look much fitter’ es riecht echt total gut. ‘it really smells totally good’

5

3. Demonstratives e.g., oh das sieht ja schön aus. ‘oh that looks nice’ das is sehr schön ingrid. ‘that’s very nice ingrid’

9

4. No overt reference appreciatory sound: e.g., mmmmhh adjective: e.g., schö: ön ‘nice’ appreciatory sound + adjective: e.g., m:: m lecker ‘m::m tasty’ verb + adjective: e.g., schmeckt gut, inge ‘tastes good, inge’

27 (5) (8) (4) (10)

5. Demonstrative + noun phrase ah die is hervorragend die melone ‘uh this is excellent this melon’

5

Total:

62





Chapter 3

imately a quarter of all compliments contain a full NP and another quarter contain some form of pronoun (demonstrative or personal pronoun).2 One would assume that findings from research on anaphora (such as the studies cited in Givón 1983a) would account for the current data set. In this line of research it is assumed that referents that are in focus or accessible to the hearer can be pronominalized or expressed with zero-anaphora, whereas new topics or referents that are not accessible tend to be expressed with full noun phrases. Givón (1983a: 17) provides the following scale3 with respect to topic accessibility and explicitness of referential expression (Figure 3.1). While this description intuitively makes sense, Fox (1987) shows that such an analysis which is based on notions as “topic” or “distance to the last mentioned item” fails to account for a critical portion of her own conversational data. When checking my own data against Givón’s account, I encountered similar problems. For each of the categories established in Table 3.1, there are always several examples that do not follow the patterns outlined by Givón. For example, according to Givón’s scale, speakers can be expected to employ no overt reference (=zero anaphora) when the assessable has just been the topic of the conversation. Consider, however, the following example taken from my corpus in which the speaker uses a full NP to refer to the assessable although it has just been the topic of the conversation. In fact, it has been named in the immediately prior turn. It might help to understand that Ute, Heiner, and Norbert (mentioned in line 16) are siblings. Heiner is an exchange student in the US, Norbert had visited him and Heiner had sent along pictures with his brother for the rest of the family to look at. At the point when Ute and Heiner are talking, Ute has seen the pictures (as displayed elsewhere on the tape), whereas their mother (mentioned in line 1) has not. most continuous / accessible topic zero anaphora unstressed/bound pronouns or grammatical agreement stressed/independent pronouns R-dislocated DEF-NP’s neutral-ordered DEF-NP’s L-dislocated DEF-NP’s Y-moved NP’s (‘contrastive topicalization’) cleft/focus constructions referential indefinite NP’s most discontinuous / inaccessible topic

Figure 3.1 Topic accessibility

Giving compliments

(2) [Champaign, Tape 2, B204] 1

U: und mam- mit der ma:mma hoab i au mal and mo- with the mo:mmy have i also PRT and mo- with mom i had a very nice

2

ganz nett geratscht die kauft sich a quite nicely chatted she buys herself a chat the other day she is getting

3

neue etz[a new no [w new no [w [

4

H:

5

U:

6

U: halt beim fischer und so un ham PRT at+the fisher and like and have went to the fisher’s and like and

7

U: [a bis]sel ogschaut .hh brilln [a lit]tle looked at .hh glasses [looked ] around some . hh selected [ ]

8

H: [mham ] [uhum ] [uhum ]

9

U: ausgsuacht.=naja un i: fahr am samstag selected.=well an i: drive on saturday glasses.=well an i’m going to go to

10

[mh[m [uh[u [uh[u [

] ] ] ]

[wa]rn wir [we]re we [we]thus

jetz nach berli:n. now to berli:n. berli:n this saturday

11 H: mham. .hh wenns de- wennste noch mal mit uhum. .hh when you- when you again with uhum. .hh when you- when you talk to her 12

ihr telefonierst weil i habs vorher her phone because i have+it earlier tried on the phone again because i tried





Chapter 3

13

versucht doa war aber niemand daheim there was but nobody home earlier but nobody was home then

14

.hhh ähm dann sagst ihr dass die- die .hhh uhm then tell her that the- the .hhh uhm then tell her that the- the next

15

nächsten fotos schon unterwegs san alsonext photos already on the way are well photos are already on the way well-

16

m- mim norbert w- with+the norbert w- with norbert

17 U: aham:, uhum:, uhum:, 18

(.)

=> 19 U: scheene fotos, heiner, nice photos, heiner, ((first name)) nice photos, heiner, 20 H: a:: haa. u:: hum. u:: hum.

Similarly, we also have compliments that do not contain any overt reference to the assessable although the referent has not been the topic of the conversation at any prior point. This is the case in the following segment, in which Sybille is cooking in the kitchen. Uschi is helping her (they are both with their backs to the camera). Bernhard enters the kitchen area to throw something into the trash. (3) [Fischessen: 0:00:45:00 oh lecker] 1 S: so::. das kommt dann gleich drüber da so::. this comes then soon over there so::. this will soon go over there 2 ?: (mhm) (uhu) (uhu) 3 S: [ich mach eben noch maln paar ( [i do just still PRT some ( [i’m just gonna make some ( ) [

) )

Giving compliments

4 B: [o lass mich mal dahino [o let me once thereo o [ let me just get in hereo 5 S: ganz kurz very quickly very quickly

yummy. i can turn on the light

=> 8

ne? right? right?

9 A: ja kannste yes can+you yes you can

Clearly, one cannot simply assume that each of the categories in Table 3.1 is associated with one specific interactional function, a function that is based on topicality and distance between referents and their antecedents.4 Instead, the current discussion follows Fox’s (1987, 1996), Schegloff ’s (1996a), and Ford and Fox’s (1996) approach to the study of anaphora – an approach that adopts a conversation analytic, that is, interactional perspective (as outlined in Chapter 1). In other words, the analysis is based on sequence organization (i.e., the position the referring expression has within the overall sequence) and members’ orientation to each other and to the talk at hand. This approach is justified because the production of referential expressions has been shown to be recipient-designed, i.e., tailored to the needs of the recipients (Auer 1984; Ford & Fox 1996; Schegloff 1996a). In an article on practices speakers employ for referring to persons, Schegloff (1996a) distinguishes between reference positions and reference forms (p. 450). The term reference position indicates that there is a slot or occasion within the unfolding talk at which a reference can be / needs to be introduced into the talk; whereas the term reference form merely describes the linguistic form (e.g.,





Chapter 3

pronoun, proper name, noun phrase, etc.) used in order to accomplish the reference. Within a stretch of talk, the first time a person is referred to, Schegloff speaks of a “locally initial reference position” (p. 450); for subsequent references within the same stretch of talk he uses the term “locally subsequent reference positions” (p. 450). Similarly, there is also a distinction between locally initial and locally subsequent reference forms. Locally initial reference forms are, for example, noun phrases or names (Schegloff 1996a), whereas locally subsequent reference forms are frequently pronouns. When looking at discourse, initial reference forms usually occur in initial reference positions and subsequent reference forms usually occur in subsequent slots. However, the other logically possible combinations (i.e., initial forms in subsequent position, and subsequent forms in initial position) also occur in naturally occurring discourse. When they occur, they can be demonstrated to be used for particular interactional purposes and are attended to by participants in specific ways. For example, initial forms in subsequent positions can be used (among other things) to mark the beginning of a new sequence (Ford & Fox 1996; Fox 1987) or to redo a previous turn (Schegloff 1996a: 455–456). Subsequent forms in initial positions may be used to mark familiarity (Schegloff 1996a: 451–452).5 Although Schegloff is limiting his analysis and findings to person reference only, the analytical distinctions he draws also apply to the referential expressions used in compliments. When speakers pay a coparticipant a compliment, they must refer to the item about which they make the compliment (i.e., the assessable) either directly or indirectly so that the coparticipant can identify the assessable and subsequently react to the compliment.6 In other words, there is a slot or occasion within the unfolding talk at which a reference to an assessable can be / needs to be introduced into the talk (i.e., this is a reference position (Schegloff 1996a)) and there are specific forms available to speakers with which to refer to the assessable. The data for the present study also reveal that there are a number of different ways in which a speaker can refer to the assessable. As with person reference, we can distinguish between locally initial and locally subsequent reference forms. Locally initial reference forms for assessables would be noun phrases, names (when complimenting a third person present), second person pronouns (when complimenting the coparticpant directly, as in du bist nett / “you are nice”7 ). Locally subsequent reference forms would be demonstrative pronouns, personal pronouns (other than second person forms), or could contain no overt reference (e.g., where a verb ending implies the referent). The present study shows that the “unmarked forms” (i.e., initial forms in initial positions and subsequent forms in subsequent positions) occur very regularly and are associated with particular interactional functions

Giving compliments

Table 3.2 Reference to the assessable according to position and form Reference

Number of instances

1.

Locally initial reference forms in locally initial positions (NPs and 2PS Pronoun) e.g., übrigens (.) das fleisch exzellent ‘by the way (.) the meat excellent’ sybille du hast aber schöne rosen dieses jahr ‘sybille you have nice roses this year’ aber du siehst wesentlich fitter aus ‘but you look much fitter’

17

2.

Locally subsequent forms in locally subsequent positions a. No overt reference appreciatory sound: e.g., mmmmhh adjective: e.g., schö:ön ‘nice’ Appreciatory sound + adjective: e.g., m::m lecker ‘m::m tasty’ verb + adjective: e.g., schmeckt gut, inge ‘tastes good, inge’ b. Demonstratives or third person pronouns e.g., ne die is sehr sehr gut ‘no it is very very good’

8 (1) (1) (1) (4) (1)

3.

Locally initial forms in locally subsequent positions

3

4.

Locally subsequent forms in locally initial positions a. no overt reference appreciatory sound: e.g., mmmmhh adjective: e.g., schö:ön ‘nice’ appreciatory sound + adjective: e.g., m::m lecker ‘m::m tasty’ verb + adjective: e.g., schmeckt gut, inge ‘tastes good, inge’ b. demonstratives or third person pronouns

29

5.

Locally subsequent form + locally initial form in locally initial positions e.g., ah die is hervorragend die melone ‘nh this is excellent this melon’

Total

(3) (6) (4) (6) (10) 5

62

which are tied to sequence organization. However, the discussion also shows that the “marked” forms (i.e., initial forms in subsequent positions and subsequent forms in initial positions) also occur. When they occur, speakers can be demonstrated to be achieving particular interactional goals. Table 3.2 depicts these different types of reference to the assessable together with the number of times they occurred in the corpus.





Chapter 3

..

Locally initial reference forms in locally initial positions (NPs and 2PS Pronoun), and locally subsequent reference forms in locally subsequent positions

As mentioned above, in this category of reference to the assessable the speaker employs a locally initial reference form in a locally initial position. Put differently, the first time within the unfolding talk at which a reference to an assessable is introduced into the talk (i.e., the initial position/slot/occasion), the speaker does so with a full, unmarked form; usually either a full noun, noun phrase or, when paying a compliment about some trait of the coparticipant, with a second person pronoun. The two data segments below illustrate the use of a noun phrase and a second person pronoun, respectively. In data segment (4), four friends – Bernhard and Sybille (the hosts), and Freddie and Irmgard – are playing cards on Bernhard and Sybille’s porch. They have just finished a round and are counting points for the winners when Freddie compliments Sybille on her roses: (4) [Doppelkopf, 0:45:35:29 / läuse] 1

S: [drei punkte ] [three points ] [three points ] [ ]

2

I: [ja schau mal] guck [yes look PRT] look ] look [yes look

3

S: für die da[mens8 ((B is writing on his pad)) for the wo[mens for the la[dies [

=> 4

F:

[sybille du hast aber schöne [sybille you have but nice [sybille you have really nice

=> 5

F: ro:sen dieses jahr ro:ses this year ro:ses this year

6

(.)

7

I: [ja, [yes, [yes, [

Giving compliments

8

F: [die sehn gut aus. [that(fem.) look good. [they look good.

9 (.) 10 S: musste mal richtich gucken. ich weiss must+you PRT right look. i know you have to look properly. i don’t 11 S: es nich [ich hab noch nich gekuckt] it not [i have yet not looked ] know [i haven’t looked yet ] [ ] 12 F:

[doch hab schon gekuckt [no have already looked [no have already looked

] ] ]

13 S: ja? yes? yes? 14 I: läuse halten [sich bedeckt ha ha ha .hh lice hold [refl. covered ha ha ha .hh the lice [are minimal ha ha ha .hh [ 15 F:

[un die duften so [and they+fem smell so [and they smell so

16 F: schön hier nice here nice here 17 S: ((nods)) 18

(2.0)

20 S: die kleinen dahlien the small dahlias the small dahlias 21 F: mignong dahlien mignong dahlias mignong dahlias





Chapter 3

22 B: zehn [stri[che ten [mark[s ten [mark[s [ [ 23 S:

24 I:

[wie [die heissen [how [they are called [what[they are called [ [minjong nich mignong [minjong not mignong [minjong not mignong. . .

Prior to this segment and in lines 1–3, the interactants are counting the points the winning team has earned in the most recent card game. In lines 4–5, Freddie is paying Sybille a compliment on her flowers. Note that here Freddie is paying a compliment “out of the blue.” Put differently, he is paying a compliment on an object that has not been the topic of the prior utterances,9 nor do the flowers have anything to do with the activity the conversational partners are engaged in. This is thus the first time that this assessable (i.e., the roses) is referred to. In other words, lines 4–5 represents the locally initial position of the referent within this sequence but also within the entire conversation. As one might expect, the form used in this locally initial position is one that specifically names the referent (i.e., the assessable) with a full noun phrase. The turn itself has the syntactic structure of a “normal” declarative statement: with the address term, Freddie is selecting Sybille as the recipient of his turn. The only element of emphasis is the modal particle aber, which according to Durrell (1992: 134) can express surprise or insistence (which fits well with the observation that this is a sudden compliment, basically constituting a topic shift). Additional emphasis is provided by lengthening the sound of the o in ro:sen. After the referent, i.e., the assessable, has been introduced into the sequence, it can then be referred to by either a pronoun or the recipient can be expected to infer the referent in the remainder of the sequence. A case in point is the second part (line 8) of Freddie’s compliment. Here, he refers to the assessable with a demonstrative pronoun die/‘they’, locating the referent outside of the present turn constructional unit (TCU). Note that by using a pronoun, Freddie displays his understanding that the present sequence is still ongoing (Fox 1987: 18). And indeed, at this point Sybille has not yet provided a second pair part to Freddie’s compliment. In segment (4) above, Freddie’s compliment turn in lines 4–5 constitutes both a topic shift and the beginning of a new sequence: It is a topic shift since the interactants are shifting from talking about points awarded to the teams,

Giving compliments

to talking about Sybille’s flowers. It is also the beginning of a new sequence as the action of tallying up the points comes to a conclusion with Bernhard noting the points down on paper in line 3, and Freddie starting a complimenting sequence in line 4 (which goes on to line 24). Thus, at this point it is not entirely clear whether the topic shift, i.e., the introduction of a new topic, or the beginning of a new sequence causes the speaker to employ a full noun phrase. The following two segments show that it is indeed a sequence beginning rather than a topic switch that is the deciding factor for using a full NP as the referent to the assessable. In segment (6), Tobias (T) refers to the assessable with a full noun phrase10 although the assessable had been the topic (the focus of an earlier compliment) a few minutes earlier, depicted in data segment (5). Yet we can see that in segment (6), the full NP is used again with the beginning of a new sequence. (5) [Grillen in Stade Tape 1, A440] => 1 T: übrigens (.) das fleisch by the way (.) the meat by the way (.) the meat => 2

ex[zellent ex[cellent ex [cellent [

3 B: [super ne? [great right? [great right? 4 T: exzellent excellent excellent 5 B: joa:. yea:. yea:. 6 S: ((to B)) haste eigentlich have+you actually have you actually 7 B: man muss es immer nur oft genug one must it always only often enough you only have to turn it often enough 8

dreh’n sonst (.) turn otherwise (.) otherwise (.)





Chapter 3

(6) [Grillen in Stade Tape 1, B057] 1

T: [( [( [( [

2

B: [so. jetzt noch en schönes würstchen ] [so. now still a nice sausage+little] ] [so. now another little sausage B: hinterher? afterwards? as a follow-up?

3

) brot ( ) bread ( ) bread (

4

(1.0)

5

T: jo:a yea:h yea:h

6

(0.5)

7

o ham

B:

)] )] )]

wer docho lecker würstchen we PRTo tasty sausage+little o coming upo one tasty little sausage o have

8 => 9

(0.2) T: also das lammfleisch [( [( well the lamb-meat well the lamb [( [

) ) )

10 R:

[( [( [

) )

11 B:

[war gut ne? [was good right? [was good right?

12 T: so gutes lamm hab ich noch nich gegessen such good lamb have i yet not eaten i’ve never had such good lamb 13 B: joa. yeah. yeah.

In segment (5), lines 1–2, Tobias pays Bernhard a compliment about the meat Bernhard had prepared. This compliment is delivered shortly after Tobias has taken the first bite of food. As this is the first time this assessable is mentioned, Tobias’ use of a full NP is as expected (particularly as Tobias and Bernhard do not have a common focus of orientation at that moment since Bernhard is

Giving compliments

still tending to the grill). In segment (6), we can observe Tobias pay another compliment on the meat. This compliment is produced only a few minutes later and targets the same referent/assessable, the meat.11 Note that while the meat has already been the “topic” of the conversation, Tobias still uses a full NP to refer to the assessable. This is the case because while the topic of the prior talk was still on food items, the complimenting sequence itself had already come to an end. Other sequences (a short telling sequence (not displayed), and an offeracceptance sequence (segment (6), lines 2–7) had intervened. By using a full NP at this point, Tobias displays his understanding that the prior complimenting sequence had come to an end and that the present compliment would belong to a new sequence.12 Thus, speakers are clearly oriented to sequence organization and not topic development when producing turns at talk.13 Segment (7) demonstrates that when speakers compliment some feature of the coparticipant they are talking to, they use a second person pronoun as the locally initial reference form (rather than the coparticipant’s name, role description, etc.; again, see Schegloff (1996a) for a discussion of the interactional effects the use of a name could potentially have). In this segment, Annette is telling her parents (Bernhard and Sybille) and her friends (Tobias and Ricki) a story about the ordeal with her braces (which she had had removed by the time of the telling). The compliment of interest occurs at lines 11–14. In order to understand its form and function it will be necessary, however, to also consider the prior talk, specifically the function of the compliment that is paid at line 10. (7) [Grillen in Stade Tape 1, A555] 1

2

3 4

5

A: zuerst nur oben (.) und dann hinterher at first only top (.) and then later at first only up top (.) and later up oben und unten top and bottom top and below (.) A: und dann noch gummibänder so and then still rubber bands like and then in addition rubber bands like zusammen,= together,= that together,=





Chapter 3

6

B: =zeich mal die zähne jetzt =show once the teeth now =show me your teeth now

7

R: hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi

8

B: o muss ich doch mal betrachteno o must i PRT PRT look ato o i gotta look at thato ((A leans over to B and opens mouth widely))

9

(2.0)

10 B: schö:::n [wirklich ni:::ce [really ni:::ce [really [ => 11 T:

[aber du siehst wesentlich [but you look much [but you look much a:

=> 12

fitter aus als a: letztes mal in den fitter PRT than a: last time in the fitter than the last time in the states

=> 13

staaten und bee das letzte mal als du in states and be: the last time when you in and be: the last time you were

=> 14

deutschland warst germany were in germany

16 A: guck? see? see? 17 B: ja: yea:h yea:h 18 R: stimmt true true

When looking at some pictures that showed Annette with braces, Bernhard inquired how long Annette had been wearing the braces and what they actually accomplished (this talk is not shown in the transcript). Annette then launched into a telling of a story about the troubles with her braces, ending with a description of how rubber bands attached to the braces moved her teeth forward

Giving compliments

(lines 1–5). In response to this telling, Bernhard requests to see Annette’s teeth and assesses them positively (thereby paying Annette a compliment, the design of which will be discussed in a later section). This assessment (i.e., compliment) functions as a sequence closing third: it closes off the sequence of question + answer (telling); in closing this sequence, Bernhard is in effect stating that the trouble Annette had been describing had a positive outcome. In lines 11–14, Tobias also pays Annette a compliment; and this is the compliment of interest in the present discussion. This compliment is about Annette’s looks (weight and fitness in particular) and not about her teeth. This compliment is not designed as a second compliment in a sequence. In other words, it is not designed as a compliment in which a third party expresses his/her alignment with a prior speaker with regard to a compliment that was just paid to another participant. As I will discuss in more detail in a later chapter, such compliments are designed in a “minimal” fashion (use of “yeah”, “mhm” or other agreement marker). They do not take the form of multi-unit TCUs. The compliment that Tobias produces in lines 11–14 thus cannot be seen to be extending the prior sequence of question + story telling. While lines 11–14 are still a compliment (and thus appear on the surface to be ‘yet another compliment’), the action it performs is entirely different. The compliment in line 10 was produced in third position (i.e., it was responsive to the prior action of story-telling). The compliment in lines 11–14, however, is a first pair part. It opens a new sequence and moves the conversation forward. Since this is a feature/characteristic of Annette herself (and not some object she is wearing or something she created), and since Tobias is talking to her directly, there is no other possibility of referring to the referent than with the pronoun du/‘you’.14 In sum, locally initial forms in locally initial positions are used when the compliment is part of the start of a new sequence. Referring to the assessable in this particular manner clearly identifies the assessable to the coparticipant, allowing her or him to react to it. In subsequent turns (i.e., subsequent compliments), when referring to the same assessable again, we saw speakers use a subsequent reference form (such as no overt reference, or a third person pronoun). These two practices, using an initial form in initial position and using a subsequent form in subsequent position, are thus the “unproblematic”, “unmarked”, or “normal forms.” Variations from this “normal” practice of reference would then indicate that these variations fulfill particular interactional functions.





Chapter 3

..

Locally subsequent forms in locally subsequent positions

As mentioned above, a locally subsequent reference can be done with a third person singular pronoun (either a demonstrative or a personal pronoun) or be simply inferred (for example, when the speaker only produces an appreciatory sound, an adjective, an appreciatory sound in combination with an adjective, or a verb in combination with an adjective or adverb). We already saw in segment (4) that once speakers have introduced the assessable into the ongoing sequence, they can then refer to it with a pronoun. Segment (8) below is a partial reproduction of segment (4), showing that Freddie first introduced the assessable (i.e., Sybille’s roses) with a full NP and in the continuation of his turn refers to the assessable with a demonstrative pronoun. For ease of reading, the full NP and the demonstrative are bolded: (8) (partial reproduction of segment (4)) 4 F: sybille du hast aber schöne ro:sen sybille you have but nice ro:ses sybille you have really nice ro:ses 5

dieses jahr this year this year

6

(.)

7 I: [ja, [ja, [yes, [ 8 F: [die sehn gut aus. [that(fem.)look good. [they look good.

However, line 8 actually constitutes a second compliment in a series of two compliments that Freddie is paying Sybille in a row (the first at lines 4–5, the second at line 8). But there are also many data samples that demonstrate that a first compliment in a series of compliments can also contain a locally subsequent reference form. The following data segment is a case in point. In segment (9), Carla and her sister-in-law, Kirsten, are talking on the phone about the new house Carla has moved into. Prior to this transcript and in lines 1–4, Carla is describing the house and also the high ceilings. The compliment occurs in line 5:

Giving compliments

(9) [Kirsten, Tape 2, B47] 1

2

3

4

=> 5

C: a:ch weisste so’n so’n so’n haus we:ll you know such a such a such a house well you know such a such a such a house s- neunzehnhundert ge[baut s- nineteenhundred bu[ilt s- built in nineteenh[undred [ K: [ja. [yes. [yes. C: un dreimeterfünfzich hohe deckn and threemeterfifty high ceilings and ceilings three meters fifty high K: ohhh is aber toll ohhh is PRT great ohh really great

7

aber d-das zu tapeziern is we(h)niger but t-that to wallpaper is le(h)ss but wallpapering all that is le(h)ss 8 toll [he he he he great[he he he he great[he he he he [ 9 K: [he he he he he ka(h)nn ich mir [he he he he he ca(h)n i me [he he he he he i ca(h)n 10 vorstelln imagine imagine

When Carla has described the house with the high ceilings she has recently moved into, Kirsten pays her a compliment in line 5. Note that this compliment consists of an appreciatory sound, followed by copula is, particle, and adjective. In other words, other than the verb ending which implies a referent in the third person singular, the utterance in line 5 contains no overt reference to the assessable. The assessable is easily identifiable as it has been mentioned





Chapter 3

in the previous turns which belong to the same sequence: the referent is located in the first pair part (the telling) and the assessment/compliment (without an overt reference) is located in the second pair part (in the telling receipt). The same pattern can be observed in the following segment taken from a dinner table conversation. The assessable in question is “broccoli”. Note that the first time within the sequence, it is referred to with a full NP, while in all subsequent turns within the assessment sequence it is referred to with pronouns or can be inferred. (10) [Fischessen 0:09:39:11: bissfest] 1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8

A: also vom flugha:fen? ((swallows))bis well from the ai:rport? ((swallows)) to well from the airport? ((swallows)) to zum messe- hotel messegelände ham the fair- hotel fair grounds have the fair- hotel at the fairgrounds [se fünfzich mark bezahlt [they fifty marks paid [they paid fifty marks [ S: [hmm, [hum, [hum, B: s normal. is normal. that’s standard S: also brokkoli is gut bissfest. well broccoli is good al dente. well the broccoli is quite al dente.

(1.0) S: o wenigstens das stück das ich ebn [hatteo o at least the piece that i just [hado o at least the piece that i just [had [ 9 B: [m’hm [m’hm [m’hm 10 U: das macht man so.gestern im that makes one so.yesterday in+the that’s how it’s done. yesterday in the

Giving compliments

11 U: restaurant hatte ich ihn auch sehr (.) restaurant had i him also very (.) restaurant i also had it very much (.) 12 U: bissfest al dente al dente 13 A: mhm o das is weicho uhum o this is softo uhuhm o this is softo 14 (.) 15 ?: um hu um hu um hu => 16 B: sehr gut häschen. haste gut ge[kocht. very good rabbit. have+you good c[ooked very good honey. you did [well [ 17 U: [mhm. [uhum. [uhum. 18 U: s[ehr lecker v[ery yummy v [ery yummy [ 19 D: [((nod[s)) [ 20 S: [ich hab’s in der mi:krowelle gemacht [i have+it in the microwave made [i made it in the microwave 21 (1.5) 22 B: in se meicrovave? in the microwave? ((in English)) in the microwave?

In line 6 Sybille, who has cooked the meal, is negatively assessing the broccoli; she is self-deprecating. As coparticipants typically disagree with selfdeprecations (Pomerantz 1984a) and instead provide positive assessments (i.e., compliments), Sybille can be said to be fishing for compliments. When none of the other coparticipants provide any disagreements (see silence in line 7), Sybille downgrades her own assessment in line 8 by qualifying her statement. This downgrade receives an agreement token from Sybille’s husband Bernhard, who thereby confirms that the broccoli is al dente. In lines 10–12, Uschi re-





Chapter 3

assures Sybille by stating that this is how this food item is supposed to be prepared. As evidence for this claim, she states that the broccoli she had at a restaurant the previous day was also very much al dente. The action this turn does is potentially ambiguous: This turn can either be heard as reassuring and complimentary in that Sybille has prepared food like a restaurant did; alternatively, it can also be heard as a complaint (Uschi has now had “very al dente” broccoli twice in a row). After acknowledging Uschi’s turn, Annette then reassures Sybille by stating that the food on her plate is soft. Up to this point, Sybille has not received the expected response to her compliment solicitation (in form of a self-deprecation); although she has received a consolation and a contradiction, she has received no outright compliment on the meal she prepared. In line 16, Bernhard, finally produces two compliments in a sequence: he uses an intensifier with which he stresses an adjective, followed by a pet name for his wife. He then adds a verb followed by an adverb, stating that she cooked well. In overlap with his second compliment, two of the other participants also orient to Bernhard’s turn in that they produce agreement tokens (mhm ‘uhum’ and nodding) and a second assessment (sehr lecker ‘very yummy’). Sybille also orients to Bernhard’s turn as a compliment, as her response provides a history or account of how she prepared the meal (Golato 2002a). Note that Bernhard does not refer to the assessable overtly.15 One might argue that his compliment is therefore somewhat ambiguous since it is not clear whether he is complimenting the broccoli or the entire meal. However, Sybille’s response ich hab’s in der mi:krowelle gemacht / ‘I made it in the microwave’ demonstrates that she took the referent of the compliment to be the broccoli; as this was the only item that was prepared using the microwave.16 In data segments (9) and (10), we observed a participant using a locally subsequent reference form when the referent to the assessable has actually already been mentioned (named) within the same sequence. In other words, the referent is in a locally (sequentially) subsequent position. As the previous discussion has shown, this last point is important to remember. If the item has been mentioned (or even topicalized) earlier, in a different sequence, and is introduced again in a later sequence, it is regularly re-introduced into the later sequence with a full NP (as data segments (5) and (6) have shown). By using a pronoun or by having the recipient infer the referent, speakers are thus displaying their understanding that the current sequence has not been closed down yet but is instead continuing. While this has already been observed by Fox for reference to human referents in non-story talk (Fox 1987: 18), the current study corroborates and extends Fox’s work, since it shows that the same pattern holds for reference to objects. That is, interlocutors are monitoring each other’s talk

Giving compliments

as it unfolds for signs of sequence closure, that is, they “reflect to their interlocutors the result of this monitoring, at least in part, by the anaphoric device they choose” (Fox 1987: 18). It is also striking that in all data segments in this category (i.e., subsequent forms in subsequent position), the compliment actually occurs as (part of) a second pair part to some other action. In data segment (9), the compliment serves as a second pair part to a telling, in data segment (10), the compliment is the second pair part to a compliment solicitation. In other data segments (not displayed), the compliment is in the second pair part of an offer-rejection sequence, an offer-acceptance sequence, an assessment-second assessment-sequence, and a story-response sequence. Not in all instances, however, is the initial reference to the assessable contained in the first pair part and the subsequent reference in the second pair part. In two of the eight data segments, the initial reference to the assessable is simply introduced in the second pair part as part of a multi-TCU turn prior to the production of the compliment. This is shown in the following example (which is a partial reproduction of data segment (7)). Recall that in this data segment, Annette had been telling her coparticipants a story about her ordeal with her braces. In line 6, Bernhard first introduces the assessable (locally initial position), and then does not refer to it overtly in line 10 as part of the compliment. (11) [Grillen in Stade Tape 1, A555] 1

2

3 4

5

6

A: zuerst nur oben (.) und dann hinterher at first only top (.) and then later at first only up top (.) and later up oben und unten top and bottom top and below (.) A: und dann noch gummibänder so and then still rubber bands like and then in addition rubber bands like zusammen,= together,= that together,= B: =zeich mal die zähne jetzt =show once the teeth now =show me your teeth now





Chapter 3

7

R: hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi

8

B: o muss ich doch mal betrachteno o must i PRT PRT look ato o i gotta look at thato ((A leans over to B and opens mouth widely))

9

(2.0)

10 B: schö:::n [wirklich ni:::ce [really ni:::ce [really

The tail-end of the first pair part (the telling of a story) is depicted in lines 1–5. One typical way in which participants can respond to the telling of a story is to provide an assessment of the story (or the object the story has been about) in the next turn (Goodwin 1986; Schegloff 1995b). This assessment (in the form of a compliment) is forthcoming in line 10. However, there is a short insertion sequence in lines 6–9. This particular insertion sequence is what Schegloff (1995b: 106) labels a “pre-second”. That is, in this sequence work gets done that allows the speaker to adequately perform the appropriate second pair part. In this particular pre-second insertion sequence, Bernhard is obtaining the necessary information allowing him to provide an assessment as part of the story response. In order to be able to assess some element, one has to be in a position to assess the item in question. In other words, one has to have access to it (Pomerantz 1984a). In response to her story, Annette’s father Bernhard requests to see her teeth (line 6), and then looks at them (actually verbalizing his looking in line 8). At this point, Bernhard has “access” to the teeth and is able to independently evaluate the work of the dentist. In the insertion sequence, Bernhard is referring to the teeth with a full NP (line 4) and in line 10, he then uses a “free” phrase in order to do the assessment (i.e., the referent and the verb need to be inferred). In sum, this section has demonstrated that speakers regularly use subsequent reference forms to refer to an assessable, when the mention of the assessable is in subsequent position (i.e., when the assessable has already been mentioned before within the same sequence). ..

Locally initial forms in locally subsequent positions

The function of initial reference forms in locally subsequent positions has already been partially discussed in the section on initial forms in initial position.

Giving compliments

However, for the sake of clarity, let me restate the points I made earlier and add some other observations. In Section 3.2.1, I argued that it is not the notions of ‘topic continuity’ or ‘access to the assessable’ that determine whether a speaker is likely to choose an initial form of reference or a subsequent one, but that it depends instead upon the position of the anaphoric device within the sequential organization of the talk. In other words, when an assessable is mentioned for the first time in the ongoing sequence as part of the compliment-TCU, we can expect the speaker to use a full noun phrase (or a second person pronoun if he/she is complimenting the coparticipant directly, as seen in data segment (7)). Using data segments (5) and (6), I demonstrated that even if the assessable has been mentioned in previous talk, we can still expect a speaker to use a full noun phrase as a reference to an assessable if the previous mentioning of that assessable was in a different sequence. Put differently, when the reference to the assessable belongs to a new sequence (or starts a new sequence), we can expect a full NP as a referential expression, regardless of whether or not the assessable has been the topic before. The findings for anaphora in compliments (which often are about non-human, non-animate referents) extend Fox’s work on reference to people: . . . it is the structural relation of the utterance to the preceding talk determines patterns of anaphora, and not surface-given facts like topic continuity or referent ambiguity, the resolution of an anaphoric device must depend on the recipient’s understanding of the particular structural pattern currently being developed. (Fox 1987: 56)

The following data segment (segment (12) , which is a reproduction of data segment (2)) is a further example of this. As previously mentioned, Ute, Heiner, and Norbert are siblings. Heiner is an exchange student in the US, Norbert had visited him and Heiner had sent along pictures with his brother for the rest of the family to look at. At the point when Ute and Heiner are talking, Ute has seen the pictures (as displayed elsewhere on the tape), whereas their mother (mentioned in line 1) has not. (12) [Champaign, Tape 2, B204] 1

2

U: und mam- mit der ma:mma hoab i au mal and mo- with the mo:mmy have i also PRT and mo- with mom i had a very nice ganz nett geratscht die kauft sich a quite nicely chatted she buys herself a chat the other day she is getting





Chapter 3

3

neue etz[a new no[w new no[w [

4

H:

5

U:

6

U: halt beim fischer und so un ham PRT at+the fisher and like and have went to the fisher’s and like and

7

U: [a bis]sel ogschaut .hh brilln [a lit]tle looked at .hh glasses [looked ] around some . hh selected [ ]

8

H: [mham ] [uhum ] [uhum ]

9

U: ausgsuacht.=naja un i: fahr am samstag selected.=well an i: drive on saturday glasses.=well an i’m going to go to

10

[mh[m [uh[u [uh[u [

] ] ] ]

[wa]rn wir [we]re we [we]thus

jetz nach berli:n. now to berli:n. berli:n this saturday

11 H: mham. .hh wenns de- wennste noch mal mit uhum. .hh when you- when you again with uhum. .hh when you- when you talk to her 12

ihr telefonierst weil i habs vorher her phone because i have+it earlier tried on the phone again because i tried

13

versucht doa war aber niemand daheim there was but nobody home earlier but nobody was home then

14

.hhh ähm dann sagst ihr dass die- die .hhh uhm then tell her that the- the .hhh uhm then tell her that the- the next

15

nächsten fotos schon unterwegs san alsonext photos already on the way are well photos are already on the way well- w-

Giving compliments

16

m- mim norbert w- with+the norbert with norbert

17 U: aham:, uhum:, uhum:, 18

(.)

=> 19 U: scheene fotos, heiner, nice photos, heiner, ((first name)) nice photos, heiner, 20 H: a:: haa. u:: hum. u:: hum.

After Ute has told her brother about a get-together with their mother (lines 1–10), Heiner initiates the first pair part of a request sequence in lines 11–16. In his request, he mentions the referent with a full noun phrase die nächsten photos/ ‘the next photos.’ In line 17, Ute produces the second pair part to the request, by agreeing to comply with the request. Here, the request-compliance sequence comes to an end, as also evidenced by the micro pause in line 18. In line 19, then, Ute takes the floor again, now paying Heiner a compliment on the very same pictures that were mentioned in line 15. When referring to the assessable, Ute does so with a full noun phrase. She thereby constructs the compliment not as continuing the previous sequence, but as starting a new sequence, namely a compliment sequence (that will eventually lead to a telling about a trip on which these pictures were taken). The compliment is here paid as part of a first pair part; it is not produced in direct response to some prior action. In sum, by using an initial reference form in subsequent position, interactants display to their coparticipants that they view the preceding sequence as closed (again, see Fox 1987: 40 for the same observation regarding reference to human referents in non-story talk). Or, put differently, interactants can use the initial reference in subsequent position to “bring off ‘a new departure’ in talk which otherwise is apparently continuous with just prior talk” (Schegloff 1996a: 452). It needs to be stressed again that the selection of this particular anaphoric device shows that the speaker has been monitoring the unfolding talk for its structure (sequence) and that he/she displays the outcome of this monitoring to the coparticipant (and the analyst) by using a very specific referent form.





Chapter 3

..

Locally subsequent reference forms in locally initial position

In the previous sections, I discussed the “unmarked” form of reference to the assessable: speakers used an initial form in initial position, and they use a subsequent form in subsequent position. I have also discussed one of the “marked” forms, that is, a locally initial reference form in a subsequent position. Glancing back at Table 3.2, however, it becomes obvious that the most frequent anaphoric device is a locally subsequent form in locally initial position, which is also a “marked” form. This type of reference will be discussed in the present section. There are various types of subsequent forms used by the speakers in the data. For instance, in a substantial number of compliments, there is actually no overt reference to the assessable. This is the case when the only indication of the referent of a verb is indicated by the verb ending as in schmeckt gut, inge / ‘tastes good, inge’ (here, we can only gather from the grammatical information in the verb ending that the speaker is referring to a referent in the singular). In other compliments, speakers have to rely entirely on contextual clues as the whole compliment turn only consists of an appreciatory sound and/or adjective. Another locally subsequent reference form consists of demonstratives and personal pronouns used in the third person singular or plural. As it turns out, it does not seem to be the case that each type of locally subsequent reference form has a different interactional implication. Instead, they seem to fall into two sets each having their own interactional import: those in which the referent needs to be inferred, and those that make use of pronouns (i.e., demonstrative or personal pronouns). These two subcategories of locally subsequent reference forms in locally initial position and their interactional functions will be discussed in turn. ... Demonstrative pronouns used as reference to the assessable As already mentioned above, a demonstrative pronoun can be used as a subsequent reference form in a subsequent reference position. In this section, however, I will discuss the use of demonstrative pronouns as a subsequent reference form in an initial reference position. In other words, this section discusses those instances in which the demonstrative pronoun constitutes the first time a speaker makes reference to the assessable. The demonstrative pronoun regularly used in such instances is der/die/das / ‘that (one)’17 and in one instance a third person pronoun es/‘it’. I will argue that with the use of the demonstrative, the speaker is directing his or her coparticipant to look for the referent outside of the current TCU, either in the action/utterances preced-

Giving compliments

ing the current talk or following the current talk. The fact that speakers use a demonstrative pronoun can lead one to believe that it is used when the speaker is simultaneously pointing at an item with a hand or head gesture. Moreover, one might think that this would occur when the lexical item (i.e., the noun phrase) for the assessable may not be available to a speaker, i.e., when s/he is engaged in a word search. However, the current data set yielded only one such example, depicted in data segment (13). In this segment, the interlocutors Irmgard and her husband Freddie and Sybille and her husband Bernhard are sitting on Sybille and Berhard’s porch, overlooking the garden. Annette is putting a bowl of water out for the dog (referred to as sie/‘she’ in the first line of the transcript). Irmgard, Freddie, Sybille, and Bernhard are about to start a card game when the following sequence unfolds, as Irmgard embarks on a very elaborate word search, spanning several pages of transcript (only the beginning of which is depicted here): (13) [Doppelkopf, 0:07:40:00 /ROSEN 2 und Hortensien] 1

2

3

4

5

6

A: soll sie das hier draußn trinkn should she that here outside drink should she be able to drink this here A: könn? [oder sollscan? [or should soutside? [or should [ S: [NEne↑ [NOno↑ [NOno↑ S: stells ihr drinne hin put+it for her inside down put it down for her inside

o

wo’s

o where+it o where

it

o

stand . stoodo . waso . B: so. so. so.

oh that looks really nice. over there





Chapter 3

8

9

kumma die- (.) ro:sen, sieht aus= look the- (.)ro:ses, looks like= look the- (.) ro:ses, looks like= F: =ne?= =right?= =right?=

=as if they were on a .hh (0.5) 11 F: [un die hortensie [an the hydrangea [an the hydrangea [ 12 S: [auf diesem[on this ((masc/neuter sg)) [on the-

16 I: noch? again? again?

In lines 7–8, Irmgard pays Sybille a compliment on a particular rose bush she has planted in her yard. The first referent Irmgard uses is the demonstrative pronoun das/‘that’, and nods with her head in the direction of the flowers.

Giving compliments

Later in her turn, she then includes a full noun phrase as a reference. This locally subsequent form das/‘that’ is clearly produced in initial position. The previous sequence was a request-compliance sequence between Sybille, Bernhard and their daughter Annette in which the parents asked Annette to give the dog some water. The end of this sequence can be seen in lines 1–5. In line 6, Bernhard produces a lexical item that is frequently associated with action shifts,18 thereby providing clear evidence that at least he considers the previous sequence as closed. Thus, Irmgard’s turn in line 7 clearly marks the beginning of a new sequence. We would then normally expect a full NP as a reference to the assessable. However, it is not forthcoming; instead, Irmgard uses a demonstrative pronoun in combination with a gesture (i.e., her head movement) as described above. This usage might be explained by the fact that Irmgard is having difficulty accessing the noun in question and thus uses a “placeholder.” Later in the turn Irmgard produces the full referent; however, her turn includes hesitation phenomena (a cut-off and a micro pause before the lexical item) that are typically associated with word-searches (i.e., a speaker’s difficulty in accessing a lexical item) (Schegloff et al. 1977). Thus, one might argue that Irmgard used the demonstrative in combination with the gesture as a placeholder for the full noun phrase produced later in the turn. Far more frequently, however, demonstratives are used in initial position when speakers are clearly not engaged in word search activities. A close inspection of these instances reveals that these demonstratives again direct the coparticipant to look for the referent outside of the current TCU. Specifically, they refer to an action that the coparticipant just performed. The following data segments are cases in point. In segment (14), Markus (living in the US) is calling his sister Nicki early in the morning, German time. (14) [Oregon, Tape 2 A327] 1

N: das war jetz der wegger he o hho:o that was now the alarm clock he o hho:o now that was the alarm clock he o hho:o

2

M: naja: wollt nur mal hör’n wie’s dir you we:ll wanted only once hear how we:ll just wanted to hear how you are

3

M: geht [wie’s deinm are [how your doing [how your [





Chapter 3

=> 4

N:

[nee: des is aber lieb von dir [no: that is but nice of you [no: that is really nice of you

5

M: magen geht stomach is doing stomach is doing

6

N: natürlich das is lieb von dir [war ja of course that is nice of you [was PRT of course that’s nice of you [it wasn’t [

7

M:

8

N: auch nich so todernst jetz ich mein aber also not so deadserious now i mean but that serious now i mean but i thought

[.dHHHHHH [.dHHHHHH [.dHHHHHH

9

ich hab gedacht wer ruft denn jetz da um i have thought who calls then now there who is calling now at

10

zehn nach acht an at ten past eight ten past eight

In lines 2–3 and 5, Markus is providing the reason for his call, namely to check up on his sister’s health (from earlier recordings it is clear that his sister had been ill with a stomach flu). Nicki thanks Markus for this concern by complimenting him as being nice and thoughtful. The demonstrative das in her turn in line 4 refers to his action of inquiring about her health. Similarly, in the following data segment, Bernhard is complimenting his card partner Irmgard for her excellent strategic play. (15) [Doppelkopf, 0:26:31:00 / fein gemacht] 1

B: und? and? and?

2

F: den a[m schluss this a[t end this one a[t the end [

3

I:

[ne. ne ne ne ne ne [no. no no no no no [no. no no no no no

Giving compliments

4

B: n[e:? ne, den kriegn wir n[o:? no, this get we n[o:? no, we’ll get this one [

5

I:

6

F: schade too bad too bad

=> 7

=> 8

9

10

[den nehmn wir mal noch [this take we PRT still [this one we’ll take again

B: das is sehr schön irmgard. haste that is very beautiful irmgard. have+you that’s very beautiful irmgard. fein gemacht. nice done. good job. I: den punkt ziehn wir euch mal e:ben aus this point draw we you once quickly out this point is one we’ll quickly take away der tasche the pocket from you

Again, we can see that Bernhard is evaluating an action a coparticipant has just completed. While the action has been performed visibly to all participants, it has not been expressed with words prior to Bernhard’s turn in lines 7–8. When Bernhard begins his compliment in line 7, he refers to the action with a demonstrative pronoun. In the second part of the compliment (when the assessable has already been mentioned), he no longer uses an overt reference; instead, participants have to rely on contextual clues and on the verb ending to identify the assessable. The following data segment is slightly different. Here, the demonstrative makes reference not to a previously-mentioned individual item or activity, but to the activity as a whole. In the data, Markus is again talking to Nicki. He is telling her about a pot-luck dinner he will attend later in the afternoon. In addition, he tells her that he intends to bring a home-made potato salad. (16) [Oregon Tape 2, A278] 1

N: un haste haste jetz ähm welchen an have+you have+you now uhm which an did you did you now uhm which potato





Chapter 3

2

kartoffelsalat hast’n gemacht=weil ich potato salad have you make=because i salad did you make=because i mean, okay .

3

mein oke. kartoffeln gibt’s überall auf mean okay.potatoes exist everywhere on potatoes exist everywhere in

4

der welt aber [( the world but [( the world but [( [

5

M:

) ) )

[((coughs)) ((15 lines skipped in which M explains which salad he did not make and why not))

20 M: ((clears throat)) tschulding ((sniff)) ((clears throat)) sorry ((sniff)) ((sniff)) ((clears throat)) sorry 21

essich un öl und salz und pfeffer und vinegar an oil and salt and peper and vinegar an oil and salt and pepper and

22

.hh radie:schen untähm äh dill und .hhh .hh ra:dishes anduhm uh dill and .hhh .hh ra:dishes anduhm uh dill and .hhh

23

und ähm and uhm and uhm

24 N: och [radieschen gibt’s da auch. oh [radishes there are there too. oh [you can get radishes there too. [ 25 M:

[pet[par[par-

26 M: aah ja kla:r gibt’s radie[schen uuh yes clearly there are radi[shes uuh yes sure there are radi[shes [ 27 N:

28

[wieso [why [actually sollt’s die eigentlich nich geb’n ge should they actually not exist right why shouldn’t they be available right

Giving compliments

29

30 M:

he [he he he he he [he he he he he [he he he he [ [ä hä hä hä hä .hhh u:nd .hh aja und [u ha ha ha ha .hhh a:nd .hh oyes and [u ha ha ha ha .hhh a:nd .hh oyes and

31 M: dann dann noch petersilje und dill und then then also parsley and dill and then then also parsley and dill and 32

zwiebeln un so frühlingszwiebeln und onions an like green onions and onions an like green onions and

33

schnittlauch chives chives

=> 34 N: das klingt gut du. is ja dann lecker that sounds good you.is PRT then yummy hey that sounds good. is really yummy 35 M: ja:a. und dann ähm hab ich so:: .hh ye:es.and then uhm have i like:: .hh ye:ah. and then uhm I like:: .hh 36

ähm diesmal mal so mirakel wip und uhm this time PRT like miracle whip and uhm this time I mixed like miracle whip

37

majonese gemischt, . . . mayonnaise mix, . . . and mayonnaise, . . .

Nicki’s inquiry as to which potato salad Markus prepared launches an extensive telling by Markus. He first explains which salad he chose not to make and why (not shown in the transcript), after which he explains in great detail the recipe of the salad he chose to make. In line 34, Nicki’s response to the telling is an assessment (i.e., a compliment). In this assessment she includes the demonstrative pronoun das/‘that.’ Given the case, gender, and number of the demonstrative, it cannot refer back to any of the ingredients Markus had listed in lines 31–33. Instead, this demonstrative pronoun refers back to the entire telling, that is to the activity of making the salad. If Nicki had simply uttered gut, du. is ja dann lecker / “hey good. is really yummy”, there could have been at least some doubt as to whether she was referring to one of the last ingredients as what made the salad really yummy, or to the entire recipe. Including the demonstrative in her talk eliminates this doubt.





Chapter 3

In segments (14)–(16), we have seen interactants use a subsequent reference form when the assessable itself has not been verbally expressed in the preceding utterances. In other words, although the position in which the reference form occurs is an initial position, speakers opt to use a subsequent reference form. This subsequent reference form is a demonstrative pronoun. By using a demonstrative, speakers direct their coparticipants to look outside the unfolding TCU for the referent of the demonstrative. Specifically, speakers use the demonstrative to refer to an action that was either performed with the coparticipants’ prior turn(s) or was reported on in the coparticipant’s prior turn(s). Speakers thereby turn an activity with “verb-like properties” (Yule 1998: 218) such as inquiring, playing well, or cooking, into an event with “noun-like properties” (Yule 1998: 218). As Yule (1998: 218) observes: “The event tends to be treated as a specific thing that can be referred to.” ... No overt reference to the assessable when reference is in locally initial position As mentioned above, the second set of data segments, all of which fall under the rubric of locally subsequent reference forms in locally initial positions, do not make any overt reference to the assessable. That is, these compliments consist of either appreciatory sounds, assessment segments (i.e., adjectives), a combination of appreciatory sounds and adjectives, and verbs with adverbs and assessment segments. Intuitively, it would make sense if such compliments were given immediately after the coparticipants first have (sensual) access to the assessable (Goodwin & Goodwin 1992a). For example, we might intuitively expect this form of reference when a host puts the food on the table and the complimenter is taking their first bite of food. This analysis is supported by the following data segment. This segment is the same as segment (3); it is here reproduced as segment (17) for the sake of convenience. (17) [Fischessen: 0:00:45:00 oh lecker] 1 S: so::. das kommt dann gleich drüber da so::. this comes then soon over there so::. this will soon go over there 2 ?: (mhm) (uhu) (uhu)

Giving compliments

3 S: [ich mach eben noch maln paar ( [i do just still PRT some ( [i’m just gonna make some ( ) [

) )

4 B: [o lass mich mal dahino [o let me once thereo o [ let me just get in hereo 5 S: ganz kurz very quickly very quickly

yummy. i can turn on the light

=> 8

ne? right? right?

9 A: ja kannste yes can+you yes you can

Sybille and Uschi are in the kitchen, putting the final touches on the dinner. Bernhard is entering the kitchen in order to throw something into the trash, which is located underneath the kitchen sink – precisely where Uschi and Sybille are working. Thus, in order to throw the trash away, Bernhard has to ask Uschi to move away (see line 4), at which time he also gets a view of the food. With his lengthened and loud O:::::HHH he makes known that he spotted the food, while the repetition of the adjectives serves as his complimentary comment on the food’s appearance. He evaluates the food, assessing it as yummy, thereby paying Sybille (the primary cook of the meal) a compliment in the form of a series of assessment segments, i.e., adjectives (see line 6). Note that he utters the assessments as soon as he spots the food. This segment seems to support the hypothesis that compliments without an overt reference to the assessable are given as soon as the person compliment-





Chapter 3

ing first notices the assessable. This hypothesis seems to be further supported by instances in which a person elicits compliments, as in the following data segment. Here we see Sybille showing Annette a new set of plates: (18) [Fischessen: 0:03:24:00 kuckma] 1 D: prost cheers cheers 2 U: prost cheers cheers 3 D: prost. pro[st. cheers. che[ers. cheers. che[ers. [ 4 S:

[kuckma wa- kuckma was [look+once wh- look+once what [look wh- look what we

5 S: wir habn, we have, got => 6 A: schö:ön. ((continues pouring wine)) ni:ice. ni:ice. 7 S: zwei kleine spaghettiteller. two little spaghetti plates. two little spaghetti plates.

In lines 4–5, Sybille shows Annette some plates that Sybille and her husband have acquired since Annette last visited them. It has been noted in the literature that in American English, value is placed on newness in that new acquisitions are usually honored with a compliment (Manes 1983). German etiquette books also recommend paying compliments on new items that the hosts own (Harbert 1952: 28; Sucher 1996: 160). In line 6, Annette is responding as expected: As soon as Annette looks at the plates, she assesses them as nice, thereby paying Sybille (and her husband) a compliment on their new china and ultimately on their taste. By responding to Sybille’s turn with an adjective (instead of an acknowledgment), Annette orients to the fact that the item is new. Her assessment segment (i.e., the adjective) is produced with a lengthened vowel and falling intonation. Such lengthening of vowels is typical of assessments

Giving compliments

and gives them more emphasis (Schwitalla 1997: 146–147). Notice, too, that Annette produces the compliment as soon as she glances at the china. Taken together, these two segments appear to support the claim that this particular compliment format is used whenever someone first notices an assessable or when they first have access to it. However, this explanation is insufficient, as some of the compliments in the first category (locally initial form in local initial position) were also produced as soon as the speaker noticed the assessable, yet the speaker used a full NP. An additional instance of a speaker using a full NP when spotting an assessable is the following example (mentioned earlier in a footnote). After Freddie and Bernhard have discussed what to drink during the course of the evening, Bernhard is off camera (presumably fetching the drinks), while Freddie turns his attention to the roses. (19) [Doppelkopf, 0:00:54:00] 1

B: weißwein. white wine19 is auch immer white wine.white wine is also always white wine. white wine is always a good

2

B: gut. good. choice.

3

=> 4

5

(0.2) ((B goes to fridge in kitchen or basement to get the wine, F turns around at the same time, and spots the roses)) F: habt ihr schöne ro:sen hier. have you+pl. nice ro:ses here. you’ve got nice ro:ses here. (0.2)20

6

F: nein. no. wow.

8

F: o::::hm, a::::hm., a::::hm.,

9

(0.5)





Chapter 3

10 F: hier is ein brandschaden((looks at leaf)) here is a burn damage here it is burnt

In this data segment, we can observe that Freddie is paying a compliment as soon as he notices the roses, yet he does so with a full noun phrase and not, as we would expect, without an overt reference. This casts doubt on our initial account of what interactional purpose non-overt reference may be used for. Further doubt of our initial explanation comes from segments in which speakers use non-overt references a short while after they can be assumed to have noticed the assessable. This is the case in the following segment where Annette is watching her grandmother prepare a meal. She has been standing next to her grandmother (O) for about a minute, chatting with her and watching her stir a sauce: (20) [Oma kocht, Tape 1 A433] 1

(5.0) ((O busy cooking))

2 A: sieht aber lecker aus looks PRT tasty looks really tasty 3

(30.0 +)

Clearly, Annette has been looking at the sauce for about a minute when she then produces the compliment in line 2. That is, she uses a non-overt reference although she is not noticing the food for the first time at the moment she pays the compliment. While it intuitively makes sense to assume that speakers use non-overt references in a locally initial position when they first notice an assessable, the above data segments have demonstrated that this account does not hold. We have seen speakers using a full noun phrase when they first notice an assessable, and we have also seen them use non-overt references even when a short period of time has passed since they first noticed the assessable. Thus, we need to look for a different account of the usage of non-overt references. Looking at data segments that contain non-overt references in locally initial position, we can see that speakers omit a direct reference to the assessable when all coparticipants have a common orientation to the assessable. For instance, in data segment (17), Sybille and Uschi were focused on preparing food together. When Bernhard threw an item into the trash, he had to ask Uschi to move away and then also saw the food item that Uschi and Sybille were working on. Similarly, in data segment (18), Sybille was showing Annette some new plates, holding them out for Annette to gaze at them. Likewise, in data segment (20),

Giving compliments

Annette is watching her grandmother cook and both Annette and her grandmother are looking at the food in the pot. Thus, in all of these segments, the speaker is gazing at the same item (i.e., focusing on the same item) that their coparticipant is gazing at and in all three instances, the coparticipant is aware of the presence (and/or gaze) of the speaker. These data segments show that speakers are monitoring what their coparticipants are focused on (i.e., what they are gazing at) and they display this monitoring in their selection of reference forms. In addition, the use of this form shows that speakers assume that their coparticipants also know what the speaker is gazing at.21 In sum, by constructing their compliment turn to include a non-overt reference, speakers are thus indicating that they expect their coparticipant to be able to locate the referent of the assessable without difficulty and without ambiguity.22 Here, we thus have an instance in conversation where Grice’s maxim of quantity (Grice 1975) is at work: interactants usually do not tell others something that they already know. This general rule has implications in particular for joke- and story-tellings (Sacks 1972: 343), but also for turn-design with respect to person reference (Schegloff 1980, 1996a) and here with respect to reference to the assessable. To put it in Heath’s terms: “The speaker encourages the cointeractant to participate in a certain fashion and on receiving the cooperation of the other successfully establishes a certain framework of participation for the utterance and its accompanying visual action. The framework allows the activity to be produced and understood in a certain way” (Heath 1986: 84). By leaving out the elements they expect their coparticipants to be able to figure out, speakers accomplish the following: They involve their coparticipants in the interaction, and shorten the length of their utterance, leaving only the most salient elements to be expressed (i.e., the assessment itself). In doing so, the collaboration between the conversationalists creates cohesion between the surrounding talk and the compliment. And this cohesion is “an enacted, interpreted and co-constructed affair, not an entirely inherited or pre-determined one” (Schegloff 1996a: 451). Moreover, leaving out the overt reference form, the turns at talk become shorter or minimal, thereby giving prominence (i.e., emphasis) to the assessment segments. ..

Locally subsequent forms and locally initial forms in locally initial positions

The previous sections have shown that reference to the assessable certainly implicates recipient design (much like most other talk including person reference





Chapter 3

does (Schegloff 1996a: 458). Given this systematic feature, one starts to wonder about the interactional work a speaker accomplishes when using more than one form of reference for the same assessable within one turn at talk. As stated in Table 3.2, there are six instances in the data in which we can observe a speaker making an utterance which contains a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of their TCU and a direct mention of the assessable in an expansion of the turn (Auer 1991, 1996). In other words, there are six data segments in which an assessable is referred to twice within the same TCU. In each of these instances, the first mention of the assessable is done with a subsequent referent form (i.e., a demonstrative pronoun) and the second mention is done with an initial referent form (i.e., a full NP). The following data segments illustrate this construction: (21) [Anna und Leah 0:03:50:24: Milchdöschen] 1 M: eigentlich soll das auch schnei:(h)den actually should that also cu:(h)t normally that thing should also cu:(h)t 2

das ding he he he that thing he he he he he he

=> 3 A: ooch das is ja süß das milchdöschen ooh that is PRT cute that milk jar+little ooh that is so cute that little creamer 4 M: so. und nun hier ( so. and now here ( so. and now here (

) ) )

(22) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1 A083 dudel] 1

C: nikki du bist ein dudel nikki you are a nut nikki you are a nut

2

A: a-[aa-[aa-[a[

3

C:

4

C: und du springst weg and you jump away you jump away

[jetz mach ich dir extra die tür auf [now make i you extra the door open [now i open the door just for you and

Giving compliments

5

(1.0)

6

M: he he he he he he

7

(1.0)

8

A: (

9

M: ach gott oh god oh god

)

10 C: ((clears throat)) => 11 M: das is gut das this((neuter nom.)) is good the this is good this => 12

müslibrot mueslibread ((neuter nom.)) mueslibread

13 A: uh hum uh hum uh hum 14

(0.5)

(23) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, A524] 1

A: is da noch kaffee is there still coffee is there still coffee

2

M: nöa nope nope

3

A: nich. ich mach noch mal not. i make still PRT not. i’ll make some more

4 5

6 7

(.) M: [alles aufgebraucht [all used up [all consumed [((some banging noise))] A: aua [ahhhh ouch [ahhhh ouch [ahhhh [





Chapter 3

8

C:

[o:::h [o:::h [o:::h

9

A: oh he he he he oh he he he he oh he he he he

10 M: mmhh vorsicht mmhh careful mmhh careful 11 A: m he he he he m he he he he m he he he he 12

(.)

13 A: (

)

=> 14 M: ah die is hervorragend die melone ah this+fem is excellent the melon ah this is excellent this melon 15 A: ja? yes? yes?

In each of these three segments, speakers use two referring expressions within the same turn. Specifically, they use a demonstrative pronoun and a full noun phrase. While one can certainly use the neuter pronoun das/‘that’ as a generic item to refer to any object, in the instances above, the demonstratives employed by the speakers correspond in gender, number, and case to the full NP. In addition to the appreciatory sounds that segments (21) and (23) feature, the compliment turns contain the demonstrative, copula sein/‘be’ and an adjective, followed by the noun phrase. Note that in terms of its syntax, the turn is possibly complete after the production of the adjective and the noun phrase could thus be considered an increment (Ford & Thompson 1996; Schegloff 1996b) to the turn at talk. However, in terms of its intonation contour, the turn is designed as one continuous, smooth unit. The addition of the noun phrase is what has been described as a typical paradigmatic expansion (Auer 1991: 145–146, 1996: 77–78). Of interest here is the order in which the referential expressions are produced: While in other instances (described in earlier sections) we saw speakers produce a full noun phrase as the first reference followed by demonstratives or pronouns in subsequent utterances, the data segments in this category feature a subsequent form followed by an initial form within the same sequence and within the same turn.

Giving compliments

In Section 3.2.2.1 we noted that speakers regularly use demonstratives in initial position when guiding their coparticipants to look for the assessable outside of the current TCU. Specifically, I argued that they refer their coparticipant to the action that was accomplished (or described) in the immediately preceding turn. This, however, is not the case in the present examples. Additionally, in the examples that feature this construction, the coparticipants do not share a common orientation to the assessable that the speaker is referring to. As in each of the three data segments above, there are a variety of objects in the setting that one could potentially compliment. Speakers need to provide additional information for their participant to unambiguously locate the assessable. This action is accomplished with the expansion to the turn which explicitly names the assessable. This particular construction (using a demonstrative in combination with a full noun phrase as an expansion to the TCU in progress) is often analyzed by linguists as a right dislocation,23 that is, the normal word order is altered such that one element of the sentence appears in a place different from its normal position, namely beyond the sentence bracket/brace (Auer 1991, 1996; Eisenberg 1999; Schwitalla 1997) or sentence field (Lederer 1969), leaving behind a pronoun: (24) das müslibrot is gut the mueslibread is good

altered to das is gut das müslibrot this is good this mueslibread

(25) die melone is hervorragend the melon is excellent

altered to die is hervorragend die melone this is excellent this melon

These right dislocations are typically analyzed as putting more emphasis on the right-dislocated element (Durrell 1992: 231, 239; Eisenberg 1999: 391; Schwitalla 1997: 81), or as providing a clearer specification of what has already been said – an interpretation that fits well with the line of argumentation presented above.





Chapter 3

..

Summary of reference to assessable

The previous sections have shown that when speakers pay someone a compliment, they may need to refer to the assessable in order for their coparticipant to identify and respond to it. Doing reference to an assessable is, however, not random, but instead can be described in a very systematic fashion. We noted that in describing doing reference, the traditional linguistic accounts of anaphora which are based on topicality and accessibility are unsatisfactory. Instead, I argued for an account of anaphora which is grounded in the sequential organization of the unfolding talk and which distinguishes between initial reference forms and initial reference positions. I argued that initial forms in initial positions are used when the referent is introduced into the sequence for the very first time. Subsequent forms in subsequent positions are used when the assessable has already been named or referred to within the same sequence. By using a subsequent form, interactants display their understanding that the current sequence has not been closed down yet. The discussion has shown that speakers are clearly sensitive to the sequential organization of their talk as it unfolds. The more marked forms (initial forms in subsequent positions and subsequent forms in initial positions) are also used for very specific interactional functions. By using initial forms in subsequent positions, speakers mark the beginning of a new sequence. And by using a subsequent form in initial position, they target the assessable as an item their coparticipant should easily be able to identify due to a common orientation by all participants. The referential expressions in compliments used by the interactants are thus clearly designed with respect to the needs of their recipients – an observation that has been made for referential expressions in other speech events (Auer 1984: 628) and for reference to persons (Schegloff 1996a). When speakers have contextualized the referential expression according to the needs and knowledge of the coparticipant (i.e., if they have been “recipient-designed”), these expressions do not have to be “complete” (in the sense of unambiguous): “Speakers, who design individual expressions in individual circumstances, rightfully rely on their recipients’ collaboration, and their readiness and capability to ‘fill in’ additional features of the identificandum which they do not mention explicitly” (Auer 1984: 628).24 The present discussion corroborates research findings on person reference and extends those findings to the organization of reference to objects.

Giving compliments

. Syntactic features of compliment turns In this section, I will discuss some of the syntactic features that are typical of compliment turns. The discussion will not subscribe to any particular theory of syntax, but will instead describe the observed phenomena in general linguistic terms. The discussion will focus on the form and function of so-called “verb-first constructions” (Auer 1993) and on so-called right-dislocated elements (Durrell 1992: 231, 239; Eisenberg 1999: 391; Schwitalla 1997: 81) in the compliment turn. ..

Verb-first constructions

Within the corpus, one striking feature of first compliment turns is that many of them have no overt reference to the assessable (as discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.4.1), which in turn means for all of those segments that their topic slot is empty (Auer 1993: 203). The constructions that did not contain an overt reference to the assessable were depicted in Table 3.1, and are repeated here for convenience: a. b. c. d.

appreciatory sound: e.g., mmmmhh (5 instances) adjective: e.g., schö:ön ‘nice’ (8 instances) appreciatory sound + adjective: e.g., m::m lecker ‘m::m tasty’ (4 instances) verb + adjective: e.g., schmeckt gut, inge ‘tastes good, inge’ (10 instances)

When elements in categories (a)–(c) are uttered with the appropriate intonation, they can easily be analyzed as exclamations (which then results in their conforming to German grammar). Utterances belonging to category (d) are more puzzling in that they violate prescriptive German grammar: Except for some specific constructions such as yes/no questions, imperatives, etc.,25 written German requires the topic position to be filled, meaning that other written German sentences cannot start out with the verb (Auer 1993). Consequently, the following two compliment utterances (taken from the corpus but not from category d above) also violate German prescriptive grammar in that their verbs are placed before the subject despite the fact that these utterances are neither yes/no questions nor imperatives: (26) [Anna und Leah 0:52:50:00: ge] A: he he kannste gu:ut he he can you26 go:od he he you do that well





Chapter 3

(27) (part of segment (19) above): [Doppelkopf, 0:00:54:00] F: habt ihr schöne ro:sen hier. ro:ses here. have you nice you’ve got nice ro:ses here.

In his corpus of spoken German, Auer (1993: 203) notices the same phenomenon, i.e., his data yield utterances which have an empty topic slot and which consequently start out with the predicate.27 Auer argues that there is a pragmatic reason why spoken German tolerates an empty topic position in syntactic environments in which topics are normally obligatory. He notes that such utterances occur in very specific conversational positions: when speakers (a) narrate, (b) modify the epistemic stance of an utterance, (c) elaborate or restate something, (d) provide answers (i.e., second pair parts), and most importantly for our purposes, when they (e) provide assessments. While verbfirst clauses in narratives dramatize the telling and foreground and advance the story (i.e., they move the action in the story forward), they have a different function in all other categories. Here, verb-first clauses are very much connected with the preceding utterances (or context) and are used to show cohesion between the current and previous utterances (or context). With regard to assessments, Auer (1993: 208) provides the following example: (28) [Auer 1993: 208], (Talking about recently fallen snow) M: alles hat so dicke weiße Haubn auf, - sieht sch’ön aus, richtig sch’ön. everything has such thick white hats, - look’s nice, really nice

In the first part of the utterance, speaker M introduces the element that he/she evaluates (note the topic “alles”), while in the second part he/she evaluates it and leaves the topic position empty, resulting in the verb being in first position. According to Auer, leaving the topic position empty in the second part of the clause creates cohesion between the two clauses. Similarly, in two assessments in a sequence (one by A and another by B), the second assessment frequently displays a verb-first construction as well, as shown in the following data segment: (29) (Auer 1993: 208) (transcription notation as in the original) Aktienberatung (talking about stocks) 1 H: Ah: das is ja ne Únverschämtheit ah: that is PRT an outrage ah: that’s outrageous

Giving compliments

2

(2.0)

3

[o find icho [o find i [ i think [

=> 4 S: [finds seltsam [find strange [i think it’s strange

Since compliments are a form of assessment, it should not come as a surprise that compliments also show verb-first constructions when their speakers perceive there to be a strong cohesion between the compliment and the surrounding talk (or action). This was the case in Section 3.2.1 where we observed that a construction with an empty topic slot constitutes a subsequent reference form and as such is regularly used in subsequent position as there is strong cohesion (topically, and more importantly sequentially) between the compliment turn and the preceding talk. Similarly, in Section 3.2.4.2 we saw speakers use utterances with empty topic position (i.e., a subsequent reference form) in initial reference position when all speakers shared a common orientation (focus) to the assessable and speakers could thus assume their coparticipant to be able to locate the referent without any ambiguity. In other words, here speakers use empty topic slot constructions to create cohesion between themselves and their coparticipants. ..

Right dislocation (endpositioning)

The second striking syntactic characteristic of first compliment turns is that many turns contain right-dislocated elements, already briefly mentioned in Section 3.2.5. In Section 3.2.5, I discussed reference to an assessable that was done with two referential expressions within the same turn. That is, speakers use a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of the compliment TCU and a full noun phrase in an expansion to the TCU. In syntax, this is commonly viewed as an alteration of the ‘normal’ word order in that speakers move one element of the sentence from its normal position to a position beyond the sentence bracket (Eisenberg 1999; Schwitalla 1997) or sentence field (Lederer 1969) (leaving behind a pronoun). Examples displaying this alteration of the word order were the following:





Chapter 3

(30) das müslibrot is gut the mueslibread is good

altered to das is gut das müslibrot this is good this mueslibread

(31) die melone is hervorragend the melon is excellent

altered to die is hervorragend die melone this is excellent this melon

In segment (30), the referential expression das müslibrot / ‘the mueslibread’ is moved beyond the right sentence bracket and in its place in topic position (i.e., at the beginning of the sentence) there is a pronoun, here a demonstrative pronoun corresponding in case, gender, and number to the moved referential expression. In segment (31), the referential expression die melone / ‘the melon’ is moved beyond the right sentence bracket, and again, a demonstrative pronoun is left behind which corresponds in case, gender, and number to the right-dislocated element. As stated above, speakers are typically said to be putting more emphasis on the right-dislocated element and in addition are clarifying an earlier statement (Durrell 1992: 231, 239; Eisenberg 1999: 391). Most interactional linguists and conversation analysts do not subscribe to any theory of “movement” and would argue that the structure of an utterance is not determined by speaker intent but rather by interactional contingencies. In this line of thinking, then, an utterance is analyzed as it unfolds in interaction. An utterance such as das is gut das müslibrot would be viewed as one that started out with a demonstrative which the speaker then chose to specify or clarify at the end of the TCU in the form of an expansion (Schwitalla 1997: 81). Both approaches view the resulting structure as clarifying a previously mentioned item. Moreover, both approaches argue that by using this structure, speakers place emphasis on the expansion (or right-dislocated item). This emphasis is accomplished by the item’s position at the end of the utterance (TCU) (Auer 1993) and by the fact that it is mentioned twice in the turn. In the data segments under investigation, we can thus see that by using this construction, speakers emphasize the assessable (i.e., the item the compliment is about). In general, items that are placed in terminal position of the utterance are most accessible to the next speaker; thus, this position is often reserved for problematic items (Auer 1984: 642). One environment in which end positioning frequently occurs is in the production of assessments. Pomerantz (1984a)

Giving compliments

and Auer and Uhmann (1982) have demonstrated that first assessments regularly make relevant the production of a second assessment. In order to determine whether a previous utterance was indeed an assessment requiring a second assessment to be produced, second parties rely on a variety of clues, such as evaluative lexemes (i.e., assessment segments) in the previous turn (Auer & Uhmann 1982; Pomerantz 1984a). However, the placement of this assessment segment also plays a role: The more accessible it is to the next speaker, the more likely it is to be followed by a second assessment (Auer 1984: 644). For the present study, our corpus shows that compliment turn speakers also tend to place the positively evaluated referent at the end of the turn, making it more accessible for the next speaker and thereby increasing the chance of receiving an uptake of the compliment.

. Semantic features of compliment turns In the previous sections, I discussed both how reference to the assessable is accomplished and which syntactic features compliment turns exhibit. In order to recognize a compliment, a coparticipant must establish the compliment’s referent and recognize the evaluative lexeme, also called the assessment segment (Goodwin & Goodwin 1992a). Research on English compliments (e.g., Holmes & Brown 1987; Manes & Wolfson 1981) has demonstrated that they are very much formulaic in nature, meaning that a small variety of constructions accounts for the majority of the data. In the following, I will argue that German compliments are also formulaic in nature with respect to their semantics, particularly in the case of assessment segments (i.e, their force, if you will). The discussion will include features of verbs, appreciatory sounds, and adjectives used in compliment turns, before drawing some general conclusions about the semantic composition of compliment turns. ..

Verbs used in compliment turns

It has been reported for English (Holmes & Brown 1987) that the verbs to love/ to like are used very regularly (in 15% of Holmes & Brown’s data) in compliment turns. Similarly, Wolfson and Manes (1980) report that when a verb is used to carry the positiveness of a compliment, in 90% of the cases it is to love/to like. As the following figure shows, however, in German the positive value of the compliment is usually not carried by the verb.



Chapter 3 # Levels

Count # Missing

10

Verb

Mode

0

62

Histogram 40 35 30

Percent

25 Verb

20 15 10

werden

sein

schmecken

reichen

none

können

klingen

haben

0

freuen

5

aussehen



Verb

Figure 3.2 Verbs used in first compliment turns

As Figure 3.2 shows, 35% of all compliments contain no verb at all, 35% contain the verb sein/‘to be’, and another 10% include the verb haben/‘to have’. Haben and sein are probably the most semantically neutral verbs in the language, while the value (positive or negative) of most other verbs depicted in the table depends on the adverb modifying the verb; for example, something can taste good or bad, sound nice or horrible, etc. The only exception may be freuen/‘to be happy’. Given the distribution of verbs used in compliments, it seems safe to conclude that the positive force of a compliment is not typically carried by a verb in German. ..

Appreciatory sounds

Instead of using a verb, Germans most frequently use appreciatory sounds. These appreciatory sounds can be either gustatory markers such as mmmh (Gardner 1997; Wiggins 2001, 2002)28 or other sounds of appreciation such as ohh, aah, and variants thereof. In the following, I will discuss each of these in turn.

Giving compliments

Gustatory mmmhs have already been described for Australian English (Gardner 1997, 2002) and American English (Wiggins 2001, 2002). As their name suggests, speakers use these tokens in order to embody pleasure in the activity in which they are engaged (Wiggins 2001, 2002). In particular, in both varieties of English and in the German data set, the utterance of such tokens is always associated with eating and drinking, or with the anticipation of these activities (Gardner 2002; Wiggins 2001, 2002). For American English, Gardner found that it can also be found in relation to smoking and sex (Gardner 2002: 75). In both varieties of English and also in German, a gustatory mmmh is phonetically different from other types of mmmhs – even to the untrained ear. Similar to their English counterparts (Gardner 2002: 65), German gustatory mmmhs are produced as one lengthened sound with a clear rise-falling intonation, whereas, for example, a confirming mhum/‘uhum’ is produced with a glottal stop in the middle, rendering it as two sounds. The following instance shows how this token is used in interaction: (32) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, A556] 1 => 2

(1.0) M: m::::: m::::: m:::::

3

C: uups [he ((C spilled tea)) oops [he oops [he [

4

A:

=> 5

[ach [well [well

M: lecker tasty tasty

6

A: [( [( [

) )

7

C: [( [(

) ) *putting hand on tea pot





Chapter 3

8

M: möchts *noch bis- ( ) want+you *still lit- ( ) do you want some more ( )

9

C: ne: ( no: ( no: (

) ) )

10 A: da is noch mehr du kannst gerne noch there is still more you can please there’s more you are welcome to eat 11

en stück essen another piece eat another piece

Just prior to this segment, Markus is eating a piece of cantaloupe, offered to him by the hostess, Annette. Upon eating the food (line 1), Markus produces the gustatory token mmmh, thereby expressing his pleasure in the food. This expression of pleasure thus constitutes a positive assessment of the food item, an assessment which he then verbalizes in line 5. Given that he is positively evaluating a food item offered to him by the hostess, the gustatory expression in conjunction with the positive adjective constitutes a compliment to the hostess. Annette responds with a fairly typical compliment response (Golato 2002a); she treats the compliment as a veiled request and offers additional pieces of fruit to Markus (see lines 10–11). In both English and German, the gustatory mmmh can be produced as the only assessment segment of the turn or it can be combined with an adjective, as in the data segment seen above. Both Gardner (1997, 2002) and Wiggins (2001, 2002) note that this particular sound very effectively allows the speaker to produce an assessment segment while they are ingesting the food or drink (in contrast, talking and eating at the same time would carry a potential stigma [not to mention the risk of choking], see Wiggins 2002). This is because the [m] sound is the only sound in English and in many other languages (including German) which requires the speaker to have their mouth closed from onset to termination; moreover, it does not require any lip, tongue, or jaw movement (Gardner 2002: 66–67) and thus minimizes the egestion of food (Gardner 2002: 79). Put differently, producing a gustatory mmmh allows the speaker to place the evaluation of the food item very early in a sequence while at the same time vocalizing and embodying an experience of pleasure. While all gustatory mmmhs were used exclusively with food and drink evaluations in the present data set; other appreciatory tokens such as ooch, oooh,

Giving compliments

aaah, and the like were produced with both food items and non-food items. The following two segments show the use of such tokens with food items: (33) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, A524] 1 M: ah die is hervorragend die melone ah this is excellent the melon ah this is excellent this melon

(34) [Fischessen: 0:04:26:00 nudellas] Br is putting bowl of pasta on the table => 1 P: [((whistles + raises eyebrows)) [ => 2 B: [O::H [es gibt nudellas [O::H [there are nudellas29 [O::H [we are having noodellas [ 3 U:

[mhmm:: [mhmm:: [mhmm::

Note that these two segments actually feature three different types of appreciatory expressions: an ah, a whistle, and a simultaneously produced O::H.30 These items and variants thereof are also used with non food items, as in the following instance (35) [Anna und Leah 0:03:50:24: Milchdöschen] 1 M: eigentlich soll das auch schnei:(h)den actually should that also cu:(h)t normally that thing should also cu:(h)t 2

das ding he he he that thing he he he he he he

=> 3 A: ooch das is ja süß das milchdöschen ooh that is PRT cute that milk jar+little ooh that is so cute that little creamer 4 M: so. und nun hier ( so. and now here ( so. and now here (

) ) )

A larger database would have to be consulted to determine whether ah and oh or their variants serve different interactional functions. In contrast to gustatory mmhms, ah, oh, and ooch seem to have an element of a surprised (but pleased)





Chapter 3

noticing of a given item. However, this is speculation and would have to be verified with a much larger database. ..

Adjectives

The adjectives in the data were commonly positive degree adjectives (in 62 % of instances), the most frequent ones being schön ‘nice’ and gut ‘good’ (in 22% and 21% of instances, respectively). Only 14% of the data contained either a comparative or superlative form (e.g., beste ‘best’) or a particularly strong adjective (such as exzellent ‘excellent’ or toll ‘great’).31 These findings correspond to those for English, where both nice and good were also the most frequently used adjectives (Holmes 1986; Wolfson 1983, 1984). It has been argued that the formulaic character of compliments (i.e., the restricted variety of syntactic forms and the limited number of adjectives usually used in their base form) makes compliments easily recognizable (Manes & Wolfson 1981: 131; Wolfson & Manes 1980: 404–405), thereby increasing “the likelihood that the compliment will fulfill its function, by lessening the possibility of inadvertently emphasizing differences in group membership” (Wolfson & Manes 1980: 404). Manes and Wolfson (1981: 131) further observe that unlike other formulaic expressions such as greetings or thanks, compliments are usually not recognized as a formulaic expression by members of a given speech community. According to Wolfson and Manes, this is one of the key elements that makes compliments so effective in creating or affirming solidarity. Another striking feature in the design of German compliment turns is the lack of first person pronouns (i.e., ich ‘I’ and wir ‘we’): As mentioned above, in many German compliments we find the topic position to be entirely empty. There is only one compliment that uses a construction equivalent to American English “I love. . .” “I like. . .”. If a pronoun is used at all, it is either a second or a third person pronoun. It follows from the above that Germans do not seem to phrase compliments in terms of their own likes and dislikes. One might want to go so far as to suggest that compliments in German are remarkably “objective” or “referential” in their design and not as “personal.” With their syntactic design, the objective or referential character of compliments is highlighted in that they place maximal emphasis on the assessable. In fact, the compliments in the present data are not obviously different from general assessments;32 it is only the context in which they are uttered that makes their distinct interactional function recognizable. I will return to this line of argument and its implications in a later chapter.

Giving compliments

. Topics of compliments As you may recall from the description of the methodology in Chapter 2, the data were collected among family and friends, mostly at typical gatherings which involved the consumption of food and drink (e.g., dinner parties, barbeques, etc.). One might thus assume that compliments would naturally evolve around these topics. A close analysis of the data reveals, however, that this is not the case. Indeed, the data segments presented up until this point have demonstrated compliments that were paid on a variety of topics. While 37% of the compliments are indeed related to food and drink, the remainder of the compliments are on the appearance, ability, or behavior of a person, or on objects they possess. In those compliments on food items, verbs associated with food and drink such as schmecken ‘to taste’ and riechen ‘to smell’ are only used a total of three times (twice schmecken, and once riechen). The adjectives in the food compliments are also the same as those in other compliments. This indicates that compliments on food are not necessarily different in their overall design than compliments on other topics.

. Gender In the literature on compliments in English (British English, American English, New Zealand English, and South African English) the notion of gender differences in complimenting behavior has received much attention (Herbert 1990; Holmes 1988, 1995; Wolfson 1983, 1984). For English, it has been reported that women receive more compliments. And it is specifically the case that compliments between women are the most frequent, followed by compliments given by men to women (Holmes 1995: 122–123). In general, compliments between English speaking men are said to be rare, and it has been concluded that men simply compliment less. The German data for the present study paint a slightly different picture. As mentioned earlier, my data feature a total of 61 speakers, of which 27 were men (a fortuitously balanced data set, particularly given that participants in the conversation were not selected according to gender). Of the 20 participants who produced compliments, 13 were women. Of the 62 compliments that were given, 33 were given by women and 29 by men. In general, females received more compliments, and from both males and females.33 Yet it cannot be concluded from the present data that men compliment less than women: if 13 women and 7 men produced compliments, but women produced a total





Chapter 3

of 33 compliments while men produced 29, then this suggests that on average, men actually paid more compliments than women.34 Why might the current study differ in this respect from studies on English? The explanation most likely pertains to a sex-related confound in the data collection procedures: in the above-mentioned studies on English, field workers collected a certain number of compliments they either overheard, received, or gave. According to the author (Holmes 1995: 153), the field workers were predominantly females. Thus, the finding in English studies that women receive more compliments may simply be due to the fact that there were more females than males collecting compliment responses. For English, it has been claimed that men compliment on different topics than do women and that men receive different compliments than women (Holmes 1995: 131). However, these differences were not observed in the present data, in which both men and women gave and received compliments on appearance, food and drink, and skills and abilities. Moreover, they did so in equal amounts. As before, however, the observed differences in the English data may stem from a possible sex-related confound in the data-collection procedures of those studies. A more meaningful comparison would require adequate data collection procedures that eliminate the potential for biased data.

Chapter 4

Giving compliments Sequential embedding and function of first compliment turns

. Introduction Having looked in the previous chapter at structural features relevant in the design of compliment turns, the current chapter analyzes the various actions which such compliment turns can accomplish in interaction. Thus, the current chapter ties together the discussion of the structural features of compliments with the overall sequence organization in which they are placed. The present discussion deals again only with first compliment turns as defined in the previous chapter. In the previous chapter, we observed that compliment turns exhibit various rather regular features; in fact, it can be said that compliments are formulaic in nature (Manes & Wolfson 1981). Compliments are said to be formulaic expressions since they are formed using a restricted variety of syntactic forms and a limited number of adjectives, which carry the positive force of the compliment. These features of compliments have also been found to hold true for compliments in different varieties of English, such as American English (Herbert & Straight 1989; Manes & Wolfson 1981; Wolfson 1981b), British English (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1989), South-African English (Herbert 1989; Herbert & Straight 1989), and New-Zealand English (Holmes 1986, 1988; Holmes & Brown 1987).1 Indeed, it has been argued that the formulaic nature of compliments and the fact that this formulaic nature is not immediately obvious to the interactants is one of the reasons that compliments are said to “grease the social wheels” and thus to serve as “social lubricants” (Wolfson 1983: 89). Put differently, compliments are one conversational means by which social solidarity is established or maintained (Wolfson & Manes 1980), and they are thus expressions of positive face, or positive politeness (Brown & Levinson 1978/1987: 103). Manes and Wolfson (1981: 131) express the connection be-



Chapter 4

tween the compliment formula, the recognizability of compliments, and social solidarity as follows: It [the semantic and syntactic regularity of compliments] makes compliments identifiable no matter where in the discourse they occur or what precedes them. Even more important, it makes it possible for people of widely different backgrounds to minimize speech differences which might otherwise interfere with their attempt to create solidarity. . . . Interestingly, the obscurity and the lack of recognition that a formula is involved are required to successfully fulfill the major function of compliments: creating or affirming solidarity (stress in original).

In this chapter, I challenge this point of view. I argue that it is not the syntactic and semantic shape of an utterance alone that makes an utterance unambiguously identifiable as a compliment or that provides the social solidarity building function of compliments. I demonstrate that based on the syntactic and semantic features alone, one cannot determine whether an utterance functions as a compliment, as an assessment, or as some other speech event; instead, I show that contextual characteristics figure centrally in determining an action as a compliment. I argue my point by demonstrating that not every turn that has the semantic and syntactic characteristics of a compliment actually performs the action of complimenting. Specifically, I show how compliment turns can be used to perform other actions – even those of reproaching, criticizing, and interrupting. Clearly, such actions cannot be labeled as “positive face” (Brown & Levinson 1978/1987). Using data from both English and German, I argue instead that it is the sequential placement of a potential compliment turn that determines its function within the interaction. The sequential analysis of compliments shows that compliments can indeed be used as devices with which social solidarity is established or maintained – but I show that this function is only realized within very specific sequential environments. In other words, it is the placement of a compliment formula within the larger sequence of the interaction that determines the (social solidarity building) function of compliments.

. The form of an utterance (alone) does not determine its function In the previous chapter, I stated that German compliments are rather formulaic in terms of their syntactic and semantic construction: a limited number of items are used to refer to the assessable, there is little syntactic variation

Giving compliments

within compliment turns, the positiveness is usually expressed with an adjective or an appreciatory sound, and the variety of adjectives used is limited as well with speakers favoring schön/‘nice’ or gut/‘gut’. It was observed that these adjectives are usually used in the positive degree (rather than the comparative or superlative), and that additionally, only a very few particularly strong adjectives were found (such as ausgezeichnet/‘excellent’). It was further argued that compliments were designed such that the topic slot of the utterances was either filled with a reference to the assessable or was otherwise left open; in other words, hardly any compliments contained first person pronouns. From this, I concluded that Germans do not seem to directly phrase compliments in terms of their own likes and dislikes. I further suggested that compliments in German are remarkably “objective” or “referential” in their design and not “personal.” With their syntactic design, the objective or referential character is underscored as compliments are syntactically designed to place maximal emphasis on the assessable. In fact, I suggested that in terms of their turn design, the compliments in the present data are not obviously different from general assessments. The same can be said for compliments in English. Here too, compliments regularly look like positive assessments.2 I already alluded to the formulaic nature of compliments in English. The following table taken from Holmes and Brown (1987: 529) displays the relative frequency of specific syntactic patterns in both American English3 and New Zealand compliments. It is obvious from this table that compliments in English exhibit a limited number of syntactic patterns: 3 patterns account for about 84.6% of Manes and Wolfson’s corpus.4 In recognizing a compliment, it is of course important to recognize the evaluative lexeme, also called assessment segment (Goodwin & Goodwin 1992a). From this table one can also see that the assessment segment is not typically expressed with a verb (only 16.1% and 18%, respectively, were said to use verbs; interestingly, Manes and Wolfson state that when a verb Table 4.1 Relative frequency in percentage of three syntactic patterns used in compliments

1. 2. 3.

NP {be/look} (intensifier) Adj* e.g., You look really lovely Pro be (intensifier) (a) Adj NP e.g., That’s a really nice coat I (intensifier) {like/love}** NP e.g., I simply love that shirt

Total * Any semantically positive adjective ** Or any verb of liking (e.g. admire, enjoy)

USA

New Zealand

53.6 14.9 16.1

48.0 12.0 18.0

84.6

78





Chapter 4

is used, it is in 90% of the cases either love or like). According to Manes and Wolfson, in 75% of the compliments the assessment segment was an adjective. And when looking at those compliments, Wolfson and Manes observe that two thirds of them were composed of the following five adjectives: nice, good, beautiful, pretty, and great. Of those, nice and good were the most frequently used adjectives, with nice being used a total of 23% and good a total of 19% (Holmes 1986; Wolfson 1983, 1984). The utterance depicted in the following data segment bears the characteristics of a typical compliment: (1) [Quartet Material, 4/12/94] 1

Marg: =that was gr(h)(h)eat=

Like many compliments in American English (see Table 4.1 above), this compliment starts out with a pro-term, has a verb to be in the past tense, and contains one of the typical assessment segments, namely the adjective great, here uttered with slight laugh tokens. When taken out of context, though, I would argue that this turn cannot be recognized unambiguously as a compliment. By its design, this particular utterance looks like any other positive assessment. In other words, with this statement Marge could, for example, be assessing a music performance by some orchestra, or alternatively, she may be complimenting a fellow musician on his play. One may argue that, of course, information about the context would clarify whether we are dealing with a compliment or with a general assessment. Such contextual information would be, for example, who Marge makes this statement to, who the person is who did something great, what the occasion is, what the setting is, etc. In this instance, the statement is uttered in the context of four people, Marge, Cheryl, Bob, and Mike, who are playing music together. Marge makes this statement about Mike’s playing the violin. As Mike is one of the recipients of this utterance (Marge is looking at him), this is a compliment, not just a simple assessment. Given this contextual information (which incidentally might be precisely the information which field workers in Manes and Wolfson’s data may have noted), one may thus come to the conclusion that the action that is being performed with this turn is truly that of complimenting. However, if one analyzes the sequential environment in which this turn occurs, it quickly becomes apparent that such a conclusion would be made prematurely. The context in which this compliment is uttered is that of a multi-party conversation; consequently, the sequential organization of the talk is more intricate, since any utterance made in multi-party interaction has an impact not only on the speaker and his or her targeted recipient, but on the other coparticipants as well. As the data segment and its ensuing

Giving compliments

analysis will show, while Marge’s turn is indeed a compliment to Mike, it is also (and actually primarily) a criticism and reproach of Bob. The interlocutors Marge, Sheryl, Mike, and Bob play string music together on a regular basis. Marge and Sheryl are professional violinists, while Mike, who also plays a violin in this segment, is a conductor (by profession). Bob is the only amateur musician among them – albeit a very accomplished one. The potential compliment that was displayed in segment (1) can be found in line 10 of segment (2); it is repeated in line 21 and rephrased in lines 81–82 (see arrowed turns). (2) [Quartet Material, 4/12/94]5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 => 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 => 21 22 23 24

Mike: okay, (0.6) (hit it) ((music 10.0[))-----------[ Bob: [(That’s the place), -------------] ] Bob: (Mike)/(now),] thats beautiful sound Bob: but, (·) try not to retard.= Marg: =he didn’t. (0.2) Bob: o he didn’t?o = Marg: =that was gr(h)(h)eat= Bob: =oh I’m sorry (0.5) Marg: .hhh hh[hh you’re like a condu(h)ctor who [ Bob: [I (should)/(should’n)/(should’ve) Marg: =[ h(h)as somth(h)in’=in his mind. Heh heh [ Bob: =[( )got it in my head. okay, Bob: [sorry [ Sher: [heh [heh huh [ Marg: [huh huh Sher: [huh [ Marg: [huh huh huh .hhh that [was great= [ Bob: [(okay)=( )= Sher: =Doncha love it when- (0.5) when they Sher: have to say it just because they think





Chapter 4

25 Sher: [they have to say it eh heh hah= [ 26 Marg: [o oh godo the- that was the one thing 27 Marg: about orchestra playing] that I just ] 28 Sher: = huh huh ] 29 Marg: = couldn’t sta:nd,= eh! huhhuhhuh .h[hhh< [ 73 Sher: [o Just o 74 Sher: do it! [ehh! huh huh ha[h [ [ [Sorry. 75 Marg: [o uho:::kayo 76 (0.4) 77 Marg: But you >never do that Mike< >I didn’ 78 Marg: mean (to)< eTha:t’s insul[ting. [ 79 Bob: [(But) you’re 80 Bob: saying I did it. (is [what yer sayin’) [ => 81 Marg: [Y:e(s). I thought => 82 Mike played ¢beautifully.((¢ = “froggy”)) 83 Mik?: ph[hhhh! [ 84 Marg: [Okay. 85 Mike: hm [hm ((laughter)) [ 86 Marg: [Go:87 (2.0) 88 ((4.0 music))=





Chapter 4

Bob, the only lay-musician among the players, interrupts the play by complimenting Mike on the music he is playing (i.e., the sound quality). After a slight hesitation, he then criticizes and corrects Mike (try not to retard – a musical term meaning “to become slower”). Without missing a beat (literally) and before Mike can come in, Marge contradicts Bob (line 7), who after a short pause questions and thus challenges Marge’s statement (line 9). In line 10, then, Marge produces the turn that we have looked at in isolation in segment (1). While uttering the assessment that was gr(h)(h)eat, Marge is looking very quickly back and forth between Bob and Mike. There is no doubt that she is complimenting Mike on his play. Since Bob had been criticizing Mike, one might say that by complimenting Mike, Marge is saving Bob’s face. Marge can thus be said to be establishing solidarity between Mike and herself, while at the same time disaffiliating with Bob. So since this compliment is placed in multiparty talk and in a sequential environment in which it contradicts an earlier statement by another coparticipant, this compliment does more than simply compliment: it also constitutes a reproach, and thus a criticism of Bob. That this is not only my – the analyst’s – interpretation is apparent from Bob’s reaction in line 11, produced again immediately and without any hesitation: Bob is apologizing while gazing at Marge and then at his notes. He apparently realizes (see the change of state token (Heritage 1984a)) that he has been wrong, and attempts to cancel out his action. While all other participants have their bodies in a pause position – they are holding their bows in a position which is typically assumed when a player is temporarily not playing – Marge points her bow accusingly at Bob and compares him to a complaining conductor (lines 13 and 15). During this accusation, Bob makes repeated attempts to apologize (see lines 14 and 16). Sheryl and Marge, who are both seasoned orchestra players, chuckle (possibly at the thought of typical conductors) and Marge repeats her compliment to Mike (for which she has yet to receive a response from Mike); in so doing, she is also repeating her criticism of Bob. Bob’s attempt to close the sequence with okay is overlapped by a story-telling, or rather a round of complaints from Marge and Sheryl which were apparently triggered by the category term “conductor.” The prototypical conductor is depicted by Marge and Sheryl as someone who always has something to complain about, as someone whose complaints are very predictable (as they always complain about the same things) and as someone who makes up his or her mind about what to complain about next, even before meeting with the orchestra or with students. With their stories, Marge and Sheryl are performing rather delicate actions which can definitely be labeled face-threatening work in that they are potentially insulting the other two members of the group: they have invoked the

Giving compliments

category “conductor” and cast the quintessential conductor in a very negative light – yet, one of their co-players, namely Mike (the one Marge complimented earlier), is a conductor by profession. The women are also potentially insulting Bob, whose behavior was compared to that of a conductor by Marge in lines 13 and 15. Bob perceives the description of a typical conductor as further criticism, as he apologizes again in lines 60, 62, and 65. Finally, in lines 69 and 71, Sheryl attempts to absolve Bob (yet she was not the one to criticize him in the first place, and Marge still does not let him off the hook). Marge, apparently realizing that the mini-stories she and Sheryl have been telling are potentially insulting and/or critical of Mike, quickly reassures Mike that he does not behave like a typical conductor (see lines 77–78). While Marge has reassured Mike that she did not mean to insult him, she has not done the same for Bob – a fact Bob immediately picks up on, as he verbalizes the complaint directly: by correcting Mike in the way he did, he, Bob, behaved like one of the horrible conductors in Marge and Sheryl’s complaint stories. In lines 81–82, Marge confirms this understanding and even reiterates her positive evaluation of Mike’s playing – this time in the form of a statement about Mike (i.e., not as a direct compliment to him). She is thus also repeating/re-affirming her former criticism of Bob – he clearly has overstepped his boundaries. At this point, Mike produces some laugh tokens and speech perturbations that give the impression to any listener that he may feel somewhat uncomfortable. Finally, Marge closes the sequence with okay and the interlocutors continue to play music. Much more could be said about this segment with regard to the participant alliances, roles, and identities that find their way into the conversation due to membership categorization devices (Sacks 1972), non-verbal behavior, etc. Space does not allow me to go into detail. However, what I have detailed about this segment supports the following statements: 1. Compliments do not always have face-saving or solidarity-building functions.6 While Marge can be said to be supporting Mike in segment (2) above, her compliment served an additional motive in the talk: it was a clear criticism and reproach of Bob. Thus, a compliment does not categorically have a function tied to establishing or maintaining social solidarity. As a matter of fact, later in the chapter, I will show instances in which compliments can also be used for other face-threatening work such as teases and sarcasm, and as a device used in competition for the floor. 2. It is not their formulaic nature that gives compliments their function, but rather their placement within a sequence: while we saw that the compliment in segment (2) was built semantically and syntactically like typical





Chapter 4

compliments described in the literature, it did not primarily perform the action of complimenting. In other words, by merely looking at the syntax and semantics of a turn, we cannot determine unambiguously which action the turn is performing. For the present study, this means that without analyzing the sequential environment of a turn, we cannot determine whether or not we are dealing with some general assessment, or with a compliment – or possibly with a compliment that has an additional and totally different function in the discourse at hand. In order to determine whether or not something is a compliment, is primarily a compliment, is a positive politeness compliment, or is a compliment that has a disaffiliatory function, we need to see the details of the unfolding sequence.7 3. To analyze the unfolding sequence in which a turn is placed in order to determine that turn’s interactional sequence, the researcher must have a data source that allows for the sequential analysis of the talk at hand. Recalling the various data collection procedures presented in Chapter 2, it is obvious that only data consisting of video-taped and/or audio-taped naturally occurring interaction allows for the repeated and fine-grained analysis necessary in order to study linguistic forms within their interactional (i.e., sequential) environments. The statements above do not mean that compliments never have face-saving or positive politeness functions. They frequently do. I am arguing, however, that even when they do, it is the sequential position of the compliment turn that accomplishes the face-work. When analyzing compliments in terms of their sequential placement, it becomes apparent that many of them occur together with other speech events or take over their functions. This phenomenon has already been observed by other researchers (e.g., Duttlinger 1999: 121; Haverkate 1993; Wolfson 1983: 88). While these researchers notice some of the speech events in which compliments can occur (apologies, greetings, criticisms, etc.), they analyze compliments in these environments in a way that does not allow them to realize that the placement of compliments and preference organization are intricately intertwined. In the following discussion, I elaborate on this point. In doing so, I first discuss compliments in dispreferred environments (i.e., in dispreferred second pair parts and in dispreferred first pair parts, respectively); then I discuss compliments in preferred environments (i.e., in preferred second pair parts and in preferred first pair parts). I contrast this section with additional instances in which something that looks like a compliment is again used for a different interactional purpose. I conclude by drawing some generalizations with

Giving compliments

regard to turn-shapes, sequence organization, interactional functions of turns, preference organization, and politeness.

. Compliments in dispreferred environments When analyzing compliments with respect to preference organization, it becomes apparent that compliments frequently occur in dispreferred environments. That is, they are placed either within a dispreferred turn (i.e., in a dispreferred first pair part) or in response to a dispreferred turn (i.e., in a dispreferred second pair part). Detailed discussions of the notion of preference organization can be found in Sacks (1987 [1973]), Pomerantz (1984a), Heritage, (1984b: 267), and Schegloff (1995b), as well as in most introductory texts on CA (such as Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998; Psathas 1995; ten Have 1999). The term ‘preference organization’ entails a distinction between two action formats. Certain actions (e.g., invitations, assessments) make two alternative actions relevant in second position (e.g., acceptance or rejection, and agreement or disagreement, respectively). Research has shown that these two alternatives are non-equivalent; that is, acceptances and agreements are designed and produced in clearly different ways from rejections or disagreements. Actions which are produced straightforwardly (without delay, hesitations, or accounts) are called “preferred actions” (i.e., they are expected actions and chosen if possible), while those which are produced with delays, hesitations, accounts, or qualifications are called “dispreferred” (i.e., they are not expected actions). While preference organization seems to be a context-free (Egbert 1996) phenomenon, i.e., the same mechanisms work across languages, it is at the same time context-sensitive in that what constitutes the preferred second pair part to a given action may differ across languages.8 Research has shown that in German, the preference organization for general assessments (Auer & Uhmann 1982) and for offers and requests (Taleghani-Nikazm 1999) is the same as in English. ..

Compliments as components of dispreferred second pair parts

In American English and also in German, rejections to offers have been described as dispreferred actions (see Scott 1987; Taleghani-Nikazm 1999, respectively); and, consequently, these turns feature the design common to dispreferred turns. Rejections to offers are one sequential environment in which speakers systematically use compliments, as seen in segments (3) and (4) be-





Chapter 4

low. In the following data segment, Annette, the hostess, is offering more food to one of her guest, Markus. (3) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, B230] 1 C: eh [hä ha he eh [ha ha he eh [ha he he [ [*A gazes at M 2 A: [*(da is noch) melone [*(there is still melon [*(there’s still) some melon 3 (.) 4 A: wenn de noch willst if you still want if you want some more 5 M: ne:. die is sehr sehr gut no:. it is very very good no:. it is very very good

In segment (3), the speakers are sitting at the breakfast table when Annette points out that there is still some melon left. Since her gaze in line 2 is directed at Markus, Annette can be said to be offering the food to him. It would now be up to Markus to either accept or reject the offer. However, in line 3, there is a brief delay which is either already foreshadowing that Markus may decline the offer, or that there may be some comprehension problem. Annette then qualifies the offer by directly addressing Markus (using a second person pronoun at line 4 while still gazing at Markus). In return, Markus rejects it with a simple negation “ne:.” Note however, that his negation does not stand alone; it is followed immediately by a strong positive assessment of the food which is thus a compliment to the hostess Annette. With this action, Markus is thus stating that his rejection is not due to the quality of the food. Put differently, the compliment serves as an account; and accounts, in turn, have been shown to be typically found with rejections to offers (Taleghani-Nikazm in press). What could be, or rather what is, a face-threatening act (rejection of an offer) is thus mitigated by a compliment. Put differently, the social solidarity function of this turn does not simply lie in the fact that a compliment was uttered, but rather that a compliment was uttered in this particular sequential position, namely as part of a dispreferred second pair part. Similar data can be found in English, as data segment (4) shows.

Giving compliments

(4) (Atkinson & Drew 1979: 58) 1 A: Uh if you’d care to come and visit a little 2 while this morning I’ll give you a cup of 3 coffee => 4 B: hehh Well that’s awfully sweet of you, 5 I don’t think I can make it this morning. 6 .hh uhm I’m running an ad in the paper and7 and uh I have to stay near the phone.

Here, lines 1–3 actually consist of two actions, namely of an invitation to visit and of an offer of a beverage. Ultimately, both actions are rejected. Notice that these rejections are done in a turn shape very characteristic of dispreferred turns in general: there is some delay at the beginning of the turn, (hehh, and well), then there is the compliment which functions as a statement of appreciation, then comes the refusal or declination followed by an account. While in the previous example, the compliment occurred after a negation and served as an account, the compliment in the present data segment is produced before the negation. Combined with the well, it delays but simultaneously projects and mitigates a rejection. Again, we see that the potentially face-threatening act of rejection is mitigated and delayed by – among other things – a positive assessment of the offerer, i.e., by a compliment. Thus it is the placement of the compliment in this dispreferred second pair part that gives the compliment its social solidarity building function. In the following segment, an invitation to visit is rejected (or rather the acceptance is postponed), and again, we see the speaker produce a compliment as part of the dispreferred action: (5) [Champaign, Tape 3, A430] 1

2

3

4

H: i hab ja gsagt das jeder [herzlich i have PRT said that everybody[heartily i already said that everybody [is very [ M: [o jao [o yeso [o yeso H: willkommen is aber eh:m:: also mich welcome is but uh:m:: well to+me welcome but uh:m:: well it would täts freien do+would pleasure make me happy





Chapter 4

=> 5

=> 6

=> 7

M: ja. heiner es is nett und es is ja nett yes. NAME it is nice and it is PRT nice yes. heiner it’s nice and it is quite dass mer die route und dass mer’s immer that me the route and that me+it always nice that the route and that you always so schmackhaft machst he he bist a ganzer so appealing make he he are a totally make it sound appealing he he you’re a

10 H: da dazua wie hört sich’s no an? there to+it how sound it now PRE say how does it sound 11 M: häh? huh? huh? 12 H: wie hört sich’s denn an. how sound it then prefix. how does it sound. 13 M: ja su:per [hört sich’s an yes su:per [sound it PRE yeah su:per [does it sound [ 14 H: [scho, oder? [already, or? [it does, doesn’t it 15 M: ich muss a bloß erst schaun wie es mit i must but only first look how it with i first just have to see how my finances 16 meim geldbeutel läuft .hh denn äh i my wallet goes .hh because uh i are going .hh because uh i 17 brauch ((continues with telling)) need need

Giving compliments

In a letter sent to his mother, Heiner had invited her and his other siblings to visit him in the United States.9 Prior to this segment, Heiner reissued this invitation to his mother, asking her to come with Heiner’s sister. When his mother does not respond, he rephrases this information more generally, by repeating that he always said that anyone is welcome to visit him (lines 1 and 3). This more general statement receives an uptake from his mother precisely at the moment when it is apparent that it is a more general statement. Her utterance in line 2 can be seen as a confirmation of something Heiner had said earlier. In line 4, however, Heiner links back to the personal invitation to his mother (not to the more general one) by explicitly stating that a visit by her would make him happy. His mother ultimately (see lines 15–17) delays a decision about her visit, accounting for this delay with having to check her finances first. Between Heiner’s repeated invitation (line 4), and her delaying a final decision (in lines 15–17), there is quite a bit of intervening talk. Part of her delaying technique is paying Heiner several compliments: she labels him as nice, as someone who always makes things sound very appealing, and as a very lovable guy (see lines 5–8). These compliments to her son express her appreciation of the offer; they do not, however, represent a clear acceptance or rejection on her part. To the contrary, given the delay of her decision, they foreshadow a dispreferred response. Heiner, obviously picking up on this delaying technique, presses for a clearer decision in lines 9–10 was was sagste da dazua / ‘what what do you say’, followed by a request for an assessment wie hört sich’s no an / ‘how does it sound’. Again, his mother delays, this time by initiating repair (using a non-specific repair initiator). When Heiner only repeats the second part of his utterance, i.e., only the request for an assessment, leaving out the specific request to take a stance to his invitation, his mother is “off the hook.” She can safely make an assessment and she provides a very positive one. Heiner then provides a second assessment in line 14 followed by a response pursuit, specifically, an agreement pursuit (Harren 2001). Only at this point does his mother openly declare that she will have to delay the decision until she has checked her finances. The account she provides for the delay of her decision is one that lies not in her personal desire but rather in material circumstances, thus minimizing the potential threat to her relationship and/or solidarity with her son. In this segment again, compliments were used as part of a dispreferred second pair part. Here they served to delay the production of a turn in which a decision was postponed. In sum, segments (3)–(5) have shown that compliments occur as part of second pair parts in which a dispreferred action is being performed. In segment (3), the compliment was produced immediately after the rejection of an



 Chapter 4

offer. Here, the placement of the compliment served to mitigate the response; specifically, it provided an explanation that the cause of the rejection was not due to the quality of the item being offered. In segments (4) and (5), interactants expressed their appreciation to a coparticipant (i.e., a compliment) before an action was performed that consisted of a dispreferred response (a rejection, a postponement of a definite answer, respectively). When placed before the actual dispreferred action, the compliments have two different but related functions: a) they delay the production of the dispreferred action; i.e., they are utterances that are positioned before the first pair part (invitation, offer) and before the ultimate response to it (rejection, postponement); and b) they express something positive (here, an appreciation) either about the coparticipant or about the object being offered. While pauses, speech perturbations, or other elements also delay the production of a dispreferred second pair part, they do not consist of positive assessments. Thus, it is safe to say that compliments are particularly effective in mitigating a dispreferred response: they delay the production of a dispreferred second pair part, but they do so with a positive assessment. In the three segments above (i.e., (3)–(5)) it is again the semantic and syntactic construction in combination with its position within the overall sequence that lends the compliment its social solidarity building function. ..

Compliments as components of dispreferred first pair parts

While the preceding section has looked at compliments as part of dispreferred second pair parts, the present section will analyze compliments in some dispreferred first pair parts. Here, we observe that compliments again serve similar functions as noted in the previous section. And again, I argue that it is the form of the compliment in combination with its placement within the sequence that gives the compliment its face saving or social solidarity building function. One dispreferred environment in American English is certainly that of disagreement and criticism of another speaker (Günthner 2000: 109; Jacobs & Jackson 1981; Kotthoff 1993; Pomerantz 1984a; Schegloff 1995b). One of the previous segments in this chapter already contained an example of one speaker criticizing another. This was the case in data segment (2), where Bob first criticized Mike for retarding while playing the violin. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of that segment is reproduced below as segment (6):

Giving compliments 

(6) [Quartet Material, 4/12/94] 1 2

Mike: okay, (0.6) (hit it) ((music 10.0[))-----------[ 3 Bob: [(That’s the place), 4 -------------] ] 5 Bob: (Mike)/(now),] thats beautiful sound 6 Bob: but, (·) try not to retard.= 7 Marg: =he didn’t. 8 (0.2) 9 Bob: o he didn’t?o = => 10 Marg: =that was gr(h)(h)eat= 11 Bob: =oh I’m sorry

In line 3, Bob interrupts the playing by directing talk at Mike (he is gazing at him, and may be even uttering his name). While Bob ultimately criticizes Mike in lines 5–6, this criticism is produced late in the turn. And crucially, it is not any random phonetic material that is placed here: in addition to talk that gets the other players’ attention, Bob also produces a positive assessment, specifically a compliment on Mike’s performance. This compliment turns out to be the first part of the turn that is in the clear, i.e., not in overlap with the music. Added to this compliment (within the same intonation contour) is a ‘but’, already signaling that the talk to follow will be in contradiction to the compliment. The micro pause further delays the criticism of the quality of Mike’s performance. Thus, in this dispreferred first pair part of criticizing, the interactant can be observed to employ the same technique as interactants who produce dispreferred second pair parts: a compliment serves to delay the dispreferred element. In other words, the face-threatening act of criticizing is softened, qualified, or mitigated by a positive statement at the beginning of turn which, incidentally, seems to be the typical way of providing feedback in American English (Kotthoff 1989). It has been noted in the literature (Schegloff 1995b; Taleghani-Nikazm 1999, 2002b) that there is an apparent preference for offer sequences over request sequences in both American English and German. As Schegloff (1995b) argues, this preference for offers is displayed in talk when the party wanting an item withholds their request and designs their talk as to elicit an offer. As the following discussion shows, compliments can fulfill precisely this function. The talk represented in the following two segments was uttered only minutes apart from each other. The participants are having breakfast together. Christiane and Markus (both from Germany) are visiting their friend Annette in

 Chapter 4

Texas. As part of their breakfast, Annette had served an especially sweet cantaloupe, a fruit not available in Germany at that particular time of year. At the beginning of this first transcript, Markus is in the process of eating the last slice of cantaloupe on his plate. He compliments the hostess on the fruit but does not receive a response to the compliment. In the segment thereafter (segment (8)), he restates the compliment: (7) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, A524] 1

2

3

4 5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12 13

A: is da noch kaffee is there still coffee is there still some coffee M: nöa nope nope A: nich. ich mach noch mal not. i make again some no. I’ll make some more (.) M: [alles aufgebraucht [all used+up [all used up [ [((some banging noise))] A: aua [ahhhh ouch [uhhhh ouch [uhhhh [ C: [o:::h [o:::h [o:::h A: oh he he he he oh he he he he oh he he he he M: mmhh vorsich mmhh careful mmhh careful A: m he he he he m he he he he m he he he he (.) A: ( )

Giving compliments 

=> 14 M: ah die is hervorragend die melone ah this is excellent the melon ah this is excellent this melon *A turns toward D, who had tapped her on the shoulder 15 A: [*ja? [*yes? [*yes? [ 16 C: [küssen vor der kamera geht [kissing in front of the camera goes [kissing in front of the camera won’t 17 C: nich[david not [david go [david [ 18 M: [mhm [mhm [mhm 19 A: küssen geht auch vor der kamera kissing goes also in front of the camera kissing also works in front of the camera

At the beginning of the transcript, Annette volunteers to make more coffee. When moving into the kitchen, she bumps into the counter which solicits cautionary remarks and laughter from the participants. Then, in line 14, Markus compliments Annette on the melon she has served. As Annette’s boyfriend just entered the room and proceeded to kiss Annette, engendering a round of mock reproach from Christiane and Markus, Markus does not receive any uptake on his compliment. About a minute after this segment, the following sequence unfolds when Markus is just finishing his last piece of cantaloupe: (8) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, A556] 1 => 2

3

4

(1.0) M: m::::: m::::: m::::: C: uups [he ((C spilled tea)) oops [he oops [he [ A: [ach [well [well

 Chapter 4

=> 5

6

7

8

9

=> 10

11

12 13

M: lecker tasty tasty A: [( ) [( ) [ C: [( ) [( ) *putting hand on tea pot M: möchts *noch bis- ( ) want+you *still lit- ( ) do you want some more ( ) C: ne: ( ) no: ( ) no: ( ) A: da is noch mehr du kannst gerne there is still more you can please there’s more you are welcome to eat A: noch en stück essen another piece eat another piece C: ((coughs)) A: da is noch nethere is still athere’s still a-

15 M: ahh noch’n bisschen. uhh still+a bit. uhh a little more 16 (.) 17 M: dann sieht’s nich so gierich aus then looks it not so greedy PRT then it won’t look so gluttonous 18 C: mhe he mhe he mhe he 19 A: he he he he he he

Giving compliments 

20 C: wird eh alles auf der kamera festgehalten will anyway all on the camera recorded there’ll be a record on the camera anyway

In line 2 and 5, Markus again positively assesses the cantaloupe just as he is eating the very last bite of melon. As Christiane spills some tea and as all interactants attend to this mishap in lines 4–9, Markus only receives an uptake in line 10. Here, we can observe Annette announcing that there is more melon available. In other words, Annette is offering additional food to Markus. The placement of Markus’ compliment at this particular juncture of the conversation seems to be designed specifically to maximize the occurrence of an offer.10 That is, Markus is eliciting an offer rather than producing a request for more food: – – –

This is the second time within a short period of time that Markus is complimenting Annette on this particular food item she has been serving. He is paying this compliment just as he is finishing the last bite of the complimented food item on his plate. Additional helpings of the complimented item are within very easy reach of Annette (but the melon still needs to be cut to size).

As soon as Annette has cut additional slices of melon after having offered them, Markus accepts the offer in line 15 in an almost hesitant fashion. After a short pause though, he unveils this hesitancy as feigned wavering, providing a humorous account for why he wants only a little more food (he does not want to appear gluttonous, line 17). This comment shows that, indeed, he had been interested in eating more melon all along but did not want to ask for it; instead, he strategically placed a compliment to elicit an additional offer of the desired item. A close sequential analysis of the interaction reveals this trajectory – as Christiane so rightly observes in the last line of the transcript. This section has shown that compliments can occur in talk in order to attenuate a dispreferred first pair part (as seen in data segment (6)), or in order to avoid the dispreferred first pair part and to instead elicit the production of the preferred alternative by the coparticipant. Thus, compliments are used in order to mitigate dispreferred actions. Put differently, compliments can be used in order to minimize potentially face-threatening acts. It is in these situations that compliments have social solidarity building functions. Let me reiterate, though, what has already been stated in the beginning sections of this chapter. It is not the syntactic and semantic formula of compliments alone, but the placement of the formula within the overall sequence (more precisely, it is

 Chapter 4

the placement of a positive statement in an otherwise potentially disaffiliatory environment) that gives compliments this social solidarity building function.

. Compliments in preferred environments In the previous section, we observed speakers using compliments in dispreferred environments to mitigate the interactional achievement of either first or second pair parts. However, an analysis of the sequential position of compliments reveals that they also occur (and do so most frequently) in preferred environments. Again, we can distinguish between preferred first and second pair parts. As in the previous section, the discussion begins with compliments as second pair parts. ..

Compliments as parts of preferred second pair parts

Pomerantz (1984a) demonstrates that the preferred response to one speaker’s self-deprecation is a disagreement with that self-deprecation by an interlocutor. Pomerantz (1984a) discusses the various formats of such disagreements for American English and notes that compliments are frequently a part of such turns (p. 85). The data segment below shows that the same can be said for German. Readers may recall from the previous chapter that in the ensuing segment, Sybille had been preparing a meal (fish, pasta, and broccoli) for her family (her daughter Annette, her husband Bernhard, her son-in-law David) and for Uschi, a friend of the family. The self-deprecation occurs in lines 6 and 8 (marked with arrow a); and the compliment occurs in line 16 (marked with arrow b): (9) [Fischessen 0:09:39:11: bissfest] 1

2

3

A: also vom flugha:fen? ((swallows))bis well from the ai:rport? ((swallows)) to well from the airport? ((swallows)) to zum messe- hotel messegelände ham the fair- hotel fair grounds have the fair- hotel at the fairgrounds [se fünfzich mark bezahlt [they fifty marks paid [they paid fifty marks [

Giving compliments 

4

5

a => 6

7 a => 8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15

b => 16

17

18

S: [hmm, [hum, [hum, B: s normal. is normal. that’s standard S: also brokkoli is gut bissfest. well broccoli is good al dente. well the broccoli is quite al dente. (1.0) S: o wenigstens das stück das ich ebn [hatteo o at least the piece that i just [hado o at least the piece that i just [had [ B: [m’hm [m’hm [m’hm U: das macht man so. gestern im that makes one so.yesterday in+the that’s how it’s done. yesterday in the U: restaurant hatte ich ihn auch sehr (.) restaurant had i him also very (.) restaurant i also had it very much (.) U: bissfest al dente al dente A: mhm o das is weicho uhum o this is softo uhuhm o this is softo (.) ?: um hu um hu um hu B: sehr gut häschen. haste gut ge[kocht. very good rabbit. have+you good c[ooked very good honey. you did [well [ U: [mhm. [uhum. [uhum. U: s[ehr lecker v[ery yummy v [ery yummy [

 Chapter 4

19 D:

[((nod[s)) [ 20 S: [ich hab’s in der mi:krowelle gemacht [i have+it in the microwave made [i made it in the microwave 21 (1.5) 22 B: in se meicrovave? in the microwave? ((in English)) in the microwave?

As discussed in detail in the previous chapter, Sybille negatively assesses the broccoli in line 6; she is thus self-deprecating. None of the coparticipants provides any disagreements and Sybille downgrades her assessment in line 8. In line 9, Bernhard confirms the texture of the broccoli, and in lines 10–12, Uschi reassures Sybille that the broccoli is supposed to be that way, providing her own experience at the restaurant the day before as evidence, i.e., professionals prepare it the same way. Annette acknowledges Uschi’s turn and then reassures Sybille by positively assessing the broccoli on her own plate, thereby disagreeing with Sybille’s original self-deprecation. In line 16, Bernhard produces additional disagreements with Sybille’s self-deprecation by uttering two additional positive evaluations in sequence. In overlap with the second evaluation, two of the other participants also orient to Bernhard’s turn in that they produce agreement tokens (mhm ‘uhum’ and nodding) and a second assessment (sehr lecker ‘very yummy’).11 Given this sequential position (i.e., after a self-deprecation), Bernhard’s positive evaluations described above clearly function as compliments to Sybille. As can be seen from her response to them, Sybille also orients to these assessments as compliments: she provides a history or account of how she prepared the meal, which constitutes a typical response to a compliment (Golato 2002a). As self-deprecations frequently result in the production of a compliment, they can be seen as devices for “fishing for compliments.” The compliment in the response turn clearly praises the recipient and stands in contrast to her own negative evaluation of her achievement. A compliment paid in this environment clearly accomplishes affiliatory, face-saving work (see also Heritage 1984b; Pomerantz 1984a). It has been pointed out in the literature that when a speaker produces an announcement, a noticing, or a telling, it is expected of the coparticipants to assess what they have been told (Goodwin 1986: 214; Schegloff 1995b: 75). Such assessments display how the coparticipant has analyzed what the interactants have talked about (Goodwin 1986: 210). It should come as no surprise that if such tellings, announcements, or noticings include an achievement by the

Giving compliments 

teller, coparticipants typically respond with a compliment, as the following segments show. Kirsten is talking to her sister-in-law Carla, who has just moved into a new house. Carla is telling Kirsten about the house and the move. (10) [Kirsten, Tape 2, B071] 1

K: inner normalen wohnung musste ja ne in a normal apartment must+you PRT a in a normal apartment you have to buy a 2 K: küche kaufen oder? kitchen buy or? kitchen right? 3 C: ja:. ye:s. ye:s. 4 K: [ohh das is natürlich (.) sehr teuer [ohh that is naturally (.) very expensive [ohh that’s of course (.) very expensive [ 5 C: [un hier war ja auch ga:r nichts [and here was PRT also at all nothing [and there was nothing included 6 K: ne? ] right?] right?] ] 7 C: drin ] ne:: weil das hab ich alles inside] no:: because that have i all here ] no:: because i bought everything 8 C: [über sperrmüll gekauft [through ((newspaper)) bought [through the thrifty nickel [ 9 K: [gings [goes it [it was alright 10 C: die [komplette küche the [complete kitchen the [entire kitchen [ => 11 K: [ja des is gut [yes that is good [yes that’s good

 Chapter 4

12 C: mit mit ä:h kühlschrank un with with u:h fridge and with with u:h fridge and 13 C: backo:f[en spü:le und herd ov[en si:nk and stove ov [en si:nk and stove [ => 14 K: [na das is gut [wow that is good [wow that’s good 15 C: .hh für dreihundert mark .hh for threehundred marks ((= $150)) .hh for threehundred marks => 16 K: na das is natürlich su:per, ja. wow that is naturally su:per, yes. wow of course that’s su:per, yes. 17 C: ne? right? isn’t it? (.) 18 C: also (.) ich hab fast alles so (.) i have almost everything actually (.) i bought almost everything 19 über sperrmüll gekau[ft through ((newspaper))bough[t through the thrifty nicke[l [ 20 K: [ja. [yes. [yes. 21 C: un bin also ganz zufriedn and am actually quite content and am actually quite happy

This story is part of a larger telling, in which Carla reports on her recent move. As houses and apartments in Germany hardly ever include any furniture or appliances, and as different kitchens have different layouts, purchasing these items upon moving into a new house can be a costly endeavor (see line 4). Carla denies having spent a lot of money, telling how she purchased the items through a newspaper in which private persons sell items at bargain prices. This telling thus clearly presents an accomplishment on Carla’s part: Her cleverness (to think of this source) and thriftiness allowed her to save a large amount of money (how much is displayed later in the transcript). In line 11, Kirsten produces an assessment. This assessment is not an assessment of the telling it-

Giving compliments

self, but of the action presented in the telling. Kirsten positively assesses this money-saving technique in line 11, thereby paying Carla a compliment on her thriftiness. By providing a list of the items bought and the (incredibly) low price she paid, Carla is able to point out the high degree of her thriftiness. In overlap with Carla’s list, Kirsten repeats and slightly upgrades her compliment in line 14 (the upgrade is to be found in the production of the particle na/‘wow’, instead of ja/‘yes’). Upon hearing the price, Kirsten upgrades the compliment even more (see line 16). Carla responds with a response pursuit marker (Burkhardt 1982; Harren 2001; Jefferson 1980). As this marker typically pursues an agreement from the interlocutor (Burkhardt 1982; Golato 2002a; Harren 2001) a better term might be agreement pursuit marker. When ne? is produced as a single item within a turn, it reiterates a previously stated utterance (specifically an agreement). It thus functions as a device for mutual expressions of agreement (Harren 2001: 127).12 In the data segment above, the two speakers are clearly aligned with each other, each one assessing Carla’s thriftiness in a positive fashion. Kirsten’s alignment with Carla was expressed in the form of three compliments with increasing degrees of positiveness (lines 11, 14, and 16). While the preceding segment showed compliments in responses to tellings, the following two segments display compliments as reactions to announcements by a 3 year old girl. In segment (11), two children were told that they should eat the food on their plates. (11) [Anna und Leah 0:24:50:00: fertig] 1 L: ich bin fertich i am done i’m done => 2 A: sehr gut. ((nods while saying it)) very good. very good. 3 (.) 4 L: ricki ich bin fertich kann ich mir ((name)) i am done can i me+reflex ricki i’m done can i 5 (0.2) 6 R: was kannst du? what can you? you can do what? 7 L: mir die hände waschen me+reflex the hands wash wash my hands





Chapter 4

In line 1, Leah announces an accomplishment on her part, namely that she managed to finish her food. This announcement is responded to by Annette in form of a compliment, thereby praising the child for her accomplishment. Leah in turn announces the accomplishment to the other adult present in the room and asks for permission to leave the table. In the following example, the same child (Leah) announces the solution to a problem the two children have had: there was only one scooter but both children wanted to play with it. (12) [Anna und Leah 1:23:40:00: abwechselnd] 1 L: oder (.) anna un ich fahrn immer or (.) anna and i ride always or (.) anna and i are taking turns at 2 abwechselnd in turn riding => 3 R: das (.) is ne (.) super idee. that (.) is a (.) super idea. that (.) is a (.) great idea. 4 L: anna wo[lln wir? anna wa[nt we? anna sh[all we? [ 5 R: [sacht mal ihr beidn [say+you PRT you both [tell me you two

Upon hearing Leah’s solution to the problem, Anna’s mother positively assesses the solution, thereby paying Leah a compliment and praising her. In both segments above, it is the position of the positive assessment within the sequence, i.e., after an announcement of an accomplishment (having finished one’s food and having found a solution to a problem, respectively), that turns the assessment into a compliment. Not providing an assessment in this type of situation would constitute a noticeable absence (Pomerantz 1984b) which would usually lead an interlocutor to draw the inference that the announcement or accomplishment is unworthy of praise (Bilmes 1988: 163). Thus, the compliment turns in the two data segments above clearly show the second speaker’s alignment and affiliation with the first. Similarly, if a speaker is asked to display a skill for other coparticipants, such a display needs to be assessed and evaluated by the coparticipants; a missing evaluation is again noticeably (and relevantly) absent, leading to negative

Giving compliments

inferences about the skill (Bilmes 1988: 163). In segment (13), Ricki is telling Annette (A) that her three-year-old daughter Anna (An) still has problems pronouncing a particular sound /g/ in spoken German. However, she points out that Anna is able to produce the sound in isolation and asks her to demonstrate this newly acquired skill: (13) [Anna und Leah 0:52:50:00: ge] 1 R:

ne? un dann kann se das nämlich auch. right? and then can she that namely too. right? and then she can do it too. 2 sach mal ge: say PRT ge: say ge: 3 An: ge => 4 R: genau, ((pets S’s cheek)) exactly, exactly, => 5 A: he he kannste gu:ut he he can+you go:od he he you do that we:ell 6 An: [hhchja [hhchyes [hhchyes [ 7 R: [aber oft sacht se auch noch de [but often say she also still de [but often she still says de

When Anna performs the task as requested (see line 3), both her mother and Annette compliment her on the successful execution of the task. The compliments in lines 4 and 5 thus acknowledge that Anna is indeed able to perform a task her mother had described in line 2. With her compliment in line 4, Ricki is affiliating with her daughter. The affiliatory work which Annette’s turn accomplishes is slightly more complex. Annette is clearly supportive of Ricki’s daughter Anna; however, she is also affiliating with Ricki: by complimenting Anna on her ability (kannste gu:ut / ‘you do that we:ell’), Annette is at the same time agreeing with Ricki’s initial assessment of her daughter’s language ability in line 1.13 The present data further reveal that compliments in German are frequently used together with expressions of thanks or even in place of them, an observation that has already been made for English data (Holmes & Brown 1987; Wolfson 1983; Wolfson & Manes 1980: 399). The following data segments





Chapter 4

demonstrate this use of compliments. In data segment (14), four friends are playing cards together for money. In previous rounds that evening, one player (Sybille) has had little luck and has made a few blunders costing her (and her respective partner in each round) some points (i.e., money). In the segment below, Sybille has been able to play a high trump, thus gaining points from her opponents. (14) [Doppelkopf, 0:12:14:00] 1 F: ((plays card)) schön. sybille. vielen nice. sybille. many nice. sybille. thank you 2 F: dank. thanks. very much.

In line 1 of the transcript, Freddie plays the suit (not trump) initiated by an earlier player. The card he is playing is worth many points. According to the rules of the game, Freddie and his partner would have lost these points had it not been for Sybille playing trump and “rescuing” Freddie. In response to Sybille’s move which gained her and her partner Freddie many points, Freddie positively assesses her move (see line 1). While Freddie is looking at his own cards, the address term clearly specifies the intended recipient of the turn. He is thus complimenting Sybille on her savvy play which rescued him. The compliment is thus also expressing Freddie’s gratefulness to her. This gratefulness is made more explicit by the added appreciation token.14 The following segment demonstrates that compliments alone can fulfill the function of expressing appreciation without the appreciation token (i.e., the danke / ‘thank you’) present in the talk. In the data segment below, Markus (living in the US) called his sister Nicki early in the morning, German time. (15) [Oregon, Tape 2 A327] 1

2

N: das war jetz der wegger he o hho:o that was now the alarm clock he o hho:o now that was the alarm clock he o hho:o M: naja: wollt nur mal hör’n wie’s dir you we:ll wanted only once hear how we:ll just wanted to hear how you are

Giving compliments

3

M: geht [wie’s deinm are [how your doing [how your [ => 4 N: [nee: des is aber lieb von dir [no: that is but nice of you [no: that is really nice of you 5 M: magen geht stomach is doing stomach is doing 6 N: natürlich das is lieb von dir [war ja of course that is nice of you [was PRT of course that’s nice of you [it wasn’t [ 7 M: [.dHHHHHH [.dHHHHHH [.dHHHHHH 8 N: auch nich so todernst jetz ich mein aber also not so deadserious now i mean but that serious now i mean but i thought 9 ich hab gedacht wer ruft denn jetz da um i have thought who calls then now there who is calling now at 10 zehn nach acht an at ten past eight ten past eight

From Nicki’s utterance in line 1, we can gather that Markus called her before it was time for her to get up (given the nine hour time difference between Oregon and Germany, we also know it was late at night where Markus was). In lines 2– 3, Markus provides the reason for his call: the beginning of his turn naja: wollt nur mal hör’n wie’s dir geht/‘well just wanted to hear how you are doing’ could potentially be heard as Markus simply wanting to catch up with his sister (an action which may not warrant the early time of the call). In lines 2–3 and line 5, we see Markus repair his turn so that it is now apparent that he is checking up on his sister’s health – an action which warrants the early calling time (from earlier recordings it is clear that his sister had been ill with a stomach flu). The repair thus specifies the intended action. At the same time, it expresses Markus’ concern for his sister: he is interested in her well-being, and he remembered the particular illness she suffered. In line 4, we see her respond just as Markus has finished his initial inquiry about her health. From her response, it is clear that she did not understand his inquiry as a wish to catch up but as a genuine interest in her health. She assesses her brother’s action (referred to with the





Chapter 4

demonstrative das/‘that’, see Chapter 3) as nice, thus complimenting him on his thoughtfulness. However, given the slot in the sequence, this compliment also functions as an expression of gratitude. She repeats this expression in line 6 and then downplays the nature of her illness. In sum, this section has shown that compliments can occur in preferred second pair parts. In all of the instances discussed above, they serve to explicitly express the alignment of the second pair part speaker with the first pair part speaker. Here, then, compliments are again used for affiliatory or face-maintaining moves. Again, it is the sequential placement of the turn that accounts for this particular interactional function of compliments. .. Compliments as first pair parts In the previous section, we already discussed compliments that served as expressions of appreciations. These expressions of appreciations were all second pair parts, that is, they were the immediate response to some prior action (in the instances above, they included a response to a particularly savvy cardplaying move, and a response to an inquiry). However, expressions of gratitude can also occur without being “caused” by an immediately prior action. Put differently, there are a number of instances in the data in which the compliment that expresses gratitude is a first pair part and thus starts a new sequence. As it turns out, all of these expressions of thanks are in closing-relevant environments, that is, these compliments function as pre-closings to larger sequences. Below, I will discuss some of those instances. Segment (16) is taken from the same interaction as the one in which we saw an expression of gratitude as a second pair part. Note, though, that in segment (16), the speakers have just concluded one round of the card game (as can be seen by Bernhard’s counting points). While Freddie and Sybille have been partners and Bernhard and Irmgard constituted the opposing team, this constellation may not continue in the next round. This is the case because who is going to be on the same team is decided by certain cards the players are dealt, and the players have to figure out who their partner is going to be during the course of the game by the cards that are being played. Given these rules and the activities the speakers are engaged in (tallying up their points), it is clear that in segment (16), we are at a closure relevant point (i.e., the closure of this particular round). The reader may recall that in previous rounds, Sybille had made some costly blunders, but that she played well in the second round. While the opposing team made the last cut (lines 1–4), it turns out that Sybille is actually on the winning team.

Giving compliments

(16) [Doppelkopf, 0:26:31:35] 1

2

3

4

=> 5

6

8

I: den punkt z[iehn wir euch mal e:ben this point d[raw we you once quickly this point i[s one we’ll quickly take [ B: [wirf- den brauchten wir [throw- this need we [throw- this one we I: aus der tasche] out the pocket] away from you ] B: auch wirklich ] also des war gerade so also really ] PRT this was just like really needed ]really this was just like F: schönen dank. warst ne genehme thanks. were+you a pleasant many many thanks. you were a pleasant F: partnerin. partner+fem. partner.

B: sieben siebzehn neun: [zehn neununzwanzig seven seventeen nine: [teen twenty-nine seven seventeen nine: [teen twenty-nine [ 9 S: [ich hab wenigstens [i have at least [at least i said 10 B: (.) zwounreissig, ] (.) thirty-two, ] (.) thirty-two, ] ] 11 S: mal re:: gesagt ne? ] right?] PRT re::15 said re:: right? ]





Chapter 4

[ 13 B: [zwounvierzich, fünfunvierzich [fourtytwo, fortyfive [fourtytwo, fortyfive

15 F:

[der (emanzipation) [to (emancipation) [to (emancipation) [ 16 B: [sechsunfünfzich sechzich [fiftysix sixty [fiftysix sixty 17 S: entwickeln. develop. improve 18 B: OHH vierunsechzich ham wer OHH sixtyfour have we OHH we’ve got sixtyfour

At the beginning of the transcript, one round of cards has just ended with Irmgard and her card partner making the last cut. In lines 5–6, Freddie addresses his card partner Sybille by thanking her. He then adds a positive assessment to his turn, thereby complimenting Sybille on being a pleasant partner (i.e., implying that she played well). Sybille’s first reaction is one to shrug off the compliment (line 7), and in overlap with Bernhard counting the points of the losing team she admits to having at least done something right in her game (“having said re::” at the beginning of the game, a move that will score extra winning points for her team), the sequence then continues both with Freddie teasing Sybille, and with Sybille mocking herself.16 The assessment turn in lines 5–6 has actually two related functions: It specifies what Freddie is thankful for, and it does so in a positive and encouraging way (particularly given that Sybille had made mistakes in previous rounds). Again, just as in the previous sections, the function of the turn is derived from the location of the turn within the larger sequence. In the following segment, Tobias is paying the hosts (referred to as ‘the chefs’ in line 1) a compliment on the food. As this compliment is paid after the meal has been concluded (most of the dishes have just been cleared from the

Giving compliments

table and the hosts are sitting back down at the table, see line 3), it serves as an expression of gratitude. When Tobias compliments the hosts, his wife Ricki agrees (see line 5). Tobias then states that the hosts are treating him so well that he is feeling quite at home at their place (see lines 7–8). (17) [Grillen in Stade Tape 2, A 036] => 1

3

T: also erstmal an die küchenchefs? PRT first to the kitchenchefs? well first to the chefs

B: a::h= ((noise B makes when sitting)) a::h= a::h= => 4 T: =exzellent= =excellent= =excellent= 5 R: =ja. =ja. =yes. 6 B: [war gut ne? ] [was good right? ] [was good right? ] [ 7 T: [ich sitz hier ] und fühl mich [i sit here ] and feel myself [i’m sitting here] feeling 8 T: richtich wohl correctly well really good 9 ?: ( ) 10 B: wieso das fleisch hat sie gekauft ich why the meat has she bought i why she bought the meat i only 11 B: hab’s nur gegrillt have+it only grilled barbecued it 12 S: jetz kommt der küchenchef mit der now comes the kitchenchef with the and here’s the chef with a



 Chapter 4

13 S: zigarre= cigar= cigar= 14 A: =zigarre. =cigar. =cigar. 15 B: ich werde jetzt eine herrliche zigarre i will now a wonderful cigar now i will smoke a wonderful 16 rauchen smoke cigar

This compliment sequence (or rather thanking sequence) brings the action of eating to an end, after which the participants engage in other activities: one of the hosts is about to smoke a cigar (and not offering any since he is aware that all others present are avid non-smokers) and the conversation turns to topics other than food (not displayed). The compliment or expression of gratitude thus turns out to be placed just at the transition from one activity (eating and clearing up the table) to another (casually socializing). Compliments can also serve as expressions of thanks not only when one activity within an encounter comes to an end, but also when the entire encounter is moving to closure. This is displayed in data segment (18). All interactants have moved from the living area towards the door where the following interaction unfolds: (18) [Freunde in Stade, Tape 1 B324] 1

2

3

4

5

T: wir sind heute morgen sehr früh we are today morning very early we got up very early this morning aufgestanden und freitachs is sonst got up and fridays is otherwise and fridays is normally not quite normalerweise gar nich so unser(.) tach normally at all not so our (.) day our (.) day since because of weil wir [noch von der woche son because we [still from the week like a the week [we are still like a [ B: [freitach is en schöner is a nice [friday [fridays are nice

Giving compliments

6

7

8

9

10 11 => 12

=> 13

14 15

16

17

18

=> 19

20

T: bisschen] little ] little ] ] B: tach ] day ] days ] F: ihr habt morgen was vor euch you have tomorrow something aheadof you tomorrow you’ve got quite something ahead F: ne? right? of you right? ? (( )) ? (( )) T: aber heute abend hier war’s schön bei but today evening here was+it nice at but it was nice this evening here at your euch yours place (0.1) R: mhm ((sound like a little laugh)) uhum uhum S: schön.17 nice. that’s nice. T: samstach [abend saturday [evening saturday [evening [ B: [jetz wollt ihr los? [now want you off? [you are off now? T: war klasse was great it was great ((The interactants have stepped outside and are out of earshot))

All interactants are standing in the hallway of the house, and Tobias and Ricki are talking with Sybille, one of the hosts. In lines 1–4, Tobias is providing accounts why he and his wife are leaving the get-together.18 In line 5, Bernhard, who up until now had been talking with another guest, joins the conversation



 Chapter 4

by providing an assessment. This assessment, produced in a preferred turn format, is actually misaligned with Tobias’ own assessment of the weekday. The meeting between the two men has been entirely amicable up to this point and there is no other indication in the talk that Bernhard might have meant his assessment to be a confrontation. Thus, one possible explanation for this ill-fitted assessment may be that Bernhard only caught the name of the weekday but not the remainder of the assessment while talking to another guest. Be that as it may, it actually turns out that Bernhard’s turn is not attended to by any of the other participants (no one is directing talk at him). In line 8, Freddie alludes to an announcement Ricki and Tobias made earlier, namely that they will have to go shopping for baby furniture and other supplies the next day. This reference provides Tobias with another account for having to leave the get-together. In lines 12–13, Tobias pays the hostess Sybille a compliment. The turn beginning aber/‘but’ ties back to Tobias’s earlier utterance in lines 1–4. Those statements could potentially be heard as a complaint (i.e., Tobias and his wife disliking the fact of going out on a Friday); the conjunction at the beginning of the turn in line 12 thus indicates that his utterance will form a contrast to such a reading. This turn thus compliments Sybille and her husband on being good hosts and serves to reassure her that he and his wife did in fact enjoy themselves (Ricki confirms this in line 15). Sybille accepts the compliment by assessing the compliment assertion (see Chapter 6). A second round of compliments ensues when Bernhard re-enters the conversation in line 18. In response to his inquiry, Tobias again pays a compliment (i.e., this one is a second pair part). This compliment functions to reassure Bernhard that the reason for leaving has nothing to do with the quality of the evening. Again, both of these compliments are paid as part of a closing sequence, specifically as part of leave-taking. They express that the guests have enjoyed themselves during their visit with Bernhard and Sybille. They thus fit the description Goffman (1955/1967: 41) provides of farewells: “Farewells sum up the effect of the encounter upon the relationship and show what the participants may expect of one another when they next meet. [. . .] the enthusiasm of farewells compensates the relationship for the harm that is about to be done to it by separation.” In most examples of compliments in this chapter, the compliment seemed to be serving more than one interactional function. Often, the complimenting function was even secondary to some other action. In some sequences, however, complimenting seems to be the only action done with the turn in question. In these instances, a speaker is positively assessing an object or character trait for which the coparticipant can take credit with an assessment that seems to come “out of the blue.” This is the case in the following example

Giving compliments 

in which Freddie is complimenting the hosts (Sybille and Bernhard) on their roses; Irmgard, talking at line 21, is Freddie’s wife. (19) [Doppelkopf, 0:00:54:00] 1

2 3

4

5 6

7

8 9

10

11

12

=> 13

14 15

F: Bernhard, was trinken wir denn? Bernhard, what drink we then? Bernhard, what are we gonna drink? (0.5) B: ä:[:h u:[:h u:[:h [ F: [lieber weißwein? [rather white wine? [rather white wine? (.) B: weißwein oder (.) white wine or (.) white wine or (.) F: un nen glas wasser, and a glas water, and a glass of water, (.) F: white. white. white. B: weißwein. white wine is auch immer white wine.white wine is also always white wine. white wine is always a good B: gut. good. choice. (0.2) ((B goes to fridge in kitchen or basement to get the wine, F turns around at the same time, and spots the roses )) F: habt ihr schöne ro:sen hier. have you+pl. nice ro:ses here. you’ve got nice ro:ses here. (0.2)19 F: nein. no. wow.

 Chapter 4

((F walks over to roses in flower pot smells the tallest rose))

17 F: o::::hm, a::::hm., a::::hm., 18 (0.5) 19 F: hier is ein brandschaden((looks at leaf)) here is a burn damage here it is burnt 20 ((10.0 - in which Freddie looks some more at the flowers)) 21 I: willst du selbst schreiben freddie? want you self write freddie? do you want to write yourself freddie? 22 F: ja:a. ye:es. ye:es.

In lines 1–11 of this data segment, Freddie and Bernhard discuss what to drink during the evening. After this sequence has come to a close in line 12, Freddie compliments Bernhard and his wife on their roses (line 13). This compliment thus starts a new sequence (a complimenting sequence) and complimenting is the only action accomplished with this turn. This sequence is actually abandoned in line 20 since Freddie finds himself without a conversational partner: Bernhard has gone to fetch wine and his wife is in the kitchen; Irmgard, who is present, is not a potential recipient for this compliment, as she is also a guest. She could have participated in providing assessments, but as she is filling out a form, she is not available as a conversational partner either. Normally, a compliment by Freddie on anything concerning the yard carries a considerable amount of weight, as Freddie is (a) a landscaper and gardener by training; (b) an avid gardener in his own yard; (c) the person who helps Bernhard and Sybille with any yard-related problems (however, he has not been involved in planting or growing the roses20 ). Leaving all of these observations aside, this compliment still constitutes a preferred first pair part as it constitutes a noticing. Noticings (specifically, noticings-by-others) have been found to be preferred over announcement (specifically, announcements-by-self) (Schegloff 1995b: 80). Compliments very regularly serve as noticings: they are ideally suited in that they not only announce that an item has caught the speaker’s attention, but also in that they immediately convey the speaker’s stance towards

Giving compliments 

the noticed element. Specifically, they convey the speaker’s positive stance towards the noticed item. In their function as noticings, compliments frequently occur at the beginning of conversations as “a simple, neutral topic for a brief conversational interchange” (Wolfson & Manes 1980: 397), but as Wolfson and Manes (1980: 394) point out, they can also occur almost anywhere in the conversation. If compliments are misplaced (i.e., constitute a noticing during other ongoing sequences) they are then marked with appropriate misplacement markers (Schegloff & Sacks 1973: 319–320) as in the following example (the pronoun sie/‘she’ in line 1 refers to the family dog).21 (20) [Doppelkopf, 0:07:40:00] 1 A: soll sie das hier draußn trinkn should she that here outside drink should she be able to drink this here 2 A: könn? [oder sollscan? [or should soutside? [or should [ 3 S: [NEne↑ [NOno↑ [NOno↑ 4 S: stells ihr drinne hin o wo’s put+it for her inside down o where+it put it down for her inside o where it 5 stando . stoodo . waso . 6 B: so. so. so.

8

kumma die- (.)ro:sen, sieht aus= look the- (.)ro:ses, looks like= look the- (.)ro:ses, looks like= 9 F: =ne?= =right?= =right?=

 Chapter 4

At the beginning of the segment, the interlocutors have just sat down at the table to begin playing, drinks have been poured, and seats have been switched (to be out of the evening sun). In line 1–5, Annette and Sybille are taking care of the dog’s needs. In line 6, Bernhard utters the discourse marker so/‘so’, indicating the conclusion of one action and initiating a new one (Ehlich 1986). It is at this moment that Irmgard spots some roses at the other end of the garden and makes a positive assessment about the roses. Note that she introduces this assessment (i.e., compliment) by the marker oh and verbally drawing the other speaker’s gaze to the roses (kumma/‘look’). In other words, this compliment is independent of any other surrounding talk and does not refer to any action anyone just performed or mentioned. Since this noticing or compliment seems to be paid “out of the blue”, it starts out with oh/‘oh’ which serves as a misplacement marker here.22

. Discussion It has been mentioned in the literature that compliments can also have a “darker side” (Holmes 1995: 119). Holmes describes this darker side as follows: “Compliments may have a darker side then. For some recipients, in some contexts, an apparent compliment may be experienced negatively, or as facethreatening. They may be patronizing or offensively flattering. They may also, of course, be sarcastic. When the content of a compliment is perceived as too distant from reality, it will be heard as a sarcastic or ironic put-down” (Holmes 1995: 119). Similarly, Brown and Levinson (1978/1987: 66) state that compliments can be perceived as face-threatening acts when the complimenter can be understood to envy the addressee or would like to obtain something that the recipient owns. While this may certainly be the case, this description of the “darker side” of compliments is limited. For instance, note that both of these descriptions of compliments are primarily concerned with either the semantics of the turn (in Holmes’s description) or with speaker’s intent or feeling (in Brown and Levinson’s description23 ). However, as we have seen through-

Giving compliments 

out this chapter, it is the placement of a potential compliment turn that is the crucial feature determining whether or not an utterance comes across as a compliment, or as some other (face-threatening) action. In data segment (2), we saw an instance of a compliment serving a more sinister or face-threatening function, namely that of an insult. In the next segment, Tobias is looking at an older photo album in which his friend and host Bernhard (who is 56 at the time of recording) is featured as a young man of 18. (21) [Freunde in Stade, Tape 1, A056] 1

T: wer is das? who is this? who is this? 2 S: das is bernhard. that is bernhard. that’s bernhard. 3 T: nein. HA: HA: bernhard? HA: HA: bernhard? no. no way. HA: HA: bernhard? 4 (.) 5 T: ich brech zusammen i break together what a hoot 6 (.) 7 T: das glaub ich nich that believe i not i don’t believe it 8 B: ja:a. ye:es. ye:es. => 9 I: bernhard war schon immer en schönes bernhard was already always a handsome bernhard has always been a handsome => 10 I: kerlchen. little+guy. little guy.

 Chapter 4

12 B: den ha- he he he ha::: that one ha- he he he ha::: that one ha- he he he ha:::

In line 1, Tobias is looking at pictures in an old photo album when he comes across the picture of a young man he does not recognize. When Sybille identifies the man in the picture as her husband Bernhard (line 2), Tobias reacts with disbelief (nein/‘no way’) and loud laughter. His disbelief and amusement are further expressed in lines 5–7; but Bernhard himself confirms the identification in line 8. In lines 9–10, Irmgard produces an assessment of Bernhard; as Bernhard is sitting right next to her (and the assessment was clearly designed for him to overhear), this turn is a potential compliment to Bernard.24 However, while her intonation is unmarked (i.e., does not indicate anything unusual about the turn), her lexical choice for the noun phrase describing Bernhard is unusual. While Kerl/‘guy’ (or even ‘hunk’) might be appropriate for a 56-year-old, 6 foot 4 inch tall man, the diminuitive kerlchen/‘little guy’ is not; its use thereby provides a sarcastic tone. Given that this turn is placed in an environment in which a picture of the described person has been assessed with laughter and disbelief, this “compliment” becomes entirely ironic. Irmgard is in fact stating the opposite of the words she uttered. Moreover, given the aspectual marking of her turn (war schon immer/‘has always been’) she seems to be implying that he has never been handsome (and still is not today). Irmgard does not receive any uptake, instead, Tobias continues his interaction with Sybille, teasing her in line 11. As his partial repetition and his laughter in line 12 indicate, Bernhard is an incredibly good sport in light of all the teasing and mockery. Upon closer inspection, Irmgard’s potential compliment turn in lines 9–10 turns out to be quite a stinging comment (despite the positive assessment segment) and it certainly is a disaffiliatory, thus face-threatening act. The following (rather long) segment is actually a continuation of a segment presented earlier, in which Irmgard notices some roses in the garden and pays Sybille and Bernhard a compliment. The segment is rather convoluted as it includes an elaborate word search and a schism. Thus, before displaying the segment, the sequence will be explained so that the reader knows what to anticipate. The focus of the analysis is a compliment by Freddie on Sybille’s hydrangeas (see arrowed turns). This compliment is paid after (or rather during) Irmgard’s compliment on the roses. As the analysis will show, Freddie’s compliment is an attempt at gaining access to the floor.

Giving compliments 

(22) [Doppelkopf, 0:07:40:00] 1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

A: soll sie das hier draußn trinkn should she that here outside drink should she be able to drink this here A: könn? [oder sollscan? [or should soutside? [or should [ S: [NEne↑ [NOno↑ [NOno↑ S: stells ihr drinne hin o wo’s put+it for her inside down o where+it put it down for her inside o where it stando . stoodo . waso . B: so. so.

kumma die- (.) ro:sen, sieht aus= look the- (.) ro:ses, looks like= look the- (.) ro:ses, looks like= F: =ne?= =right?= =right?=

=> 11 F: [un die hortensie [an the hydrangea [an the hydrangea [

 Chapter 4

12 S: [auf diesem[on this ((masc/neuter sg)) [on the-

15 I:

[wie heißn die dinger [how called the things [what’s the name of these things 16 I: noch? auf s[o ‘ner again? on s[uch a again? on s[uch a [ => 17 F: [un die hortensien [and the hydrangeas

As mentioned previously, Freddie is an avid (and trained) landscaper and gardener and is usually regarded as the authority on plant life by the other members of the group. His apparent sense of entitlement to be (an independent) judge of the flowers becomes obvious in line 9, where he expresses his agreement with his wife’s assessment with the agreement pursuit marker ne/‘right?’, (Harren 2001; Jefferson 1980) thereby claiming independent access to the eval-

Giving compliments

uated item (Harren 2001). In the middle of his wife’s word-search (see lines 10–10), in which Irmgard is actively engaging the coparticipation of the other interlocutors (see Sybille’s contribution to the word search in line 12, and Bernhard’s in line 18), Freddie is attempting to obtain the floor, or at least to start a schism with Sybille. His attempt at a turn at talk is built as the beginning of second compliment; however, it is a compliment on a different flower in the yard, namely on the hydrangeas. He utters the beginning of this compliment in line 11 (when it is clearly interruptive to his wife’s talk as she is engaged with Sybille), he repeats it at line 14; and again in lines 17–18 when he finally has obtained Sybille’s attention and then finishes the assessment, with which Sybille agrees. Put differently, Freddie has managed to schism, engaging Sybille in a separate conversation. “Stealing the floor” from a current speaker (or at least “stealing one interactant” for a schism) is done here with a compliment sequence (paying a compliment on the hydrangeas) which built on another compliment sequence (the compliment on the roses; i.e., we have here a “sequence of sequences” (Schegloff 1995b)). Wolfson (1983: 88) points out that compliments can “strengthen or even replace other speech-act formulas” such as apologies, thanks, and greetings, while Holmes (Holmes 1986: 488, 500) and Holmes and Brown (1987: 532) add that compliments can also serve to mitigate or soften a preceding facethreatening act such as a criticism, request or directive. It seems contradictory to claim that compliments can function both to strengthen and to soften another speech act. In fact, neither of the researchers cited above provides a principled explanation as to how compliments come to function in this way, other than to base their claims on the semantics of compliment turns or on the proximity of compliment turns to other speech acts (Holmes 1986: 500; Wolfson 1983). By contrast, the present chapter differs in that it has provided a principled account as to how compliments can be heard to have both strengthening and mitigating functions. This account is based on the sequential organization of talk-in-interaction; specifically, on preference organization. The discussion has shown that compliments can be placed in both preferred and dispreferred environments; it has further explicated that such placement has an impact on the action the compliment is performing; and, more importantly, it has specifically shown the impact of the compliment and its local organization. For example, when discussing the mitigating function of compliments, Holmes (1986: 500) notes that compliments occur “in close contiguity to requests or directives.” In contrast, the present chapter has pinpointed the location and function of compliments in these positions more specifically. In particular, I showed that compliments can occur before the actual request,



 Chapter 4

thereby delaying the requesting utterance in the sequence (in addition to performing the delay with a positive statement), and thus marking the request as a dispreferred action and providing the coparticipant with the chance to produce an offer. By producing a compliment, the complimenting speaker elicits an offer and thus avoids making a request. Thus, compliments can function as pre-requests which elicit offers. This analysis demonstrated the interconnectedness of (a) the linguistic form the utterance takes, (b) the sequential context in which it occurs, and (c) the action it is performing. As Heritage pointed out about utterances in general: “[. . .] the sense of the utterance – now, unavoidably, construed as an action – could not be made without invoking a social context which was co-ordinated with the sense of the particular expressions” (Heritage 1984b: 152). Put differently, a grammatical, semantic, or pragmatic analysis of single utterances out of their sequential environment will not show for which purposes speakers employ them (Schegloff & Sacks 1973: 313), instead, we need to consider the “relevance of positioning of utterances for determining the kinds of jobs that they do, and what they oblige people who are dealing with them to do” (Sacks 1992; Fall 1971, Lecture 2, p. 427).25 Having the sequential information at hand, it is easy to see that it is the placement of the compliment formula that determines the type of action a compliment is performing. And it is with reference to the sequential organization in general and with reference to preference organization in particular that compliments can be said to be face-saving or face-maintaining, or to be having a social-solidarity-building function. As Heritage (Heritage 1984b) demonstrates, it is the sequential design of the actions that contributes to the maintenance of social solidarity: “It will be obvious enough that the preferred format responses to requests, offers, invitations and assessments are uniformly affiliative actions which are supportive of social solidarity, while dispreferred format responses are largely destructive of social solidarity” (Heritage 1984b: 268). We have seen compliments occur in first pair parts and preferred second pair parts where in addition to complimenting, the compliment performed an additional action that constituted a preferred action, thus a social solidarity building action (i.e., a noticing, an expression of gratitude, an alignment with a story, an acceptance, etc.). We have also seen compliments as components of dispreferred first and second pair parts in which the compliment served to delay the dispreferred (or face-threatening) act. As we saw at the beginning of the chapter, it is not just because a compliment states something positive that it comes across as “social lubricant” (Wolfson 1983: 89); the compliment is so perceived because of where it is placed within the interaction.

Chapter 5

Compliments in multi-party interactions Third parties providing second compliments

. Introduction In the previous two chapters, I focused on the design and function of first compliment turns (i.e., lines 1 and 4 of segment (1) below). In the analysis, the number of participants in the interaction was already noted to be of occasional importance (recall for instance Chapter 4, in which I argued that a compliment to one participant can serve as a reproach or criticism of another participant). The present chapter looks exclusively at “second” compliments given in multi-party conversation. Specifically, the chapter provides an analysis of those compliments that are given by a second interlocutor either before or after the compliment recipient has responded. The following data segment serves to illustrate the type of turn which is of interest to the present discussion: (1) [Grillen in Stade Tape 2, A 036]

3

4

=> 5

6

B: a::h= ((noise B makes when sitting)) a::h= a::h= T: =exzellent= =excellent= =excellent= R: =ja. =ja. =yes. B: [war gut ne? ] [was good right?]

 Chapter 5

7

T:

8

T:

9 ?: 10 B:

11 B:

[was good right?] [ [ich sitz hier ] und fühl mich [i sit here ] and feel myself [i’m sitting here] feeling richtich wohl correctly well really good ( ) wieso das fleisch hat sie gekauft ich why the meat has she bought i why she bought the meat i only hab’s nur gegrillt have+it only grilled barbecued it

In this data segment, Tobias is paying the hosts Bernhard (B) and Sybille (S) a compliment on the food (lines 1–4). Before Bernhard responds to the compliment, Ricki (Tobias’ wife) agrees with this compliment, thereby paying Bernhard and his wife a second compliment. It is this type of compliment (a compliment given by a person other than the original compliment giver and other than the compliment recipient) that is of interest in the present chapter. In the discussion, I analyze the turn shape of such second compliments and the functions associated with such turn shapes. Additionally, I investigate the placement of the compliment within the complimenting sequence and within the overall sequential context, paying particular attention to what kinds of actions these compliment sequences accomplish. Then, I turn to a discussion of compliment agreements and multi-party talk in general, pointing out that not all compliments in multi-party talk contain a second compliment by a coparticipant. The analysis shows why this may be so, what interactional consequences such sequences have, and which resources interactants may employ if a second compliment is relevantly absent. Finally, I discuss the implications of this analysis with respect to sequence organization, etiquette books and our understanding of language processing.

. Shape of a second compliment – Why this shape now? In this section, I discuss the form of second compliments paid by speakers who are neither the compliment recipient nor the giver of the first compliment. In total, there were 17 such compliments in the data. At first glance, it is strik-

Compliments in multi-party interactions

ing that these second compliments all seem to be “minimal” in nature; that is, they commonly consist of only one short TCU. Generally, second compliments take the form of agreements (agreements in German have been described by Auer & Uhmann 1982) which are here expressed either with a gustatory mmmh (Gardner 1997; Wiggins 2001, 2002),1 with confirmation markers, (i.e., ja ‘yes’, mm hm, or a head-nod),2 or with a response pursuit marker (Harren 2001; Jefferson 1980). Only in two instances was there a second assessment in the form of an additional assessment segment (i.e., an adjective). In the following, each of these different types of agreeing responses is discussed. The discussion focuses on the turn shape of second agreements and their placement within the complimenting sequence. In addition, I highlight how these different designs accomplish similar yet different interactional functions; thus, I will be answering the question of “why this shape now?”. ..

Gustatory mmmh

In two of the segments in which a third party paid a second compliment, the second compliment consists of an appreciatory sound, specifically, a gustatory mmmh (Gardner 1997; Wiggins 2001, 2002).3 The following data segment illustrates this type of second compliment. In segment (2), the interactants are about to have ice-cream for dessert. Uschi (U), a guest at the family dinner, has just given the hosts (Annette, Bernhard, and Sybille) a bottle of strawberrylime liqueur as a gift of appreciation. Bernhard immediately opens the bottle and suggests pouring it over the ice-cream. (2) [Fisch 0:31:31] 1 2

3

4

=> 5

(0.2) S: uuuuooooooh ((trying to get spoon into uuuuooooooh ice-cream container)) uuuuooooooh B: tse tsch ((smacking his lips)) tse tsh tse tsh B: mooooh ((groaning sound)) mooooh mooooh A: ↑mmh. ↑mmh. ↑mmh.



 Chapter 5

6

U: stark ne? strong right? strong right? 7 B: bisschen herb. [is gut. a little tart. [is good. a little tart. [is good. [ 8 A: [is limone drin [is lime in+it [contains lemon 9 B: mmhm↑ mit lemo:ne mmhm↑ with li:me ((slight change in vowel)) mmhm↑ with li:me *((English word with German pronounciaion)) 10 U: war der mit *limes klar was that with lime of course it’s the one with lime of course

While Sybille is still serving herself (line 2), Bernhard is tasting the first spoonfuls of ice-cream with strawberry-lime liqueur. He is eating the ice-cream noisily (smacking his lips) and making groaning sounds (lines 3–4), both signs that embody the pleasure he experiences while eating his food.4 Making such sounds allows him to express his pleasure while eating (in contrast, simultaneously talking and eating would carry a potential stigma, see Wiggins 2002). Bernhard is thus demonstrating that he is enjoying the food he is ingesting. Since part of this food has been a gift from Uschi, he can also be said to evaluate (i.e., compliment) and thank Uschi for the gift item. Immediately after Bernhard’s turn, and before Uschi comes in to respond to the food assessment, we can see Annette express her pleasure with a gustatory mmmh (Wiggins 2002). Annette’s ↑mmh. is a second assessment of the dessert, an assessment that agrees with Bernhard’s. This particular assessment, however, is different from the assessments described by Pomerantz (1984a) and Auer and Uhmann (1982), in that the person providing the second assessment (Annette) is not the one addressed with Bernhard’s first assessment (he had addressed Uschi). Instead, the person providing a second assessment is a non-addressed third party. Since Annette has tasted the food, she clearly has an independent basis for her evaluation, and (whether or not she truly liked the food item) she is clearly aligning with Bernhard: not only are they both positively assessing the food item, they both do so in the same manner, namely through using an expression which embodies pleasure. By designing her agreement with Bernhard in this fashion, Annette is “sharing an experience of the food” and is “sharing pleasure” (Wiggins 2002: 325).

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

While in two-party conversation a second assessment typically brings the assessment sequence to a closure (Auer & Uhmann 1982; Pomerantz 1984a), this is not the case in the present example since a response from the recipient (Uschi) is still pending. In line 6, Uschi downgrades the compliment by assessing the liqueur as being high in alcohol. This assessment is followed by a response pursuit marker (Harren 2001; Jefferson 1980) which pursues an agreement from the participant. Bernhard responds with a qualified agreement, changing the evaluation from stark / ‘strong’ to bisschen herb / ‘a little tart’ (note the diminutive). By positively assessing the item again is gut / ‘is good’, he also expresses that the tartness of the liqueur is not to be understood as a negative assessment. In overlap with this assessment and immediately after Bernhard described the liqueur as tart, Annette provides an account for this tartness, thereby aligning again with Bernhard (line 8).5 Bernhard evaluates the item again with a gustatory mmmh; leaving no doubt that he really enjoys the food item. By incorporating the account provided by Annette into his assessment, Bernhard also manages to align with her. ..

Agreement

In twelve data segments, the second compliment was expressed in the form of a confirmation of the compliment turn. Let me reiterate here that such a response has also been noticed for second assessments in both English (Pomerantz 1984a) and German (Auer & Uhmann 1982). When this response is expressed by the party addressed with the first assessment, such a response closes the assessment sequence. In the examples here, however, it is not the addressed party who produces the agreement, but is instead a third party. Thus, the sequence has not yet come to a close, and a response from the complimented party is still pending. One compliment in which a confirmation marker was used as a second compliment was already shown in data segment (1), where Tobias paid the hosts a compliment on the food at the end of the meal. The relevant part of this segment is reproduced for the sake of convenience as segment (3): (3) [Grillen in Stade Tape 2, A 036] 1

T: also erstmal an die küchenchefs? PRT first to the kitchenchefs? well first to the chefs

 Chapter 5

3

B: a::h= ((noise B makes when sitting)) a::h= a::h= 4 T: =exzellent= =excellent= =excellent= => 5 R: =ja. =ja. =yes. 6 B: [war gut ne? ] [was good right?] [was good right?] [ 7 T: [ich sitz hier ] und fühl mich [i sit here ] and feel myself [i’m sitting here] feeling 8 T: richtich wohl correctly well really good 9 ?: ( ) 10 B: wieso das fleisch hat sie gekauft ich why the meat has she bought i why she bought the meat i only 11 B: hab’s nur gegrillt have+it only grilled barbecued it

As was pointed out in the previous chapter, Tobias’ compliment in lines 1 and 4 serves to thank the hosts for the food. In line 5, Ricki, Tobias’ wife (and thus the second guest at the table) agrees with this compliment by confirming the compliment assertion. By confirming an assessment made by someone else, she claims to have had access to the assessable herself (Goodwin 1986; Pomerantz 1984a). In this instance, we as analysts know for sure that she has had access to the assessable as she has been present all evening and has eaten the same food items her husband has eaten. By agreeing with the compliment and by voicing her agreement, she is in effect paying a compliment herself, and thus also thanking the hosts. She does so in latched position to both Tobias’ compliment turn and Bernhard’s compliment response. In other words, this second compliment is again uttered before the recipient has had a chance to come in. By placing her compliment in this way, Ricki also shows alignment with To-

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

bias along a membership category, namely guests (as opposed to hosts): she is aligning with another guest in complimenting and thus thanking the hosts for the meal.6 In the following segment, we can see that agreeing with someone by using a confirmation marker is also done when the compliment serves the function of a noticing. This segment, too, has been shown in the previous chapter, and is presented here in an abbreviated version. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the interactants have just finished a round of cards and are counting points for the winners when Freddie compliments Sybille on her roses in lines 4–5: (4) [Doppelkopf, 0:45:35:29 / läuse] 1

S: [drei punkte] [three points] [three points] [ ] 2 I: [ja schau mal] guck [yes look PRT] look ] look [yes look 3 S: für die da[mens7 ((B is writing on his pad)) for the wo[mens for the la[dies [ 4 F: [sybille du hast aber schöne [sybille you have but nice [sybille you have really nice 5 F: ro:sen dieses jahr ro:ses this year ro:ses this year 6 (.) => 7 I: [ja, [yes, [yes, [ 8 F: [die sehn gut aus. [that(fem.)look good. [they look good. 9 (.) 10 S: musste mal richtich gucken. ich weiss must+you PRT right look. i know you have to look properly. i don’t 11 S: es nich ich hab noch nich gekuckt it not i have yet not looked know i haven’t looked yet

 Chapter 5

After Freddie’s compliment, a micro pause ensues in line 6 (in which Sybille has not shown any visually observable behavior), and simultaneously with Freddie’s continuation of his compliment in line 8, Irmgard agrees with the compliment assertion by confirming it in line 7. Irmgard is thus aligning with Freddie, thereby also complimenting Sybille. Similar to other segments shown earlier in the chapter, Irmgard’s turn is minimal (only consisting of the confirmation marker) and is placed before Sybille has responded. Confirming a compliment can also be accomplished by utterering an mm hm/‘uhum’8 instead of a ja/‘yes’ as the following data segment shows.9 (5) [Freunde in Stade, Tape 1 B324] 1 T: aber heute abend hier war’s schön bei but today evening here was+it nice at but it was nice this evening here at your 2 euch yours place 3 (0.1) => 4 R: mm hm ((sounds like a little laugh)) uhum uhum 5 S: schön.10 nice. that’s nice.

As the reader may recall from previous chapters, this compliment was given by Tobias as part of a closing sequence, specifically a farewell sequence. With his compliment, Tobias is thanking the hostess for the evening and Ricki aligns with him by confirming the compliment assertion thereby also complimenting the hostess, and thus thanking her. Sybille, the recipient then positively assesses the compliment after which the compliment (thanking) sequence comes to a close. Again, Ricki’s alignment with Tobias (and by extension with a fellow guest) is produced before the hostess responds to the compliment; and again, the alignment is done in a minimal fashion (one TCU). Another way of confirming another speaker’s utterance is by nodding. Interestingly, the only head nods as second compliments were done by a single non-native speaker. Future research would thus have to determine if this was idiosyncratic behavior or if head-nods are used by German native speakers as part of second compliments. One could imagine that head-nods might work well as they can be done non-intrusively in overlap with talk; they can also be produced while the interlocutor is engaged in other activities that would nor-

Compliments in multi-party interactions

mally not permit talk (such as eating, chewing etc.). On the other hand, head nods may not be as effective, as the other interlocutors’ gaze would have to be directed at the producer of the head nod (moreover, the nodding person would have to be at least in the peripheral field of vision of the other interlocutors) for his or her alignment to be recognizable. ..

Response pursuit marker

In one instance in the data, a coparticipant (Freddie) produces a response pursuit marker ne? (Jefferson 1980) after another speaker (Irmgard) has paid the hosts a compliment. When produced either in tag position or as a single turn component, this response pursuit marker is said to express agreement (Burkhardt 1982). The most complete discussion of ne? is put forth by Harren (2001), who distinguishes between eight different positions in which the token can occur, and describes in detail the interactional functions of the various positions. While her data do not include samples of the kind below where a third party (i.e., not the original speaker or the recipient) produces the token, some of her findings are still relevant to the present discussion. Of the positions Harren describes, three are of interest to the present chapter, namely ne? as an entire turn, ne? in tag position, and ne? in word searches.11 I will briefly summarize Harren’s findings for these positions before discussing ne? as a second compliment. When ne? comprises the entire turn, it is said to repeat a previously stated utterance (specifically an agreement) and it can also be used to close down a topic (Harren 2001: 127). With a ne? in tag-position, speakers turn their utterances into first pair parts for which they are seeking agreement (see also Golato 2002a). As Harren demonstrates (2001: 106–107), ne?-producing speakers are relatively certain of an agreeing response (if they are not, they typically chose a different tag such as oder/‘or?’) and expect a more-than-minimal agreeing response. Put differently, ne? in this position is used to (a) express mutually existing knowledge, agreement, and understanding; and (b) simultaneously initiate a speaker-change (Harren 2001: 75). When a speaker engaged in a word search places ne? into the word search in place of the searched-for item, ne? functions to end the search without providing a word-search solution, appealing to the coparticipants to guess the searched-for item (Harren 2001: 33–34). With this information in mind, let us now turn to the data segment in question, in which Freddie produces a ne? (line 9) after Irmgard has begun paying Bernhard and Sybille a compliment on their roses (line 7–8). The following drawing depicts the seating arrangement. S stands for Sybille, I for Irmgard, F



 Chapter 5

for Freddie, B for Bernhard. “Rose” is the flower Irmgard is commenting on, while “Hy” stands for “Hydrangia”, the flowers Freddie attempts to talk about. Freddie is leaning back, thus his head is mostly off camera; thus, his probable eye-gaze is only apparent from his body orientation. The arrow depicts Irmgard’s eye-gaze at line 6 which she holds until the end of line 10, as noted in the transcript. Once Bernhard has shifted his gaze towards the roses, he holds it there until the end of the transcript Rose

S

I Hy F

B

(6) [Doppelkopf, 0:07:40:00] 1

2

3

4

5

6

A: soll sie das hier draußn trinkn should she that here outside drink should she be able to drink this here A: könn? [oder sollscan? [or should soutside? [or should [ S: [NEne↑ [NOno↑ [NOno↑ S: stells ihr drinne hin o wo’s put+it for her inside down o where+it put it down for her inside o where it stando . stoodo . waso . B: so. so. so. . . .S gazes over her shoulder

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

7

8

9

I: oh das sieht ja schön aus. da hinten oh that looks PRT nice PRT. over there oh that looks really nice. over there . . .B gazes at roses . . .F gazes at roses S turns more ...S turns to I,smiles kumma die- (.) ro:sen, sieht aus= look the- (.) ro:ses, looks like= look the- (.) ro:ses, looks like= S looks at I F: =ne?= =right?= =right?=

. . .I shifts gaze to S S looks at I => 11 F: [un die hortensie [an the hydrangea [an the hydrangea [ 12 S: [auf diesem[on this ((masc/neuter sg)) [on the-

[. . .I shifts gaze to B

 Chapter 5

15 I:

[wie heißn die dinger [how called the things [what’s the name of these things I looks at B 16 I: noch? auf s[o ‘ner again? on s[uch a again? on s[uch a [ 17 F: [un die hortensien [and the hydrangeas [and the hydrangeas

As already mentioned in the previous chapter, Irmgard’s compliment in lines 7–8 ends in an elaborate word search. Yet, after her TCU kumma die- (.) ro:sen/ ‘look the- (.) ro:ses’ her turn is possibly complete. With the expression kumma/ ‘look’, she is actively soliciting a reaction from her coparticipants (not only from the other guest, but also from the hosts – a statement supported by the analysis of Irmgard’s eye-gaze. Throughout this segment, Irmgard is engaging both hosts, but never Freddie). Shortly after Irmgard has launched into the next TCU (line 8), Freddie produces a ne?. This ne? is produced in latched position, sandwiched between Irmgard’s utterances but prior to any response from the coparticipants. The ne? is also the only element in the turn. Recall Harren’s (2001) explanation that ne? as an entire turn usually restates a prior statement by the speaker (Harren 2001: 127). Taking Harren’s argument further, this means that by uttering a ne? as a single turn, a speaker re-invokes/ repeats his or her own previous (and independent) judgment. In contrast to Harren’s data, however, data segment (6) shows a third party speaker uttering a ne?. Moreover, in this particular segment and in this particular sequence, the ne?-speaker (i.e., Freddie) has not uttered a previous evaluation that this ne? could refer back to. Yet, by uttering an element that is otherwise used to re-express an independently formed agreeing opinion, Freddie’s utterance de-

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

sign implies here that his evaluation of the roses is a pre-existing one, i.e., a conclusion he has independently reached before. The ne? in this data segment thus may imply the speaker’s epistemic stance.12 Further evidence that Freddie is expressing a previously formed opinion comes from an interaction much earlier on the tape in which Freddie had complimented the hosts on the roses in the yard (albeit not on the very same ones his wife is commenting on). We have seen this segment before (see Chapter 4); it is displayed here again in an abbreviated version. In this particular segment, Freddie had complimented the hosts on their roses, but found himself without a conversational partner as both intended compliment recipients had gone inside the house. (7) [Doppelkopf, 0:00:54:00] 1

=> 2

3 => 4

=> 6

(0.2) ((B goes to fridge in kitchen or basement to get the wine, F turns around at the same time, and spots the roses )) F: habt ihr schöne ro:sen hier. have you+pl. nice ro:ses here. you’ve got nice ro:ses here. (0.2) F: nein. no. wow.

F: o::::hm, a::::hm., a::::hm., 7 (0.5) 8 F: hier is ein brandschaden((looks at leaf)) here is a burn damage here it is burnt 9 ((10.0 - in which Freddie looks some more at the flowers)) 10 I: willst du selbst schreiben freddie? want you self write freddie? do you want to write yourself freddie? 11 F: ja:a. ye:es. ye:es.

 Chapter 5

Segment (7) occurred about 7 minutes prior to segment (6) in which Freddie uttered the ne?. Segment (7) clearly indicates that he has already formed a (positive) opinion of the roses following a careful examination of them (their looks, their scent, even their leaves – additionally, he had diagnosed a slight flaw, namely burn damage). In segment (7), he had found himself without a compliment recipient. Yet in segment (6) Freddie’s independent evaluation of the flowers finds its way back into the conversation when Freddie utters the ne?. This ne? both expresses agreement with what was said before, but simultaneously claims that this agreement is based on an independent (and prior) evaluation. The ne? also expresses Freddie’s apparent sense of entitlement or “epistemic authority” (Heritage 2002) to evaluate the flowers. Freddie’s entitlement to be the one to evaluate flowers becomes even further apparent if one considers that he places the token ne? such that it functions to close down Irmgard’s evaluation sequence. As Harren (2001) notes, a ne? in single-turn position can serve to close down a topic, and in data segment (6) we can see Freddie attempting to do just that: Freddie managed to place his ne? in single-turn position in such a manner that it additionally turns out to be produced as a tag to Irmgard’s word search. Harren (2001: 33–34) notes that the production of a ne? during a word search allows the speaker to end the repair without completing the repair operation.13 By using the token, the speaker signals to the coparticipants that they can deduce what the searched-for item was. The ne? then functions as a turn-exit device (Harren 2001: 35). By placing his ne? into Irmgard’s word search, Freddie’s utterance first comes across as a collaborative completion (Lerner 1987, 1991); yet it also represents his attempt to close down Irmgard’s search by seeking agreement from the other speakers. Thus, he is producing a turn-exit device for a word-search conducted by another speaker. This placement implies that there is no need for a further search since everyone can deduce what the searched-for item is (particularly since everyone has visual access to it). The ne? here is an attempt to change speakership.14 In our data segment, however, Freddie’s attempt is not quite successful as Irmgard ignores his ploy (as a matter of fact, she never gazes at him) and simply continues with the word search, successfully engaging the other two coparticipants.15 In sum, Freddie’s use of ne? indicates that (a) he is pursuing an agreeing response from the coparticipants; (b) he is agreeing with Irmgard’s assessment; and (c) he is expressing his agreement as having been arrived at before Irmgard uttered the compliment.16 As in the other examples discussed so far in this chapter, the second compliment (i.e., Freddie’s turn) was placed before any response from a coparticipant.

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

..

Brief assessment

In two data segments, the second compliment turned out to be more than a single TCU turn. However, the sequential environment in which these second assessments were placed is different in these two data segments. In the first data segment, the compliment was solicited by a self-deprecation; in the second data segment, the performance that was evaluated had been elicited by one of the compliment givers. Both data segments have been discussed in previous chapters but are reproduced here for the reader’s convenience. As previously mentioned, the self-deprecation occurs in lines 6 and 8 (marked with arrow a). The first compliment occurs in line 16 (marked with arrow b), while the second compliment in line 17 (marked with arrow c). (8) [Fischessen 0:09:39:11: bissfest] 1

2

3

4

5

a => 6

7 a => 8

9

A: also vom flugha:fen? ((swallows)) bis well from the ai:rport? ((swallows)) to well from the airport? ((swallows)) to zum messe- hotel messegelände ham the fair- hotel fair grounds have the fair- hotel at the fairgrounds [se fünfzich mark bezahlt [they fifty marks paid [they paid fifty marks [ S: [hmm, [hum, [hum, B: s normal. is normal. that’s standard S: also brokkoli is gut bissfest. well broccoli is good al dente. well the broccoli is quite al dente. (1.0) S: o wenigstens das stück das ich ebn [hatteo o at least the piece that i just [hado o at least the piece that i just [had [ B: [m’hm [m’hm [m’hm

 Chapter 5

10 U: das macht man so. gestern im that makes one so.yesterday in+the that’s how it’s done. yesterday in the 11 U: restaurant hatte ich ihn auch sehr (.) restaurant had i him also very (.) restaurant i also had it very much (.) 12 U: bissfest al dente al dente 13 A: mhm o das is weicho uhum o this is softo uhuhm othis is softo 14 (.) 15 ?: um hu um hu um hu b => 16 B: sehr gut häschen. haste gut ge[kocht. very good rabbit. have+you good c[ooked very good honey. you did [well [ c => 17 U: [mhm. [uhum. [uhum. 18 U: s[ehr lecker v[ery yummy v [ery yummy [ 19 D: [((nod[s)) [ 20 S: [ich hab’s in der mi:krowelle gemacht [i have+it in the microwave made [i made it in the microwave

While two speakers (Annette and Uschi) are disagreeing with Sybille’s selfdeprecation, Bernhard is the first to do so with a compliment (line 16). Uschi agrees with the compliment assertion in line 17 by uttering a confirmation marker and a second assessment segment sehr lecker / ‘yummy’. She places her agreement as soon as the end of Bernhard’s compliment is projectable, thereby maximizing her chances of placing her agreement before Sybille’s response. David expresses his alignment with a head nod. In line 20, Sybille responds to the compliments by providing an account of how the food was prepared (Golato 2002a). In the other segment that contains a more than minimal agreement by a speaker other than the compliment giver or recipient, Ricki (the mother)

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

had requested that her daughter attempt to produce a particular sound. This segment has also been discussed in the previous chapter; the reader may recall that Ricki had just noted that while her daughter has difficulties producing the sound in connected speech, she is able to produce it in isolation. (9) [Anna und Leah 0:52:50:00: ge] 1 R:

ne? un dann kann se das nämlich auch. right? and then can she that namely too. right? and then she can do it too. 2 sach mal ge: say PRT ge: say ge: 3 An: ge => 4 R: genau, ((pets S’s cheek)) exactly, exactly, => 5 A: he he kannste gu:ut he he can+you go:od he he you do that we:ell 6 An: [hhchja [hhchyes [hhchyes [ 7 R: [aber oft sacht se auch noch de [but often say she also still de [but often she still says de

After Anna has successfully produced the sound, Ricki compliments her on her accomplishment. Annette agrees with the compliment assertion after having produced a few laugh tokens. Annette provides a second assessment, consisting of a verb in combination with a second person pronoun (the -ste-ending of the verb), and an assessment segment. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Ricki affiliates with her daughter. By producing a second assessment, Annette is not only aligning with Anna but also with Ricki (as she is agreeing with Ricki’s initial assessment of Anna’s language ability, as expressed in line 1). In both data segments above, speakers are using more than minimal responses to agree with a prior compliment. Both instances involve some form of elicitation. In segment (8), the compliment was solicited by a self-deprecation, while in data segment (9), the action being complimented is solicited and performed for Annette, thus in effect eliciting a compliment from her.

 Chapter 5

..

Discussion: What do these forms accomplish? What are some of the differences between them?

The previous discussion has shown that when a third party produces a turn that agrees with a prior compliment, this agreeing turn can take various forms. In this section, some of the similarities and differences between such agreeing turns will be discussed. First, in all of the data segments above, a second compliment speaker (i.e., a speaker other than the first compliment speaker and other than the compliment recipient) produces a compliment in the form of an agreement with the first compliment speaker. Put differently, a non-addressed party aligns with a previous speaker and produces a second compliment. In contrast to twoparty conversations, in which a second assessment produced by the addressed party closes down the assessment sequence, a second assessment (here a compliment) by a non-addressed party does not close down the sequence, as the complimented person is still expected to respond. In all but two instances (i.e., the ones discussed in the previous section), these second compliment turns were found to be minimal in form, that is, consisting of either a gustatory mmmh (Wiggins 2002), confirmation markers (such as ja/‘yes’, mhum/‘uhum’, head nods), or an agreement pursuit marker ne?. For each of the different categories, I mentioned that by using these forms, the second compliment speaker is aligning with the first compliment speaker. In most instances (other than the more than minimal agreements), the compliments that the second speaker agreed with performed either the action of thanking or of noticing. In each of the thankings the only speakers to agree with the compliment were those who had indeed a reason to thank. In the data segment in which Tobias and Ricki, who are leaving the party, are thanking Sybille for the nice evening as part of the closing sequence, Freddie is not agreeing with the compliment and not thanking Sybille. This is because although he is another guest at this particular gathering, he is not yet leaving the gathering. For this reason, he is not involved in the closing sequence. In segments in which second compliments occurred (excluding the more than minimal agreements), the first compliments performed first pair parts (i.e., noticings or expressions of thanks). Moreover, none of the compliments that have an agreeing second compliment from a coparticipant are positioned in a dispreferred environment. Therefore, it seems that the interlocutors are keenly aware of the functions compliments are performing in the interaction (a point that will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter).

Compliments in multi-party interactions

In all the instances cited so far, the second compliment was placed after the first compliment but before the compliment recipient responded. Its minimal form makes it possible to utter the turn quickly before the recipient can come in. Its form is a simple agreement, it is not intrusive, it does not steal the turn from either the previous speaker or the recipient (but see the discussion of ne? above). It simply expresses an alignment and affiliation with the compliment giver, rendering the complimenting (or thanking or noticing) speakers as one unit. It is here that Sacks’ notion of “tying” (Sacks 1992: Volume 1; Fall 1967: Lecture 14, p. 733) comes into play. He notes that some utterances can be understood by virtue of the fact that they are tied to previous ones. One tying technique he mentions is the repetition of items in a tying turn. If there is no syntactic or semantic element contained in the tied utterance that indicates to which element it is tied, Sacks argues that the tying occurs by the position in which the tying utterance is placed: “In those cases [when there is nothing within the utterance that signals the tying], which utterance it’s tied to is essentially found by the position of the tying utterance. In many cases, to be definitely effective it must go right after the utterance it’s attempting to tie” (Sacks 1992: Volume 1; Fall 1967: Lecture 14, p. 733, stress in original). For the segments discussed in this chapter, this means that by virtue of their placement right next to the first compliment, the second compliments are tied to the fist compliments and thus come across as belonging to them. There are some slight interactional differences, though, between the types of agreements the speakers have at their disposal. The differences lie in the type of agreement that is expressed and the base for making the second assessment. Clearly, a second assessment can only be produced if a speaker has (or at least can claim to have) access to the assessable. As mentioned above, when a speaker is producing a gustatory mmmh (Wiggins 2002) as a second compliment, he or she is expressing his pleasure and thus claims to be sharing the pleasure of the first compliment giver. As Wiggins (2002: 330) observes, the authentication of the claim of tasting something pleasurable is located in “a framework of bodily sensations.” Moreover, Wiggins (2002: 331) argues that “gustatory pleasure is sequentially organized in conversation and is oriented to other speaker turns; that is, pleasure is constructed within, and for, interaction.” This means that the speaker is designing his or her turn to give the impression that the item complimented with a gustatory mmmh is evaluated at the moment of speaking. Put differently, the turn is designed to claim that the item is evaluated right then and there while the gustatory mmmh is being produced. In contrast, I argued above that the ne? claims that its producer had independently evaluated the item in question and, more importantly, had done so before the first com-





Chapter 5

pliment speaker evaluated the item in question. And finally, a ja/‘yes’ or other confirmation marker as an agreement with the first compliment does not make any specific claims about when the speaker has had access to the assessable. It simply expresses that an assessment has taken place and that it is in agreement with the assessment of the first compliment giver. The more than minimal responses are different yet again. They seem stronger than a simple confirmation (note that segment (8) consisted of a confirmation and a strong assessment segment). Yet, the two data segments in this category are different from the other second compliments in that they both deal with some form of solicitation (as discussed above) and are thus accomplishing more affiliatory work and/or face-work than the other data segments displayed in this chapter. A larger data base would have to show whether or not this is a systematic feature of such turns. The present discussion goes to show that while the various second compliment forms share a number of features, they do not perform interactionally identical functions. This finding corroborates the work of other researchers who have examined response tokens and who have argued convincingly against lumping them into one single category (e.g., Gardner 1997, 2002; Harren 2001; Jefferson 1984; Schegloff 1981; Sorjonen 2001; Zimmerman 1993). In general, the present discussion serves to underline Goodwin’s (1986: 214) observation: In view of the economy and clarity that brief assessments require, it is all the more remarkable that many of them, through the details of the way in which they are pronounced and their intonation contour, are able to convey quite detailed, even intricate, information about their speaker’s involvement in both the assessment and the talk of the moment.

. Placement of the turn in relation to the compliment response In all of the data segments discussed so far in this chapter, the turn agreeing with the first compliment was placed before the recipient responded. This is the case in 16 of the 17 second compliments. In the data segment below, we see the one instance in which the agreement is placed after the recipient has responded. In the transcript, the compliment turn is marked with arrow a, the recipient response with arrow b, and the agreeing turns with arrows c (David, mentioned in line 16 is Annette’s boyfriend):

Compliments in multi-party interactions

(10) [Grillen in Stade Tape 1, A555] 1

=> a 2

=> a 3

=> c 5

T: aber du siehst wesentlich fitter aus als but you look much fitter PRT than but you look much fitter than a: letztes mal in den staaten und bee das a: last time in the states and be: the a: the last time in the states letzte mal als du in deutschland warst last time when you in germany were and be: the last time you were in germany

B: ja: yea:h yea:h => c 6 R: stimmt true true 7 B: hat >jetzt ja auch ihre< prüfung has >now PRT also her< exam has >now also taken her 8 B: [gemacht, ] [made ] ] [exams [ ] 9 S: [macht unsere] fle:ge hier ne? [makes our ] ca:re here right? [because of our ] care here right? 10 S: [( ) [( ) [( [( 11 B: [sie macht ja jetzt nu:r noch die disserthe disser[she makes PRT now o:nly17 [she’s now o:nly working on the disser12 dissertation nur noch die dissertation the dissertation dissertation only dissertation only the dissertation



 Chapter 5

13 A: kein stress mehr nurn bischen no stress more only a little no more stress only a little 14 unterrichten? und hab jetz nächstes jahr teaching? and have now next year teaching? and I have now next year 15 hab ich [noch’n stipendium dann is es have I [on top a fellowship then is it I have [also a fellowship then it’s [ 16 S: [david is nich da [david is not here [david is not here 17 A: nich (.) auch nich mehr, ] not (.) also not more, ] not (.) also not anymore, ] ] 18 S: deswegen geht’s ihr ] so gut therefore goes her ] so well that’s why she is ] so well 19 T: ich weiß nich I know not I don’t know 20 A: was is los? [was sa]chst du? what’s up? [what s]ay you? what’s up? [what d ]id you say? [ 21 S: [david [david [david 22 S: david is nich da deswegen geht’s dir so david is not her that’s why feel you so david is not here that’s why you are 23 S: gut good doing so well 24 A: unverschämt ((smile voice)) impertinent ((smile voice)) how rude ((smile voice)) 25 S: mhe mhe mhe mhe ((this is cackled laughter)) mhe mhe mhe mhe mhe mhe mhe mhe

In lines 1–3, Tobias is paying his friend Annette a compliment on her looks (specifically on her weight and fitness). This compliment functions as a notic-

Compliments in multi-party interactions

ing and is designed such that other participants have the knowledge basis to also evaluate Annette’s looks (Tobias’ wife Ricki saw Annette during the same USA visit as her husband, also saw her when Annette visited Germany. While Annette’s parents only saw her in person during Annette’s last visit to Germany, they had just looked at pictures of Tobias’ and Ricki’s last visit to the USA. In those pictures, Annette was featured as well. This picture-sharing activity occurred about half a minute before the talk in the transcript above.). Yet, none of the other participants comes in to evaluate her. Annette responds with guck/‘see?’ the only compliment response of this kind. While producing this response, Annette sits up straighter and then falls back into her chair, her gaze always directed at Tobias. As one data segment is not enough to clearly determine the function of this response token, the following analysis is somewhat speculative. Her sitting up straighter might be interpreted as a certain sign of pride. The see seems somewhat similar to a ne? in that it also solicits a response, yet it also has a somewhat righteous ring to it (as in “see, didn’t I say so?”). In addition, it is uttered with question intonation, thereby soliciting a response from the participants. This response is forthcoming in lines 5 and 6, in form of minimally constructed confirmation markers. The sequence continues with Bernhard and Sybille (Annette’s parents) providing accounts for her improved looks. Bernhard attributes the improvement to reduced stress, while Sybille first takes credit for Annette’s good looks and then teases her. One might think that Annette produced guck?/‘see?’ in order to solicit agreement from the coparticipants precisely because they had not shown any agreement before. In other words, it might be tempting to argue that the responses of the coparticipants were noticeably and relevantly absent. Given that there is no gap prior to Annette’s response and no non-verbal agreement elicitation on her part, however, such an argument might be premature. A larger database of post-compliment-positioned agreements from third parties would have to be analyzed to determine whether any systematic features can be observed and, for any observed, their impact on the interaction. As the discussion in the next section will show, it is not the case that every time a compliment is produced in multi-party talk, one or several coparticipants agree (this is in contrast to what is stated in some manner and etiquette books).

. Compliments and multi-party talk It has been noted in the literature (Bilmes 1988: 163) that when someone is either presenting their work or an accomplishment to a conversational partner,



 Chapter 5

this puts a constraint on the coparticipant to (positively) evaluate the item: “That is, if no praise is forthcoming, it is relevantly absent, leading usually to the inference that the work has been judged unworthy of praise. The fact that the work is not explicitly dispraised, on the other hand, does not lead to the complementary inference that the work has been judged too good to be dispraised” (Bilmes 1988: 163). In the previous chapter, we saw the same preference organization at work in German. The question that now arises for multi-party talk is whether or not the production of a first compliment produces a constraint for interactants other than the compliment recipient to also positively evaluate the assessable. In other words, are second compliments conditionally relevant (Schegloff & Sacks 1973) such that when a second compliment is not forthcoming, its absence is oriented to by the compliment recipient as noticeably absent? Or are there other reasons (such as the participation framework, preference organization, etc.) that can account for a “missing” compliment? These are the kinds of questions which the present section attempts to address. In order to see whether the participation framework puts a constraint on the production of second compliments, I identified all data segments in my corpus in which a compliment was produced in a multi-party setting. I identified 37 such compliments; in 17 of those segments, a second compliment was produced by a speaker other than the original compliment giver and compliment recipient. Put differently, in 20 of the segments, no second compliment was forthcoming. As was already alluded to in the discussion of second compliment types, in all the data segments in which a second compliment did occur, the compliment itself was serving one of three functions: it either served as an expression of thanks (e.g., data segments (2), (3), and (5)), as a noticing (e.g., data segments (4) and (6)), or as an elicited response (e.g., data segments (8) and (9)). In all of these instances, a preferred action or response is being accomplished. Additionally, in each of these instances, the second compliment speaker had access to the assessable. Moreover, from a participation framework point of view, the speaker also had grounds to perform the same action as the first compliment speaker (e.g., both first and second compliment speakers are guests and can thus express thanks for the meal that the hosts jointly prepared; neither the first nor the second compliment speakers have visited the hosts for some time and could thus observe changes in their yard, etc.). Members of multi-party talk seem to be keenly aware of the function a compliment is performing. Note that none of the instances in which a second compliment occurred consisted of a dispreferred first pair part or of a dispre-

Compliments in multi-party interactions

ferred second pair part, although (as the discussion in the previous chapter has shown) first compliments regularly occur in those environments. For example, in the data segment shown in the previous chapter in which Bob criticizes Mike (and uses a compliment to mitigate the criticism, arrow a) and in which Marge also criticizes Bob (and does so with a compliment to Mike, arrow b), Sheryl, the only “bystander” among the players, does not come in with a second compliment: (11) [Schegloff: Quartet Material, 4/12/94] 1 2

Mike: okay, (0.6) (hit it) ((music 10.0[))-----------[ 3 Bob: [(That’s the place), 4 ------------] ] => a 5 Bob: (Mike)/(now),] thats beautiful sound => a 6 Bob: but, (·) try not to retard.= 7 Marg: =he didn’t. 8 (0.2) 9 Bob: o he didn’t?o = => b 10 Marg: =that was gr(h)(h)eat= 11 Bob: =oh I’m sorry 12 (0.5)

In this segment, in which two dispreferred first pair parts (both criticisms) are being performed in the turn containing the compliment, no second compliment is produced by a third party.18 Similarly, when compliments are part of dispreferred second pair parts, third parties do not produce a second compliment agreeing with the first compliment. This can be seen in the following segment in which a compliment that occurs as part of a rejection to an offer does not receive an agreeing second compliment by a third party. (12) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, B230] 1 C: eh [hä ha he eh [ha ha he eh [ha ha he [ [*A gazes at M 2 A: [*(da is noch) melone [*(there is still melon [*(there’s still) some melon 3 (.)



 Chapter 5

4 A: wenn de noch willst if you still want if you want some more 5 M: ne:. die is sehr sehr gut no:. it is very very good no:. it is very very good 6 (1.0) 7 M: is das jetz honey dew? is that now honey dew? now is that honey dew? 8 A: mhm. (ich weiß nich glaube) mhm. (i know not believe) mhm. (I don’t know think so)

As already explained in the previous chapter, Markus rejects Annette’s offer without much delay but then produces a compliment that explains that the reason for having rejected the food item is not the quality of the food itself. Note that after this compliment, there is a one second pause in line 6, certainly enough for a third party (here Christiane) to come in and produce a second compliment. However, Christiane does not produce such a turn, although she is in a position to evaluate the melon as she has eaten some of it earlier. Instead, Markus initiates further talk about the food item. Further reason for Christiane not to produce a second compliment in the segment displayed above lies in the fact that it was Markus (and not Christiane) who was directly addressed by Annette’s offer. So far, I have stated that second compliments occur only in preferred environments (such as thanking sequences or noticing sequences) and not in dispreferred environments. A closer inspection of all compliments given in multiparty talk reveals the following: not in all instances in which a compliment is produced as part of a thanking or noticing is there a second compliment from a third party. However, in most instances, the participation framework or other contextual features can account for the “missing” second compliments. Put differently, in these instances, the second compliment is not noticeably absent. This is the case in data segments when potential second compliment speakers are unable to evaluate the assessable (i.e., when they have no access to it), as in the following data segment: (13) [Fischessen: 0:00:45:00 oh lecker] Sybille is cooking in the kitchen. Uschi is helping her (they are both with their backs to the camera). Bernhard enters the kitchen area to throw something into the trash.

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

1 S: so::. das kommt dann gleich drüber da over there so::. this comes then soon so::. this will soon go over there 2 ?: (mhm) (uhu) (uhu) 3 S: [ich mach eben noch maln paar ( ) [i do just still PRT some ( ) [i’m just gonna make some ( ) [ 4 B: [o lass mich mal dahino [o let me once thereo o [ let me just get in hereo 5 S: ganz kurz very quickly

=> 8

ne? right? right? 9 A: ja kannste yes can+you yes you can

Here, Bernhard is paying his wife Sybille a compliment (the compliment clearly functions as a noticing), yet neither Annette, David, nor Uschi are producing a second compliment. Upon closer inspection of the data, however, it becomes apparent that neither Annette nor David are in a position to evaluate the complimented food item as they are both in rooms adjacent to the kitchen. Uschi, however, has access to the assessable but has been helping with last-minute touches to the meal, thus she could be implicated as a potential compliment recipient. In the data segment above, then, a potential explanation for Uschi’s behavior can be found in the participation framework. This is also the case

 Chapter 5

in the following segment, where Annette pays Ricki a compliment on a particular piece of china. While there are other participants present, namely two children (who otherwise participate in compliment sequences, see below), Annette is the only (adult) guest who has not seen this china, and who can thus legitimately do a noticing: (14) [Anna und Leah 0:03:50:24: Milchdöschen] 1 M: eigentlich soll das auch schnei:(h)den actually should that also cu:(h)t normally that thing should also cu:(h)t 2 das ding he he he that thing he he he he he he 3 A: ooch das is ja süß das milchdöschen ooh that is PRT cute that milk jar+little ooh that is so cute that little creamer 4 M: so. und nun hier ( ) so. and now here ( ) so. and now here ( )

Similarly, a potential second complimenter might be involved in some other action, as Irmgard is in the following segment. Freddie is complimenting the hosts on the roses, while Irmgard is filling out a form (a simple head lift would have given her easy visual access to the rose bush Freddie was evaluating; however, Irmgard has been concentrating and focusing on the form in front of her). (15) [Doppelkopf, 0:00:54:00] 1

=> 2

3 => 4

(0.2) ((B goes to fridge in kitchen or basement to get the wine, F turns around at the same time, and spots the roses )) F: habt ihr schöne ro:sen hier. have you+pl. nice ro:ses here. you’ve got nice ro:ses here. (0.2) F: nein. no. wow.

Compliments in multi-party interactions

=> 6

F: o::::hm, a::::hm., a::::hm., 7 (0.5) 8 F: hier is ein brandschaden((looks at leaf)) here is a burn damage here it is burnt 9 ((10.0 - in which Freddie looks some more at the flowers)) 10 I: willst du selbst schreiben freddie? want you self write freddie? do you want to write yourself freddie? 11 F: ja:a. ye:es. ye:es.

In this segment, there are various places where Irmgard could have provided a second compliment, however, her involvement with the document in front of her accounts for her not participating in the evaluation. Only when she is finished with the document does she engage in conversation (see line 10). Similarly, a potential second complimenter’s attention can be focused elsewhere by another interlocutor dropping or spilling items – that is, by an event that requires immediate attention. Similarly, in a context where a schism has evolved, one can account for a member’s noncomplimenting behavior by his or her involvement in a second (schismed) conversation.19 These reasons account for 16 of the 20 instances in which a compliment occurs in multi-party talk and in which no second compliment is placed. In one additional instance (displayed above as data segment (10)), the agreeing second compliment was placed after the recipient had already responded (see discussion above). This leaves three data segments unaccounted for. I will present and discuss these instances below. I will argue that in one instance the second compliment, while absent, is not noticeably or relevantly absent. In other words, there do not seem to be any repercussions or any other interactional implications of the compliment’s absence that are observable from the data. It should be mentioned that these compliments occur in sequences involving two three-and-a-half-year-olds. However, before dismissing these data segments by stating that data with children may be organized differently than data with adults, one should have a closer look at the following data segments.



 Chapter 5

(16) [Anna und Leah 1:22:32:00: klasse] 1 An: ( ) jetz kann leah ( ) now can ((name)) ( ) now leah can go 2 An: wieder again again 3 R: klasse. guck mal great. look once great. look

In lines 1–2, Anna announces her willingness to share a toy with her friend Leah. This announcement is greeted by Anna’s mother Ricki with a positive assessment (a compliment). Annette, the other adult, is not producing a second assessment but she is orienting to Anna’s announcement by moving another toy out of the way to make room for Leah. Leah orients to Anna’s turn by taking the toy and playing with it. Thus, while the third parties to Anna’s and Ricki’s interaction are not producing second compliments, their behavior is not treated as noteworthy, possibly because they are engaging in behaviors that still orient to Anna’s turn in a supportive manner. This is not the case in the following segment. Here, Annette neither produces a second compliment nor otherwise orients to Leah’s announcement, yet this does not have interactional repercussions. Anna’s non-response, however, is treated as relevantly absent: (17) [Anna und Leah 1:23:40:00: abwechselnd] 1 L: oder (.) anna un ich fahrn immer or (.) anna and i ride always or (.) anna and i are taking turns at 2 abwechselnd in turn riding

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

3 R: das that that 4 L: anna anna anna 5 R:

(.) is ne (.) super idee. (.) is a (.) super idea. (.) is a (.) great idea. wo[lln wir? wa[nt we? sh[all we? [ [sacht mal ihr beidn [say+you PRT you both [tell me you two

The announcement by Leah presents a solution to a “problem” Leah and her friend Anna have encountered (there is only one scooter but both girls want to ride it). Ricki (Anna’s mother) compliments and praises Leah on having found a solution. Neither Anna nor Annette (the other adult) provide a second compliment. However, while Annette’s non-response is treated by the coparticipants as not noticeably absent, Anna’s non-response is treated as relevantly absent. Had she provided a second compliment by agreeing with Ricki’s compliment, Anna would have actually agreed to Leah’s proposition to take turns at riding the scooter (something that may not have been in her interest as she had wanted the scooter all to herself prior to this segment). Anna’s non-response is treated as relevantly absent, as Leah directly asks Anna for her stance on the proposition (see line 4). In overlap, Ricki makes a suggestion about what to have for dinner and the girls abandon the scooter riding idea. The following data segment is the second instance in which two third parties are not providing a second compliment. Only one of those second compliments is treated as being relevantly absent: (18) [Anna und Leah 0:24:50:00: fertig] 1 L: ich bin fertich i am done i’m done => 2 A: sehr gut. ((nods while saying it)) very good. very good. 3 (.) 4 L: ricki ich bin fertich kann ich mir ((name)) i am done can i me+refl. ricki i’m done can i 5 (0.2) 6 R: was kannst du? you? what can you can do what?

 Chapter 5

7 L: mir die hände waschen me+refl. the hands wash wash my hands

Prior to this segment, the children had been told to finish the food on their plates. Leah announces an accomplishment (having finished her food), and Annette compliments her on this achievement. Ricki, the primary care giver of these children, does not react to Leah’s announcement. Leah does not immediately respond to Annette’s compliment and thus, in line 3, a micro pause occurs. In other words, Leah seems to be withholding her turn to give Ricki a chance to provide a second compliment or to otherwise react to the turn. When Leah speaks up again, she does not orient to Annette’s compliment by responding to it, but she instead repeats her announcement. In her repetition she also directly addresses Ricki, thereby marking her as the intended recipient of the turn (this provides further evidence that the micro pause was left for Ricki to respond). Leah adds a request to her turn which she interrupts before the requested item/action is projectable. Repairs have been shown to be effective devices for obtaining the attention of an inattentive coparticipant (Egbert 1996; Goodwin 1984). After a short gap, Leah successfully obtains Ricki’s attention, as Ricki initiates repair on Leah’s incomplete turn and Leah completes the repair. Based on the two previous data segments, we can see that when a notintended coparticipant (Annette) fails to provide a second compliment (data segment (17)), it is treated as non-relevantly missing (similarly, when a notintended coparticipant does provide a compliment, it can go disregarded; see data segment (18)). However, when an intended recipient of one’s talk fails to provide a second compliment (Anna in data segment (17), and Ricki in data segment (18)), such a compliment is treated as relevantly absent and a reaction can be elicited from the intended coparticipant. One caveat: the data segments above all include compliments in response to announcements made by very young children. Moreover, in each of the cases above, it is the child speaker who is the recipient of the compliment, and thus the one who would have to treat a missing second compliment as relevantly absent. The data segments above might simply reflect that these children were still fixated on their primary care giver, and were not pragmatically fine-tuned to other interactants (although Leah does elicit a response from her friend Anna in data segment (17)). However, as these segments are the only ones in the present data set in which second compliments can be demonstrated to be relevantly absent, the question remains open as to whether or not the behavior is systematic or a result of the interactional configuration.

Compliments in multi-party interactions 

. Discussion The present chapter investigated compliments in multi-party talk; specifically, it focused on the reaction of third parties to compliments. It was noted that when third party speakers pay second compliments, they usually do so in the form of an agreement with the first compliment. Such agreements were either gustatory mmmhs, confirmation markers, response pursuits, or brief second assessments. It was noted that gustatory mmmhs are an embodiment of pleasure: with the production of this token, a coparticipant is presenting the evaluation of the assessable to be taking place at the moment of speaking. It was argued that a ne? also provides a positive assessment of the assessable; however, the assessment is presented as having taken place prior to the moment of speaking (specifically, prior to the production of the first compliment). The production of a confirmation marker simply states that an evaluation has taken place but does not make any claims as to when its producer arrived at the positive evaluation. All three types of responses express an agreement and thus alignment of the second compliment speaker with the first compliment speaker. In two instances, we observed more than minimal agreements. These second compliments were placed in sequences involving elicitation of a compliment or of an action to be complimented. It remains to be seen whether such second compliments are systematically used in such environments or if they can also occur elsewhere. Furthermore, it was noted that second compliments are typically produced before the compliment recipient has responded to the compliment. The close proximity of second compliments to first compliments seems to further strengthen the alignment between first compliment and compliment speaker. This placement may also explain why second compliments typically consist of only one TCU (one token, to be precise). Producing a short token increases the chance to be able to place it before a compliment response, and minimizes the chance of overlap. It was further noted that not all productions of first compliments in multiparty talk resulted in the production of a second compliment. That is, it was not always the case that other guests followed suit when another guest paid the hosts a compliment. Moreover, the data showed that a missing second compliment is not always relevantly or noticeably missing. A closer analysis of the data segments revealed that second compliments did not occur in sequences in which dispreferred actions were being accomplished through the complimenting turn (such as criticisms, rejections, requests, etc.). Instead, all second compliment turns were in data segments in which the compliment interactionally served either to thank the compliment recipient, or to notice

 Chapter 5

something in the environment. This distribution reveals that interlocutors are unconsciously aware of what kinds of interactions a given turn is performing in speech. Put differently, the data demonstrate that while speakers have the capacity to distinguish between the different actions a compliment performs, most speakers are unable to verbalize such functions. A quick glance at most etiquette books provides support for this assertion. Authors of such books do not distinguish between different functions of compliments, not even the ones that are based on interviews with native speakers such as Schwarze (1994). It thus seems that the recognition of actions and the production of context appropriate (re-)actions do not really belong in the realm of stylistics or rhetoric, but are instead very much online accomplishments, that is, implicit and tacit knowledge that we have about interactions with others. The analysis also revealed that while all second compliments are produced in connection with noticings and expressions of thanks, not all compliments serving as noticings and expressions of thanks resulted in a second compliment. Specifically, speakers’ non-production of a second compliment went unnoticed (i.e., was not relevantly absent) in instances when speakers had no access to the assessable, when they were otherwise engaged, or when factors in the participation framework prevented them from making a second compliment. By contrast, the nonproduction of a second compliment was treated as relevantly absent and a reaction from the third party speaker was overtly sought in only two instances. As there were only two instances of such behavior and as those two instances involved children, it remains to be seen if the observed behavior is systematic.

Chapter 6

Compliment responses*

. Introduction While the previous chapters have investigated the forms and functions of compliments, the present chapter focuses on compliment responses. How to respond to compliments is a topic that is also discussed in some etiquette books (I. Leisi & Leisi 1993; Märtin & Boeck 1998). In these texts, the presumption prevails that Germans very frequently reject compliments (I. Leisi & Leisi 1993: 145; Märtin & Boeck 1998: 19, 23); the recommendation is to accept a compliment with an appreciation token Danke / ‘thank you’ (Märtin & Boeck 1998: 148) or to otherwise agree with the compliment assertion (Märtin & Boeck 1998: 106). As Leisi and Leisi (1993: 145) put it: Auch das Erwidern auf Komplimente muß [sic] gelernt werden. Wenn sich jemand die Mühe genommen hat, ein Kompliment zu machen, so hat er Anspruch auf eine Gegen-Freundlichkeit. Also nicht: stachlig-keusch: “Ach was!”. Sondern freundlich: “Das ist lieb von Ihnen”, oder, wie es uns manche Amerikanerinnen so reizend entgegensingen: “Oh, thank you!” [Responding to compliments also has to be learned. If someone has made the effort to pay a compliment, he [sic] is entitled to be met with some friendliness in return. Thus, not: prickly-chastely “Nonsense!” But friendly: “That’s nice of you”, or as so many an American woman charmingly chirps “Oh, thank you!”]

Research to support the claims by etiquette books that Germans typically reject (or downgrade) compliments is scarce. In their discussion of assessments and second assessments in German, Auer and Uhmann (1982) specifically exclude compliments (p. 2). In an article on pragmatic differences between institutional talk in Germany and the United States, Kotthoff (1989: 451–452) addresses complimenting behavior in the two countries. Her anecdotal remarks summarize the observations of many exchange students coming from Germany to the U.S., who claim to be surprised (and sometimes puzzled) by the strength and number of compliments Americans readily give in various situations, even to strangers in public settings (such as in service encounters, at the supermarket, etc.). Similarly, most German exchange students and German

 Chapter 6

native speakers in Germany I have talked to informally claim to be embarrassed to receive compliments, and insist that they reject them. Schwarze’s popular-scientific account about complimenting (Schwarze 1994) is probably the most comprehensive work on compliments and compliment responses to date; however, his account is based on native-speaker intuitions gathered in interviews with 152 German women and 74 men. As already mentioned in an earlier chapter, his selection of subjects may have introduced a gender bias. In addition, Schwarze’s account does not distinguish between compliments given between familiars and between strangers, nor does he distinguish between compliments in mundane conversation and institutional settings. Much of Schwarze’s account seems to refer to compliments as an element of flirting behavior. Nevertheless, many of his subjects also claimed to feel uncomfortable and to blush when given a compliment (Schwarze 1994: 12) or to reject them (Schwarze 1994: 14, 146–149). Other responses Schwarze’s subjects reported were downplaying the compliment (Schwarze 1994: 142), returning the compliment (Schwarze 1994: 142–143), or accepting it with an appreciation token (Schwarze 1994: 141–142). Similar to etiquette books, Schwarze declares an acceptance with Danke / ‘thank you’ to be the ideal answer. Schwarze even goes on to describe various intonation patterns of this appreciation token and their different meanings with regard to the compliment acceptance (i.e., stress on the second syllable supposedly indicates that the compliment recipient felt that the compliment was well deserved; a breathy pronunciation supposedly invites more compliments, etc.). However, research has shown that native speaker intuitions do not represent reliable information on how language is organized and realized in natural settings; furthermore, the elicitation procedures such as discourse completion tasks and interviews as used in Schwarze’s (1994) and Kotthoff ’s (1989) studies can at most be said to indirectly reflect the sum of prior experience with language (Golato 2003, see also Chapter 2). The present chapter investigates compliment responses as they actually occur in non-elicited ordinary conversation among German native speakers in Germany. The study itself is patterned after Pomerantz’s (1978) analysis of compliment responses in American English. For this reason Pomerantz’s study, which was also conducted within a conversation analytic framework, is presented first. Then, I present the different compliment response types found in my German data. I extend the analysis to also include a discussion of the design of the compliment response turn, its function in discourse, and any connection between the compliment response and the function of the compliment within the larger sequence. The fact that both Pomerantz’s study and the present one have been conducted within the same methodological framework presents a

Compliment responses 

unique opportunity for a cross-cultural comparison of the findings.1 Thus, I end the chapter by addressing similarities and differences in the complimenting behavior of the two different speaker groups. Additionally, some implications for cross-cultural conversations are made.

. Compliment responses in American English Pomerantz (1978) points out that recipients of compliments are under the influence of two conflicting constraints which are “concurrently relevant but not concurrently satisfiable” (p. 81). The first constraint stems from the fact that compliments can be seen as assessments in that the speaker is (positively) evaluating some state of affairs, some object or some action. The preferred next action to an assessment is an agreement with the assessment, which is usually performed as a second assessment (Pomerantz 1978: 62). Pomerantz (1978: 82) further observes that compliments also have the function of “supportive” actions which makes them similar to offers, invitation, gifts, praises, etc. As such, they have an acceptance of the compliment as their preferred next action. At the same time, however, there is a second constraint on the speakers which conflicts with the first constraint: they should not praise themselves. As can be seen in the following segment, adapted from Pomerantz (1978: 89), self-praise routinely gets sanctioned by coparticipants: (1) (HS:S) A: Just think of how many people would miss you. You would know who cared. B: Sure. I have a lot of friends who would come to the funeral and say what an intelligent, bright, witty, interesting person I was. => A: They wouldn’t say that you were humble B: No. Humble, I’m not.

When B engages in self praising behavior, A criticizes this behavior by teasing B. Teasing, cracking jokes, or otherwise critically assessing a speaker’s self-praise are routine sanctions leveled against speakers who do not enforce self-praise avoidance. If speakers wish to praise themselves without being sanctioned, they often include a disclaimer in their talk such as ‘I don’t like to brag’ (Pomerantz 1978: 89–90). This dilemma of on the one hand having to accept a compliment or agree with it, yet at the same time having to avoid self-praise, is a tricky business,

 Chapter 6

and researchers (Herbert 1986: 77, 1990: 207; Knapp et al. 1984: 12–13; Valdés & Pino 1981: 55) have noted that various “manners books” include a section on how to accept compliments gracefully. Table 6.1 below presents a summary of the patterns of compliment responses that are available to a speaker of American English as described by Pomerantz (1978). A similar table can be found in the conversation analytic study of Valdés and Pino (1981: 56). In Table 6.1, the response type is given in the left column while an example is given in the right column. All examples are numbered on the right hand side in parentheses. Although the most frequent response to a compliment in American English is not an acceptance, acceptances of compliments are frequently realized as appreciations. As in the following data segment, one often finds appreciation tokens (e.g., “thank you”) in the compliment return: (22 ) A: That’s beautiful. It really is B: Thank you

These appreciation tokens can stand alone or can be uttered in conjunction with a second assessment that is in agreement with the first assessment. Acceptances can also be uttered in the form of agreements, as in the following example: (3) A: The organ music came out so beautifully in it B: I thought it did too,

Let us now turn from compliment acceptances to compliment rejections. When other supportive actions such as offers are rejected, speakers frequently use negated appreciations (such as “no thank you”) (Pomerantz 1978: 86). This is not the case when compliments are rejected. Compliments are rejected by disagreeing with the compliment assertion. This can be seen in data segment (4): (43 ) A: Gee, Hon, you look nice in that dress B: Do you really think so? It’s just a rag that my sister gave me.

In responding to her husband’s compliment, the wife first questions her husband’s assertion and then gives a second assessment that is somewhat in disagreement with her husband’s, indicated by the negative evaluative expression “just a rag”. Note too that her question is not an ordinary information seeking question, but is instead a “reverse-polarity question (RPQ)” (forthcoming, Koshik 1999: 97, 2002). RPQs are affirmative yes/no questions which “reverse

Compliment responses

Table 6.1 Compliment responses in American English Response type I. 1.

2.

Acceptances Appreciation token A compliments B B accepts compliment Agreements/second assessment A compliments B B agrees with compliment assertion

II. Rejections 1. Disagreements A compliments B B disagrees with compl. assertion III. Solution types for 2 conflicting preferences 1. Questions – neutral stance A compliments B B questions compliment assertion A confirms question/compliment 2. Evaluation shift (downgrade) A compliments B B scales down compliment assertion 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Evaluation shift (qualification) A compliments B B qualifies compliment assertion Referent shift (away from self) A compliments B B compliments other-than-self Referent shift (compl. return) A compliments B B compliments A Comment history A compliments B B comments on item/gives history Reinterpretation A compliments B B reinterprets compliment Ignoring A compliments B B ignores compliment

Examle (2) A: That’s beautiful. It really is B: Thank you (3) A: The organ music came out so beautifully in it B: I thought it did too. (4) H: Gee, hon, you look nice in that dress W: Do you really think so? It’s just a rag that my sister gave me. (5)

A: Those tacos were good! B: You liked them. . . A: I loved’em yes. (6) A: Oh it was just beautiful B: Well thank you . . . uh I thought it was quite nice (7) A: Good shot. B: not very solid, though (8) A: You’re a good rower, Honey B: These are very easy to row. Very light. (9) A: Ya sound (justiz) real nice B: Yeah you soun’ real good too. (10) A: I love that suit. B: I got it at Boscov’s. (11) A: I like those pants B: You can borrow them anytime. (12) A: You’re the nicest person. B: Have you finished your essay yet?



 Chapter 6

their polarity from affirmative to negative by conveying an implied negative assertion” (Koshik 1999: 97). In data segment (4), it is the lexical item really that influences the positive question to be heard as expressing a negative orientation or a negative assertion (Koshik 1999: 188; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik 1985: 808; Sacks 1987 [1973]: 57). In other words, in their design, RPQs display the epistemic stance (Koshik 2002) of the speaker towards their utterances. In the data segment above, speaker B thus indicates with her question design that she herself does not believe that she looks nice in the dress. Hence, the question design is indicative of her disagreement with her husband. This disagreement is then further expressed or explained in her second turn constructional unit where she explains that the dress is just an old rag from her sister. As mentioned earlier, agreements and acceptances are preferred next actions. Consequently, one would expect the data to contain more acceptances/agreements than rejections/disagreements. In Pomerantz’s data, however, this is not the case.4 This is due to the second constraint placed on the recipient of a compliment, namely that of avoiding self praise. There are several ways of dealing with the two concurrently-placed but not concurrently satisfiable constraints placed on a speaker. Pomerantz points out that speakers routinely produce compliment responses that are somewhat “in between” acceptances and rejections. That is, they contain some features of acceptances/appreciations but also features of rejections/disagreements, or are neutral in stance. One such solution type is that of questioning the compliment assertion. In the absence of lexical items such as really or seriously which would turn the question into an RPQ, and in the absence of specific intonation contours or stress on certain words that would also turn the question into an RPQ, the questions in this category display a neutral stance on the part of the compliment receiver. The coparticipant can often be seen to give another compliment, reassuring the compliment receiver, as speaker A does in the following segment: (5) A: Those tacos were good! B: You liked them. . . A: I loved’em yes.

Another solution type is that of an evaluation shift: The recipient is giving a second assessment, still praising the same referent yet including evaluative descriptors that are somewhat less positive. Such a scaled-down assessment can be seen in data-segment (6):

Compliment responses 

(6) A: Oh it was just beautiful. B: Well, thank you uh I thought it was quite nice

There is still an appreciation token present in B’s response, yet the proffered assessment is scaled down, in slight disagreement with A’s turn. Thus, B’s turn exhibits features of compliment acceptances/agreements and disagreements and therefore of self-praise avoidance. Downgrades are very frequent when the referent of the compliment is not the coparticipant itself, but some object that belongs to the coparticipant, something the coparticipant made, etc. Another solution type is that of an evaluation shift in form of a qualification as in data-segment (7): (7) A: Good shot. B: not very solid, though

B’s utterance is a diminution of the praise A gave, not a contrastive opposite. Yet such responses get routinely treated as disagreements since the praise profferer may select to challenge or disagree with the diminution. Instead of an evaluation shift, a compliment recipient may also utter a referent shift, that is, a speaker may deflect the compliment away from himself/herself. The speaker can either deflect the compliment to an object: (8) A: You’re a good rower, Honey. B: These are very easy to row. Very light.

or to a third party, that is, credit can also be given to someone else, even to the person who has paid the compliment. In other words, a speaker can return the compliment: (9) C: Ya sound (justiz) real nice D: Yeah you soun’ real good too

Herbert and Straight (1989: 39) observe compliment recipients giving a nonevaluative comment on the item/trait that was complimented. This can be seen in the following example: (10) A: I love that suit. B: I got it at Boscov’s.

Herbert (1986: 78, 1989: 16–17) note three additional solution types for American English, the first of which is that of reinterpreting the compliment. Usually compliments are reinterpreted as requests, with the next relevant action becoming an offer as is displayed in the next example:

 Chapter 6

(11) A: I like those pants B: You can borrow them any time.

Occasionally, a compliment recipient ignores the compliment entirely (also from Herbert 19895 ): (12) A: You’re the nicest person. B: Have you finished your essay yet?

The preceding paragraphs have shown two different basic turn designs for accepting a compliment, and one design for rejecting a compliment. However, there is a far greater number of responses that display an “in between” character. Put differently, the data have shown that speakers of American English display an orientation to the two conflicting constraints (agreement and avoidance of self-praise) placed upon them when they are given a compliment.

. Compliment responses in German Table 6.2 provides a summary of German compliment responses. Again, the response type is given in the left column while an example is given in the right column. All examples are numbered on the right hand side in parentheses; the numbers correspond to those given to each example in the following paragraphs. In contrast to the beliefs of exchange students, etiquette books, and statements of Schwarze’s (1994) informants, the analysis of the naturally occurring data shows that German native speakers do accept compliments. They actually overwhelmingly accept compliments. However, the second pair part (i.e. their compliment response) differs considerably from responses displayed by native speakers of American English. One noticeable difference is that, in my data, none of the speakers ever accept a compliment by using an appreciation marker. In other words, there are no “thank you”s in the 62 compliment sequences that make up the current corpus. One German way of expressing an appreciation of a compliment is by providing an assessment. That is, they give an assessment of the compliment (not of the compliment assertion). This can be seen in the following data segment.

Compliment responses

Table 6.2 Compliment responses in German (simplified) Response type

Example

I. Acceptances 1. Agreements/assessment of compl. A compliments B

(13)

II. Rejections 1. Disagreements A compliments B

(16)

A: aber heute abend hier war’s schön bei euch but it was nice this evening here at your place B positively assesses compliment B: schön. that’s nice. 2. Agreements/confirmation (14) A compliments B A: ich sach ihr habt ja so en schönes zwiebelmuster hier, i said you have such a nice onion pattern here, B confirms compliment assertion B: joa: ye:s 3. Assessment + agreement-pursuit (15) A compliments B A: übrigens (.) das fleisch exzel[lent by the way (.) the meat excel[lent B uses same strength adj. + tag B: [super ne? [super right? A compliments again A: exzellent excellent B accepts compliment B: joa. yeah.

A: norbert hat es .hhh ((sniff))eh- ich hm wwie sagt man das norbert is .hhh ((sniff )) eh- i hm h- how do you say beste g’müt und du hoast es beste feingefühl the most even-tempered and you are the most sensitive B disagrees with compl. assertion B: ach nee: komm, oh no:: come on,

III. Solution types for 2 conflicting constraints 1. Questions – neutral stance A compliments B

A: m::m lecker, m::m tasty, B questions compliment assertion B: ja:a? ((high pitch)) yeah? ((high pitch)) A confirms question/compliment A: uh uhm uh uhm

(17)



 Chapter 6

Table 6.2 (continued) Response type 2. Evaluation shift (downgrade) A compliments B

3.

4.

5.

6.

Example

(18) A: ahh da sin so viele schöne ecken bei euch. ahh there are so many nice places where you live. B scales down compliment assertion B: jo jo sin schöne ecken yeah yeah nice places Evaluation shift (qualification) (19) A compliments B A: du bis en juter zahnarz you are a good dentist [det hat immer spass gemacht sich] von dir [it was always fun when] you B: [ja ja ( ) ((non-committal)) ] [yeah yeah ( ) ] A: behandeln zu lassen treated me B qualifies compliment assertion B: ja:: is aber noch en weiter weg ye::s but there’s still a long way to go Referent shift (away from self) (20) A compliments B A: lecker ((talking about barbecued meat)) tasty B compliments other-than-self B: das grillt sich von selbst it grills itself Referent shift (compl. return) (21) A compliments B A: schmeckt lecker ((talking about cake)) tastes yummy (1.5) B compliments A B: der is aus dem kochbuch was du mir mal it is from the cookbook that you once gave zu weihnachtn geschenkt has me for Christmas Comment history (22) A compliments B A: das klingt gut du. is ja dann lecker hey that sounds good. is really tasty B comments on item/gives history B: ja:a. und dann ähm hab ich so:: .hh ähm ye:ah. and then uhm I like .hh uhm this diesmal mal so mirakel time I mixed Iike miracle wip and majonese gemischt,. . . whip and mayonnaise . . .

Compliment responses 

Table 6.2 (continued) Response type 7.

8.

Example

Reinterpretation A compliments B

A:

B reinterprets compliment

B:

Ignoring A compliments B

A:

B ignores compliment

(23) lecker yummy da is noch mehr=du kanns gerne noch en there is more=you are welcome to eat another stück essen piece (24) sieht aber lecker aus looks real yummy (30.0 +)

(13) [Freunde in Stade, Tape 1 B324] 1 T: aber heute abend hier war’s schön bei but today evening here was+it nice at but it was nice this evening here at your 2 euch yours place 3 S: schön.6 nice. that’s nice.

In my data, the most frequent response was an agreement with a compliment assertion in the form of a confirmation of the compliment assertion with the particle ja (yes) or some variant thereof.7 In the following example, Annette is complimenting Christiane on her china: (14) [Spülen, Tape 1, A 007] 1 A: ihr habt ja so en schönes zwiebelmuster onion+pattern you have PRT so a nice you have such a nice onion pattern 2 hier, here, here, 3 C: joa: ye:s ye:s

Christiane confirms the compliment assertion, thereby accepting the compliment. This response is very different from the ones observed for American

 Chapter 6

English, yet there are no indications in the transcript or in the video that would indicate that this response is considered unusual by the coparticipant. The sequence of compliment/compliment-response comes to an end and the speakers move on.8 German speakers also accept compliments by giving a second assessment of the object/quality that is as strongly positive as the first assessment that the compliment giver used. This is quite different from the type of assessments Pomerantz (1978) describes for American English since Americans usually downgrade their second assessments. When Germans use a same strength second assessment it is followed by a response pursuit marker (Harren 2001; Jefferson 1980). Occasionally, the response pursuit marker is uttered by itself. Data segment (15) shows a same strength adjective with a response pursuit marker: Tobias is the guest and in his first turn, he is gazing at Bernhard, the person who barbecued the meat.9 (15) [Grillen in Stade Tape 1, A440] 1 T: übrigens (.) das fleisch by the way (.) the meat by the way (.) the meat 2 ex[zellent ex[cellent ex [cellent [ 3 B: [super ne? [great right? [great right? 4 T: exzellent excellent excellent 5 B: joa:. yea:. yea:.

A introduces his compliment with a misplacement marker (Schegloff 1984, 1987; Schegloff & Sacks 1973); after a micropause, the compliment itself is uttered. When the meaning of Tobias’ turn is projectable, Bernhard produces the second pair part to the compliment in overlap with Tobias’ turn. Bernhard utters an adjective equally strong as the one Tobias used, followed by ne? (right?). Note again the difference between data segment (13) and (15). While data segment (15) shows a typical sequence of assessments (Auer & Uhmann 1982; Pomerantz 1984a), in that Tobias gives a first assessment and Bernhard gives a second assessment of the same object, data segment (13) shows Tobias giving

Compliment responses 

a (first) assessment and Sybille giving another first assessment that is tied to speaker Tobias’. In other words, in data segment (15), Bernhard gives an assessment of the compliment assertion and in data segment (13), Sybille gives an assessment of the compliment. Very striking in data segment (15) is the response pursuit ne? (right?). By uttering this, Bernhard is pursuing a response that basically has already been given (namely in Tobias’ compliment). Auer and Uhmann (1982: 11) also observe this response in assessments that are not compliments. In a footnote, they point out that it can also be found in compliment responses. While the ne? (right?) is uttered with question intonation, this type of compliment response is quite different from questioning the compliment assertion. Questioning a compliment assertion is similar to saying “Is that so?”, whereas a response pursuit with ne? is like saying “Isn’t that so?”. Similar to the RPQs discussed earlier, response pursuit with the tag ne? displays the epistemic stance of the speaker. In this instance, the speaker uttering the ne? is clearly pursuing an agreement. Yet, both questioning the assertion and response pursuit with ne? can initiate a full second round of compliment giving (as can be seen in data segment (15)): In the second round, Tobias gives a compliment and Bernhard accepts it, this time with a confirmation joa (yeah). Response pursuit, specifically an agreement pursuit as a second pair part to a compliment, is by no means an idiosyncratic or dialectal feature of this particular speaker. Other speakers in my corpus who are from other geographical regions in Germany display the same behavior. Elsewhere (Golato 2002a), I argued that the response pursuit token is noteworthy because speakers actually seem to be engaging in “fishing for compliments”, and are thus engaging in self-praise. Yet self-praise is said to be one of the conflicting constraints under which speakers operate when responding to compliments. Additionally, we shall see later that Germans also regularly display avoidance of self-praise just as American English speakers do. While the article containing my original analysis was in press, Harren (2001) undertook a thorough analysis of the German response pursuit token. As already mentioned in the previous chapter, she identifies 8 different positions, among them ne? in tag position, and ne? as sole turn token. Her data set contain several instances in which a ne? was positioned in a turn following an assessment by a previous speaker, similar to data segent (16). Harren (2001: 110–111) argues that ne? is used in these instances to create mutual agreement and thus solidarity among the speakers. My data indicate that Harren’s analysis of ne? in assessment sequences also holds for compliment sequences. In the following, I am going to apply her anal-

 Chapter 6

ysis to data segment (15) above, in which Tobias is paying Bernhard (the host) a compliment at the end of the meal. When the strong assessment segment is projectable, Bernhard produces a second assessment of the same strength as the first assessment followed by a response pursuit marker. Following Harren’s argument, we can observe that the ne?-turn fulfills three functions: (a) it shows Bernhard’s own assessment of the food; (b) because of its positioning right after a first assessment, it functions as an agreement with that initial assessment, and (c) it demonstrates how Bernhard understood Tobias’ turn. Harren further points out that in sequences like the one above, it is not only one speaker agreeing with another, but rather that both speakers are expressing their agreement with each other; that is, mutual agreement is expressed. With the response pursuit marker ne? Bernhard is again pursuing an overt agreement from Tobias after he, Bernhard, has already expressed his own agreement. Harren analyzes segments like these as speakers being engaged in relationship work; by using ne?, she argues, speakers achieve overt mutual agreement and thus mutual support and solidarity (Harren 2001: 110–111). The following data segment shows a speaker rejecting a compliment. However, flat out rejecting a compliment is rare in the corpus. In data segment (16), a mother (M) is comparing her children. Her coparticipant Heiner (H) is one of her sons, as is Norbert (mentioned in line 1). M has recently lost her husband and in the talk preceding this section, the mother commented on a letter that she received from Heiner in which he apparently included several caring and uplifting passages: (16) [Champaign, Tape 3, A333] 1 M: norbert hat es .hhh ((sniff)) eh- ich norbert has it .hhh ((sniff)) uh- i norbert is .hhh ((sniff)) uh- i hm h2 wie sagt man das beste g’müt und du how say one that best temper and do you say the most even-tempered and 3 es beste feingefühl it best perception/sensitivity are the most sensitive 4 H: ach nee: komm, oh noo: come, oh no:: come on,

hm whm hhow hoast

you

More frequent are the “in between” categories identical to those Pomerantz identifies for American English. That is, we find compliment responses that exhibit some agreement and some disagreement features. Just like Americans,

Compliment responses

Germans react with a question in neutral stance to a compliment assertion (which usually results in a confirmation uttered by the compliment giver): (17) [Frühstück in Texas, Tape1, A083] 1 M: m::m lecker, m::m tasty, m::m tasty, 2 A: ja:a? ((high pitch)) ye:es? ((high pitch)) yeah? ((high pitch)) 3 M: uh uhm uh uhm uh uhm

In segment (17) we see the same behavior of the compliment recipient as we saw in the American data (segment (5)). Annette is questioning the compliment, which results in Markus providing confirmation of the compliment. As stated earlier, this behavior is different from using an RPQ as a response to a compliment. With an RPQ, the speaker is implying a negative assertion, thus displaying disagreement. This is not the case in data segment (17); Annette is not providing an epistemic stance. One other compliment response is a scaled-down version of a previous assessment (here, many nice places gets downgraded to nice places): (18) [Kirsten, Tape 1, A 149] 1 K: ahh da ahh there ahh there 2 euch. yours. you live. 3 H: jo jo yeah yeah yeah yeah

sin so viele schöne ecken bei are so many nice corners at are so many nice places where

sin schöne ecken are nice corners nice places

In their compliment responses, Germans are sometimes seen to qualify the assessment of the compliment. In the following data segment, Kirsten is complimenting Heiner, a resident dentist, on his skills: (19) [Kirsten, Tape 2, A 372] 1 K: du bis en juter zahnarz you are a good dentist you are a good dentist



 Chapter 6

2 K: [det hat immer spass gemacht sich [this has always fun been refl. [it was always fun when [ 3 H: [ja ja ( ) ((non-committal)) [yes yes ( ) ((non-committal)) [yeah yeah ( ) ((non-committal)) 4 K: von dir behandeln zu lassen by you treat to let you treated me 5 H: ja:: is aber noch en weiter weg ye::s is but still a long way ye::s but there’s still a long way to go

Germans also deflect the credit away from themselves either to a third party or, as in data segment (20), to an object: (20) [Freunde in Stade, Tape 1, A057] 1 M: lecker ((talking about barbecued meat)) tasty tasty 2 B: das grillt sich von selbst that barbecues refl. on its own it grills itself

Here, das/‘it’ refers to the meat, thus B appears to be deflecting the compliment away from himself. Alternatively, the compliment may be returned to the first speaker: (21) 1 A: schmeckt lecker ((talking about cake)) tastes yummy tastes yummy 2 (1.5)10 3 B: der is aus dem kochbuch was du mir mal it is out+of the cookbook what you once it is from the cookbook that you once gave 4 B: zu weihnachtn geschenkt has for christmas given have me for christmas

Germans also provide a non-evaluative comment on or history of the object/feature/talent they have been complimented on. Very often, such an account is given after the compliment recipient has first confirmed the compliment assertion. This can be seen in the following example:

Compliment responses 

(22) [Oregon Tape 2, A278] 1 N: das klingt gut du. is ja dann lecker that sounds good you. is PRT then yummy hey that sounds good. is really yummy 2 M: ja:a. und dann ähm hab ich so:: .hh ähm ye:es.and then uhm have I like:: .hh uhm ye:ah. and then uhm I like .hh uhm this 3 M: diesmal mal so mirakel wip und majonese this time PRT like miracle whip and time I mixed like miracle whip and 4 M: gemischt,. . . mayonnaise mix,. . . mayonnaise, ...

In this particular example, Markus explains to Nicki how he created the salad dressing which he has been complimented on. Note that this account is presented after he first confirmed the compliment with ja:a (ye:ah). Germans also reinterpret compliments as requests and thus proffer an offer as a next preferred action: (23) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, A556] 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(1.0) M: m::::: m::::: m::::: C: uups [he ((C spilled tea)) oops [he oops [he [ A: [ach [well [well M: lecker tasty tasty A: [( ) [( ) [ C: [( ) [( ) *putting hand on tea pot M: möchts *noch bis- ( ) want+you *still lit- ( ) do you want some more ( )

 Chapter 6

9

=> 10

11

12 13

C: ne: ( ) no: ( ) no: ( ) A: da is noch mehr du kannst gerne there is still more you can please there’s more you are welcome to eat A: noch en stück essen another piece eat another piece C: ((coughs)) A: da is noch nethere is still athere’s still a-

15 M: ahh noch’n bisschen. uhh still+a bit. uhh a little more

Occasionally, a compliment gets ignored entirely as in data segment (24). Without any verbal or nonverbal reaction, the compliment recipient simply turns her back on Annette and begins to set the table: (24) [Oma kocht, Tape 1 A423] A: sieht looks looks (30.0

aber lecker aus PRT yummy real yummy +)

After having described the compliment responses found in the present data corpus, a number of questions arise. As the previous chapters have attributed different interactional functions to compliments, one wonders if there are any systematic features about compliment responses with respect to the function that the compliment performs. Similarly, readers may wonder if there is any connection between the topic of the compliment (i.e., which characteristic of a person or object is being assessed) and the respective response. As other work on compliments has attributed sex-based differences to compliment responses (Herbert 1990; Holmes 1988, 1995; Wolfson 1984), one also wonders whether such differences play out in the current corpus as well. And lastly, given that there seem to be some differences between the compliment responses described for American English and those for German, one may be interested in compli-

Compliment responses

ments given in cross-cultural encounters. Each of these issues will be addressed in turn in the remainder of this chapter.

. Systematic features of German compliment responses In Chapter 4, I described different functions that compliments perform in discourse. In Chapter 5, we saw that third parties (i.e., speakers who are neither the compliment giver nor the compliment recipient) seem to be sensitive to the functions compliments perform, as third parties did not produce second compliments in sequences in which dispreferred actions were being accomplished through the first speaker’s original compliment. Given that third parties seem to be sensitive to additional actions inherent in compliments, one wonders if compliment recipients are also sensitive to those (or similar) distinctions. Put differently, it remains to be seen whether the various compliment responses described above show any systematic characteristics with respect to the action the compliment itself performed. When grouping the compliment responses according to the function the compliment performed, some regularities emerge, but (perhaps not surprisingly) the picture is not as clear-cut as one might hope. This is partially due to the fact that for some compliment functions, the data yielded so few examples that no clear patterns could be discerned. However, some general statements about compliment responses to compliments with specific functions can still be made. In Chapter 3, first compliment turns were discussed in terms of their occurrence within the overall sequential context, specifically, in terms of their occurrence in preferred or dispreferred first or second pair parts. For the sake of consistency, compliment responses will be discussed in the same terms. ..

Compliments in dispreferred first pair parts

In Chapter 4 we noticed that compliments can be used as portions of dispreferred first pair parts. One such instance was a compliment uttered in the same turn as a criticism (line 4 of the segment below). (25) [Quartet Material, 4/12/94] 1 2 3

Mike: okay, (0.6) (hit it) ((music 10.0[))-----------[ Bob: [(That’s the place),



 Chapter 6

4

-------------] ] 5 Bob: (Mike)/(now),] thats beautiful sound 6 Bob: but, (·) try not to retard.= 7 Marg: =he didn’t. 8 (0.2) 9 Bob: o he didn’t?o = => 10 Marg: =that was gr(h)(h)eat= 11 Bob: =oh I’m sorry

Mike, the recipient of Bob’s compliment (and criticism) of lines 5–6, does not react to either the compliment or the criticism; however, one of the coparticipants does. It is noteworthy that the coparticipant is orienting not to the compliment, but rather to the action Bob’s entire turn is accomplishing, namely that of a criticism (Marge contradicts and thus challenges Bob’s criticism in line 7). A similar observation can be made about the next criticism in this segment: as explicated in detail in Chapter 4, Marge subsequently criticizes Bob by complimenting Mike. As discussed earlier, Mike withholds a response to the compliment, while Bob responds to the action the complimenting turn was performing (he apologizes). In Chapter 4 it was also noted that compliments can be used by speakers to elicit an offer from a coparticipant (rather than the complimenting speaker producing a request), as requests are dispreferred when compared to offers. When compliments are used to elicit an offer, compliment recipients respond – not surprisingly – by offering the complimented item. In other words, yet again, the compliment recipient is orienting not to the compliment assertion itself but rather to the action the turn was performing, of which the compliment was but a part. .. Responses to compliments given as part of dispreferred second pair parts In the present corpus, compliments in dispreferred second pair parts consisted of rejections to offers and rejections to invitations. When recipients of an offer or invitation have produced a compliment as part of their rejection of the offer or invitation, the compliment recipient (i.e., the initial offerer) reacted in two different ways. One observed reaction was for the recipient not to attend to the compliment:

Compliment responses 

(26) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, B230] 1 C: eh [hä ha he eh [ha ha he eh [ha ha he [ [*A gazes at M 2 A: [*(da is noch) melone [*(there is still melon [*(there’s still) some melon 3 (.) 4 A: wenn de noch willst if you still want if you want some more 5 M: ne:. die is sehr sehr gut no:. it is very very good no:. it is very very good 6 (1.0) 7 M: is das jetz honey dew? is that now honey dew? now is that honey dew? 8 A: mhm. (ich weiß [nich glaube) uhum. (i know [not believe) uhum. (I don’t [know think so) [ 9 C: [ja ((clears throat)) [yes [yeah

As mentioned earlier, Markus rejects the offer in line 5 and as part of his rejection produces a compliment, thereby stating to the offerer that the quality of the food is not the cause of the rejection. Annette (the offerer) does not orient to the compliment but instead to the rejection of the offer. While not verbally providing a sequence closing third turn, she reacts nonverbally. In line 6, we see her withdraw her hand from the food. The speakers then move on to talk about melon and other type of fruit. It is worth noting that while the compliment recipient did not orient to the compliment itself, she did orient to the action the compliment was part of (i.e., a rejection). In the other observed reaction the complimenting turn was acknowledged or confirmed and the offer was restated in a different format, leaving it up to the coparticipant to provide additional grounds for rejecting the offer. Again, in these instances, the coparticipant reacted to the action the compliment turn was part of.

 Chapter 6

(27) [Champaign, Tape 3, A430] 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

=> 8

H: i hab ja gsagt das jeder [herzlich i have PRT said that everybody[heartily i already said that everybody [is very [ M: [o jao [o yeso [o yeso H: willkommen is aber eh:m:: also mich welcome is but uh:m:: well to+me welcome but uh:m:: well it would täts freien do+would pleasure make me happy M: ja. heiner es is nett und es is ja nett yes. NAME it is nice and it is PRT nice yes. heiner it’s nice and it is quite dass mer die route und dass mer’s immer that me the route and that me+it always nice that the route and that you always so schmackhaft machst he he bist a ganzer so appealing make he he are a totally make it sound appealing he he you’re a liaber [kerl lovable [guy really lovable [guy [

10 H: da dazua wie hört there to+it how sound say how does it sound 11 M: häh? huh? huh? 12 H: wie hört sich’s denn how sound it then how does it sound.

sich’s no an? it now PRE

an. prefix.

Compliment responses 

13 M: ja su:per [hört sich’s an yes su:per [sound it PRE yeah su:per [does it sound [ 14 H: [scho, oder? [already, or? [it does, doesn’t it 15 M: ich muss a bloß erst schaun wie es mit i must but only first look how it with i first just have to see how my finances 16 meim geldbeutel läuft .hh denn äh i my wallet goes .hh because uh i are going .hh because uh i 17 brauch ((continues with telling)) need need

As stated in Chapter 4, Heiner had invited his mother and siblings to visit him to the US. When his mother does not respond, he rephrases this information more generally, by repeating that he always said that anyone is welcome to visit him (lines 1–2). As pointed out before, Heiner’s mother ultimately (see lines 15–17) delays a decision about her visit. This postponement is only verbalized after much intervening talk. Part of this intervening talk consists of several compliments (lines 5–8). Heiner receipts these compliments with joa/‘yeah’ and a pursuit of an assessment of his invitation/offer. In other words, after acknowledging the compliment, Heiner asks his mother to take a stance on his invitation. As in the previous segment, the compliment recipient orients less to the compliment assertion than to the action the compliment was part of. .. Responses to compliments in preferred first pair parts As the reader may recall from Chapter 4, many compliments serve as noticings (i.e., with a compliment, a speaker displays that an item, object, or characteristic has come to his or her attention). As argued earlier, such compliments typically occur as first pair parts, initiating their own complimenting sequence. In this category, a large variety of compliment responses can be seen (e.g., ignoring the compliment, rejecting it, agreeing with it, confirming it, pursuing an additional agreement from the coparticipant, providing a history or account, etc.). It was also stated in Chapter 4 that some complimenting turns express the gratitude of the speaker. When these expressions of thanks appeared “out of the blue” (i.e., were not triggered by an offer or inquiry of the coparticipant) the compliment turn served as a first pair part and thus started a new sequence. As

 Chapter 6

mentioned in Chapter 4, all of these expressions of thanks occurred in closingrelevant environments, that is, these compliments functioned as pre-closings to larger sequences. These types of compliments are frequently responded to with an assessment of the compliment as in the following segment: (28) [Freunde in Stade, Tape 1 B324] => 1 T: aber heute abend hier war’s schön bei but today evening here was+it nice at but it was nice this evening here at your 2 euch yours place 3 (0.1) 4 R: mm hm ((sounds like a little laugh)) uhum uhum 5 S: schön.11 nice. that’s nice.

Not all responses to expressions of thanks were assessments of compliments, but all assessments of compliments occurred in expressions of thanks. The assessment of the compliment itself seems to be an expression of thanks. Both speakers here assess the actions of the other as positive while at the same time thanking each other for their action. By doing so they are able to again engage in face- or relationship work. .. Responses to compliments given in preferred second pair parts Compliments paid in preferred second pair parts are those that are given for example as part of (a) a contradiction to a self-deprecation, (b) a response to an announcement, (c) a response to a (story) telling, and (c) an expression of thanks. In these environments, a large variety of responses occur; responses vary from ignoring the compliment, rejecting it, agreeing with it, confirming it, pursuing an additional agreement from the coparticipant, providing a history or account, etc. Only one regularity can be observed that is worth pointing out: compliments as expressions of thanks frequently are responded to with an assessment of the compliment. This was already noticed for those segments in which the expression of thanks constituted a first pair part, such as a preclosing (see the discussion of segment (28)). And just as in those instances, when the expression of thanks constituted a second pair part it was not the

Compliment responses

case that all of them were responded to with an assessment; rather, it was the case that all assessments of compliments occurred when the compliment was part of an expression of thanks. .. Summary of response type in relationship to function of the compliment The preceding discussion has shown that when compliments “merely” perform the action of complimenting or of noticing, a variety of responses to the compliment can be observed. Even a close analysis of the data does not provide the analyst with any information as to why a particular response may have been chosen over another. It was noticed however that when a compliment served another function in addition to that of “merely complimenting” or noticing, responses seem to be somewhat tailored to these other functions. Expressions of thanks (whether the expression of thanks was uttered as a first or second pair part) frequently were met with assessments of the compliment. As was argued above, these assessments also served as expressions of thanks. Thus both the compliment giver and the compliment recipient were using some form of assessment as an expression of thanks. This means that both speakers were aligning with each other not only with regard to the content of their utterances, but also with the action format with which their utterances were realized. By aligning in this form, speakers were displaying their mutual solidarity and support of each other. When compliments were produced as part of dispreferred first or second pair parts, the compliment recipient tended to orient not to the compliment itself but to the action the overall turn was performing. This again shows the interlocutors’ keen sensitivity to the organization of action within talk-ininteraction.

. Topic and gender When presenting my work at conferences, I am frequently asked whether or not compliment responses might vary according to the topic of the compliment assertion or according to the gender of the participants. “Topic” and “gender” have been discussed in the compliment literature at large (Herbert 1990; Holmes 1988; Wolfson 1984). These categories are typically established by researchers and brought to bear on the data; they are not derived from a detailed sequential analysis of the data. In other words, these categories have not been



 Chapter 6

shown to be oriented to by the participants of the interaction; that is, interactants have not shown with their behavior that such categories are relevant to them. From a CA perspective, categories that cannot be shown to be members’ categories are irrelevant to the analysis (Schegloff in Wong & Olsher 2000), the argument being that we do not know why these categories and not others (e.g., red-headed vs. blond speakers; older vs. younger people, dog owners vs. cat owners, etc.) are chosen as a basis for the analysis. When sorting the compliments in the present data according to the topic of the compliment (e.g., food, appearance, accomplishment, etc.), no patterns with regard to compliment responses could be discerned. Put differently, in the present corpus compliments on food received the same type of responses as did compliments on appearance and accomplishments. It has been noted in the literature that men avoid responding to compliments (Holmes 1988: 463), that compliments from men are typically accepted (Herbert 1990: 212), particularly by women (Herbert 1990: 201), and that compliments from women are typically not accepted (Herbert 1990: 201). I already mentioned in Chapter 3 that there are no differences in the number of compliments men and women gave in the present corpus. And in terms of compliment responses, men and women do not demonstrate any discernable differences either. It is not the case that either group rejected or accepted more compliments than the other, nor does it seem to matter whether a compliment is paid by a man or a woman. In addition, both men and women use all of the response types described above; in other words, no single response type is associated with the gender of the interactants. The difference between these findings in my German data and those described in the literature may be due to several factors. One might for instance conclude that German- and English-speaking men and women simply differ with respect to language use. However, neither the present study nor the ones published on English support this conclusion. As the reader may recall from previous chapters, the methodological underpinnings of the present study are very different from those conducted on the different varieties of English. The present study is limited to compliments given among friends and family, whereas the English ones use data from both mundane and institutional talk.12 Additionally, in the studies conducted on English, field workers collected a certain number of compliments they either overheard, received, or gave. The fact that by the authors’ own admission (Holmes 1995: 153) the field workers were predominantly females may have skewed their results. This demonstrates that it is important to control for the sex of the fieldworkers if they are including compliments they give and receive in the study. It also means that due to this

Compliment responses 

confound, it is not clear whether the observed gender differences are truly due to different behaviors among the sexes or whether they have been artificially introduced by the method of data collection.

. Comparison of American and German compliment responses As Pomerantz’s (1978) study on American English is also conducted with CA methodology, this presents a unique opportunity for a cross-cultural comparison between her American English and my German data. I first contrast the major differences between the observed behaviors in Pomerantz’s study and the present one. Next, I present a data segment of cross-cultural communication in which the interlocutors encounter difficulties due to the different response patterns in the two languages. And lastly, I discuss the implications of this type of work for second language acquisition and second language teaching. ..

American English compliment responses in contrast to German compliment responses

Table 6.3 summarizes the similarities and differences between the compliment response types in American English and German. As can be gathered from Table 6.3, in terms of rejections and in terms of the various solution types for the two conflicting constraints (i.e., (a) agree with previous assessment, and (b) avoid self-praise), Germans display exactly the same response types as Americans. However, let me reiterate that in my German corpus I have fewer rejections and disagreements than compliment agreements and acceptances (34 of the 62 compliment sequences were accepted), whereas Pomerantz finds the opposite to be the case for American English. In terms of compliment acceptances and agreements with compliments, we can see that Germans seem to display a greater variety of acceptance/agreement responses than Americans. Judging from my data, Germans do not use appreciation tokens to acknowledge compliments, but instead sometimes give an assessment of a compliment, something that has not been reported for Americans. Just as Americans agree with compliments by giving a second assessment, so do Germans, but they do so differently. While Americans express agreement with a same strength adjective, Germans agree with an assessment by uttering a confirmation marker, something that Americans do not do. Moreover, Germans regularly accept compliments by uttering a same-strength assessment combined with a response pursuit marker. As mentioned above, this response

 Chapter 6

Table 6.3 Comparison of American and German response types American response types I. Acceptances Appreciation token A compliments B B accepts compliment ———————Agreements/second assessment A compliments B B agrees with compl. assertion ———————-

———————-

German response types I.

Acceptances ———————-

Agreements/assessment of compl. A compliments B B positively assesses compl. ———————Agreements/confirmation A compliments B B confirms compl. assertion Assessment + agreement + pursuit A compliments B B uses same strength adj. + tag A compliments again B accepts compliment

II. Rejections Disagreements A compliments B B disagrees with compl. assertion

II. Rejections Disagreements A compliments B B disagrees with compl. assertion

III. Solution types for 2 conflicting constraints Questions – neutral stance A compliments B B questions compl. assertion A confirms question/compliment Evaluation shift (downgrade) A compliments B B scales down compl. assertion Evaluation shift (qualification) A compliments B B qualifies compl. assertion Referent shift (away from self) A compliments B B compliments other-than-self Referent shift (compl. return) A compliments B B compliments A

III. Solution types for 2 conflicting constraints Questions – neutral stance A compliments B B questions compl. assertion A confirms question/compliment Evaluation shift (downgrade) A compliments B B scales down compl. assertion Evaluation shift (qualification) A compliments B B qualifies compl. assertion Referent shift (away from self) A compliments B B compliments other-than-self Referent shift (compl. return) A compliments B B compliments A

Compliment responses 

Table 6.3 (continued) American response types Comment history A compliments B B comments on item/gives history Reinterpretation A compliments B B reinterprets compliment Ignoring A compliments B B ignores compliment

German response types Comment history A compliments B B comments on item/gives history Reinterpretation A compliments B B reinterprets compliment Ignoring A compliments B B ignores compliment

pursuit seems to be in violation of a self-praise avoidance constraint. However, it was argued that this response pursuit allowed the participants to demonstrate to each other their mutual agreement with respect to the complimented item. In one sense, German compliment responses seem to be oriented more towards a preference for agreement (than towards the preference for self-praise avoidance). As stated above, the literature on German compliments thus far has always claimed that Germans downplay or reject compliments. Anecdotal evidence from many native speakers of German visiting the US also shows that they claim to downplay or to reject compliments (given to them by Americans) – a statement that is in stark contrast to the data discussed in this paper. How is it that Germans believe that they react in this particular way? Are there any factors that might explain why Germans may have a greater variety of agreement turns than Americans? Are there any factors (societal or other) that could explain why the data exhibited more examples of compliment agreements than disagreements? I speculate that the difference may lie in context and in conversational style. Kotthoff (1989: 451–452) reports on a small-scale study which some of her students undertook to see if the complimenting behavior of Americans and Germans indeed differs. Native speakers of German and American English were presented with various situations in which a compliment may be appropriate to give and were asked how they would respond/react. Bearing in mind the caveats about discourse completion tasks and interviews, this small-scale study at least tentatively suggests that Germans were predominantly concerned with the truthfulness of a compliment, i.e. they would only pay a compliment if they indeed admired or liked the item in question. According to Kotthoff, for Americans, however, social factors were more important than the truthful-

 Chapter 6

ness of their compliments (in this regard, see also the varying statements in etiquette books, discussed in the introduction and earlier in this chapter); in order not to hurt the coparticipant’s feelings, they would for example pay a compliment on a new sweater even if they did not like it. In other words, contrary to what she claims Americans do, Kotthoff suggests that Germans do not engage in complimenting behavior in order to do face work. Studies of speech events other than compliments, i.e. debates, criticism in institutional settings, presentations etc., also indicate that in comparison with Americans, Germans seem to be more oriented towards the truthfulness and content of the language than to its social function (Byrnes 1986; Kotthoff 1989). As Byrnes puts it: . . . in German style there is greater emphasis on the information-conveying function of language as compared with its social bonding function. Such an orientation is concerned more with facts and truth-values, and in their service seeks, or at least should not shy away from, overt disagreement and confrontation. In fact, disagreement and confrontation are valued, and have become ritualized, in that they are deemed to further the process of establishing truth. Perhaps in its own way, it becomes a form of social bonding for those who customarily engage in it. (Byrnes 1986: 200–201)

This interactional behavior has also been called “frankness to a fault” (Lord 1996: 50). If one is to adopt this characterization, one has to conclude that Germans would only give compliments if they really believed in their truthfulness (otherwise they would begin their Volkssport of criticizing). In addition, one would have to conclude that if the person who was complimented also believed in the truthfulness of the compliment and believed its assertion, he or she would accept it. However, given the fact that the data in the present study are limited to conversations among close friends in ordinary conversation (mainly dinner-table conversations and telephone calls), these are only tentative speculations which are perhaps a bit premature. Given that most German visitors to the US, as well as the subjects in Kotthoff ’s (1989) study, note that they are surprised and puzzled by a) the number of compliments Americans readily pay and b) by the fact that even strangers in supermarkets and other places may approach you and compliment you, one wonders if Germans pay compliments in those circumstances as well and if compliment responses differ in these situations. For instance, do they possibly pattern after the American responses? Such questions are areas for future research, which would also have to address similarities and differences in the overall design of the compliment turn in the two languages – for example, when and where in a conversation compliments are placed, what kinds of things interactants compliment each other on, etc.

Compliment responses 

.. A cross-cultural encounter Based upon the observed differences in compliment responses in conversations between intimates in the US and in Germany that were displayed in Table 6.3, one could ask whether these differences may cause communication difficulties in cross-cultural encounters. To date, compliments and compliment responses have been compared for different languages but only a very few studies have analyzed cross-cultural interactions (Billmyer 1990; Fong 1998; Saito & Beecken 1997; Ylänne-McEwen 1993; Yuan 1996). None of these studies used either discourse or conversation analytic methodology. Thus, it has not been shown how any possible miscommunication or any pragmatic transfer manifests itself in the interaction. One data segment in my corpus may be a first indication. In the following data segment, an American (D) is talking to three Germans of somewhat varying proficiency levels of English. I should mention, though, that all three are very good speakers of the language since they all have at least a Master’s degree in English-German translation and interpretation, but only A has lived extensively in the US. David, Annette, Markus and Christiane are having breakfast together. Christiane, an avid tea-drinker, has prepared her favorite lemon tea. (David and Annette’s tea always turns out bitter as they state in their conversation – not displayed.) Of particular interest are lines 2 and 3, marked with an arrow: (29) [Frühstück in Texas Tape 1, B063] 1 2

=> 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

D: that’s the best tea (.) i’ve- i think i’ve D: ever had=

(.) D: uh- that lemonny kinda yeah. it’s quite D: nice C: ((smile voice)) (yeah we like it too) (0.2) A: what was the- exact name of it it’s just A: called (.)orange tea? C: lemon tea it’s zitronentee

In lines 1–2, David – the American – is paying Christiane a compliment: she makes great tea – something David had earlier claimed not to be able to do (not displayed in the transcript). In line 3, Christiane is responding to the compli-

 Chapter 6

ment, and in so doing seems to be transferring a response strategy directly from German, namely a same strength second assessment followed by a response pursuit marker. Recall that this is a compliment response atypical of American conversations. There are several indications in this transcript that this compliment response is very unusual for David. After Christiane has agreed with the compliment and while she is uttering the response pursuit, David is turning his gaze towards her and has a rather quizzical expression on his face – perhaps not surprising since, when Americans give second assessments, they usually downgrade. After a compliment has been given and accepted, in both German and American interactions, the conversation usually goes on without a hitch. Not in this case, however. After Christiane’s response pursuit marker, there is a very brief pause and then David continues with a speech perturbation/hesitation marker followed by a cut-off. He then continues with an explanation of what he likes, followed by the confirmation yeah. This may be an indication that he treated Christiane’s response pursuit as a question for clarification (i.e. as “you think this is great?”), or as a confirmation check of a referent. He then goes on to produce what an American might have expected as Christiane’s response, namely a second assessment which is downgraded. Since nothing inherently “humorous” was uttered by either party present and since there is nothing else visible on the tape which could be amusing, one might interpret Christiane’s laugh voice in line 7 as an indication that she, too, noticed that something went awry in the conversation. She also is deviating from the German pattern by giving a second assessment, whereas most Germans in a second round of compliments simply respond with a confirmation ja (yes). There is then a short pause in which neither D nor C speak, after which A continues the conversation. While obviously there was no real “miscommunication” or “communication breakdown” (i.e., silence) apparent in this excerpt, it still did not go over as smoothly as it could have, despite the fact that Christiane speaks English well. Other researchers have found similar pragmatic interference in entirely different types of interactions: for example, Taleghani-Nikazm (1999) finds that Iranian native speakers who have lived in Germany for many years and who function fully in society (i.e., they are married to Germans, have children, hold a job or are students at a German university) still display pragmatic interference from Farsi when talking in German. For example, the way they behave when answering the telephone or when making offers or accepting offers patterns very closely after acceptable and appropriate Farsi moves, but not German ones, which regularly impedes their interactions with Germans and sometimes even leads to communication breakdowns.

Compliment responses 

.. Implications for second language acquisition and teaching On the other hand, other data in my collection for this research project show clearly that it IS possible to learn/acquire the pragmatic rules that apply in a foreign culture; in other words, there are learners who figure out the preference organization and sequential structure of social actions in the target language. How is it that some do while others do not? The research to date suggests that when learners transfer pragmatic resources from one language to the next, communication can be impeded or even break down, but rarely do second language speakers get overtly corrected. So, how are these phenomena acquired? How are they acquired in immersion situations and in the classroom? Are there particular stages learners go through? All of these are areas of further inquiry but in order for this type of research to be fruitful, there needs to be cooperation between conversation analysts and researchers in second language acquisition research. Many researchers focusing on cross-cultural communication and second language teaching point out the need for including the social rules of language use in the foreign/second language classroom (Byrnes 1986; Kasper & Dahl 1991; Saito & Beecken 1997; Thomas 1983; Wildner-Bassett 1984; Wong 2000; Yang 1987). It has also been pointed out that textbooks generally contain too little information about language use (Han 1992) and/or that the dialogues which are included in textbooks to serve as a model of language use are often misleading and do not follow the patters of naturally occurring talk (Scotton & Bernsten 1988; Wong 2000). To date, there are only a few studies that show how language use can be taught in the classroom, for example, Billmyer (1990) and Holmes and Brown (1987) show how compliments can be taught and Taleghani-Nikazm (2000) provides a teaching unit on telephone openings in German. While these studies represent a much needed step towards including the analysis of naturalistic conversation in second language classrooms, they do not (yet) assess the outcome of such instruction. In other words, while some studies (Taleghani-Nikazm 2000) show that students seem to notice and correctly apply the pragmatic rules of the second language, the studies do not evaluate the long-term learning effects of this instruction. Again, this is an area where much future research is needed.

Chapter 7

Concluding discussion

The present study has analyzed the form and function of complimenting sequences in everyday spoken German. Here I will summarize the findings of the preceding chapters, discuss some general implications of the study, and outline some avenues of future research.

. Summary of the findings In Chapter 2, I presented the various instruments of data collection that have been used in the past to study compliments and compliment responses. I presented the advantages and disadvantages of each of these instruments with respect to studying actual language use, that is, with regard to language (and corresponding nonverbal behavior) as it unfolds on a moment-by-moment basis in real time, co-constructed by all participants involved in the interaction. This discussion provided a rationale for using recordings of naturally occurring interaction as the basis for an analysis grounded within the methodological framework of CA: video- and/or audio-taping naturally occurring data allows for the repeated and detailed analysis of utterances in their sequential context (Atkinson & Heritage 1984: 4). Thus, these data allow for the meticulous description and study of all details of the interaction (Heritage 1984b: 241). With a record of the sequential context of each utterance, the analyst is able to take a member’s perspective in the analysis in investigating how the participants in the talk display understanding and orientation to the other participants’ talk. Moreover, this method of data analysis allows the analyst to be sure that the instances in a collection truly represent the same features and characteristics, and that such features are oriented to by the coparticipants (Atkinson & Heritage 1984: 2). Given these characteristics of the data and of the methodology, the notion of sequence is a relevant analytical tool in each of the chapters. Chapter 3 examined how interactants linguistically embed compliments within the larger sequential context. Put differently, Chapter 3 explored how the compliment turn is designed, and how the elements of such turns are con-

 Chapter 7

nected to the larger interactional context. In the discussion, I analyzed how speakers refer to the assessable and how they express the positiveness of the compliment assertion. In terms of reference to the assessable, the following forms were present in the data: full noun phrases, pronouns (both second person and third person), demonstratives, zero anaphora and, lastly, a demonstrative and a full noun phrase within the same utterance. Similar to Fox (1987), I too found that a traditional account of anaphora based on topicality and distance to an earlier referring expression (see, for instance, Givón 1983a, 1983b) fails to account for a critical portion of the data. However, by adopting an interactional perspective on anaphora modeled after the work of Fox (1987, 1996), Schegloff (1996a), and Ford and Fox (1996), I showed that speakers select referring expressions which are fitted to the local circumstances of where they are deployed. When distinguishing between initial and subsequent reference positions and between initial and subsequent reference forms within a sequence, we could observe the following regularities with respect to reference to the assessable: (a) initial reference forms (i.e., a full noun phrase or a second person pronoun) were used in initial position when the referent was introduced into a sequence for the very first time;1 (b) speakers employed subsequent forms in subsequent positions when the assessable had already been referred to within the same sequence. With this choice of reference, speakers display their understanding that the current sequence is still ongoing. I then argued that the more “marked” forms (that is, initial forms in subsequent positions and subsequent forms in initial positions) are also used for very specific interactional functions: by using an initial form in a subsequent position, speakers mark the beginning of a new sequence. When using a subsequent form in initial position, speakers target the assessable as a referent easily accessible to their coparticipant due to a common orientation by all participants. Chapter 3 further analyzed the design of the compliment turn by exploring how speakers express the positiveness of their compliment assertion by both semantic and syntactic means. Beyond referential expressions, the syntactic and semantic design of compliments demonstrates that speakers use specific constructions in order to place additional emphasis on the assessable and to create cohesion between themselves and their coparticipant. In fact, it is argued that the design of compliments in the present data is not obviously different from general assessments; it is only the context in which they are uttered that makes their interactional function recognizable. Chapter 4 tied together the discussion of the structural features of compliments with the overall organization of the sequence in which compliment turns

Concluding discussion 

are placed. A data segment from multi-party talk provided evidence that an analysis of only the syntax and semantics of a potential compliment turn is not sufficient to unambiguously determine which action the turn is performing. While not denying the “formulaic character” (Manes & Wolfson 1981) of compliment turns, Chapter 4 argued instead that it is the position of a compliment turn within the larger interactional and sequential context that determines its function. Put differently, similar to other studies conducted in a CA framework (Heritage 1984b; Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998; Schegloff 1995b), the chapter demonstrated the interconnectedness of (a) the linguistic form an utterance takes, (b) the sequential context in which it is placed, and (c) the action it is performing. In the exploration of the connections between form, sequential position, and action, the concept of preference organization proved to be a pivotal analytic instrument. In the literature (Holmes 1986: 500; Wolfson 1983: 88), seemingly contradictory functions have been attributed to compliments (e.g., strengthening apologies, thanks, and greetings; mitigating criticisms, requests, and directives), yet the literature does not provide a principled account as to why compliments may be heard in these particular ways. By applying the framework of preference organization, Chapter 4 was able to do precisely that. The chapter showed that compliments are regularly placed in both preferred and dispreferred environments, both in first and in second pair parts. Contrary to previous accounts of the function of compliments which relied on the proximity of a complimenting turn to other speech-acts (Holmes 1986: 500), Chapter 4 pinpointed the location and social action of compliments with much finer granularity. For example, in discussing the mitigating function of compliments in requests (a dispreferred first pair part), I showed that compliments typically occur before the request component, thereby delaying the requesting utterance in the sequence and marking it as a dispreferred action. The fact that the requesting turn is delayed (and moreover is delayed by a positive statement) provides the coparticipant with an additional opportunity to produce an offer before a request is uttered. Similarly, compliments also occurred in dispreferred second pair parts. When placed after a rejection or an invitation, compliments served as explanations that the reason for rejecting the offer or invitation is not attributable to the coparticipant. When placed before the action performing a dispreferred response (e.g., before a rejection of an offer or invitation), compliments served to delay the dispreferred action. When compliments were produced in preferred first or second pair parts, the analysis showed that these compliments fulfilled an additional action beyond that of complimenting. Those actions were, for example, a noticing, an ex-

 Chapter 7

pression of gratitude, an alignment with a story, an acceptance, etc. Moreover, this additional action also constituted a preferred action in that particular local environment. I concluded Chapter 4 by arguing that it is with respect to the sequential organization of the interaction in general, and with reference to preference organization in particular that compliments can be said to be face-saving or face-maintaining, or to have a social-solidarity-building function. As Heritage (1984b) demonstrates, it is the sequential design of the actions that contributes to the maintenance of social solidarity: “It will be obvious enough that the preferred format responses to requests, offers, invitations and assessments are uniformly affiliative actions which are supportive of social solidarity, while dispreferred format responses are largely destructive of social solidarity” (Heritage 1984b: 268). Chapter 5 analyzed compliments given in multi-party interactions. The focus of this chapter was on “second” compliments, that is, on those compliments given by a third party either before or after the compliment recipient has responded. The analysis showed that these second compliments have the form of agreements, and that these agreeing third party turns are regularly placed before the response of compliment recipient. Moreover, I showed that agreeing third-party turns never occurred in those instances in which the compliment was part of a dispreferred first or second pair part (such as a request, a rejection, a criticism, etc.). This is seen as an indication that interactants are keenly aware of the functions compliments are performing in discourse. While all second compliments occurred in preferred environments, not all compliments given in such environments in multi-party talk contained a second compliment. In most instances, the reason for this “missing” second compliment was that (a) the third party did not have access to the assessable; or (b) that the participation framework made a compliment implausible (such as when the only third party to the compliment exchange was a co-host of the evening, and thus better characterized as a recipient of the compliment, rather than its giver). Put differently, in a large number of cases where a second compliment was ‘missing’, it was not relevantly absent. When compliments were relevantly absent, participants were shown to orient to this. Agreeing third party compliments were expressed either with a gustatory mmmh (Gardner 1997; Wiggins 2001, 2002), with confirmation markers (i.e., ja ‘yes’, mm hm, or a head-nod), or with a response pursuit marker (Harren 2001; Jefferson 1980). I argued that with a gustatory mmmh the agreeing party is expressing his or her agreement in the form of an expression of shared experience, specifically shared pleasure. This form of an agreement also demonstrates

Concluding discussion 

to the coparticipants that the assessable is evaluated at the moment of “speaking.” In addition, this form of agreement (much like gestures) allows for other concurrent activities, such as eating. An agreement with the complimenting speaker could also be achieved by the third party producing a confirmation marker such as ja/‘yes’ (or variations there of), mm huh/‘uh huh’, or head nods. As previously stated, the data sample was not large enough to observe any systematic differences with respect to the function of these response tokens. Additionally, when taken together, the data do not allow for any claims as to when the third-party speaker has arrived at a positive evaluation of the assessable; the presence of the response token merely states that they are in agreement with the compliment speaker. In contrast, by producing the response token ne?, the agreeing third party implies an epistemic stance. Harren (2001: 127) argued that ne? as an entire turn usually restates a prior statement by the speaker. The analysis in Chapter 5 showed that this description can be extended to agreeing third party turns that contain ne? as a sole component. Put differently, by using this token, the agreeing party re-invokes a prior and independently formed opinion of the assessable. In two data segments, the agreeing third party used more than a minimal agreement token. It was noteworthy that in both instances, some form of elicitation was involved: in one instance, a self-deprecation elicited a compliment and its subsequent agreement from a third party, while in the other instance the action that was subsequently complimented was elicited by the compliment speaker (i.e., it was performed on demand). A larger data base would have to be consulted to verify that sequences involving elicitation regularly require an upgraded (i.e., more than minimal) agreement by a third-party speaker. In contrast to other assessment sequences in which the person addressed by the first pair part provides the second pair part, the agreements provided by third parties do not bring the compliment sequence to closure. Instead, the agreement-producing speaker expresses his or her alignment and affiliation with the original compliment speaker. As Chapter 5 showed, this alignment can be produced along different lines of membership categories: husband and wife, guest and host, etc. It was further noted that the minimal nature of these agreeing turns renders them as non-intrusive; that is, they do not indicate a shift from listenership (or in this instance, “bystandership”) to speakership of a longer turn in progress. Instead, these turns simply express an alignment with the compliment speaker. These second turns can be heard as such since they are tied (Sacks 1992: Volume 1; Fall 1967: Lecture 14, p. 733) to the compliment by their position immediately next to them.

 Chapter 7

In Chapter 6, I analyzed responses to compliments. As compliment responses in American English had previously been studied from a CA perspective (Pomerantz 1978), this chapter presented a unique opportunity for a cross-cultural comparison. When responding to compliments, a compliment recipient is under two mutually exclusive constraints (Pomerantz 1978). On the one hand, a compliment is a form of an assessment; as such, the preferred next pair part is an agreement with the assessment. On the other hand, engaging in self-praise is a dispreferred activity which is routinely sanctioned. Pomerantz (1978) shows that in addition to accepting and rejecting compliments, speakers have strategies available that allow them to address the conflicting constraints; that is, compliment recipients are seen to respond to compliments with turns that have some agreeing and some disagreeing features. While in Pomerantz’s data this was the most frequent response type, Chapter 6 showed that this is not the case for the present German corpus. Specifically, the analysis showed that while the different response types that contain agreeing and disagreeing features are present in the German corpus as well, other responses occur more frequently and with greater regularity. Contrary to claims in etiquette books that downplays or rejections to compliments seem to be the standard response, the data in the present corpus revealed that Germans regularly accept compliments. Yet, they do not do so in the fashion recommended by etiquette books (i.e., with danke/‘thank you’) but instead by (a) assessing the compliment assertion, (b) confirming the compliment assertion, thus agreeing with it, or (c) by providing a same strength assessment followed by the agreement pursuit marker ne?. In a next step, I analyzed the compliment responses in their overall sequential position. The previous chapters had demonstrated (a) that compliments can perform different functions in discourse and (b) that third parties were sensitive to these different functions as seen by when they placed agreeing turns, and when they did not. The question thus arose as to whether this sensitivity to sequence organization and functions of complimenting turns would also be observable in the responses that recipients gave. The analysis indeed showed that compliment recipients are sensitive to the function that compliments are performing, in that their responses are oriented to the action a complimenting turn is performing. For example, when a compliment was part of a dispreferred first pair part and functioned as a criticism of a third party, complimenters withheld a response; instead, the person targeted by the criticism responded. Similarly, when the compliment performed the function of requesting an item, the action-oriented response constituted an offer of said item rather than an acceptance of the compliment. When compliments were

Concluding discussion 

part of dispreferred second pair parts such as rejections of invitations or offers, the complimenters again oriented to the action of rejecting an item and not to the action of complimenting. When compliments were produced as part of preferred pair parts (both first and second pair part), a large variety of responses could be observed and only some general regularities could be discerned from the present data set. One such regularity was that compliments that functioned as pre-closings and/or as expressions of thanks were regularly responded to with an assessment of the compliment assertion. It was argued that the assessing response also served as an expression of thanks and thus created mutual support and alignment of the speakers. A comparison with American English compliment acceptances revealed that none of the German acceptance types occur in American English, and that the acceptance types found in American English (such as an expression of thanks or an agreeing turn) do not occur in German. Put differently, while both cultures have ways of accepting a compliment, the design of these acceptance turns differs drastically across the two speech communities. I then presented one data segment where this difference in the organization of acceptances leads to a repair sequence in an interaction between a native speaker of American English and a highly proficient first language German-second language English speaker who had had extensive training in the English language, had spent time abroad, and used English professionally. I suggested that this data segment posed questions for the acquisition and teaching of pragmatics.

. Broader implications In this section, I discuss some of the broader implications of this study. In particular, I discuss the contribution which the present work makes to the study of talk-in-interaction and to the study of interactional linguistics. ..

Sequence organization and methodology

As mentioned before, the only studies so far to adopt this particular framework for the study of complimenting behavior are Pomerantz (1978); Valdés and Pino (1981); Wieland (1995), and Golato (2002a). While adopting a sequential analysis, these studies focus only on compliment responses, disregarding the form and function of the complimenting turn itself. The present study has extended this earlier body of work by demonstrating the relationships between compliment turns, agreeing second compliments, and compliment responses.

 Chapter 7

Adopting a sequential approach, one in which the focus is on the actions a turn is accomplishing, adds another layer to the analysis. For example, similar to Pomerantz (1978), in an earlier study I could only list different German compliment response types (Golato 2002a). The present study took into account the action a compliment turn is doing to which an interlocutor is responding; this allowed for additional systematics to be uncovered. For example, as the discussion in the various chapters has shown, compliments that are a part of rejections are oriented to differently (and systematically so) by third-parties and compliment recipients than are compliments that are parts of expressions of thanks. It stands to reason that the observed gain in analytical depth is not restricted to the study of compliments or compliment responses, but can be extended to other speech events as well. Thus, any study of second pair parts is going to gain in analytical power if one is intimately familiar with the actions the given first pair part accomplishes in discourse and how this action is organized. The present study has also provided additional evidence for what other studies have shown before: interlocutors are keenly sensitive to the sequential organization of talk-in-interaction as it unfolds on a moment-by-moment basis. Specifically, interactants clearly orient to the actions utterances are accomplishing, rather than to an utterance’s syntactic or semantic surface structure. This became apparent in Chapters 4–6 in particular. In Chapter 4, for example, we saw that turns that semantically resembled a compliment were used by interactants to perform a variety of different actions including noticing and thanking, but that they were also used to criticize or to delay a rejection. We also saw that it was the specific placement of these turns in the overall sequence of actions that allowed these actions to be performed by turns that had the typical semantic and syntactic structure of a compliment. In each instance, this placement of a compliment formula within either a preferred or dispreferred first or second pair part was locally managed and locally designed by the participants; it was thus an interactional accomplishment. As pointed out above, third parties to compliments also demonstrated that they monitor the conversations for the actions a turn (here, a compliment) is performing, as their agreeing turns are action-specific. If the action of an individual turn was not the relevant measure to which third parties oriented, one would expect them to agree with virtually all compliments given in multi-party talk on objects or characteristics that they have access to themselves. Moreover, one would expect these responses to be very similar in their design and placement. However, this was not the observed behavior. As discussed above, third party bystanders only produced agreeing responses when the compliment utterance did indeed

Concluding discussion 

perform a preferred first or second pair part, but not when the compliment performed dispreferred actions such as rejections, criticisms, etc. Moreover, with their agreeing turns, participants also provided their own epistemic stance – which again was achieved by placing specific agreement tokens in sequentially relevant positions. As argued above, compliment recipients also produced their compliment responses in an action-specific manner, thus demonstrating their orientation to the sequential organization of talk-in-interaction. This focus on sequences, that is, on actions accomplished through talk, has always been a basic tenet of CA (e.g., Heritage 1984b: 152; Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998; Psathas 1990; Schegloff 1995b; ten Have 1999). Adopting this same focus allowed me to demonstrate that complimenting and responding to compliments are social acts; moreover, it allowed me to demonstrate how these social acts are accomplished by the interactants and for which purposes. Because I adopted a sequential approach, the findings of the present study went considerably beyond what has been discovered about compliments and compliment responses thus far. In order to analyze the unfolding sequence in which a turn is placed in order to determine that turn’s interactional design and function, the researcher has to have the kind of data that allows for this type of analysis. Recalling the various data collection procedures presented in Chapter 2, it is obvious that only data consisting of video- and/or audio-taped naturally occurring interaction allows for the repeated and fine-grained analysis necessary for the study of linguistic forms within their interactional (i.e., sequential) environments. ..

Interaction and grammar

The discussion in Chapter 3 has shown that since they choose referential expressions to reflect the placement of a turn within a sequence, interlocutors are clearly sensitive to the sequential organization of their talk as it unfolds. With these observations, the chapter also made a contribution to the body of work on ‘interaction and grammar.’ The chapter demonstrated that grammatical choice (here, selection of a referring expression) was indeed shaped by the interaction for which it was used. Thus, the chapter provided additional evidence for the argument that social organization influences grammar (Schegloff et al. 1996: 44). The chapter further contributed to the field of interactional linguistics, specifically to the study of anaphora, by corroborating research findings on person reference and extending them to the organization of reference to objects.

 Chapter 7

When analyzing the syntactic and semantic features of compliments in German, I was able to show that these utterances, much like their English counterparts, are very formulaic in nature. That is, the data base featured a core base of syntactic structures and lexical items for the construction of compliments. In contrast to other studies, however, I demonstrated that by merely looking at the syntax and semantics of a turn, we cannot unambiguously determine which action this turn is performing. Only by combining an analysis of syntax, semantics, and sequence organization did it become apparent that what is generally understood as a compliment turns out to be far more intricate both in design and in function than a lay definition would ever imply. I further demonstrated in Chapter 3 that certain constructions (e.g., dislocations, stress patterns, etc.) were used for very specific interactional functions in the design of the compliment turns. Thus, the discussion demonstrated that grammar can indeed shape interaction. Further demonstrations of this view could be found in the discussion of the functions of the particle ne? (Chapters 5 and 6) and of other response tokens. Incidentally, not much research has been conducted thus far on German response tokens. However, the findings of the present study indicate that while various tokens seem to share some characteristics (e.g., they can be placed as agreeing turns to compliments), interactionally they do not perform identical functions. As stated in Chapter 5, this corroborates the work of other researchers who have worked on response tokens and who have argued convincingly against grouping them into one single category (e.g., Gardner 1997, 2002; Harren 2001; Jefferson 1984; Schegloff 1981; Sorjonen 2001; Zimmerman 1993). As was pointed out in the introduction, one emphasis in the study of the interrelationship between grammar and interaction views grammar as “the linguistic shaping of an utterance is intertwined with the changing relationships among participants over interactional time” (Schegloff et al. 1996: 44).

. Directions of future research In each of the individual chapters, I have suggested additional avenues for future research. Rather than repeating them here, I would like to point out two broader areas in which the present research could be extended. One such area concerns compliments given in settings different from the ones studied here; the other concerns the study of response tokens. In the following I will provide a brief discussion each of these areas.

Concluding discussion

The present study has only looked at compliments in conversations between family and friends; thus, it is limited in scope. A logical next step would be to study compliments in settings in which coparticipants are on less familiar terms with each other in order to see whether compliments in these settings are formed in a similar fashion and serve similar or different interactional functions. Such settings would for example be service encounters or encounters in public places (sport events, cafés, bars, etc.). In this regard, observational accounts have shown compliments to play a role in flirting behavior (Leisi 1978; I. Leisi & Leisi 1993; Schwarze 1994), yet a conversation analytic study as to how and when an assessing and complimenting utterance is oriented to by participants as flirting behavior has not yet been undertaken. Similarly, the design and function of complimenting behavior in talk in institutional settings, such as at the workplace or in educational settings, is of interest. The limited work that has been done in this domain on English (Holmes 1986: 488; Streeck 1979) suggests that compliments are one means of socializing children into appropriate behavior, and work by Kotthoff suggests that praising behavior in school and workplace settings are organized differently in American English and German (Kotthoff 1989). In addition to pointing out the need for additional research on compliments, the present study has, in various chapters, touched upon the role of response tokens and confirmation markers. It has been indicated in the various chapters that work on English (e.g., Gardner 2002) and on Finnish (Sorjonen 2001) has yielded systematic differences between individual tokens and even phonetic variants of tokens. Chapters 5 and 6 demonstrated that different functions of such tokens can be observed for German as well. While studies on some individual response tokens do exist (Auer & Uhmann 1982; Ehlich 1979; Kallmeyer & Schmitt in press), to my knowledge no research to date has conducted a systematic investigation of the various tokens used in German. A very cursory look at my German transcripts shows that these tokens are frequent not only in English (Gardner 2002: 3) and Finnish (Sorjonen 2001: 2), but also in German, and thus certainly deserve systematic study. Moreover, they merit study as they are the typical means by which “listeners” can provide the current speaker with information as to how their talk was understood and receipted (Gardner 2002: 3) and how the recipient aligns with the current utterance (Gardner 2002: 3; Sorjonen 2001: 2). In short, the provide information on the interlocutors’ stance on the utterance produced thus far (Gardner 1998). As Sorjonen (2001: 4) put it, such tokens “accomplish interaction, cognitive (epistemological) and affective actions and they also participate in constituting certain kinds of participant identity. They are means through which members



 Chapter 7

of a speech community collaboratively and in a systematic fashion go about constituting activities in and through which they manage relationships and practical tasks in everyday life.”

Notes

Chapter 1 . Compliments and responses to compliments have been studied for American English (Herbert 1986, 1989, 1990; Herbert & Straight 1989; Holmes 1986, 1988, 1995; Holmes & Brown 1987; Knapp, Hopper, & Bell 1984; Pomerantz 1978; Wolfson 1981a, 1983; Wolfson & Manes 1980), for African American English (Henderson 1996), for British English (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1989; Lorenzo-Dus 2001; Ylänne-McEwen 1993), for South African English (Chick 1996; Herbert 1989, 1990; Herbert & Straight 1989), for Australian English (Cordella, Large, & Pardo 1995), for New Zealand English (Holmes 1986, 1988, 1995; Holmes & Brown 1987) for Arabic (Farghal & Al-Khatib 2001; Mursy & Wilson 2001; Nelson, Al-Batal, & Echols 1996; Nelson, El Bakary, & Al-Batal 1993), for Chinese (Chen 1993; Fong 1998; Liang 1998; Liu 1995; Yang 1987; Yuan 1996, 2001, 2002), for Finnish (Ylänne-McEwen 1993), for French (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1987; Wieland 1995), for German (Golato 2002a; Schwarze 1994), for Japanese (Barnlund & Akari 1985; Saito & Beecken 1997), for Korean (Han 1992), for Polish (Herbert 1991; Jaworski 1995; LewandowskaTomaszczyk 1989), for Brazilian Portuguese (Barbosa 1996; Brezolin 1995), for Spanish (Cordella et al. 1995; Duttlinger 1999; Haverkate 1993; Lorenzo-Dus 2001; Moore 1996; Valdés & Pino 1981); and finally, a variety of other languages are addressed in Manes (1983) and in Wolfson (1981a). . One etiquette book gives advice for Germans traveling abroad. Of particular interest is the section dealing with tourism to the US, entitled: USA: Alles super finden/‘USA: find everything super’ (Rätzke 2000: 74). Under this rubric, the first advice given is to smile, to like everything, and to pay compliments (Rätzke 2000: 74). . By simply glancing at some of the titles in the list of references, it becomes immediately obvious that many other researchers have done the same. Even some that have published work on both compliments and on compliment responses have done so separately, without investigating the interconnectedness of those two actions (Herbert 1986, 1989, 1990, 1991; Herbert & Straight 1989; Holmes 1986, 1988, 1995; Manes 1983; Manes & Wolfson 1981; Wolfson 1981a, 1983, 1984; Wolfson & Manes 1980). . For intellectual histories of this approach to the study of grammar, see the introduction (Schegloff, Ochs, & Thompson 1996) to Ochs, Schegloff, and Thompson (1996), and the introduction (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2001) to Selting and Couper-Kuhlen (2001).

 Notes

Chapter 2 * Sections of this chapter first appeared as part of an article entitled “Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk” in Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), March 2003, 90–121. They are reprinted here with permission from Oxford University Press. . Compliments have also been studied in the field of social psychology (e.g., Kanouse, Gumpert, & Canavan-Gumpert 1981); however, the focus here is on the effects of compliments and praise on cognitive, attentional, and motivational processes. . As a clarification as to what counts as naturally occurring data, Potter (2002, 2004) suggests what he terms the “(conceptual) dead social scientist’s test: would the data be the same, or be there at all, if the researcher got run over on the way to work? An interview would not take place without the researcher there to ask the questions; a counseling session would take place whether the researcher turns up to collect the recording or not” (Potter 2002: 541). . See in this regard also the debate between Speer (2002a, 2002b), ten Have (2002), Lynch (2002), and Potter (2002). . I am grateful to one of the editors of Applied Linguistics for this observation. . Similarly, when presented with a DCT, native speakers of German also claim to use Danke/‘thank you’ as a compliment response (Golato 2003), a response not found in naturally occurring interactions (Golato 2002a, see also Chapter 6). . Interestingly, in all of these studies, a longer response is always depicted as a better response, without any critical reflection of why that should be so. . Note that this is different from saying that exogenous factors are never considered; CA simply requires the analyst to demonstrate with the data that the variables are real to the participant (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 5). It should be mentioned here too that many of the systematic features conversation analytic research has uncovered (e.g., features of turntaking, repair, etc.) work independently of exogenous factors (Drew 1990: 27). . For a clear example of this principle, see Silverman’s (1998: 110–111) account of Schegloff ’s (1972) work on telephone openings. Alternatively, see Egbert’s study on the role of eye-gaze and the repair initiator bitte? (pardon?) (Egbert 1996). Egbert found that Germans use this particular general repair initiator when there was no eye-gaze between the participants during the production of the repairable. The production of the repair initiator re-establishes repair between the participants. In her study, the single instance in which the repair sequence between a non-native speaker of German and a German native speaker was different from all other instances in her collection led Egbert to consider the role of eye-gaze (Egbert, personal communication). . I owe much of the discussion on “generalizability” to the numerous conversations with my husband, Peter Golato, which served to sharpen my appreciation of issues related to psycholinguistics, experimental design, and data analysis. . There is potentially a more serious problem related to adopting an experimental methodological approach to analyzing transcript or DCT data. If such data are in the form of frequencies (i.e., counts or tallies of instances of behavior; e.g., the number of compliments

Notes

given of a particular turn shape, the number of instances in which someone responded “das Fleisch, exzellent”, etc.), then statistically speaking they lack true numerical status. One of the assumptions of inferential statistical analyses (e.g., t–tests and analyses of variance) is that the data being analyzed are true numbers of an interval nature (e.g., ounces, seconds, temperature, voltage, etc.). Analyzing frequency data with a statistical procedure designed for interval data is methodologically unsound, since it leads to uninterpretable (not to mention ungeneralizable) results. For a clear discussion of these and related issues with specific reference to research in applied linguistics, see Hatch and Lazaraton (1992).

Chapter 3 . Compliment responses are discussed in Golato (2002a) and also in Chapter 6. Second compliments by a speaker who is neither the compliment recipient nor the giver of the first compliment generally take the form of agreements in German, usually expressed with confirmation markers (i.e., ja ‘yes’, richtig ‘correct’, or stimmt ‘true’). These types of compliments are discussed in Chapter 5. . This table contradicts Fox’s observation (in a personal communication to Schegloff, as stated in (Schegloff 1996a: 476, Note 21) that a great many assessments are done with full NPs. The discussion below will provide the explanation Schegloff called for (Schegloff 1996a: 476, Note 21), that is, it will show when and why speakers use full NPs and when they employ other forms. . This figure is reprinted from Givón, T. (1983). “Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction.” In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins; with permission from John Benjamins. . There is an important difference between the data for the present study and those of Givón’s study. In contrast to the present study which relies on conversational data, Givón’s account (Givón 1983a: 17) was based on spoken and written narratives in which single speakers and writers talked about items that were not physically present. This difference in data might account for the discrepancies. In any case, Givón’s description of referential expressions does not account for the present data set. . See Schegloff (1996a) for a detailed discussion. . See Auer (1984: 627) for a similar observation: “Conversationalists may formulate ‘what they are doing’ as ‘arguing’, ‘complaining’, ‘joking’ or whatsoever, but not as ‘establishing reference’, although they must continually do referential work in order to ‘argue’, ‘complain’, ‘joke’, etc.” . When referring to an interlocutor, the pronoun du/ihr/Sie ‘you’ (informal singular/informal plural/formal singular and plural, respectively) is the normal and “unmarked” form. Using a name, as in ‘Aunt Annette is nice’ when Aunt Annette is both the interlocutor and the person referred to, is more “marked” and has particular interactional implications (discussed in detail in Schegloff 1996a).



 Notes . This is a grammatically incorrect plural form (it should be “Damen”/Ladies”; this “s” is added for humor). . Actually, Freddie had admired the very same roses shortly after he had arrived at Sybille and Bernhard’s house. However, Freddie was alone in the yard at that time: Sybille had gone into the kitchen, and Bernhard was in the basement fetching the drink that Freddie had requested. Thus, when Freddie paid these prior compliments, neither Sybille nor Bernhard could have heard him. This particular compliment is discussed later in the chapter. . Note here, that the complimenting turn in lines 1–2 consists of what Ono and Thompson (1994) term “unattached NPs” in English. They describe a number of different pragmatic functions for such noun phrases, among them that of assessing. Clearly, this German unattached noun phrase (together with several others in this category) is used for an assessment. If German unattached noun phrases also perform the other pragmatic functions described by Ono and Thompson for English needs yet to be investigated. . Ethnographic note: The only meat prepared during this dinner was lamb. The referent of Fleisch/‘meat’ and Lammfleisch/‘lamb meat’ are thus identical. Fleisch/‘meat’ would normally not be used in German in order to refer to sausage. . One reader pointed out that had Tobias used a pronoun, e.g., das/‘this’, it could potentially have referred to würstchen/‘little sausage’, as both würstchen and lammfleisch are neuter nouns. The reader thus suggested that perhaps the full noun may have been used in order to make clear which referent Tobias had intended. While this argument makes sense from a grammatical point of view, I doubt it applies in the present situation: A double-check with the recording showed that when Tobias paid the compliment in line 9, he had not sampled the sausage yet. It would thus be unusual for him to compliment on this particular food item. . For a similar discussion of the connection between reference and sequence organization, see Fox (1987). . If Tobias were instead talking with a third person about Annette, he would be able to refer to her by using her name or by using a third person pronoun. . Note too that in their responses, both Uschi and Annette had also used subsequent reference forms: Uschi had used a pronoun ihn/‘it’, and Annette had used a demonstrative das/‘that.’ . Ethnographic information. . Der/die/das can also be an article. In all the compliment turns in the data set, das is clearly used as a (demonstrative) pronoun since it fulfills the same syntactic function as a noun phrase (Eisenberg 1999: 179), whereas articles fulfill different syntactic functions. In addition, the definite article der/die/das is different from the demonstrative pronoun der/die/das in the genitive case and in the dative plural (Eisenberg 1999:180). Dieser/diese/dieses are also demonstrative pronouns, but are used less in colloquial German (Durrell 1992: 18, 171). Eisenberg (Eisenberg 1999: 134–169) discusses some of the differences between dieser/dieses/diese and der/die/das used as articles and pronouns. Auer (1981) points out that when they are used as a demonstrative article, dieser/diese/diese are primarily used in identification sequences when speakers convey to their coparticipants that the iden-

Notes 

tification they provide may be insufficient. Dieser/diese/dieses do not occur in any of the 62 compliments in my database. . According to Ehlich (1986: 295), German so/‘so’ focuses the attention of the coparticipant both retrospectively, i.e., on the actions that have already happened, and prospectively, i.e., on the actions yet to come. It thus marks transitions between actions and functions as an interjection. . I have no explanation for the use of English in this particular segment. . Freddie does not receive any uptake because unbeknownst to him, he finds himself alone on the porch at that time. Both Bernhard and Sybille have gone inside to fetch food and drinks. . Evidence for this claim comes from the fact that all of the data for the current category stem from face-to-face interaction. Telephone data did not yield any non-overt reference in locally initial position. I would like to thank Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm for making this observation. . Just as speakers can overestimate their coparticipants’ knowledge in any other reference or identification activity (Auer 1984), they could potentially do so with regard to compliment references as well. While the current data base did not yield any such examples, interactants could avail themselves of the practices of repair in order to resolve such a mismatch between anticipated and actual knowledge. . For a criticism of the terms “right dislocation” and “left dislocation” and their underlying analyses, see Schwitalla (1997: 76–77) and Ashby (1988). . Auer (1984: 628) then points out that Garfinkel (1967) has labeled the practices of filling in non-verbalized information “ad hocing”. . See Auer (1993: 194) for a complete list of constructions which allow or require the verb to be placed at the beginning of the clause/utterance. . The second person singular form of the verb können ‘can’ is kannst du ‘can you.’ In speaking, however, speakers often run this together such that the [u] in du becomes a schwa which is pronounced together with the verb, yielding kannste. See Auer (1993: 199) for a more detailed discussion of this point. . Auer further distinguishes between two types of so-called “verb first clauses”. Auer employs the term eigentliche Verbspitzenstellung ‘actual verb-first positioning’ (my translation) for utterances in which the topic is named but the verb is fronted. Segments (26) and (27) would fall into this category, as the position of topic and predicate has simply been switched. Auer employs the term uneigentlich Verbspitzenstellung ‘non-actual verb-first positioning’ (my translation) for those utterances in which the topic is syntactically truly missing (all data segments listed under (a)–(d) would fall into this category). While different in structure and possible origin (Auer 1993: 201), the interactional function of eigentliche and uneigentliche Verbspitzenstellung is the same (Auer 1993: 203). . Gardner (1997) uses the term degustatory marker, while Wiggins (2002) uses gustatory marker. As Wiggins analyzes the marker in much greater detail, I follow her labeling.

 Notes . “Nudellas” is a play on word. It sounds like a cross between nudeln/‘noodles’, and nutella, a favorite chocolate spread – a connection Uschi and David vocalize in their subsequent repair. . The mhmm:: in line 3 is a second compliment produced by a third party. Such agreeing compliments are discussed in detail in Chapter 5. . Women and men did not display any differences in the use of these adjectives. . Interestingly, German assessments contain structures with the first person (sg. and pl.), and they also regularly contain the construction Ich finde. . . ‘I find. . .’. . A chi square analysis showed that the gender of the compliment giver does not predict the gender of the recipient. . At least mathematically, the various men respectively produced 1, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6, and 8 compliments each.

Chapter 4 . A note of caution: as noted above, these researchers used observational data as the basis for their analysis. That is, research assistants, most of them female, noted the next 20 compliments they overheard, received, or gave. In addition, they noted a number of contextual features. As I have argued, such data are limited (Golato 2003, see also Chapter 2). The findings from this research thus have to be taken with some caution. . With the exception of those compliments that are phrased in terms of the interlocutors; e.g., ‘I love your sweater’, etc. . Holmes and Brown base their figures for American English on Manes and Wolfson (1981). . Manes and Wolfson (1981) and Holmes and Brown (1987) simply list the various syntactic formulae without discussing whether or not any of them are used for specific interactional functions (as I did for the German data in the previous chapter). Thus, the reader is left with the impression that these constructions can be used interchangeably. However, given that syntactic variation has been linked to interactional function for German (see previous chapter) and for English with respect to other constructions (Schegloff 1996a), I would strongly suspect that the syntactic patterns listed in this table are also used in specific interactional circumstances and not in others. Along similar lines, it is somewhat misleading to label a turn element as “optional” as the presence of a specific individual word can lead to a different interactional trajectory (see, for example Sorjonen & Heritage 1991). . I would like to thank Emanuel A. Schegloff for making this data segment available to me. . This is in contrast to what has been claimed by others (Duttlinger 1999: 2). . This is, of course, in line with the basic tenet of CA, which seeks to focus on actions accomplished through talk, i.e., sequences (Schegloff 1995b), and less so on the linguistic composition of a turn: “CA is a radical departure from other forms of linguistically oriented analysis in that the production of utterances, and more particularly the sense they obtain,

Notes 

is seen not in terms of the structure of language, but first and foremost as a practical social accomplishment. That is, words used in talk are not studied as semantic units, but as products or objects which are designed and used in terms of the activities being negotiated in the talk” (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998: 14). . See for example the work on offers and requests in Persian (Taleghani-Nikazm 1998, 1999) and on telephone openings in both Persian and German (Taleghani-Nikazm 2002a). . This information can be gleaned from the present phone conversation; it is, however, not shown in the transcript above. . For similar observations with regard to the function of food assessments (compliments) in British English, see Wiggins (2001). . For a detailed discussion of these agreeing turns, see Chapter 5. . See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion. . Annette is actually using the same verb as Ricki had used in line 1. Moreover, the assessment tokens that both Ricki and Annette are using start with the same sound that Anna has problems producing: /g/. As this data segment does not present the only case of alliteration in the data, I have started a small collection to be analyzed in the future. This phenomenon is addressed briefly by Schwitalla (1997) with respect to German, and with respect to English by Sacks (1992: Vol. 2; Winter 1971, lectures on poetics). . Interestingly, other than a gaze towards her partner, Sybille does not seem to respond to the compliment or the expression of thanks. From the camera angle, one cannot determine whether or not she was blinking slowly, winking, smiling, or otherwise responding to Freddie. . By saying “re:” in this particular card game, a player announces his or her certainty of winning the round. If indeed the player is right, his or her team will score additional points. . Incidentally, compliments are involved here as well. As they are not first compliments, they are not discussed in the present chapter. The interested reader may consult Günthner (2000: 155–202). . In her response, Sybille recycled the positive adjective used by Tobias, although Sybille did not perform a second assessment of the evening but instead assessed the compliment itself. . It is actually already after midnight and the visit started at 7. Thus, it cannot really be said that Tobias and his wife are leaving the gathering unusually early or prematurely. However, Kotthoff (1989) suggests that upon a guest’s announcement that he or she will be leaving, it is the tendency of Germans to encourage them to stay longer. According to Kotthoff, this then results in the leaving party having to state reasons for wanting to leave. . Freddie does not receive any uptake because unbeknownst to him, he finds himself alone on the porch at that time. Both Bernhard and Sybille have gone inside to fetch food and drinks. . Ethnographic information. . A similar observation has been made by Holmes (1986: 499), although not couched in sequential terms.

 Notes . The remainder of the compliment sequence (including the word search) and Freddie’s agreement with the compliment will be discussed in a later section of this chapter. Freddie’s turn with which he claims independent evaluation of the assessable will be discussed in Chapter 5. . How one determines a speaker’s intent is conveniently not discussed. A conversation analytic study of a compliment turn within its larger sequence (rather than an analysis of the compliment turn alone, as in Brown & Levinson 1978/1987) may be able to determine a speaker’s intent by analyzing whether or not a coparticipant orients to a given turn in a manner congruent with the proposed intent. Additionally, an analysis of the larger sequence would allow the analyst to see whether or not a given compliment giver verbalizes (or otherwise acts out) his presumed intent. . Incidentally, this is the only (potential) compliment in the data that is designed as a statement by a speaker about a co-present person. An analysis of a larger data set of such compliment turns would have to determine whether their interactional function differs from other compliments. One might also argue that Irmgard’s turn does not even constitute a first assessment/first compliment, as Tobias’s turn are clearly evaluative as well. However, Tobias’s utterances are evaluations of the picture in front of him, while Irmgard’s turn is an evaluation of Bernhard (this is due to the tense and adverbials she has chosen). . Again, and as argued at the beginning of the chapter (and in Chapter 2), such an analysis is only possible if the researcher has access to the unfolding sequence of the interaction, as is the case in the present study, which is based on recordings of naturally occurring talk.

Chapter 5 . Gardner (1997) uses the term degustatory marker, while Wiggins (2002) uses gustatory marker. As Wiggins analyzes the marker in much greater detail, I follow her labeling. . For English, Jefferson (1984) describes a systematic difference between the use of mm hm and yeah in some speakers. Additionally, Zimmerman (1993: 181–182) raises the question as to whether phonetic or intonational contour variation in the production of individual tokens may have interactional implications. Gardner (1997) demonstrates that both are relevant in the case for the Australian Mm. A single case analysis of the 13 German instances in the present section did not yield any observable differences with respect to the interactional achievement associated with each of them. However, very little research has been conducted so far with respect to the different types of German acknowledgment tokens and their interactional function; thus a study of this kind would be a very worthwhile endeavor. . For a definition of gustatory mmmhs and how they are different from other mmmhs, see Gardner (1997) for a discussion of Australian English and Wiggins (2002) for a discussion of American English. For a discussion of these types of distinctions with respect to German, see Chapter 3. . For a discussion of embodied pleasure, see Wiggins (2001, 2002).

Notes  . Not relevant to the present discussion, yet of interest to researchers working on repair (Egbert 1996, 1997b, to appear; Selting 1987a, 1987b, 1988): all three speakers use a different German rendition for the word “lime.” This fact results in a short repair sequence following this data excerpt. . While evident from ethnographic information, the other potential membership category “couple vis a vis couple” (Ricki is aligning with her husband in thanking another couple) cannot be demonstrated to be observably relevant to the participants in the interaction. . This is a grammatically incorrect plural form (it should be Damen/‘Ladies’; this “s” is added for humor). . This mhum/‘uhum’ is phonetically very different from a gustatory mmmh – even to the non-analyst’s ear. The gustatory mmmhs are usually produced as one lengthened sound, whereas the agreeing/confirming mhum is produces with something similar to a glottal stop, rendering it as two syllables. . While response tokens have been studied for Australian English (Gardner 1997, 2002) and for Finnish (Sorjonen 2001), to my knowledge such a study has not yet been undertaken for German. It therefore remains to be seen whether ja/‘yes’ and mm hm/‘uhum’ accomplish different interactional functions. In the present data set, no differences in the usage of the two tokens could be observed. . In her response, Sybille recycles the positive adjective used by Tobias, although Sybille is not performing a second assessment of the evening but is instead assessing the compliment itself. . The following examples are taken from Harren (2001), the translations are mine: 1.

ne? in tag position:

(a) (Harren 2001: 59): Nr. 42 (SC) 01 Silke: ja. =nur zu Monika kann ich dann yes.=but to monica can I then yes.=but I cannot really go along => 02

halt nich mitgehn.=>ne?< PRT not go along.=>right?< to Monica’s.=>right?
12 Mutter:

ne? right? right?

13

(.)

14 Karin:

mhm,? weil da [möcht ich dann uhm,? because there[want I then uhm,? because [I would really [ [(al-) [(we-) [(we-)

14 Mutter:

15 Karin:

3.

ir[land,? ir[eland,? ir [eland,? [

doch schon ganz gerne mal hin. PRT PRT intens.like PRT there. like to go there some time.

ne? in word searches:

(c) (Harren 2001: 32): 14 Silke: da:then:then:-

Nr. 19 (SC) kann=ich gleich be(h)sser can=I now be(h)tter I=might as well(h) stay

15

zu(h) hause bleibm .hh un=dann war at(h) home stay .hh an=then was at(h) home .hh an=then I

16

ich heute halt auch nich beim I today PRT also not at also didn’t go

Notes 

17

sport.=weil erstmal is das der sports.=cause first is this the ecercising.=cause first of all it’s

18

letzte abnd mit karin .h un:d last evening with Karin .h an:d the last evening with Karin .h an:d

=> 19

ehm (0.6) ne? uhm (0.6) right? uhm (0.6) right?

20

(0.5)

21

ah[ehhh uh[ehhh uh[ehhh [

22 Carsten:

[(geht/könnt) ihr noch ein [(go / can) you still one [(you can / you will) go out for a

23 Carsten: saufn,?=ne? drink,?=right? drink,?=right?

. As a matter of fact, while Harren does not use the term “epistemic stance”, much of her discussion alludes to it (see in particular her summarizing remarks (Harren 2001: 129)). Based on Harren’s study, I would argue that ne? could very appropriately be termed a marker of epistemic stance. . In Harren’s (2001) data, ne? was frequently (but not always) placed in word searches dealing with sensitive topics. Thus the placement of ne? allowed the speaker to not produce the delicate item by appealing to the ability of the coparticipant to fill in the missing word. . Given the data segment, one might argue that Freddie’s placement of ne? was pure coincidence, that in effect he was attempting to position it at the end of the completed TCU kumma die- (.) ro:sen/‘look the- (.) ro:ses’ but that Irmgard just happened to go on. Regardless of what his “intentions” were; even if ne? had been placed at the end of the previously completed TCU, it would not change the argument. Ne? is placed at the end of statements, to obtain agreement from the coparticipants and thus to change speakership (Harren 2001). As a result, even when assuming a tag position of ne?, Freddie would still come across as both collaboratively completing his wife’s turn while at the same time attempting to select either Sybille or Bernhard as the next speaker. . As discussed at the end of the previous chapter, Freddie makes several more attempts to interrupt Irmgard by trying to build a second compliment about some other flower in the garden. This constitutes further evidence of his sense of entitlement to be the one to evaluate the flowers in the garden. . The ethnographic background information that Freddie is a trained and avid gardener leaves room to speculate that he may feel a certain entitlement to be the one to assess flowers. Further support for this speculation comes from the following segment, uttered more than half an hour after the ones discussed so far, in which Freddie compliments Sybille on her roses – and he designs this compliment as a first compliment (see Chapter 3), in effect behaving as if Irmgard had never paid a compliment on the roses at all (although we do note

 Notes

that Irmgard complimented the hosts on a particular rose-arrangement, whereas Freddie is complimenting the roses in general). (d) [Doppelkopf, 0:45:35:29 / läuse] 1 S: [drei punkte ] [three points ] [three points ] [ ] 2

I: [ja schau mal] guck [yes look PRT] look [yes look ] look

3

S: für die da[mens ((B is writing on his pad)) for the wo[mens for the la[dies [

=> 4

F:

[sybille du hast aber schöne [sybille you have but nice [sybille you have really nice

=> 5

F: ro:sen dieses jahr ro:ses this year ro:ses this year

6

(.)

7

I: [ja, [yes, [yes, [

8

F: [die sehn gut aus. [that(fem.)look good. [they look good.

9

(.)

10 S: musste mal richtich gucken. ich weiss must+you PRT right look. i know you have to look properly. i don’t 11 S: es nich [ich hab noch nich gekuckt] it not [i have yet not looked ] know [i haven’t looked yet ] [ ] 12 F:

[doch hab schon gekuckt ] [no have already looked ] [no have already looked ]

13 S: ja? yes? yes? 14 I: läuse halten [sich bedeckt ha ha ha .hh lice hold [refl. covered ha ha ha .hh the lice [are minimal ha ha ha .hh [ 15 F:

[un die duften so [and they+fem smell so [and they smell so

Notes 

16 F: schön hier nice here nice here 17 S: ((nods))

. nur noch/‘only’ is ambiguious here. It can mean only in a conditional sense (i.e., following qualifying exams, the only thing left to do before receiving a doctoral degree is the dissertation), but it can also have a belittling sense (i.e., there’s very little left to do, only the dissertation.) By initiating self repair and by adding stress to nur noch, Bernhard is playing with these two senses of the words. . The reader may also want to see Chapter 4, data segment (8), in which Markus used a compliment to elicit an offer (rather than producing a request – which is dispreferred over offers). Here, too, a third-party speaker did not agree with the compliment (although she herself had had some of the complimented food item earlier during the breakfast). . However, being involved in a second conversation does not necessarily mean that a speaker is prevented from providing a second compliment to a first compliment given in a parallel conversation. Egbert (1997a) and Markee (to appear) show that speakers are able to monitor the talk in a parallel conversation.

Chapter 6 * Large portions of this chapter are reprinted from the Journal of Pragmatics, 34, Andrea Golato, “German Compliment Responses,” pp. 547–571, 2002, with permission from Elsevier. . A cross-cultural comparison was not included in the other chapters, as the work on the design and function of compliment turns in various varieties of English was conducted within different methodological frameworks. As the discussion in Chapters 2–4 has shown, those methodological frameworks were limited in that they do not allow for the sequential analysis of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. . Unless indicated otherwise, all data segments in this section are taken from Pomerantz (1978). . Pomerantz categorized this data segment as a rejection although one might want to categorize it rather as questioning the compliment assertion rather than denying it. . Holmes (1986), and Herbert (1990) who also investigate American English, find more acceptances/agreements than rejections/disagreements in their corpora. I believe the reason for this difference in the results to be twofold. First, these researchers categorize agreements differently than Pomerantz does. For example, Holmes (1986: 492) counts appreciation tokens, agreement tokens, an agreeing utterance, a downgrade or qualification, and a compliment return (but interestingly enough not any other referent shift) as agreements, while Pomerantz views the latter two as “inbetween categories” (see Table 6.1); (b) as noted above, neither Holmes and Herbert used tape-recorded conversation as a basis for their analysis but relied instead on field notes of observers. As argued in Chapter 2, this method

 Notes

of data collections has obvious shortcomings and ramifications in data categorization and interpretation. . Unfortunately, Herbert does not provide any context of the compliment nor was any nonvocal behavior of the speakers described. . It is interesting that in her response, speaker S recycles the positive adjective used by speaker T, although speaker S does not perform a second assessment of the evening but instead assesses the compliment itself. . As already mentioned in the previous chapter, a more comprehensive study would have to be undertaken to analyze whether variations of this response token are associated with different interactional achievements, as has been shown for some response tokens in Australian English (Gardner 1997). . This type of second assessment was also found as a second pair part to assessments that were not compliments, i.e. when speakers were evaluating an object or a person other than the coparticipant (Auer & Uhmann 1982: 5, and discussion thereof on pages 10–11, translation mine): (a) X: dhh Dorizithin dhh dorizithin ((name of medication)) dhh dorizithin ((name of medication)) C: ja di hab ich auch genommen also ich fand yes them have i also taken well i found yes i took them too, i found them even to C: die sogar gut; them even good; be good; =>

X: ja sin se auch yes are they also yes they are

. M and B know each other well enough for M to know that B never goes shopping. This background information and M’s eye gaze towards B are strong indications that M is complimenting the cook and is not simply assessing the quality of the meat. . B has her mouth full and is chewing the cake. . In her response, Sybille recycles the positive adjective used by Tobias, although Sybille is not performing a second assessment of the evening but is instead assessing the compliment itself. . The problems associated with such an approach have already been outlined in Chapter 2.

Chapter 7 . The reader will recall that this sequential account is different from the notion of “topic.” As the discussion in Chapter 3 has shown, an object can be referred to for the first time within a sequence (and thus be referred to with a full noun phrase) but still have been the “topic” in an earlier sequence.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1974). “Verbatim and propositional representation of sentences in immediate and long-term memory.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 149–162. Anderson, J. R. & Bower, G. (1974). “A propositional theory of recognition memory.” Memory and Cognition, 2, 406–412. Ashby, W. J. (1988). “The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and rightdislocation in French.” Lingua, 76, 203–229. Aston, G. (1995). “Say “Thank you”: Some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings.” Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 57–86. Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan. Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, P. (1981). “Zur Indexikalitätsmarkierenden Funktion der demonstrativen Artikelform in deutschen Konversationen.” In G. Hindelang & W. Zillig (Eds.), Sprache: Verstehen und Handeln. Akten des 15. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Münster 1980 (pp. 301–310). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Auer, P. (1984). “Referential problems in conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 627–648. Auer, P. (1991). “Vom Ende deutscher Sätze.” ZGL, 19, 139–157. Auer, P. (1993). “Zur Verbspitzenstellung im gesprochenen Deutsch [The verb in first position in spoken German].” Deutsche Sprache, 3, 193–222. Auer, P. (1996). “On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations.” In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation (pp. 57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, P. & Di Luzio, A. (Eds.). (1992). The Contextualization of Language [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 22]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Auer, P. & Uhmann, S. (1982). “Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen [Aspects of the conversational organization of assessments].” Deutsche Sprache, 10, 1–32. Baggertipps. (2000). Das richtige “Killer”Kompliment. Retrieved December 15, 2002, from http://www.baggertips.de/kapitel_6.htm Barbosa, M. L. F. d. F. (1996). “Estrategias de polidez em repostas a elogios.” Trabalhos em Linguistica Aplicada, 28 (July–Dec.), 5–17. Barnlund, D. C. & Akari, S. (1985). “Intercultural encounters: The management of compliments by Japanese and Americans.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16 (1), 9–26.

 References

Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (1985). “Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure?” Paper presented at the TESOL Convention. New York. Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (1996). “Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance.” In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 65–86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Billmyer, K. (1990). “ “I really like your lifestyle”: ESL learners learning how to compliment.” Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 6 (2), 31–48. Billmyer, K. & Varghese, M. (2000). “Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tasks.” Applied Linguistics, 21 (4), 517–552. Bilmes, J. (1988. “The concept of preference in conversation analysis.” Language in Society, 17, 161–181. Bluewin (2002). Komplimente: Was sie hören will und er nie sagt. Retrieved February 12, 2002, from http://www2.bluewin.ch/magazin.index.php/lifestyle/horoskop/1003 Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). “Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196–213. Bodman, J. & Eisenstein, M. (1988). “May God increase your bounty: The expression of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers.” Cross Currents, 15 (1), 1–21. Brezolin, A. (1995). “Elogios e repostas a elogios: Uma taxionomia descritiva.” Uniletras, 17 (Dec.), 111–130. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978/1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burkhardt, A. (1982). “Gesprächswörter. Ihre lexikologische Bestimmung und lexikographische Beschreibung.” In W. Mentrup (Ed.), Konzepte zur Lexikographie. Studien zur Bedeutungserklärung in einsprachigen Wörterbüchern (pp. 138–171). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Byrnes, H. (1986). “Interactional style in German and American conversations.” Text, 6 (2), 189–206. Chen, R. (1993). “Responding to compliments. A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics, 20 (1), 49–75. Chick, J. K. (1996). “English in interpersonal interaction in South Africa.” In V. De Klerk (Ed.), Focus on South Africa (pp. 269–283). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cordella, M., Large, H., & Pardo, V. (1995). “Complimenting behavior in Australian English and Spanish speech.” Multilingua, 14 (3), 235–252. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1993). English Speech Rhythm. Form and Function in Everyday Verbal Interaction [Pragmatic & Beyond New Series]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). “Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech.” In W. Bublitz & U. Lenk (Eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse (pp. 11–33). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2001). “Introducing interactional linguistics.” In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (Eds.). (1996). Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References 

Drew, P. (1990). “Conversation analysis: Who needs it?” Text, 10 (1/2), 27–35. Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992a). “Analyzing talk at work: An introduction.” In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work. Interactions in Institutional Settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992b). Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Durrell, M. (1992). Using German: A Guide to Contemporary Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duttlinger, C. (1999). Komplimente im Spanischen [Hochschulsammlung Philosophie: Sprachwissenschaft 12]. Freiburg (Breisgau): HochschulVerlag GmbH. Eder, R. (2002). Ein Kompliment zur rechten Zeit. Retrieved December 2, 2002, from http://www.womenweb.de/lovesex/sonstiges/artikel.html?artielid=3973 Egbert, M. M. (1996). “Context-sensitivity in conversation: Eye gaze and the German repair initiator ‘bitte’?” Language in Society, 25 (4), 587–612. Egbert, M. M. (1997a). “Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations.” Research in Language and Social Interaction, 30 (1), 1–51. Egbert, M. M. (1997b). “Some interactional achievements of other-initiated repair in multiperson conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 611–634. Egbert, M. M. (to appear). “Other-initiated repair and membership categorization - Some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics. Ehlich, K. (1979). “Formen und Funktionen von ‘HM’. Eine phonologisch-pragmatische Analyse.” In H. Weydt (Ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache (pp. 503–517). Berlin: de Gruyter. Ehlich, K. (1986). “So – Überlegungen zum Verhältnis sprachlicher Formen und sprachlichen Handelns, allgemein und an einem widerspenstigen Beispiel.” Lunder germanistische Forschungen, 55, 279–298. Eisenberg, P. (1999). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Der Satz [2]. Stuttgart, Weimar: J. B. Metzler. Farghal, M. & Al-Khatib, M. A. (2001). “Jordanian college students’ responses to compliments: A pilot study.” Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 1485–1502. Flirtlehrer (2001). Keine uncoolen Komplimente. Retrieved February 12, 2002, from http://www.flirt-lehrer.de/Profitipps/Coolsein/coolekomplimente.html Fong, M. (1998). “Chinese immigrants’ perceptions of semantic dimensions of direct/indirect communication in intercultural compliment interactions with North Americans.” Howard Journal of Communications, 9 (3), 245–262. Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Ford, C. E. (2001). “At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next.” In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 51–80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 References

Ford, C. E. & Fox, B. A. (1996). “Interactional motivations for reference formulation: He had. This guy had, a beautiful, thirty-two o:lds.” In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 145–168). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ford, C. E. & Thompson, S. A. (1996). “Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns.” In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Studies in Anaphora [Typological Studies in Language 33]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). “Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair.” In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 185–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Für-Sie.de (2001a). Da wird der coolste Casanova schwach. Retrieved September 26, 2001, from http://www.fuer-sie.de/magazin/partnerschaft/00653/index.php Für-Sie.de (2001b). Erste Hilfe für peinliche Momente. Retrieved September 26, 2001, from http://www.fuer-sie-de/magazin/gesundheit/01001/index.php Gardner, R. (1997). “The conversation object Mm: A weak and variable acknowledging token.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30 (2), 131–156. Gardner, R. (1998). “Between listening and speaking: The vocalisation of understandings.” Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 204–224. Gardner, R. (2002). When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gesteland, R. R. (1999). Cross-Cultural Business Behavior. Marketing, Negotiating and Managing across Cultures. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolens Forlag. Givón, T. (1983a). “Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction.” In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1983b). “Topic continuity in spoken English.” In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A quantitative Cross-Language Study (pp. 343–363). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Glamour, D. (2002). Männer verstehen: Warum Männern Komplimente so schwerfallen. Retrieved February 12, 2002, from http://www.glamour.de/glamour/liebe/content/ 00884/index.php Goffman, E. (1955/1967). “On face work.” In Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon Books. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Golato, A. (2000). “An innovative German quotative for reporting on embodied actions: Und ich so/und er so ‘and I’m like/and he’s like’.” Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 29–54. Golato, A. (2002a). “German compliment responses.” Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 547–571. Golato, A. (2002b). “Grammar and interaction: Reported discourse and subjunctive in German.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 22 (1), 24–55.

References

Golato, A. (2002c). “Self-quotation in German: Reporting on past decisions.” In T. Güldemann & M. V. Roncador (Eds.), Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains (pp. 49–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Golato, A. (2003). “Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk.” Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 90–121. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. Goodwin, C. (1984). “Notes on story structure and the organization of participation.” In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. (1986). “Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments.” Human Studies, 9 (2/3), 205–218. Goodwin, C. (1995). “Sentence construction within interaction.” In U. Quasthoff (Ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication (pp. 198–219). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1992a). “Assessments and the construction of context.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 147–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1992b). “Context, activity and participation.” In J. C. P. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The Contextualization of Language (pp. 77–99). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Göttert, K.-H. (1987). “Legitimation für das Kompliment.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift, 61. Graesser, A. C. & Mandler, G. (1975). “Recognition memory for the meaning and surface structure of sentences.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 238–248. Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation.” In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Günthner, S. (1999). “Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech.” Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 685–708. Günthner, S. (2000). Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hakulinen, A. (2001). “On some uses of the discourse particle ‘kyl(lä)’ in Finnish conversation.” In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 171–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Han, C.-H. (1992). “A comparative study of compliment responses: Korean females in Korean interactions and in English interactions.” Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 8 (2), 17–31. Hanisch, H. (1999). Kulinarischer Knigge. Perfekte Umgangsformen rund um Essen und Trinken. Niedernhausen: Falken. Hanson, V. L. & Bellugi, U. (1982). “On the role of sign order and morphological structure in memory for American Sign Language sentences.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 621–633. Harbert, R. (1952). Bitte so. Anstandsbüchlein für junge Damen. Recklinghausen: Paulus Verlag.



 References

Harren, I. (2001). ““Ne?” in Alltagsgesprächen – Interaktive Funktionen und Positionierung in Turn und Sequenz.” Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg. Hartford, B. S. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). “Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics.” In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 3 (pp. 33–52). Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Haverkate, H. (1993). “Acerca de los actos de habla expresivos y comisivos en español.” Diálogos Hispánicos, 12, 149–180. Hayashi, M. (1997). “An exploration of sentence-final uses of the quotative particle in Japanese spoken discourse.” In H.-M. Sohn & J. Haig (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (pp. 565–581). Stanford: Center Study Language & Information. Hayashi, M. (1999). “Where grammar and interaction meet: A study of co-participant completion in Japanese conversation.” Human Studies, 22, 475–499. Heath, C. (1986). Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helasvuo, M.-L. (2001). “Emerging syntax for interaction. Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction.” In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 25–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Henderson, A. (1996). “Compliments, compliment responses, and politeness in an AfricanAmerican community.” In J. Arnold, R. Blake, B. Davidson, S. Schwenter, & J. Solomon (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory, and Analysis: Selected Papers from NWAV at Stanford (pp. 195–208). Stanford: Center Study Language & Information. Herbert, R. K. (1986). “Say “Thank you” – or something.” American Speech, 61 (1), 76–88. Herbert, R. K. (1989). “The ethnography of English compliments and compliment responses: A contrastive sketch.” In W. Oleksy (Ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics (pp. 3–35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Herbert, R. K. (1990). “Sex-based differences in compliment behavior.” Language in Society, 19, 201–224. Herbert, R. K. (1991). “The sociology of compliment work: An ethnocontrastive study of Polish and English compliments.” Multilingua, 10 (4), 381–402. Herbert, R. K. & Straight, H. S. (1989). “Compliment-rejection versus complimentavoidance: Listener-based versus speaker-based pragmatic strategies.” Language and Communication, 9 (1), 35–47. Heritage, J. (1984a). “A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.” In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press, in association with Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Heritage, J. (2002). “Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement.” In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References 

Heritage, J. & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). “Introduction.” In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinkel, E. (1997). “Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data.” Applied Linguistics, 18 (1), 1–26. Hirscher, P. (2000). Der moderne Knigge für Alltag & Beruf. Gutes Benehmen und gelungener Smalltalk. Köln: Neuer Honos Verlag. Holmes, J. (1986). “Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English.” Anthropological Linguistics, 28 (4), 485–508. Holmes, J. (1988). “Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy.” Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 445–465. Holmes, J. (1991). “Review of cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies.” Language in Society, 20, 119–126. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness [Real Language Series]. London and New York: Longman. Holmes, J. & Brown, D. F. (1987). “Teachers and students learning about compliments.” TESOL Quarterly, 21 (3), 523–546. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices and Application. Cambridge: Polity Press. Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. (1981). “Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation.” Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 118–132. Jaworski, A. (1995). “ “This is not an empty compliment!” Polish compliments and the expression of solidarity.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 63–94. Jefferson, G. (1980). “The abominable Ne?. An Exploration of post-response pursuit of response.” In P. Schröder & H. Steger (Eds.), Dialogforschung. Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp. 53–88). Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Jefferson, G. (1983). “Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 28. Jefferson, G. (1984). “Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “yeah” and “Mm hm”.” Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197–216. Jefferson, G. (1985). “An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter.” In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 25–34). London: Academic Press. Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Stevenson, R. (1970). “Memory for syntax.” Nature, 227, 412. Johnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1998). “Effects of rejoinders in production questionnaries.” Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 157–182. Kallmeyer, W. & Schmitt, R. (in press). “JA ABER: Ein Formativ zum interaktiven Management von Widerspruch.” Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion. Kanouse, D. E., Gumpert, P., & Canavan-Gumpert, D. (1981). “The semantics of praise.” In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New Directions in Attribution Research (pp. 97–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Kasper, G. (2000). “Data collection in pragmatics research.” In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (pp. 316–341). London and New York: Continuum.

 References

Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). “Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (2), 215–247. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1987). “La desciption des échanges en analyse conversationnelle: l’exemple du compliment.” DRLAV, Revue de linguistique, 36–37, 1–53. Knapp, M. L., Hopper, R., & Bell, R. A. (1984). “Compliments: A descriptive taxonomy.” Journal of Communication, 34 (4), 12–32. Koshik, I. A. (forthcoming). Rhetorical Questions in Everyday Interaction [Studies in Discourse and Grammar]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Koshik, I. A. (1999). “A preliminary investigation into the effect of grammatical cohesive devices – their absence and their misuse – on the comprehension of non-native speaker speech and writing.” Issues in Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 3–25. Koshik, I. A. (2002). “A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions.” Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (12), 1851–1177. Kotthoff, H. (1989). “So nah und doch so fern. Deutsch-amerikanische pragmatische Unterschiede im universitären Milieu.” Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 16 (4), 448–459. Kotthoff, H. (1993). “Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures.” Language in Society, 22, 193–216. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1984). “Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation.” In J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics (pp. 28–53). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lederer, H. (1969). Reference Grammar of the German Language. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Lehrer, A. (1989). “Remembering and representing prose: Quoted speech as a data source.” Discourse Processes, 12, 105–125. Leisi, E. (1978). Paar und Sprache [Uni-Taschenbücher]. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer. Leisi, I. & Leisi, E. (1993). Sprach-Knigge oder Wie und was soll ich reden? [3rd ed.]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Lerner, G. H. (1987). “Collaborative Turn Sequences: Sentence Construction and Social Action.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of California, Irvine. Lerner, G. H. (1991). “On the syntax of sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society, 20, 441– 458. Lerner, G. H. (1993). “Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation.” Text, 13, 213–245. Lerner, G. H. (1995). “Turn design and the organization of participation in instructional activities.” Discourse Processes, 19, 111–131. Lerner, G. H. (1996). “On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker.” In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lerner, G. H. (2002). “Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction.” In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 225–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References 

Levinson, S. (1992). “Activity types and language.” In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work. Interactions in Institutional Settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (1989). “Praising and complimenting.” In W. Oleksy (Ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics (pp. 73–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Liang, Y. (1998). Höflichkeit im Chinesischen. Geschichte, Konzepte, Handlungsmuster. München: Iudicium Verlag. Liu, D. (1995). “Sociocultural transfer and its effect on second language speakers’ communication.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19 (2, spring), 253– 265. Lord, R. (1996). Culture Shock! Germany. A Guide to Customs and Etiquette. Portland, OR: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company. Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2001). “Compliment responses among British and Spanish university students: A contrastive study.” Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 107–127. Lynch, M. (2002). “From naturally occurring data to naturally organized ordinary activities: Comment on Speer.” Discourse Studies, 4 (4), 531–537. Manes, J. (1983). “Compliments: A mirror of cultural values.” In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 96–102). Rowley, MA; London; Tokyo: Newbury House Publishers. Manes, J. & Wolfson, N. (1981). “The compliment formula.” In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp. 115–132). The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton Publishers. Markee, N. (2002). “A conversation analytic perspective on quantification and generalizability in applied linguistics and SLA.” Paper presented at the ILTA/AAAL Plenary Panel, American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference: (Re)Interpreting Applied Linguistics, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 6–9, 2002. Markee, N. (to appear). “A conversation analytic perspective on off-task classroom talk: Implications for Second Language Acquisition Studies.” In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying Conversation Analysis. London: Palgrave-McMillan. Märtin, D. & Boeck, K. (1998). Small Talk. Die hohe Kunst des kleinen Gesprächs. München: Wilhelm Heyne Verlag. Moerman, M. (1974). “Accomplishing ethnicity.” In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 54–68). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Moore, Z. (1996). “Teaching culture: A study of piropos.” Hispania, 79 (1), 113–120. Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 8]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mück, H. (2002). Kompliment-Trainer. Retrieved December 2, 2002, from http://www.drmueck.de/HM_Beziehung/HM_Kompliment-Trainer.htm Mursy, A. A. & Wilson, J. (2001). “Towards a definition of Egyptian complimenting.” Multilingua, 20 (2), 133–154. Naumann, F. (2001). Die Kunst des Smalltalk. Leicht ins Gespräch kommen, locker Kontakte knüpfen [2nd ed.]. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. Nelson, G. L., Al-Batal, M., & Echols, E. (1996). “Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic failure.” Applied Linguistics, 17 (4), 411–432.

 References

Nelson, G. L., El Bakary, W., & Al-Batal, M. (1993). “Egyptian and American compliments: A cross-cultural study.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 293–313. News-Aktuell. (2000). Komplimente: Wie Frauen souverän damit umgehen können. Retrieved September 9, 2001, from http://www.VerbraucherNews.de/artikel/0000005254.html Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ono, T. & Thompson, S. A. (1994). “Unattached NPs in English conversation.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20, 402–419. Pomerantz, A. (1978). “Compliment responses. Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints.” In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction (pp. 79–112). New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press. Pomerantz, A. (1984a). “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomerantz, A. (1984b). “Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling ‘how to know’.” Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 607–625. Potter, J. (2002). “Two kinds of natural.” Discourse Studies, 4 (4), 543–548. Potter, J. (2004). “Discourse analysis.” In M. A. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of Data Analysis (pp. 607–624). London: Sage. Psathas, G. (1990). “Introduction: Methodological issues and recent developments in the study of naturally occuring interaction.” In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction Competence (pp. 1–29). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation Analysis. The Study of Talk-in-Interaction [Qualitative Research Methods Series 35]. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman. Rätzke, A. (2000). Benimm-Tipps. . . für alle Lebenslagen [Bild Buch]. München: Ullstein Taschenbuch. Rintell, E. M. & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). “Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method.” In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 248–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Rose, K. R. (1992). “Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response.” Journal of Pragmatics, 17 (1), 49–62. Rose, K. R. (1994). “On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western contexts.” Applied Linguistics, 15 (1), 1–14. Rose, K. R. & Ono, R. (1995). “Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type.” Language Learning, 45 (2), 191–223. Sachs, J. D. S. (1967). “Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse.” Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437–442. Sachs, J. D. S. (1974). “Memory in reading and listening in discourse.” Memory and Cognition, 2, 95–100. Sacks, H. (1972). “On the analyzability of stories by children.” In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 329–345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

References 

Sacks, H. (1987[1973]). “On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation.” In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Ed. by Gail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell. Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). “Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction.” In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language. Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language, 50 (4), 696–735. Saito, H. & Beecken, M. (1997). “An approach to instruction of pragmatic aspects: Implications of pragmatic transfer by American learners of Japanese.” Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 363–377. Schegloff, E. A. (1972). “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 346–380). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Schegloff, E. A. (1979). “The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation.” Syntax and Semantics, 12, 261–286. Schegloff, E. A. (1980). “Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” ” Sociological Inquiry, 50 (3–4), 104–152. Schegloff, E. A. (1981). “Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences.” Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981; Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, Washington, DC. Schegloff, E. A. (1984). “On some questions and ambiguities in conversation.” In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 28–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). “Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization.” In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 70–85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Schegloff, E. A. (1988). “Presequences and indirection. Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). “In another context.” In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactional Phenomenon (pp. 191–228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1993). “Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (1), 99–128. Schegloff, E. A. (1995a). “Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28 (3), 185–211. Schegloff, E. A. (1995b). Sequence Organization. Unpublished manuscript. Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). “Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics.” In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 References

Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52– 133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language, 53 (2), 361–382. Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). “Introduction.” In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). “Opening up closings.” Semiotica, 8 (4), 289–327. Scheutz, H. (2001). “On causal clause combining: The case of ‘weil’ in spoken German.” In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 111–140). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schwarze, A. (1994). Die Magie der schönen Worte. Alles über Komplimente. Frankfurt am Main: Eichborn. Schwitalla, J. (1997). Gesprochenes Deutsch. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Scott, P. J. (1987). The Implications of a Conversation Analysis Approach to Request Sequences for English Language Teaching. University of York. Scotton, C. M. & Bernsten, J. (1988). “Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue.” Applied Linguistics, 9 (4), 372–384. Selting, M. (1987a). “Fremdkorrekturen als Manifestationsformen von Verständigungsproblemen.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 6 (1), 37–58. Selting, M. (1987b). “Reparaturen und lokale Verstehensprobleme oder: Zur Binnenstruktur von Reparatursequenzen.” Linguistische Berichte, 108, 128–149. Selting, M. (1988). “The role of intonation in the organizatin of repair and problem handling sequences in conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 293–322. Selting, M. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2001). Studies in Interactional Linguistics [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks. Social Science & Conversation Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 70]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sorjonen, M.-L. & Heritage, J. (1991). “And-prefacing as a feature of question design.” In L. E. A. Laitinen (Ed.), Laikkanspiste (pp. 59–74). Helsinki: Finnish Linguistic Society. Speer, S. (2002a). “‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction?” Discourse Studies, 4 (4), 511–525. Speer, S. (2002b). “Transcending the natural/contrived distinction: A rejoinder to Ten Have, Lynch and Potter.” Discourse Studies, 4 (4), 543–548. Steves, S. (1995). “So jung, so schön!” Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Funktion der Komplimente. Wetzlar: Kletsmeier. Streeck, J. (1979). “Sandwich, good for you. Zur pragmatischen und konversationellen Analyse von Bewertungen im institutionellen Diskurs in der Schule.” In J. Dittmann (Ed.), Arbeiten zur Konversationsanalyse (pp. 235–257). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Streeck, J. (1988). “Seniorinnengelächter.” In H. Kotthoff (Ed.), Das Gelächter der Geschlechter (pp. 54–77). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

References 

Sucher, C. B. (1996). Hummer, Handkuß, Höflichkeit. Das Handbuch des guten Benehmens. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (1998). “Politeness in Persian interaction: The preference format of offers in Persian.” CLIC: Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture, 1, 3–11. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (1999). “Politeness in Native/Nonnative Speaker Interaction: Some manifestations of Persian Taarof in the Interaction among Iranian Speakers of German with German native speakers.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2000). “Pragmatic transfer in telephone openings.” Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, parasession on Grammar and Interaction. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, April 13–15, 2000. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2002a). “A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and nonnative speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1807–1832. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2002b). “The sequence organization of request granting-declining in everyday German conversation.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Copenhagen, May 17–21, 2002. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (in press). “The interactional function of German conditional wennclauses (if-clauses) in the social action of requests.” ROLSI. Tanaka, H. (2001). “The implementation of possible cognitive shifts in Japanese conversation: Complementizers as pivotal devices.” In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics (pp. 80–110). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ten Have, P. (1999). Doing Conversation Analysis. A Practical Guide. London, Thousand Oaks, New Dehli: Sage Publications. ten Have, P. (2002). “Ontology or methodology?: Comments on ‘natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction?, by Susan Speer.” Discourse Studies, 4 (4), 527–530. Thomas, J. (1983). “Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.” Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 91–112. Valdés, G. & Pino, C. (1981). “Muy a tus ordenes: Compliment responses among MexicanAmerican bilinguals.” Language in Society, 10 (1), 53–72. Wanner, E. (1974). On Remembering, Forgetting, and Understanding Sentences. The Hague: Mouton. Wieland, M. (1995). “Complimenting behavior in French/American cross-cultural dinner conversations.” The French Review, 68 (5), 796–812. Wiggins, S. (2001). “Construction and action in food evaluation.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20 (4), 445–463. Wiggins, S. (2002). “Talking with your mouth full: Gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35 (3), 311–336. Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (1984). Improving Pragmatic Aspects of Learner’s Interlanguage. Tübingen, Germany: Narr. Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (1989). “Coexisting discourse worlds and the study of pragmatic aspects of learners’ interlanguage.” In W. Olesky (Ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics (pp. 251– 275). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wolfson, N. (1981a). “Compliments in cross-cultural perspective.” TESOL Quarterly, 15 (2), 117–124.

 References

Wolfson, N. (1981b). “Invitations, compliments and the competence of the native speaker.” International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8 (4(24)), 7–22. Wolfson, N. (1983). “An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English.” In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 82–95). Rowley, London, Tokyo: Newbury House Publishers. Wolfson, N. (1984). “Pretty is as pretty does: A speech act view of sex roles.” Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 236–244. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives. Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Wolfson, N. & Manes, J. (1980). “The compliment as a social strategy.” Papers in Linguistics, 13 (3), 391–410. Wong, J. (2000). “Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English.” Applied Linguistics, 21 (1), 244–267. Wong, J. & Olsher, D. (2000). “Reflections on conversation analysis and nonnative speaker talk: An interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff.” Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11 (1), 111– 128. Yang, S.-Y. (1987). “A comparison between Chinese and American cultures in forms of address, greetings and farewells, and compliments.” Cross-Currents, 13 (2, spring– summer), 13–28. Ylänne-McEwen, V. (1993). “Complimenting behavior: A cross-cultural investigation.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 14 (6), 499–508. Yuan, Y. (1996. “Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of English pragmatics of advanced Chinese speakers of English.” Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 20 (2), 861–872. Yuan, Y. (2001). “An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 271–292. Yuan, Y. (2002). “Compliments and compliment responses in Kunming Chinese.” Pragmatics, 12 (2), 183–226. Yule, G. (1998). Explaining English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zimmerman, D. H. (1993). “Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency revisited.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (2), 179–194.

SIDAG[v.20020404] Prn:20/12/2004; 15:03

F: SID15NI.tex / p.1 (241)

Name index

A Akari 11, 213 Al-Batal 213 Al-Khatib 213 Anderson 19 Ashby 217 Aston 13 Atkinson 3, 4, 20, 21, 25, 97, 201 Auer 3, 5, 33, 68, 70–74, 76, 77, 95, 135–137, 167, 178, 179, 211, 215–217, 226

B Barbosa 213 Bardovi-Harlig 13, 14 Barnlund 11, 213 Beebe 13, 14 Beecken 11, 197, 199, 213 Bell 213 Bellugi 19 Bernsten 199 Billmyer 13, 15, 197, 199 Bilmes 112, 113, 155, 156 Blum-Kulka 13 Bodman 14 Boeck 2, 167 Bower 19 Brezolin 213 Brown 8, 77, 85–87, 113, 126, 131, 199, 213, 218, 220 Burkhardt 111, 141 Byrnes 196, 199

C Canavan-Gumpert 214 Chen 213 Chick 213 Cordella 213 Couper-Kuhlen 4, 5, 7, 213 Cummings 13, 14 D Dahl 13, 15–17, 20, 199 Di Luzio 3, 5 Drew 3, 18, 97, 214 Duranti 3, 21 Durrell 38, 71, 73, 76, 216 Duttlinger 2, 94, 213, 218 E Echols 213 Eder 2 Egbert 7, 95, 164, 214, 221, 225 Ehlich 126, 211, 217 Eisenberg 71, 73, 75, 76, 216 Eisenstein 14 El Bakary 213 F Farghal 213 Fong 197, 213 Ford 5, 7, 33, 34, 70, 202 Fox 5, 7, 30, 33, 34, 38, 48, 49, 51, 53, 202, 215, 216 G Göttert 2 Günthner 5, 100, 219

SIDAG[v.20020404] Prn:20/12/2004; 15:03

F: SID15NI.tex / p.2 (242)

 Name index

Gardner 78–80, 135, 152, 204, 210, 211, 217, 220, 221, 226 Garfinkel 217 Gesteland 1 Givón 7, 30, 202, 215 Goffman 2, 122 Golato 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 21, 48, 80, 108, 111, 141, 148, 168, 179, 207, 208, 213–215, 218, 225 Goodwin 3, 5, 8, 50, 62, 77, 87, 108, 138, 152, 164 Graesser 19 Greenbaum 172 Grice 67 Gumpert 214 Gumperz 19

H Hakulinen 5 Han 199, 213 Hanisch 2 Hanson 19 Harbert 64 Harren 7, 99, 111, 130, 131, 135, 137, 141, 144, 146, 152, 178–180, 204, 205, 210, 221–223 Hartford 13, 14 Hatch 215 Haverkate 94, 213 Hayashi 5, 7 Heath 67 Henderson 213 Herbert 11, 13, 18, 83, 85, 170, 173, 174, 184, 191, 192, 213, 225, 226 Heritage 3, 4, 7, 8, 18, 20, 21, 25, 92, 95, 108, 132, 146, 201, 203, 204, 209, 218 Hinkel 14, 15 Hirscher 2 Holmes 8, 13, 18, 77, 82–85, 87, 88, 113, 126, 131, 184, 191, 192, 199, 203, 211, 213, 218, 219, 225 Hutchby 4, 8, 95, 203, 209, 214, 219

J Jackson 100 Jacobs 100 Jasperson 5 Jaworski 213 Jefferson 3, 5, 25, 111, 130, 135, 137, 141, 152, 178, 204, 210, 220 Johnston 13, 15 K Kallmeyer 211 Kanouse 214 Kasper 7, 13–18, 20, 21, 199 Kerbrat-Orecchioni 213 Knapp 11, 170, 213 Koshik 7, 170, 172 Kotthoff 100, 101, 167, 168, 195, 196, 211, 219 L Labov 17, 20 Lederer 71, 75 Lehrer 17, 19 Leisi 2, 167, 211 Lerner 5, 7, 146 Levinson 18, 85, 86, 126, 220 Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 85, 213 Liang 213 Liu 13, 213 Lord 196 Lorenzo-Dus 213 Lynch 214 M Märtin 2, 167 Mück 2 Mandler 19 Manes 7, 11, 17, 18, 64, 77, 82, 85, 87, 88, 113, 125, 203, 213, 218 Markee 7, 22, 24, 225 Mitchell 14 Moerman 15 Moore 213 Mori 5 Mursy 213

SIDAG[v.20020404] Prn:20/12/2004; 15:03

F: SID15NI.tex / p.3 (243)

Name index 

N Naumann 2 Nelson 213 O Ochs 4, 213 Olsher 20, 192 Olshtain 13 Ono 14, 216 P Pino 170, 207, 213 Pomerantz 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 47, 50, 76, 77, 95, 100, 106, 108, 112, 136–138, 168–170, 172, 178, 180, 193, 206–208, 213, 225 Potter 214 Psathas 95, 209 Q Quirk

172

R Rätzke 2, 213 Rintell 14 Rose 13, 14, 142 Ross 13 S Sachs 19 Sacks 3, 5, 7, 13, 25, 67, 93, 95, 125, 132, 151, 156, 172, 178, 205, 219 Saito 11, 197, 199, 213 Schegloff 3–5, 7, 8, 14, 18–24, 33, 34, 41, 50, 53, 57, 67, 68, 70, 72, 95, 100, 101, 108, 124, 125, 131, 132, 152, 156, 157, 178, 192, 202, 203, 209, 210, 213–215, 218 Scheutz 5 Schmitt 211 Schwarze 2, 166, 168, 174, 211, 213 Schwitalla 65, 71, 73, 75, 76, 217, 219 Scott 95 Scotton 199 Selting 4, 5, 213, 221

Silverman 214 Sorjonen 5, 152, 210, 211, 218, 221 Speer 214 Stevenson 19 Steves 2 Straight 11, 85, 173, 213 Streeck 5, 7, 18, 211 Sucher 2, 64 T Taleghani-Nikazm 7, 21, 95, 96, 101, 198, 199, 217, 219 Tanaka 5 ten Have 95, 209, 214 Thomas 199 Thompson 4, 5, 7, 70, 213, 216 U Uhmann 77, 95, 135–137, 167, 178, 179, 211, 226 V Valdés 170, 207, 213 Varghese 13, 15 W Wanner 19 Wieland 11, 207, 213 Wiggins 78–80, 135, 136, 150, 151, 204, 217, 219, 220 Wildner-Bassett 15, 16, 199 Wolfson 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 77, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 94, 113, 125, 131, 132, 184, 191, 203, 213, 218 Wong 20, 192, 199 Wooffitt 4, 8, 95, 203, 209, 214, 219 Y Yang 199, 213 Ylänne-McEwen 197, 213 Yuan 11, 14–16, 19, 20, 197, 213 Yule 62 Z Zimmerman 23, 24, 152, 210, 220

SIDAG[v.20020404] Prn:20/12/2004; 15:07

F: SID15SI.tex / p.1 (245)

Subject index

A acceptance of compliments 168–173, 175, 178, 193, 194, 196, 206, 207 of invitations 95, 99, 204, see also rejections to invitations of offers 95, 204 see also rejections to offers accomplishment 110, 112, 149, 155, 164, 166, 192 see also interactional accomplishment see also interactional achievement account 48, 96, 97, 99, 105, 108, 122, 137, 148, 182, 183, 189, 190 achievement see interactional achievement see interactional accomplishment affiliation 108, 112, 113, 116, 132, 149, 151, 152, 204, 205 see also alignment see also face see also preference agreeing turns 8, 113, 135–152, 161, 163, 180, 189, 190, 204–210, 218, 219, 221, 225 agreement 9, 27, 28, 95, 111, 130, 136–138, 141, 146, 148, 150–152, 155, 165, 169, 170, 174, 177, 179, 180, 189, 190, 193–195, 204–206, 209, 220, 223, 225 pursuit 99, 111, 130, 137, 141, 150, 179, 206 see also response pursuit

alignment 6, 43, 111, 112, 116, 132, 136–141, 148–151, 165, 191, 204, 205, 207, 211 see also affiliation anaphora 5, 7, 30, 33, 51, 72, 202, 209 announcement 108, 111, 112, 122, 124, 162–164, 190, 219 apologies 8, 94, 131, 203 appearance 63, 83, 84, 192 appreciation 99, 100, 116, 170, 172, 174 token 114, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 193, 194, 225 appreciatory sound 29, 35, 44, 45, 54, 62, 70, 73, 77–81, 87, 135 B breakdown 16, 198 see also communication breakdown C challenge 92, 173, 186 clause 5, 17, 74, 217 closing sequence 122, 140, 150 closing-relevant 43, 49, 116, 119 see also sequence closing see also pre-closing co-constructed 67, 201 co-produced 1, 3, 8 collaboration 67, 72 communication breakdown 198 see also breakdown confirmation 99, 137, 152, 175, 177, 181, 194, 204 check 198

SIDAG[v.20020404] Prn:20/12/2004; 15:07

F: SID15SI.tex / p.2 (246)

 Subject index

marker 135, 137, 139, 140, 148, 150, 152, 155, 165, 193, 204, 205, 211, 215 constraints 156, 169, 172, 174, 175, 179, 193–195, 206 context 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 18–21, 27, 74, 82, 88, 95, 126, 132, 134, 161, 166, 185, 195, 201–203, 226 criticism 8, 89, 92–94, 100, 101, 131, 133, 157, 165, 185, 186, 196, 203, 204, 206, 209 see also reprimand see also reproach cross-cultural 9, 169, 185, 193, 197–199, 206, 225 culture 1, 9, 14, 199, 207 D DCT 12–15, 21, 214 demonstrative 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, 44, 54–59, 61, 62, 68, 70, 71, 75, 76, 116, 202, 216 disaffiliatory 94, 106, 128 disagreement 9, 47, 95, 100, 106, 108, 148, 170–173, 175, 180, 181, 193–196, 225 downgrade 47, 108, 137, 167, 171, 173, 176, 178, 181, 194, 198, 225 downplay 168, 195, 206 E embodying 79, 80, 136, 165, 220 etiquette books 1, 2, 64, 134, 155, 166–168, 174, 196, 213 expansion 68, 70, 71, 75, 76 expression of thanks 113, 116, 120, 150, 156, 166, 190, 191, 207, 208, 219 see also thank you see also thanking F face 85, 86, 92 -maintaining 116, 132, 204 -saving 93, 94, 100, 108, 132, 204

-threatening 8, 92, 93, 96, 97, 101, 105, 126–128, 131, 132 -work 94, 152 see also politeness farewell 122, 140 formula 8, 86, 105, 131, 132, 208 formulaic 1, 7, 77, 82, 85–87, 93, 203, 210

G gaze 20, 66, 67, 96, 126, 141–144, 146, 155, 178, 198, 214, 219, 226 gesture 17, 55, 57, 205 gratitude 116, 119, 120, 132, 189, 204 gustatory 78–81, 135–137, 150, 151, 165, 204, 217, 220, 221

H head-nod 17, 55–57, 135, 140–142, 148, 150, 204 hedges 17

I increment 3, 70 insertion sequence 50 see also sequence intensifier 17, 48, 87 interactional accomplishment 5, 208, 219 achievement 5, 7, 8, 20, 27, 34, 35, 94, 106, 220, 226 function 1, 7, 28, 33–35, 43, 54, 72, 81, 82, 94, 95, 116, 122, 135, 141, 152, 184, 202, 209–211, 217, 218, 220, 221 interrupting 86, 223 interruptive 131 intonation 64, 73, 79, 128, 152, 155, 168, 179 contour 70, 101, 152, 172, 220 invitation 95, 97, 99, 100, 132, 169, 186, 189, 203, 204, 207

SIDAG[v.20020404] Prn:20/12/2004; 15:07

F: SID15SI.tex / p.3 (247)

Subject index 

L leave-taking 122 leaving 121, 122, 150, 187, 219 M misaligned 122 misalignments 6 misplacement marker 3, 125, 126, 178 mitigate 8, 96, 97, 100, 101, 105, 106, 131, 157 mitigating function 131, 203 mockery 128 mocking 118 see also teasing N naturalistic 15, 21, 199 naturally-occurring 2, 6, 11–16, 20–24, 34, 94, 174, 199, 201, 209, 214, 220, 225 nonverbal 17, 93, 155, 184, 187, 201, 217 noticing 82, 108, 124–126, 132, 139, 150, 151, 156, 158–160, 166, 189, 191, 203, 208 -by-others 124 O offer 41, 49, 95–97, 99–101, 105, 132, 157, 158, 169, 170, 173, 183, 186, 187, 189, 198, 203, 204, 206, 207, 219, 225 P participation framework 156, 158, 159, 166, 204 placement 4, 7, 8, 77, 86, 93, 94, 97, 100, 105, 106, 116, 127, 131, 132, 134, 135, 146, 151, 152, 165, 208, 209, 223 politeness 85, 94, 95 see also face practices 5, 21, 33, 43, 217 praise 108, 112, 156, 163, 169, 172, 173, 211, 214 see also self-praise pre-closings 116, 119, 190, 207

pre-requests 132 pre-second 50 preference 101, 171, 195 organization 8, 94, 95, 131, 132, 156, 199, 203, 204 pronoun 29, 30, 34–36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 51, 54–57, 59, 61, 62, 68, 70, 71, 75, 76, 82, 87, 96, 125, 149, 202, 215, 216 pursuit see agreement pursuit see response pursuit R recipient 1, 4, 8, 28, 33, 38, 48, 51, 67, 72, 88, 108, 114, 124, 126, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 145, 146, 148, 150–152, 156, 159, 161, 164, 165, 168, 169, 172–174, 181, 182, 184–187, 189, 191, 204, 206, 208, 209, 211, 215, 218 recipient-design 33, 67, 72 rejection 9, 95–97, 99, 100, 165, 170–172, 175, 186, 187, 193, 194, 204, 206–209, 225 of invitations 86, 95–97, 203, 207 to offers 49, 95, 96, 99, 157, 186, 187, 203 repair 5, 99, 115, 146, 164, 207, 214, 217, 218, 221, 225 reprimand 18 see also criticism see also reproach reproach 19, 86, 89, 92, 93, 103, 133 see also criticism see also reprimand request 8, 80, 95, 99, 101, 105, 131, 132, 149, 164, 165, 173, 183, 186, 203, 204, 206, 219, 225 compliance 53, 57 sequences 53, 57, 99, 101, 132 response pursuit 99, 111, 135, 137, 141, 178–180, 193, 195, 198, 204 see also agreement pursuit

SIDAG[v.20020404] Prn:20/12/2004; 15:07

F: SID15SI.tex / p.4 (248)

 Subject index

S sarcasm 93 sarcastic 126, 128 scaled-down 172, 181 schism 128, 131, 161 self-deprecation 47, 48, 106, 108, 147, 149, 190, 205 self-praise 169, 173, 174, 179, 193, 195, 206 sequence 2–4, 7, 9, 13, 14, 20, 25, 27, 28, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48–51, 53, 57, 70, 72, 80, 86, 92–95, 100, 101, 105, 112, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 125, 128, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 140, 144, 146, 150, 158, 160, 161, 165, 168, 174, 178–180, 185, 187, 189, 190, 193, 201–203, 205–210, 214, 216, 218, 220, 221, 226 closing 43, 49, 119, 187 see also closing sequence see also insertion sequence of sequences 131 organization 2–5, 7, 9, 33, 35, 41, 85, 95, 134, 206, 207, 210, 216 social 2, 4, 5, 15, 120, 195, 196, 209, 219 act 6, 8, 24, 209 action 1, 2, 4, 199, 203 solidarity 85, 86, 93, 96, 97, 100, 105, 106, 132, 204 see also solidarity solidarity 82, 92, 99, 179, 180, 191 see also social solidarity

story 41–43, 49, 50, 74, 92, 93, 110, 132, 190, 204 story-response 49 story-telling 43, 67, 92, 190 syntactic 7, 18, 19, 27, 38, 73–75, 77, 82, 85–87, 100, 105, 151, 202, 208, 210, 216, 218 syntax 5, 70, 73, 75, 94, 203, 210 T TCU 38, 43, 49, 51, 54, 57, 62, 68, 71, 75, 76, 135, 140, 144, 147, 165, 223 teasing 118, 128, 169 see also mocking thank you 13, 114, 167, 168, 170, 174, 206, 214 see also expression of thanks thanking 13, 14, 118, 120, 138–140, 150, 151, 158, 190, 208, 221 see also expression of thanks topic 7, 30, 32, 38, 39, 41, 51, 82–84, 87, 120, 125, 141, 146, 167, 184, 191, 192, 215, 223, 226 position 73–76, 82, 217 slot 73–76, 87 U upgrade

111, 205

W withholding 101, 164, 186 word search 55, 57, 128, 131, 141, 144, 146, 220, 222, 223

In the series Studies in Discourse and Grammar the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

GELUYKENS, Ronald: From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction. On Left-Dislocation in English. 1992. xii, 182 pp. IWASAKI, Shoichi: Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse. Theoretical considerations and a case study of Japanese spoken discourse. 1992. xii, 152 pp. WEBER, Elizabeth G.: Varieties of Questions in English Conversation. 1993. x, 252 pp. DOWNING, Pamela A.: Numeral Classifier Systems: The Case of Japanese. 1996. xx, 336 pp. TAO, Hongyin: Units in Mandarin Conversation. Prosody, discourse, and grammar. 1996. xvi, 226 pp. DORGELOH, Heidrun: Inversion in Modern English. Form and function. 1997. x, 236 pp. LAURY, Ritva: Demonstratives in Interaction. The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. 1997. viii, 294 pp. MORI, Junko: Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese. Connective expressions and turn construction. 1999. xii, 240 pp. HELASVUO, Marja-Liisa: Syntax in the Making. The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation. 2001. xiv, 176 pp. SELTING, Margret and Elizabeth COUPER-KUHLEN (eds.): Studies in Interactional Linguistics. 2001. viii, 438 pp. SCHEIBMAN, Joanne: Point of View and Grammar. Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. 2002. xiv, 188 pp. HAYASHI, Makoto: Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. 2003. xii, 250 pp. ENGLEBRETSON, Robert: Searching for Structure. The problem of complementation in colloquial Indonesian conversation. 2003. x, 206 pp. DU BOIS, John W., Lorraine E. KUMPF and William J. ASHBY (eds.): Preferred Argument Structure. Grammar as architecture for function. 2003. x, 459 pp. GOLATO, Andrea: Compliments and Compliment Responses. Grammatical structure and sequential organization. 2005. xii, 248 pp. KOSHIK, Irene: Beyond Rhetorical Questions. Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Expected Spring 2005