Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure Across Languages and Cultures (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Telephone Calls

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series Editor Andreas H. Jucker University of Zurich, English Department Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editors Jacob L. Mey University of Southern Denmark

Herman Parret Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Jef Verschueren Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Editorial Board Shoshana Blum-Kulka

Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

University of Lyon 2

Jean Caron

Claudia de Lemos

Université de Poitiers

University of Campinas, Brazil

Robyn Carston

Marina Sbisà

University College London

University of Trieste

Bruce Fraser

Emanuel Schegloff

Boston University

University of California at Los Angeles

Thorstein Fretheim

Deborah Schiffrin

University of Trondheim

Georgetown University

John Heritage

Paul O. Takahara

University of California at Los Angeles

Kansai Gaidai University

Susan Herring

Sandra Thompson

University of Texas at Arlington

University of California at Santa Barbara

Masako K. Hiraga

Teun A. Van Dijk

St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University

University of Amsterdam

David Holdcroft

Richard J. Watts

University of Leeds

University of Berne

Sachiko Ide Japan Women’s University

Volume 101 Telephone Calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. Edited by Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou.

Telephone Calls Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures Edited by

Kang Kwong Luke University of Hong Kong

Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

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 Telephone calls : unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures / edited by Kang Kwong Luke, Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou. p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 101) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Conversation analysis. 2. Language and culture. 3. Telephone calls. I. Luke, Kang Kwong. II. Pavlidou, Theodossia. III. Series. P95.45. T44 2002 302.3’46-dc21 isbn 9027253412 (Eur.) / 1588112195 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2002071168

© 2002 – 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

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page v

Table of contents

Notes on the contributors Acknowledgments

 

Introduction Studying telephone calls: Beginnings, developments, and perspectives Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou



P I Opening telephone calls Recognition and identification in Japanese and Korean telephone conversation openings Yong-Yae Park



On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek Maria Sifianou



Telephone conversation openings in Persian Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm



Language choice in international telephone conversations Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner



P II Problem solving, topic management and closing Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business telephone conversations Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura



The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls Kang Kwong Luke



Moving towards closing: Greek telephone calls between familiars Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page vi

Table of contents

Part III Theoretical and methodological considerations Comparing telephone call openings: Theoretical and methodological reflections Paul ten Have



Reflections on research on telephone conversation: Issues of crosscultural scope and scholarly exchange, interactional import and consequences Emanuel A. Schegloff



Index



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page vii

Notes on the contributors Paul ten Have is Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He has conducted research in the fields of ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and qualitative research methods. He maintains a web-site, “Ethno/CA News” (http://www.pscw.uva.nl/emca/index.htm), which offers up-todate information on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. ([email protected]) Kang Kwong Luke is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Linguistics, the University of Hong Kong. His research spans the fields of linguistics and conversation analysis, with particular reference to Chinese. He is currently working on the interface between linguistic structure and conversational structure. ([email protected]) Yong-Yae Park is Full-time Lecturer in the Department of English at Seoul National University in Korea. She received her doctoral degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests include conversation analysis, teaching English as a foreign language, cross-linguistic, cross-cultural pragmatics, and discourse analysis.([email protected]) Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou is Professor in the Department of Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Her research interests include telephone and classroom interaction, politeness phenomena, language and gender. She is review editor of the Journal of Pragmatics and also member of the editorial board of the Journal of Greek Linguistics. ([email protected]) Gitte Rasmussen is Associate Professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense. She has done research in intercultural communication and international business communication. ([email protected]) Emanuel Schegloff is Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles and Co-Director of the Centre for Language, Interaction and Culture. He has contributed to many journals and edited volumes, including Interaction and Grammar (Cambridge University Press, 1996), which he co-edited with E. Ochs and S. Thompson. ([email protected]) Maria Sifianou is Professor in the Faculty of English Studies, University of Athens. She has studied in Greece (B.A.) and England (PGLELT, M.A. and Ph.D.). Her main research interests are in politeness theory and discourse analysis in an intercultural perspective. (msifi[email protected]) Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm is Assistant Professor in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures at the University of Kansas, Lawrence. Her research interests include the preference organisation of offers and requests in German and Persian, Persian and German telephone interaction, gestures, and native and non-native speaker interaction. ([email protected])

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page viii

 Notes on the Contributors

Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Japanese Language Program at the University of Maryland, College Park. She received her Ph.D in East Asian Languages and Literatures from the Ohio State University. Her research interests include pragmatics, pedagogical linguistics, and teaching with technology. ([email protected]) Johannes Wagner is Associate Professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense and Head of the International Graduate School in Language and Communication at the same University. He is doing research on non-native interaction, second language acquisiton and teaching, and interaction and grammar. ([email protected])

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page ix

Acknowledgments The publication of this collection of papers would not have been possible without the encouragement, help, and support from many friends and colleagues. First of all, we wish to thank all the participants of the panel on telephone conversation that we organized for the 6th International Pragmatics Conference held at Reims, France, in July 1998. Without their excellent presentations and discussions which resulted in a very stimulating and successful conference, we would not have dreamt of producing a multi-national, multi-lingual volume on the subject. We are also very thankful for the series editor, Andreas Jucker’s very supportive and encouraging response to our idea of publishing such a book. We have been extremely lucky in having been assisted by a most professional and efficient copy-editing and production team; in particular, Isja Conen, Lisl Haldenwang and Ian Spoelstra. The many different languages presented within these covers and the conversational transcriptions have presented many special challenges. We would like to thank Alice Wong, Margery Yeung, Vicki Li and Angela Chan for their able assistance with a great deal of editorial work over a long period of time. Last but not least, we are very grateful to all the authors of this volume for their contributions, which have turned our dream into reality. We must thank them not only for their co-operation throughout, but also for their immense patience, which is truly appreciated. K. K. Luke and Soula Pavlidou November 2002

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page x

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 1

Introduction

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 2

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 3

Studying telephone calls Beginnings, developments, and perspectives* Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou .

Background

Interest in the telephone as a modern communication device goes back a long way, but the systematic study of telephone calls has only been practised for a short time relative to the history of the telephone itself. The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell (1847–1922) in 1876 but the idea and, more importantly, the method of studying telephone conversations was invented by Harvey Sacks (1935–1975)1 almost a century later. From the very start and throughout his short but brilliant career, Sacks was keenly interested in telephone calls. This was a topic with which he started his famous lecture series; this was the topic to which he frequently returned. In his Lectures on Conversation (delivered in 1964 –1972 and published posthumously in 1992), Sacks began with three excerpts taken from telephone calls made to an emergency psychiatric hospital. The question with which Sacks launched his lectures was raised in the following way: I have a large collection of these conversations, and I got started looking at these first exchanges as follows. A series of persons who called this place would not give their names. The hospital’s concern was, can anything be done about it? One question I wanted to address was, where in the course of the conversation could you tell that somebody would not give their name? So I began to look at the materials. It was in fact on the basis of that question that I began to try to deal in detail with conversations. (Sacks 1992, v.l: 3)

Sacks’s solution to the problem hinges crucially on his discovery of “rules of conversational sequence” (Sacks 1992, v.1: 4). He begins with the observation that a turn may provide a slot for a next turn, and when this occurs, the two turns form a conversational unit. The design of the first turn often has an effect on the form of the next slot. For example, if the service

FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 4

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

provider (i.e. the staff of the psychiatric hospital) uses the form “Hello, this is Mr Smith, can I help you?”, this would provide for a next turn in which the caller might give his/her name. The form “This is Mr Smith” therefore has the function of attempting to obtain the caller’s name without actually asking a question (such as “What’s your name?”, which, as Sacks observes, might engender a request for an account, e.g., “Why do you ask?”). On the caller’s part, there are ways of “getting out of ” a situation where the business of giving one’s name is due. In the slot following the service provider’s “hello”, etc., instead of giving their names, callers can initiate a sequence of their own (which is nonetheless relevant to the activity at hand), for example a repair sequence, by saying “hello?” or “I can’t hear you” as though the connection had not been properly made, or “Your name is what?”, thereby turning the service provider’s identity into a question which requires immediate attention. In either case, the business of establishing the caller’s identity gets delayed. It is not our intention to go into a prolonged discussion of Sacks’s first lecture here. With this example, we mean only to underscore the fact that Sacks’s method of “dealing in detail with conversations” was conceived in the first instance in the context of studying telephone calls, and the fact that for Sacks, as it should be for any student of conversation, the significance of the telephone call goes well beyond the confines of the telephone line. Only a handful of students were able to attend Sacks’s lectures in 1964. But thirty-five years on, his questions and solutions have become well-known throughout the field of discourse and conversation analysis.

. Why study telephone calls? For a very long time in human history face-to-face conversation was the primordial site of speech communication. With the invention and popularisation of the telephone in modern societies a second form of conversation has become not only possible but more and more widespread. In many parts of the world, telephone conversations are now an ordinary, even indispensable, part of everyday life. Not only are businesses transacted regularly over the telephone, social relationships too are constantly being constituted, maintained, and transformed in this medium. More recently the cellular telephone has become widely available and is taking over many countries by storm. For the first time, some people are spending more time on the telephone than face-

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 5

Studying telephone calls

to-face conversations.2 It is clear that telephone calls have become another primordial site of speech communication and fully deserve to be studied extensively and in depth. In the study of telephone calls different approaches have been taken. Broadly speaking, three kinds of motivation can be identified, which may very roughly be termed sociological, methodological, and inter-cultural.3 When telephone calls are studied primarily with a view to uncovering aspects of the social order, the purpose is sociological. A good example of this approach is Sacks’s own work. He once commented on the study of telephone conversations in the following way: We can read the world out of the phone conversation as well as we can read it out of anything else we are doing. That’s a funny kind of thing, in which each new object becomes the occasion for seeing again what we can see anywhere… This technical apparatus is, then being made at home with the rest of the world… [The] object is made at home in the world that has whatever organization it already has. (Sacks 1992, v.2: 548–549)

Thus, for Sacks, telephone calls are interesting primarily for the insights that they offer into the production of social order. Like any other form of social encounter the telephone call provides the analyst with an opportunity to study human interaction. For researchers who are sociologically inclined, telephone calls have several attractive properties which are not found in other kinds of data (cf. Schegloff 1993: 4548–4549). First, unlike face-to-face conversations, telephone calls are characterised by a lack of visual information. While this is a disadvantage from one point of view, the advantage is that recordings of telephone calls can give a more faithful rendering of the original speech event compared to recordings of face-to-face conversations. Audio recordings of face-to-face conversations are less faithful in the sense that the visual information available to the participants is not similarly available to the analyst. Recordings of telephone conversations, on the other hand, provide the analyst with exactly the same amount of information as was available to the participants themselves. There is, then, a sense in which, in studying telephone conversational data, “what you see (or hear) is what you get”. One could of course make video recordings of face-to-face talk, but even with video cameras it is not always possible to obtain a full record, including all the participants’ facial expressions and gestures, as the camera can only view the speech event from one angle at a time. Second, one is more likely to obtain relatively good quality recordings



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 6

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

on the telephone, and clear recordings are essential to successful and accurate transcriptions. Third, in spite of new features like conference calls, telephone calls are still mostly dyadic events. Face-to-face conversations may involve three or more participants, making it hard to identify speakers when doing transcriptions. Multi-party conversations also tend to contain complicated shifts and changes in participant pairings and groupings which pose further difficulties for data transcription and analysis. Telephone conversations typically do not contain such complications. Finally, telephone calls tend to have clearly defined boundaries, making it possible for the analyst to study conversational beginnings and closings, as well as the structure of a conversation as a whole. It can be seen from Sacks’s quotation above that in the sociological approach the analyst’s interest in the telephone call is almost incidental: it is studied for what can be seen through it. In contrast to this, telephone calls can be studied in their own right. What features of telephone calls might be universal? What features are empirically found to vary from situation to situation, from language to language, or from culture to culture? Studies with these and similar aims might be described as methodological or cross-cultural in character. The most well-known framework for the study of telephone calls in their own right is the one first put forward by Schegloff in 1968. Schegloff ’s work has been very influential. Nevertheless, it is clear that, for all its power and suggestiveness, the framework is based on North American telephone conversations conducted via the (American) English language. It is therefore quite natural that subsequent researchers have attempted to examine its validity in other linguistic and cultural settings. While Schegloff’s original intention may not have been to make universal claims or predictions, once telephone calls are investigated by researchers with different backgrounds, it is inevitable that questions of universality and cultural specificity would be raised. Thus, studies of telephone calls with a methodological aim are concerned with the extent to which Schegloff’s original framework holds under different cultural and linguistic conditions. It is not difficult to understand why telephone calls have a special attraction for researchers with a cross-cultural agenda. When it comes to making comparisons across linguistic and cultural settings telephone conversations provide us with as close a situation as we could get to controlled experimental conditions. Due to the requirement of naturalness, it is not usually possible to control for situational variables (topic, role relationship, etc.) when

FM_170 v1.qxd

11/25/02

10:00 AM

Page 7

Studying telephone calls

collecting speech samples in face-to-face situations. As a result, it is not always possible to make systematic comparisons across data sets. However, with telephones now being almost universally available, telephone calls offer a unique opportunity for the analyst to observe how different groups of people make use of essentially the same technology to achieve essentially the same range of purposes (information exchange, social bonding, etc.) and how they go about tackling very similar interaction tasks: availability checks, identification and recognition, switchboard requests, topic introduction, closing, call-waiting, and more. A third motivation for studying telephone calls might be described as “inter-cultural”. A typical aim here is to gain a better understanding of crosscultural communication through comparative studies of telephone conversations. The more (and the more deeply) people study telephone conversations in different communities, the more likely one can gain a better understanding of this communication device, and the more likely one can improve the quality of inter-cultural communication and increase the chances of inter-cultural understanding. This approach can be illustrated with reference to misalignments and misunderstandings in telephone calls. Generally speaking, telephone conversations proceed smoothly and are usually successful, but it is clear that misalignments, even failures, do occur from time to time. In some cases, people might even develop what Hopper (1992) called “telephobia”. Misalignments are more likely to occur in inter-cultural calls, the ability to make successful telephone calls being something of a test for a person’s mastery of another language and culture. People who are otherwise competent in a foreign language might nevertheless experience difficulties, even frustration, when trying to speak on the telephone, due to differences in conventions governing the use of this communication medium. A couple of years ago, one of the authors of this chapter, S (who is of Greek nationality), was working at home (in Greece) when the telephone rang. She picked up the telephone simultaneously with E, her daughter (who is Greek-German), who was working in another room. Both answerers spoke in Greek. The caller turned out to be a close relative (who is German) who wanted to speak to S’s husband (also German):4 (1) 1 2

((telephone rings)) S: [Nai;] yes ‘Yes?’



FM_170 v1.qxd



11/25/02

10:00 AM

Page 8

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

3

4 5

6 7 8 9

E: [Nai;] yes ‘Yes?’ ((The rest of the conversation runs in German)) B: Ja, hier ist Barbara. Kann ich bitte den Wolfgang sprechen? ‘Yes, this is Barbara speaking. Can I talk to Wolfgang please?’ ((short pause, due to some uncertainty about the caller’s identity: she was usually known by the diminutive “Barbel”. When it became clear that it was Barbel, S felt a little annoyed that the caller did not say hello to her and E first)) S: Ja, Bärbel, aber du kannst erst mal E und mir Guten Tag ‘Yes, Bärbel, but you can say hello to E and me [sagen.] first.’ E: [((hangs up))] B: Ja, natürlich. Ich habe erst mal gar nix verstanden ... ‘Yes, of course. I did not understand a thing at the beginning ...’

It can be seen from this example that participants from different cultural backgrounds may bring with them different expectations to the conversational space of a telephone call. Greeks would expect to get immediate attention as partners in communication, before the reason for calling is introduced. German callers, on the other hand, appear to be more concerned about the possible inconvenience which their calls might be causing the other party: they try to avoid holding up the line for too long. As Hopper says (1992: 85), “A culture’s telephone customs display tiny oft-repeated imprints of community ethos. Ask most any traveler, immigrant, or ethnographer about telephone conversations in countries outside the U.S.A. You will hear about the differences.” It needs to be said at this point that the three approaches outlined above are not completely distinct or mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a researcher to have more than one aim at the same time. We think that all three are perfectly valid reasons for studying telephone calls. At the moment, due to the relative lack of systematic work with data from different cultures and languages, one needs to be very cautious about coming to conclusions about telephone conversations in general. Universal claims must be warranted by rich and reliable data, in-depth analyses, and extensive and careful comparisons and contrasts. On the other hand, thoughts, even speculations based on existing data and intuitions will continue to be made, and we do not believe that

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 9

Studying telephone calls

these should be shunned or delayed indefinitely. Indeed, thoughts and speculations and the discussions generated as a result may well provide an impetus for more research on the topic. We believe that the field will be better served if more people are encouraged to contribute data and insights and to participate in lively debate. This is precisely why we have decided to include within the same volume papers which consciously explore the theme of universality and variation, as well as papers which caution one’s urge to do so. . Openings, closings, and topic management in telephone calls Work on telephone conversations since Sacks’s lectures fall broadly into three strands: openings, closings, and topic management. Of the three, most work to date has been done on telephone openings. In the following paragraphs we outline major developments in these three areas of work in the last thirty years. In a paper which is by now very familiar to researchers in this field, Schegloff (1968) gave a detailed sequential analysis of the opening section of 500 American telephone calls. His analysis, refined in 1979 and elaborated again in 1986, has provided an indispensable point of reference for subsequent studies. Schegloff’s framework provides for four core sequences in the opening section of telephone calls, namely: 1. a summons-answer sequence, which consists of the telephone ring (summons) and the first thing said by the answerer (answer), which serves to ensure a working channel of communication and an available partner for communication; 2. an identification/recognition sequence, in which the identities of the participants are established, through self-identification or recognition displays; 3. a greeting sequence, in which greeting tokens are exchanged, and 4. initial inquiries (“How are you?”) and responses to them, which “provide a formal opportunity for the other party to make some current state of being a matter of joint priority concern” (Schegloff 1986: 118). These are called core sequences in the sense that some combination of them typically form the opening section of a telephone call. However, particular instances of openings may vary more or less from this “canonical format”. What Schegloff has described is in Hopper’s words (1992) a “template” against the background of which variations can be charted.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 10

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

The core sequences are conceptually distinct and logically independent of one another, and yet intertwine and overlap when being “played out” in particular instances of telephone openings. For example, both the summonsanswer sequence and the greeting sequence have something to do with identification and recognition. Thus, the first thing said by the call recipient has a dual function: besides serving as an answer to the summons, it provides at the same time a voice sample of the recipient which may allow the caller to recognise his identity. Schegloff found in his data, which were American English telephone calls, a preference for identification by recognition over explicit self-identification (although the latter option was also possible). Similarly, the exchange of greetings is often relevant to the tasks of identification and recognition. Like answers to the summons, greeting tokens tend also to have a dual function: besides being greetings they often serve as recognition displays (as in “HI!”). In spite of the interest generated by this work, however, surprisingly little research, be they replications of Schegloff’s work in the United States or testing of his framework in other parts of the world, was actually available until the late 1980s. One notable exception is Godard (1977). With reference to French telephone calls, Godard questioned the applicability of Schegloff’s analysis to other communities and stressed the theme of cultural variation. The questions raised in Godard’s paper were interesting, but unfortunately her data were scanty and based on memory rather than tape recordings of actual telephone calls. It should be clear that it is not possible to make observations and comments at a level of detail as demonstrated in Schegloff’s work without doing careful transcriptions of recordings of naturally occurring telephone conversations. The conclusions of Godard’s paper were thus weakened by the lack of good data. Nonetheless it has succeeded in putting cultural variation on the research agenda. Starting from the late 1980s more and more data on telephone openings became available. One of the main sources of information and insights is the work of Robert Hopper and his associates. In a series of publications they presented data from Arabic, French, and Chinese (Hopper 1989a, 1989b, 1992; Hopper and Koleilat-Doany 1989; Hopper, Doany, Johnson and Drummond 1990/91; Hopper and Chen 1996). Through detailed comparative work, they highlighted the issue of whether telephone conversations in different communities operate on the basis of similar principles of organisation (the “universalist” position) or are subject to cultural variation (the “particularistic” position).

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 11

Studying telephone calls

Apart from Hopper and his colleagues, data are also available from a range of other languages. These include: Sifianou (1989) and Bakakou-Orfanou (1988/89) on Greek, Pavlidou (1991, 1994, 1998, 2000) on Greek and German, Houtkoop-Steenstra (1991), Tiemessen (1997), and Lentz (1995) on Dutch, Lindström (1994) on Swedish, Luke (1996) on Cantonese, Placencia (1992) on Ecuadorian Spanish and British English, Liefländer-Koistinen and Neuendorff (1991) on German and Finnish, and Halmari (1993) on Finnish. In these works one can find both confirmations of structural similarities with Schegloff’s American English data as well as reports of differences and variation. The theme of cultural variation figures prominently in some of these works. For example, Lindström and Houtkoop-Steenstra have reported that in Sweden and the Netherlands respectively the preference was for recipients to identify themselves rather than for callers to recognise them. The same has been said about Japanese telephone calls (Jorden 1987), although this claim is re-examined by Park and Yotsukura in their contributions to the present volume. Other researchers have found that the opening section of telephone calls in some communities have a different tenor and “flavour” from the American ones. Sifianou (1989), for example, found that Greeks use a great variety of openings and have a tendency to develop personal opening styles. Pavlidou (1994), examining Greek and German telephone openings, found that Greeks used phatic utterances much more than Germans do. In contrast to openings, the closing part of the telephone call is much less studied — a situation which is reflected also in the papers in the present volume. It is therefore not surprising that in spite of its title (Telephone Conversation), Hopper (1992) deals almost exclusively with telephone openings. This relative lack of studies on closings is probably due to the phenomenon’s great complexity. While openings on the whole have clearly identifiable beginnings, the beginnings of closings cannot be as readily found. Closings may “converge from a diverse range of conversations-in-their-course to a regular common closure with ‘bye bye’ or its variants” (Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 291, fn 3). Thus, the relevance of closing is pervasive: it is a potentially relevant activity right from the start. Moreover, as pointed out by Button (1987), a closing-inprogress may nevertheless be abandoned (the title of Button’s paper is “moving out of closings”); previously discussed topics may be reopened and new ones may be introduced. Following the example of Schegloff and Sacks (1973), other researchers have investigated aspects of telephone closing in English (Clark and French 1981; Button 1987, 1990), Finnish (Liefländer-Koistinen and Neuendorff



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 12

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

1991), German (Brinker and Sager 1989), German and Greek (Pavlidou 1997, 1998, 2000), and Spanish (Placencia 1997). These studies contain materials which can shed light on the extent of linguistic and cultural variation in closing sequences. How much variation is found and to what extent it is possible to make cross-cultural generalisations remains a matter for further studies. Some work — admittedly not a great deal — has been done on topic initiation and generation in telephone conversations. Button and Casey (1984, 1988) and Schegloff (1986) have both followed up on Sacks’s observations (Spring 1972 lectures) on participants’ delivery of reason-for-call; for example, how turns within the opening section can contain components devoted to the business of eliciting or introducing reason-for-call. To date, little data from languages other than English are available on this topic. While the amount of progress since Sacks’s early work has been somewhat variable with regard to different aspects of the telephone call, on the whole it should be fair to say that considerable research has been done, and that as a field of study telephone conversation has come a long way. Two points appear to be particularly worthy of our attention. First, an increasingly rich body of data from diverse communities and languages has been built up. Second, researchers’ efforts have collectively generated a degree of momentum towards a situation where possible cross-linguistic and cross-cultural comparisons might be made. On this last point, different positions can be taken. On the one hand, cultural conventions and social practices can vary quite considerably in different communities. On the other hand, the basic situation of the telephone call and the interactive tasks that come with its use are likely to be somewhat similar. How telephone conversationalists deal with openings, topic management and closings: these are very interesting topics of research precisely because of the rich possibilities of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural comparisons that they offer. Thus, while opinions may (and do) differ as to whether research in this field has reached a point when meaningful comparisons can be made, the fact that cross-cultural and cross-linguistic comparisons are (at some point) worth making is not in doubt. We believe that this question is best left to the readers’ own judgement.

. The present volume The present volume has its origins in a panel entitled “Telephone calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures” organised by

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 13

Studying telephone calls

the two editors for the 6th International Pragmatics Conference in Reims in July 1998. In the call for papers we said, The aim of this panel is to bring together researchers working on telephone calls in different societies using conversational data from different languages. Panel participants will be able to present their findings, to compare and contrast their findings with those of researchers working on other languages and in other cultures, and to discuss any similarities and differences. Papers adopting a comparative perspective are especially welcome.

When the announcement was sent out, letters and emails quickly began to come in. We were pleasantly surprised by the strength of the response we got. Many more people in many more places were working on telephone conversations than we ever knew or suspected, using data from many more languages than we realised. At the conference, the panel participants were impressed by the variety and richness of the data presented, as well as the diversity of views and approaches. In terms of languages, work had been done on Chinese, Dutch, Ecuadorian Spanish, Egyptian Arabic, English, French, German, Greek, Japanese, and Persian. They were struck by the shared focus on the one hand and the diversity of views and approaches on the other. While all the papers were inspired by Sacks and Schegloff’s work, they did not all share the same assumptions or use the same methodology. A number of papers examined telephone calls crossculturally and offered evidence which challenged the universality of opening and closing sequences found in American English data. As a result of the very fruitful discussions, we became convinced that we would be doing the field a service if we could publish a collection of papers with first-hand data from a comparative perspective. With the exception of Park’s chapter on Japanese and Korean, the papers contained in the present volume were first presented at the Pragmatics Conference panel. In addition, two further papers were invited from Paul ten Have and Emanuel Schegloff after the conference in order to sharpen our focus on the theoretical and methodological issues involved in this field of research, and to keep alive the ongoing debate on the unity and diversity of telephone conversations across languages and cultures. The chapters of this book are divided into three parts: (1) Opening telephone calls, (2) Problem solving, topic management, and closing, and (3) Theoretical and methodological considerations. Part 1 begins with a chapter by Yong-Yae Park entitled “Recognition and identification in Japanese and Korean telephone conversation openings”. This



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 14

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

chapter reports on a study of 120 Japanese and 120 Korean telephone openings. According to Park, the Japanese and Korean openings are organised in very similar ways to Schegloff’s American calls. She observes that there has been a tendency in prescriptive accounts to overstate “the purported Japanese preference for self-identification”. When self-identifications are made, they are done in either of two ways: one in which the self-identification is done as the main activity and another in which it is done as a preliminary to another task (e.g., switchboard request). Interestingly, in Japanese and Korean there are linguistic resources available to the participants for performing the latter activity, namely the use of the particles kedo (Japanese) and nuntey (Korean). These particles are found in self-identifications performed as preliminaries but are absent in sequences where self-identifications are presented in their turns as the main activity. Maria Sifianou’s chapter, “On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek”, examines openings using data from an extensive corpus of Greek telephone calls. It is found that Greek telephone calls are in some respects similar to Schegloff’s American calls. For example, like American calls, there is a preference in Greek calls of recognition by voice sample over selfidentification. However, in contrast to American, Persian, and Japanese calls, the Greek ones appear to be more informal, more solidarity-based, and oriented more towards co-participants’ positive face. Sifianou points out that Schegloff’s canonical opening is played out in full only in calls where the participants are socially distant. In calls involving close friends or relatives, the opening is typically either reduced (with for example identification and recognition left implicit) or extended (with for example how-are-you sequences being “topicalised”, or playful material being introduced early in the call). The data presented in this chapter display much “talkativeness, effusiveness”, and “playfulness” which appear to be distinctive features of Greek telephone calls. In the third chapter, “Telephone conversation openings in Persian”, Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm examines 87 Persian telephone conversations recorded in Tehran. The calls are found to be similar in sequential organisation to the American ones, but also have their own characteristics. In the course of studying the identification/recognition and how-are-you sequences in her data, Taleghani-Nikazm notices how different levels of politeness are displayed in the Persian telephone openings. In the more formal calls, a correlation is observed between participants’ relative social status and the linguistic forms used to perform the tasks of identification and exchanging how-are-yous. Participants in these calls are found to engage in what is known

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 15

Studying telephone calls

in Persian as taarof, which is “politeness behaviour which co-participants in an interaction employ to indicate their lower status while elevating the status of the person being addressed”. Also of interest in Nikazm’s data is the repeated occurrence of how-are-you sequences: how-are-yous are reciprocated, sometimes more than once, but are often left unanswered. As a result of this, the slot after the second how-are-you sequence is not the first topic slot in Persian telephone calls. In the final chapter of Part I, “Language choice in international telephone conversations”, Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner present the results of a study of the opening section of international telephone calls in which staff of Danish companies talk to staff of companies in Sweden, Germany, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France. Participants in these telephone calls find themselves in a multilingual situation where there is often some degree of uncertainty at the beginning regarding the choice of the language of communication. It is found that in general, the strategy employed by the participants is simply “use the language of the answering turn as the language of communication”. This default choice cannot, however, be followed in every case. For example, callers may not be able to speak the language displayed in the answering turn, in which case, as the authors show, there are interesting ways for them to propose a “change” of language. The default choice is also overruled in “established calls” where participants can draw on a history of earlier telephone conversations. In these cases, language choice is established during person identification, i.e. the additional task of language choice is performed at the same time as personal identification. Part II consists of three chapters on problem solving, topic management, and closings. In her chapter “Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business telephone conversations”, Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura offers an in-depth analysis of two telephone conversations recorded in Japan. In both calls, an employee of a company calls and talks to staff of another company to report a problem and to seek help. Both calls were made as part of the participants’ everyday work. They are therefore not quite the same in nature as telephone conversations between individuals (such as those reported in Jefferson and Lee 1981) or calls made by individuals to institutions or service providers. Nevertheless, comparisons with Jefferson and Lee (1981) appear to be in order, as in all these calls participants deal with the reporting of problems and the offering of solutions. For example, similar to the other data set, “interactional asynchrony” is observed in Yotsukura’s calls due to a “mismatch of expectations” between callers and answerers. Similarities are also found in the way in



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 16

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

which “bad news” is delivered. In both of her calls the problems being reported are “led up to” in a step by step manner by the callers who disclose relevant information one piece at a time. In the course of this, the recipients were able to work out for themselves what the problems were, thus obviating the need for the problems to be openly stated. Kang Kwong Luke’s chapter, “The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls”, focuses on topic organisation using recordings of 105 telephone calls collected in Hong Kong. Following Button and Casey (1984, 1988), a distinction is made between initiation and introduction of reason-for-call as these two tasks can be performed independently either by the same speaker or two different speakers. Hong Kong telephone conversations are conducted largely through the use of Cantonese, but the Cantonese speech is sometimes interspersed with English words and phrases. It is found that the reason-for-call is usually introduced, in terms of person, by the caller and in terms of position, in the anchor position. However, systematic methods are used by the participants to allow the call-recipient to introduce reason-for-call. There are also ways of introducing reason-for-call before the anchor position (preemption) or after it (late introduction). These findings corroborate previous work on English. As we have seen, this is one of the areas in which the least work has been done. Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou’s chapter “Moving towards closing: Greek telephone calls between familiars” offers an analysis of telephone closings using 65 fully transcribed Greek telephone calls. Intrigued by the complexity of closings in general and Greek closings in particular (as compared to German closings; for example, see Pavlidou 1997, 1998), Pavlidou looks into the difficulties involved in locating the boundary between the last topic and the closing section in Greek telephone calls between friends and relatives. She shows that Greek conversationalists exploit a range of devices to indicate their orientation towards closing. The foregrounding of the interpersonal aspect of communication seems to be a common feature here. She argues that the canonical closing encompasses an interactionally economical solution to the organisational tasks of closing. In Greek telephone calls between friends and relatives, however, the canonical closing seems to be marked (for urgency or in non-residential calls, for example). The more common kind of closing involving familiars exhibits “interactional exuberance”. This is regarded as a solution which fits the conversationalists’ concern for parting company without causing any bad feelings. In the final part of the volume theoretical and methodological considerations are highlighted for discussion. Paul ten Have, in a chapter entitled

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 17

Studying telephone calls

“Comparing telephone call openings: Theoretical and methodological reflections”, takes a critical look at previous chapters of the volume and challenges what he regards as a tendency to take Schegloff’s description of the canonical opening at its face value. In place of such a “structural approach”, ten Have proposes a “functional perspective”. By “functional perspective” he points to three kinds of tasks performed in telephone conversation openings: “connection work (establishing contact), relation work (establishing or re-establishing a relationship), and topic work (working towards a topic)”. Citing research which has been done on Dutch telephone openings, including not only Houtkoop-Steenstra’s work (1991) but also Lentz (1995) and Tiemessen’s (1997), he shows that conventions regarding what to say when one picks up a ringing telephone have changed in the Netherlands over time — from a preference for other recognition (“hallo”) to the present-day preference for selfidentification. The forms have changed but the “functions” have remained the same. The Dutch experience suggests that variation (across language and culture) as well as change (over time) does occur but is not limitless. The Dutch forms found in one historical period differ from those found at another time, nevertheless they resemble forms available to other contemporary speech communities. In the final chapter, “Reflections on research in telephone conversation: Issues of cross-cultural scope and scholarly exchange, interaction import and consequences”, Emanuel Schegloff argues that the canonical opening is needed as a template for the understanding of particular instances of openings (which may vary and depart from the canonical opening in different ways, but nonetheless can be recognised as variations on a common theme). He argues that the template’s primary function is to inform the analysis of particular telephone conversations, not to inform cross-cultural comparisons. While he believes that such comparisons should be made, he warns against making them too lightly or hastily. In this connection, he notes the importance of glosses and translations used in the presentation of non-English data: crosslinguistic comparisons could be misinformed by inaccurate glosses and translations. Schegloff believes that this point is all the more relevant because of the “density of interactional issues” at the opening section and the “sparseness of the linguistic resources deployed to deal with them”. A distinction is made between two kinds of cultural analysis: the analysis of talk-in-interaction in one’s own native language and one’s own indigenous culture on the one hand (Conversation Analysis is in this sense indigenous cultural analysis), and, on the other hand, comparative cultural analysis. In Schegloff’s view, much more



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 18

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

needs to be done (by native analysts) to build up our knowledge in this area to a point which will warrant “a more robust comparative analysis”. The theme of this volume is “unity and diversity”. Our aim is to bring together studies of telephone conversations in different languages and cultures, to facilitate comparisons across linguistic and cultural boundaries in order to state reliable generalisations, while at the same time charting the major parameters of variation. As researchers have brought different theoretical concerns and methodological apparata to bear on their data,5 it is hoped that the volume can also show the diversity of interest and views and provide a forum of discussion that will help clarify assumptions underlying different approaches in this field. We are very conscious that we are some distance away from the final goal but we believe that researchers are collectively moving in the right direction. It is our sincere hope that the present volume will contribute to an earlier arrival at that goal. As we said at the beginning of this chapter, it was Harvey Sacks who started us on this research project forty years ago. Much work has been done since but a great deal more still needs to be done. We believe every piece of work to date has repaid investigators’ time and efforts. We also believe the day will come when useful comparisons can be carried out and truly lasting generalisations made across languages and cultures. Harvey Sacks’s far-sightedness will then be vindicated.

Notes * The present chapter as well as all the other chapters in this volume have benefited from comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers. On behalf of all the authors we would like to thank them for their very useful input.  While Sacks’s year of death is commonly known, his year of birth is not that widely known or easy to find. For example, in neither Lectures on Conversation (1992) nor David Silverman’s Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis (1998) can one find Sacks’s date of birth. We are indebted to John Heritage for providing us with this piece of information. According to Heritage, the information is recorded in Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970). “On formal structures of practical actions”. In Theoretical Sociology, J.C. McKinney and E.A. Tirayakian (eds), 337–366. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.  This situation is aptly parodied in several films of the 1990s. For example, in Hal Salwen’s “Denise Calls Up”, nobody meets anybody. All interactions take place over the telephone.  Many useful comments on the organisation of this section were suggested to us by one of the anonymous reviewers. His/her suggestions are gratefully acknowledged.  This example is taken from Pavlidou 2000. The telephone call itself was not tape recorded, but the beginning was noted immediately after the call.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 19

Studying telephone calls

 One consequence of this is that the presentation of the data cannot be unified throughout the volume.

References Bakakou-Orfanou, Ekaterini 1988–1989 “Thlewznik0 epikoinzn/a: Ekwznhmauik0 poikil/a uhs par2klhths gia t,ndeth me uo kalo,meno pr-tzpo” [Telephone interaction: Variation in switchboard requests]. Glossologia 7–8: 35–50. Brinker, Klaus and Sager, Sven-F. 1989 Linguistische Gesprächsanalyse: Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Button, Graham 1987 “Moving out of closings”. In Talk and Social Organisation, G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds), 101–151. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1990 “On varieties of closings”. In Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, G. Psathas (ed.), 93–148. Lanham: University Press of America. Button, Graham and Casey, Neil 1984 “Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors”. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988 “Topic initiation: Business-at-hand”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 61–92. Clark, Herbert H. and French, J. Wade 1981 “Telephone goodbyes”. Language in Society 10: 1–19. Garfinkel, Harold and Sacks, Harvey 1970 “On formal structures of practical actions”. In Theoretical Sociology, J.C. McKinney and E.A. Tirayakian (eds), 337–366. New York: AppletonCentury Crofts. Godard, Danièle 1977 “Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States”. Language in Society 6: 209–219. Halmari, Helena 1993 “Inter-cultural business telephone conversations: A case of Finns vs. AngloAmericans”. Applied Linguistics 14: 408–429. Hopper, Robert 1989a “Speech in telephone openings: Emergent interaction vs. routines”. Western Journal of Speech Communication 53: 178–194. 1989b “Sequential ambiguity in telephone openings: ‘What are you doin.’”. Communication Monograhphs 56: 240–252. 1992 Telephone Conversation. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hopper, Robert and Chen, Chia-Hui 1996 “Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone openings in Taiwan”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (4): 291–313.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 20

Kang Kwong Luke and Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

Hopper, Robert and Koleilat-Doany, Nada 1989 “Telephone openings and conversational universals: A study in three languages”. In Language, Communication and Cultural, S. Ting-Toomey and F. Korzenny (eds), 157–179. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Hopper, Robert, Doany, Nada, Johnson, Michael and Drummond, Kent 1990/91 “Universals and particulars in telephone openings”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 24: 369–387. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke 1991 “Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations”. In Talk and Social Structure, D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds), 232–250. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jefferson, Gail and Lee, John R.E. 1981 “The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troublestelling’ and a ‘service encounter’”. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 399–422. Jorden, Eleanor H., with Noda, Mari 1987 Japanese: The Spoken Language. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lentz, Leo 1995 “De geschiedenis van het openingspatroon in Nederlandse telefoongesprekken”. In Artikelen van de Tweede Sociolinguïstische Conferentie, E. Huls and J. Klatter-Folmer (eds), 403–417. Delft: Eburon. [Also published in English as “The history of the opening patterns in Dutch telephone calls” In Discourse Analysis and Evaluation: Functional Approaches, L. Lentz and H.P. Maat (eds), 87–110. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1997]. Liefländer-Koistinen, Luise and Neuendorff, Dagmar 1991 “Telefongespräche im Deutschen und Finnischen: Unterschiede in ihrer interaktionalen Struktur”. In Akten des VIII Internationalen GermanistenKongresses, Tokyo 1990. Band 4, 482–494. München: iudicium. Lindström, Anna 1994 “Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings”. Language in Society 23: 231–252. Luke, Kang Kwong 1996 “Universal structures in telephone conversation openings”. Paper presented at the 5th International Pragmatics Conference, Mexico City, July 4–9, 1996. Pavlidou, Theodossia(-Soula) 1991 “Politeness on the telephone: Contrastive analysis of Greek and German conversations” [in Greek]. In Studies in Greek Linguistics [Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, April 26-28, 1990], 307–326. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis. 1994 “Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences”. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 487–511. 1997 “The last five turns: Preliminary remarks on closings in Greek and German telephone calls”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 126: 145–162.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 21

Studying telephone calls

1998

“Greek and German telephone closings: Patterns of confirmation and agreement”. Pragmatics 8: 79–94. 2000 “Telephone conversations in Greek and German: Attending to the relationship aspect of communication”. In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 121–142. London/New York: Continuum. Placencia, Maria E. 1992 “Politeness in mediated telephone conversations in Ecuadorian Spanish and British English”. Language Learning Journal 6: 80–82. 1997 “Opening up closings - the Ecuadorian way”. Text 17 (1): 53–81. Sacks, Harvey 1992 Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I and II. Edited by G. Jefferson, with an introduction by E.A. Schegloff. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings”. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. (Re-printed in Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), 346–380. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.) 1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York: Irvington. 1986 “The routine as achievement”. Human Studies 9: 111–151. 1993 “Telephone conversation”. In Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, R.E. Asher (ed.), 4547–4549. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Sacks, Harvey 1973 “Opening up closings”. Semiotica 8: 289–327. Sifianou, Maria 1989 “On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece”. Language in Society 18: 527–544. Silverman, David 1998 Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Tiemessen, Astrid 1997 “Openingen van Nederlandse telefoongesprekken in historisch perspectief ” [Openings of Dutch telephone calls in historical perspective]. In Sociale Interactie in Nederland, L. Meeuwesen and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds), 83–100. Utrecht: ISOR.



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 22

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 23

P I

Opening telephone calls

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 24

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 25

Recognition and identification in Japanese and Korean telephone conversation openings* Yong-Yae Park

.

Introduction

This chapter examines the sequential and interactional characteristics of Japanese and Korean telephone conversations. The focus is on recognition and identification in opening sequences. More specifically, the chapter will address self-identification sequences in relation to the presence or absence of the so-called background providers and contrastive connectives, kedo in Japanese and nuntey in Korean. Since Schegloff’s pioneering work in American telephone openings (1967, 1968, 1979, 1986), many researchers have pursued this topic cross-culturally, searching for both universal and culture-specific characteristics (e.g., Godard 1977; Sifianou 1989, Hopper and Chen 1996; Lindström 1994). Some of these previous studies provide highly disputable claims about culture-specificity in different linguistic communities including different interactional preferences (e.g., Houtkoop-Steenstra 1991). In Japanese, with the exception of the rare mention of prescriptive norms of “telephone etiquette” as found in a few language textbooks (e.g., Jorden 1987), there has been little discussion in this area. And in looking at these prescriptive norms, what we find is an overstatement of the purported Japanese preference for self-identification. Similarly, in Korean, no research has been done in this area except for a folk emphasis of self-identification as a prescriptive norm. However, in my current study, telephone openings in both Japanese and Korean seem to share some of the interactional preferences found in American telephone openings. I will come back to this point in section 3. When the caller does provide self-identification, that self-identification is reflective of the interaction and/or relationship between the caller and the

FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 26

Yong-Yae Park

recipient. In both Japanese and Korean, self-introduction can be marked with particular connective forms, kedo1 in Japanese and nuntey2 in Korean as in the following3: (1) (T6) - Japanese kedo 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: Kobayashi desu Kobayashi  ‘This is Kobayashi.’ → 3 C: a ano: Tanaka desu keredo oh um Tanaka   ‘Oh. Um It’s Tanaka.’ 4 R: a ha ha oh oh oh ‘Oh, oh oh.’ 5 C: doomo osokunarimashi ta very become.late  ‘Sorry to be calling so late.’ 6 R: a hai hai oh yes yes ‘Oh sure sure.’ (2) (M&T) - Korean nuntey 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: yepwuseyyo: hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: yepwuseyyo hello ‘Hello.’ 4 R: ney, yes ‘Yes.’ → 5 C: ce Choi Minshik i I Choi Minshik  ‘This is Choi Minshik.’ 6 R: ney: annyenghaseyyo yes hi ‘Yeah. Hi.’

ntey 

yo 

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 27

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

In the linguistics literature, both kedo and nuntey have been introduced as contrastive connectives (H. Choi 1965; Masuda 1974; J. Choi 1990) as in (3) and (4). (3) (Masuda, 1974) - Japanese kedo (kare wa) okanemochi da kedo he  rich   ‘He is rich but not happy.’

koofuku happy

(4) Korean nuntey 1 Yengswu-nun hakkyo-ey ka-ci Yengswu- school- go- ‘Yengswu didn’t go to school but, 2 Chelswu nun ka ass ta Chelswu  go   Chelswu did.’

dewa 

anh-ass -

nai 

nuntey 

Both forms, however, are also considered to be background providers (K. Lee 1980, 1993; H. S. Lee 1991; Mori 1995) as in (5) and (6) in Japanese and Korean respectively. (5) Japanese kedo paatii o shimasu kedo ki masen party  do  come  ‘We’re having a party would you like to come?’ (6) Korean nuntey tosekoan ey ka nuntey library  go  ‘I was going to the library and John ul manna ass John  see  I saw John.’

ka 

ta 

Mori (1995) summarises previous literature by stating that kedo clauses are “prefatory statements” introducing what will be said next (Alfonso 1971) or a “transition word” (Maynard 1990). Similarly, in (6), the fact that the speaker was going to the library is background information for him to talk about the main point, which appears in the main clause. Park (1997, 1999) explicates both kedo and nuntey, using a Conversation Analysis (CA) framework. In these papers, various interactional uses of kedo and nuntey in both turn-medial and



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 28

Yong-Yae Park

turn-final positions are examined. In turn-final position, kedo and nuntey clauses without main clauses can frame interactionally delicate actions such as requests and disagreements, by setting up a point where the speaker invites the interlocutor to infer what the projected action is. These studies examine the two forms in the two languages and their interactional import as they appear in turn-medial and turn-final positions. In this chapter, I will first show that the interactional preference for otherrecognition over self-identification holds true in Japanese and Korean telephone call openings. I will then investigate when and how the two linguistic forms, kedo and nuntey, are used in the context of self-identifications and also when they are not used, demonstrating that language can organise interaction and vice versa (Ochs, Schegloff and Thompson 1996).

. Data The data for this study include 240 telephone conversations (120 for Japanese and 120 for Korean). The Japanese telephone conversations were collected in 1996 from three households in Yokohama and three households in Los Angeles. Two of the households in Yokohama consisted of four people (a couple and two children) and one household consisted of three (a couple and a daughter). Two households in Los Angeles were married couples and one was a single female living by herself. The Korean telephone conversations were also collected in 1996 from two households in Seoul and three in Los Angeles. One household in Seoul consisted of a married couple with two children and the other had a single female living by herself. In Los Angeles, the participants were three male graduate students living together, one married couple, and one female graduate student living by herself. The data collected in Los Angeles were all from native speakers and were compared with the data collected from Korea and Japan. The data collected in Los Angeles, however, demonstrate identical sequential and interactional characteristics found in data collected from both Japan and Korea. Most of the single participants were in their twenties and early thirties. Two married couples — one from Japan and one from Korea — were in their fifties and have children in their teens. One household in Japan was a couple with two young children who attended elementary school. I installed a recording device in each household for about three weeks after the subjects agreed to participate. The recording device I used recorded both

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 29

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

outgoing and incoming calls automatically, so the person who assisted in each household had only to replace tapes once in a while. The data tapes were transcribed by myself with the assistance of two native speakers of Japanese. I followed the conversation analysis transcription conventions (cf. Atkinson and Heritage 1984). For morpheme-by-morpheme glossings, I used a modified version of H.S. Lee’s system (1991) for both Korean and Japanese (see Abbreviations at the end of the chapter). The 240 telephone calls analysed for this chapter were randomly selected from the larger database of telephone conversation tapes collected.

. Analysis . Recognition and identification After the summons-answer sequence, that is, the first “hello” or “this is X’s residence” by the recipient which also serves as a voice sample for the caller to figure out who the recipient is, the caller can provide various types of first turn such as “hello” in return or a confirmation question for other-recognition as in “(Is this) X?” (Schegloff 1979). From this caller’s first turn on, what the caller and the recipient are required to accomplish is to identify each other. Although exchanging self-identifications seems to be the prescriptive norm (e.g., Jorden 1987) and is more frequent at least in the Japanese telephone openings in my data, nevertheless other-recognition is also used. When the caller can recognise the recipient, he does provide other-recognition in his first turn, as illustrated in the following examples: (7) (H&M, between friends) – Japanese 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: moshimoshi, hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: a? Morisan? oh Mori.Mrs ‘Oh, Mrs. Mori?’ 4 R: hai yes ‘Yes.’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 30

Yong-Yae Park

5

6

7

8

C: senjitsu wa doomoariga[toogozaimashi ta the.other.day  thank.you.very.much  ‘Thank you so much for the other day.’ R: [a iie na[noh no nothing ‘No, (it was) nothing.’ C: [obaachan mother-in-law ‘My mother-in-law yoroshiku ossha ttemashi ta( )/ga:: regards say  - sends her regards.’

(8) (H&E, between sisters) - Korean 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: yepwuseyyo? hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: e Hyenceng i ni? oh Hyenceng   ‘Is this Hyenceng?’ 4 R: e:: yes ‘Yeah.’ 5 C: ka ss ta wa ss e? go   come   ‘Did you go (to the doctor)?’ 6 R: yey yes ‘Yes.’

It is also found that in lieu of a recognition and/or identification sequence, the caller often moves directly to deliver the reason-for-call in his first turn as in the following: (9) (H7: between husband (Caller) and wife (Recipient)) - Japanese 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: hai Hayashi degozaimasu= yes Hayashi  ‘This is Hayashi’s residence.’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 31

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

→ 3

4

5 → 6

7

8

C: =ano ne: that  ‘Umm. You know what?’ R: hai yes ‘Uh huh.’ (0.4) C: ashita sukoshi: shichiji sukoshi tomorrow a.little seven.o’clock a.little ‘I’m wondering if we can call maeni takushi yoberu ka na before taxi can call  a taxi for tomorrow morning a little before seven.’ R: yoberun: janai=ano reino hito ni tanome ba can.call  that before person to ask  ‘I think why not, if we ask that person?’

(10) (K&F: between father (Caller) and daughter (Recipient)) - Korean 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: yepwuseyyo, hello ‘Hello?’ 3 (0.1) → 4 C: emma an o si ess nya? mother  come    ‘Isn’t your mom back?’ 5 (0.1) 6 R: emma? mom ‘Mom?’ 7 C: [emma mom ‘Mom.’ 8 R: [imo ney cip ey ka ss nuntey? aunt place house  go   ‘She went to aunt’s place.’

It is also notable that the relationships between the caller and the recipient in the examples above are very close ones such as friends or family members.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 32

Yong-Yae Park

Even if there is such a rigid norm to provide self-identification first, especially in the case of Japanese telephone openings, that norm seems to be overruled by a more general interactional preference. As a result, when the caller does recognise the voice of the recipient, what the caller can provide is, then, various types of turn-by-turn interactional sequences between the caller and the recipient, rather than a single type of normative obligation to provide selfidentification in the caller’s first turn.

. Self-identification sequences ..

Self-identifications with kedo/nuntey followed by reason-for-call/switchboard requests When the caller does provide a self-identification, several patterns of different sequence types seem to appear. The first type that I would like to examine is that of self-identification followed by the reason-for-call or a switchboard request, the latter being expressed as “Can I speak to X?” or “Is X there?” It appears that one of the most frequent contexts for self-identification is that of the switchboard request (Schegloff 1979). What is interesting is that in Japanese and Korean, speakers often provide self-identification with kedo or nuntey immediately followed by their reason-for-call or their request to speak to someone else. In this case, callers use kedo or nuntey in marking their selfidentification to serve as a preliminary action to the following main action, where the main action is the delivery of the reason-for-call or the switchboard request. The preference for providing self-identification before asking to be transferred seems to be substantially stronger in Japanese telephone openings. (11) and (12) are Japanese examples containing self-identification tokens followed by switchboard requests. In both segments, callers self-identify before they ask to speak to someone else in the same turn and no acknowledgment of the answerer’s identity is given. (11) (T&I) - Japanese 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: hai. Ishii desu yes Ishii  ‘Hello, This is Ishii.’ → 3 C: a moshimoshi =ano Tanaka oh hello umm Tanaka ‘Oh hello. Umm. This is Tanaka.

desu 

kedo 

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 33

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

4

5

Atsukosan wa Atsuko.Ms  Is Atsuko there?’ A: hai yes ‘Yes.’

(12) (K&H) - Japanese 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: moshimoshi hello ‘Hello?’ 3 (0.3) 4 C: moshimoshi: hello ‘Hello.’ 5 A: hai yes ‘Yes.’ → 6 C: a Kuwahata to oh Kuwahata  ‘Oh this is Kuwahata. 7 Ayakosan kyoo Ayako.Ms today Is Ayako there?’ 8 (0.6) 9 A: iya gakko e no school  ‘No, she’s at school.’

imasu ka?  

iimasu say

kedo 

irasshaimasu ka?  

itte go

masu 

kedo 

(13) illustrates the use of Korean nuntey in a telephone opening with the reason-for-call. In this example, the recipient’s identification is clearly relevant. The caller asks the recipient, who runs an interior home remodelling company, to send the wall paper contractor to his house soon. (13) (U&K) - Korean 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: yepwuseyyo? hello ‘Hello?’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 34

Yong-Yae Park

3 → 4

(.) C: ney: yeki i hyen[cang i yes here  site  ‘Yes, this is the job site.’ 5 R: [yey yey yes yes ‘Uh huh.’ 6 R: yey yes ‘Uh huh.’ 7 C: ku salam tul ettekhey that people  how ‘Aren’t those people coming?’ 8 R: kuce an ka ss eyo? yet  go   ‘Haven’t they arrived yet?’ 9 C: a o ncwulala ss  come thought  ‘You thought they have?’ 10 R: na nun ka ncilala ss I  go thought  ‘I thought they have.’ 11 C: acik twu an wa ss yet   come  ‘They haven’t come yet.’

ntey 

yo? 

an 

wa? come.

eyo? 

hhh

ci?  eyo 

Here, following the recipient’s answering the call, the micropause (line 3) and hedging/restart (line 4) show that the caller is having difficulty in providing a self-identification that is recognisable to the recipient, and finally just identifies himself as “the job site.” In the middle of this self-identification, the recipient recognises the caller and then provides a continuer (Schegloff 1982) for him to go ahead with his reason-for-call. The caller then expresses his reason for calling, which is to request that the recipient send people to do the work soon. I have not located any Korean examples illustrating the use of self-identification with switchboard requests. My Korean database does not have many switchboard requests, though it is possible and perfectly natural to have self-identifications followed by switchboard requests in Korean. Further study with more data

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 35

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

will determine whether Korean speakers share the same tendency as Japanese speakers in this context, as shown earlier in (11) and (12). ..

Self-identifications with kedo/nuntey followed by reason-for-call (in more business or more official-type calls) Each household participated in data collection often received telephone calls not only from private parties such as their friends and families but also from more official organisations such as business sales calls. This type of business calls or more official-type calls tend to use the format of self-identification with kedo or nuntey followed by reason-for-call, as in (14) for Japanese and (15) for Korean: (14) (T&A) - Japanese 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: moshimoshi: hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: moshimoshi hello ‘Hello.’ 4 R: hai yes ‘Yes.’ → 5 C: ano: Futamataga no Gojokai nan desu kedomo umm Futamataga  Gojokai    ‘Umm. This is Gojokai (an insurance company) at Futamataga.’ 6 R: hai yes ‘Uh huh.’ 7 C: otakusama no hoo de wa mada ohairi you  side   yet enter ‘Have you joined 8 dewa nai deshoo ka     yet?’ (15) (M&W) - Korean 1 ((telephone rings))



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 36

Yong-Yae Park

2

3

4 5

6

7

→ 8

9 10

11

12

13

14

R: yepwuseyyo? hello ‘Hello?’ C: yepwuseyo::, hello ‘Hello.’ (0.3) R: yey yes ‘Yes.’ C: yey Cho Cinshikssi tayk i ci yo? yes Cho Cinshik.Mr. place    ‘Um. Is this Mr. Cho Cinshik’s residence?’ R: yey yey yes yes ‘Yes.’ C: yey:: yeki Nonsan kwunminhoy ntey yo¿ yes here Nonsan community.group   ‘Umm. This is the Nonsan community group.’ (.) R: yey yes ‘Uh huh.’ C: talumianikwu yopeney cehi ka hoywen no.other.reason.than this.time we  member ‘We are in the process of cwusoluk ul saylo mantul ketun yo? directory  newly make   making a new directory for the members.’ R: yey yes ‘Uh huh.’ C: kulayse: cwuso hwakinhakocahako cenhwa tulye ss eyo so address verify- phone give   ‘I called to verify the address.’

Here, after the exchange of hello’s and the optional confirmation request concerning the recipient (e.g., “Is this Mr. Cho Cinshik’s residence?”), the caller

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 37

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

provides a self-identification with kedo or nuntey, to which the recipient responds with a continuer. The caller then provides his agenda, i.e. the reason-for-call. This practice is perhaps similar to business calls in American telephone openings in which self-identifications are often provided first. In American business calls, however, it seems that callers sometimes also insert “how’re you doing today?” and then deliver the reason-for-call. In any case, what is interesting is that in Japanese and Korean, the connectives, kedo and nuntey, are used with a selfidentification, marking that self-identification as merely a preliminary action to the following main action of delivering the reason-for-call. This function of projecting the following main action could well account for why the caller uses kedo and nuntey with self-identifications. What is found is that the speaker often delivers only kedo or nuntey final self-identifications without the main action. And if we go back to (1) and (2), we see that this is precisely what the caller and the recipient are doing. That is, the caller’s self-identification with kedo or nuntey is projecting the upcoming reason-for-call or the switchboard request and the recipient is expected to infer the same (Park 1997). .. Self-identifications with turn-final nuntey In my Korean data, the caller quite frequently only conveys self-identification with nuntey and invites the interlocutor to infer what kind of next action is expected or due. In the following segment, we will examine a case where the speaker provides only a self-identification with nuntey, which could serve as an implicit switchboard request. In (16), caller C in Los Angeles telephones a friend of hers from college who lives on the East coast. It is her friend’s wife who answers the telephone, which leads C to an interactionally delicate situation where she has to ask to be switched to A’s husband. In other words, it is not A but A’s husband that C wants to talk to. Here, what the speaker does is to provide a self-identification without making an explicit switchboard request. The preferred organisation for this type of interaction is for the interlocutor to come up with an offer before the speaker makes an explicit request, which is precisely the case in this segment, and in line 17, eventually, A offers to turn the telephone over to her husband. (16) (L&S) - Korean nuntey 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: yepwuseyyo? hello ‘Hello?’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 38

Yong-Yae Park

3

4

5

→ 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

C: yepwuseyyo? hello ‘Hello.’ A: ney, yes ‘Yes.’ C: ce yekiyo¿ LA-ey iss-nun umm here- L.A.- exist- ‘Umm. This is Lee Minhee ntey yo Lee Minhee   Minhee Lee at L.A..’ A: a: yey yey yey oh yes yes yes ‘Oh, yes, yes, yes.’ C: yey annyenghaseyyo? yes hi. ‘Yes. Hi (Are you doing well)?’ A: a yey [yeyhh oh yes yes ‘Yes.’ C: [hh hh ‘hh’ C: a: umm ‘Umm.’ A: e um ‘Um.’ C: eti oychwulha si ess napo ayo where go.out   seems  ‘You must have been out, [akka cenhwaha nikka an kyey si= a.little.while.ago call since not exist  since you weren’t there when A: [yey yey yes yes ‘Yes, yes.’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 39

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

16 C: =te lako yo    I called a little while ago.’ → 17 A: yey yey Camkkanman yey senpaynim pakk-atulil-kkay. yes yes for:a:while  senior switch-give- ‘Yeah. Hold on a second. I’ll get my husband.’ 18 C: ney: yes ‘Okay.’

In lines 5–6, the caller provides a self-identification to which she adds nuntey, signalling that an action, that is, a switchboard request, is also being projected and invites the interlocutor to figure it out. After the answerer’s recognition in line 7, the caller delivers a brief greeting exchange as small talk in line 8 since it is an interactionally delicate situation that the caller has to convey “It wasn’t you that I wanted to talk to.” Then, the answerer offers to switch the call to her husband in line 17, responding to the implied request first launched in lines 5–6. In the following segment in Korean, the interactional import of nuntey seems to be greater than in the previous examples. Here, the caller is trying to remind the recipient of the caller’s previous request of the recipient to give him a ride: (17) (L&W) - Korean 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: yepwuseyyo hello ‘Hello?’ → 3 C: yeposeyyo ce Wonhyuk i hello I Wondhyuk  ‘Hello. This is Wonhyuk.’ 4 R: yey: yey e e e yes yes yes yes yes ‘Uh huh. Oh oh.’ 5 C: ce cipey tochakha-yss I house- arrive- ‘It’s that I’m home now.’ 6 R: e e e e uh huh uh huh ‘Uhhuh uhhuh.’

ntey 

yo 

ketun 

yo 

hh



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 40

Yong-Yae Park

7 8

(0.3) C: yey: kulay kaciko yo yes be.so   ‘Yeah. That’s why.’ 9 R: uh nay-ka nay-ka cikum pickup ka ltheynikka oh - - now pickup go since ‘Oh. Since I’m going to pick you up now.’ 10 C: yey yes ‘Yeah.’ 11 R: uh: neyhi cip cwuso-lul com cwu llay? umm your house address- a.little give  ‘Umm. Can you give me your address?’

In line 3, the caller provides a self-identification with nuntey. What the caller is doing with nuntey, though, is not just a self-identification but also a reminder to the recipient of a previously arranged plan to pick up the caller. In this segment, the recipient first fails to activate the relevant inference and only provides a continuer. So far, we have examined instances of kedo and nuntey in self-identifications. However, native speakers of Japanese and Korean will attest to the fact that sometimes these markers do not occur. One example is when a family member or a friend makes a routine call, he provides a self-identification without nuntey or kedo as in the following section. .. Self-identifications without kedo/nuntey It is also found that callers in Japanese and Korean often provide self-identifications without using kedo and nuntey. (18) and (19) are from Japanese telephone conversations between a married couple. The husband calls home every day from the train station before he begins his walk home to ask if he can bring anything from the mall, which is close to the train station — their house is quite far from both the train station and the shopping mall. (18) (M&F) - Japanese 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: moshimoshi:, hello ‘Hello?’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 41

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

→ 3

4

5

6

C: a boku da oh I  ‘It’s me.’ R: hai yes ‘Yeah.’ C: un nanka (0.2) Yooko mada yes somewhat Yooko yet ‘Umm. Yooko isn’t back yet?’ R: e:: dekake ta yo yes go.out   ‘Umm. She went out.’

kae return

te 

nai 

(19) (M&F) - Japanese 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: moshimoshi, hello ‘Hello?’ → 3 C: ore I ‘(It’s) me.’ 4 (0.5) 5 R: hai yes ‘Yeah.’ 6 C: ima (.) eki da kedo now station   ‘I’m now at the station.’

Similarly, for Korean, (20) and (21) are taken from telephone conversations between two sisters. The recipient had a broken leg and her sister (the caller) made daily visits to her. Prior to those visits, the caller would call the recipient to ask her if there was anything she needed for that day. (20) (T&J) - Korean 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: yepwuseyyo:? hello ‘Hello?’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 42

Yong-Yae Park

→ 3

4

5

C: e na ta yes I - ‘Yeah, it’s me.’ R: e kulay yes be.so ‘Yeah.’ C: kulay be.so ‘Yeah.’

(21) (T&J) - Korean 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: yepwuseyyo? hello ‘Hello?’ → 3 C: e na ya:: yes I - ‘It’s me.’ 4 R: e:: yes ‘Yeah.’ 5 C: hhh hhh ‘hhh’

In these telephone calls, callers deliver self-identifications in their first turn and their self-identifications are not followed by nuntey or kedo. Here, the selfidentification is not delivered as a preliminary action to project the upcoming reason-for-call, but as a main action in and of itself. It is often found that callers in subsequent calls with the same agenda also provide self-identifications without kedo or nuntey. This can be explained in the same way, that is, the speaker does not need to save the next turn space to say why he is calling. Both the caller and the recipient know the general reason-for-call, and therefore, the caller does not have to project it. Another point to be noted is that in these “routine” telephone calls, the self-identification is done as “it’s me” not as “this is X (name)” which has a different interactional import. That is, by providing “it’s me,” the caller claims that he is identifiable, therefore the actual task of identifying the caller is now given back to the recipient, and if the caller can claim this, he should be close

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 43

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

enough to the recipient or within the “routine” and “reachable” boundary of the recipient. By using this type of self-identification, the caller seems to emphasise the “rountineness” of the call.

. Conclusion In sum, in telephone conversations, nuntey and kedo utterances strongly connect self-identification as a preliminary action with the reason-for-call as the main action, thereby signalling the reason-for-call as the immediate concern, which is also why this format is used in business type calls. By contrast, the absence of nuntey or kedo does not carry the same relevance with respect to the reason-for-call, and therefore does not signal the same kind of implication or “businesslike” tone. Speakers of Korean and Japanese clearly have the choice to use either format: that is, self-identification with or without nuntey and kedo. Yet, the skewing pattern seems to be clear: with the exception of one call in each language, every business call in the Korean and Japanese data involves a self-identification with nuntey or kedo. Further, most switchboard requests in all types of Japanese calls, business and otherwise, are also prefaced with kedo-final self-identifications. Here, nuntey- and kedofinal self-identifications display that there is a reason-for-call, inviting the recipients to anticipate it if they can. On the other hand, when not using nuntey or kedo, speakers seem to be “doing being routine” or signalling a “just to say hi” stance, since it does not carry the caller’s projection of the upcoming reason-for-call or switchboard request. Yotsukura (2002) suggests that the openings in Japanese business transactional telephone calls start with an exchange of self-identification by both parties. In the two examples in her chapter, the caller’s first turn starts with self-identification followed by the exchanges of formulaic greetings (osewani natte orimasu “thank you for your continued assistance”) by both parties. This greeting can be provided by either the caller in his first turn or the recipient in the next turn as can be observed in her examples. Due to this formulaic greeting that must follow self-identification by either party and other differences (e.g., formality and more fixed patterns), the opening sequences in business transactional calls seem to unfold differently from the ones in my private household telephone calls. It will be interesting to pursue these differences systematically and to see how they might affect the developments of the subsequent sequence.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 44

Yong-Yae Park

I hope to have shown in this chapter how certain linguistic forms or their absence can shape the pragmatic and interactional substance of the momentby-moment unfolding of talk in interaction.

Notes * I am deeply indebted to Manny Schegloff for his guidance and support on this study which is also a part of my dissertation. I am also grateful to Susan Strauss for her suggestions, editorial help, and support. I would also like to thank the editors of this volume for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am, however, responsible for any errors.  Kedo is generally considered as an informal form of keredomo, which can also be contracted as keredo and kedomo (Makino and Tsutsui 1986). I would also like to mention that there is another contrastive connective, ga, which is dealt with as an equivalent to kedo (Masuda 1974; Jorden 1987; Maynard 1990; Mori 1995). Most reference grammars (Jorden 1987; Maynard 1990) seem to treat both kedo and ga as interchangeable. However, in my data, the distribution of ga tends to be skewed toward certain groups such as older male speakers and more formal contexts. Kedo is overwhelmingly the more frequent contrastive connective used and because of this, I will focus on it.  Nuntey is glossed here as , which is an abbreviation of circumstantial, following H.S. Lee (1991). Nuntey is realised morphologically as -nuntey, -intey, -tentey, -ntey, or -ulthentey, depending on the preceding tense-aspect-modality markers.  The positions of self-identifications in (1) and (2) and their interactional imports are different: In (1), self-identification occurs in the caller’s first turn, whereas in (2), it occurs in the caller’s second turn after the answerer passes his second turn in line 3 where he could have provided a recognition. In my database, self-identification in the caller’s first turn seems to be more frequent in Japanese telephone openings than in Korean. This point will be pursued further.

References Alfonso, Anthony 1971 Japanese Language Patterns: A Structural Approach, Volume 1. Tokyo: Sophia University. Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John (eds) 1984 Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Choi, Hyunbai 1965 Wuli Malpon. [Korean Grammar] Seoul: Cengumsa. Choi, Jaihee 1990 Kukeui Cepsokmwun Yenkwu. [Studies on Korean Connectives] Seoul: Thapchwulpansa.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 45

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

Godard, Danièle 1977 “Same setting, different norms: Telephone call beginnings in France and the United States”. Language in Society 6: 209–219. Hopper, Robert 1992 Telephone Conversation. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hopper, Robert and Chen, Chia-Hui 1996 “Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone openings in Taiwan”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (4): 291–313. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke 1991 “Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations”. In Talk and Social Structure, D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds), 232–250. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jorden, Eleanor H. with Noda, Mari 1987 Japanese: The Spoken Language. Yale University Press. Lee, Hyo Sang 1991 Tense, Aspect, and Modality: A Discourse-pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Suffix in Korean from a Typological Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Lee, Keedong 1980 “The pragmatic function of the connective nuntey”. Ene [Language] 5 (1): 119–135. 1993 A Korean Grammar on Semantic Pragmatic Principles. Seoul: Hankuk Munwhasa. Lindström, Anna 1994 “Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings”. Language in Society 23: 231–252. Makino, Seiichi and Tsutsui, Michio 1986 A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar. Tokyo: Japan Times. Masuda, Koh (ed.) 1974 Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Maynard, Senko 1990 An Introduction to Japanese Grammar and Communicative Strategies. Tokyo: Japan Times. Mori, Junko 1995 “Interactional functions of kedo clauses in Japanese conversation”. A paper presented at 1995 AAAL conference, Long Beach. 1996 Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement: The Use of Connective Expressions in Japanese Conversations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra (eds) 1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Park, Yong-Yae 1997 A Cross-linguistic Study of the Use of Contrastive Connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese Conversation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 46

Yong-Yae Park

1999

“The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 191–218. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1967 The first five seconds: The order of conversational openings. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 1968 “Sequencing in conversation openings”. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. 1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York: Irvington. 1982 “Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some use of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences”. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, D. Tannen (ed.), 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1986 “The routine as achievement”. Human Studies 9: 111–151. Sifianou, Maria 1989 “On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece”. Language in Society 18: 527–544. Yotsukura, Lindsay A. 2002 “Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business telephone conversations”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 135–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Transcription conventions [ = (0.5) (.) ? , ¿ 〈 hhh (( )) ( )

Overlapping or simultaneous talk. A “latch” sign, that is, the second speaker follows the first with no discernible silence between them. Length of pause in seconds. Micropause. Rising intonation, not necessarily a question. Continuing intonation. The inverted question indicates a rise stronger than a comma but weaker than a question mark. A cut-off or self-interruption. The “less than” symbol indicates that the immediately following talk is “jump-started,” i.e. sounds like it starts with a rush. Audiable aspiration: It may represent breathing, laughter, etc. Transcriber’s descriptions of events. Uncertainty on the transcriber’s part.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 47

Self-identification in Japanese and Korean phone openings

In the examples, bold face is used to highlight the item(s) under discussion.

Abbreviations               

Attributive Circumstantial Committal Connective Conditional Correlative Copula Declarative Exclamation Sentence Final Particle Gerund Honorific Informal Ending Intentional Interrogative

             

Locative Negative Particle Object Marker Polite Suffix Possessive Precedence Past Tense Marker Question Particle Quotative Retrospective Subject Marker Tag Question Tentative Topic marker



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 48

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 49

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek* Maria Sifianou .

Introduction

Research on opening telephone interactions pioneered by Sacks (1992) was developed by Schegloff (1968) in the direction of identifying a set of four core sequences typical of such openings in North America. These are: (1) a summonsanswer sequence, (2) an identification and/or recognition sequence, (3) a greeting sequence and (4) an exchange of how-are-you sequences. This early work has served as the springboard for a number of studies mostly comparing findings from different linguistic communities with those relating to American English and focusing on cultural differences (e.g., Godard 1977 on French; Sifianou 1989 and Pavlidou 1995 on Greek; Houtkoop-Steenstra 1991 on Dutch; Lindström 1994 on Swedish; Pavlidou 1994, 1997 on Greek and German). In this chapter, I will first focus on Schegloff’s canonical structure of opening sequences in the light of Greek data and then consider their universal applicability. What seems to emerge from an extensive corpus of Greek data is that Schegloff’s canonical pattern is only evidenced between conversationalists whose relationship is distant either vertically or horizontally. Between closely related interlocutors, the actual canonical pattern, that is, the most frequently followed one, seems to involve two main sequences, those of summons-answer and how-are-yous. Before proceeding, a note on the data is in order. The data analysed consist of 121 telephone call openings which were recorded with the aid of a small cassette player attached to the plug of the telephone of five different adults. Thus both in-coming and out-going calls were recorded. In addition, another 675 instances were analysed from data collected by students who were asked to record their own telephone openings (both self-initiated and received) and transcribe them on a specially prepared observation sheet. All subjects collecting the data filled in contextual information, such as the

FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 50

Maria Sifianou

gender, approximate age, status and degree of familiarity between interlocutors. Telephone interactions between strangers as well as typical business calls were excluded from the sample. Thus my data include telephone calls primarily between conversationalists having “personal” and “familiar” relationships but also some involving a “formal” relationship (see Pavlidou 1994: 491 for this classification).

. The summons-answer sequence These data confirm what has already been shown (Bakakou-Orfanou 1988–1989; Sifianou 1989; Pavlidou 1994): for Greek callers and answerers overt self-identification is a dispreferred method of achieving recognition. Greek answerers hardly ever provide overt self-identification when answering their telephone at home either by means of name or telephone number. Similarly, Greek callers overwhelmingly refrain from identifying themselves overtly. Answerers assume and expect callers to recognise their voice as well as their personal style of answering their home telephone which is chosen from a set of typically used expressions in Greek. Such expressions include l1geue (“speak-”), parakal* (“please”), nai or m2litua (“yes”), empr-s (“go ahead”), or/tue (“order-”) and even combinations of these like l1geue parakal* (“speak please”).1 Some of these answering expressions can also be used in response to summons other than the ringing telephone, such as a knock on the door, which makes even clearer their use as “recipientdesigned” (Schegloff 1968) responses to the summons. For instance, young children are instructed to use or/tue (“order-”) rather than nai (“yes”) when they are called since the former is regarded as more polite. It should also be noted that none of these Greek options can be used as a greeting, as is the case with the English “hello”, so the question as to whether the response to the summons performs a greeting or even a “proto-greeting” function (see Hopper 1992: 61) does not arise. This may actually reinforce the claim that even the English “hello” in this position is not a greeting. The history of these opening gambits is far from clear and their rendition into English very difficult.2 What the answerer essentially indicates is that contact has been established so the caller can go ahead and speak. It is noteworthy, however, that similar expressions are also found in other languages, like pronto (“ready [to take your call]”) in Italian, prosím (“I beg [the favour of

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 51

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

your call]”) in Czech, diga (“say [your message]”) or the more old-fashioned mande (“command [me to answer you]”) in Spanish (Mey 1993: 228). From this variety of utterances available, speakers select and adopt the one they regularly use. The individual’s choice of a particular response does not seem to depend on any social or regional parameters. The adoption of a personal response appears to be closely related to what Schegloff (1979, 1986: 123) identifies as a “signature hello”, that is, “a distinctive mode of delivery, more or less standardized across occasions, which provides for ready recognition”. Occasional change of this characteristic response is of course possible but it acquires extra significance. It may indicate urgency or momentary change of mood or constitute a “call-you-right-back” case, where interlocutors conclude one conversation and arrange for one of them to ring back after performing some task. In such cases, when the answerer assumes he or she knows who the caller is, the substitute response is usually one of the brief variants like nai (“yes”) or even 1la (“come-”) and sometimes ako,z (“I’m listening”), which is an atypical answer form.3 For example: (1) 1 → 2

3

((telephone rings)) R: ′ Ela! come- ‘Hello!’ C: Paid/ mov, pov 0ceres -ui child my where you.knew that ‘How come you knew it was me, dear?’

e/mai am

eg*; I

In this instance, the caller questions the recipient’s atypical answer form, interpreting it as appropriate in cases in which one assumes he or she knows in advance who the caller is. Change in the recipient’s oral signature normally suggests to the caller that the wrong number has been reached and engenders either immediate hangingup or more frequently a sequence questioning and/or accounting for the “anomaly”. In (2), the recipient’s change of answering expression has led the caller to assume that she may have reached the wrong number. To verify her assumption she uses the recipient’s name with question intonation. When the recipient confirms, by using the caller’s name, that there is no mistake, the caller explains that she was puzzled by the change of answering expression. This provision of account probably also indicates that callers see it as their duty to recognise the recipient.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 52

Maria Sifianou

(2) 1 2

3

4

5

6

((telephone rings)) R: L1geue; speak-- ‘Hello?’ C: P1nnv; Penny ‘Penny?’ R: ′Ela Iz2nna. come- Ioanna ‘Hi Ioanna.’ C: ′Anue re kai de te kau2laba -4 -5 and not you- I.understood ‘Come on, I didn’t recognise your voice, pr*uh wor2 apanu2s 1uti uo uhl1wzno. first time you.answer so the phone it’s the first time you’ve answered the phone like that.’

The rather personal nature of the response to the summons is probably what makes some people feel that their choice is more appropriate or even better than those of others, and intimate friends or relatives sometimes tease each other about their characteristic response, as in (3) and (4) below. The expression parakal* (“please”) used in (3) in response to the summons is a verb literally meaning “to request politely” or “beg”, also used in response to thanks, in the sense “I beg of you not to mention your gratitude”. This multifunctionality of parakal* enables the caller, a closely related cousin, to use it as a verb and ask jokingly ui parakale/ue; (“what are you requesting?”). He also uses formal plural which probably reflects the nuances of formality attributed to parakal*.6 (3) 1 → 2

→ 3

((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: Ti parakale/ue; what you.request- ‘What are you requesting?’

Similarly playful is (4) where to the recipient’s typical answer form nai (“yes”), the caller retorts with the opposite (meaningless in this case) -xi (“no”).

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 53

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

(4) 1 → 2

→ 3

4 5

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: ′Oxi. no ‘No.’ R: [...] C: ′Ela re ui come- - what ‘Hi, how are you? What’s new?’

k2neis; you.do

Ti what

n1a; news

Thus clearly the variety of response tokens available to Greek answerers besides indicating that “a channel is open and an ear and a mouth are ready” (Schegloff 1986: 123) confirm the answerer’s identity in a way clearer than the common “hello” and can also trigger quite atypical playful openings.

. The identification and/or recognition sequence I suppose that as a consequence of this lack of recipient’s overt self-identification, Greek callers do not feel conversationally obliged to identify themselves, unless they assume that it is highly likely that the recipient will not recognise their voice, which is the case when interlocutors are in a formal or not a very familiar relationship (see Pavlidou 1994: 491). (5) is quite typical of what happens in such cases. The caller first greets the recipient with the common geia tov (“to your health”) (see Pavlidou 1994: 495) followed by the addressee’s name probably to indicate recognition and then identifies herself.7 The recipient returns the greeting and address term and initiates the first how-are-you: ui g/netai; In this exchange, it is notable not only that there is a conflation or “interlocking organization” (Schegloff 1986: 131) of sequences but also that self-identification follows rather than precedes the greeting. (5) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 54

Maria Sifianou

→

→

3 C: ′Ela geia tov Ma/rh, h D0mhura come- health to.you Mary the Dimitra ‘Oh, hello Mary, it’s Dimitra.’ 4 R: A geia tov D0mhura, ui g/netai; ah health to.you Dimitra what you.become ‘Oh, hello Dimitra, how are you?’ 5 C: Kal2, et,; 1xeue eceu2teis; well you you.have- exams ‘Fine and you? Have you got exams?’

e/mai. I.am

Some people, however, customarily self-identify irrespective of their relationship with the answerer. An interesting example of this comes from two adult callers in my data, who on different calls to the same person alternate between overt self-identification by first name “It’s X” to “It’s me” or produce no identification at all. (6), (7) and (8) are three instances between the same two closely related interlocutors: (6) 1 2

3

4

5

(7) 1 2

3

((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: Mairo,la. ((in a singing tone)) Mary- ‘Mary.’ R: Kalhm1ra. good.morning ‘Good morning.’ C: Ti k2neis ag2ph mov; 8 what you.do love my ‘How are you my love?’ ((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: Mairo,la; Mary- ‘Mary?’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 55

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

4

→ 5

(8) 1 2

→ 3

4

5

R: Nai. yes ‘Yes.’ C: G L1na e/mai, na tov the Lena am to you- ‘It’s Lena, can I ask if you’ve finished.’ ((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: Eg* e/mai. I am ‘It’s me.’ R: Ti k2neue; To what you.do- it ‘How are you? I know.’ C: E/matue kal2. we.are well ‘We’re fine.’

pz, I.tell

uelei*taue; you.finished-

kau2laba. ((both laugh)) I.understood

I suggest that overt self-identification is a habit for people who presumably carry over their work telephone style to personal calls.9 This habit surfaces at times when callers are not self-conscious. In other cases, callers may play with this habit and produce the totally uninformative Eg* e/mai (“It’s me”).10 The use of this utterance introduces an element of playfulness and relaxation in the interaction, probably also signifying that overt self-identification is redundant while at the same time providing more evidence of identity by offering a voice sample. These three examples are not atypical of Greek openings among closely related interlocutors. Irrespective of the presence or absence of overt selfidentification, the caller obviously offers identification implicitly by means of the characteristic singing tone of voice with which she utters the recipient’s name in the sixth example and the playful intonation with which she produces eg* e/mai (“it’s me”) in the eighth one. The seventh example is different in that the caller’s use of the recipient’s name with a low rise does not check her identity. As it is the diminutive form of the name, it is rather an endearing term of address initiating the following question na tov pz, uelei*taue;



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 56

Maria Sifianou

(“can I ask if you’ve finished?”), a kind of pre-request. Consequently, the recipient’s nai (“yes”) does not confirm her identity but is rather a response to this pre-request. It should also be noted that the use of the recipient’s first name in the sixth and seventh examples do not only or primarily indicate the caller’s recognition of the recipient but facilitates the recipient’s recognition of the caller. The term of address chosen is a diminutive of the recipient’s first name used only by a limited number of closely related people and hardly ever by the recipient to self-identify. Thus I would suggest that the caller’s overt self-identification in the seventh example does not contribute any more information than the uninformative eg* e/mai (“it’s me”) in the eighth example or even its absence in the sixth one. These examples are interesting for an additional reason: they clearly show how interlocutors co-construct their openings and somehow agree to play the game initiated by the caller. In (8), for instance, the recipient responds to the caller’s indefinite identification, with a how-are-you in the formal plural. Both interlocutors laugh, sharing in the game the caller has introduced and “laughing’s distinctive nonverbal vocalization is a sign of play”, as Hopper (1992: 179) observes. The recipient in (8) also adds uo kau2laba (“I know it”). Expressions including kaualaba/nz (“understand”), which are not uncommon, clearly mark overt self-identification as a dispreferred strategy in Greek, as (9) also illustrates. Such expressions seem to be acknowledgements of the caller’s attempt to facilitate recognition and an overt attestation of closeness and familiarity by the recipient which renders overt self-identification superfluous. (9) 1 2

3

→ 4

((telephone rings)) R: Empr-s; go.ahead ‘Hello?’ C: ′Ela bre 11 Nan2! G Fz0 e/mai. come- - Nana the Zoe am ‘Oh, hi Nana! It’s Zoe.’ R: ′Ela bre te kau2laba, ui k2neis; come- - you- I.understood what you.do ‘Oh, hi, I recognised you, how are you?’

Further evidence that in Greek both callers and recipients see it as their duty to recognise their interlocutor by voice sample, is the expression of embarrassment and the inclusion of apologies for lack of recognition of the other party’s voice. In (10), the caller suspects from the hesitant tone of the

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 57

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

answerer’s geia tas (“hello”) that she may not have been recognised. However, instead of identifying herself, she asks whether this is indeed the case, exhibiting reluctance to self-identify. The recipient of the call apologises for not recognising the caller’s voice and when the caller eventually self-identifies, the answerer prefaces her second greeting with a nai (“ah yes”) to underline that she has recognised the caller: (10) 1 2

((telephone rings)) A: L1geue; speak-- ‘Hello?’ 3 C: Nai M2rz eo, e/tai; yes Maro you you.are ‘Yes, Maro is that you?’ 4 A: Nai. yes ‘Yes.’ 5 C: Ceia tov, ui k2neis; health to.you what you.do ‘Hello, how are you?’ 6 A: Ceia tas. ((hesitantly)) health to.you- ‘Hello.’ 7 C: Den me kau2labes, e; not me you.understand eh ‘You didn’t recognise me, eh?’ → 8 A: £xi den tas kau2laba, tvgn*mh. no not you- I.understood sorry ‘No, I didn’t recognise you, sorry.’ 9 C: E/mai h N1llh apuo Maro,ti. am the Nelli from the Marousi ‘It’s Nelli from Marousi.’ 10 A: A nai, geia tas, ui k2neue; ah yes health to.you-, what you.do- ‘Ah yes, hello, how are you?’

Similarly in (11), the aunt does not apologise overtly for having mistaken her niece for her sister but rather expresses embarrassment and states that she has made a mistake again. Her niece provides an account — that her voice and



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 58

Maria Sifianou

that of her sister’s sound very similar — to justify the aunt’s mistake and ease her embarrassment. (11) 1 2

3

4

→ 5

6

7

8

((telephone rings)) A: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: Ka/uh; Keti ‘Kate?’ A: B2na. Vana ‘Vana.’ C: ©Ela ko,kla mov, ui k2neis; Sas come- doll my what you.do you-- ‘Hello my darling, how are you? mp1rdeya p2li. I.mixed again I mistook one of you for the other again.’ A: ′Ela bre je/a den peir2fei come- - aunt not matters ‘Come on auntie, it doesn’t matter, moi2fovn oi wzn1s mas, kal2 e/tai; sound.similar the voices our well you.are our voices sound very alike, how are you?’

The following example between two young males also illustrates clearly that recognition rather than explicit self-identification is the norm. In this instance, the caller, not recognising the recipient’s voice, provides what Schegloff (1979: 31) calls “a switchboard request” revealing his assumption that the answerer is not the intended person. The recipient recognising the caller’s voice and, knowing he is the intended addressee, gives a false response (that Dimitris is out) to tease his friend. This utterance, however, offers further voice sample to the caller who recognises the recipient and indicates this by his 1la re (“come on”). The caller, who is challenged by the recipient for lack of recognition feels obliged to provide an account for his failure which is due not to his inability to recognise a friend’s voice but to the use of a cordless phone which distorts people’s voices.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 59

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

(12) 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: To Dhm0urh ja 0jela. the Dimitris will I.liked ‘I’d like to speak to Dimitris.’ R: O Dhm0urhs den e/nai ed* u*ra. the Dimitris not is here now ‘Dimitris isn’t here now.’ C: ©Ela re. come- - ‘Come on.’ R: Den me gn*rites, e; not me you.recognised eh ‘You didn’t recognise me, eh?’ C: N-mita pzs 0uan o adelw-s tov. Ap- u-ue I.thought that was the brother your from then ‘I thought it was your brother. pov p0res uo at,rmauo 1xei when you.got the cordless has Since you bought the cordless telephone, all2cei uh wzn0 tov. changed the voice your your voice has changed.’

Another interesting set of examples from my data which indicate that recognition without self-identification is preferred includes cases of teasing and joking instead of a straightforward response to questions like poios e/nai; (“who is it?”) denoting the recipient’s inability to recognise the caller’s voice.12 Thus instead of responding with self-identification, the male caller in (13), confident that he is speaking to the intended addressee, responds with a female name and a question challenging him for lack of recognition, thus offering further clues for identification to the recipient, through voice samples. To the recipient’s a 1la (“oh come”), the caller still playfully responds with 1rxomai (“ I am coming”).



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 60

Maria Sifianou

(13) 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: ©Ela. come- ‘Hi.’ R: Poios e/nai; who is ‘Who is it?’ C: G Mar/ka! Poios jes the Marika who you.want ‘Marika! Who do you think it is?’ R: A 1la. oh come- ‘Oh, hello.’ C: ′Erxomai. I.am.coming ‘I’m coming.’

na’nai to.be

re; -

(13) illustrates what Schegloff (1979: 39) calls “joke self-identification”, which provides clues for recognition achieved and displayed by the “success marker” a 1la (“oh come”). Failure of the recipient to recognise the caller may reflect on the relationship, which can be playfully exploited with expressions like a mas c1xates (“oh, you’ve forgotten us”) and a kind of guessing game, thus offering more clues to the recipient about the identity of the caller rather than telling him or her directly who the caller is, as (14) and (15) illustrate. Obviously these games depend crucially on the caller’s confidence that the recipient is the intended interlocutor and they denote as well as reaffirm a close relationship between the interlocutors. For example: (14) 1 2

3

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: Kalhtp1ra. good.evening ‘Good evening.’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 61

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

4

→ 5

6

7

(15) 1 2

3

4

→ 5

6

R: Kalhtp1ra, E,h et,; good.evening Evi you ‘Good evening, is that you Evi?’ C: Ti 1gine bre, me c1xates ki-las; what happened - me you.forgot already ‘What happened, have you forgotten me already?’ R: ′Oxi re, all2 mov w2nhke alloi*uikh no - but to.me seemed different ‘No but your voice sounded different, wzn0 tov gi’ avu-. Ti g/netai; voice your for this what you.become that’s why. How are you?’

h the

((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: Dion,th, et, e/tai; Dionisi you you.are ‘Dionisi, is that you?’ R: Nai, poios e/nai; yes who is ‘Yes, who is it?’ C: M2nueye. guess- ‘Guess.’ R: Den uo pitue,z. ′Anna ui k2neis; E/tai kal2; not it I.believe Anna what you.do you.are well ‘I can’t believe it. Anna how are you? Are you well?

From the above discussion one can conclude that overt self-identification on the telephone in Greece is construed as superfluous information. Callers presume that the recipient will recognise them from clues such as pitch, intonation and term of address or endearment, if any. Similarly, callers are assumed to recognise recipients from the characteristic answering expression rather than being told who the recipients are. Failure of recognition seems to be interpreted as name forgetting (see Brown and Levinson 1987: 39) and this causes embarrassment and engenders apologies, teasing or accounts, especially among intimates. Consequently, the absence of an overt



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 62

Maria Sifianou

identification sequence is a typical rather than an exceptional case for Greek telephone openings, which results in a compression of turns, as the following example, between intimate friends, illustrates: (16) 1 2

3

4

((telephone rings)) R: L1geue; speak-- ‘Hello?’ C: ′Ela Len2ki mov, kalhm1ra. come- Lena- my good.morning ‘Hi, Lena, good morning.’ R: Kalhm1ra agapo,la mov, ui k2neis, p*s e/tai; good.morning love- my what you.do how you.are ‘Good morning my love, how’re you doing, how are you?’

The recognition is here achieved through voice sample and characteristic answering phrase for the caller and through voice sample and characteristic term of address for the recipient rendering explicit self-identification not only redundant but also rather undesirable. Even lack of recognition which may result in an expansion of turns including apologies, accounts and teasing, as already noted, facilitates recognition while at the same time further marking explicit self-identification as undesirable. Evidently, this preference for recognition rather than overt self-identification is not a uniquely Greek trait, because as Schegloff (1979: 50) attests, self-identification is a dispreferred method of achieving recognition as opposed to the preferred recognition by “inspection”. The overarching principle for Schegloff is “don’t tell the recipient what you ought to suppose he already knows; use it. This principle builds in a preference to ‘oversuppose and undertell’”. In conclusion, it is evident that a next task relevant after the response to the summons is the identification of conversationalists either through overt self-identification or recognition. Preference for the one or the other varies from society to society but in general people talk to those they recognise. As Schegloff (1979: 71) maintains, “whatever a telephone conversation is going to be occupied with, however bureaucratic or intimate, routine or unusual, earthshaking or trivial, it and its parties will have to pass through the identification/recognition sieve as the first thing they do”. However, it should be noted that in my data, callers who feel their voice may not be recognised and selfidentify overtly tend to do so after the greeting as (5) above and (24), (25) and (26) below illustrate.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 63

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

. The greeting sequence The typical compression mentioned above brings the greeting sequence into the second slot as in (16) above. As Pavlidou (1994: 495) also observes, the most common greeting formula in Greek telephone openings is geia tov/tas (“health to you (/)”) or simply geia (“health”). Kalhm1ra (“good morning”) and kalhtp1ra (“good evening”) are less frequently used, and in particular, when followed by tas (“to you-”) they sound formal. These greetings are frequently preceded by 1la (“come”) which is sometimes followed by re or bre, as Pavlidou (ibid.; 1995) also notes. Greetings are also frequently preceded or followed by endearment or address terms. As (16) above shows, these are sometimes idiosyncratic and reflect the particular relationship. The specific diminutive of the recipient’s name is used by certain others only and the recipient’s return greeting, including the endearment term agapo,la mov (“my love-”) is also restricted to certain addressees. In this sense, greetings perform or contribute to the identification task, because “it is with a greeting that each party asserts or claims recognition of the other” (Schegloff 1979, 1986: 129). Moreover, the terms of address exchanged reveal from the very beginning how interlocutors perceive themselves and their relationship with the other party (Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998: 155). Their stance evidently influences the structure and content of the ensuing interaction. The playfulness in telephone openings mentioned earlier in relation to the summons-answer and identification/recognition sequences is also present in greetings. For example: (17) 1 2

3

4

→ 5

→ 6

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: Ci*rgo; George ‘George?’ R: ©Ela. come- ‘Hi.’ C: W2i. hi ‘Hi.’ R: Wo,i. hi ‘Hi.’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 64

Maria Sifianou

In this instance, after mutual recognition has been achieved, the caller uses the English word Hi to greet his interlocutor who responds with the totally irrelevant word xo,i (“habit”) simply constructing a pun with hi.13 The caller’s attempt at humour is received well by the recipient who reciprocates and they both laugh. As mentioned earlier (see section 2), none of the options to respond to the summons in Greek is used as a greeting, thus the greeting function is clearly achieved in the greeting sequence in addition to being a claim of recognition. It is, however, noteworthy that despite its significance, especially in face-to-face interaction, the greeting sequence does not appear to be an essential part of Greek telephone openings among intimates. In my data, there are many instances without a greeting sequence (as in (18) below) or with a greeting but not a return of it, (as in (6) above): (18) 1 2

3

4

((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: Ag2ph mov ui k2neis; love my what you.do ‘How are you my love?’ R: Kal2, ete/s ui k2neue; well you- what you.do- ‘Fine, how are you?’

In opening face-to-face interactions absence of greetings — and in particular the absence of a return greeting — is a notable exception. However, in my telephone data neither callers nor recipients make any comments concerning the absence of greetings. One could agree with Schegloff (1986: 131) that greetings are achieved through the “enthusiastic delivery of address terms” and add that this is especially true with more personal and intimate terms of address, as in (6) and (16) above. In Greek, an enthusiastic 1la (“come”) can be used in the place of greetings. As noted earlier (see note 3), 1la is a multifunctional element, which on special occasions can even be used to respond to the summons (as (1) illustrates). Pavlidou (1995: 718) provides an interesting explanation of the flexibility of 1la (“come”) occurrences in telephone openings on the basis of its literal meaning. It is interpreted as denoting a kind of speaker’s appeal to the addressee to reduce the distance and approach the speaker. Interestingly, it can

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 65

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

be exchanged in the position of both turns of the second sequence or can occupy just one of its turns alone or in combination with terms of address and endearment and/or how-are-yous. In the second position, it contributes to identification and may serve both functions of a greeting sequence (claim or assertion of recognition and greeting), but it is restricted to informal encounters among familiars. This is also evidenced by the fact that it is used only in the imperative form and the singular number, as Pavlidou (1995: 714) observes. (2), (5), (9), (13) and (16), among many others, clearly illustrate its positional flexibility and variety of functions. In contrast to other studies (see for example, Lindström 1994: 248), my data reveal that Greeks can easily do away with greetings in their opening telephone sequences with intimates while an exchange of how-are-yous is almost always present. It cannot be a mere coincidence that in my data there is no example with greetings but without how-are-yous while there are many cases of opening with exchanges of how-are-yous but without greetings. Moreover, in contrast to Hopper’s (1992: 61) finding that greetings can be omitted in telephone interactions among strangers but not among intimates, my data show that greetings tend to be omitted in interactions among intimates.

. The how-are-you sequence The last core sequence consists of exchanges of how-are-yous which are almost invariably present in my data. This may be related to the fact that how-are-yous in Greek, despite their conventionalisation, can also be interpreted literally. Responding non-routinely to such inquiries is not unusual, marked or problematic, as Hopper (1992: 62) suggests it is for American English. Moreover, as Coupland, Coupland and Robinson (1992) have clearly illustrated, one should not treat phatic responses to how-are-yous “as endemic in the mechanism of (all) conversation” (ibid.: 226). They suggest, in agreement with Brown and Levinson (1987: 38), that responses reflect face considerations. If one feels that unloading personal problems is face-threatening to both parties, one will refrain from doing so. However, since in Greece close friends are normally expected to disclose their problems, such moves are not perceived as facethreatening but rather as offers of opportunities to assist a friend in trouble, even if this means simply listening to them and/or offering verbal support. On this basis, I suggest that initial inquiries are not necessarily viewed as questions requiring only formulaic responses. Such inquiries, rather than lead to the



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 66

Maria Sifianou

initiation of the first topic, can constitute the first topic as in the following example between two close friends: (19) 1 2

3

4

5

6

→ 7

((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: Mairo,la. ((in a singing voice)) Mary- ‘Mary.’ R: ′Ela. come- ‘Hi.’ C: Ti k2neis; what you.do ‘How are you?’ R: Kal2, et,; well you ‘Fine and you?’ C: Orgitm1nh pov den 1xz uhl1wzno. furious that not I.have telephone ‘Furious because my telephone is out of order.’

The response to the recipient’s how-are-you is not something conventional like kal2 (“well”) but a statement concerning the caller’s frustration because her telephone had been out of order for some days and despite promises from Telecom it had not been fixed. For Schegloff (1986: 135), examples like this indicate how initial inquiries can serve as preemptive moves for the caller to introduce a first topic at the answer turn of the second how-are-you. A similar example is the following one, where to the caller’s how-are-you, the recipient responds with “not so well” and after the sequence involving an apology and its response, the recipient proceeds with an explanation of the reasons why she is not feeling well. (20) 1 2

3

((telephone rings)) R: L1geue. speak-- ‘Hello.’ C: Kalhtp1ra R1a, ui k2neis; good.evening Rea what you.do ‘Good evening Rea, how are you?’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 67

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

→ 4

5

6

R: E, -xi kai u-to kala. eh not and so well ‘Eh, not so well.’ C: Svgn*mh pov pa/rnz u-to arg2. sorry that I.take so late ‘Sorry for ringing so late.’ R: Den peir2fei, 0jela na mil0tz. not matters I.wanted to I.speak ‘It doesn’t matter, I wanted to talk.’

Although ui k2neis/eue, literally (“how/what are you (/) doing”), is by far the most common initial inquiry, there are other similar questions which can be used in this slot. As Pavlidou (1995: 496) shows, these involve the verbs g/nomai (“become”) e/mai (“be”) and phga/nz (“go”) in addition to k2nz (“do”) as in ui (mov) g/netai; (“how are you doing (to me)”)14 or literally (“what are you becoming (to me)”) and p*s pas; (“how are you doing?”) or literally (“how are you going?”). Moreover, since the expression ui k2neis; means not only (“how are you doing?”) but also (“what are you doing?”), people can also respond to this second meaning, as the following example illustrates where the recipient responds to the latter, literal meaning rather playfully, also evidenced by the use of the colloquial expression e/mai aragm1nos tuo kreb2ui (“I’m moored in bed”). (21) 1 2

3

4

5

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: ′Ela M2rie, ui k2neis; come- Marie what you.do ‘Hi Marie, what’s up?’ R: E/mai aragm1nos tuo kreb2ui. I’m moored on.the bed ‘I’m relaxing in bed.’ C: Ki eg* ua /dia bl1pz uo maus. and I the same I.see the match ‘So am I, I’m watching the match.’

In addition, Pavlidou (1994: 497) suggests that questions, such as the above, concerning the addressee’s state, could be seen as belonging to a broader



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 68

Maria Sifianou

category including questions about more general news or news specific to the addressee. (4) is an instance of this including ui n1a (“what’s new?”), illustrating that more than one initial inquiry can be included in the same turn. Although one could see how-are-yous here as “greeting substitutes” (Sacks 1975: 68–69), I would like to venture a different explanation. It may be that Greeks view greetings as routine formalities sometimes unnecessary for closely related interlocutors while they view how-are-yous as more flexible ways of expressing genuine concern. Thus, exchange of greetings appears more frequently in encounters among interlocutors who are on familiar and formal terms (rather than personal ones) as in the following example, where the call is answered by the mother of the called person and the caller feels obliged not only to greet formally with kalhtp1ra (“good evening”) (see section 4) but also to apologise for the intrusion: (22) 1 2

3

4

5

6

((telephone rings)) A: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: Kalhtp1ra. good.evening ‘Good evening.’ A: Kalhtp1ra. good.evening ‘Good evening.’ C: Svgn*mh gia uhn en-xlhth, sorry for the disturbance ‘Sorry to disturb you, m0pzs e/nai eke/ h Anatuat/a; perhaps is there the Anastasia is Anastasia there by any chance?’

. Other sequence types The discussion so far suggests that the four core sequences detected by Schegloff in American telephone openings may also occur in Greek. It is, however, noteworthy that the full expression of all four sequences are the exception rather than the rule, and is reserved for cases of vertical or horizontal social distance, also reflecting infrequent contact, as (5) above shows. Moreover, an interlocking rather than a serial organisation can be observed as in the following example:

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 69

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

(23) 1 2

→ 3

→ 4

5

6

7

((telephone rings)) A: Parakal*. I.request ‘Hello.’ C: Kalhtp1ra kvr/a El1nh, h Iz2nna good.evening Mrs Eleni the Ioanna ‘Good evening Mrs Eleni, it’s Ioanna.’ A: Ceia tov Iz2nna mov, ui k2neis; health to.you Ioanna my what you.do ‘Hello Ioanna, how are you?’ C: Yra/a, ete/s; nicely you- ‘Fine and you?’ A: Kal2, uon K*tua j1leis, e; well the Costas you.want eh ‘Fine, you’d like to speak to Costas, eh? mit- lepu- na uon wzn2cz. half minute to him I.call Let me get him for you.’

e/mai. am

This is a rather formal instance for the young woman who has rung a friend’s house and his mother answers the telephone. She, therefore, feels obliged to greet using also a rather formal term of address and to self-identify.15 She does all this in one turn to which the mother responds with a turn including a greeting, a familiar address term and the first initial inquiry. The caller responds to this last part and initiates her own how-are-you. The answerer responds routinely, makes a sensible guess as to the recipient of the call and volunteers to call him. This interlocking organisation, which is fairly common in my data, results in openings with three or even two sequences as (24) and (25) below indicate, where the greeting, the self-identification and the initial inquiry are compressed into the caller’s first turn. In addition to all this, the caller in the first instance also includes season’s wishes in her turn. To these compressed turns the answerer in the first instance responds to the initial inquiry and returns season’s wishes while in the second the answerer returns the greeting and makes her initial inquiry. (24) 1 2

((telephone rings)) A: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 70

Maria Sifianou

→ 3

→ 4

5

(25) 1 2

→ 3

→ 4

C: Ceia tas, xr-nia poll2, health to.you- years many ‘Hello, many happy returns e/mai mia w/lh uhs E,hs, e/tue kal2; am a friend of.the Evi you.are- well it’s one of Evi’s friends. Are you all right?’ A: Kal2 paid/ mov, xr-nia polla. well child my years many ‘Fine my dear, many happy returns.’ ((telephone rings)) R: Empr-s. go.ahead ‘Hello.’ C: Eir0nh kalhtp1ra, h ©Anna e/mai ui k2neis; Irene good.evening the Anna am what you.do ‘Irene good evening, it’s Ann, how’re you doing?’ k2neis; R: Kalhtp1ra ©Anna, ui good.evening Anna what you.do ‘Good evening Ann, how are you?’

Notice here that greetings precede self-identification, which is followed by the first how-are-you. There are also examples, like (26), where self-identification is the last component in a turn. This probably reflects the tendency for greetings to occupy a second position, while self-identifications, construed as rather superfluous to occupy the last slot, and are in a sense attributed the status of an afterthought. (26) 1 2

→ 3

((telephone rings)) R: L1geue; speak-- ‘Hello?’ C: Kalhtp1ra tas, ui k2neue; good.evening to.you- what you.do-? ‘Good evening, how are you?

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 71

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

4

5

6

G Mau/na e/mai. the Matina am It’s Matina.’ R: Ceia tov kor/uti mov, p*s e/tai; health to.you girl my how you.are ‘Hello my girl, how are you? P*s p2ei uo di2batma; how goes the studying How are you getting on with your studying?’

Besides such compressed openings, there are also instances shortened by what Schegloff (1986: 133) calls “preemptive moves” which range from weak to strong. In such cases, before the opening is fully worked out, one of the interlocutors may introduce the first topic. Many of the preemptive moves discussed involve literal responses to the initial inquiry. However, since in Greek, overt selfidentification is infrequent and greetings can often be omitted between intimates, the first how-are-you can normally occur either in the caller’s first verbal turn or in the answerer’s second turn. Given also that initial inquiries can easily receive literal responses, such instances can be seen as constituting a norm rather than being exceptional or reflecting special circumstances. Another class of preemptive moves, identified by Schegloff (1986: 144), involves apologies and complaints which are usually contact related and are performed by recipients while for callers preemption usually involves extrinsic matters of urgency. However, what emerges from my data is that even such cases are not exceptional or problematic. They are simply marked as situation-specific. As Hopper (1992: 81) suggests, “preemptions to first topic are commonplace in intimate calls”. Obviously there are cases involving matters of urgency which may lead to variation but not all such cases of variation can be seen as atypical, that is, deviations from the canonical pattern. If variation is so commonplace, as mentioned earlier, what is it that determines the canonical structure of openings? Adherence to this canonical structural organisation may simply reflect a certain idealisation viewed through ethnocentric eyes or rather formal interactions. I will first consider an example where the recipient initiates a situation-specific turn (which however, I cannot see as exceptional), and then consider (28) which is atypical and idiosyncratic. In the following example the recipient complains about prolonged lack of contact:



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 72

Maria Sifianou

(27) 1 2

3

→ 4

5

6

7

((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’ C: ′Ela. come- ‘Oh hello.’ R: ′Ela bre Su1la ui 1gines! come- - Stela what you.became ‘Hi there Stela, whatever happened to you? Se x2tame. you- we.lost We haven’t seen you for ages.’ C: §te ki eg* 1xz x2tei uon eavu- mov. leave- and I I.have lost the self my ‘That’s true, I’ve not seen myself either.’ R: Ti k2neis; E/tai kal2; what you.do you.are well ‘How are you? Are you okay?’

In this instance, the recipient’s complaint also indicates her concern for the caller who does not apologise directly but rather playfully states that she has been very busy. Then the how-are-yous follow this kind of insertion sequence which in a sense replaces the greeting sequence probably indicating that expressing concern takes priority over greetings. Concern is also expressed through repetition of utterances relating to the caller’s state ui k2neis; e/tai kal2; (“how are you? are you okay?”). As illustrated elsewhere (Sifianou 1989) friends and relatives are socially obliged to contact each other frequently simply to exchange news and chat. Failure to make such calls can be seen as lack of interest or concern and even as aloofness and snobbery which may result in negative judgements and even sanctions. Consequently, such sequences, which are fairly common in Greek, reflect the kind of friendly sanctions imposed for nonconformity and thus constitute legitimate sequences of the opening. An interesting but rather atypical example from my data is the following: (28) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: Parakal*; I.request ‘Hello?’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 73

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

→ 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

C: Eke/ e/tai povl2ki mov; there you.are bird- my ‘Are you there, darling?’ R: Beba/zs! of.course ‘Of course!’ C: Ti k2neis; what you.do ‘How are you?’ R: Kal2, ete/s; well you- ‘Fine and you?’ C: Kal2 e/tai; well you.are ‘Are you okay?’ R: Mmm. mmm ‘Yes.’ C: Ha bgeis uo br2dv; will you.go.out the night ‘Are you going out tonight?’

In this instance, between two very closely related friends, the second adjacency pair may seem irrelevant and redundant at first sight. Asking somebody who has just answered the telephone whether they are in can only receive a positive response, hence the emphatic positive response by the recipient beba/zs (“of course”). Moreover, as expected, there is no overt self-identification and no greeting although one could consider the intimate endearing address term povl2ki mov (“my bird-”) as a substitute greeting. The next two turns involve how-are-yous which are, however, both produced by the caller, who does not respond to the recipient’s inquiry but rephrases her own how-are-you, behaviour which probably indicates some kind of urgency on the caller’s part. After the recipient’s response mmm (“yes”), the caller proceeds with her preinvitation which also illuminates the relevance of the question in the second adjacency pair. It “serves as a harbinger of what is to come” (Schegloff 1986: 143). It clearly reflects the caller’s pre-calling state of mind as to whether the intended recipient would be in or not and whether she should make a call or not. The cheerful tone of asking the question and the endearing term of



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 74

Maria Sifianou

address display the caller’s happiness on the success of the outcome. For the recipient, it could have been understood as a pre-invitation, a pre-request or as a mild, friendly reprimand that people should be out on a Saturday evening or even an expression of surprise that the recipient is at home. In my data preemptive/situation-specific moves fall into three types: (a) they are social, occasion-specific wishes, as (24), (29) and (31) illustrate; (b) they are overt or covert complaints for lack of contact or difficulty in establishing contact due to no answer or a persistent engaged signal, as (32) illustrates; and (c) they are overt or covert apologies for intrusion, as (33) exemplifies. These can be either different sequences or component parts of sequences. Good wishes are exchanged on special occasions like namedays and birthdays and Christmas or Easter holidays. People are expected to include such wishes in their telephone calls in the same way as they are expected to exchange them in face-to-face encounters. The expression of such wishes may even be the reason-for-call. (24) above contains such a wish and its response in the how-are-you sequence while (29) is an instance of a special call to a friend on her nameday (namedays rather than birthdays are celebrated in Greece), and includes two pairs of wish-response sequences. (29) 1 2

→ 3

4

→ 5

→ 6

((telephone rings)) R: L1geue; speak-- ‘Hello?’ C: ′Ela Eir0nh kalhtp1ra, pol,xronh. come- Irene good.evening, many.years ‘Hi Irene, good evening, many happy returns.’ R: Evxaritu*. thanks ‘Thank you.’ C: Na xa/retai ua paidi2 tov kai -ui epijvme/s. to you.enjoy the children your and everything you.wish ‘May you be happy with your children and all the best.’ R: Na’tai kal2, kai tv uo /dio. be well and you the same ‘Thank you, the same to you.’

What usually happens in such cases is that after the caller’s occasion-specific wishes, more general wishes are exchanged. Since such calls are more or less obligatory in Greece, it sometimes becomes extremely difficult to reach somebody on

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 75

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

their nameday, especially if they have a very common name, because hundreds of other people are attempting to do the same thing and the lines get jammed. In (30), the caller first covertly apologises, humbling herself to the position of a donkey (an impolite creature in Greek culture), for having forgotten her friend’s birthday and then goes on to wish her many happy returns, which is most probably the reason-for-call. (30) 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: ′Ela re. come- - ‘Hi there.’ R: ′Ela. come- ‘Hi.’ C: Kal2, e/mai mia gaïdo,ra. well am a donkey ‘Well, I’m an ass.’ R: Ciau/ re; why -? ‘Why is that?’ C: Z1xata ua gen1jli2 tov¨ na ua ekauotu0teis! I.forgot the birthday your to them make.a.hundred ‘I forgot your birthday, may you live to be a hundred!’ R: Den peir2fei. Evxaritu* p2nuzs. not matters I.thank anyway ‘It doesn’t matter. Thanks anyway.’

Wishes can also occur very early in the opening in cases in which one of the interlocutors has been away (see also Pavlidou 1994: 498), as in the following example: (31) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 76

Maria Sifianou

→ 3

4

C: A! kal*s 0rjes! ah well you.came ‘Ah! Welcome back!’ R: Evxaritu*. I.thank ‘Thanks.’

Statements or complaints for lack of contact, delayed response to the summons or unsuccessful attempts to get an answer are common (see also Pavlidou 1994: 498) and are frequently expressed in a jocular manner as (32) illustrates: (32) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ → 3 C: ©Ela re po, e/tai kai den come- - where you.are and not ‘Come on, why did it take you so long to answer 4 uo thk*neis; it you.pick.up the telephone?’ 5 R: Poios e/nai; who is ‘Who is it?’ 6 C: O Su1wanos. the Stefanos ‘It’s Stefanos.’ 7 R: ©Ela re meg2le, den te kau2laba, come- - big not you- I.understood ‘Hi mate, I didn’t recognise your voice, 8 tuo mp2nio 0movna. in.the bathroom I.was I was having a bath.’ 9 C: Kai ui tov bo,lztan ua avui2 and what to.you they.blocked the ears ‘So what, did your ears get blocked 10 ap- uh tapovn2da; from the soapfoam with soap foam?’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 77

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

The previous example is an exchange between two young male interlocutors and group-specific terms of address like meg2le (“big/great guy”) are exchanged. In this example the complaint concerns the delayed response and when the recipient states that he was in the bathroom, thus implying that he either did not hear the ringing or could not answer the telephone immediately, the caller teases him about soap foam blocking his ears. Calls involving complaints may reflect the fact that in Greece social calls, that is, calls to exchange news or simply to chat (sometimes for a very long time to the dismay of all those who might be trying to get in touch in the meantime!) is a “social obligation”. Ringing each other for no special reason indicates concern, interest and closeness. Thus, nonconformity to this “obligation” can elicit complaints and unfavourable judgements frequently vested in jokes (see Sifianou 1989). Apologies in this mode of communication are normally of a very specific nature as my data indicate. As Greeks are expected to call each other socially, callers do not assume that their calls will disturb, as is the case in France (see Godard 1977), as long as one sticks to culturally acceptable hours for telephone calls. Thus, most apologies (usually covert) relate to having disturbed somebody on that particular occasion, an assumption frequently triggered by the recipient’s tone of voice in answering the telephone. For example: (33) 1 2

3

4

5

6

((telephone rings)) R: Nai; yes ‘Hello?’ C: Koim2tai; you.sleep ‘Were you asleep?’ R: ′Oxi. no ‘No.’ C: Se c,pnhta you- I.woke.up ‘Did I wake you up?’ R: ′Oxi paid/ mov. no child my ‘No dear.’

re; -



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 78

Maria Sifianou

7

C: S/govra; sure ‘Are you sure?’ 8 R: Nai mau2kia mov. yes eyes- my ‘Sure, love.’ 9 C: Awo, ako,getai mitokoimitm1nh. since you.sound half-asleep ‘But you sound half-asleep.’ 10 R: ©Oxi, -xi diab2fz¨ mhn anhtvxe/s. no no I.study not you.worry ‘No, no, I’ve been studying, don’t worry.’

In this instance, the caller assumes she has woken up the recipient because of her sleepy tone of voice. The recipient’s first brief negative response reinforces rather than weakens the caller’s initial assumption who asks again. The recipient’s second negative response is not convincing either, probably due to a persistent sleepy tone of voice, so the caller asks again, this time with ti/govra; (“are you sure?”). When the recipient confirms again that she was not woken up by the call, the caller gives her reason for her initial assumption to which the recipient gives an explanation and tries to console the caller. In conclusion, I would like to suggest that Greek openings like the above constitute legitimate situation-specific openings rather than preemptive moves introducing the first topic before the opening is fully worked out. The core sequences in Greek among familiars appear to be the summons-answer and the initial inquiries since recognitional identification is preferred. Thus situation-specific sequences can occupy the slot between the summons-answer and the how-are-you sequences.

.

Discussion and conclusions

In this chapter, I have tried to investigate the extent to which Greeks follow the four core sequence pattern proposed by Schegloff (1968) and elaborated by Hopper (1992) in opening their telephone interactions. What seems to emerge from these data is that the four sequences can occur, usually though in an interlocking rather than a serial organisation. The main factors that appear to determine the organisation of openings is the frequency of contact and the

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 79

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

relationship between interlocutors. More specifically, acquaintances, distant relatives or even friends with infrequent contacts tend to incorporate the four component parts in their openings whereas between closely related friends or those with frequent contact, variations of the canonical pattern can occur. Far from being exceptional, these can be seen as unmarked for the particular relationship. This is not surprising because, as Hopper (1992: 67) suggests, “telephone openings are team efforts, mutual accomplishments” and constitutions and reconstitutions of the relationship according to Schegloff (1986: 113) rather than enactments of a ritual. These data further confirm earlier findings (Bakakou-Orfanou 1988–1989; Sifianou 1989; Pavlidou 1994) that Greeks, both as callers and as recipients, avoid explicit self-identification. Recipients hardly ever self-identify unless they answer a business telephone (and even then they do not necessarily do so). Similarly, callers tend to omit explicit self-identification with the exception of either formal relationships where the norm requires self-identification, or when the caller assumes that his or her voice will not be recognised. Both recipients’ and callers’ recognition is normally achieved through voice sample which for the recipient is provided by the characteristic answering word or phrase and for the caller by his or her first turn. In relation to greetings, there are two interesting findings: (a) they are not as frequent as attested by other studies in conversations between intimates and (b) when they do occur they tend to precede rather than follow self-identifications (if any). The sequence which appears to be more obligatory in addition to the summons-answer is the exchange of how-are-yous, especially in exchanges between friends. Even in cases in which situation-specific moves occupy the position of the identification and the greeting sequences, how-are-yous tend to occur when such moves are brought to a close. This may be a reflection of the fact that such sequences are not necessarily conventional in Greek and can constitute the first topic of the interaction. It is interesting to note that very few examples in my data exhibit the four sequences in a serial organisation. In most cases even acquaintances accomplish the “set of jobs” (Hopper and Koleilat-Doany 1989: 176) at hand but in an interlocking organisation with greetings preceding self-identifications. However, the most interesting examples are those exchanged between close friends who contact each other frequently. In such cases self-identification is mostly absent, greetings may or may not occur and if present they may not receive a return while other sequences may occupy the second adjacency pair position. When these are over, interlocutors exchange how-are-yous as these may even be the reason-for-call.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 80

Maria Sifianou

An interesting aspect of telephone openings between closely related conversationalists which deserves further investigation is the extent of playfulness exhibited. Schegloff (1979) refers to the “joke self-identification” as a rather idiosyncratic feature characteristic of some individuals. Hopper (1992) discusses play in telephone openings and sees it as “an essential aspect of human interaction” (ibid.: 173). However, his discussion is restricted to speech errors, to the laughter provoked and to repetition imitating what was said shortly before. My data reveal verbal play to be an essential aspect of telephone openings between intimates. This play, however, is not triggered by errors but involves language games that provoke laughter on occasion and contribute fun to the whole interaction. In some cases, the kind of play is medium-related, as for instance in (3) and (4) which involve play on the answer form to the summons. There are also examples not included in this chapter, where the recipient expecting a call from a specific individual answers the telephone with a totally idiosyncratic, moment- and relation-specific utterance. Verbal (inter)play is also evidenced in many recorded messages on answering machines as well as in Greek e-mail messages exchanged between intimates (see Georgakopoulou 1997). Although my data did not include any examples of play in a straightforward identification/recognition sequence, I could report such examples from personal experience. However, what is frequently encountered in my data, related to the identification/recognition, are playful responses, rather than straightforward answers, to questions requesting the other’s identity, as (13) and (15) illustrate. (17) involves play in the greeting sequence. More generally, the first and/or second turn of any sequence can be playful as for instance in (32). Even the whole opening can be playful. This playfulness evidenced in telephone openings may derive from and reflect a certain significance attached to it in Greek culture. As Mackridge (1992: 113) observes “language in Greece can be seen as a form of game”. Hirschon (1992) also observes the ease with which words are dissociated from their meanings in a full exploitation of verbal play in adult-children interactions. Playfulness may also relate to the emphasis of many telephone calls in Greece on the interactional rather than the transactional aspect of communication (see also Pavlidou 1994). As noted in a previous study (Sifianou 1989), talkativeness and effusiveness are not only tolerated but they are also highly desirable components of interactions among Greeks. In addition, Greeks tend to see their close friends very frequently and discuss many personal issues with them. The telephone is viewed as a kind of personal device which provides further opportunities to chat and exchange news with one’s friends (especially now that long distances in big cities prohibit daily personal contact), rather

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 81

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

than as a means to manage business. This attitude to telephone usage can account for the patterns which clearly emerge from these data. The canonical pattern is situation-specific, evidenced in interactions involving distant relationships with infrequent telephone contact. In interactions between closely related people there is the spontaneity and sometimes effusiveness characteristic of face-to-face interactions. This spontaneity is concomitant with verbal play and amusement but incongruous with any strict order and fixed patterns. Consequently, Hopper’s (1992: 88) suggestion that “there seems to be a crosscultural generality not only in the ordering of canonical opening sequences, but also in how participants mark exceptional circumstances” does not seem to apply to Greek intimate calls, where interlocutors not only refrain from overt self-identifications but also when they do make them, they usually do so after the greeting. In addition, greetings are frequently absent and, therefore, the canonical pattern appears to include only two sequences, that of the summons-answer and the exchange of how-are-yous. Conversation analysts’ efforts to find orderliness in interaction are understandable. Their insistence on the North American kind of orderliness constituting a pervasive and universal phenomenon is less so. Hopper (1992: 89) wonders how one can distinguish which effects on telephone openings are due to language, culture or intimacy. One cannot. The way a language develops and is used by native speakers reflects and is reflected in its culture. Moreover, the way and the extent to which intimacy and feelings are expressed in daily interactions are equally culturally specific issues, as are the uses of the telephone. As Schegloff (1968: 375) observes, the obligation of a summoner to talk again is not merely the individual’s obligation but that of a member of the society to answer a question if he or she has been asked one.17 Similarly, the rule “the answerer speaks first” (Schegloff 1968) sounds so reasonable and is so familiar that one may be tempted to assign it the status of universality. However, Trudgill (1974: 130) offers the example of Japan, where “many people … expect the caller to be the one to speak first”18 and Hopper and Chen (1996) attest to a similar situation in Taiwan. Hopper (1992: 87) is right in pointing out that emphasising cultural diversity in identification practices may lead to cultural stereotyping of linguistic communities. It seems equally plausible to assume that ignoring prevailing aspects in a given milieu in favour of better-known cultures may lead to cultural hegemony. Related to many conversation analysts’ unwillingness to accept crosscultural variation is their commitment to the sequential structure to provide part of the meaning of utterances irrespective of contextual features such as setting (time, place, etc.) and interlocutors’ characteristics (age, sex, status,



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 82

Maria Sifianou

etc.). It may be the case that a closer look at the features of setting and interlocutors in particular will help us clarify what is universal and what is not. I am not suggesting that variation is limitless either intra-culturally or crossculturally but only that so far the evidence is inconclusive.

Notes * I would first of all like to thank the editors for their invitation to contribute to this volume and, in particular, Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou for our long, mainly on the telephone, conversations on the issue of telephone interactions. I would also like to record my gratitude to my colleagues Eleni Antonopoulou, Arin Bayraktarog˘ lu, Bessie Dendrinos, Sophia Marmaridou and Angeliki Tzanne for stimulating discussions and multifarious support. My thanks are also due to Valerie Bevan for her skillful editorial help. Finally, I would like to add that this chapter is part of a longer project funded by the University of Athens (Special Research Account 70/4/4022) and a thoroughly revised and extended version of the paper “Opening telephone interactions in Greek” which appeared in the Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference (1999).  Abbreviations in capitals attached to words after a hyphen provide grammatical and/or pragmatic information: =accusative, =imperative, =untranslatable particle, =genitive, =diminutive,  =singular.  =plural indicates the V-form in the TU/VOUS distinction. The data are presented in a simple transcription, not including prosodic features, laughter, etc. Omitted utterances are indicated with [...].  The kind of misinterpretations and misjudgements that can arise by such differences in conventional responses to the summons are presented by Tannen (1984).  ©Ela is the imperative singular of the verb 1rxomai (“come”) and is frequently used in the opening sequences of informal telephone interactions between closely related interlocutors. See Pavlidou (1994: 495) and more specifically Pavlidou (1995) where she explores the variety of functions of this lexical item. In my data, though unlike Pavlidou’s (1995), 1la (“come”) does not occur in response to the summons, being restricted only to cases in which the answerer assumes he or she knows the caller’s identity, as in (1). This difference may be due to dialectal variation.  - (2nue) is an untranslatable particle often functioning as an exclamation urging the addressee to proceed with the act and by extension also having a dismissive function.  Both - (re) and - (bre) are untranslatable particles indicating, among other things, solidarity and informality, frequently accompanied by address terms.  Pavlidou (1994: 500–501) calls this use of formal plural “make-believe formality” and views it as a means of expressing phatic communion.  Ceia tov literally means “to your health”. Ceia is a shortened form of the full vge/a (“health”). It is probably a case of what Ferguson (1981: 31) calls weakening of politeness formulas like “hi” from “how are you”. This form is encountered only in various formulaic expressions such as greetings, toasts and well-wishing remarks.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 83

On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek

 It should be noted that endearment terms like ag2ph mov (“my love”) here and in (18), agapo,la mov (“my love-”) in (16) and ko,kla mov (“my doll”) in (11) are not restricted to couples. They are also frequently exchanged between intimate friends. On endearment and affectionate terms of address see Makri-Tsilipakou (1983) and Sifianou (1992: 69–71).  I owe this observation to the editors of the volume.  Schegloff (1979: 46) notes the contribution to identification of this utterance and Hopper and Chen (1996) find it also being used by Taiwanese callers.  See note 5 above.  Such questions have been called “next turn repair initiator” and are directed to trouble in a prior turn (Schegloff 1979: 38).  Wo,i is a colloquial word meaning habit, usually strange or bad.  On the use of the ethic genitive mov (“for/to me”) see Antonopoulou and Sifianou (2000).  On terms of address in Greek see Makri-Tsilipakou (1983) and Sifianou (1992: 69–71).  However, as Eades (1985) has shown, south-eastern Queensland Aborigines, for instance, are not socially obliged to provide answers to questions when they occur.  But as can be seen from Park (2002) and Yotsukura (2002), Trudgill’s statement is questionable. In all of Park’s and Yotsukura’s examples, the answerer speaks first.

References Antonopoulou, Eleni and Sifianou, Maria 2000 “Ethic dative: Syntax and affect”. Glossologia 11–12: 229–256. Bakakou-Orfanou, Ekaterini 1988–1989 “Thlewznik0 epikoinzn/a: Ekwznhmauik0 poikil/a uh s par2klhths gia t,ndeth me uo kalo,meno pr-uzpo” [Telephone interaction: Variation in switchboard requests]. Glossologia 7–8: 35–50. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coupland, Justine, Coupland, Nikolas and Robinson, Jeffrey D. 1992 “ ‘How are you?’: Negotiating phatic communion”. Language in Society 21: 207–230. Eades, Diana 1985 “You gotta know how to talk … Information seeking in south-east Queensland Aboriginal society”. In Cross-cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication, J.B. Pride (ed.), 91–109. Melbourne: River Seine. Ferguson, Charles A. 1981 “The structure and use of politeness formulas”. In Conversational Routine, F. Coulmas (ed.), 21–35. The Hague: Mouton.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 84

Maria Sifianou

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra 1997 “Self-presentation and interactional alliances in e-mail discourse: The style- and code-switches of Greek e-mail messages”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7: 141–164. Godard, Danièle 1977 “Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States”. Language in Society 6: 209–219. Hirschon, Renée 1992 “Greek adults verbal play, or, how to train for caution”. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10: 35–56. Hopper, Robert 1992 Telephone Conversation. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hopper, Robert and Chen, Chai-Hui 1996 “Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone openings in Taiwan”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (4): 291–313. Hopper, Robert and Koleilat-Doany, Nada 1989 “Telephone openings and conversational universals: A study in three languages”. In Language, Communication and Culture, S. Ting-Toomey and F. Korzenny (eds), 157–179. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke 1991 “Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations”. In Talk and Social Structure, D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds), 232–250. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hutchby, Ian and Wooffitt, Robin 1998 Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Polity Press. Lindström, Anna 1994 “Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings”. Language in Society 23: 231–252. Mackridge, Peter 1992 “Games of power and solidarity–commentary”. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10: 111–120. Makri-Tsilipakou, Marianthi 1983 “Ap-peira perigraw0s uhs neoellhnik0s protw*nhths” [An attempt to describe Modern Greek address forms]. In Studies in Greek Linguistics: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 219–239. Mey, Jacob L. 1993 Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Park, Yong-Yae 2002 “Recognition and identification in Japanese and Korean telephone conversation openings”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 25–47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 85

On the Telephone Again! Telephone Conversation Openings in Greek

Pavlidou, Theodossia(-Soula) 1994 “Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences”. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 487–511. 1995 “Vauik0 (epi)koinzn/a kai wauik2 tuoixe/a” [Phatic commun(icat)ion and phatic elements]. In Studies in Greek Linguistics: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 710–721. 1997 “The last five turns: Preliminary remarks on closings in Greek and German telephone calls”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 126: 145 –162. Sacks, Harvey 1975 “Everyone has to lie”. In Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, M. Sanches and B.G. Blount (eds), 57–59. New York: Academic Press. 1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I and II. Edited by G. Jefferson, with an introduction by E.A. Schegloff. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings”. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. 1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York: Irvington. 1986 “The routine as achievement”. Human Studies 9: 111–151. Sifianou, Maria 1989 “On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece”. Language in Society 18: 527–544. 1992 Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1999 “Opening telephone interactions in Greek”. In Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Volume 2, J. Verschueren (ed.), 528–535. Antwerp, Belgium: International Pragmatics Association. Tannen, Deborah 1984 “Cross-cultural communication”. CATESOL Occasional Papers 10: 1–16. Trudgill, Peter 1974 Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Yotsukura, Lindsay Amthor 2002 “Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business telephone conversations”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 135–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 86

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 87

Telephone conversation openings in Persian Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm .

Introduction

This chapter reports on a conversation analytical study of the sequential organisation of telephone openings in Iran. The focus of this research is on: (a) how recognition and identification are accomplished by parties in the first turns at talk, and (b) how how-are-you inquiries are performed by them. The analysis of telephone calls in Iran suggests that, similar to the sequential organisation in American telephone openings, Iranians orient to identification and recognition and exchange how-are-yous in telephone conversation openings. However, there are some cross-cultural differences contingent on formality and informality in Persian culture. Specifically, for Iranians, there seems to be a close connection between the relative social status of the speakers and the use of linguistic forms in identification/recognition, the exchange of greeting tokens, and how-are-you sequences. That is, participants display attempts to raise the politeness level by using more formal/polite linguistic variations in identification/recognition, greetings, and how-are-you sequences. Further, my analysis suggests that the length of the how-are-you sequences is related to the nature of the telephone call: the how-are-you sequences are comparatively longer when the telephone call is for social purposes. The data corpus for this study consists of 87 telephone calls in Persian that were audio-taped in Iran. Seven persons were asked to audio-tape telephone calls initiated by themselves from their home as well as telephone calls they received at home. They were middle-class Iranians ranging in age between 28 and 60 years old. The telephone calls include conversations between relatives, friends, and acquaintances. All telephone call openings of the collected data were transcribed according to the transcription notation developed by Gail Jefferson (1984) for conversation analysis (see appendix).

FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 88

Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

. Formality and informality in telephone openings During the analysis of the telephone openings in Iran two distinctive types emerged: a more informal type and a formal type. Central to each type of telephone calls is the relationship between the caller and the receiver. In the more informal type of telephone calls, the caller and the receiver are either close relatives, spouses, or very close friends. In the formal type of telephone calls, the caller and the receiver are either acquaintances, distant relatives or friends, or do not have a personal relationship. Conversations between speakers of different ages or social status also fall into this type. One important aspect of Iranian social interaction centres upon the relative formality and informality of the relationship of the speakers. This phenomenon has received some attention from sociolinguists who have studied how lexical variants are correlated with relative social status in Iran. According to Beeman (1976: 315), in an Iranian social interaction the interactants’ goal is to be able to seize the opportunity to define their relative status, simultaneously aiming for a lower relative status position while deferring to the co-participant. In other words, they demonstrate to each other that they regard their co-participants as superior. This kind of behaviour is known in Persian as taarof. The expression taarof has been borrowed from Arabic. Some of the Farsi synonyms of taarof are yekdigar ra shenachtan (“to know or recognise one another”), beyekdigar choshamad goftan (“to welcome one another”), pishkesh kardan (“to offer a gift”), ashena shodan (“to get acquainted with”), and/or choshamad gui (“welcoming, gratifying someone”) (Moosavie 1986: 51–52). Some other traditional definitions of this term have included “compliments”, “good manners”, “respect”, and “formality” (Moosavie 1986: ix). Taarof is a type of politeness routine in Persian interaction which co-participants employ to indicate their lower-status while elevating the status of the person being addressed (Beeman 1986: 59). This system of formality is made up by stylised and ritualised linguistic patterns (Moosavie 1986: 50). Taarof routines are done verbally by using linguistic variants associated with “politeness levels” (Hodge 1957: 366). For example, in a familiar relationship, speakers may use to (“you”), the second person singular and the corresponding second person singular verb form miri (“you go”). This may be used between husband and wife, by parents to children, among siblings or close friends. In a formal relationship, e.g., in interactions between younger speakers and older speakers, or between unfamiliar speakers, or between acquaintances the polite linguistic

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 89

Telephone conversation openings in Persian

variants are used. For example, in such situations speakers may use the plural form of the second person pronoun shoma (“you”) and the corresponding verb form mirid (“you go”). There are also stylistic variations in the choice of polite vocabulary which contain “other-raising” and “self-lowering” elements which may be used by Iranians to perform taarof rituals (Beeman 1986: 140). For example, the neuter verb goftan (“to say”) may be alternated with the selflowering arz kardan (lit. “to petition”) and other-raising farmudan (lit. “to order, to command”) (Beeman 1986: 143). The polite verb farmudan may be used in the imperative as a general polite verb meaning “go ahead and do whatever the occasion calls for”, such as befarmaid (“please go ahead”), (“after you”), etc. (Hodge 1957; Jazayery 1970; Beeman 1976, 1986). Thus, stylistic variation in language becomes an extremely important tool to Iranian speakers, as the speakers’ social distinctions are strongly associated with the politeness level of their language. In other words, the more formal the relationship, the more polite the speech. It has also been shown that Iranian speakers display taarof to each other not only verbally but also nonverbally. In other words, taarof routines may be performed by Iranian interactants verbally and nonverbally. For example, in a host and guest situation, Iranian guests may show the host respect by accepting the food offered to them only after it has been rejected several times. It has been shown that in social gatherings in Iran, offers are frequently initially rejected before being accepted, and that rejections are done immediately after offers with no pauses in between them. Further, the taarof routine of offer-rejection and final acceptance is performed not only by employing taarof expressions, but also by repetition of the action (Taleghani-Nikazm 1998: 10). Taarof routines can be observed throughout Iran at every turn: every time tea is offered to a group, every time several persons go through a door, every time friends meet on the street (Beeman 1986: 58). This chapter will describe some of the features of taarof in telephone conversation openings in Iran. I will now proceed to do this by considering first formal calls and then informal calls. For each type of calls I will present the taarof features found in each of Schegloff’s four core sequences: Summons-answer, identification/recognition, greetings, and how-are-yous. As no differences have been found between the formal and informal calls in the summonsanswer sequence, I will first look at the summons-answer sequence before proceeding to examine the formal and informal calls separately in relation to the other three core sequences.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 90

Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

. The summons-answer sequence in both formal and informal calls In Persian telephone conversations, for both informal and formal types of relationships, the receiver answers the summons by producing alo (“hello”); in fact, the receiver’s first turn in the majority of the calls is alo. Recipients may utter the lexical item alo either with an interrogative intonation, such as alo? (“hello?”) or a continuing intonation (alo,).1 The following data segment illustrates the summons-answer sequence in these telephone openings. (1) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: alo? hello ‘Hello?’

In line 2, R answers the phone by uttering alo?. Similar to halla in Swedish telephone conversations (Lindström 1994: 239), alo? cannot be used as a greeting but can only be used as a response to a summons in telephone conversations (and at the same time to supply a voice sample). A telephone ring may also be answered by baleh (“yes”), as in (2). (2) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: baleh, yes ‘Yes.’

In line 2, the recipient responds to the ringing of the telephone by saying baleh (“yes”). Baleh can also be used as a response to summons in everyday conversation. For example, if someone is called he may answer by saying baleh. Similar to alo (“hello”), baleh (“yes”) may also be uttered with an interrogative intonation or a continuing intonation.

. Taarof features in formal calls . The identification/recognition sequence Similar to American English telephone conversations, the majority of second turns in Persian telephone conversations address the identification/recognition issue. The data suggest that in the formal style, Iranian callers in their first turn frequently produce the presumed or intended recipient’s last name

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 91

Telephone conversation openings in Persian

preceded by an address term with interrogative intonation, or ask for confirmation of whether they have dialled the right number when they do not recognise the recipient by his voice sample. The following example illustrates how an Iranian caller asks for confirmation that he has reached the right number. This is a telephone call between two very distant relatives who have no personal relationship. (3) 1 2

3

4

((telephone rings)) R: alo? hello ‘Hello?’ C: manzele aaghaye Asgari,? home.of Mr.of Asgari ‘Is this Mr Asgari’s house?’ R: befarmaain, go.ahead.you ‘Go ahead, please.’

In line 3, the caller produces his first turn by asking whether he has reached Mr. Asgari’s house (manzele aaghaye Asgari,?). In so doing, he displays that he has not recognised the recipient by his voice sample. Further, by asking manzele aaghaye Asgari? (“Is this Mr. Asgari’s house?”) and by uttering the last name which is preceded by an address term (aaghaye), the caller displays that his relationship with the answerer is not informal but rather formal. Subsequent to C’s turn, R produces the preferred response for the recipient, namely befarmaain (“go ahead, please”), indicating that the caller has in fact reached the right number. Befarmaain is the most frequent polite verb, meaning “go ahead and do whatever the occasion calls for”, and shows the caller’s respect (Hodge 1957: 367). A caller’s first turn may also consist of an address term and the name of the presumed or intended recipient with interrogative intonation. In so doing, the caller indicates that he might have identified the recipient’s voice sample but has some doubts about it. The next data segment represents such a telephone opening. This is a telephone call between two acquaintances. (4) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: alo? hello ‘Hello?’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 92

Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

3 4

5

(0.7) C: khaanoom Taleghani? Mrs Taleghani ‘Mrs Taleghani?’ R: bale, yes ‘Yes.’

In line 4, the caller produces the recipient’s last name with interrogative intonation khaanoom Taleghani? (“Mrs Taleghani?”). The shape of caller’s first turn displays the caller’s uncertainty in recognising the answerer. Note that the caller uses the address term khaanoom (“Mrs”) before the answerer’s last name, thus showing respect. Frequently, when they have recognised the recipient’s voice, Iranian callers do not ask whether they have reached the right number. Instead, the caller greets the recipient in his first turn. The next segment illustrates such an opening. (5) 1 2

3 4

5

6

((telephone rings)) R: alo,? hello ‘Hello?’ (1.5) C: alo, salaamaleik[om. hello may.peace.be.with.you ‘Hello, greetings.’ R: [salaam ghorban, hello someone.to.adore ‘Hello sir.’ C: haale shoma chetore,? feeling.of you- how.is ‘How are you?’

After R answers the telephone by saying alo,? (line 2), C greets him by saying salaamaleikom (“greetings”) (line 4). C’s greeting token is delivered after a pause (1.5) indicating that he did not recognise R immediately. R produces the second pair part of the greeting sequence in line 5. R’s greeting is followed by the polite address term ghorban. The term ghorban literally means ‘something/somebody whom through serving it/them one would get closer to God’. It is translated as “Sir” and its usage is frequently marked with politeness and formality. In using

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 93

Telephone conversation openings in Persian

this self-lowering stylistic form, R thus shows respect. The exchange of greetings suggests that C and R have succeeded in their identification and recognition tasks and now ready to move to the how-are-you sequence (line 6). If the recipient does not recognise the caller, he may ask for explicit identification. This is illustrated in (6). (6) C=Faghiri, R=Javad 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: baleh, yes ‘Yes.’ 3 C: Javad aagha,? Javad Mr ‘Mr Javad?’ 4 (1.0) 5 R: shoma? you-? ‘Who is this?’ 6 C: man Faghiri hastam. I Faghiri am ‘I am Faghiri.’ 7 (0.2) 8 R: salaamaleikom khoob hastin may.peace.be.with.you well are.you- ‘Hello, are you feeling well?’

khanoom,? Mrs

In line 2, Javad (recipient) answers the summons by uttering baleh, (“yes,”). This is followed by Faghiri (caller) asking whether this is Javad or not (line 3). Note that Faghiri shows Javad respect by producing his name and the address term aagha (“Mr”). This is followed by a pause of one second indicating that Javad has problems recognising Faghiri’s voice. This results in Javad asking Faghiri to self-identify, by asking shoma? (“who is this?”) (line 5). Following Javad’s request of self-identification, Faghiri identifies herself by uttering man Faghiri hastam. (“I am Faghiri”). Faghiri self-identifies by saying her last name, which shows that their relationship is formal. Javad shows recognition of Faghiri by first greeting her, salaamaleikom (“greetings”) and asking how she is doing, khoob hastin khanoom,? (“are you feeling well Mrs?”) (line 8). Note that Javad’s turn incorporates khanoom (“Mrs”) and hastin (“are.you”), both being signs of politeness.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 94

Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

. Greetings and how-are-you sequences This section focuses on the greeting and how-are-you sequences in formal Persian telephone openings. Specifically, it will illustrate some features of taarof routines in the greeting and especially in the how-are-you sequences. Similar to identification/recognition sequences, Iranian co-participants deploy a variety of taarof phrases to orient to the formality of the interaction in greeting and how-are-you sequences, thus making the speech more polite. (7) below illustrates a telephone opening between distant relatives and is representative of a more formal style. (7) C=Taleghani, R=Asgari

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

((telephone rings)) R: alo,? hello ‘Hello?’ C: manzele aaghaye Asgari,? home.of Mr.of Asgari ‘Is this Mr Asgari’s residence?’ R: befarmaain, go.ahead.you- ‘Please go ahead.’ C: salaam ghorboon man Taleghani hastam. hello someone.to.adore I Taleghani am ‘Hello Sir this is Taleghani.’ R: salaam azbandast ghorboon hello from.me someone.to.adore ‘I am the one who’s supposed to say hello sir. ahvaaleh shoma chetoreh,? feeling.of you- how.is how are you?’

In line 4, by uttering befarmaain (“please go ahead”), the recipient (Asgari) indicates that the caller (Taleghani) has reached the right number. By just producing befarmaain, however, the recipient does not indicate whether or not he has recognised the caller. In line 5, the caller produces the greeting term salaam (“hello”) which is followed by ghorboon (“Sir”) (see (5)). By employing the polite address term ghorboon, the caller sets a distance between himself and the

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 95

Telephone conversation openings in Persian

answerer and raises the politeness level of the interaction. Following the first pair part of the greeting sequence, the caller self identifies by saying man Taleghani hastam (“This is Taleghani”). In line 6, the recipient produces the second pair part of the greeting sequence by saying salaam azbandast (“I am the one who is supposed to say hello”). The phrase salaam azbandast is used as a response to the greeting token salaam; it is frequently used to display politeness and literally means “It is my duty to say hello since you are in a higher social status than I am.” By producing this taarof expression, the recipient orients to the caller’s attempt of politeness. This is followed by the polite address term ghorboon (“Sir”) which was first used by the recipient. By adding ghorboon to the greeting phrase, the recipient continues elevating the politeness level of the greeting and thus the status of his party. Further, the recipient not only displays recognition of the caller by responding to Taleghani’s greeting, but he also shows Taleghani respect by his choice of polite expressions. Following the greeting, the recipient produces the first pair part of the how-areyou sequence by saying ahvaaleh shoma chetoreh? (“how are you?”). Note that both use the formal/polite address term shoma (“you-”) and the polite verb endings, thus displaying mutual respect and politeness to each other. The next example illustrates how Iranian speakers show each other respect by choosing polite expressions as first and second pair parts in howare-you sequences. This is a conversation between two acquaintances who have no personal relationship. (8) C=Reza, R=Farahaani 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 C: alo,? haaji aghaa Farahaani,? 2,3 hello pilgrim Mr Farahaani ‘Hello? Mr pilgrim Farahaani?’ 3 R: joone delam. life.of heart.mine ‘My darling.’ 4 C: salaam haaji aghaa hale shoma hello pilgrim Mr feeling.of your- ‘Hello Mr pilgrim are you feeling good?’ 5 (0.7) 6 R: chaake:r-a:m [aghobedient.servant.I mis‘Thank you mis-’

khoobe? good.is



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 96

Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

7

8

9

C:

[asre shoma afternoon.of you- ‘Good afternoon.’ R: haale shoma chetore aghaa feeling.of you- how.is Mr ‘how are you Mr Reza?’ C:

bekheir. good [Reza Reza [ghorbaane sacrifice.of ‘Thank

10

shoma. you- you.’ 11 R: 〉khoob〈 hastin alhamdolela. good are.you- hopefully ‘You are hopefully feeling good.’ 12 C: kheili mamnoon. haaji aghaa? very thank pilgrim Mr ‘Thank you very much. Mr pilgrim.’

After the identification and recognition of the co-participants are achieved in lines 2 and 3, the Iranian caller (Reza) greets the recipient (Haaji aghaa Farahaani) with salaam haaji aghaa (“hello Mr Pilgrim”) (line 4). By addressing the recipient as haaji aghaa (“Mr Pilgrim”), the caller puts the recipient in a higher position, as someone who has been to the holy town Mashhad, thus showing respect to the recipient. Following the greeting, in line 4, the caller produces the first pair part of the how-are-you sequence by uttering hale shoma khoobe? (“are you feeling good?”). The caller uses the plural personal pronoun shoma (“you”) which co-participants employ to address each other when they are not on intimate terms. Following the caller’s first pair part, the recipient produces the second pair part of the how-are-you sequence, namely, chaakeram, (“I’m your obedient servant”), a polite variety of saying “thank you” (line 6). Chaakeram is a taarof phrase suggesting humility and is used in elevating the addressee’s relative status position (Moosavie 1986: 70). By uttering a taarof expression, the recipient displays that he regards his co-participant as superior and thus shows respect. After the caller (Reza) asked the recipient (Farahani) how he is feeling, and after the recipient responded to the caller’s inquiry, the recipient produces the

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 97

Telephone conversation openings in Persian

first pair part of the how-are-you sequence (line 8). The recipient inquires about the caller’s health by uttering haale shoma chetore aghaa Reza (“How are you Mr Reza?). By using the address term aghaa (“Mr”) in front of Reza’s first name, the recipient shows his co-participant respect as well. Farahaani’s first pair part of the how-are-you sequence is followed by the second pair part, namely ghorbaane shoma (“thank you”). The taarof phrase ghorbaane shoma literally means “I am ready to be sacrificed for you”, and can be used interchangeably with “thank you” in formal or informal conversations (Moosavie 1986: 70). After the recipient and the caller perform the second how-are-you sequence, one would expect the caller to talk about the reason for the call. However, the recipient expresses his hope that the caller is feeling well by uttering khoob hastin alhamdolela (“you’re hopefully feeling good”) (line 11). This is followed by the caller’s response kheili mamnoon. (“thank you very much.”) in line 12. By inquiring about the caller’s health for the second time, the recipient shows more interest and respect in the caller. Similar to the previous segment, the caller and the recipient in this segment performed taarof by using polite expressions in the greeting and how-are-you sequence. Further, it seems that co-participants not only performed taarof by employing polite speech but also by repetition of the how-are-you sequence, thus showing greater interest in their co-participant’s well-being. The politeness routine of frequent inquiries about one another’s well-being in Iranian telephone openings may also occur in a conversation between two colleagues whose relationship is formal. In the following example the caller has a higher rank than the recipient, and it was the first time that day that they spoke to each other. The caller telephoned her colleague from home. (9) 1 2

3

4

((telephone rings)) R: alo? hello ‘Hello?’ C: salaam Taleghani hastam hello Taleghani am.I ‘Hello, this is Taleghani.’ R: salaam khaanoom hello Mrs ‘Hello, Mrs’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 98

Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

5

C: haale shoma,? feeling.of you- ‘How are you?’ 6 R: merci haale shoma chetore? thank.you feeling.of you- how.is ‘Thank you. How are you?’ 7 C: khoob hasteen,? good are.you- ‘Are you well?’ 8 R: merci haale shoma khoobe? thank.you feeling.of you- good.is ‘Thank you. Are you feeling good?’ 9 C: merci [khaste nabaashin thank.you tired not.are.you- ‘Thank you hopefully you’re not tired.’ 10 R: [haaletoon khoobe,? feeling.of.you- good.is ‘Are you feeling good?’ 11 C: merci hame khooban, thank.you everybody good.is ‘Thank you. Everybody is fine.’ 12 R: merci mamnoon. thank thank ‘Thank you.’

In this data segment the caller and the recipient perform five sequences of how-are-you. Note that these repetitive sequences occur immediately and in overlap with their previous turns. Moosavie (1986: 72) notes that greetings in Iranian interaction must be followed by some other discourse. It is considered impolite and indicative of a lack of mutual respect for two Iranians who run into each other not to spend at least a few minutes in what is called saalamo ahvaalporsi (greetings and inquiry about well-beings), i.e. an exchange of polite phrases which are mainly inquiries about the health and well-being of each other and of their respective families. The above segments illustrate that similar to face-to-face interaction where Iranian co-participants spend some time in greetings and inquiry about one another. Taarof routines may also be observed in a telephone conversation opening.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 99

Telephone conversation openings in Persian

An Iranian co-participant may raise the level of politeness in the how-areyou sequence by not only asking about the well-being of his co-participant but also the well-being of the co-participant’s family. (10) illustrates such a how-areyou sequence. (10) 1

2

3

4

5

6

R: salaa:m. hale shom[a:,? hello feeling.of you- ‘Hello how are you?’ C: [khoob-e(h) .hhh mokhlesim well.is servant.are.we ‘I am well. Thank you.’ R: [khoob hastin ke shoma? well are that you- ‘Are you well?’ C: [khoob hastin,? well are.you- ‘Are you well?’ R: kheili mamnoon.merci, Mahin khaanoom khooban? very thank.you Mahin Mrs well.are- ‘Thank you very much. Thank you. Is Mrs Mahin well?’ C: alhamdolela bad nist. praise bad not.is ‘Thank you. She is not bad.’

After answering the telephone and achieving identification and recognition, the recipient produces the first pair part of the how-are-you sequence by uttering hale shoma,? (“how are you?”) (line 1). This is followed by the caller’s response khoobe (“I am well”) and mokhlesim (“thank you”) (line 2). The caller uses the self-lowering other-raising polite phrase mokhlesim to thank the recipient for inquiring about his health which literally means “I am your servant” (line 2). In using this taarof expression, the caller elevates the relative status of his party and thus shows respect. Following the caller’s “thank you”, he produces the first pair part of the how-are-you sequence which is responded to by the recipient in line 5. After thanking the caller, the recipient inquires about the caller’s wife, namely, “Mrs Mahin” (line 5). In doing so, the recipient not only shows interest in the well-being of the caller but also in the well-being of his wife. In Iranian culture it is important to not only show concern about the person one is talking to but also about their family. In doing so, one would show respect to one another and it is perceived by speakers as



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 100

 Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

polite (Beeman 1986; Moosavie 1986). Finally, the caller delivers the response to recipient’s inquiry in line 6.

. Taarof features in informal calls . The identification/recognition sequence. The discussion now turns to the more informal type of calls. When co-participants call each other frequently, the caller’s first turn may consist of the recipient’s first name pronounced with interrogative intonation. In so doing, the caller displays that he has recognised the recipient. Further, to display a certain level of intimacy, the recipient may use joonam (“my dear/darling”) as the second pair part of an identification/recognition sequence. This is the case in the following segment taken from a telephone conversation between two siblings. (11) 1 2

3 4

5

((telephone rings)) R: alo:,? hello ‘Hello?’ (.) C: Ali,? Ali ‘Ali?’ R: joonam, dear.my ‘My dear.’

In line 4, the caller produces the recipient’s first name, thus indicating that she has identified Ali’s voice sample (Ali is the caller’s brother). In response, Ali produces joonam (“my dear/darling”) which is the second pair part of the identification/recognition sequence (line 5). Iranians frequently use joonam as a second pair part of the summons-answer sequence when the participants are very closely related or are intimate friends. For example, parents use joonam when their children summon them (Moosavie 1986: 77). Thus, by choosing joonam as the second pair part, speakers definitely display a certain level of intimacy. Callers may also produce the recipient’s first name followed by the term jaan (“dear”) to display not only recognition but also intimacy. In (12) the caller is a very close friend of the recipient (Fati).

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 101

Telephone conversation openings in Persian 

(12) 1 2

3

4

((telephone rings)) R: alo? hello ‘Hello?’ C: Fati jaan,? Fati dear ‘Dear Fati?’ R: jaan, dear ‘Yes dear.’

By uttering the recipient’s first name, Fati, the caller displays that he has recognised his friend’s voice. Further, the caller shows intimacy by adding the term jaan (“dear”) to Fati’s first name. Note that Fati jaan,? is produced with a semiinterrogative intonation (i.e. somewhere between a continuing and an interrogative intonation) indicating that the caller is seeking confirmation of having recognised his friend’s voice. Fati confirms by uttering jaan (“dear”) which also shows intimacy. . The greetings and how-are-you sequences. Unlike in formal Persian telephone openings in which co-participants raise the politeness level of the greeting and how-are-you sequences by deploying a variety of deferential phrases, the greeting tokens and the how-are-you sequences in informal telephone openings are relatively simpler. The example below illustrates a telephone opening between a husband and wife. (13) 1 2

3 4

5 6

((telephone rings)) R: alo? hello ‘Hello?’ (0.8) R: alo? hello ‘Hello?’ (0.8) C: Pari,? Pari ‘Pari?’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 102

 Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

7

R: joon-am, life.mine, ‘My dear’ 8 C: salaam. hello ‘Hello.’ 9 R: salaam. hello ‘Hello.’ 10 C: chetori,? how.are.you-? ‘How are you?’ 11 R: khoobam, to well.I.am you- ‘I am well, how are you?’ 12 C: in Babak oomad? this Babak came ‘Did Babak come?’

chetori,? how.are

After identification and recognition have been achieved, the caller (Reza) greets his wife Pari by uttering the greeting token salaam (“hello”) (line 8). Unlike in formal Persian telephone openings, Reza’s greeting token is not followed by an address term. Following Reza’s greeting, Pari responds to his greeting by also uttering the greeting token salaam (line 9). After Pari’s greeting, Reza inquires about the recipient’s well-being by saying chetori? (“how are you?”) (line 10). Reza uses the informal form of the personal pronoun “you” indicating that the relationship is personal and they are intimate. In line 11, Pari, the recipient, responds to her husband’s inquiry by saying khoobam (“I am well.”) and ask about Reza’s well-being by saying to chetori,? (“how are you?”). Pari’s use of to (“you-”) also indicates that the relationship is of a more personal nature. This is followed by Reza giving the reason for his call without delivering the second pair part of the how-are-you sequence initiated by Pari (line 12). In this Persian telephone opening, co-participants inquire about each other’s wellbeing even though they already have talked to each other on that day. However, the recipient’s inquiry of her husband’s well-being was not answered. This might be due to the fact that they have talked to each other once already.4 Further, the caller and the recipient in this segment do not employ any taarof expressions. Apparently, these are not needed between close relations or friends.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 103

Telephone conversation openings in Persian 

Frequently, in more personal Persian telephone openings, there is only one exchange of how-are-yous. Specifically, only the caller inquires about the recipient’s health, and then co-participants talk about the reason for the call. In (14), Ali calls his sister Fati before going to her house. (14) 1

2

3 4

5

6

C: salaam. hello ‘Hello.’ R: salaa::m, hello ‘Hello,’ (.) C: khoobi? well.are.you- ‘Are you feeling well?’ R: merci. thank you ‘Thank you.’ C: (h)he bebin oomadan? see came.they ‘Listen, did they come?’

In lines 1 and 2, the caller and the recipient exchange a set of greeting tokens by simply saying salaam (“hello”). In line 4, the caller produces the first pair part of the how-are-you sequence by uttering khoobi? (“are you feeling well?”). This is followed by the recipient’s response merci. (“thank you”). In line 6, the caller asks whether some people came or not. The above example illustrates how the caller inquires about the recipient’s health and after receiving the answer talks about the reason for his call. The how-are-you sequence may also not occur at all when the co-participants frequently talk with each other during the day. The next segment exemplifies how co-participants may simply greet each other and then get on to the first topic. This is a telephone conversation between two close friends. C calls her brother’s home and leaves her sister-in-law a message. (15) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: alo? hello ‘Hello?’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 104

 Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

3

4

5

6

7

8

C: Farhad,? Farhad ‘Farhad?’ R: joonam, dear.my ‘My dear.’ C: salaam hello ‘Hello.’ R: salaam azizam hello dear.my ‘Hello my dear.’ C: beh Fariba begoo ina to Fariba say.you- they ‘Tell Fariba that they nohe shab raah oftaadan nine.of night way fallen.have left at nine p.m.’

After identification and recognition are achieved, the caller produces the greeting term salaam, in line 5. The recipient answers the caller’s greeting by producing salaam (“hello”), and then displays intimacy by adding azizam (“my dear”) to the second pair part of the greeting sequence. Note that after the greeting sequence, there is no exchange of how-are-you. In line 7, the caller simply announces the reason for her call beh Fariba begoo ina nohe shab raah oftaadan (“tell Fariba that they left at nine p.m.”), a message for Fariba. . The how-are-you sequences As illustrated in the formal openings, co-participants perform taarof routines by employing formal expressions in the greeting and how-are-you sequences. It was also shown that co-participants tend to produce frequent inquiries about one another’s state of health and the well-being of each other’s family. The present section discusses how in informal calls Iranian speakers may also perform repeated how-are-you sequences to display politeness and maintain interpersonal relationships. (16) clearly illustrates how Iranians show each other respect and concern about each other by producing several how-are-you sequences. This is an

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 105

Telephone conversation openings in Persian 

example of a conversation between two friends, and is the first time that day that they are talking to each other. (16) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: allo? hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: salaameilekom. Peace.be.with.you ‘Hello.’ 4 R: salaam. hello ‘Hello.’ 5 C: ahvalet? feeling.of.you- ‘How are you?’ 6 R: haale shom[a:,? feeling.of you- ‘How are you?’ 7 C: [haal-e shoma: feeling.of you- ‘How are you feeling?’ 8 R: =khoobin? well.are.you- ‘Are you feeling well?’ 9 C: haaletoon khobe? feeling.of.you- good ‘Are you feeling good?’ 10 R: kheili mam[noon, very thank.you ‘Thank you very much.’ 11 C: [khoobin,? good.are.you- ‘Are you well?’ 12 R: ghorbaane [shoma I.sacrifice.of myself.for.you ‘Thank you.’

chetore?= how.is

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 106

 Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

13 C:

[roberahi,?= feeling.okay.you- ‘Are you okay?’ 14 R: =to khoobi,? you- well ‘Are you well?’ 15 C: che khabara,? what news ‘What’s new?’ 16 R: kojaai? where.are.you- ‘Where are you?’

After an exchange of greetings (lines 2, 3, and 4), the caller produces the first part of the how-are-you sequence in line 5, namely ahvalet? (“how are you?”). Following the caller’s how-are-you, the recipient also produces the first part of a how-are-you sequence haale shoma:,? (“how are you?”) in line 6. In line 7, the caller again says haale shoma: chetore? (“how are you?”). This is followed by the recipient’s inquiry about the caller’s health by saying khoobin? (“Are you feeling well?”). In line 9, the caller produces another how-are-you. This time, in line 10, the recipient gives the caller the second part of the how-are-you sequence by saying kheili mamnoon (“thank you very much”). This tossing back and forth of how-are-yous continues until line 15, where the caller asks che khabara,? (“what’s new?”). In total, the caller asks five times how the recipient is feeling (lines 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13), and the recipient asks three times how the caller is doing (lines, 6, 8 and 14). Note that the caller and the recipient utter different lexical items to inquire about each other’s well-being (haale shoma chetore, halteoon khoobe, khoobin, roberahi). The samples in the data corpus suggest no fixed order of appearance, i.e. they occur in a random fashion. Frequently, in American English telephone openings, the turn after the second how-are-you sequence is the first “topic slot” (Schegloff 1986: 116) or opportunity where the caller first introduces the reason for his call. Obviously, though, in Persian telephone conversation openings this move to the “business” of the call often does not occur until several how-are-you exchanges are performed. According to Coulmas (1979: 240), members of a society frequently perform “routine formulae” in an “automated” and “predictable” manner in specific, standardised situations. Exchanges of ritual inquiry about one

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 107

Telephone conversation openings in Persian 

another’s well-being, such as those which are performed in opening encounters on the telephone in Iran, are highly predictable in the course of interaction. One interesting feature of these series of ritual inquiries is that they frequently occur in “terminal overlap” (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974) with their previous turns. This suggests that the exchange of how-are-yous in telephone conversation openings is performed with such regularity that Iranian co-participants can predict each other’s inquiries. Furthermore, when Iranian co-participants open an encounter on the telephone, it is appropriate to go through polite routines step by step. Co-participants are aware of this and orient to it, and inquire several times about each other’s well-being before getting to talk about the reason for the call. By performing extended how-are-you sequences, Iranian co-participants succeed in showing each other interest and respect. Co-participants can also perform taarof routines in informal calls in order to affirm their interpersonal relationships.

. Conclusion This chapter has examined two different types of telephone conversation openings in Persian, namely formal and informal ones. I have illustrated how taarof, a politeness phenomenon in Persian, manifests itself in three important social behaviours in Iranian telephone conversation openings, namely the identification/recognition, greeting and how-are-you sequences, which are differentiated by reference to the recipient. The findings suggest that the length and selection of words in the identification/recognition, greeting and how-are-you sequences are sensitive to the recipients’ relative social status. Co-participants have the exchange of greetings and the how-are-you available to them as a resource that they can use to produce the desired effects. By employing self-lowering, other-raising strategies in the greetings and howare-you sequences, and by elaborating on the inquiries about the health of one another and of their families, Iranian co-participants show interest and concern about their co-participants and thus respect to each other. We have also seen that in an informal call, co-participants may perform taarof by repeatedly inquiring about each other’s well-being. Using different polite forms of greeting and how-are-you in Persian telephone openings seem mainly to serve the purpose of maintaining the interpersonal aspect of the communication.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 108

 Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm

Notes  The interrogative intonation refers to the rise in the tone of speech, such as the tone of questions. The continuing intonation refers to continuing tone of speech, for example the tone of speech components between clauses or sentences. The intonation contour of alo (“hello”) was judged by me and another native speaker of Persian. However, a conversation analytical study on intonation contours across cultures is necessary to examine whether the rising or continuing intonations of alo? (“hello”) in Persian is universal or language specific.  Haaji is an honorary title which is used before the name of a person who has travelled to Mecca.

 Note that in this telephone opening Reza, the caller, speaks first. Once the phone is picked up by the recipient, C identifies the recipient by uttering his last name. This is not a common behaviour in the Persian telephone openings.  I did not find enough examples of such interactional behaviour in my data corpus to make any kind of claims about the pending second pair part of how-are-you sequence in a telephone conversation opening between husbands and wives. A more detailed conversation analytical study is necessary.

References Beeman, William O. 1976 “Status, style and strategy in Iranian interaction”. Anthropological Linguistics 18: 305–322. 1986 Language, Status, and Power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Coulmas, Florian 1979 “On the sociolinguistics relevance of routine formulae”. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 239–266. Hodge, Charles T. 1957 “Some aspects of Persian style”. Language 33: 355–69. Jazayery, Alireza 1970 “Observations on stylistic variation in Persian”. Actes de Xe Congrés International des Linguist 447–457. Jefferson, Gail 1984 “Transcript on notation”. In Structures of Social Action, J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), ix-xvi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindström, Anna 1994 “Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings”. Language in Society 23: 231–252. Moosavie, Seyed M. 1986 A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Persian System of Taarof and its Implication for the Teaching of Farsi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 109

Telephone conversation openings in Persian 

Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail 1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation”. Language 50: 696–743. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1986 “The routine as achievement”. Human Studies 9: 111–151. Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen 1998 “Politeness in Persian interaction: The preference format of offers in Persian”. CLIC (Crossroads of Language, Interaction, and Culture) 1: 3–11.

Appendix: Transcription conventions All my telephone conversation data were transcribed according to the transcription notation developed by Gail Jefferson (1984). The following symbols were used in the transcripts: . , ? ,? : ::: mine ° ° (hhh) .hhh (( )) 〉mine〈 ( ) [I used [I saw I us[ed to [he is = (0.3)

A period indicates a fall in tone. A comma indicates continuing intonation. A question mark indicates rising intonation. A comma and a question mark indicate rising intonation weaker than that indicated by a question mark. A colon indicates an extension of the sound or syllable it follows (co:lon). More colons (co:::lon) prolong the stretch. A single dash indicates an abrupt ending or a cutoff. Emphasis is indicated by underlining. A degree sign is used to indicate a passage of talk which is quieter than the surrounding talk. Audible aspirations Audible inhalations Vocalisations that are not recognisable, i.e. the transcription is not clear. Part of an utterance is delivered at a pace quicker than the surrounding talk. Items in doubt are enclosed within single parentheses. Utterances starting simultaneously are linked together with left-hand brackets. When overlapping utterances do not start simultaneously, left-hand brackets are used to mark the point at which an ongoing utterance is joined. ‘Latching’: indicates that there is no gap between two utterances. Intervals in the stream of talk are timed in tenths of a second and inserted within parentheses, either within an utterance or between utterances.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 110

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 111

Language choice in international telephone conversations* Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner .

Introduction

Research on telephone communication (Schegloff 1968, 1979, 1987; Schegloff and Sacks 1973; Hopper 1992, to mention only some of the central contributions) was initially carried out on American telephone conversations. A large number of studies on calls in languages other than English (Berens 1981; Brinker and Sager 1989; and Pavlidou 1994 for German; Godard 1977 for French; Halmari 1993 for Finnish and American English; Houtkoop-Steenstra 1991 for Dutch; Firth 1991 and Rasmussen 2000 for international calls; and other contributions to this volume) have corroborated the initial findings on the sequential structure of telephone conversations, but have also demonstrated that the sequential development of telephone conversations allows for organisational variation. Before we proceed to international calls, we will have a look at two monolingual telephone calls to establish the analytic distinctions we will draw upon later. (1) R=Jørgen Gade, C=Tommy 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: Jør’n Gade::? Jørgen Gade ‘Jørgen Gade?’ 3 C: g’daw ↓Jør’n. good.morning Jørgen ‘Good morning Jørgen.’ 4 det Tommy, this Tommy ‘This is Tommy.’

FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 112

Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

5

R: haj Tommy? hello Tommy ‘Hello Tommy?’

(1) is a conversation between employees of two Danish companies. Jørgen Gade answers the telephone by identifying himself with his first and last names and rising intonation. Identification by name (either by first name or by first and family names) is a routine form of self-identification in both personal and business telephone calls conducted in Danish (Rasmussen 2000). In line 3, the caller produces a greeting that is addressed to Jørgen Gade’s first name alone, and identifies himself in line 4 by his own first name. In line 5 Jørgen Gade returns the greeting and addresses Tommy by his first name. Through these few turns, the caller and the recipient of the call: • • • •

establish the conversation (lines 1 and 2: summons and answer), identify themselves (lines 2 and 4), recognise the other participant (lines 3 and 5), and exchange greetings (lines 3 and 5).

It could be argued further that the participants establish an informal format for the imminent conversation by virtue of the form of recognition they enact (first names only). Jørgen Gade’s self-identification does not include an identification of the company. He does not say: “This is Jørgen Gade from ABC Company in Vejle, Denmark” (compare section 3 and following), but only identifies himself by his first and last name. This makes sense in the setting in which he is operating. Incoming calls would either have passed through the company’s operators — and a caller would therefore know which company he is talking to — or the call would have been directly addressed to Jørgen Gade’s own extension, without any intervention of an operator. In the latter case, the caller would at least expect to reach Jørgen Gade. In contrast to what Jørgen Gade does in (1), company operators do not identify themselves by names, but answer by company names alone. By the same token, callers talking to operators will not always identify themselves but ask directly for a particular employee or division of the company. (2) 1 2

((telephone rings)) A: Peugeot Altona? Peugeot Altona ‘Peugeot at Altona speaking.’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 113

Language choice in international telephone conversations

3

4

C: ich hätte gerne die werkstatt I would like the garage ‘Could I talk to the garage?’ A: moment bitte moment please ‘Just a moment, please.’ ((Noted, not taped, June 1998))

The omission of any caller identification occurs in private telephone conversations too. Let us compare (2) above with (3): (3) 1 2

3 4

5

((telephone rings)) A: Mogens, Mogens ‘Mogens.’ (0.3) C: øhm: er d’ er det ik’ der ↑ka:ren hun bor? er is it is it not there Karen she lives ‘Isn’t this the place where Karen lives?’ A: n:a hun er flydde du. no she is moved you ‘No she has moved, man.’

In (2) and (3), the caller does not identify himself. In both calls this seems to have to do with the fact that the caller has not reached the person he wanted to talk to. By failing to launch a recognition sequence, the person who answers the telephone — in this case Mogens — is interactively produced as the answerer, but not as the recipient of the call. (1), (2) and (3) are taken from conversations between speakers of the same language, as are most of the data in the literature on the organisation of telephone calls. These studies will serve as the background against which we will propose some analyses of the initial sequences of international calls. Our study will focus on the question of how speakers in international telephone conversations negotiate the language of the call. . Data used in this study Our main source of data for this paper consists of several hours of taped telephone conversations between employees of Danish companies and of



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 114

Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

companies in other countries (Sweden, Germany, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France). We have drawn on data from five different companies. For each company, between one and three hours of conversations have been taped. The Danish employees speak foreign languages with varying degrees of proficiency, ranging from beginner level to near-native fluency. All conversations were taped by the business employees themselves, who were each provided with a tape recorder for a period of time and asked to tape their own international calls regularly. This procedure gave them the liberty to erase any conversations that they did not wish to share with the researchers. Some tapes, however, were recorded as part of a company routine, or in connection with the business employees’ interest in their own language learning. In such cases, the recordings were made without being intended to be heard by anyone other than the person who had taped them. One observable feature of the data is that the same person makes use of several languages during his or her various telephone conversations. Jørgen Gade from (1), for instance, uses English when calling companies in the UK, in Belgium and in the French speaking parts of Switzerland, while he speaks German when talking to Germans. He uses Danish when talking to colleagues in Sweden and Iceland and — of course — Denmark. We can observe that he is using different languages in his work, and that the decision about which language to use in a particular call must be made very early in the call, since the language option is very rarely referred to explicitly, and does not seem to cause any problems. International telephone conversations are an everyday activity for a large community of professionals, as well as in the private sphere — at least in Europe. We may expect that callers will have developed techniques to cope with any additional tasks that these calls may pose in a highly routinised manner. In this paper, we will investigate how participants in international calls solve the task of language choice, which is additional to the routinely performed opening tasks in (1).

. The sequential analysis of international telephone calls In this section, we will turn to the sequential development of telephone conversations between speakers of different languages. These conversationalists normally switch very early in the call to one common language which they use during the call. We will discuss the point at which the language choice is

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 115

Language choice in international telephone conversations

made, and the resources that speakers employ to perform this task. In (4), we will introduce how the initial sequences are performed in many calls from our corpus. (4) again features Jørgen Gade, a Danish blue-collar worker, who is in charge of the spare parts division of a large-sized company. Even though Jørgen Gade has no specific language training — apart from having studied English and German for some years in school — he routinely calls spare parts suppliers in Germany, the UK, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland to acquire machine parts. In these conversations he uses English and German as foreign languages or as lingua franca.1 Spare parts are typically ordered before the last item has been taken from the company’s own shelves, or when a machine breaks down and a particular spare part is needed to get it running again. In the latter case, the success of Mr Gade’s calls is measurable in financial terms: any delay may entail significant losses for his employer. (4) A=Operator, C=Jørgen Gade 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: London Machineries? good afternoon::n? 3 C: .hh ts good afternoon, this is from the ai bee cee company in 4 Denmark. can I speak to Samantha Smith (.) [please 5 A: [she is no longer 6 with the company ((several turns omitted where Jørgen Gade is stating his case and the operator offers to transfer him to the relevant division)) 7 R: good afternoon. can I help you¿ 8 C: .hh good afternoon, this is from the ai bee cee company in 9 Denmark. My name is Mr Jørgen Gade

In line 2, the operator identifies her company and produces a routine opening that is designed to be usable for any caller. Following a pre-beginning (Schegloff 1996), Jørgen Gade produces a second greeting in line 3 and identifies his company. This identification is very explicit. It comprises an entire sentence. Jørgen Gade not only mentions his company but his “country of origin” as well: Denmark.2 However, he does not identify himself, thus treating the operator as answerer, not as the recipient of the call (compared this to lines 8 and 9). In line 4, Jørgen Gade delivers the name of the employee to whom he wishes to speak, which provides the relevant information for the operator to go on.



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 116

Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

The production of Jørgen Gade’s turn in lines 3 and 4 deserves a few comments. The units are delivered at a slow pace. In line 3, the first turn constructional unit (the greeting) is delayed by a noticeable pre-beginning. When Jørgen Gade starts speaking, he speaks slowly and distinctly, accentuating the words in his turn. His pronunciation is clearly foreign. It seems reasonable to ask what kind of purpose this elaborate selfidentification serves. Elaborate self-identification is found when the caller does not expect the answerer to know him/her (Schegloff 1979). By virtue of an extended self-identification, a caller produces a voice sample which allows identification by the recipient. But why would Jørgen Gade choose this elaborate format and introduce his company at all, when there is no need to self-identify when talking to an operator, as we have seen in (2)? Jørgen Gade could simply produce “Samantha Smith, please?” to get transferred to the employee he wants to talk to. But he does not. His turn appears to be over-explicit and its elaborate character is noticeable. Placed after a short routine turn by the operator, the unit comes across as a long-winded non-routine identification. The procedure is repeated later in the conversation (lines 8–9) when the operator has transferred Jørgen Gade’s call to a relevant employee in the company, though this time Jørgen Gade identifies himself by his personal name. The operator listens to the turn, which is produced slowly. Since Jørgen Gade delivers the relevant information at the end of the turn, she cannot do much else. The turn is explicit; it delivers a language sample large enough to identify a foreign accent and, last but not least, the caller’s country of origin. All these elements allow the operator to anticipate possible problems. These problems, of course, could be of many kinds, but the language sample itself allows the operator to identify the other participant as a foreigner and as a not very competent speaker. So, at the very beginning of the call, Jørgen Gade is able to point at possible problems. In doing so, he might be able to raise the operator’s awareness with respect to linguistic problems, and to make the interaction more robust. The non-nativeness of the call is produced from the very beginning. Data which are structurally comparable to the two turns in lines 3–4 and 8–9 respectively are found in a fair number of our international telephone conversations. Jørgen Gade and other speakers use this kind of elaborate identification when making international calls with participants they do not know. In these identifications, the country of origin is made prominent. In this way, the international character of the interaction is established, and the answerer is alerted to possible problems during the coming conversation that may have to do with the fact that the caller is a foreigner.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 117

Language choice in international telephone conversations

. The organisation of language choice in international telephone conversations How do conversationalists choose the language to be used in the imminent call? Do they negotiate which language would suit both conversationalists best, or do they merely choose one available language? The default case for language choice in international calls is straightforward. Since the summons will always be answered in a certain language — most often in the answerer’s own national language — answering a call implies choice of a language. In most of our data, the language of the answerer is the language used during the call. (4) illustrates what is by far the most frequent way of deciding upon the language of the conversation. (5) also involves an elaborate identification, but it illustrates a slightly different case. This call is taken from a data set in which Danish employees talk with colleagues employed at a subsidiary company in France. The lingua franca is German. (5) A=Operator, C=Belinda 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: Automatic bonjour? Automatic good.day ‘Automatic, good afternoon.’ 3 (0.6) 4 C: ja hallo hier ist Belin:da von Automatic, yes hello this is Belinda from Automatic ‘Yes, hello, this is Belinda from Automatic, 5 (.) .h Gilles Durand bitte:¿ Gilles Durand please Gilles Durand please?’ 6 (0.2) 7 A: ein: moment bitte? one moment please ‘One moment please?’ 8 C: °vieln dank° many thank ‘Thank you.’

When answering the call in line 2, the operator has suggested French as the language of the call. If Belinda would rather avoid speaking French, she has to act



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 118

Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

quickly. In her next turn, Belinda produces an elaborate self-identification in a different language, which offers a language sample and indicates Belinda’s preferred language of communication. In the reply in line 7, the operator acknowledges the language switch into German. This language switch is pursued by the caller in her first turn, that is, before other linguistic material has been introduced. Line 4 can be understood as an other-initiated other-repair of the operator’s choice of language (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). The considerable delay of the turn supports this understanding. Delays are often found when the next turn is not the sequentially relevant next to the preceding turn. Yet Belinda’s turn is a relevant next to the operator’s turn in line 2. It is merely produced in a different language, and repairs the language offered by the caller. The repair, then, does not interfere with the sequential trajectory established by the operator’s turn. In this sense, the language choice works as a case of embedded repair as described by Jefferson (1987). Belinda is a highly competent non-native speaker of German. Her voice sample does not cue a non-competent speaker as Jørgen Gade’s did in (1), but executes a language switch. (5) demonstrates a model for language preference by providing a language sample which is recognised by the recipient as the caller’s preferred language and serves as an embedded repair. Since the operator has the competence to answer in German, the language switch in line 4 is carried out quickly and smoothly. (6) illustrates a different format for language switch, this one related to person identification. Janne is Danish and works for the parent company in Denmark, Yvette is French and works for the subsidiary in France. Both know each other through earlier conversations and have established German as their language of communication. (6) R=Janne, C=Yvette 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: Janne Korup? first.name family.name ‘Janne Korup?’ 3 C: ja: ja:nne. Yvette¿ yes first.name first.name ‘Yes, Janne Yvette.’ 4 R: =nja 〈gute〉 mo:rgen Yvette wie [ge:ht es ¿] nyes good morning Yvette how goes it ‘Yes good morning Yvette. How are you?’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 119

Language choice in international telephone conversations

5

6

7

C:

[gute ] mo:rgen. good morning ‘Good morning.’ 〉es geht gut und bei di:r:〈 it goes well and at yours ‘Fine and how are you?’ R: oh: au:ch guth*. oh also good ‘Oh I’m fine.’

The first three lines in (6) closely resemble what was seen in (1), although line 3 in (6) forms an even tighter, more reduced recognition — self-identification. Janne identifies herself in line 2 in a routine fashion. By virtue of her pronunciation, Danish is at this point offered as the language of the conversation. In line 3, Yvette acknowledges Janne’s self-identification, addresses Janne by first name and gives her own first name. This is clearly not an extended language sample and does not necessarily allow the recipient to identify a language switch. Still, Janne switches immediately to German which is a lingua franca to her. The “ja” in line 3 could either be Danish or German. On the basis of this token alone, it would be difficult for Janne to decide on the language for the call. Even though some phonetic cues may indicate that Yvette speaks German, the main identification of the language for the call seems to be carried out by recognising the person and, thus also the established language of earlier calls. Obviously, the identification of the caller has caused a language switch. In established caller relations, language choice follows person identification. Identification of a person is at the same time identification of the language in which the conversation is carried out. The recognition of the other person in line 4 is enacted in the language which is the established language for Janne and Yvette’s calls, and at the same time confirms German as the language of the conversation. . The routinisation of language choice In this section, we will illustrate how the relation between person and preferred language is established interactionally. The data consist of three telephone calls made over a period of a few days. The caller is Arne Bøje Simonsen, a Danish clerk who tries to reach his major business contact in Germany, Wiesenbrinck. He and Arne Bøje are on friendly terms.



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 120

 Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

On this occasion, however, Wiesenbrinck’s telephone is answered by another individual named Mrs Boden. (7) shows the initial contact between Arne Bøje Simonsen and Mrs Boden. (7) R=Boden, C=Arne Bøje Simonsen 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: Bo:dn? family.name ‘Boden?’ 3 C: ja? Arne Bøje, Jysk Sengetøjsmarked. yes first.name middle.name company.name ‘Yes, this is Arne Bøje at Jysk Sengetøjsmarked.’ 4 (0.5) g]n ta::k? 5 R: j[a yes good day ‘Yes. Good morning.’ 6 C: [hello:.] ((English pronounciation)) 7 C: hab schie:: =herrn Wiesenbrinck zu hause. have you mister Wiesenbrinck at home ‘Do you have mister Wiesenbrinck at home.’

Following Mrs Boden’s self-identification, Arne Bøje starts his turn with a short “ja” in line 3, which — again — can be taken to be either German or Danish. This turn-initial “ja” has been shown to serve as a recognition marker (Rasmussen 2000, compare also line 3 of (6) and line 4 of (5)). He then identifies himself by means of his first and middle names, and after that by the name of his company. The pronunciation of the whole unit, but most clearly of the company name, is done in Danish. We can describe Arne Bøje’s first turn in line 3 as a tightly packed routine presentation, spoken quickly and not very distinctly. By virtue of the turn-initial “ja” and by its features of delivery, Arne Bøje appears to expect to be recognised. The delay in line 4 indicates that this is not the case, and even though Mrs Boden starts line 5 with “ja”, her turn does not reveal recognition, but a hesitant wait-and-see. The features of the turn delivery (delay, intonation) indicate that she does not recognise the caller, but expects further information. Arne Bøje starts nearly simultaneously with Mrs Boden and produces a “hello” in line 6 which could be heard as a greeting. But since it is produced in overlap after the gap in line 4, it appears instead to be a summons, checking on

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 121

Language choice in international telephone conversations

Mrs Boden’s presence. The interesting thing is that Arne Bøje switches into English, which — as we know from our other data — is the language he normally uses with his business partner Wiesenbrinck. Maybe because this happens in overlap, he does not succeed in switching into English, but adopts German as the language of the call in line 7. So Arne Bøje’s attempt to switch language has failed, and he proceeds in German, a language in which he is not very competent. (7) is highly interesting with respect to language choice. We mentioned earlier that conversationalists may follow the language used by the answerer or may attempt to change the language. One attempt found regularly is the presentation of a language sample. Another is the identification of the preferred language via identification of the speaker. Now, the recipient in (7) has offered German, and Arne Bøje’s identification in line 3 sounds Danish. But line 3 would not count as an attempt at language switching, since Mrs Boden cannot be expected to understand Danish. German business people who can speak Danish are rather rare. Line 3 does not trigger a language switch, but Arne Bøje might be attempting to be recognised as “the Danish caller who often talks to Wiesenbrinck in English”. By proceeding in English in line 6, Arne Bøje might do what he normally does when talking to Wiesenbrinck, i.e. presenting himself in a routine fashion and then proceeding in English. The language sample in line 6, however, is very short, and is produced in overlap. It does not lead to a language switch. The resources that Arne Bøje brings into play are not sufficient to effect a language switch. Compared to the examples presented earlier, Arne Bøje uses his resources precariously and fails. In (8) and (9), we can study how the opening of the conversation becomes routine, with respect to both language choice and person recognition. Line 3 in (8) is especially interesting: Arne Bøje has introduced himself by his first and middle names, as people often do in Denmark, while Mrs Boden addresses him by his family name, which he has not used himself. In doing so, Mrs Boden shows that she now knows who Arne Bøje is — a knowledge that he might have expected already in the first call. However, Mrs Boden’s recognition and her display of knowledge do not influence the language choice. (8) R=Boden, C=Arne Bøje Simonsen 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: Bo:dn? Family.name ‘Boden.’



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 122

 Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

3

4 5

6

7

C: ja?, Arne [Bøje, (0.3) °Jysk Sengetøjsmark’d.°= yes first.name second.name, company.name ‘Yes, this is Arne Bøje at Jysk Sengetøjsmark’d.’ [((clank)) C: =gutn t[a::]k, good day ‘Good morning.’ R: [ja:,] guttn: ta::k herr (.) Simonsen:. Yes good morning mister Simonsen ‘Yes, good morning Mr Simonsen.’ C: hast du=ähm (0.7) Wiesenbrinck zu hause heute. have you Wiesenbrinck at home today ‘Do you have Wiesenbrinck at home today?’

A closer look at Arne Bøje’s first turn in (8) shows that there is a short gap following the self-identification. Arne Bøje might expect to be recognised already here. Since Mrs Boden does not take a turn, however, Arne Bøje identifies his company in a soft voice which clearly has a Danish flavour, and then volunteers a greeting in German. Unlike the case in (7), Arne Bøje himself initiates a language switch into German, and he himself softens the Danish sounding company identification. (9) R=Boden, C=Arne Bøje Simonsen 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: Bo:dn? Family.name ‘Boden?’ 3 C: Arne Bøje, Jysk Sengetøjsmarked. gutn ta::g, first.name second.name company.name good day ‘This is Arne Bøje at Jysk Sengetøjsmarked. Good morning.’ 4 R: ja gu:tn ta:g. yes good day ‘Yes, good morning.’ 5 C: hast du herrn Wiesenbrinck zu hause heute. have you mister Wiesenbrinck at home today ‘Do you have mister Wiesenbrinck at home today?’

In (9), both speakers have routinised the organisation of the opening. Arne Bøje still identifies himself with a Danish sounding routine opening, but

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 123

Language choice in international telephone conversations 

switches into German in the opening turn as he produces a greeting. German has been established as the language of communication. It can be further observed that Arne Bøje has dropped the turn-initial “ja” which was still found in line 3 of (8). If the turn-initial “ja” marks the caller’s recognition of the answerer, and makes a second recognition part by the answerer relevant, then we can say that both conversationalists have established not only a smooth language switch, but also a more formal format for the opening of the call.

. Some problematic cases In this section, we will discuss some problematic cases of language choice from our data. In (10), Belinda from (5) calls France again. (10) A=Operator, C=Belinda, R=Yvette 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: Automatic bonjou:r? Automatic Good.afternoon ‘Automatic, Good afternoon.’ 3 C: 〉j:a: hallo hier is〈 (0.2) Be[Lin: ]da von Automatic, yes hello here is Belinda from Automatic ‘Yes hello, here is Belinda from Automatic.’ 4 A: [allo:] hello ‘Hello.’ 5 (0.9) 6 C: [°ja,°] yes ‘Yes.’ 7 A: [allo]:? hello ‘Hello?’ 8 (0.7) 9 C: ↑ja hallo: hier ist Be↓linda: von Automatic, yes hello here is Belinda from Automatic ‘Yes hello, here is Belinda from Automatic.’ 10 (0.4) 11 C: Yvette bitte:

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 124

 Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

12 13 14 15 16 17

A: C: A: C:

18 19 R:

20 21 C:

22 R:

Yvette please ‘Yvette please.’ (0.8) y:es: an:d eh ↑who are you? (0.4) Belin:da, y:es: (0.2) j:ust one moment ple:ase, °danke° thank you ‘Thank you.’ (6.5) allo? hello ‘Hello?’ (0.3) ja hallo Yvette hier ist Belinda:. yes hallo Yvette here is Belinda ‘Yes hello Yvette, here is Belinda.’ ↓ja yes ‘Yes.’

The operator answers the call in French, and Belinda, by initiating a language switch, provides in line 3 a repair on line 2. So far, (10) follows the outline of (5). In contrast to (5), however, line 3 follows line 2 without delay and is not recognised as a repair on the language chosen. The operator cuts into mid-turn in line 4 with a summons. Delivering a summons at this place in an ongoing turn shows that the speaker is not waiting for a transition-relevant place, i.e. is not listening to the turn. This could be due either to an inability on the part of the answerer to hear the caller, or to a lack of competence in German that would prevent the answerer from understanding Belinda’s self-identification. In this case, the summons might be understood as a rejection of the language switch and a renewed suggestion for using French as the language of the call. When Belinda has finished her turn in line 3, two possibilities for the next turn are available. The operator could react to Belinda’s self-identification — but has already indicated that she is not “hearing” it. Belinda could react to the summons. This is what happens in overlap with the operator, who produces a new summons. But note that Belinda’s answer to the summons is delayed and

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 125

Language choice in international telephone conversations

said in a low voice. She produces a relevant next turn — but at the same time indicates trouble. When Belinda reacts to the second summons in line 9, her answer is not produced in French (hallo) and is followed by a self-identification in German. Compared to lines 2 and 3, now the language repair is preceded by a delay (c.f. (5)). In line 13, the operator switches into English and now delivers a language repair on Belinda’s repair. This repair is not embedded as Belinda’s is: the operator does not produce the relevant next turn in a different language, but something else. By producing line 13, she indicates that she understands Belinda’s lines 9 to 11 as a request to be transferred to “Yvette”. But her request for personal identification is slightly odd here. In our data, operators are most often happy with the identification of the caller’s company, which is in this case the parent company of the subsidiary for which the operator works. Line 13 appears rather to be motivated by a rejection of the language switch, and seems to be rooted in the code switching situation. The operator asks in a third language, English, while Belinda continues to speak in German. To sum up: the operator offers a language for communication (French) in line 2 which is refused by Belinda in line 3. Since the conversationalists do not know each other, they cannot fall back on an earlier established language of communication. At this moment, the operator switches to English, which emerges as a default resource for language choice in international telephone conversations (c.f. line 6 of (7)). Later in the call, when Belinda is finally put through to Yvette, both speakers again establish a common language of communication through personal identification. Finally we will present three calls by Jørgen Gade to a Swiss company to illustrate the potentially fragile character of foreign language telephone openings. In these encounters, identification of caller and language is less routinised and raises interactional obstacles which must be removed. (11) A=Operator, C=Jørgen Gade, R=Ferrari 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: Turredi[f:r 3 C: [.hh ts good morning. 4 this is from ai bee cee company in Denmark. in Vejle. 5 .hh please can I speak to Enzo Ferrari. 6 (0.5) ((0.5 telephone sounds)) (0.3) 7 th↓ang you?



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 126

 Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

(8.0) R: Turedife:r Ferrari? C: ts good morning Ferrari? (0.4) C: the[t is] Jørgen Gade for ai bee cee company in Denmark. R: [ja:?] R: yes. hh- hello Jørgen.

In (11), Jørgen Gade is connected to his Italian-speaking Swiss contact, Ferrari, to whom he has spoken earlier, and launches a greeting in line 10. The greeting and the following recognition by name provide Ferrari with a voice sample and make identification of the other relevant. However, Ferrari seems not to be able to do this, as the pause in line 11 and his prompt in line 13 indicate. When the caller, in overlap with 13, gives an elaborate self-identification, Ferrari is able to recognise him. Jørgen Gade seems to stretch his resources too far in this example. The opening format by other-recognition (which he launches in line 10) requires a certain familiarity of the participants. Ferrari is not necessarily expecting a call in a foreign language, and has therefore to identify the caller and language at the same time. When he does not succeed, Jørgen Gade falls back on his elaborate opening format which we already have seen in (4). (12) A=Mirard, C=Jørgen Gade 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: Mirard? 3 (0.4) .h 4 C: good mohr:ning fuh Mir↑ard, 5 thud iss: Jørg’n Gade from, ai bee cee company in Den↓mark. 6 (0.4 .hh) 7 C: please ken I ↑speak to misto Enzo Ferra↓ri. 8 (0.4) 9 A: æ:. (0.4) e-jis’ en moment plea:se. 10 C: thenk ↑yo? 11 (10) 12 R: hello↑:? 13 C: hello↑:? 14 R: (.) ye:s æh::: 15 oo-uh-who is: yourgh ↑name [please [eh sir. 16 C: [·hh [my name is e-=

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 127

Language choice in international telephone conversations 

17 C: Jørgen Gade fr[om ai bee cee com]pany hhhe [he 18 R: [ah: yes yohr mistuh Gade:.] [vwe hhhe= 19 =ve he:v: e-had eh-æh yestuhrday: æh telephone convehrsa:tion 20 C: yes

In (12), Jørgen Gade again starts with a greeting when talking to a colleague of Ferrari’s, whom he apparently does not know, and proceeds directly with the usual self-identification. The gap in line 6 is treated by Jørgen Gade as if his self-identification has not delivered enough information for the recipient to infer whom Jørgen Gade wants to talk to, and he subsequently specifies his wish in line 7. The delays in lines 8 and 9, however, might be due to Mirard’s limited skills in English. Due to the limits of our material, however, we are not able to pursue this possibility any further. (13) A=Mirard, C=Jørgen Gade 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 A: Mirard? 3 (0.5 .h) 4 C: guut mohrnin:g,= 5 =thud is ↓Jørgen Gade from: ai bee cee company in ↑Den↓mar’. 6 (0.6 .hh) 7 C: please ken I speak to Mistuh Ferrari. 8 (0.4) 9 A: æ:ehm Ferrari ‘s no æh;↓eh noh ↑cheeyuh. 10 (0.5) 11 C: no? 12 (0.5) 13 A: no: ↓here. 14 (0.8 .hh) 15 A: æh jis’ eh moment eh (0.3) oo-æg::m (1.8) moment eh? 16 C: theng ↑yo? 17 (17) 18 R: ello:? 19 C: hello↑:? that is Jørgen Gade from en 20 a[i bee cee company a-] 21 R: [yeh:s goot mor]gen= 22 =Mistuh G[ade 23 C: [go’ mohrning.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 128

 Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

(13) is largely parallel to (12), but illustrates the participants’ difficulties in establishing a joint language of the call. In line 15, Mirard switches from English to Italian and in line 21, the proper recipient of the call greets Jørgen Gade in something which sounds very German (goot morgen), which is then answered by something which initially sounds quite Danish (go).

.

Conclusion

While the language of the conversation is not at issue in telephone calls between speakers of the same language, participants in international calls have to decide whose language they are going to use during the interaction. We have shown in our analysis how conversationalists — while engaged in the first turns in the opening of the telephone conversation — must also perform the task of choosing a language. Conversationalists are able to do this quickly and early on in the conversation. According to our data, the default solution seems to be that the caller proceeds in the language which has been used by the answerer in his first turn. This is the case when the recipient’s language is English or another major language. We have further illustrated that callers may produce in their first turn an elaborate introduction in the answerer’s language, pointing at their own country of origin and indicating their own level of competence in the answerer’s language. Thus, the potential fragility of an international telephone conversation is established in the first turn of the caller. A second possible solution is that if a caller wants to change the language which has been offered by the answerer, he may repair the language choice in the first turn and count on the ability of the answerer to recognise the chosen language, and his or her competence to communicate in it. Since this competence is not always there, we have seen answerers switch to English as the default international language. The third and final possibility is that when callers can draw on a history of earlier telephone conversations, they may simply identify themselves. Identification of the caller effects language switch into the “normal” language of the participants. In this case, recognition of the caller has two functions: in addition to person identification, it re-establishes a language choice from earlier interactions. Thus three main language choice patterns can be found in international telephone conversations. In our data, the first choice (where the language of the

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 129

Language choice in international telephone conversations 

call is the language of the answerer) seems to be the default situation. Most of the calls follow this pattern. The distribution of language choice patterns may turn out to be different in data from other countries. In our data, Danish companies call companies in major European countries. The language competence situation is such that few German, French or British business partners master Danish, while the Danish callers generally master English and often German and/or French. It can be expected that the distribution of language choice patterns would have been different if we had collected data from, for example, German companies calling business acquaintances in Denmark, Iceland or Slovenia. In this case, callers would rarely master the national language of the answerer and would have to pursue a language switch to a common language for interaction. We are awaiting further research on this topic from other countries.

Notes * We are grateful to Harrie Mazeland and Paul Drew for comments and suggestions to an earlier version of this chapter.  “Lingua franca” refers to a language of interaction which is a foreign language to all conversationalists.  In Rasmussen (2000) the role of national identification is discussed in detail.

References Berens, Franz J. 1981 “Dialogeröffnung in Telephongesprächen: Handlungen und Handlungschemata der Herstellung sozialer und kommunikativer Beziehungen”. In Dialogforschung, P. Schroeder and H. Steger (eds), 402–418. Düsseldorf: Schwann. Brinker, Klaus and Sager, Sven F. 1989 Linguistische Gesprächsanalyse. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Firth, Alan 1991 Discourse at Work: Negotiating by Telex, Fax, and Phone. Dissertation. Aalborg: Aalborg University. Godard, Danièle 1977 “Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States”. Language in Society 6: 209–219. Halmari, Helen 1993 “Intercultural business telephone conversations: A case of Finns vs. AngloAmericans”. Applied Linguistics 14: 408–429.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 130

 Gitte Rasmussen and Johannes Wagner

Hopper, Robert 1992 Telephone Conversation. Bloomington Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke 1991 “Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations”. In Talk and Social Structure, D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (eds), 232–250. Oxford: Polity Press. Jefferson, Gail 1987 “On exposed and embedded correction in conversation”. In Talk and Social Organisation, G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds), 86–100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pavlidou, Theodossia(-Soula) 1994 “Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences”. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 487–511. Rasmussen, Gitte 2000 Zur Bedeutung kultureller Unterschiede in interlingualen interkulturellen Gesprächen. München: Iudicium. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings”. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. (Re-printed in Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), 346-380. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.) 1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York: Irvington. 1987 “Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organisation”. In Talk and Social Organisation, G. Button and J.R.E Lee (eds), 70–100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1996 “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction”. In Interaction and Grammar, E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff and S. Thompson (eds), 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Sacks, Harvey 1973 “Opening up closings”. Semiotica 8: 289–327. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail and Sacks, Harvey 1977 “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation”. Language: 361–382.

Appendix: Transcription conventions [ . , ¿ ?

overlapping or simultaneous talk falling intonation (to low) falling intonation (to mid) rising intonation (to mid) rising intonation (to high)

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 131

Language choice in international telephone conversations

↑↓ ° * 〉〈 :: (.) (0.5) = h .hh hh

following sounds produced in a higher/lower tone low voice creaky voice spoken faster/slower lengthening of sound pauses in seconds latching cut-off aspiration in-breath out-breath



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 132

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 133

P II

Problem solving, topic management and closing

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 134

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 135

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business telephone conversations* Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

.

Introduction

This study adopts an ethnographic, discourse analytic approach in order to examine rhetorical strategies demonstrated through language-in-use. Specifically, it investigates customer service-related problem reports and offers of assistance in Japanese business telephone conversations (hereafter, JBCs), highlighting the findings of an ethnomethodological study (Yotsukura 1997) conducted over a 17-month period in and around Tokyo and Kobe, Japan. Conversations exhibiting remarkable consistencies in thematic, compositional, and stylistic features are analysed in order to ascertain how Japanese speakers make use of linguistic resources when reporting and resolving customer service-related problems. Four research questions are addressed in the study, as follows: (1) How do service recipients convey information regarding problems to service providers? (2) What is the function and distribution of linguistic forms which service providers employ when offering assistance? (3) How might the rhetorical strategies used in reporting problems and offering assistance relate to larger Japanese cultural norms and values? and (4) How might these strategies differ from those used in parallel contexts in English? The conversations to be analysed here differ in many respects from those which Jefferson (1980, 1988; Jefferson and Lee 1981) has discussed in her investigations of “troubles-talk” in “ordinary settings.” Most importantly, all conversationalists in these JBCs are customer service representatives from various institutions; none are “ordinary persons” engaging in everyday conversation with friends or family.1 In this regard, the participants also differ from most of those in Park’s (2002) study of Japanese and Korean telephone calls.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 136

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

The only “official-type calls” included therein are of a hybrid type between members of households and businesses. Secondly, the essential goal of JBC callers is to report and seek resolution of customer service-related problems, rather than to engage in “troublestelling” in and of itself, or to seek professional advice. Thirdly, in the two calls to be treated here and in all other JBCs examined in the data corpus, each service recipient has engaged in similar talk numerous times, if not with the same service provider, then at least with other providers serving a similar capacity. Taken together, these factors suggest that JBC callers assume a different role (i.e. institutional) and are generally more experienced at making such calls than are ordinary persons who place calls to, for example, emergency services (Jefferson and Lee 1981; Whalen, Zimmerman and Whalen 1988; Tracy 1997; Drew 1998). Although calls to emergency services have often been characterised in the literature as being “institutional” in nature, they are in fact not conversations among institutional representatives. Rather, they represent a hybrid type of interaction between ordinary citizens and institutional representatives. Tracy (1997) has noted the tension resulting from conversationalists’ differing interactional frames in such calls, in which citizen-callers assume a “customer service” frame, and emergency service call takers speak from a “public service” frame. Similarly, Jefferson and Lee (1981) have pointed out that the convergence of a “troublestelling” and “service encounter” in such settings can be problematic for conversationalists to manage. We will see below that while JBCs do not share identical tensions, they can and do manifest what Jefferson and Lee (1981) call “interactional asynchrony”, due to a different type of mismatch of expectations based on varying levels of experience among service recipients and service providers.

. Background for the study Studies analysing offers in Japanese to date have relied exclusively upon either discourse completion tests (DCTs) or questionnaires as sources of data and are quite limited in number, particularly when compared to the volume of work that has been produced on other speech acts in Japanese such as requests and apologies. Fukushima and Iwata (1987) used DCTs to compare hospitalityoriented offers of food and drinks in Japanese and English as part of a larger study that also examined requests. Findings reported in two studies by Matoba (1989a, 1989b) were based entirely upon data elicited through questionnaires,

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 137

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

with a focus on single utterances used to offer various objects such as an umbrella or a book. Offers in the broad sense were not addressed. Given the small number of studies on offers in Japanese as well as the limitations of elicitation techniques such as DCTs and questionnaires cited by Rose (1992a, 1992b, 1994), Rose and Ono (1995), Kasper and Dahl (1991) and others, it was decided that the present study would employ an ethnographic approach in order to obtain samples of naturally occurring offers. The social action of offering services in Japanese had not been addressed in much detail in the literature; such an investigation therefore seemed warranted. Because offers of assistance frequently arise spontaneously in service encounters, customer service sites were chosen for data collection.

. Methodology and focus of investigation With the assistance of several native Japanese-speaking informants, a total of 100 hours of telephone conversations of staff members employed at three commercial and three educational establishments in the Kanto and Kansai regions of Japan were recorded over several months in 1994 and 1995.2 Of these, over 50 hours (541 calls) were examined for occurrences of offers. At each location, one or more tape recorders were placed out of employees’ sight and connected directly to the incoming telephone line with a special adapter. Native Japanese-speaking informants who were employees of the companies being studied assisted in the recording process by inserting and replacing tapes when necessary, at times when they would not be observed by participating subjects. At all but one location, recording continued for at least two months, by which time subjects reported that they had forgotten about the presence of the tape recorder.3 Subjects who agreed to participate were told that the recording was for linguistic analysis only and that they would remain anonymous, although certain ethnographic information as to the sex, approximate age, and linguistic background (i.e. where the subjects were born, brought up, whether they had been abroad and for how long) was obtained in most cases. A total of 15 men and 22 women between the ages of 20 and 60 agreed to participate, the majority being in their twenties and thirties.4 If we consider that the conversations involved countless other people from outside the organisations and that both incoming and outgoing calls were recorded, the resulting data in fact represent a much more far-reaching population.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 138

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

Transcriptions of the data were completed primarily by the author, with assistance from two native informants.5 After repeated listenings and at least partial — and in many cases complete — transcription of the 541 calls, it became clear that (1) the frequency of occurrence of offers in the data overall was lower than anticipated, but (2) the range of forms of offers, although limited, exhibited a clear sequential pattern within a particular contextual frame. Specifically, offers of assistance were especially likely to occur within the context of telephone conversations that involved the initiation, continuation, or completion of business transactions such as the purchase of food, books, airline tickets, and the like. These offers were of three general types: (a) offers to have a particular person return a telephone call; (b) offers to look into a service problem and (in some cases) call back; and (c) offers to remedy service problems “on the spot”. While offers of type (a) tended to occur during the opening section of telephone conversations, those of type (b) and (c) occurred during the main body of the conversation, and appear to have been motivated by the reporting of service-related problems by the caller. The two conversations to be discussed in this chapter include offers of types (b) and (c); offers of type (a) overlap in form and function with those found in everyday, nonbusiness calls and will not be treated here. The sequential pattern that emerged among offers of types (b) and (c) involves two forms: -mashoo ka? (“Shall I ...?”) and -masu n(o) de (“It’s that I’ll ..., so...”). The form -mashoo ka? appeared in offers to call back, as well as in cases when a service provider lacked sufficient information regarding a problem or the service recipient’s preferences to propose a mutually agreeable solution. Once that information had been obtained, however, either through details provided at a later point in the service recipient’s problem report or through follow-up queries by the service provider, the form -masu n(o) de recurred with marked frequency. Based on these findings, for the purpose of the present investigation, the decision was made to focus not merely on offers, but also on the problem reports that led to those offers.6

. Japanese business telephone conversations: Two case studies In addition to displaying similarities in thematic content, the JBCs in which offers were observed also exhibited a remarkable consistency in terms of overall compositional structure and style. As an illustration, we will consider two such conversations here.7 In the first call, an employee of an interna-

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 139

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

tional importing company contacts their regular shipping agent to inquire about a shipment of books which a customer never received. In the second, a bookstore sales employee contacts a book publisher to inquire about an incomplete shipment of books which her company recently received from a distributor. . Case 1: Reporting that a package did not arrive, without actually saying so This conversation is an interaction between the representatives of two companies that are engaged in a regular business relationship with each other. Kansai Imports8 is an international company that imports food, books, and general merchandise from the United States to Japan for primarily non-Japanese customers. Kobe Shipping is one of two companies in the Kansai area that regularly provide delivery services for Kansai Imports; their business is comparable to that of the United Parcel Service (UPS) in the United States. As often happens with deliveries, customers may not be home when a delivery attempt is made. In such situations, Kobe Shipping typically leaves a delivery notice for the customers, but since their service is not bilingual, the message is written in Japanese. Since many Kansai Imports customers cannot read or speak Japanese well, they often contact Kansai Imports, rather than Kobe Shipping, to report that they did not receive their merchandise. As a result, Kansai Imports then must act as an intermediary on behalf of the customers in order to arrange for Kobe Shipping to make another delivery. This type of situation transpired quite frequently; according to the staff at Kansai Imports, delivery-related problems occurred at least once a day. The member of the operations staff at Kansai Imports who regularly contacts Kobe Shipping to make such delivery arrangements is Ms Yamamoto. At Kobe Shipping, there are three or four representatives in the dispatch section who typically handle these problems; one of these is Mr Kaneda, who appears in this example. The conversation to be analysed involves a shipment of books made on November 16th, from the Kansai Imports office to a customer. Before this conversation took place, the customer had notified Kansai Imports that the shipment had not yet arrived. Lines 1-13 below represent the opening of the call: (1) Opening exchange: Kansai Imports (C) and Kobe Shipping (A, R) 1 ((telephone rings))

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 140

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

2

A: Kobe Unyu desu. Kobe Shipping - ‘Kobe Shipping.’ 3 C: kochira, Kansai Yunyuu no Yamamoto desu.= this Kansai Imports  Yamamoto - ‘This is Yamamoto of Kansai Imports.’ 4 A: =hai, osewa [ni natt’ orimasu:.  assistance  become- be-- ‘Thank you for your continued patronage.’ 5 C: [doomo, osewa ni natte orimasu:.  assistance  become- be-- ‘Thank you for your continued assistance.’ 6 e:to:, hassoo no Kanedasan, onegaidekimasu ka?  dispatch  Mr.Kaneda request---  ‘Um, may I have Mr Kaneda of the dispatch (section)?’ 7 A: hai, shooshoo omachi kudasai=  a.little waiting- give.to.in.group-- ‘Yes, please wait a moment.’ 8 C: =hai.  ‘Okay.’ ((the caller is put on hold for 8 seconds while the clerk transfers the call)) 9 R: a, moshimoshi. oh hello ‘Oh, hello?’ 10 C: a, moshimoshi? [kochira, Kansai Yunyuu no Yamamoto desu:. oh hello this Kansai imports  Yamamoto - ‘Oh, hello? This is Yamamoto of Kansai Imports.’ 11 R: [kawarimashita. change- ‘I’ve exchanged (telephones) (with someone else).’ 12 C: doomo, [osewa ni narimasu:.  assistance  become- ‘I will become obliged to you for your assistance.’ 13 R: [osewa ni narimasu:. assistance  become- ‘I will become obliged to you for your assistance.’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 141

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls

We may summarise this opening section as follows: upon reaching Kobe Shipping, Yamamoto identifies herself and exchanges salutations with a clerk who answers the telephone, affirming the ongoing business relationship between the two companies. Yamamoto then makes a switchboard request to speak with Kaneda; once her call is transferred, she identifies herself again. Kaneda, nearly simultaneously, indicates that the call has been turned over to him, and the two exchange slightly different salutations, using the imperfective narimasu. This shift in the form of the salutation from natt(e)-orimasu in lines 4 and 5 likely reflects a certain recognition on the part of the speakers that each may require the assistance of the other in the ensuing conversation. Yamamoto then proceeds to the main business of the conversation, which is to relate the details of the delivery problem. First she provides a maeoki, or preparatory statement, which presents the general reason-for-call and sets the stage for later elaboration:9 (2) General reason-for-call (maeoki) 14 C: e:to desu ne? kono mae, ano: e:: ofuisu kara  -  this before   office from ‘Um, you know, the other day, um, ah 15 okutta, bukku no bun na ndesu kedoMO: send- book(s)  portion -  but it’s that it’s the book order sent from the office, but…’ 16 R: hai  ‘Mhm.’

Beginning with the attention focuser e:to desu ne?, Yamamoto signals a transition between the opening section and the business portion of the call. She then gives a preliminary indication of the matter she wishes to discuss, setting the current (preliminary) discourse frame with the extended predicate (EP) ndesu. The use of the EP here functions to establish this information as immediately relevant, because the nominal no, contracted here to n, refers or connects the information immediately preceding the EP (i.e. that books were sent from the office the other day) to the speaker’s present situation (her making the call).10 The utterance as a whole thus functions as the background for her call — that is, as a frame for the upcoming discourse.11 By ending her utterance with the clause particle kedomo, as well as by stressing its last syllable and giving it



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 142

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

higher pitch, Yamamoto also provides a transition relevance place (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974) for the recipient to respond. Indeed, Kaneda acknowledges Yamamoto’s utterance and simultaneously orients to the proposed frame through his backchannel Hai in line 16. In line 17 Yamamoto continues with her explanation, this time providing more specific information as to the exact date of the book shipment. Here again she concludes her utterance with the EP, reframing and thereby re-characterising the information she has presented in the discourse thus far. The clause particle ga in line 19 provides another transition relevance place. (3) Reframing of information through the EP by the service recipient 17 C: Juuichigatsu juurokunichi:= November 16th ‘ (On) November 16th.’ 18 R: =hai, hai. yes yes ‘Yes, yes.’ 19 C: okutta bun na ndesu GA: send- portion -  but ‘It’s that (I’m talking about the) order sent (on that date), but…’

In lines 20–31 (omitted), further details are discussed. First, Kaneda confirms the information he has just received about dates, which is critical to the identification of any delivery, with Yamamoto. Yamamoto then volunteers additional information which she anticipates that Kaneda will need in order to resolve the (still unmentioned) problem: the routing slip number. The fact that Yamamoto provides this information without being prompted to do so, as well as the fact that she simply uses the word nanbaa (“number”), rather than the more technical term denpyoo nanbaa or denpyoo bangoo (“routing slip number”), suggests that in this particular situation further specification is unnecessary. In other words, through prior encounters of a similar nature, the two conversationalists have become sufficiently familiar with this routine or “script” that they need not employ more explicit language. This familiarity is confirmed with Kaneda’s response in line 32 below, in which he asks if it is true that the shipment has not arrived. In essence, he has inferred the nature of the (unmentioned) problem, and is asking if this is why Yamamoto has called.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 143

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

(4) Seeking confirmation of the (unmentioned) problem 32 R: michaku desu ka? not.yet.arrived -  ‘Has it not yet arrived?’ 33 C: (0.3) e:to michaku rashii [ndesu:.  not.yet.arrived seems  ‘Um, it’s that it seems it’s not yet arrived.’ 34 R: [michaku not.yet.arrived ‘Not yet arrived.’ 35 C: hai.  ‘No.’ 36 R: chotto matte kudasai, yo. a.little wait- give.to.in.group--  ‘Please wait a minute!’

Yamamoto, being no doubt hesitant to place the blame on Kobe Shipping prematurely, says in line 33 that it seems that the package has not arrived. By using the evidential rashii, which indexes information obtained through aural or visual input, together with the extended predicate, Yamamoto recasts what Kaneda has suggested in a new light (i.e. a new frame). In other words, rather than acknowledge that the problem is that the package has not yet arrived, Yamamoto instead says “it’s that it seems (perhaps based on information provided through the earlier call from the customer) that the package has not yet arrived.” The use of the evidential here clearly stems from interactional motivations. Up until this point in the conversation, Yamamoto has been able to avoid committing what Brown and Levinson (1987) call a face-threatening act (FTA) by not explicitly mentioning that there is a problem with the shipment. When Kaneda guesses the nature of the problem, Yamamoto attempts to mitigate the face threat by using the evidential. Indeed, she may not actually know whether or not the package was delivered; it could be, for example, that Kobe Shipping left the package with a neighbour. The genuine lack of certainty on Yamamoto’s part is therefore another possible reason behind her use of rashii in this utterance. Nevertheless, Kaneda interrupts in line 34 to confirm that this situation involves michaku, something that “hasn’t arrived.” Yamamoto acknowledges

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 144

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

this minimally in line 35, saying only hai, and Kaneda puts her on hold, presumably to check on the shipment via his computer. Returning to the telephone in line 38, Kaneda reports what he has found: (5) Results of checking into the problem 38 R: moshimoshi? hello ‘Hello?’ 39 C: a, moshimoshi, [hai! oh hello yes ‘Oh yes, hello!’ 40 R: [sumimasen. be.sorry ‘I’m sorry (for the wait).’ 41 e: nijuuichinichi desu ne!  21st -  ‘Um, the 21st, you see,’ 42 C: hai!  ‘Mhm!’ 43 R: kanryoo wa nee, dete oru ndesu yo. completion   show- be--   ‘It’s that we’re showing completion (of delivery), you know.’

In lines 41 and 43, Kaneda says that their system is showing “completion (of delivery)” on the 21st. He conveys the new information through the extended predicate, thus reframing or re-characterising information that Yamamoto had given him earlier. If we now consider the conversation as it has proceeded thus far, we may observe that the conversationalists are actually interactively co-constructing a picture of reality through a series of frames. It is as though one snapshot is presented, followed by another taken at a slightly different angle (reflecting different surroundings, or context), followed by another, and so forth. The extended predicate, or more specifically, the nominal no (or n) functions to point to elements in the context that are essential to these angles and anchors them to the present situation at the time of the utterance containing the EP. That situation may of course change from moment to moment, as we have observed in this call when new information is presented by the two conversationalists. But the purpose of employing the EP

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 145

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

is nonetheless constant, despite these changes in situation or context. The service recipient’s use of the clause particles kedomo and ga, which are stressed and given higher pitch, also provides a series of transition relevance places following chunks of salient information, through which she seeks a response from the service provider. Returning now to the ongoing conversation, we see that rather than tacitly accepting the new information from Kaneda about the delivery having been completed, Yamamoto is instead somewhat hesitant to agree (perhaps because she had previously received contradictory information from the customer). She repeats the information she has heard bit by bit in order to confirm it (in lines 44 and 46, omitted here), and then asks for additional information, as follows: (6) Request for information by service recipient and ensuing offer by

service provider 48 C: e:to, sain... [wakarimasu ka?  signature be.clear-  ‘Um, is it clear (whose) signature (was used to accept the delivery)?’ → 49 R: [sain torimashoo ka? signature take-  ‘Shall I/we get the signature?’ In line 48, Yamamoto haltingly starts to mention the signature, which is necessary for packages to be released. Here she is referring to the fact that once Kobe Shipping has obtained a signature from a customer (or from someone who is accepting the package on behalf of the customer), they can fax a copy of the signature release form to Kansai Imports as proof that the package has been delivered. But before Yamamoto can even finish her question, Kaneda takes the initiative and offers to get the signature for her (line 49). In extending his offer, Kaneda uses the consultative -mashoo ka? (“Shall I...?”) pattern. This is an interrogative form, and as such it provides the interlocutor — in this case, Yamamoto — with the opportunity to refuse. The fact that Kaneda has selected this form suggests that perhaps he is unsure whether or not his offer will be acceptable to Yamamoto. The context for such an utterance is much like that in English when one might ask, “Would you like me to...?”. In Japanese, however, it is not pragmatically acceptable to ask about the needs and desires of one’s interlocutor (Hoshino 1991), so the -mashoo ka? form is preferable here.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 146

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

As it turns out, Yamamoto accepts Kaneda’s offer by politely asking if she could have him get the signature, and he agrees to do so through a second offer in line 53: (7) Service recipient’s acceptance of the service provider’s offer 50 C: hai. onegaidekimasu ka?= yes beg---  ‘Yes. Could I ask you to?’ 51 R: =hai, wakarimashita.=  become.clear- ‘Fine, understood.’ 52 C: =onegaishimasu:.= beg-- ‘Please do so.’ → 53 R: kiite okimasu nde: ask- do.for.future.use- - ‘It’s that I/we’ll ask about it, so…; (don’t worry).’ 54 C: doomo. thanks ‘Thanks.’ 55 R: hai.  ‘Sure.’ ((telephone is hung up))

In line 52, Yamamoto might have raised further concerns or perhaps inquired about other shipments. Instead, she reiterates her request (in the plain, nonpotential form), thereby signalling closure of the discussion. Kaneda senses this and responds by making a related offer, which restates what he will do for her. Since this is a new characterisation of his earlier offer of service, he conveys it with the EP: kiite okimasu nde. The effect is to do several things at once: (1) state his intention and willingness to look into the matter for Yamamoto; (2) reassure her that she need not worry (since he will take care of it); and (3) initiate the closing of the conversation. Yamamoto thanks him for his assistance, and the conversation ends with Kaneda’s acknowledgment in line 55. . Case 2: Reporting an incomplete shipment The opening exchange in this conversation begins with similar moves to those used by the conversationalists in the first call, except that the recipient, an

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 147

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

employee of Fukuda Books, provides his company name and section affiliation rather than simply identifying himself by his company name. Also, the caller identifies herself only very generally, as a “bookstore” (line 3). (8) Initial opening exchange: Tokyo Bookstore (C) and Fukuda Books (R) 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: hai, Fukuda shoten hanbaika desu:.  Fukuda bookstore sales.section - ‘Yes, Fukuda Books, Sales Section.’ 3 C: ano, shoten desu ga,=  bookstore - but ‘Uh, this is a bookstore; 4 osewa ni natte ‘masu:. assistance  become- be- Thank you for your continued assistance.’ 5 R: =osewa ni natte ‘masu:. assistance  become- be- ‘Thank you for your continued assistance.’

Once this opening exchange has been completed, the caller presents a maeoki. As in the first conversation, the caller’s maeoki is preceded by an attention focuser and ends with the deictically grounded n(o) desu form, thereby proposing a frame for the upcoming discourse.12 Here also, the caller follows the EP with a clause particle to signal a transition relevance place. (9) Stating the general reason-for-call (maeoki) 6 C: ano desu nee!=  -  ‘Well, you see!’ 7 R: =hai.  ‘Yes.’ 8 C: chotto oshirabe itadakitai just looking.up- receive.from.out.group--- ‘It’s that I/we’d just like to have you look (something) up, 9 ndesu ga,=  but but…’

In (10) and (11) (lines 10–34), the caller provides a series of details relating to the incomplete shipment in a stage-like fashion that is strikingly similar in

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 148

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

structure and the sequencing of details to the first conversation. In particular, it is notable that at each step in which these details are provided, the caller frames the new information with the EP. Unlike the first call in which there was immediate uptake of the matter being proposed for discussion, at a parallel juncture here (a transition relevance place signalled by ga in line 11), the clerk does not respond. This suggests a potential interactional problem, so the caller adds more details and another re-characterisation, indicating that it was four picture books she ordered. Of those, she notes that only three have arrived, so she asks if the remaining volume has been sent out. In short, due to a further lack of response from the recipient, this caller has been forced to explicitly describe the problem. This too sets the second call apart from the first. The caller even utters the numerals in line 15 with greater stress and at a higher pitch for additional emphasis, but the clerk still offers no assistance. So she begins to request again that he looks into the matter in line 16. Before she can finish, however, he interrupts, claiming that he has understood. (10) Providing information related to the problematic book order 10 C: =e:to: shigatsu nijuushichinichi no hi ni, sochira DE,  April 27th  day  that.place  ‘Um, on the 27th of April, at your location, 11 e:to desu ne, denwa chuumon na ndesu ga,  -  telephone order -  but you see, it’s that I mean a telephone order, but… 12 yonsatsu hodo, eHON o chuumon four.volumes approximately picture.books  order it’s that I took the liberty of ordering 13 sashite itadaita ndesu yo. do-- receive.from.out.group--   about four picture books, you know.’ 14 R: hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 15 C: YONsatsu no uchi no, SANsatsu shika chotto four.volumes  among  three.volumes only just ‘Of the four volumes, it’s just that only 16 haitte kit’ orimasen [node, enter- come- be--- - three volumes have arrived, so...’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 149

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

17 R:

[hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 18 C: issatsu dashite itadaketa ka one.volume send- receive.from.out.group---  ‘Whether or not you were able to send us one volume, 19 doo ka, oshirabehow  looking.up- a look-up…’ 20 R: hai. kashikomarita. (sic)=  make. clear- ‘Mhm. Certainly.’

But the caller realises the clerk will need more information in order to make the necessary inquiries, so in line 21 below she provides her company name without being prompted to do so.13 The clerk politely acknowledges this but does not respond otherwise. Since an offer of assistance is still not forthcoming, the caller then specifies the title of the missing book, which is Hahaha no hanashi, or The Tale of Ha-ha-ha. The clerk confirms that it is one copy (that she needs), and asks her to wait a moment, suggesting that at last he has grasped the problem. (11) Service recipient provides additional necessary details 21 C: =ano:, Tookyoo shoten to mooshimasu:.  Tokyo bookstore  be.called-- ‘Um, this is Tokyo Bookstore.’ 22 R: (1.3) a, Tookyoo shotensama [de. ah Tokyo bookstore.M(r)s. - ‘Oh, Ms Tokyo Bookstore…’ 23 C: [hai.  ‘Yes.’ 24 R: hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 25 C: DE, ano desu nee, and  -  ‘And, well you see,

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 150

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

26

27 R:

28 C:

29

30 R:

31 C:

32 R:

33 C:

34 R:

taitoru, yot:TSU:: no uchi no desu NE! title four.units  among  -  the title, of the four volumes, you know.’ hai.  ‘Mhm.’ haitte kite nai mono ga, enter- come- be-- thing  ‘The one that hasn’t arrived Hahaha no hanashi:= Ha-ha-ha  tale The Tale of Ha-ha-ha.’ =hai.  ‘Mhm.’ to iu taitoru no mono na ndesu ga,  be.called- title  thing -  but ‘It’s that it’s a thing with that title.’ go issatsu de. (polite.prefix) one.volume - ‘One copy.’ hai.=  ‘Mhm.’ =hai. shooshoo omachi kudasai:.=  a.moment waiting- give.to.in-group-- ‘Mhm. Please wait a moment.’

The clerk returns to the telephone in line 35 and apologises for the delay; he also reconfirms that it is one copy of Hahaha no hanashi which is needed. After the caller acknowledges this, the clerk requests the agency number, which is a code used among bookstores for ordering purposes. This reveals to the caller that the clerk has incorrectly assumed that she had wanted to (re)order the book. Indeed, she seems to have recognised as early as line 39 that he has yet again misunderstood her, as evidenced by her initial hesitation, “a.” (12) Confirmation of details by the service provider 35 R: =omatase des- itashimashita. causing.waiting---  do-- ‘S- Sorry to have kept you waiting.’

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 151

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls

36 C: hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 37 R: ja, Hahaha no hanashi o issatsu to well ha-ha-ha  tale  one.volume  ‘Well, so it’s a matter of one copy of 38 iu koto de, be.called- thing c- The Tale of Ha-ha-ha.’ 39 C: a, hai:. ah  ‘Ah, yes.’ 40 R: ja, bansen onegaishimasu:. well agency.number request-- ‘Well then, please give me the agency number.’

The caller therefore corrects the clerk’s mistaken assumption in lines 41–52 below by restating (more tentatively, and in very careful, formal language) her question as to whether it is possible the missing book was never sent out. Yet again, there is no uptake, so she also restates the fact that among the four books ordered, it was The Tale of Ha-ha-ha which did not arrive. The clerk formally acknowledges this information by saying haa haa, but still makes no move to assist, so the caller is forced once more to explicitly enlist his help, saying that she had wanted to have him look into whether or not the book had been shipped. Key information providing salient cues to the problem is again highlighted suprasegmentally through stress and higher pitch. (13) Tentative query by service recipient regarding the problem 41 C: a, ano: sono mae NI: ah  that before  ‘Oh, um, before that,’ 42 R: hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 43 C: ZENkai chuumon shita toki ni, ano: uketeprevious order do- time   receive- ‘At the time of the previous order, um, 44 itadakemasen deshita ndeshoo: ka. receive.from.out.group--- - -  might it have been that we couldn’t receive it from you?’



FM_170 v2.qxd



12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 152

Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

45 C: YONsatsu chuumon shiTE: four.volumes order do- ‘Having placed an order for four volumes.’ 46 R: hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 47 C: sono uchi, Hahaha no hanashi dake haitte those among ha-ha-ha  tale only be.included- ‘It’s that among those, only A Tale of Ha-ha-ha 48 konakatta ndesu yo. come--   wasn’t included, you know.’ 49 R: haa haa.14 yes yes ‘Yes, yes.’ 50 C: de dashite itadaketa and send- receive.from.out.group--- ‘And whether or not (you) 51 ka doo ka,  how  were able to send it for us, 52 oshirabe itadakitakatta ndesu ga. looking.up- receive.from.out.group--  but it’s that I/we wanted to have you look into it, but…’

Finally in line 53 the clerk seems to realise the point of her call, for he asks if she means “confirmation” (of the shipment). She acknowledges this, but perhaps due to the clerk’s subsequent silence she goes on to reassure him that if it seems the book has not been dispatched, she will place an order for another copy.15 (14) Service provider confirms reason-for-call 53 R: a, kakunin de:su ne? ah confirmation -  ‘Oh, you mean confirmation, right?’ 54 C: hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 55 (0.3)

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 153

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls

56 C: sore de, dashite nai yoo deshitaRA:= that - send- be-- seem - ‘And then, if it seems that it hasn’t been sent…?’ 57 R: =hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 58 C: moo ittsuu chuumon itashimasu noDE:= more one.copy order do-- - ‘It’s that I/we’ll order one more copy, so…’

This sufficiently clarifies the situation for the clerk, who finally offers in lines 59-60 and 62 to find out if there is a form indicating completion of the delivery. It is notable that he uses the -masu no de form here for his offer; as in the first conversation, this is probably because the service provider now has sufficient information regarding the service to be performed, and wants to reassure the service recipient that he will assist her. In response to his offer, the caller reiterates the crucial information that the order was placed on April 27th. The clerk confirms this, and requests the agency number, the agent, and their location information. In the subsequent lines 71-77 (which have been omitted) the caller provides these details, and the clerk confirms them in turn. (15) Offer of assistance by service provider 59 R: =hai. dewa ichioo den:pyooshi well anyhow invoice.sheet ‘Yes. Well anyhow, whether or not there’s an invoice sheet 60 hakkooshi aru ka doo ka:,= completion.sheet have-  how  a completion sheet.’ 61 C: =hai.  ‘Mhm.’ 62 R: shirabemasu noDE: look.into- - ‘It’s that (I/we)’ ll look into it, so…’ 63 C: hai, shigatsu nijuushichinichi ni chuumon itashimashita  April 27th  order do-- ‘Okay, (I/we) placed the order on April 27th.’ ((In lines 64–67, the clerk repeats this date for confirmation purposes))



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 154

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

68 R: hai. (1.0)  ‘Mhm.’ 69 C: (1.0) 70 R: de, ano bansen to otori-tsugi: soshite basho. -  agency.number and agency then place ‘And um, the agency number and the agency, then the place.’ ((Requested details are provided and confirmed in lines 71–77, omitted here.))

After checking to be sure that this is all that the caller needs, the clerk offers in lines 80–82 to confirm the delivery and call back. In the remaining lines of the call (omitted here), the caller acknowledges the clerk’s offer, and the clerk requests her telephone number and name, which she provides. The conversation closes with an exchange of ritual phrases which request favourable treatment by the other party. (16) Confirmation of service to be undertaken 78 R: ha:i. ijoo de:  all - Mhm. That’s all.’ 79 C: hai.  ‘Yes.’ 80 R: hai. e: dewa, ka- kakunin shimashite:,   well  confirmation do- ‘Mhm. Um, well, having con-confirmed (the delivery),’ → 81 odenwa sashite itadakimasu telephone do-- receive.from.out.group-- ‘I/we’ll take the liberty of 82 node, - calling you back, so.…’

. Discussion In this section, a representative sequence for JBCs is proposed, and the differing shapes and trajectories of the two calls, as well as the ways in which problems are reported and offers extended, are discussed. A sample English call is also introduced in order to suggest that rhetorical strategies in similar contexts in English may differ from those in Japanese.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 155

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls

Comparing the two conversations presented in the previous sections, we find clear parallels in terms of thematic content; both conversations revolve around the reporting of problems and the offering of assistance in connection with certain business transactions. In terms of compositional structure, these two JBCs (as well as others in the data corpus) also exhibit strong similarities. Each call can be divided into five parts: (1) an opening section; (2) a transition section consisting of an attention focuser followed by a general reason-for-call (maeoki), as well as clause particle kedo or ga, which functions as a cue for a transition relevance place; (3) a general report of a business-related problem, or at least a series of details relating to such a problem; (4) a section summarising the matters discussed, which may include an offer or assurance of assistance; and (5) a closing section. (See Appendix 1 for a summary of these sections and their subsections.) Within each problem report, service recipients present a stage-like sequence of details, beginning with the date of shipment and point of origin, followed by other salient information which is usually predicated with the EP in order to reframe or re-characterise the present discourse situation. The EP is also often followed by particles (typically kedo or ga) that are given additional emphasis through higher pitch and greater stress in order to encourage responses from the service provider at these transition relevance places. Explicit mention of the problem is avoided at the outset of the reports, and is only made when offers from service providers are not readily forthcoming. When this becomes necessary, however, such re-characterisations are also usually accompanied by the EP and suprasegmentally highlighted particles. While many of the structural similarities among JBCs do not necessarily set them apart from ordinary telephone calls (e.g., the fact that there are opening and closing sections), we can identify certain distinctive features of JBCs. One is the absence of the exchange of the greeting moshimoshi (“Hello”) in the opening section. Although prescriptive textbook accounts (e.g., Jorden and Noda 1987) have implied that either business or everyday calls may begin with moshimoshi, the JBC data generally do not support this. Rather, nearly all JBCs minimally begin with a self-identification consisting of the answerer’s business affiliation; this may be the company name or the section in which the answerer is employed. Sometimes the self-identification is preceded by an acknowledgement of the telephone ring (hai); such an example appears in the second case study above (see line 2 of (8)). The only exceptions to this pattern seem to be “in-house calls” between colleagues on



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 156

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

an inside line, in which the answerer will generally respond to the ring with moshimoshi and perhaps the answerer’s last name, rather than company or section name. Schegloff’s concept of “recipient design” is useful in explaining this behaviour. He notes: At a phone whose callers are not expectably recognizables and are not expectably oriented to answerers as recognizables, answerers’ first turns routinely are designed to afford categorial confirmation that the caller reached what he intended, typically by self-identification (e.g., “American Airlines”), a self-identification which projects a type of identification for caller (e.g., “customer”) and aspects of the type of conversation getting under way (e.g., “business”). (Schegloff 1979: 33)

Thus, when a call comes in on an outside line, answerers will more likely produce a company affiliation-type of self-identification, since they realise that the caller may not recognise them and vice versa. In contrast, for a call on an inside line, a simple moshimoshi or self-identification by name is sufficient, since the potential set of callers is a more restricted set of people, i.e. co-workers in the same organisation. Following the answerer’s self-identification, the caller usually reciprocates with his own self-identification, and does not use moshimoshi as a greeting. The only exceptions to this appear to be in personal calls among colleagues (the caller on some occasions will use moshimoshi), and calls from customers (who often adopt moshimoshi as a greeting). It is interesting in this regard to examine the Japanese data cited by Park (2002). In these calls, some answerers use moshimoshi, while others use the pattern hai + self-identification. Callers are similarly mixed in their use of moshimoshi versus a self-identification. Overall, however, there appears to be a greater tendency for the use of moshimoshi than in JBCs, even by business callers to a residence (e.g., in the call from an insurance company). The fact that Park’s data corpus consists of calls placed to or from residences as opposed to businesses may partially account for this behaviour. This may also explain another issue which Park addresses in some detail — that of other-recognition. She notes that although exchanges of selfidentification tend to occur more frequently than other-recognition in her Japanese data, and despite the fact that self-identification appears to be the prescriptive norm in Japanese, other-recognition nonetheless occurs — typically between well-acquainted participants, such as friends, sisters, and spouses.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 157

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls

She suggests that a “general interactional preference” for other-recognition might overrule the norm of self-identification in Japanese telephone call openings, at least among close acquaintances in her particular corpus. In the JBC data, self-identifications occur more frequently than otherrecognition; the few cases of the latter that do appear are usually calls of a personal nature between well-acquainted colleagues. Although a discussion of interactional preferences is beyond the scope of this chapter, I suspect that business etiquette (or recipient design, as noted above) dictates the use of selfidentification over other-recognition in JBC contexts. Should further research bear this out, this would represent a second distinctive property of JBCs. Another distinctive feature of JBCs is the exchange of business salutations, which follows the exchange of self-identifications. Essentially this exchange parallels what Schegloff has described as a “greeting sequence” in everyday calls. Personal greetings generally do not appear in JBCs except for an occasional ohayoo gozaimasu (“Good morning”), and if this phrase appears, it usually occurs as an opening greeting that precedes the answerer’s self-identification. Callers may or may not reciprocate. This contrasts with American business calls, in which personal greetings such as “How’re you doing today?” may be exchanged (Park 2002), and not only “Good morning”, but also “Good afternoon” may appear (Garner 1984). The exchange of business salutations intervenes in JBCs between the exchange of self-identifications and the maeoki, or reason-for-call. As a result, we do not find exactly the same sequential pattern cited by Park in her data of self-identification + kedo + reason-for-call. Rather, we find callers using kedo or the more formal ga even earlier, at the end of their self-identifications. Whereas Park has noted that subjects in her corpus seem to use kedo “to save the next turn space” for the reason for their call, in JBCs, subjects appear to use kedo to save the next turn space for the ritual exchange of business salutations. In either case, however, kedo functions in a parallel fashion, marking the information that precedes it as background information, and providing a transition relevance place for the next juncture of the conversation. There appears to be some evidence in the JBC data to support Park’s claim that kedo can have the “function of projecting the following main action.” As we have seen, in making their problem reports, JBC conversationalists try to avoid explicitly mentioning the problem itself, preferring to state the reason for their call in a general fashion through the maeoki + kedo. They then provide various details related to the problem in a series of sentence fragments, each of which also usually ends in kedo. As Park suggests, there seems to be an



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 158

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

expectation among callers that the answerer will infer what is implied, but not said, following kedo in these situations. (This strategy worked for Yamamoto in our first example, but did not for Yamada, since she was forced to explicitly describe the problem in order to get an offer of assistance from the clerk.) Aside from the thematic and structural similarities we have just discussed, JBCs are also remarkably similar in terms of style. Conversationalists usually address each other using distal (formal) style predicates, often adopt honorific and/or humble polite forms, and usually avoid contractions, sentence fragments or inverted sentences. Taken together, this indicates that speakers in JBCs are selecting a careful, rather than casual style of speech, which is in keeping with general business practice among non-intimates in Japan. We may also note that the opening and closing sections are characterised by highly ritualised language that evokes even greater distance between conversationalists at these junctures.16 The service recipients in both calls we have examined thus appear to adopt a strategy through which they attempt to orient the attention of service providers by linguistically framing salient information that is essential to the problem report through a narrative series of utterances which employ similar styles. Experienced providers such as Kaneda require only these salient details in order to surmise the problem, particularly if they are well-acquainted with the service recipient. But what about the second case, in which the clerk from Fukuda Books required extensive re-characterisations of the problem and explicit requests for assistance before he truly grasped the problem? Did Yamada of Tokyo Bookstore somehow fail linguistically in framing her presentation? This does not appear to be the case, since she too, like Yamamoto of Kansai Imports, employed the EP and following particles to frame the series of details germane to the problematic shipment. She also used similarly polite language. Rather, the miscommunication appeared to have stemed from a lack of shared experience between the two conversationalists, and from the clerk’s mistaken expectation that Yamada was calling to order a book. This is a natural assumption for an employee of the sales section of a publishing company to make, since part of his job involves order-taking. In fact, on the same tape of Yamada’s incoming and outgoing calls from which this conversation was taken, there were numerous other calls that Yamada placed to other publishers. In these calls, she introduced herself in an identical fashion (i.e. merely as a shoten, “bookstore”). She then made a brief statement that she was calling to place an order (the maeoki), mentioned the title of the book, and

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 159

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

either volunteered or was asked to present the same details about the agency name, number, her own company name and location that were requested by the Fukuda Books clerk. Except for the fact that the titles of the books and sometimes the agency name and number differed, these other conversations proceeded in an almost verbatim fashion. This observation suggests that conversationalists who place and receive certain types of calls on a regular basis are not only familiar with the specific vocabulary necessary to achieve their goals — in this case, to place book orders — but also that through experience, they have built up a set of expectations as to when, how and what they should say in order to go about their business. Likewise, they have also developed assumptions about what will be asked of them and what they might say at certain points in a conversation, provided that it involves the type of transaction they are accustomed to handling. In short, they have acquired what Bourdieu (1990) has called “a feel for the game — a “lived habit”, or habitus. They are skilled conversationalists in a cooperative activity which draws on both behavioural and linguistic dispositions developed over time, in similar contexts, while engaged in parallel role relationships. But in the second call between Yamada and the Fukuda Bookstore clerk, there is clearly a misalignment of expectations, or what Jefferson and Lee (1981) have called “interactional asynchrony.” Yamada intended to report a problem, and expected the clerk to assist her in resolving it. The clerk on the other hand, who perhaps was better versed in order-taking than in problem-resolution, automatically assumed that she merely intended to re-order a book. His expectations caused him to disattend Yamada’s repeated attempts to point out the problem — namely that there was an incomplete book shipment — as well as the assistance she sought, namely that he check to see if the fourth book was ever dispatched. By disattending the numerous cues that Yamada provided, the clerk forced her to “go bald on record” and commit an FTA. Culturally speaking, this is highly dispreferred behaviour, given the Japanese notion of enryo-sasshi communication, through which speakers avoid expressing their thoughts and feelings directly and attempt to intuit others’ needs through consideration or anticipation. This notion does seem to be reflected to some degree in most of the problem reports examined in this study, both in terms of the hesitation observed among service recipients in reporting problems explicitly at the outset, as well as in the readiness of experienced service providers to step forward and offer assistance which would address a per-

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 160

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

ceived need.17 Where interactional difficulties were encountered in other calls not discussed here, the source of those difficulties appeared to be a misalignment of expectations, with inexperienced service providers failing to attend to cues provided by experienced service recipients in their problem reports. Limited data collected for this study in similar contexts in English suggest that a more direct discourse strategy may be used among American English speakers when making problem reports. For example, customers of Kansai Imports who called the company to report shipping problems often began their narratives in a way that implied the responsibility for the problems lay with the shipping company and not themselves. The following example will serve as an illustration: (17) American customer reporting a shipping problem to Kansai Imports 1 R: hai, Kansai Yunyuu desu:. ‘Yes, Kansai Imports.’ 2 C: Ah, yes, do you speak English? 3 R: yes. 4 C: yes, um: someone tried to deliver something today, euh: 5 we were home but we didn’t hear the doorbell. 6 R: right. 7 C: um, can: an’ I had asked to have them leave it. 8 R: uhhuh [uhhuh. 9 C: [Um: but they didn’t. 10 R: oh, sorry ‘bout that!= 11 C: =that’s okay, it was just one box. 12 R: okay. 13 C: so, how can we have it delivered, then. 14 R: okay, lemme ask your membership number first?

Here the American customer immediately launches into an account of the problem without first identifying herself either by name or membership number. Nor does she provide a transitional phrase to indicate the general reason for her call and simultaneously prepare the Japanese listener for what is to come. This latter behaviour is consistent with the findings of Kashiwazaki (1993), a study which compares requesting behaviour in Japanese conversation by native speakers of English to that of Japanese native speakers. Kashiwazaki found that whereas Japanese native subjects prefaced their requests with maeoki, few native English speakers did the same.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 161

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls

In American personnel training manuals which recommend telephone techniques in English for service-related calls, this tendency to “get to the point” quickly is documented as a typical trait among Americans, and is sometimes even presented as an efficient way for personnel to get service-related problems resolved. One manual describes “those ‘I-must-go-to-the-top’ callers”, while another advocates that personnel be very specific about problems, identifying them immediately and also explicitly requesting assistance. The stated rationale for this is that companies typically set up “protective screens” in order to “save their supervisor’s time, obtain information from you, or block your call entirely”. The author argues that through a direct approach, callers may succeed in getting through such screens (Farrell 1994: 73). Another possible interpretation of this third call, however, is that the strategies adopted by the American customer, as well as the difficulty she encounters in obtaining immediate assistance, are due to another case of “interactional asynchrony” between conversationalists. The caller, who is a customer (as opposed to a service representative), seeks resolution of a shipping-related problem that she herself has experienced. Not being wellversed in institutional procedures, she initially begins what appears to be a troubles-telling narrative. But the answerer, a customer service representative whose regular duties include both assisting customers with their problems and reporting those problems to shipping companies, requires certain information to research the matter further. Most fundamentally, before she can begin to look into a problem, she must know the caller’s identity — either her name or her member number. The details of how and why the customer missed the shipment are irrelevant and consequently disattended. That is, she exhibits “essential indifference” (Jefferson and Lee 1981: 413) to what she considers non-essential information.18 But in the remaining portion of the English call (not transcribed here), once the service provider receives the customer’s membership number, the conversation progresses much more smoothly, and the provider is able to assist the customer with her problem. Turning now to the types of offers employed in JBCs, we observed that service providers adopt either the consultative, interrogative -mashoo ka? or the deictically grounded -masu no de… form in their utterances. The difference in distribution of these forms relates to the degree of knowledge the speaker has at a given moment regarding the problem being reported. Service providers such as Kaneda in the first call adopt the -mashoo ka pattern when seeking confirmation about a proposed service, either because there is insufficient information to judge what sort of behaviour would be appropriate (due



FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 162

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

to an unfamiliarity with this particular type of transaction or a lack of experience in these sorts of situations more broadly speaking), or because they are unsure about the service recipient’s preferences and wish to leave the final decision regarding the acceptability of the proposed solution up to him or her. In contrast, service providers typically adopt the -masu no de... pattern in situations in which they already have a reasonably clear idea, based on the previous discourse and/or their experience with similar transactions or the JBC genre more generally, as to the nature of the problem being described. Speakers use this form to link the information marked with no in order to associate, refer to, or even explain the present discourse situation with that n(o)-marked information. In this way, service providers can also reassure service recipients of their willingness and intention to perform a given service. Moreover, by using a non-finite form — the gerund — to predicate the offer, the provider can convey a nuance of open-endedness which would not have been present if he had made a declarative assertion with the form n(o) desu. In other words, by adopting the gerund form, the speaker essentially assumes that the listener will know what to do, or will know how to interpret the utterance. The use of the verbal gerund in this manner is not at all unusual in Japanese; indeed, gerunds are routinely used in order to conclude an utterance when what they clarify or expand upon is judged by the speaker to be accessible information. We have also observed that both offer forms, -mashoo ka? and -masu n(o) de, are often used sequentially by the service provider in the same call. The first form is used initially, when details regarding the problem and its likely solution are as yet incomplete. Once the offer is accepted by the service recipient, the provider can restate his intention to be of assistance by putting that offer in the -masu n(o) de form.

. Conclusions and directions for further research As was suggested in the Introduction, the JBCs examined for the present investigation differ fundamentally from those discussed by Jefferson in her series of studies about troubles-telling by ordinary persons, in that the JBCs represent interactions between institutional employees who have attained a certain degree of experience in discharging their duties as service recipients and service providers. Both Yamamoto and Yamada have been presented in this analysis as service recipients because they are either acting on behalf of a customer (in the case of Kansai Imports) or on behalf of a larger organisation (Tokyo

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 163

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

Bookstore), and they have contacted a service provider (Kobe Shipping and Fukuda Books, respectively) to report a problematic shipment. Both service recipients display similar linguistic strategies in the ways in which they open their calls and frame their problem reports. They begin with a self-introduction and a business salutation that acknowledges their ongoing relationship with the service provider, then provide a maeoki to alert the provider as to the nature of the call. Following the maeoki, they supply, based on prior experience with such calls, a series of what they anticipate will be essential details that the service provider will need in order to assist in the resolution of the problem. These are framed and highlighted through the use of the EP and following particles, so that they appear maximally relevant to the service provider, and will ideally elicit an offer of assistance. As for the service providers, Kaneda on the one hand demonstrates his skill and experience in handling such calls by the fact that he is able to infer the nature of the problem before Yamamoto is forced to state it, and immediately offer assistance. This is not surprising, given that numerous other calls between these two regarding similarly problematic shipments appeared in the data corpus. Kaneda is also clearly conversant in shipping-specific terms and idioms, such as kanryoo wa dete-orimasu (“I’m showing completion of delivery.”). The clerk of Fukuda Books, on the other hand, would at least appear to be an experienced order-taker, since he immediately concludes that Yamada is seeking to re-order a book, and also makes ready use of terms employed in such situations, such as bansen “agency number” and otori-tsugi “agency.” But he appears curiously impassive in response to Yamada’s increasingly explicit requests in her problem report that he check on the status of the original order. Given these findings, the crux of the difference between these two JBCs seems attributable to the intersection of three related issues: (1) the roles temporarily assumed by conversationalists in the calls; (2) their experience in fulfilling those roles, and (3) the expectations they bring to the interaction based on that experience. In the first call, the service recipient and the service provider are both experienced, and thus they are able to bring situationally appropriate expectations to the interaction which enable them to communicate relatively smoothly. In the second call, however, there is an asymmetry in the degree of experience between the conversationalists, resulting in a clash of expectations. A similar asymmetry is apparent in the English call; here the service recipient (the customer) is inexperienced, and the service provider exhibits

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 164

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

well-developed, role-specific expectations and strategies. The fact that the customer’s narrative more closely approximates a “troubles-telling” than a problem report (e.g., it lacks a self-introduction, business salutation, etc.) suggests that at the outset the customer assumes the role of an “ordinary person” in Jefferson and Lee’s (1981) sense of the term, but finds it necessary to temporarily assume an institutional role (i.e. problem reporter) and to provide the requested information when faced with the service provider’s question about her membership number. In short, a temporary shift of role made necessary by the need to report a problem to an institution, together with a consequent imbalance of experience between the service recipient and the service provider, and finally a commensurate conflict of expectations, all contribute to the interactional asynchrony in this conversation. (In these respects, the third conversation parallels those cited in the literature on emergency services.) Also, as suggested earlier, the third call may have been problematic because the customer reported the problem directly, rather than employing an indirect approach which might be more in keeping with the highly valued notion of enryo-sasshi communication in Japan. Further research is necessary in order to better explore the complex interrelationship between discourse and institutional roles, degree of experience with those roles, commensurate expectations, and cultural values, as well as the ways in which each of these factors influences conversationalists’ behaviour in both Japanese and English business conversations. Such research would require a broader data corpus that includes a matrix of Japanese and English language calls between customers and service providers, as well as between service recipients and service providers. While assembling such a database would be no simple feat, the potential for valuable contributions to the fields of conversation analysis, negotiation research, and cross-cultural pragmatics suggests it is a worthy endeavour.

Notes * I am indebted to Charles J. Quinn, Jr., Mari Noda, and Mike Geis of Ohio State University for their critiques and guidance on my dissertation, which served as the foundation for this paper. Keisuke Maruyama of Doshisha Women’s University provided invaluable introductions for data collection in Japan, and a Fulbright grant from the United States-Japan Educational Commission funded my research at Doshisha in 1994-95. Finally, I am grateful for Susan Ervin-Tripp’s comments on a shorter version of this paper presented at the 6th

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 165

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

International Pragmatics Conference in Reims, France, July 1998, and to the editors of this volume for their feedback on a pre-publication draft.  Jefferson and Lee (1981: 416) define the ordinary “person” as: “...one among others, one who participates in the ongoing everyday activities of the community; one who goes to work, gets together with his or her friends, listens to their stories, rejoices in their good times, tells them of his or her own good times, etc. etc.”  Kanto is the eastern region of Japan centred around Tokyo, and Kansai is the western region centred around Osaka, Kyoto and Kobe.  Hopper (1992: 225, fn 8) notes that Wiemann’s (1981) findings generally support this tendency.  Of this group, 14 women and 3 men were the subjects recorded at the Tokyo and Kobe companies; their job descriptions and biographical information are described in Yotsukura (1997).  A list of transcription conventions and symbols used in the glosses follows these notes. Abbreviations for grammatical and stylistic information were adapted from Noda (1990) and Bachnik and Quinn (1994); other transcription notations were adapted from Tannen (1989), and Szatrowski (1993).  The point in discussing problem reports here is thus not to argue that they are unique to JBCs or to telephone calls more generally. Rather, in order to collect naturally occurring instances of offers, which was the original goal of the study, calls in which problem reports appeared were selected for analysis due to the high frequency of occurrence of offers therein.  Eight representative conversations from the data corpus are treated in Yotsukura (1997).  Names and other personal information have been changed here to protect the privacy of the subjects and the organisations.  In function, the maeoki is similar to what Jefferson (1988) calls the “Initiation” sequence of the “Approach” stage in troubles-talk. A specific maeoki such as that found in lines 14–15 in (2) can also sometimes function as a “trouble premonitor” (Jefferson’s term). However, many maeoki are too general to be initially interpreted as presaging a problem report; see line 8 from the second conversation in section 4.2. Such maeoki more closely resemble “story prefaces” (Sacks 1992) or “pre-announcements” (Terasaki 1976), which together with “trouble premonitors” can be classified under the general heading of pre-sequences (Schegloff 1979, 1980, 1988b).  This description is based on Ray’s (1989: 27) and Noda’s (1990) analyses of the EP.  Many studies of the EP have suggested a variety of functions, one of which is that of “explanation”. As Ray (1989) and Noda (1990) have demonstrated, however, the function of no itself in the EP construction is not one of explanation, but rather one of referring or pointing to something that should be recoverable from context or the immediately preceding discourse. It is the combination of that referring function of no, together with certain contexts and/or elements of a prior discourse, that can in some cases convey the notion of explanation. Noda (1990: 10) notes, “the diverse results in the use of the extended predicate

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 166

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

within different contexts ... have led many researchers astray in their attempt to identify its meaning as opposed to the meaning signalled by other items in the context.”  Note that this maeoki also includes the word chotto, which can be used as a minimiser or downgrader.  Recall that initially, she had only identified herself as shoten (“bookstore”).  Haa is a more formal equivalent of hai, and is used here as an acknowledgment or affirmative reply. Though it sounds much like the ha of Ha-ha-ha no hanashi, there is no semantic connection.  The caller here is making an offer of her own, using the -masu n(o) de form discussed earlier.  While the degree of style shift is much less marked, this movement from more ritualised language to careful (but non-ritual) forms and back to ritualised language parallels the shift observed by Jefferson (1988) in troubles-talk from distance at the outset, to highly emotional and intimate language during the troubles-related talk, and back to more distant forms again at closing.  I do not intend to claim here that this is a uniquely Japanese tendency in these types of conversation. With respect to English, for example, Schegloff (1988a: 443) notes that “conveying information to another and telling that person something may be quite different matters. It was my colleague Harvey Sacks I think who first pointed out that when it comes to bad news, the talk can be organized in such a manner that the recipient of the news can turn out to be the one who actually says it. While the bearer of bad tidings may, thus, in an important sense convey the information, she or he may not actually tell it or announce it.”  I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer, who has pointed out that the “inattention” here “is associated with acceptance of blame.”

References Bachnik, Jane M. and Quinn, Charles J., Jr. (eds) 1994 Situated Meaning: Inside and Outside in Japanese Self, Society and Language. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre 1990 In Other Words. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987 Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, Paul 1998 “Misalignments in ‘out-of-hours’ calls to the doctor”. Plenary lecture presented at the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Reims, France, July 1998. Farrell, Thomas J. 1994 Effective Telephone Skills. Fort Worth, Texas: The Dryden Press.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 167

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

Fukushima, Saeko and Iwata, Yuko 1987 “Politeness strategies in requesting and offering”. JACET Bulletin 18: 31–48. Garner, Patricia A. 1984 The Office Telephone: A User’s Guide. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hopper, Robert 1992 Telephone Conversation. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Hoshino, Takane 1991 An Analysis of Hoshii in Modern Spoken Japanese. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Columbus: The Ohio State University. Jefferson, Gail 1980 “On ‘trouble-premonitory’ response to inquiry”. Language and Social Interaction 50 (3/4): 153–185. 1988 “On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation”. Social Problems 35 (4): 418–441. Jefferson, Gail and Lee, John R.E. 1981 “The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troublestelling’ and a ‘service encounter’”. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 399–422. Jorden, Eleanor H. with Noda, Mari 1987 Japanese: The Spoken Language, Part I. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kashiwazaki, Hideko 1993 “Hanashikake koodoo no danwa bunseki — Irai, yookyuu hyoogen no jissai o chuushin ni —” [Discourse analysis of requests with phatic communication]. Nihongo Kyooiku 79 (3): 53–63. Kasper, Gabriele and Dahl, Merete 1991 “Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13 (2): 215–247. Matoba, Kazuma 1989a “Nihongo to Doitsugo no teikyoo hyoogen ni okeru shugo settei to teineisa no doai—shakaigoyooronteki koosatsu to Nihongo kyooiku e no ooyoo”. [Referential perspective and degree of politeness in Japanese and German offer expressions: Sociopragmatic considerations and applications to Japanese language pedagogy] In The Nihongo Kyooiku Gakkai Taikai Conference Proceedings, 27–32. Tokyo: Nihongo Kyooiku Gakkai Taikai Iinkai. 1989b Subjektbestimmung bei Ausdrücken des Anbietens und ihre Beziehung zu Graden der Höflichkeit in der Deutschen und Japanischen Umgangsprache: Eine soziopragmatische Untersuchung. [Determining the Subject in Expressions of Offers and the Relation of this to the Degree of Politeness in German and Japanese Colloquial Speech: A Sociopragmatic Investigation]. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tokyo: Sophia University. Noda, Mari 1990 The Extended Predicate and Confrontational Discourse in Japanese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Park, Yong-Yae 2002 “Recognition and identification in Japanese and Korean telephone conversation openings”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and diversity in conversational

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 168

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

structure across languages and cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 25–47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ray, Yuko T. 1989 Unity in Variety: Family Resemblance in the Use of Japanese NO. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Columbus: The Ohio State University. Rose, Kenneth R. 1992a Method and Scope in Cross Cultural Speech Act Research: A Contrastive Study of Requests in Japanese and English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UrbanaChampaign: University of Illinois. 1992b “Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response”. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 49–62. 1994 “On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-Western contexts”. Applied Linguistics 15 (1): 1–14. Rose, Kenneth R. and Ono, Reiko 1995 “Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type”. Language Learning 45 (2): 191–223. Sacks, Harvey 1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. Edited by G. Jefferson, with an introduction by E.A. Schegloff. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail 1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation”. Language 50: 696–735. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York: Irvington. 1980 “Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’”. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3/4): 104–152. 1988a “On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture”. Social Problems 35 (4): 442–457. 1988b “Presequences and indirection”. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 55–62. Szatrowski, Polly 1993 Nihongo no danwa no koozoo bunseki—Kanyuu no sutoratejii no koosatsu—. [Structure of Japanese Conversation: Invitation Strategies]. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Tannen, Deborah (ed.) 1989 Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terasaki, Alene K. 1976 “Pre-announcement sequences in conversation”. Social Science Working Paper 99, School of Social Science, University of California, Irvine. Tracy, Karen 1997 “Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (4): 315–343. Whalen, Jack, Zimmerman, Don H. and Whalen, Marilyn R. 1988 “When words fail: A single case analysis”. Social Problems 35 (4): 335–362.

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 169

Reporting problems and offering assistance in Japanese business calls 

Wiemann, John M. 1981 “Effects of laboratory videotaping procedures on selected conversation behaviors”. Human Communication Research 7: 302–311. Yotsukura, Lindsay A. 1997 Reporting Problems and Offering Assistance in Japanese Business Transactional Telephone Conversations: Toward an Understanding of a Spoken Genre. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Appendix 1: Overall structure of Japanese business telephone conversations 1. Opening 1. (Opening greeting and) Self-identification by both parties, often followed in caller’s case by kedo or ga (Exchange of personal greetings) (Request for confirmation of self-identification) 2. Exchange of business salutations 3. (Switchboard request to speak with different person) (Indication that requested person is not available) (Offer to have requested person call back) (Offer by caller to call again later) (Transfer to requested person) (Recursion to self-identification, greetings, and/or salutation steps) 2. Transition to discussion of business transaction(s) 4. Attention focuser 5. General statement of business matter to be discussed, usually framed through the EP (maeoki) 6. Clause particle (kedo or ga), which may be given greater stress and higher pitch in order to signal a transition relevance place 3. Discussion of business transaction(s) 4. Summary of agreed-upon matter(s) 7. Summary/restatement of matter(s) agreed upon within the conversation (Recursion to Sections 2 and/or 3) (Promise of future contact) 5. Closing 8. (Request for identification of one or both parties) (Self-identification by one or both parties) 9. Leave-taking (Optional portions appear in parentheses)

FM_170 v2.qxd

12/5/02

7:27 AM

Page 170

 Lindsay Amthor Yotsukura

Appendix 2: Transcription conventions (( )) ()

XX ? . ! : (0.3) [] ‘ = kedoMO

Comments supplementing the transcript. In English glosses, indicates material that would sound odd or be omitted in Japanese. Within Japanese phrases, indicates optional material, e.g., (itumo) osewa ni natt(e)-(ori)masu. Portion of talk that was incomprehensible or unclear Rising intonation, e.g., ano ne? and Ikimasu ka? Falling intonation, as in Soo datta no yo. Sharp falling intonation, e.g., Kyoo wa konai yo ne! Lengthening of the previous vowel or consonant sound Timed pause (here, of 0.3 seconds) Overlap with the next utterance Contracted expression Latching Capital letters are used to represent greater stress and at a higher pitch.

In the examples, bold face is used to highlight the item(s)under discussion.

Appendix 3: Abbreviations A    C           

Answerer (in switchboard calls) acknowledgment attention focuser back-channel Caller causative conditional consultative copula desiderative extended predicate construction sentence final particle false start gerund hesitation noise polite style-honorific

            R   

polite style-humble imperative instrumental particle imperfective locative particle negative object particle perfective possessive potential question particle quotative particle Recipient subject particle tentative topic particle

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 171

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls* Kang Kwong Luke .

Introduction

This chapter reports on an investigation of a set of telephone calls collected in Hong Kong. The aim of the investigation is to identify the methods most commonly used by telephone conversationalists to introduce topics, and to assess to what extent these methods are similar to, or different from, the ones which have been reported in the literature (Sacks 1992;1 Schegloff 1968, 1979, 1986; Button and Casey 1984, 1988) Studies of telephone calls since Sacks (1992) and Schegloff (1968, 1979, 1986) have found that in spite of appearances (of being mundane or routine), telephone conversations are a highly structured activity. Almost every aspect of the telephone call, be it the opening section, the closing section, or the organisation of topical talk, has repaid investigators’ detailed analyses. Schegloff (1986) argues that the routine look of telephone conversation openings is an outcome achieved through participants’ collaborative work (“The routine as achievement”). Sacks’s and Schegloff’s work has aroused much interest in telephone conversations. At the same time, some controversy has been sparked off by their studies. One issue is whether the conversational structures found in their American data are found also in other speech communities. Some authors (e.g., Hopper and Koleilat-Doany 1989; Hopper 1992) have noticed similarities across data sets. Others (e.g., Godard 1977; Sifianou 1989) have stressed national differences and cultural variation. Schegloff ends his 1986 paper by appealing for more data from different speech communities and more comparative studies. With an aim to contributing to a comparative perspective, I have made a collection of telephone calls in Hong Kong. These were transcribed using conversation analysis (CA) conventions, and analysed in some

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 172

 Kang Kwong Luke

detail. The first part of my study was reported in Luke (1996). The objective of that paper was to present an analysis of the opening section of the Hong Kong telephone calls. These turned out to be on the whole rather similar to the American ones. Participants were found to orient to similar interactional tasks — establishing contact, ascertaining availability, identification and recognition, greetings and initial inquiries, and they made use of similar sequential resources to achieve these tasks. Some differences were found too; for example, how-are-you sequences were typically absent in telephone conversations between close friends or family members. The Hong Kong calls were in this respect more similar to German ones but different from Greek ones, as reported in Pavlidou 1994.2 But whether this and other differences should be attributed to national/cultural differences or situation types (e.g., relationship between participants or frequency of contact between them) remains an open question. The present chapter is a second report on the project. My focus this time is on the phenomenon of topic organisation. Broadly speaking, observations have been made on three aspects of topic organisation in telephone calls in previous studies: 1. A basic characteristic of the telephone call which impinges on its organisation is the assumption that the call may have been made for a reason, and if possible and if appropriate, this reason-for-call may be brought up soon after the opening section. It is quite possible for a call to be made without an agenda (i.e. without a reason-for-call), and people do sometimes ring each other up without an explicit purpose — calling “just for a chat”.3 However, in spite of this logical and empirical possibility, calls are made overwhelmingly for a purpose. More importantly, even calls made without a reason are oriented to as though they might have one. 2. As far as the reason-for-call is concerned and with regard to the participants’ knowledge states, an asymmetrical situation obtains whereby the reason-for-call is known to the caller but may or may not be known to the recipient. In the great majority of cases, the reason-for-call is brought up by the caller. However, it can also be brought up by the recipient under certain conditions. I shall come back to this when presenting the data. 3. With regard to the sequential placement of the reason-for-call, previous studies have identified an “anchor position” (Schegloff 1986: 132). This is the position immediately after the last of the four core sequences

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 173

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

(i.e. summons-answer, identification, greetings, and initial inquiries). Again, it is possible for the reason-for-call to be brought up in other than the anchor position, e.g., in an earlier position (Schegloff’s “preemptions”) or a later one (Sacks’s and Button and Casey’s “deferrals”). But preemptions and deferrals are done in an organised manner, with due regard to the reason-for-call’s “right” to take the anchor position. The Hong Kong calls are thus examined with reference to the following questions: (1) Do participants show an orientation towards reason-for-call? (2) Is reason-for-call introduced by the caller or the recipient? (3) Where is this done, and how is it done in different positions? The data set on which the present study is based consists of 105 telephone calls collected in Hong Kong in 1994 and 1995. All are naturally occurring calls between family and friends.4 As is common in Hong Kong, the language of these calls is predominantly Cantonese, but interspersed with English words and expressions from time to time. All the calls have been transcribed using CA conventions. . Reason-for-call . Caller introducing reason-for-call The most common kind of call in the data is one in which the reason-for-call is brought up by the caller. In analysing the data, I have found it useful to adopt a distinction, first made in Button and Casey (1984), between topic-initiation and topic-introduction. This distinction is necessary because initiation and introduction may be carried out by one and the same participant (within a single turn or in separate turns), or separately by two participants. Thus, the caller may initiate and then introduce a topic. Alternatively, he may introduce a topic in response to a prompt issued by the recipient, in which case we can speak of recipient-initiation. (1) and (2) are examples of the caller initiating and introducing the reason-for-call. (1) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: hello wan bin wai hello call which person ‘Hello, who would you like to speak to?’5

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 174

 Kang Kwong Luke

3

C: wan nei:. (.) jau fanzogaau aa nei call you again sleep-  you ‘You. You’re sleeping again?’ 4 R: m hai aa not be  ‘No.’ 5 C: h huh h ngo jiwai nei sapdimzung fanzogaau I thought you ten.o’clock sleep- ‘I thought you went to bed at ten and at 6 sapdimbun jau [bei jan couseng ten.thirty again  people wake.up ten thirty you were woken up.’ 7 R: [hhhhh .h gamsoenghaa sigaan laa about time  ‘It’s about time 8 dou hai also be anyway.’ → 9 C: haa haa .hh wai aaEve firm jisaphou ne yeah yeah hey Eve confirm twentieth  ‘Yes. Hey Eve has confirmed wo 10 keoi waa ne occupy sicyunjat she said  occupy time whole.day  that it will take one whole day on the twentieth.’ 11 R: cyunjat aa whole.day  ‘One whole day?’ 12 C: hai aa yeah  ‘Yeah.’ (2) 1 2

3

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ C: wai Lisa aa Alice aa hello Lisa  Alice  ‘Hello Lisa? This is Alice.’

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 175

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls

4

→5

6

7

8

→9

10

11

12

13

R: hai aa hai aa yes  yes  ‘Yes Yes.’ C: wai h ngo gamziu wangwo nei hey I this.morning look.for- you ‘Hey h I spoke to you this morning.’ batgwo jigaa zoi wan nei soeng baaitok nei but now again call you want ask you ‘But I’m calling again to ask you jat joeng je aa one  thing  a favour.’ R: haak yes ‘Yes?’ C: nei jau AE gaa ho you have American.Express   ‘You’ve got an American Express haven’t you?’ R: hai aa hai aa yes  yes  ‘Yes, I have.’ C: nei homhoji bong ngo deng fei aa you can.not.can help me reserve ticket  ‘Can you help me reserve some tickets?’ R: haak deng me fei aa yes reserve what ticket  ‘Yes, what kind of tickets?’ C: e::: The Phantom of the Opera aa the phantom of the opera  ‘The Phantom of the Opera.’

Notice that the initiation and the introduction can be done within the same turn, as in (1), or in two separate turns, as in (2). In (3) and (4), initiation and introduction are done in separate turns by the recipient and the caller respectively. (3) 1 2

((switchboard)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’



171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 176

 Kang Kwong Luke

3

C: wai aaSing aa hello Sing  ‘Hello Sing?’ → 4 R: dim aa what  ‘What’s up?’ → 5 C: wai nei zi Gousiuming gitfan gaa ho hey you know Gousiuming get.married   ‘Hey you know Gousiuming’s going to get married don’t you?’ 6 R: zi aa know  ‘Yes I do.’ 7 C: nei heoimheoi aa you go.not.go  ‘Will you go?’ 8 R: geisi aa when  ‘When?’ 9 C: haago laibaaiji aa next Tuesday  ‘Next Tuesday.’ 10 R: m heoi gaa laa not go   ‘I’m not going.’ (4) 1 2

3

4

5

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ C: wai Joengsiuming aa hello Joengsiuming  ‘Hello Joengsiuming?’ R: hai yes ‘Yes.’ C: wai Siuming aa hello Siuming  ‘Hello Siuming?’

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 177

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

6

7

→ 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

→ 15

16

17

18

R: hai yes ‘Yes.’ C: aaKarl aa Karl  ‘This is Karl.’ R: wai dim aa hello what  ‘Hi, what’s up? C: gonggan dinwaa aa talk- phone  ‘Are you on the phone?’ R: haa what ‘Pardon?’ C: gonggan dinwaa aa talk- phone  ‘Are you on the phone?’ R: m hai aak not be  ‘No.’ C: m hai aa= not be  ‘No?’ R: =o hai aa tung nei aa maa oh yes  with you   ‘Oh yes I’m on the phone with you.’ C: aa::::: (1.0) tausin ngo daa bei Aaron  just.now I call to Aaron ‘Ah, I’ve just called Aaron up.’ R: hai yes ‘Yes.’ C: waa joek haago laibaai- e:: say make.an.appointment next week ‘To arrange a time next week, gamgo laibaai ceotlei sikfaan aa this week come.out have.a.meal  this week for a meal.’

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 178

 Kang Kwong Luke

In (3), the caller takes up the recipient’s initiation and introduces reason-forcall in the next turn. In (4), the initiation and introduction are separated by 6 turns in which a side sequence is enacted, the “point” of which is to allow the caller to display his concern that he is not interrupting another call being engaged in by the recipient (who might be talking to someone else on another line before he was asked by the answerer to take the present call).

. Recipient introducing reason-for-call Exceptionally, the reason-for-call may be introduced by the recipient. There are three main kinds of variation here. The first kind is when the caller is making the call in response to an earlier message left by the recipient, i.e. the caller is returning the recipient’s call. The previous attempt to make contact being unsuccessful, the recipient of the current phone call would be in possession of a reason-for-call which due to the failure of contact has not been brought up. (5) is an example of this kind. (5) 1 2

((switchboard)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: wai Tra[cy mhouyisi:[: zungjyu leondou nei hello Tracy I’m.sorry finally take.turn you ‘Hello, Tracy, I’m so sorry, your turn has finally come.’ 4 R: [hai aa [dim aa yes  how  ‘Yes, what’s up?’ 5 R: dim aa how  ‘What’s up?’ 6 C: dim aa how  ‘What’s up?’ → 7 R: hai lo, nei dukgan go gin lo, keoi yes  you studying that   he ‘Yes. It’s about your studies. 8. faanzolai laa return  Has he come back?’

laa 

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 179

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

9

heoizo bindou aa go- where  ‘Where did he go?’ 10 C: keoi hai bindou, keoi he be where he ‘Where is he? He’s home.’

hai be

ukkei home

lo 

R being recipient of the present call, twice initiated first topic in lines 4 and 5. However, instead of taking up the invitation to introduce topic, C responds in line 6 by initiating topic herself (“What’s up?”), following which R introduces first topic in line 7. The warrant for R’s topic introduction can be found in line 3 (“Your turn has finally come”), which reveals that C is returning R’s earlier call, which was unsuccessful as C was then on the telephone. The second kind of cases in which the recipient rather than the caller introduces the reason-for-call are those where, although the caller is not actually returning the recipient’s call, the recipient nevertheless claims to be looking for the caller, and makes an early move to take the role of the caller, thus “turning the tables” on him. (6) and (7) are two examples of this kind.6 (6) 1 2 3

→ 4

→ 5

6

7

8

((telephone rings)) R: Hello C: wai mgoi Sue [aa hello please Sue  ‘Hello Sue please?’ R: [hai aa ngo wangwo nei aa yes  I call- you  ‘Yes. I’ve called you. ngo saudou laak, nei [sau (...) I receive-  you receive I’ve got it. Have you received (...)’ C: [hai aa hai aa yes  yes  ‘Yes yes. ngo zauhai gong bei nei teng [ngo saudou I just talk to you listen I receive- In fact I want to tell you I got it.’ R: [o oh ‘I see.’

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 180

 Kang Kwong Luke

(7) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: wai Siuling aa hello Siuling  ‘Hello Siuling?’ 4 R: hai aa:: yes  ‘Yes.’ 5 C: hai aa:: huh h yes  ‘Yes.’ → 6 R: hai aa:: ngo wan nei aa:: aaaayes  I call you  name.prefix name.prefix ‘Yes. I was looking for you → 7 aaMingzai ne: jiu ngo man nei ne: [e: Mingzai  ask me ask you  ‘Mingzai asked me to tell you’ 8 C: [m m ‘M.’ 9 R: nei tingjat ne:: ting:jat ting:jat ne you tomorrow  tomorrow tomorrow  ‘that tomorrow tomorrow tomorrow 10 keoi waa tung di lecturer farewell wo, he say with  lecturer farewell  he wanted to give some lecturers a farewell party, 11 gam hai hokhaau gaa wo jemaan ne so at school   night  at the school in the evening. 12 man nei heoi m heoi wo: ask you go not go  He asked if you’d go.’

A third kind of situation in which the recipient may initiate and introduce reason-for-call is when the topic has been being talked about by the participants recently, and is a well-established topic at the time of the call, as can be seen in (8) and (9).

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 181

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls

(8) 1 2

((switchboard)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: wai Peter aa hello Peter  ‘Hello Peter?’ 4 R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 5 C: aaBrad aa Brad  ‘This is Brad.’ → 6 R: wai ngdimbun wo hey five.thirty  ‘Hey it’s five thirty.’ 7 C: ngdimbun h five.thirty ‘Five thirty.’ 8 R: wai mdim aa gamjat hey not.okay  today ‘Hey I can’t make it today.’ 9 C: gamjat m dim aa today not okay  ‘Can’t make it today?’ 10 R: gamjat- gamjat jiu heoi tai ngo gungsi: (.) today today need to see my firm ‘Today I’ve to go to see my firm’s 11 ge sec (.) coenggo  secretary sing secretary singing.’ 12 C: hai me is  ‘Really?’

(9) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’



171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 182

 Kang Kwong Luke

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 → 12

13

C: wai hello ‘Hello?’ R: hai hello: yes hello ‘Yes, Hello?’ C: zungjyu ceotjin laa nei:= finally appear  you ‘You finally appear.’ R: =ngo batlau dou ceotjin gaa laa: I always all appear   ‘I always appear.’ C: aijaa nei sengjat m hai ukkei aa: ah you always not at home  ‘God you’re never at home.’ R: ganghai mhai, faangung aa daailou:: of.course not go.to.work  big.brother ‘Of course not. I have to work, big brother.’ C: hhh ngo m hai nei daailou:: I not be your big.brother ‘I’m not your big brother.’ R: o (.) hai, muimuizai oh yes little.sister ‘Oh Yes, little sister.’ C: huh huh R: dim aa, neidei 〉 ze 〈 neidei singkeijat what  you- I.mean you- Sunday ‘What’s doing? Are you guys really haimai gaa is.not.is  going out on Sunday?’

. Preemption: Early start relative to anchor position Whether introduced by the caller or the recipient, in terms of position the first topic in the examples so far has been brought up at the anchor position. However, it is also possible for it to be introduced before the anchor position. This

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 183

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

is most commonly done in three kinds of situation, which may be conveniently described as: (1) urgency, (2) recency, and (3) “strictly business”. I will explain and illustrate each kind in turn. . Urgency Reason-for-call may be introduced early on, before the anchor position, and presented as something needing the other party’s urgent attention. (10) 1

2

→ 3

4

(11) 1 2

3

4

→ 5

(12) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ C: wai maami aa (.) nei zi m zi jigaa hello mummy  you know not know now me aa what  ‘Hello Mum. Do you know what is up now? (.) haakkau seonhou aa black.ball signal  The black rainstorm signal is up right now.’ ((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ C: sailou younger.brother ‘Younger brother?’ R: hai yes ‘Yes. C: di eh jaumou lauseoi aa godou  eh have.not.have leak  there ‘Is the um (roof) leaking there?’ ((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 184

 Kang Kwong Luke

3

4

5

6

→ 7

8

C: wai mgoi Candy aa hello please Candy  ‘Hello, may I speak to Candy?’ R: ngo hai I am ‘Speaking.’ C: nei gonggan dinwaa you talk- phone ‘Are you on the phone?’ R: hai yes ‘Yes.’ C: gam:joeng ngo zinghai man so I just ask ‘Then: I’ll just ask you if you dak m dak aa can not can  can come on the 26th.’

nei you

jaalukhou twenty.sixth

nei you

. “Recency” When a topic has just recently come up but no conclusion has been reached, it can be brought up right after identification.7 (13) 1 2

3

4

→ 5

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello’ C: wai [Candy aa hello Candy  ‘Hello Candy?’ R: [hai aa dim aa yes  what  ‘Yes what’s up?’ C: ngo jingngo taigwo jinggoi hai I should I see- should is ‘I shou- I’ve checked. They should charge you

sau charge

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 185

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

6

7

8

jat go percent aa one  percent  one percent.’ R: jat go percent aa one  percent  ‘One percent?’ C: hai aa yes  ‘Yes.’

(14) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: wai mgoi Cansiuming hello please Cansiuming ‘Hello Cansiuming please?’ 4 R: wai 〉hai aa hai aa〈 hello yes  yes  ‘Hi, yes yes.’ → 5 C: ei dim aa Siuming hey what  Siuming ‘Hey what’s up Siuming?’ 6 R: 〉 wai wai wai wai 〈 daaidaai hhey hey hey hey about about ‘Hey hey hey hey, about- about7 daaijoek (.) wui hai geisi wui zi aa about will be when will know  when will I know?’ 8 C: geisi wui zi [aa when will know  ‘When will you know?’ 9 R: [daanhai keisat keoi m but actually he not ‘Actually he 10 gam:: gam gap jiu [gaa zi bo so so urgent need    doesn’t need it so so badly.’

hai be

171_200 v2.qxd

12/3/02

7:30 AM

Page 186

 Kang Kwong Luke

11 C:

[keoi haimai jiu haihe is-not-is need at ‘Does he want it at12 keoi jiu hai bindou aa he need at where  where does he want it?’ 13 R: e:: wai nei sikdak jau bindou aa hey you know- have where  ‘Hey do you know anywhere?’

. “Strictly business calls” A call can be given a “strictly business” character by having its opening heavily truncated, thus making way for the early introduction of the reason-for-call. In examining our supplementary data set of business calls, it was found that their openings were often substantially reduced, and the reason-for-call initiated and introduced well before the anchor position. In extreme cases, even the caller’s identity is deemed irrelevant: the reason-for-call can be introduced as early as the second turn, as in (15) and (16). (15) 1 2

→ 3

4

5 6 (16) 1 2 → 3

((telephone rings)) R: dinwaa caaseon telephone inquiries ‘Telephone Directory?’ C: hai mgoi ngo soeng caa tunglowaan eh m yes please I want check Causeway.Bay ‘Yes can I have the number of a (1.0) eh giu wanzoekzaugaa call Skylark.restaurant restaurant in Causeway Bay called “The Skylark”.’ (1.8) ((computer voice giving the number)) ((telephone rings)) R: hello Red Pepper C: hai, ngo soeng checkhaa yes I want check- ‘Yes, I’d like to check

ne:: 

gamjat em today

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 187

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

4

5

6

7

sik ngaan loeng wai Dr Lee eat lunch two  Dr Lee if Dr Lee has booked a table for two bookdou toi aa book- table  for lunch today.’ R: o nei dangdang haa oh you wait.a.minute  ‘Oh just a moment please.’ C: hou aa okay  ‘Okay.’

aa 

jaumou have-not-have

As a label, “business calls” may be thought of as a description of a particular kind of participant configuration: namely, when one or both participants are engaged in a telephone conversation in the capacity of a representative of a group or a company rather than as an individual person. “Personal calls”, in this interpretation, would refer to those calls in which both participants are engaged in a conversation not as representatives but as individual persons. There is a certain amount of overlapping between the two labels, however. It is interesting to note that the “institutional character” of business calls is produced through the use of the same “template” governing telephone openings in general and topic introduction in particular. Far from being fundamentally different in organisation from “personal calls”, “business calls” are constructed as a variation on the same theme that runs through both kinds of calls. The business call is characterised by a substantial shortening of the opening section; in particular, the collapsing of the summons-answer sequence with the identification/recognition sequence (as can be seen in the recipient’s early selfidentification in the first turn), the foregoing of caller’s self-identification and recipient’s recognition of caller’s identity, and the early introduction of the reason-for-call (usually in the second turn, right after recipient’s self-identification). These features combine to give a call an “impersonal” character. It must be pointed out, however, that “personal” and “impersonal” are a matter of degree: business calls can in time turn into calls with a degree of personal involvement (having “a personal touch”). Similarly, it is quite possible for a personto-person call to take on a “business” character, as when a call is made from daughter to mother to convey a vital piece of information urgently. We therefore believe that there is a fine line between personal and business calls,

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 188

 Kang Kwong Luke

and that the way first topic is introduced has a very important role to play in shaping the character of a call.

. Deferrals: Late starts relative to anchor position First topic may also be introduced after the anchor position. These are referred to as deferrals. The main kinds of situation where this occurs include: (1) insertion sequences occurring between initiation and introduction, (2) identification or recognition problems, (3) initial inquiries developing (temporarily) into fully-fledged topics. . Insertion sequences A sequence may be inserted between topic initiation and topic introduction. The insertion sequence is often used to deal with contact-related matters — “what the recipient is doing right now”. (17) (=4) 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: wai Joengsiuming aa hello Joengsiuming  ‘Hello Joengsiuming please.’ 4 R: hai yes ‘Yes.’ 5 C: wai Siuming aa hello Siuming  ‘Hello Siuming?’ 6 R: hai yes ‘Yes.’ 7 C: aaKarl aa Karl  ‘This is Karl.’

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 189

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

8

→ 9

→ 10

→ 11

→ 12

→ 13

→ 14

15

16

17

18

R: wai dim aa hello what  ‘Hi, what’s up?’ C: gonggan dinwaa aa talk- phone  ‘Are you on the phone?’ R: haa what ‘Pardon?’ C: gonggan dinwaa aa talk- phone  ‘Are you on the phone?’ R: m hai aak not be  ‘No.’ C: m hai aa= not be  ‘No?’ R: =o hai aa tung nei aa maa oh yes  with you   ‘Oh yes I’m on the phone with you.’ C: aa::::: (1.0) tausin ngo daa bei Aaron  just.now I call to Aaron ‘Ah, I’ve just called Aaron up.’ R: hai yes ‘Yes.’ C: waa joek haago laibaai e:: say make.an.appointment next week ‘To arrange a time next week, em, gamgo laibaai ceotlei sikfaan aa this week come.out have.a.meal  this week for a meal.’

Sometimes a quick joke is inserted between initiation and introduction, as in (18). The person who first took the call is not the one being looked for. (The person being looked for is Jyu4ji1, translated here as ‘Nancy’, which has a first syllable said in the low-falling tone). But when she calls out Nancy’s name, she

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 190

 Kang Kwong Luke

inadvertently makes it sound like Jyu6ji1 (translated here as ‘Nanny’), which has a different first syllable said in the low-level tone. C then makes a joke of it in lines 9–11 before taking up the invitation issued by R in line 8 to introduce reason-for-call (in line 13). (18) 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

→ 9

→ 10 → 11

12

13

((telephone rings)) A: wai hello ‘Hello?’ C: wai, Jyu4ji1 aa mgoi hello Nancy  please ‘Hello, Nancy please?’ A: dangdang wait.a.minute ‘Hold on.’ ((A calling out loudly)) Jyu6ji1! Nanny ‘Nanny!’ R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ C: wai hello ‘Hello.’ R: hai aa dim aa yes  what  ‘Yes what’s up?’ C: waa Jyu4ji1 binzo houci Jyu6ji1 gam aa wow Nancy become- seem Nanny so  ‘Hey Nancy was made to sound like Nanny!’ R: huh huh C: Jyu4ji1 huh huh Nancy ‘Nancy.’ R: [dim aa what  ‘What’s up?’ C: [wai aaDana aamaam daa dinwaa bei ngo hey Dana just.now dial phone to me ‘Hey Dana’s just buzzed me.’

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 191

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls

. Identification and recognition problems Problems of identification or recognition may also lead to the deferral of reason-for-call. In (19), for example, the identification and recognition sequence takes longer to complete than usual (lines 2–11) because of a recognition problem. First topic is not introduced until line 12. (19) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: Fongsaang mgoi Mr.Fong please ‘Mr Fong please?’ 4 R: ngo hai I am ‘Speaking.’ 5 R: [wai hello ‘Hello?’ 6 C: [wai wai hello hello ‘Hello? Hello?’ 7 R: ngo hai I am ‘Speaking.’ 8 C: wai ((clear throat)) aafongsaang aaEric hello Mr.Fong Eric ‘Hello, ((clear throat)) Mr Fong, Eric?’ 9 R: ngo hai aa I am  ‘Speaking.’ 10 C: aaJoeLam Joe.Lam ‘This is Joe Lam.’ 11 R: hai aa yes  ‘Yes.’



171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 192

 Kang Kwong Luke

12 C: wai (.) laibaaiji:: nei wuimwui hey Tuesday you will.not.will ‘Hey, will you go on Tuesday?’

heoi go

gaa 

. Initial inquiries developing into fully-fledged topics One of the most common reasons for deferrals is the development of initial inquiries into fully-fledged topics. In (20) below, instead of an ordinary how-are-you sequence, the caller’s comment on the recipient’s voice (“Your voice sounds different”) gets turned into a topic (the recipient’s health). The reason-for-call is introduced only after the recipient’s clarification about his state of health. (20) 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

→ 8

9

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ C: wai mgoi Loengsiuling aa hello please Loengsiuling  ‘Hello Susan please?’ R: ngo hai I am ‘Speaking.’ C: ji dimgaai nei zyunzo seng ge hey why you change- voice  ‘Hey your voice sounds different.’ R: ngo (.) zyunzo me seng aa I change- what voice  ‘I. Does it? Do I sound different? C: ((clears throat)) nei beng aa you ill  ‘Are you ill?’ R: ngo jau siusiu haulung tung laa I have a.bit.of throat pain  ‘I’ve got a bit of a sore throat.’ C: o:: wai hai aa ngo soeng manhaa oh hey yes  I want ask- ‘Oh:: Hey look. I wanted to ask you

nei you

ne 

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 193

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

10

((clear throat))

gam ne so  that’ 11 R: wai nei zou matje hey you do what ‘Hey what’s wrong?’

((clear throat))

aa 

In the next extract, the reason-for-call is not broached until line 49. Before that, a series of topics have been gone into concerning the caller’s recent condition (triggered by the caller’s “not so good” in line 9), why the recipient has not called, and then the recipient’s own recent condition (problem with her boy friend). These are typical topics which can be triggered by initial inquiries and may result in the reason-for-call being deferred. (21) 1 2

((telephone rings)) R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 3 C: aaling Ling ‘Ling?’ 4 R: wai hello ‘Hello?’ 5 C: aaling Ling ‘Ling?’ 6 R: hello: 7 C: hello: 8 R: nei hou maa you good  ‘How’re you doing?’ 9 C: .hhhhh m hai gei not be quite ‘Not so good.’ 10 huh [huh huh huh huh 11 R: [dimgaai aa why  ‘Why not?’

hou good

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 194

 Kang Kwong Luke

12 C: .hhh hou do je zou very much work do ‘Too much work to do.’ 13 R: hai aa yes  ‘Really?’ 14 C: hai [aa yes  ‘Yes.’ 15 R: [hai laa ngo dou m gam wan nei aa yes  I also not dare call you  ‘Yeah that’s why I was afraid to call you.’ 16 C: huh huh nei baanje aa, nei batnau dou m wan you pretend  you always all not look.up ‘Are you kidding me? You never look 17 ngo [gaa laa huh huh huh me   me up.’ 18 R: [m hai aa! zanhai gaa::: not be  truely  ‘No! I’m serious.’ ((30 lines omitted in which R further explains why she appears not to have called C, which then leads on to another topic: who does C call when she has a problem.)) → 49 C: janwai ngo dou genggan jaaluk godou ngo because I also worry- 26th there I ‘Because I’m also worried about the 26th. 50 lamzyu ne wan jan joek gaa laa think-  call people arrange   I think I’ll let 51 ngo zigei m joek laa janwai ngo geng I myself not arrange  because I worry somebody else arrange the meeting 52 ngo mou sigaan joek I not.have time arrange because I won’t have time.’ 53 R: mm uh.huh ‘Uh huh.’

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 195

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

. Topic markers The initiation and introduction of first topics are usually marked in the Hong Kong calls.8 The most common marker of topic initiation by the recipient is dim aa? (“What’s up?”), as can be seen in many of the examples given above ((9), (13), (14), and (18)). When the recipient both initiates and introduces the first topic, introduction can immediately follow initiation in the same turn, as in (9) above: dim aa, neidei singkeijat haimai gaa? (“What’s up? Are you guys really going out on Sunday?”) On the caller’s part, the most common marker of topic initiation and introduction is wai (“hey”), as can be seen in (1), (2), (3), (4), (8), and (19) above. Occasionally, one of several other forms may be used. These include: hai (“yes”; see (15) and (16)), hai aa (“yes”; see (6) and (7)), wai hai aa (a combination of wai (“hey”) and hai aa (“yes”); see (20)), and the interjection laa, as in the following example: (22) 1 2

3

4

5

6

→ 7

((telephone rings)) R: Coengwaa Fogei Cheung.Wah Technology ‘Cheung Wah Technology. C: mgoi Miss Lam aa please Miss Lam  ‘Miss Lam, please?’ R: aa, ngo hai yes I am ‘Em, speaking.’ C: o ngo hai Ekko Design Mary Ho oh I am Ekko Design Mary Ho ‘This is Mary Ho of Ekko Design.’ R: hai hello Mary aa yes hello Mary  ‘Yes hello Mary. zau laa ngo sautau jau jat then  I on.hand have one ‘Look, I’ve got a letter with me.’

fung 

seon letter

Notice that the interjection in (22) is said in the low-falling tone, and is to be distinguished from the sentence-final particle laa, which is said in the high tone. Cantonese is known for the very rich inventory of sentence-final particles (Kwok 1984) which have been shown to have discourse functions such

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 196

 Kang Kwong Luke

as marking common knowledge or newsworthiness (Luke 1989, 1990; Luke and Nancarrow 1997). Unlike the interjection laa (low-falling tone), however, the final particles do not have a role to play in marking first topics. There is then a linguistic form in Cantonese, the main function of which is to signal that the upcoming utterance is devoted to the initiation or introduction of topics.

. Conclusion It can be seen from the data presented in this chapter that in the Hong Kong telephone calls, just as in other speech communities reported in the literature, participants orient to reason-for-call as a likely first topic, to its association with the caller, as well as to the possibility of its coming up at the anchor position. This is not to say, however, that the reason-for-call must be, or can only be, brought up at this position. But when it does not — as in preemptions or deferrals, then the very fact that it is done earlier or later typically contributes to the sense of there being some special reason for introducing topics in a non-canonical manner. The major patterns found in the Cantonese data bear considerable resemblance to those which have been presented in the literature. For example, while the caller is normally expected to introduce reason-for-call, it is nevertheless possible for the recipient to introduce reason-for-call under “marked” circumstances. This is usually done by the recipient making references, at or just before the anchor position, to previous unsuccessful attempts to contact the caller. Deferrals are done in equally organised ways: typically, by developing initial inquiries into fully-fledged topics at or just before the anchor position. Another observation on the Hong Kong data is the use of a variety of markers to indicate that first topic is being initiated or introduced. As linguistic forms these will obviously be different from markers found in other languages. Nonetheless, the semantics of these forms (“What’s up?”, ”Hey”, “Yes”) and their discourse functions (mainly to attract hearer’s attention and to mark topic boundaries) are interestingly similar to other languages. In order to properly compare the ways in which reason-for-call is brought up across different languages and speech communities, we need more data. There is at the moment a relative lack of work on this topic. This has made it very hard for in-depth comparisons and contrasts to be carried out. The present study is an attempt to replicate previous work and to contribute comparable data. I hope this is a step in the right direction. I also hope that more people

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 197

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

will become interested in this topic and present more data, so that eventually a full-scale comparative study can be made.

Notes * This chapter was presented at the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Reims, France, July 1998. I am very grateful to Leung Fung Yee and Suen Nga Ling for letting me record their conversations, to Fung Yee for helping me with the transcription, and to Wong Ki Fong and Angela Chan for their assistance in preparing the manuscript.  Harvey Sacks’s lectures have now been published as Lectures on Conversation in two volumes. All references to the lectures are made to these books. Of particular relevance to the present chapter are Lecture 3 of Spring 1972 and Lecture 1 of Winter 1970, both of which can be found in volume 2.  I am grateful to Soula Pavlidou for pointing this out to me.  Pavlidou (1994) makes a distinction between “practical” calls and “social” calls.  In addition, recordings of 28 business calls were examined as a supplementary data set to allow a check on whether any major patterns of topic introduction were missing from the main database and to provide a point of comparison and contrast. The findings on this supplementary data set is reported later in the chapter.  This is a possible format of the first turn in Hong Kong telephone calls. Here the answerer raises explicitly the question of who the “target” is, in effect making an offer to “connect” caller to recipient in case he or she is not the answerer.  This observation was first made in Sacks’s lectures. “E.g., A answers the phone with “Hello,” B does a “Hello,” and then A says “My God I was just trying to get you!” or “I’ve been trying to call you all day. Where have you been?” thereby attempting to transform the overt fact that the caller was the caller in this call into that the called was really the caller.” (Sacks 1992, v.2: 552)  Button and Casey (1988) note the importance of the reason-for-call being a “known-inadvance item”. They remark: “A formal agenda is an instantiation of a method of topic initiation that trades in the achieved known-in-advance status of an item. This method is also employed in ordinary conversation. Conversationalists may achieve for some topic a knownin-advance status and use that status as a resource through which they can both solve the problem of the legitimate and warrantable placement of that topic, and organise its being talked to. In achieving this status the topic is mutually orientable to in that it is “known” that it may be turned to, in advance of turning to it.” (Button and Casey 1988: 68) The point being made in my examples, however, goes beyond this one: not only is the assumption made that there will be a reason-for-call, in some cases, the nature of the reason-for-call as a topic is also known — for example, when it has been previously established.  While topic markers were found in most of the calls in the database (at the point when first topic is introduced), occasionally they are absent. This is especially noticeable in those preemption cases where the reason-for-call is introduced with urgency, as in (11), (12) and (13).

171_200 v1.qxd

11/22/02

8:45 AM

Page 198

 Kang Kwong Luke

References Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John (eds) 1984 Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Button, Graham and Casey, Neil 1984 “Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors”. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), 167–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988 “Topic initiation: Business-at-hand”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 61–92. Fan, Kwok, Luke, Kang-Kwong, Lee, Hun-Tak, Lun, Suen, Tung, Peter, and Cheung, Kwan-Hin 1997 Guide to the LSHK Cantonese Romanisation of Chinese Characters. Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong. Godard, Danièle 1977 “Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States”. Language in Society 6: 209–219. Hopper, Robert 1992 Telephone Conversation. Bloomington Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hopper, Robert, Doany, Nada, Johnson, Michael, and Drummond, Kent 1991 “Universals and particulars in telephone openings”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 24: 369–387. Hopper, Robert, and Koleilat-Doany, Nada 1989 “Telephone openings and conversational universals: A study in three languages”. In Language, Communication and Cultural, S. Ting-Toomey and F. Korzenny (eds), 157–179. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Kwok, Helen 1984 Sentence Particles in Cantonese. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong. Luke, Kang Kwong 1989 “The Cantonese utterance particle LA and the accomplishment of common understanding in conversation”. IPrA Papers In Pragmatics 3 (1): 39–87. 1990 Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1996 “Universal structures in telephone conversation openings”. Paper presented at the 5th International Pragmatics Conference, Mexico City, July 4–9, 1996. Luke, Kang Kwong and Nancarrow, Owen 1997 “Modal particles in Cantonese: A corpus-based study”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Yuen Ren Society, March 24–25, 1997, University of Washington. Pavlidou, Theodossia 1994 “Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences”. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 487–511. Sacks, Harvey 1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. Edited by G. Jefferson, with an introduction by E.A. Schegloff. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 199

The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls 

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings”. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. 1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York: Irvington. 1986 “The routine as achievement”. Human Studies 9: 111–151. Sifianou, Maria 1989 “On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece”. Language in Society 18: 527–544.

Romanisation, transcription, and glossing conventions Romanisation The Cantonese data used in this chapter have all been romanised using the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Cantonese Romanisation Scheme (but without the tone marks, as the English glosses in the second line should make the identity of the words sufficiently clear). For details of the Cantonese romanisation scheme and its correspondence to the IPA, see Fan et al. (1997).

Transcription The transcription of features relating to the occurrence of speaking turns (e.g., overlapping talk, latched utterances, etc.) and the phonetics of the utterances follows commonly used CA conventions, as described in, for example, Atkinson and Heritage (eds) (1984). The main symbols used in the examples in this chapter are: : (.) (0.5) 〉XXX〈 〈XXX〉 [XXX [XXX XXX= =XXX XXX

Stretching Cut-off Micro-pause Pause in seconds Speeding up Slowing down Overlapping talk Latching (no gap) Stress

171_200 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:41 AM

Page 200

 Kang Kwong Luke

↑ or ↓ .hh ((XXX)) (XXX)

Sharp rise or fall in pitch Inhalation Contextual information or vocalisations which are hard to transcribe Indistinct talk

huh huh

laughter

Glossing The following table gives the meaning of the glosses used in the second line of the data extracts:  interjection  medial particle  final particle  aspect marker  classifier  verb complement  determiner

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 201

Moving towards closing: Greek telephone calls between familiars Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou .

Background

This chapter is the result of a longer involvement in the study of Greek and German telephone calls.1 I started out by looking at the initial section of telephone calls (Pavlidou 1991, 1994), more specifically, at the use of phatic utterances (e.g., “How are you?”, “How are you doing?”, etc.) after greeting, partner identification, etc. and before the main topic, that is, the reason for making the call, is stated. Greeks were found to use utterances like “How are you?” almost twice as frequently than Germans. It was also found that this was independent of possible face-threats (associated, for example, with the reason for calling). It seemed, rather, that Greeks used phatic utterances to enhance their relationship by showing involvement and encouraging a greater intimacy, while Germans gave greater emphasis to the content of the call. It was argued that while Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory could accommodate the Greek results, it could not readily account for the German directness (which of course cannot be equated with impoliteness). I then turned to the investigation of the closing section of telephone calls and looked at the organisational structure, repetition phenomena, patterns of confirmation and agreement, etc. In particular, examination of the last five turns of telephone calls between individuals with a familiar or intimate relationship yielded a greater divergence from a dyadic turn-taking structure in the Greek closings (due to more overlaps and latching, more complex turns, and a greater degree of repetition of the parting formulae). The German closings, on the other hand, were richer in content including, mainly, references to future contact (Pavlidou 1997). Finally, it was shown that the Greek and German closings in my data differed as to repetition of agreement tokens and it was hypothesised that behind this feature differential patterns of confirmation and agreement were at work (Pavlidou 1998).

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 202

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

In the present chapter, I will confine myself to Greek closings and take up one problem that arose during my contrastive study of closings. Closings of telephone calls are not as widely studied as openings — a fact also attested by the present volume; for example, while there is by now a considerable amount of data and analyses on openings across languages and cultures, very little has been done on closings in this respect (see also Luke and Pavlidou 2002).2 Standard references on closings include Schegloff and Sacks’ seminal paper of 1973, Clark and French 1981 and Button 1987, 1990. The “archetype closing”, as Button (1987) calls it, or canonical closing, as presented in Schegloff and Sachs 1973, consists of four turns, organised in two adjacency pairs: a terminal exchange placed after a pre-closing which has been accepted, for example: (1) “archetype closing” A: Well. B: Okay. A: Goodbye. B: See you. ((end of call))

[turn 1: A offers to close (pre-closing)] [turn 2: B accepts (second close component)] [turn 3: A takes the first terminal turn] [turn 4: B reciprocates]

But in order for the first turn to function as a pre-closing, i.e. as a proper initiation of the closing section, it is necessary that this first turn is positioned at “the analyzable end of a topic” (Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 305); in other words, it has to be preceded by a sequence in which one partner offers to close down the topic and the other accepts. For example: (2) “closing down a topic” A: Okay? B: All right.

Besides some obvious implications of (1) for the sequential structure (i.e. there is a minimum of four turns with specific functions produced by alternating speakers, such that the speaker who initiates the closing is also the one to produce the first terminal component, and so on), the archetype closing raises the expectation of a clear-cut distinction between the closing part and the last topic, and this seems to be taken for granted in the literature. For example, Brinker and Sager (1989: 98f) say that, although the process of closing a conversation is rather difficult, the decisive point is that any attempt to close down a topic must be confirmed by the other partner; only then can a conversation come to an end. Button (1990), in his discussion of the variants of the archetype closing, also presupposes the feasibility of demarcation between last topic and closing section.

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 203

Moving towards closing 

However, in working on telephone closings among familiars, i.e. persons with a familiar or intimate relationship in Greece, one of the major problems I have encountered is how to identify where the closing actually starts in the first place. The purpose, then, of the present chapter is to demonstrate the difficulties involved in locating the boundary between the last topic and the closing section in Greek telephone calls between familiars and explain why conversationalists are nevertheless able to proceed smoothly towards termination of the telephone call. A methodological remark is in order at this point: from the point of view of Conversation Analysis, this may sound like a pseudo-problem, since a good analysis of conversational structure implies that the analyst has captured the regularities according to which conversationalists themselves accomplish a conversation (see, for example, Schegloff 2002 and ten Have 2002). However, I did not have this problem when analysing German closings, although German — in contrast to Greek — is not my first language.3 For this reason, I had to hypothesise that my difficulties in tackling the Greek data are related to the intricacy of the Greek closings. In this light, the findings I present in this chapter are an attempt at a coherent description of the structure of Greek closings; they should be understood as hypotheses on an etic level about how conversationalists organise their closing section of a telephone conversation rather than an emic description of that structure.4

. The data My analysis is based on 65 fully transcribed calls5 among friends and relatives. Although there were different constellations of roles, age groups, etc. among the conversationalists, no call can be characterised as formal. Moreover, there were no emergency calls in the sample. All telephone calls were initiated (and tape-recorded) at home by nine young adults (calls 1–27, 28–29, 30, 46–50, 51–55, 56–60, 61–65 were made by seven women, calls 31–41 and 42–45 by two men), and most of them (more than 92%) were made to the receiver’s home. With one exception, all callers were at that time undergraduate or postgraduate students of mine, and were thus personally known to me. All of them were asked to listen carefully to the cassettes they had made, and erase any call or part of a call that they or others involved in the conversation did not want me, or a broader public, to know about before turning the cassettes in. All names were subsequently changed in the transcriptions. In the following, the English translation of the Greek examples or excerpts is only approximate; moreover, translation of certain multifunctional Greek

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 204

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

words may vary according to context. Utterances, or parts thereof, that are of interest are in boldface. All other transcription conventions and abbreviations are described in the last section of this chapter. In the examples, the conversationalists are marked as C (caller) and R (recipient) only in the cases where this plays a role; in all other instances, and that is the most frequent case, they are referred to as A and B.6 As has been variously emphasised, the closing of a telephone call, unlike its opening, bears the mark of the whole call (cf. e.g., Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 291 fn 3; Schegloff 2002, fn 7; Henne and Rehbock 1979: 22).7 This implies that it is hardly possible to analyse closings without taking into account the whole telephone call. Especially when familiarity of the readers with the object-language, in our case Greek, cannot be presupposed, it becomes extremely difficult sometimes to show both the workings of a specific closing and the workings of the language itself based on only a couple of lines from a call, as is usually sufficient for openings. Given also the particular question of the present chapter, namely the transition from the last topic to the closing section, I have found it necessary at times to use extensive excerpts in order to provide better grounds for a discussion of my analysis with other researchers. . Topic bounding techniques In Greek telephone calls among familiars, it is frequently the case that a topic gets closed, by either conversationalist, by expressing agreement to what has just been said or asking once more for confirmation through markers of agreement. In the following example, A (after having discussed with B whether B could join A and another friend for coffee) closes the last topic in the call by expressing her agreement to what B has last suggested. (3) [65] 1 A: Yra/a ja p2rz. [′O,ui *ra 1rj]ei nicely will I.take whatever hour comes ‘Fine I will call. Whenever she comes, 2 B: [°Ok1i.° ] okay ‘Okay.’ 3 A: ja p2rz gia na mov peis ki-las will I.call for to me you.tell too I will call so that you let me know too.’

201_230 v1.qxd

11/22/02

8:51 AM

Page 205

Moving towards closing 

B: ′Egine agapo,li.= it.became love- ‘Okay, darling.’ 5 A: =′Anue zra/a ja ua po,me.= - nicely will them we.say ‘So, fine, see you.’ 6 B: =Se wili* pol, °pol,.= ((speaking like a child)) you- I.kiss much much ‘Many many kisses.’ 7 A: =′Anue wil2kia.= - kisses- ‘So, then, kisses.’ 8 B: =Mpa mp2i. bye bye ‘Bye bye.’ 9 A: Tt2o. ciao ‘Ciao.’ ((end of call)) 4

In line 1, A closes down the topic by expressing her agreement to call B (“Fine I will call.”); B consents to close down the topic (“Okay.”) in line 2, while A adds another reason why she will call (“I will call so that you let me know too”, line 3). B then proceeds in line 4 to the pre-closing, which A accepts in line 5. In this example, besides repeating part of what B said (not shown in the excerpt), in order to express her agreement, A also uses in line 1 the adverb zra/a which literally means “nicely”, but can also be used as a marker of approval or satisfaction, or more generally, agreement. Such markers of agreement that retain their lexical import (cf. also the noun ja,ma, literally meaning “wonder”, the adverb vp1roxa (“excellently”, etc.) cannot be used to ask for confirmation. In contrast, markers of agreement which carry little or no lexical meaning at all, like nai (“yes”), ok1i (“okay”), and so on can also be used with interrogatory intonation to ask for confirmation and agreement. In (4) below, C closes down the topic8 in line 9 by asking for confirmation with the expression ’Nu2cei (“Right”); this is a short form of the archaic adverbial phrase enu2cei meaning literally “in order”, but in such a context, its pragmatic function — expression of agreement — overrides its lexical import, although this still discernible in the background.

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 206

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

(4) [20] ((C has called R in order to ask whether it was R to whom C had lent a certain book and whether R still has it)) 1 R: [...] To 1xz eg*. this I.have I ‘I’ve got it.’ 2 C: A, enu2cei. Kal2. T/pou’ 2llo den 0jela.  in.order good nothing else not I.wanted ‘Oh, all right. Good. That was all I wanted.’ 3 R: Nai, enu2cei. ((in a laughing tone)) yes in.order ‘Yes, all right.’ 4 C: Apl*s na jvmhj*, an uo jvmhje/s ki et, simply to I.remember if it- you.remember and you ‘I should just remember, if you could remember it too, 5 na uo p2rz -uan 1rjz:; to it- I.take when I.come that I should take it when I come.’ 6 R: 〉Nai, nai, [nai.〈 °Ha tuo d*tz.° ] yes yes yes will to.you I.give ‘Yes, yes, yes. I will give it to you.’ 7 C: [Ciau/ ja mov xreiatue/::;] because will to.me it.be.needed ‘Because I will need it.’ 8 R: Nai. Enu2cei. yes in.order ‘Yes. All right.’ 9 C: ’Nu2cei; all.right ‘Right?’ 10 R: [Nai, 1gine.] yes it.became ‘Yes, okay.’ 11 C: [Mm. Kal2] e/tai; hm good you.are ‘Hm. Are you doing well?’ 12 R: Kal2. ((in a laughing tone)) good ‘Good.’

201_230 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:00 AM

Page 207

Moving towards closing 

13 C: Kal2, avu-, de te 0jela good this not you- I.wanted ‘Good, just this, I did not call you because of 14 u/pou’ 2llo. ((in a laughing tone)) anything else anything else.’ 15 R: E:nu2cei. in.order ‘All right.’ 16 C: ′Anue, geia, e; - bye  ‘So, bye, okay?’ 17 R: Ceia, geia. bye bye ‘Bye bye.’

After R confirms that she will return the book to C (line 8), C closes down the topic by asking for R’s agreement in line 9 (“Right?”), which R confirms in line 10 (“Yes, okay.”) in a mode similar to the topic bounding technique discussed by Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 306). The example above is interesting for other reasons as well (see also below). Note that in lines 2 and 13–14 the caller explicitly indicates that the reason for initiating the call has been sufficiently taken care of (“That was all I wanted.” and “Good, just this, I did not call you because of anything else.”). She thus takes a pre-closing move, which R accepts both times (lines 3 and 15). The first time, however, C does not proceed to the terminal sequence: in line 4 she opens a sequence about not forgetting to get back that book (it is actually this subtopic which is closed down in lines 9–10 which were discussed above); and in line 11, C asks how R is (no phatic utterances had been employed in the opening section of the call). Now this call is a monotopical call, and in such cases, as Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 308) remark, a resolution of the topic and closing may “not have to be separately accomplished.”9 Another commonly employed technique for closing down the topic consists in showing explicitly that the possible end of a sequence (in which the topic was discussed) has been reached. This is characteristically achieved through the use of specific discourse markers, like u1los p2nuzn (“anyway”) and avu2 (“that’s all”) by either caller or recipient. The first one, u1los p2nuzn, is an adverbial phrase literally meaning “end of everything”, but also used in

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 208

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

the sense of “anyway” to punctuate the end of topic talk, as in (5). In this example, A has called B, a very close friend who is studying abroad and has just returned to Greece. They have been talking about some recent air-plane accidents, and how worried B has been. (5) [61] 1 A: Kai: me uo d/kio tov. (.) T1los p2nuzn. and with the right your end of.everything ‘And you are right too. Anyway. 2 Loip-n, na koimhje/s, nai; so should you.sleep yes So then, go to sleep, okay?’ (l/go ak-ma) 3 B: Nai ja koimhj* yes will I.sleep little more ‘Yes I will get some more sleep.’ ((long leave-taking before call closes))

In line 1, A first tells B that she was right (to be worried about the air-plane accidents); after a short pause, she closes down the topic with “Anyway.”, and then proceeds in line 2 to the pre-closing Loip-n (“So”) (see next section). The next example demonstrates the use of avu2 (“that’s all”) to indicate the end of a stretch of discourse in which a certain topic (or topics) have been discussed. Avu2 means literally “these”, i.e. it is a (personal or demonstrative) pronoun, 3rd person, neuter, plural. In a sense, avu2 codifies the content of utterances expressing completion of topic, like the ones discussed in (4), without, however, being restricted to the reason for calling. That is why it can be employed by either conversationalist. In the following example, B has been telling A that she is not very happy about how her daughter, to whom A gives private lessons in English, is doing at school. (6) [8] 1 A: °Ela mzr’ enu2cei.° come--  in.order ‘Come on now, it will be all right.’ 2 B: °Kau2labes;° you.understand ‘You understand?’ 3 (2.0)

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 209

Moving towards closing 

4

B: Avu2. these ‘That’s all.’ 5 A: Ha diorjzje/, mh tuenaxzri1tai. will she.be.corrected don’t you.be.worried ‘She will improve, don’t worry.’ ((call goes on))

In line 1, A tries to play down the seriousness of the girl’s errors. B, the girl’s mother, seeks confirmation of her attitude, but B does not say anything (line 3).10 B then goes on in line 4 to punctuate the sequence in which they have been talking about B’s daughter.11 Finally, combinations of u1los p2nuzn (“anyway”) and avu2 (“that’s all”), also in conjunction with markers of agreement, may be used as well, to close down a topic, as the following example shows. C, a student from Cyprus, has called her parents at home and talks to both of them; in the excerpt below she first talks with her father, F, and then with her mother, M. (7) [60] 1 F: ′Allo kan1na n1o; other anything new ‘Any more news?’ 2 C: T/poua avu2:(.) ′Epiata uon Ci2nnh nothing these I.caught the Yannis ‘Nothing that’s all. I called Yannis 3 proxu1s. ′Guan: ua ge - h gioru0 uov:= the.day.before.yesterday it.was the birth the nameday his the day before yesterday. It was his nameday.’ 4 F: =Kal2 1kames. good you.did ‘You did it right.’ 5 C: Enu2cei. (.) T1los p2nuzn avu2: (.) in.order end of.everything these ‘All right. Anyway that’s all.’ 6 M: [( )] 7 C: [Kle/]nz giau/ plhr*nz. ((in a laughing tone)) I.close because I.pay ‘I’ll hang up, because I’ m paying.’ ((call goes on))

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 210

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

In line 5, C first closes down the topic (“All right. Anyway that’s all.”) and then after a short pause, in a simultaneous onset with her mother, goes on to the pre-closing in line 7.12 Before going into the next section, it should be noted that all the techniques for closing down a topic discussed above are independent of the specifics of the topic. They can be applied by conversationalists whatever the topic happens to be.

4. Initiation of closing: Some typical ways Initiation of the closing section in Greek telephone calls between familiars seems to involve typically two linguistic items with discourse organising functions: the discourse marker loip-n and the discourse particle 2nue (both with downward intonation). The first is a sort of summarising particle, meaning something like “so, then”, which rounds up what has been talked about and indicates, at the same time, an orientation towards terminating the conversation. In (8), A has made a long distance call to his girlfriend B, who studied in the same city as A, but now lives with her parents in another city quite far away. (8) [43] 1 A: [...]Loip-n, arkeu2. Arkeu2. Plhr*novme. so enough enough we.pay ‘So, then, enough. Enough. We are paying.’ 2 B: Nai. ((in a laughing tone)) yes ‘Yes.’ 3 A: Loip-n. Devu1ra p2re me. so Monday take-- me ‘So then. Call me on Monday.’ ((long leave-taking before call closes))

In the example above, A initiates the closing section with Loip-n (“So”) (line 1), alluding also to the cost of the telephone call, to which B consents in a laughing tone. A signals once more his intention to terminate the call in line 3 with Loip-n, and proceeds to arrangements about their next telephone conversation (see also line 2 of (5)).

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 211

Moving towards closing

The second linguistic item used in initiating the closing section is 2nue, a discourse particle meaning something like “let’s move on”: it shows the speaker’s orientation towards termination of the call, on the assumption that mutual consensus for this obtains (cf. Pavlidou 1997, 1998). In the next example, B first closes down the last topic Yra/a 1gine enu2cei. (“Fine, okay, all right.”) in line 2. He then proceeds, in the same turn, to the pre-closing, ′Anue, wishing A a good sleep. In lines 4 and 5 the mutual agreement to terminate the call is demonstrated through 2nue once more in the terminal exchanges. In other words, ′Anue can also appear in almost any other turn of the closing section, as several other examples show (see e.g., lines 5 and 7 of (3), or lines 3–7 of (14)). (9) [64] 1 A: =′Erxeuai awo, tov l1z [u*ra °(kau1bhke.)°] comes  you I.tell now she.went.down ‘She is coming, after all I am telling you, she just went down.’ 2 B: [Yra/a 1gine] enu2cei. nicely it.became in.order ‘Fine, okay, all right. ′Anue 3 kal-n ,pno. - good sleep So, sleep well.’ 4 A: ′Anue mp2i. - bye ‘So, then, bye.’ 5 B: ′Anue geia. - bye ‘So, bye.’ 6 A: Ceia. bye ‘Bye.’ ((end of call))

As has been already noted by Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 311f), the closing section can be initiated with a statement, by either caller or recipient, of the necessity to terminate the call. In (10), A, having noticed what time it is, says hurriedly, after an exclamation, that she has to terminate the conversation (line 1). B consents to this in line 2. A goes on hurriedly to explain that it is



201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 212

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

because she has to do something else immediately (lines 3–4), to which B responds again with consent, showing at the same time her orientation towards closing (note the particle 2nue) in line 5. (10) [26] 1 A: ↑Ax Zif0:, 〉pr1p - pr1pei (.) na t’ aw0tz.〈  Zizi mu must to you- I.leave ‘Oh, Zizi, I must leave you.’ 2 B: Nai, re. Enu2cei, kal2:.= yes - in.order good ‘Yes. All right, good.’ 3 A: =〉E/da uo rol-i u*ra, -xi, k2ui pr1pei na p2z I.saw the watch now no something must to I.go ‘I just saw the time, no, I have to go 4 na k2nz am1tzs. Ci ’avu-.〈 to I.do immediately for this and do something immediately. That’s why.’ 5 B: Kal2. ′Anue, kal2. good - good ‘Good. So, good.’ ((brief moving out of the closing before call ends))

In two of the examples that we have seen, (7) and (8), initiation of the closing is attempted by alluding to the cost of the call, both being long distance calls. Although at first glance such a pre-closing seems to be in the interest of the caller, it is not always said seriously. In (7), the caller initiates the closing section by saying that she is going to hang up, because she is paying (line 7) for the call, but she says this in a laughing tone. Her attempt to initiate the closing is however ignored and the call goes on. After all, as a student, she is presumably financially fully dependent on her parents, and it is her parents that pay for everything, a fact probably alluded to in her laughing tone in line 7. In (8), A who is the caller, uses the plural when mentioning the cost of the call (“We are paying.”). Although it is not clear whether he uses the “we” to refer just to himself in a jocular way (i.e. pseudo-majestically) or to invoke their collectivity as a couple, his girlfriend’s laughing tone in her response (line 2) suggests that she does not consider this to be a compelling reason for ending the call (after all, they have been talking on the phone for quite a while). The devices mentioned up to now can all be combined to give more complex pre-closings. For example in the following, Loip-n (“So”) is combined

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 213

Moving towards closing 

with 2nue (see also (14), line 4), but also with an utterance indicating necessity to close kle/nz, bi2fomai (“I’m hanging up, I’m in a hurry.”); all this is followed by a confirmation seeking device nai (“yes”) to which B first responds affirmatively, and then goes on to add something new. (11) [18] 1 A: N:ai. Enu2cei.(.)〉 Loip-n, 2nue, kle/nz, yes in.order so - I.close ‘Yes. All right. So then, so, I am hanging up, 2 bi2fomai, nai;〈 I.am.in.a.hurry yes I’m in a hurry, okay?’ 3 B: Nai. O mpamp2s 1wvge, den e/nai. yes the dad he.left not is ‘Yes. Dad is gone, he is not here.’

As Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 309) have shown, a typical adjacent pair in the initiation of closings in English is an “okay” answered by another “okay”. Similar sequences can also be observed in initiating closings in my data, involving markers of agreement, like nai (“yes”), enu2cei (“all right”), ok1i (“okay”), sometimes with interrogatory intonation,13 and they are also used as pre-closings (cf. Pavlidou 1998). However, one of the most characteristic pre-closings among familiars, used by both caller or recipient, is the particle 1gine, which is actually the third person, singular, past tense indicative of the verb “to become” and is used to express very strong agreement. It would be best translated in English as “done”, but its use is broader than consenting to directives, or “okay”. Recall (3), part of which is given here as (12). (12) [65] *ra 1rj]ei ja p2rz gia na 1 A: Yra/a ja p2rz. [′O,ui nicely will I.take whatever hour comes will I.call for to ‘Fine I will call. Whenever she comes, I will call so that 2 B: [°Ok1i.° ] okay ‘Okay.’ 3 A: mov peis ki-las me you.tell too you let me know too.’

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 214

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

B: ′Egine agapo,li.= it.became love- ‘Okay, darling.’ 5 A: =′Anue zra/a ja ua po,me.= - nicely will them we.say ‘So, fine, see you.’ ((leave-taking before terminal exchanges)) 4

As already mentioned above, the topic is closed down with “Fine I will call.” by A and “Okay.’ by B, in lines 1–2. B proceeds then to the pre-closing “Okay, darling.” in line 4, which A accepts in line 5 by showing her own orientation to terminating the call with the ′Anue that precedes the beginning of leave-taking.

5. The problem of demarcation Having discussed some typical means used among familiars to close down a topic and to initiate the closing section of the telephone call, we can now turn to the problem of demarcating these two stages in the conversation. This problem partly arises because of the fact that at the heart of both closing a topic and initiating the closing section the same basic task is required, namely achieving consensus to do so. Moreover, some of the linguistic items discussed above may be used both to mark the boundary of the last topic and to initiate closing.14 Let us look at the following closing of a call which A initiated in order to finalise with B their meeting point with other friends. (13) [12] 1 B: [...] E::: Arituou1lovs eh Aristotle- ‘Eh on Aristotle street.’ 2 (2) 3 B: Su2th Ari[tuou1lovs] tuhn Ttimitk0. bus-stop Aristotle- at.the Tsimiski- ‘At the Aristotle bus stop on Tsimiski street.’ 4 A: [Po,;] where ‘Where?’

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 215

Moving towards closing

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15

16

17

18

(1) A: (′Euti ja pz;) so will I.tell ‘Is that what I should tell her?’ B: Nai. Su2th Arituou1lovs tuhn Ttimitk0. yes bus-stop Aristotle- at.the Tsimiski- ‘Yes. At the Aristotle bus stop on Tsimiski street.’ A: E:: enu2cei. Yra/a, e/pe, ja p2rei te m1na h Fz0, eh in.order nicely she.said will she.take at me the Zoe ‘Eh, all right. Fine. Zoe said she’ll call me, ε: ja e/mai ed* p2nz eg*. eh will am here upstairs I eh, I’ll be right here upstairs.’ B: Enu2cei. ′Egine. in.order it.became ‘All right. Okay.’ A: °Mm.° Avu2. hm these ‘Hm. That’s all.’ B: Ok1i. Ha per2tz [na te] p2rz: pio nzr/s okay will I.come to you- I.pick.up more early ‘Okay, I’ll come to pick you up earlier wvtik2= of.course of course.’ A: [Ts ]((non-linguistic sound expressing hesitation)) A: =Thn p0res uh D0mhura; her you.called the Dimitra ‘Have you called Dimitra?’ B: ′Oxi, u*ra ja uhn p2rz. no now will her I.call ‘No, I am going to call her now.’ A: Mm. Kal2. hm good ‘Hm. Good.’ B: Ok1i;= Okay ‘Okay?’



201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 216

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

19 A: =′Egine, nai. it.became yes ‘Okay, yes.’ 20 B: ′Egine. ′Anue. It.became - ‘Okay. So then.’ 21 A: ′A:nue, geia. - bye ‘So, bye.’ 22 B: Ceia xar2, geia. goodbye bye ‘Goodbye, bye.’ ((end of call))

In line 1, B suggests a meeting point (“on Aristotle street”). After the silence on A’s part (line 2), he starts specifying his suggestion (line 3: “At the Aristotle bus stop on Tsimiski street.”), but A hurries to ask “Where?” (line 4). Even after B’s utterance has been completed, A is not quite sure about the meeting point (silence, line 5) and asks presumably for a confirmation in line 6 (“Is that what I should tell her?”). In line 7 B gives his confirmation (“Yes.”) and also repeats his proposal. In line 8, A closes down the topic using two tokens of agreement (enu2cei “all right” and zra/a “nicely”). In line 8, A also introduces implicitly another topic (who is going to tell whom about the meeting point) by saying that one of the friends will be calling her to find out about where they shall meet. This topic is closed down in line 10, where again two tokens of agreement are used, enu2cei and 1gine. A proceeds then to the pre-closing in line 11 (°Mm.°Avu2.), which is accepted in line 12 (“Okay.”). In other words, although 1gine may be considered to be a typical pre-closing, it may also be used to close down a topic. Conversely, avu2 which — as mentioned — typically closes down a topic, is used as a pre-closing in this case. There is then a brief moving out of the closing (lines 15–17), and then another initiation of the closing follows in line 18 (“Okay?”) and its acceptance in line 19 (′Egine, nai. “Okay, yes.”) plus confirmation in line 20 (′Egine. ′Anue. “Okay. So then.”). One might argue that although the linguistic elements themselves are multifunctional, their sequential placement might help to reduce equivocation. This is certainly true sometimes, but it presupposes a conversational division of labour between partners on the telephone, which is not always the case

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 217

Moving towards closing 

in Greek closings. Greek conversationalists tend to accomplish more than one thing at a time, at least around the end of the telephone call and, thus, make several moves within one turn, as in the following example: (14) [11] ((A, female, calls B, a female friend, to discuss the arrangements about going out that A has made with a common friend.)) 1 B: E, zra/a, [zra/a] ak-ma  nicely nicely even ‘Oh, good, good, that’s even 2 kal,uera. ((in a laughing tone)) better better.’ 3 A: [Avu2.] these ‘That’s all.’ 4 A: [Loip-n, 2nue kal2.] so - fine ‘Well, so then, good.’ 5 B: [′Egine re Mar/a.] ′A:nue ut2o. it.became - Maria - ciao ‘Okay, Maria. So, ciao. 6 A: ′Anue [geia.] - bye ‘So then, bye.’ 7 B: [A, ja ua] po,m’ ap- konu2. ′Anue geia.  will them we.say from near - bye ‘Ah, we’ll talk when we meet. So, bye.’ 8 A: Ceia. bye ‘Bye.’ 9 B: Ceia. bye ‘Bye.’ ((end of call))

In line 5 of the above excerpt, B first accepts A’s pre-closing (“Okay, Maria.”) and, thus, completes the first sequence of the closing section; but she then goes on directly to the parting sequence, so that an interlocking of adjacency pairs

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 218

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

results. In other words, the diffusion of conversational roles results in the interweaving of adjacent pairs and sequences and this sometimes yields a sort of oscillating movement, rather than a one-way progression towards the end. Now, going back to (13), one might argue that B does something similar in line 10: he first closes down the last topic of the conversation with enu2cei and then initiates the closing section with ögne. But in that case we would give a different account of line 11. The situation becomes even more complicated, when several tokens of agreement appear in a series, within a single turn, as in line 5 of the next example: (15) [21] ((A has called her sister to ask her what to do about a gas cooker which is out of gas.)) 1 B: P0gain1 ua -la gia na tov ua you.take them all for to for.you them ‘Take everything to him 2 b2lei avu-s. Kau2labes; he.put himself you.understand so that he can fix it. Got it?’ 3 A: Mmm. hmm ‘Hmm.’ 4 B: Na tov ua b2lei p2nz tuhn kaino,ria wi2lh. to for.you them he.put on.top on.the new bottle ‘So that he can fix it on top of the new bottle.’ 5 A: Nai, enu2cei. [Kal2.] ′Egine. yes in.order good it.became ‘Yes, all right. Good. Okay.’ 6 B: [°Mm.°] hm ‘Hm.’ 7 B: ′Anue. - ‘So then’ 8 A: ′Anue, geia.= - bye ‘So, bye.’

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 219

Moving towards closing 

9

B: =Tt2o: geia. Sov p0ra kat1ues. Na c1reis. ciao bye for.you I.got cassettes that you.know ‘Ciao bye. I bought you some tapes. So that you know.’ 10 A: A, kal2. Nai. oh good yes ‘Oh good. Yes.’ 11 B: Ceia. bye ‘Bye.’ 12 A: Ceia. bye ‘Bye.’ ((end of call))

As has been argued in Pavlidou (1998), there are several readings of line 5, each having different consequences for the description of the closing (see also (16), line 13): a. A may be just giving, in a plethoric manner, her consent to B’s suggestions (lines 1–2, 4). If this were true, there is no closing down of the last topic, and line 6 would have to be the pre-closing. b. Half of line 5 Nai, enu2cei. (“Yes, all right.”) is A’s consent to B’s suggestions (lines 1–2, 4); then, the closing of the topic follows Kal2. ′Egine. (“Good. Okay.”). This would imply that B proceeds to the pre-closing (line 7: ′Anuε.), without explicitly accepting the offer to close down the last topic. c. As in (b), half of line 5 (Nai, enu2cei.) is A’s consent to B’s suggestions (lines 1–2, 4); then, the closing of the topic follows (Kal2.), and after that, the pre-closing (′Egine.) is given. In such a case, line 7 (′Anue.) would be the acceptance of the pre-closing (again, without an explicit confirmation to close down the topic). So how does it work? How do conversationalists know that the end of the call is approaching?

6. Cues to the upcoming end Although it may be difficult to locate the boundary between completion of the last topic and initiation of the closing section, there are several cues which sig-

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 220

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

nal the speakers’ orientation towards termination of the call. Such cues may not be decisive when considered each on its own, but can be quite conclusive, if taken together. . Foreshadowing the closing Termination of a call is sometimes foreshadowed, before the actual closing begins. A common means to achieve this is by iteration of avu2 (“that’s all”) or of loip-n (“so”), prior to the occurrence of the actual pre-closing. In other words, before the closing begins, several sequences end with the topic boundary avu2 or start with the closing initiation marker loip-n, as in the example below (part of which we saw under (8)). (16) [43] ((A calls (long distance) his girlfriend B, who studied in the same city as A, but now lives with her parents in another city quite far away)) 1 A: [...] Loip-n, arkeu2. Arkeu2. Plhr*novme. so enough enough we.pay ‘So, then, enough. Enough. We are paying.’ 2 B: Nai. ((in a laughing tone)) yes ‘Yes.’ 3 A: Loip-n. Devu1ra p2re me. so Monday take-- me ‘So then. Call me on Monday.’ ((twelve turns left out)) 4 B: Loip-n, [uhn Tr/:uh (.)] ja te p2rz:: eg*. so the Tuesday will you- I.take myself ‘So then, on Tuesday, I will call you.’ 5 A: [Loip-n. E,] so eh ‘So, then. Eh.’ 6 B: [Ti *ra na te] p2rz; what hour to you- I.take ‘What time should I call you?’ 7 A: [(°′Opzs j1leis.°)] as you.like ‘As you like.’ ((five turns left out))

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 221

Moving towards closing 

8

B: =Loip-n. Kal2 na per2:teis, so well to you.pass ‘So, then. Have a good time,’ 9 A: Yra/a. nicely ‘Fine.’ 10 B: Mmm. hmm ‘Hmm.’ 11 A Kal- karnab2li. good carnival ‘Have a nice Mardi Gras.’ ((33 turns on what B will be wearing and on noise on the line left out)) 12 B: Me mzb wuer2. with mauve feathers ‘With mauve feathers.’ 13 A: M2’ tua. ′Nu2cei. ′Egine. yes in.order it.became ‘Yes. Right. Okay.’ 14 B: Enu2cei; in.order ‘All right?’ geia. 15 A: ′Anue - bye ‘So then, bye.’ 16 B: ′Anue 〉 geia, geia.〈 - bye bye ‘So, bye bye.’ ((end of call))

The total length of the above call is five minutes. The closing itself is very short (only four turns), but it takes almost one minute to get there. There are multiple starts for closing by both partners, all introduced with loip-n (“so”), but actually no radical moving out of the closing (most outs have to do with arranging the next date for calling). In other words, what the example above illustrates is a gradual movement towards termination of the call. A second way to foreshadow closing is via talk of a specific kind, like for example discussions of plans to meet each other, or how-are-you sequences

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 222

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

appearing after the reason for calling, as in the following example. A called B, her uncle, in order to ask him to take a look at an appliance which is out of order. After the reason for calling has been fully exposed, and the uncle consents to check what happened (line 1), he asks his niece how she is (line 3). (17) [27] 1 B: A:x ja do,me ((yawning while speaking)) (3)  will we.see ‘Oh we’ll see 2 ui 1gine. what it.became what the matter is.’ 3 A: ′Egine, kal2. it.became good ‘Okay, fine.’ 4 B: Kal2 e/[tai;] good you.are ‘Are you well?’ 5 A: [Av]u2. Nai, mia xar2. these yes a joy ‘That was all. Yes, I am fine.’ 6 (2) 7 B: Mm, 2nue geia. hm - bye ‘Hm, so then, bye.’ 8 A: ′Anue kal2. ↑Ceia tov. - good bye to.you ‘So, good. Bye.’ 9 B: Ceia tov(.) geia tov. bye to.you bye to.you ‘Bye bye.’ ((end of call))

It is worth noting that the use of phatic utterances before closing the call does not imply that no “How are you?” sequences were present in the opening part. This may be true in some instances, as for example in (4), where we also had a how-are-you sequence in lines 11–12; but it is not the case in (17): in the opening part of this call, there are reciprocal phatic utterances. One might argue, however, that the well-being question has not been sufficiently

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 223

Moving towards closing 

dealt with for one of the parties involved and that is why it is brought up again; but in any case, it is brought up before the closing, thus foreshadowing it. . Possible pre-closings (2nue, loip-n, 1gine, etc.) in conjunction with other features In addition to foreshadowing termination of the call, there are certain conversational features which, when combined with possible pre-closings, like 2nue, loip-n, 1gine, make up pretty good indicators of the up-coming end. For example, paralinguistic features like latching (cf. e.g., lines 4–8 of (3)), simultaneity (cf. e.g., (14), lines 1–7), and so on, are quite typical of Greek closings between familiars. Furthermore, particles of familiarity (re, bre) commonly occur after agreement tokens in closings15 between familiars; cf. (10), line 2, or (14), line 5, repeated here as (18); (18) [11] 5 B: ′Egine re Mar/a. it.became - Maria ‘Okay, Maria. So, ciao.’

′A:nue -

ut2o. ciao

However, one of the most typical features of Greek closings is the accumulation16 of agreement tokens within one turn (cf. (15), line 5, repeated here as (19)): (19) [21] 5 A: Nai, enu2cei. [Kal2.] ′Egine. yes in.order good it.became ‘Yes, all right. Good. Okay.’ 6 B: [°Mm.°] hm ‘Hm.’

or over several turns (cf. (13), lines 18–20, repeated here as (20)): (20) 18 B: Ok1i;= Okay ‘Okay?’ 19 A: =′Egine, nai. it.became yes ‘Okay, yes.’ 20 B: ′Egine. ′Anue. it.became - ‘Okay. So then.’

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 224

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

When agreement tokens start occurring in abundance, this is most probably a signal of the speakers’ orientation to termination of the call.

.

Conclusion

Summing up, then, we may say that, although it may be difficult to locate an exact point of initiation of the closing section, Greek conversationalists exploit various devices to indicate their orientation towards closing. Common to these devices seems to be a foregrounding of the relationship aspect of communication, for example: • • • •

by gradually preparing one another for the up-coming end (iteration of avu2, loip-n), by construing agreement beyond any doubt (accumulation of agreement tokens), by pointing implicitly to the existing familiarity (particles of familiarity), by topic talk concerning the continuation of their relationship, the partner’s well-being, etc.

As Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 294f) point out, closing a conversation poses an organisational problem for the conversationalists, that is, how to reach simultaneously a point where one speaker’s completion of his/her utterance will not occasion another speaker’s talk, without this being heard as some speaker’s silence. The canonical closing reflects a solution to this problem which at the same time captures, as I have maintained elsewhere (Pavlidou 2000), the interactionally necessary work for the smooth completion of the conversation:17 it builds on the partner’s consensus to part and, thus, forestalls feelings of rejection or animosity (cf. Laver 1975, 1981). But the canonical closing encompasses an interactionally economical solution, which pays minimal attention to the relationship aspect of communication (Pavlidou 2000). This seems to be the marked case in Greek closings between familiars. In Greek telephone calls between friends and relatives, conversationalists seem to build up their way to the terminal sequence over more, and not always unequivocal steps, providing each other with elements of involvement and agreement. This interactionally exuberant solution to the organisational problem seems to be the unmarked case among individuals with a familiar or close relationship and apparently fits best the conversationalists’ concern of how to part from each other without causing any bad feelings. In this sense, it is not a

201_230 v2.qxd

12/3/02

7:05 AM

Page 225

Moving towards closing 

matter of “moving out of closings”, as Button (1987, 1990) would put it, but rather a gradual moving towards closing the telephone conversation. Orderly, laconic closings would be marked for, e.g., urgency, place (non-residential calls, calls at workplace), situation (follow-up call to come), or for great intimacy combined with a transactional purpose of call. What do the results above imply? Are they indicative of cultural features of Greek conversation? Probably yes, since there is other evidence as well (e.g., Tannen 1980; Pavlidou 1994; Sifianou 2002) that Greek conversationalists are quite concerned about enhancing their relationship, showing solidarity and involvement, etc. And is this a sign of possible cross-cultural variation in the way closings are accomplished? The little data that we have on closings in languages other than English (e.g., Liefländer-Koistinen and Neuendorff 1991, on Finnish and German; Placencia 1997, on Ecuadorian Spanish; and my own work on Greek and German) suggest a greater similarity of the Greek closings to the Ecuadorian Spanish ones and more differences to the Finnish and German ones. On the other hand, since no systematic work has been done to date on closings in different settings within one culture, it may well be the case that my analysis of Greek calls between familiars brings up features of telephone conversation which have less to do with cross-cultural variation and more with the type of telephone calls, namely home calls between friends and relatives. It is hoped that future research will help clarify, whether there is variation indeed and what the parameters of such variation would be.

Notes  I would like to thank all the people who have commented on an earlier draft of this chapter, in particular the audience of our panel on telephone conversations at the 6th International Pragmatics Conference in Reims in 1998, Manny Schegloff, and my co-editor of this volume, K. K. Luke. Thanks also goes to Dennis Kurzon and John Myhill for their comments on the very last version of the chapter, during my stay at the University of Haifa.  See e.g., Placencia (1997) for Ecuadorian-Spanish.  It is probably also of relevance to mention that my motivation for looking at telephone calls stemmed from everyday experience, and not out of an interest in the structure of social action, as was the case with conversation analysts; I wanted to understand why as a participant in German telephone calls, when I first went to Germany, I encountered problems which I did not have in Greek, although I do believe I had a fairly good knowledge of German even at that time.

201_230 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:06 AM

Page 226

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou  For a discussion of emic and etic criteria in the analysis of conversation see Taylor and Cameron (1987).  This analysis is further corroborated by a much higher number of recordings of calls and observation notes.  The number in brackets, following numeration of the examples, refers to the number of the telephone call in the sample, from which the excerpt was taken.  Henne and Rehbock express this point lucidly by saying: “Die Gesprächsbeendigung ist durch den Glanz oder die Mühsal der Gesprächsmitte geprägt” (1979: 22), i.e. termination of a conversation is informed by the splendour or the toils of its middle part.  This is a monotopical call, a fact whose repercussions on the closing will be discussed below. It should be noted here, however, that because of this monotopicality, lines 3, 6 and 8 cannot be accounted for as attempts to close down the topic, since it is the recipient of the call responding to the caller’s request each time.  Alternatively, though, it my also be argued that the topic is bounded through the tokens of agreement used in lines 2 and 13–14.  As can be seen in (14), line 3, avu2 does not have to be preceded by a pause.  A, however, goes on in line 5 trying to cast B’s worries away.  It should be mentioned that the phrase T/poua avu2: (“Nothing, that’s all.”) in line 2 is a direct answer to F’s question, probably preparing the ground for C to state in line 5 that her reason for calling has sufficiently been dealt with.  See e.g., line 18 of (13).  This is of course something that we may expect, since pre-closings (like English well, okay with downward intonation) are only possible pre-closings both in the sense that they “occur in conversation in capacities other than that of ‘pre-closings’”, and in the sense that the offer to close the conversation may be rejected (cf. e.g., Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 305).  Such particles also appear in the opening section of telephone calls between familiars.  This redundancy extends to the farewell formulae within one or over several turns as well (cf. e.g., lines 7–9 of (17)). More on this point in Pavlidou (1997).  My position goes in the same direction as ten Have’s (2002) line of thought that in opening a telephone call conversationalists have to do connection work, relation work and topic work, but it is applied to closings.

References Brinker, Klaus and Sager, Sven-F. 1989 Linguistische Gesprächsanalyse. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

201_230 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:37 AM

Page 227

Moving towards closing 

Button, Graham 1987 “Moving out of closings”. In Talk and Social Organisation, G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds), 101–151. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1990 “On varieties of closings”. In Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, G. Psathas (ed.), 93 –148. Lanham: University Press of America. Clark, Herbert H. and French, J. Wade 1981 “Telephone goodbyes”. Language in Society 10: 1–19. Have, Paul ten 2002 “Comparing telephone call openings: Theoretical and methodological reflections”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 233–248. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Henne, Helmut and Rehbock, Helmut 1979 Einführung in die Gesprächsanalyse. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Laver, John 1975 “Communicative functions of phatic communion”. In The Organization of Behavior in Face-to-face Interaction, A. Kendon, R.M. Harris and M.R. Key (eds), 215 –238. The Hague: Mouton. 1981 “Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting”. In Conversational Routine. Explorations in Standardized Communication and Prepatterned Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 289–304. The Hague: Mouton. Liefländer-Koistinen, Luise and Neuendorff, Dagmar 1991 “Telefongespräche im Deutschen und Finnischen: Unterschiede in ihrer Interaktionalen Struktur”. In Akten des VIII Internationalen GermanistenKongresses, Tokyo 1990, Band 4, 482– 494. Munich: iudicium. Luke, Kang Kwong and Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 2002 “Studying telephone calls: Beginnings, developments, and perspectives”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 3–21. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds) 1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pavlidou, Theodossia(-Soula) 1991 “H evg1neia tuo uhl1wzno: Anuiparajeuik0 an2lvth ellhnik0s kai ermanik0s ” [Politeness on the telephone: Contrastive analysis of Greek and German conversations]. In Studies in Greek Linguistics. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 26 –28 April 1990, 307–326. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis. 1994 “Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences”. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 487–511. 1997 “The last five turns: Preliminary remarks on closings in Greek and German telephone calls”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 126: 145–162.

201_230 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:37 AM

Page 228

 Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou

1998

“Greek and German telephone closings: Patterns of confirmation and agreement”. Pragmatics 8(1): 79–94. 2000 “Telephone conversations in Greek and German: Attending to the relationship aspect of communication”. In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 121–142. London/New York: Continuum. Placencia, Maria-Elena 1997 “Opening up closings — the Ecuadorian way”. Text 17: 53 –81. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2002 “Reflections on research on telephone conversation: Issues of cross-cultural scope and scholarly exchange, interactional import and consequences”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K. K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 249–281. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Sacks, Harvey 1973 “Opening up closings”. Semiotica 8: 289 –327. Sifianou, Maria 2002 “On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K. K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 49–85, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tannen, Deborah 1980 “A comparative analysis of oral strategies: Athenian Greek and American English”. In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Analysis, W. Chafe (ed.), 51–87. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Taylor, Talbot and Cameron, Deborah 1987 Analysing Conversation: Rules and Units in the Structure of Talk. Oxford: Pergamon.

Transcription conventions The transcription conventions used in the text rely heavily, with some modifications, on those presented in Ochs, Schegloff and Thompson (1996). [words] [...] (

)

(words) ((words)) (2) (.) -

Talk in brackets indicates an overlap with talk (or part of), also in brackets, of next speaker. Three dots in brackets mean that part of a turn, or turn sequence, has been left out. Empty parentheses indicate that an utterance (or part of it) could not be transcribed. Talk in single parentheses indicates that transcription is uncertain. Double parentheses indicate transcriber’s comments. A number in parentheses indicates a pause, measured in seconds. A dot in parentheses indicates a pause of less than a second. A hyphen indicates self-repair.

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 229

Moving towards closing 

= word . , ; : ↑ °words° 〉 〈 word

Equal signs at the end of an utterance and the beginning of the next (by a different speaker) means that the two utterances are “latched”. Underlining means emphasis (increased loudness or pitch). A period indicates final intonation, not necessarily the end of a sentence. A comma indicates “continuing” intonation, not necessarily a clause boundary. A Greek question mark indicates rising intonation, not necessarily a question. Colons indicate prolongation of the preceding sound (the more colons, the greater the prolongation). An up arrow indicates a sharp rise in pitch. Two degree signs indicate that the talk between them is markedly quiet or soft. Talk between a “more than” and a “less than” sign is compressed or rushed. Bold face is used to indicate object(s) of analytical interest.

Abbreviations        

Accusative Diminutive Genitive Imperative Interjection Plural (indicates the V-form in the TU/VOUS distinction) Singular Particle; - and - refer to the untranslable particles 2nue and re whose function is discussed in the text.

201_230 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:47 AM

Page 230

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 231

P III

Theoretical and methodological considerations

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 232

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 233

Comparing telephone call openings: Theoretical and methodological reflections In memoriam Robert Hopper Paul ten Have In his book Telephone Conversation (1992: 90), the late Robert Hopper remarked in conclusion to his two chapters on telephone call openings that: Telephone openings around the world resemble nothing so much as each other.

That statement represents a major challenge to the many researchers who have collected materials and elaborated arguments to the effect that such openings do differ remarkably from one culture to another. Basic to Hopper’s statement is the idea of a “canonical form” for telephone call openings, as specified by Emanuel Schegloff in his 1986 paper “The routine as achievement”. The elaboration of such a standard format has been based, at first, on North American data. Hopper and his collaborators have extended its data-base through a number of comparative studies. In this chapter, I will review some of the theoretical and methodological arguments in this dispute between his “universalist” position and the various contributions that stress cultural differences. I do not claim to be impartial, but I will try to be fair. .

The “canonical opening”

The three paragraphs that precede Hopper’s statement quoted above adequately summarise his conversation-analytic approach to the problem. I will quote the first of these in full. Telephone partners orient to four routine sequential tasks, within ordered slots, each of which may be filled by adjacency pair constructions. The model shows close detailed fit with only a minority of telephone openings. Its picture of interaction is built upon divergences from routines. These marked openings unfold across turns, including issues of relationship and culture.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 234

 Paul ten Have

He states that, in fact, “we find far more non-routine openings than routine ones”. “Canonical cases provide a template for participants, a line-of-best-fit when nothing special is going on.” Deviations such as pauses, deletions and contractions may be used, then, to mark the talk as possibly special in some sense, in terms of relationship, urgency or whatever. “Any first-occurring marking may be followed up in future turns, or participants may let the possibilities pass. The participants on the scene, in interaction, work out what, if anything, is special about any encounter.” Hopper characterises his position as “universalist”, but it is “situationist” as well. On the one hand, he proposes the universality of the “four routine sequential tasks”, earlier specified by Schegloff (1986), but on the other he stresses, in line with the conversation-analytic, ethnomethodological tradition, that any concrete realisation is in the hands of the interacting participants. In the chapter which I have quoted above, his basic suggestion is that, looking at actual cases in detail, the locally created variations in call openings are much too subtle and diverse to be glossed in terms of cultures or languages. These variations are used by participants to constitute situations, relationships, and cultures as well, rather than being determined in one sense or another by such externally given conditions. The model is called “canonical”, because it is seen as being, for members, a basic format that is used as an implicit framework for inference and action, and a criterion for treating an opening as a normal, “unmarked” one, or, alternatively, as somehow special. This conception resonates with the more general idea in a lot of Conversation Analysis (CA) writings that “conversation”, as informal talk among peers, is functioning as a model for unmarked talk, and therefore as a criterion for marking other formats as, for instance talk “belonging to” one or another institutional setting (cf. Sacks et al 1978: 47; Heritage 1984: 280–90; Drew and Heritage 1992). In both cases, the informal format is presented as somehow primordial, while other formats are often seen as resulting from a “reduction”, that is applied to it.

. A functional perspective The perspective I will use in this chapter can be characterised as a “functional” one. I will consider the various elements that constitute a telephone call opening in terms of their contribution to establishing a fully functioning telephone call. Although each call is different from others in some respect, I agree with Hopper and Schegloff that it seems best to analyse these against a background

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 235

Comparing telephone call openings 

of a common set of “organizational jobs” (Schegloff 1986: 113). I prefer, however, for the moment an even more general formulation than their “canonical opening”, focusing on the “tasks” to be fulfilled, rather than the sequential structures commonly used to do these jobs. What is achieved in a telephone call opening is that by a few exchanges the participants establish a fully functioning interactional state. That process can be broken down in the following three functional phases (cf. Schegloff 1986: 113): • • •

establishing contact (re)establishing a relationship working towards a (first) topic

As Schegloff (1968) has demonstrated, establishing contact requires a minimum of two turns in what he calls a summons-answer (S-A) sequence. In the case of telephone openings, the summons is generally achieved by the telephone ring, while the first thing said by the one who picks up the telephone functions as an answer to the summons. That utterance in general achieves other functions as well, especially to (re)establish a relationship between caller and recipient. This means that the participants achieve a mutual recognition of who-they-are-for-each-other, as an intimate other, a recognised acquaintance, or a member of a particular membership category. When the participants are intimates or acquaintances, the function of re-establishing their relationship as such may be achieved on the basis of voice recognition and/or explicit identification. In these cases, it most often also involves greetings and quite often howare-you sequences as well (cf. Schegloff 1979, 1986). Among non-acquainted participants, the task is to establish which are the relevant membership categories for the encounter and what kind of standardised relational pair will be enacted (cf. Sacks 1972a, 1972b; Hester and Eglin 1997). Especially among the non-acquainted, mutual categorisation will tend to involve proposing or implying a topic, i.e. a reason-for-call (Sacks 1992a: 773–779, 1992b: 157–174). In other words, calling someone you do not know very well is an “accountable action” (Sacks 1992a: 73–74). Among the acquainted, how-are-you sequences may quite naturally lead to a first topic, such as a party’s health condition or some recent experience (cf. Jefferson 1980). As Sacks has remarked, people who have a relatively close relationship do not need a reason-for-a-call, they have a “no-reason-for-a-call” relationship (Sacks 1992a: 773–779, 1992b: 157–174). My proposal to stress a functional rather than a structural perspective is meant to suggest that underlying any differences in forms and formats there is a kind of functional similarity, in the sense that in all cases similar kinds of

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 236

 Paul ten Have

work have to be done: connection work, relation work and topic work. In the canonical model, developed by Schegloff (1986) and adopted by Hopper (1992), what I call relation work is so to speak divided over three separate sequential phases or “slots”: identification/recognition, greetings and how-are-you’s or “initial inquiries”. In the canonical model, topic work in principle follows after the actual opening, at what Schegloff calls “the anchor position”. In many actual cases it starts earlier, through what Schegloff calls “preemption”, i.e. by deleting canonical elements. The opening may be thought, therefore, to supply a metric of sorts for the introduction of various tellables, with the degree of claimed priority or urgency embodied in the degree of preemption before anchor position pursued by the preempting party. (Schegloff 1986: 117)

It requires the parties’ local sensitivity and ingenuity to bring off these kinds of work in a manner that serves their goals in an unremarkable fashion, using whatever conventions their culture provides. . An illustration Let me now provide an illustration of these points. What follows is a transcript of the beginning of the very first telephone call I ever recorded. (1) Start of a telephone conversation (ten Have 1999: 65) 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: Schrama Schrama ‘Schrama.’ 3 C: dag met Paul day with Paul ‘Hi, Paul speaking.’ 4 R: ja Paul yes Paul ‘Yes, Paul.’ 5 C: ik kom even melden dat ik eh geslaagd ben in het kopen I come just report that I uh succeeded am in the buying ‘I just called to tell you I uh succeeded in buying 6 van een telefoonspoel of a telephone.coil a telephone coil.’

231_282 v2.qxd

12/3/02

7:09 AM

Page 237

Comparing telephone call openings 

7 8

9

R: HA hh hh C: du[s daar hoeft u uw best niet meer voor te doen so there have you your best no longer for to do ‘So you don’t have to make any more efforts for that.’ R: [goed good ‘Okay.’

As stated above, the telephone ring (line 1) functions as a summons. It is answered by the recipient picking up the telephone and giving his last name (line 2), which is the typical way for Dutch adult males (Houtkoop-Steenstra 1991). The first job of starting a telephone conversation, connection work, is done here in a standard way for the local culture. By answering the summons in this way (line 2), the recipient at the same time has already contributed to the next job, relation work. He identifies himself by his last name, which may function for any caller, and at the same time gives a voice sample, which can be recognised by acquaintances. In the next turn (line 3), the caller produces a greeting and identifies himself as well, for which he uses his first name. In this fashion, he places himself in the category of the recipient first name acquaintances and claims to be recognisable for the recipient on the basis of his first name and voice sample alone. The recipient honours these claims by an affirmation (“yes”) and repeating caller’s first name (line 4). This threeturn identification/recognition sequence completes the second job of relation work. Starting with an omnirelevant identification for anyone (line 2), they now have reaffirmed their intimate relationship, in this case father-in-law/son-in-law. In the next turn (lines 5–6), the caller starts explaining his reason-for-call, his success in buying a device for recording telephone calls for which his father-in-law had promised to make inquiries as well. The recipient collaborates in this and together they later jokingly discuss the fact that the caller is recording the present call already (not given here). In other words, caller accounts for his call and in so doing introduces his main topic, in which the recipient collaborates in a way that fits their relationship. The third job, topic work, has been started. In terms of the framework developed by Schegloff (1968, 1979, 1986), the first and second turns (lines 1 and 2) constitute the summons-answer sequence, while the exchanges in lines 2, 3 and 4 function as a identification/recognition sequence. Line 3 also has a greeting term, but there is no return greeting, so there is not a full greeting sequence. Neither is there an

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 238

 Paul ten Have

exchange of how-are-yous: in lines 5–6 the caller preempts by starting his reason-for-call.

. Ways of picking up the telephone The above example not only illustrates the three kinds of work discussed previously in general terms, but also “the Dutch way” of picking up the telephone, which differs from the American one, discussed by Schegloff (e.g., 1986: 118–125) and Sacks (1992b: 159). I will use this contrast to raise some of the theoretical issues with which this chapter is concerned. How someone picks up a telephone has to do, as Schegloff (1986: 120–124) notes, with that person’s relation to the ringing telephone, for instance as “owner”, “guest” or “employee”, and furthermore with “an orientation by answerers of the phone to the caller’s interest in, and monitoring for, confirmation of having reached the right destination” (Schegloff 1986: 123; his italics). The general conclusion regarding the American habit of answering the telephone would be, then, that for private homes the “owners” of the telephone would be oriented to a default option that callers would be members of the set of people who would be able to recognise their voice. Callers who are not members of that set would have to do some extra work in their first turn, or in subsequent ones. In other words, they have marked the fact that theirs is a deviation from the canonical opening. This can be seen in the following example, the start of a computer-assisted telephone survey interview. (Note: This example is taken from a transcript made by Robert J. Moore and provided through Nora Cate Schaeffer, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, for a Workshop on Interaction in the Standardized Survey Interview, Free University Amsterdam, 18–21 November 1995.) (2) Start of a telephone survey interview 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 R: hello: 3 C: ‘hh uh hi: my name’s: (Jane Smith) an’ I’m calling from the 4 University of Wisconsin? as part of our national public opinion 5 study? ‘hhh we’re trying to reach people at their home telephone 6 numbers? ‘hhh is this a residential number? 7 (0.4) 8 R: yes 9 C: ‘hh okay: a::nd to be sure I reached the number I dialled is

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 239

Comparing telephone call openings 

10 this area code three oh three 11 (0.5) 12 C: (five five five) [seven (0.5) five one seven ] 13 R: [what are you calling about?] 14 C: I’m calling from the University of Wisconsin? ((talk continues))

After a “hello”-answer in line 1, the caller in lines 3-6 takes a multi-unit turn including a greeting, a personal self-identification, followed by an organisational one, a reason-for-call, a question-introduction and the question itself. She is talking rather fast and does not leave the recipient much room to come in before she is finished. After a yes-response, she proceeds, with an “okay” followed by a number-check-question. In overlap the recipient inquires about the reason-for-call, which leads to a more extended explanation (not quoted here). This initiative by the recipient displays that she does not consider the summary reason given in line 3 as sufficient grounds for her co-operation. In other words, while the “hello”-pickup in line 1 seems to be built for an acquaintance able to recognise the voice sample it carries, the caller makes it quite clear in her subsequent turn that she is not a member of that set, but is instead proposing a radically different “standardised relational pair”, i.e. interviewer/interviewee. The fact that she does not leave room for the recipient to endorse this proposal may be seen as part of a strategy to “force” the recipient into co-operation, which she, however, does not accept automatically. The Dutch convention, as documented by Houtkoop-Steenstra (1991) and experienced daily by myself as a participant in Dutch culture, is different. Whether at home or at work, the Dutch overwhelmingly pick up the telephone with some form of explicit self-identification, such as “last name”, “first name plus last name”, or in a work context with “organisation” or “organisation and name”, each with or without some additional items, such as a greeting or “with” (met) as a short form of “you are speaking with” (see (1)). Dutch answerers of home telephones might be seen to display a different general orientation to potential callers than American ones: the non-acquainted rather than the acquainted seem to be the default category. In their first turn, acquainted callers then immediately “personalise” the encounter, as in line 3 of (1). This may depend, however, as we shall see in a moment, on the way in which the answerer’s self-identification is done. In her 1991 chapter, Houtkoop-Steenstra analyses her data in terms of a general Dutch “preference” for self-identification, suggesting that relying on voice recognition alone is, except for close intimates, considered to be impolite.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 240

 Paul ten Have

In a recent paper (Houtkoop-Steenstra 2002), she has further differentiated ways of picking up the telephone at home through self-identification by distinguishing four sub-types: “first name”, “last name”, “first plus last names” and “title plus last name”. Using a 1995 sample of home calls she found some striking sex differences in the use of these types: females more often use “first name” only (25% of all women as against 15% of all men), males prefer “last name” only (52% of all men against 21.5 % of all women), males and females use “first plus last name” equally (in about a third of all cases), while the “title plus last name” is used by females only (21.3 %, using “Mrs last name”). The first of these sub-types, using a “first name” only, does seem to display an orientation to intimates or acquaintances calling. Houtkoop-Steenstra (2002) suggests that for women, answering two thirds of the home calls in her sample, “the telephone as a communication medium is, in the first place, part of the domestic and intimate world of relatives, friends and acquaintances”. In other words, choosing from the range of available types of self-identifications, an answerer displays his orientation to a wider or smaller range of potential callers. My partner, for instance, tends to pick up the telephone with first name plus last name when called during “working hours”, while she quite often uses “first name only” in evenings and weekends.

5. Culture as a resource The problem I want to raise now is, what kind of analytic framework could be used to make sense of these observations. In a conversation analytic framework, exemplified in the contributions by Schegloff and Sacks, the focus is on the local organisational functions of various sequentially placed items. As Schegloff has argued elsewhere: ... the locus of order here is not the individual (or some analytic version of the individual) nor any broadly formulated societal institution, but rather the procedural infrastructure of interaction, and, in particular, the practices of talking in conversation. (Schegloff 1992: 1338)

A “hello” pickup is said to have two functions: as an answer to the summons of the ringing telephone and as a voice sample for recognition by an acquaintance. A last name pickup, as in (1), has these functions too, but in addition to these, it also provides a generally usable name identification. Some of HoutkoopSteenstra’s Dutch informants reported that they experienced a “hello” pickup as “impolite”, and as not very helpful, forcing the caller to perform a guessing game.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 241

Comparing telephone call openings 

Differences between American and Dutch “pickup” styles, and the ways in which they are generally experienced by members of one or the other culture, should be stated at the level of “broadly formulated societal institution(s)”, or cultural conventions, rather than CA’s “procedural infrastructure of interaction”. How, then, can we explicate the theoretical relationships between such analytic “levels” as the procedural infrastructure of interaction and various cultural conventions? Quite often, such conventions are discussed in terms of their general typicality, some particular element being said to be “typically American”, or whatever. A culture may be characterised in categorical terms as being more or less “formal”, “polite”, (dis)favouring “directness”, etc. (cf. Placencia 1998). In such formulations cultural properties and the relationships between various elements of a culture are treated as “given”, as somehow self-evident. But one can also, of course, approach such issues in an empirical fashion. A case in point is offered by some work in “historical pragmatics” by a Dutch linguist, Leo Lentz (1995), and one of his students, Tiemessen (1997). They have investigated the Dutch style of picking up the telephone as a historical phenomenon. As recordings of telephone openings in earlier periods were not available, they have collected various kinds of indirect evidence on how the Dutch picked up the telephone in various periods. On the one hand, they consulted normative sources, especially manuals published by Dutch telephone companies and books on etiquette, and on the other, descriptive ones, including novels and plays. Their findings can be summarised as follows. In an early period, when the technology was new, people used a variety of forms for the first answering turn, including “hallo”. From 1925 onwards, the telephone company strongly advised users not to use “hallo” in first turn, but to identify themselves as quickly as possible, by giving their name or number. This advice was grounded in arguments of costs and efficiency. In recent years, such advice is no longer given, probably because this pattern is now well established. Books on how to behave oneself offered similar directives, reserving “hallo” for special circumstances. Looking at current practices, one can say that the campaign for self-identification has been rather successful, with the number-alternative having dropped out completely. In a sample of 250 calls by a marketing firm, 83% of the answerers self-identified by giving their name, no one gave his number, while 13 % said “hallo” (Tiemessen 1997: 96–97). The history of telephone use in the Netherlands, as regards picking up the telephone consists of three phases. During the first phase, from 1881 until 1925, three patterns were used, saying “hallo”, self-identification by name and self-identification by number, but the first was probably the most frequently used one. During the

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 242

 Paul ten Have

second phase, from 1925 until the mid 1960s, the telephone company manuals tried to persuade users to self-identify. In the third phase, self-identification by name has become the standard pattern, with a “hallo” pickup being a minority and the number-identification not used at all. These investigations demonstrate that cultural conventions are changeable rather than fixed. What culture offers is a repertoire of meaningful actions, that is ways of doing things that carry conventional meaning such as being polite or rude or intimate or whatever. Let me repeat an earlier point, made by Sacks, that making a call is an “accountable” action. In Sacks’s and Schegloff’s texts, this is most explicitly mentioned with reference to giving a reasonfor-call, but it is also implied to the earliest turns in the call, and especially the issue of identification. Lentz (1995) suggests that in the earliest phase, when receiving a call was less common than nowadays, people often picked up the telephone saying “hallo, wie is daar?” (“hello, who’s there?”), as their major interest was to know who was calling. In other words, they just displayed their availability and then invited callers to account for themselves and their actions. In the lecture that has been published as his first one, Sacks (1992a: 3–11), reports that a major problem for psychiatric social workers taking calls from or about suicidal persons was how to get the callers’ names. What they often did was to give their own names, which in most cases triggered the others to give their names in return. Self-identification, then, functions as a “first pair part” of an adjacency pair (Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 295–296). An answerer who picks up the telephone with a self-identification uses an implicit, and more subtle, technique for asking the other’s name, rather than the early explicit “who’s there?”. At the same time, of course, he self-identifies, thereby speeding up the opening process. A second analytic issue also has to do with accountability. A number of writers on telephone openings have mentioned that callers may topicalise the way the telephone has been picked up in those cases which they feel depart from the first turn they expected. Schegloff (1986: 123–124) uses the expression “signature hello” for the personal style in which an answerer habitually picks up the telephone (cf. Sifianou 2002). Such a personally standardised form may reinforce its recognisability and marks off the telephone conversation from its “environment”, but when callers discern a deviation from it, they may produce inquiries like “did I wake you up?”. This inferential complex relating to personal styles may be generalised to collective ones. By using a pick up style that is (or has become) standardised within a collectivity, an answerer seems to project a no-problem availability for callers who are a member of that collectivity. But

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 243

Comparing telephone call openings 

when they do use a non-standardised format, they are accountable for doing so, or at least they are liable for various kinds of inferences, depending on the kind of deviation. For instance, when members of a particular life style category, such as “Dutch student”, who have a first name identification as their standard pick up, do use a last name one, they may be seen by members of that category as “doing formal”, which might lead to inquiries, such as whether answerer is expecting some institutional caller. In a similar fashion, a “hallo” pick up may be taken as “hiding one’s identity”. This is indeed the reason Dutch etiquette books mention for using such a pick up, for instance late at night when one has been receiving harassing telephone calls. In summary, recorded telephone calls offer the opportunity to analyse actual interactional dealings that can be analysed in terms of situated “organisational tasks”. The discussion so far suggests that these tasks can be summarised under a few headings, i.e. connection work, relation work and topic work. Furthermore, it has become clear that for standard tasks people develop standardised ways of doing them, either on a personal level, or as collectivity members. Those standardisations, in turn, come to be used as bases for inference and action, and may even become the locus of normative expectations. The more routine the task, the more it is likely to become standardised to a certain extent. Distributional data, like those cited from Houtkoop-Steenstra (2002) and Tiemessen (1997), can be used, as they have done, as a partial support for the claim that a particular item is, in fact, the standardised alternative within the population from which the sample was taken, and therefore, presumably the preferred one. The same goes for “ethnographic data” including reported habits, interpretations and “intuitions”. Historical data, finally, can be used to make a reconstruction of how and why specific conventions have developed over time, within a particular cultural context. Standardisation of routine practices can be seen as producing “culture”, but once established such cultural conventions serve as a resource for members to produce and make sense of actual actions in context. . Three different “games” What this exploration suggests is that we can distinguish at least three sets of interlocking analytical projects: •

The conversation-analytic project, which is focused on the local achievement of sensible (inter)action. Within this project, detailed transcripts of recorded interactions are used to reconstruct actual local practices in which general

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 244

 Paul ten Have

•

•

cultural conventions function as a resource for the participants as members of a collectivity (cf. Garfinkel 1967; Garfinkel and Sacks 1970: 342). A “culturalist” project, which is focused on “a culture” as a whole, differentiated from other “cultures”, within which specific conventions have a “place” as more or less typical “elements”. I consider the “ethnography of communication” (Gumperz and Hymes 1972; Saville-Troike 1982) and the “politeness” approach advocated by Brown and Levinson (1978) as essentially culturalist. Traditionally this approach has been associated with ethnographic methods (observations and members’ accounts) and the analysis of rituals and cultural products, but distributional data concerning behavioural patterns can also be used. A historical project in which patterns of meaning and action are conceived as having evolved as part of an ongoing process of development within and across groups of people living together. Reconstructions of such developments are based on whatever evidence one can find as traces of or reports on earlier phases of the process.

The problem, as I see it, is that even when researchers are working on “the same topic”, such as telephone conversation openings, the underlying analytic framework which they use may be rather different. If one is not fully aware of the nature of these differences, they might lead to various forms of misunderstanding, confusion and/or talking at cross-purposes. It makes a basic difference, whether one’s ultimate purpose is to explicate practices, characterise patterns, or reconstruct developments. When ideas and findings from one project are invoked in the context of another, one should be extremely careful in one’s interpretations. In other words, we have to do with different “games”, each with their own purpose, rules, and success criteria (cf. Sharrock and Anderson 1987; Watson 1992). Each “game” is different in itself, as are soccer and tennis: they should not be confused. As noted above, the CA enterprise is focused on “procedural infrastructure of interaction”, rather than “the individual (or some analytic version of the individual)” or “any broadly formulated societal institution”, which would include a “culture”. In that undertaking, quantitative, distributional data only have a limited role, i.e. as a support for frequency observations (Schegloff 1993, but see Heritage 1995: 402–426, as well as ten Have 1999: 144–148, for a general discussion). The same goes, with different arguments, for “ethnographic” observations (but see Moerman 1988, a collection of papers by Hopper 1990/91, and ten Have 1999: 53–60 for an overview of the arguments). Furthermore, CA tends to use a conception of context that Hopper (1992: 72) has characterised as

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 245

Comparing telephone call openings 

the “intrinsic-to-messages view”. That is, what is a relevant context-for-members is seen as being produced in and through their interactional exchanges, rather than being treated as “given”. What I have called culturalists, on the other hand, would be seen as having an extrinsic-context view, which “treats situations as sets of independent variation that constrain messages”. What then, can be said about the arguments and data usage in this volume’s chapters by Sifianou (2002) and Teleghani-Nikazm (2002), that were the trigger for these considerations? What seems to be done in these chapters is that CA’s concepts and findings, especially Schegloff’s work, are used to “locate” and conceptualise a set of phenomena with reference to telephone call openings. That having been done, the authors turn to a different set of considerations, which I would call culturalist, as characterised above. In such a context, the various types of data have a different role to play. Data excerpts, for instance, now serve as illustrations for types of utterances and sequences, rather than as object for close analysis, while distributions and members’ accounts of practices, experiences and evaluations become much more important. That being the case, different sets of methodological criteria gain in relevance, for instance sampling considerations. If one wants to generalise from a sample to “a population” or “a culture”, one cannot just use a collection from that population that one happens to have at hand, but which in all probability is skewed in various ways. Furthermore, the basic reasoning is different. As Hopper (1992: 72) explains, it uses an “extrinsic context view” which “treats situations as sets of independent variation that constrain messages”. CA, in contrast, is based on a “message-intrinsic” view, studying “situations by inspecting message details to see how partners mark adaptations to features of the local occasion.” In other words, in an “extrinsic” perspective contextual variables relating to culture, status differentials, pre-existing relationships, etc., tend to be given a “causal” status, determining variations in the general characteristics of telephone call openings, while from an “intrinsic” point of view talk and occasion mutually constitute each other as members’ practices.

.

Final remarks

My arguments above should not be taken as suggesting that CA’s analyses of telephone call openings, as initiated by Schegloff and elaborated by Hopper are somehow immune to critique. What I do want to stress is that they should be taken in their own terms, rather than being “imported” into other enterprises without due consideration of inter-project differences in purpose, focus, and

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 246

 Paul ten Have

methodology. I have argued that Schegloff’s and Hopper’s characterisations of the general properties of telephone call openings can be read in both a “functional” and a “structural” fashion. To my mind, the functional one is the most basic, while the structural model they propose, i.e. the canonical opening, seems to have a more limited validity, as a members’ framework for dealing with North American home calls. What I have called a culturalist approach to telephone call openings could very well take off from a functional model of openings, to research varieties of cultural styles which are often discernible in the “linguistic realisations” (Placencia 1998) used to achieve various cultural routines and mark aspects of context, relationship, etc. Such studies should be held accountable to a different set of criteria than conversation analytic ones. “Ethnographic comprehensiveness” (rather than accidental impressions) and “sampling adequacy” (rather than accidental selections) should be prominent among these. The work is not complete, as yet.

References Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen 1978 “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena”. In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, E.N. Goody (ed.), 56–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, Paul and Heritage, John 1992 “Analyzing talk at work: An introduction”. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds), 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garfinkel, Harold 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Garfinkel, Harold and Sacks, Harvey 1970 “On formal structures of practical action”. In Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (eds), 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Gumperz, John J. and Hymes, Dell (eds) 1972 Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Have, Paul ten 1999 Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage. Heritage, John 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. 1995 “Conversation analysis: Methodological aspects”. In Aspects of Oral Communication, U.M. Quasthoff (ed.), 391–418. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 247

Comparing telephone call openings 

Hester, Stephen and Eglin, Peter (eds) 1997 Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America. Hopper, Robert (ed.) 1990/91 “Ethnography and conversation analysis after talking culture”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 24: 161–387. Hopper, Robert 1992 Telephone Conversation. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke 1991 “Opening sequences in Dutch telephone conversations”. In Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, D. Boden, D. H. Zimmerman (eds), 232–250. Cambridge: Polity Press. 2002 “Sex differences in telephone openings”. In Studies in Language and Social Interaction. A Festschrift in Honor of Robert Hopper, P. Glenn, C. LeBaron and J. Mandelbaum (eds), 275–287, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jefferson, Gail 1980 “On ‘trouble-premonitory’ response to inquiry”. Sociological Inquiry 50: 153–185. Lentz, Leo 1995 “De geschiedenis van het openingspatroon in Nederlandse telefoongesprekken” [The history of the opening patterns in Dutch telephone calls]. In Artikelen van de Tweede Sociolinguïstische Conferentie, E. Huls and J. KlatterFolmer (eds), 403–417. Delft: Eburon. Moerman, Michael 1988 Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversational Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Placencia, Maria E. 1998 “Telephone conversation openings in Ecuadorian Spanish and British English”. Paper presented at the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Reims, France, July 1998. Sacks, Harvey 1972a “An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology”. In Studies in Social Interaction, D. Sudnow (ed.), 31–74. New York: Free Press. 1972b “On the analyzability of stories by children”. In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), 325–345. New York Holt: Rinehart and Winston. 1992a Lectures on Conversation, Volume I. Edited by G. Jefferson; with an introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 1992b Lectures on Conversation, Volume.2. Edited by G. Jefferson; with an introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail 1978 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation”. In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, J. N. Schenkein (ed.), 7–55. New York: Academic Press.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:40 AM

Page 248

 Paul ten Have

Saville-Troike, Muriel 1982 The Ethnography of Communication: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings”. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. 1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York: Irvington. 1986 “The routine as achievement”. Human Studies 9: 111–151. 1992 “Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation”. American Journal of Sociology 98: 1295–1345. 1993 “Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26: 99–128. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Sacks, Harvey 1973 “Opening up closings”. Semiotica 8: 289–327. Sifianou, Maria 2002 “On the telephone again! Telephone conversation openings in Greek”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 49–85. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sharrock, Wes and Anderson, Bob 1987 “Epilogue: The definition of alternatives: Some sources of confusion in interdisciplinary discussion”. In Talk and Social Organisation, B. Graham, J. R. E. Lee (eds), 290–321. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen 2002 “Telephone conversation openings in Persian”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 87–109. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tiemessen, Astrid 1997 “Openingen van Nederlandse telefoongesprekken in historisch perspectief ” [Openings of Dutch telephone calls in historical perspective]. In Sociale Interactie in Nederland, L. Meeuwesen and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds), 83–100. Utrecht: ISOR. Watson, Rodney 1992 “The understanding of language use in everyday life: Is there a common ground?”. In Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology, W. Graham and R. M. Seiler (eds), 1–19. London: Sage.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 249

Reflections on research on telephone conversation: Issues of cross-cultural scope and scholarly exchange, interactional import and consequences* Emanuel A. Schegloff . Openings in the company of openings The contemporary literature on telephone conversation openings (and, on a smaller scale, closings),1 with its characteristic preoccupation with issues of universality vs. cultural specificity, appears to have begun with Godard’s (1977) response to my initial paper on “Sequencing in conversational openings” (1968). Although the “universalist” theme has been given amplified energy in the work of Hopper and his students (Hopper 1992; Hopper and Koleilat-Doany 1989; Hopper, Doany, Johnson and Drummond 1990/91; Hopper and Chen 1996), my effort to address the issue of cross-cultural scope raised by Godard (Schegloff 1986: 145–148) appears to have imparted more centrality to this theme than one might have wished; after all, it devoted only the last three pages out of forty to the issue. Quite a lot of ink has since been dedicated to this matter, involving an expanding set of languages and institutional contexts. A bit of commentary may be in order on the preoccupying theme of much of this literature. Although there is a certain interest in exploring the commonality or variation of some activity, and its detailed implementation in talk, across cultural contexts, it should not be imagined (as sometimes appears to be the case) that variation disappoints the preceding literature and commonality confirms it. Whatever is, is. When we find settings where openings appear to be done differently, one question is whether the differences can nonetheless be understood by reference to a same or similar underlying structure, addressed to the same or similar issues posed for the interaction and/or its participants. For example, the four sequence types which showed up in my own work in this area (Schegloff

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 250

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

1968, 1979, 1986, 1993) — summons-answer sequences, identifications, greetings and how-are-yous — are addressed to particular organisational and interactional issues which appear to be generic to conversational openings, although neutralised in some settings. Where the surface appearance of openings is on the face of it different, we can ask whether, on the one hand, the parties nonetheless confront and work through the same issues in the opening, and in the same order, but do so differently, and if so what the consequences of those differences are, or whether, on the other hand, the very issues posed by opening a conversation on the telephone in that cultural or institutional setting are different. The upshot of the literature so far, as I read it, is that the first of these alternatives is the case; but in exploring such differences as are found, the focus has been not so much on the consequences of the differences for the interaction itself as on the differences as indicative or symptomatic of divergent themes and features of the larger cultural context — which is quite a separate undertaking (ten Have 2002). What has happened in this literature is that openings have been disengaged from the conversations which they were opening — and which they were designed by their parties to open, and have been juxtaposed instead with other openings, drawn from different cultural settings. Openings in the company of systematically selected other openings (i.e. from different cultural or linguistic settings) have invited examination by reference to the relevancies built into that analytic frame — comparative cultural analysis. But these relevancies are/were not those of the participants in the conversations in question (only rarely have the data been drawn from the openings of “intercultural” conversations), but those of academicians for whom cultural differences were often their professional preoccupation. That leads to a second observation, with an implied re-orientation.

. Openings in the company of their ensuing conversations The second point that needs to be made is, I suppose, already accessible. The account of the organisation of openings often addressed in this literature (detailed in Schegloff 1986, in particular) was not developed in the first instance as a universal claim, or as a point of departure for such a search. Mainly this work was pursued because it often appeared that it was not possible properly to understand subsequent talk in a conversation without understanding what had happened in the opening. And understanding that required knowing what the parties had done as “a matter of course”, but also what they had done over and

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 251

Reflections on research on telephone conversation

above what is canonical for openings, or in a fashion different from the default forms for openings (if there are any), and also what they had not done. Now many readers will, I hope, recognise in that phrase — “what they had not done” — a negative observation, and will know that such observations — in order to be analytically viable — must have their underlying relevance rules or relevance grounds made explicit. That is, a virtually indefinite set of things have not been done in any particular opening, so to assert the absence of something as a significant, noticeable, noticed, eventful, consequential absence requires establishing the relevance of the occurrence of that “something”. Once its relevant occurrence has been established, then its absence can be argued to be a relevant absence — an event in its own right, and something can be made of it analytically. So one main point of describing the structure of the openings was not for its own sake, but to establish the relevance rules that would allow analysts to claim that something was missing from some opening, and that that missingness might help understand subsequent developments in the conversation, even ones occurring quite a bit later. Let me be concrete. Here are three openings which display variants on a single theme — that having in hand an empirically grounded account of the organisation of openings underwrites our capacity to recognise what other, later utterances are, and are doing, in ways which would otherwise not be (as) accessible.

Episode 1 The first is a conversation between two young women who grew up in a same neighborhood and once attended college together, but have apparently not talked for a while and appear to be drifting apart. (1) TG, 1: 1–30 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Ava: H’llo:? 3 Bee: hHi:, 4 Ava: Hi:? 5 Bee: hHowuh you:? 6 Ava: Oka:::y?hh= 7 Bee: =Good.=Yihs[ou:nd ] hh 8 Ava: [〈I wan]’ dih know if yih got a-uh:m 9 wutchimicawllit. A:: pah(hh)khing place °th’s mornin’.·hh 10 Bee: A pa:rking place,



231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 252

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 → 27 28 29 30 31

Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava: Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava:

Mm hm, (0.4) Whe:re. t! Oh: just any pla(h)ce? I wz jus’ kidding yuh. Nno?= =[(°No).] =[ W h y] whhat’sa mattuh with y-Yih sou[nd HA:PPY,] hh [ Nothing. ] u- I sound ha:p[py?] [Yee]uh. (0.3) No:, Nno:? No. (0.7) ·hh You[sound sorta ] cheer[f _ ul? ] [°(Any way).] [·hh ]How’v you bee:n. ·hh Oh:: survi:ving I guess, hh[h! [That’s good, how’s (Bob), He’s fine, Tha::t’s goo:d,

The call opens in canonical fashion: a summons-answer sequence (Schegloff 1968, 1986); a greeting (line 3) with which caller claims recognition of answerer and solicits reciprocal recognition from a minimal voice sample, a solicitation which is satisfied by the reciprocal minimal greeting (line 4) (Schegloff 1979: 35–37). Then there is a first how-are-you (line 5), the response to which (line 6) is delivered in a peculiarly lilting and stretched out manner, whose prosody overrides the neutrality of the lexical item composing the turn (Sacks 1975; Jefferson 1980; Schegloff 1986), so that the response is first receipted with a “good,” but is apparently to be followed by a further observation about the answerer’s positive frame of mind — the “Y’sound” at line 7 which, after abandonment in the face of overlapping talk, is resumed and brought to completion at line 17. In between, however, talk by the recipient of the first how-are-you does not reciprocate that inquiry, but pursues other opening-relevant interactional themes which cannot be developed here. When, at line 17, Bee resumes the “y’sound happy” line, it has now been somewhat removed from the howare-you sequence which engendered it. Nonetheless, once the disagreement with

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 253

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

“sounding happy” has been met with a backdown and allowed to pass as “sorta cheerful,” at line 27 we find a new sequence start, “How’ve you been.” So here is the reciprocal inquiry, but in a variant form. Note first that it is where it ought to be. However delayed by the sequence concerning “parking spaces” (lines 8–16), and by the proffered and rejected characterisation as “happy” and its resolution (lines 19–26), this inquiry comes in the turn after completion of the resumed and expanded version of the first how-are-you sequence. That is part of what underlies our recognition of it as the reciprocal inquiry, even though the form and composition of the utterance are actually somewhat different. Once we see that this is the reciprocal that had not occurred right after the initial how-are-you and its response, we can ask whether the variant implementation of this action is itself doing something. Although I cannot undertake here to document this, I submit that “How have you been” (at line 27) is the longtime-no-see version of how-are-you, that is, a version that builds into its constitution that this conversation is occurring after a longer lapse than has been customary between conversations for these parties, and therefore that what is being inquired about may be slightly different — not just what the current state of the interlocutor is, but what her state during the intervening interval has been. And the response, “Oh surviving I guess” may be seen as sensitive to that design (see also the analysis of this utterance in Jefferson 1980 and in Heritage 1998).

Episode 2 The second opening is from a conversation which has contributed data to a number of papers in the literature on conversation (Schegloff 1988, 1992, 1997 inter alia). Tony and Marsha are a divorced or separated couple, she living in Southern California, he in Northern California. Their teenaged son, Joey, lives with his father, but has been visiting his mother in the south over a long holiday weekend. He was to have driven home on the day in question. Tony has called Marsha, and the call begins like this. (2a) MDE, Stolen, 1:1–7 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Marsha: Hello:? 3 Tony: Hi: Marsha? 4 Marsha: Ye:ah. 5 Tony: How are you. 6 Marsha: Fi::ne. 7 (0.2)

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 254

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

So where are we? Or, rather, where were they? What is that silence (at line 7)? Who is relevantly not talking there? And what are they relevantly not saying or doing? After the telephone’s summoning ring (line 1) and Marsha’s answer at line 2, Tony uses a canonical form to show his recognition of answerer and invite reciprocal recognition by answerer, and by including a greeting in his first turn, he provides a ready resource and a shaping constraint for answerer’s preferred response — a greeting in return with some evidence of mutual recognition of caller, such as an address term. Although Marsha resists this constraint and does not respond canonically (there is no greeting term in return, for example), her “Ye:ah,” in the decisiveness of its prosody (note both the downward inflection and its ending with final intonation), conveys no uncertainty about who the caller is. That Tony hears it this way, or finds himself constrained to hear it this way, is displayed in his next turn (at line 5), where he does not go on to self-identify, as is common in such contexts when there has been no overt display of recognition. He moves to the next canonical sequence, the how-are-you sequence, and delivers it with a prosody designed for first inquiries in a reciprocal exchange — with the stress on the “are” (Schegloff 1998a: 244). Marsha responds to the inquiry, again in a decisive manner. And stops. On the one hand, she has delivered a recognisably complete turn, constructed from a single, lexical turn-constructional unit, with turn-final prosody, in a sequential context in which it can deliver a recognisably complete action — an answer to the preceding question. In these respects, with the turn possibly complete, the silence which follows could be understood as Tony’s — the product of Tony not starting a next turn. What would that next turn be? One possibility is his uptake of her reply, often done with some evaluation term. How-are-you sequences often come in three turn sequences: “how-areyou”; “OK”; “That’s good” (as in (1), lines 5–7, 27–29, 29–31). So one thing Tony could be properly doing here is receipting Marsha’s response. But there is another alternative. As the caller, Tony has a default right, and responsibility, for initiating first topic, and, in particular, the reason for the call. If it is he who should be talking and he is not, one thing he may relevantly not be doing — and one thing that Marsha is arguably awaiting — is articulating the reason for the call. And what might that be? From Marsha’s point of view, the announcement that Joey has reached home. We know from the latter part of this conversation that Marsha has asked Joey to call when he reaches home; she tells Tony (see lines 67–68 in (2b) below), “I did a:sk him tuh call me when ‘e go:t i:n.” Although Tony does not yet know this

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 255

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

at this point in the call, Marsha does know she has said it to Joey, and she can be oriented to a telephone call from this household as informing her of Joey’s safe arrival. The telephone rings at a time compatible with Joey having reached home; she thinks it is him. It is not, it is Tony. Surely it is Tony calling on behalf of Joey to report his arrival.2 And indeed, when Tony does not talk in this silence and it is Marsha who breaks it, she does so with the inquiry, “Did Joey get home yet?” On the other hand, although Marsha has indeed delivered an utterance so composed as to constitute a recognisable complete turn, and one which delivers the conditionally relevant response to the preceding inquiry, there can be a good reason for Tony not to speak next there — not to receipt Marsha’s response and not to advance to the “reason for the call” move which regularly comes after closure of the opening. For how-are-you sequences normatively are organised in reciprocal pairs: when A has initiated one to B, B reciprocates. And one common place for the reciprocal to be done is as a second turn constructional unit after the response to the first how-are-you. So what Tony could be accountably awaiting at line 7 is Marsha’s reciprocal how-are-you. Indeed, as we learn later but the parties both know from the outset, Tony has just returned from a trip, and so what may be relevant here is not a generic reciprocal how-are-you, but a recipient-designed, and occasion-specific version of such an inquiry, for example, “how was the trip?”3 When Marsha’s inquiry, “Did Joey get home yet?” is met by Tony’s “Well I wz wondering when ’e left,” and by Marsha’s launching of her telling in response, the occurrence of a reciprocal how-are-you by Marsha to Tony is preempted. Here then is a substantial chunk of the conversation which ensues, including again the opening which we have been sketching. (2b) MDE, Stolen, 1:1–70 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Marsha: Hello:? 3 Tony: Hi: Marsha? 4 Marsha: Ye:ah. 5 Tony: How are you. 6 Marsha: Fi::ne. → 7 (0.2) 8 Marsha: Did Joey get home yet? 9 Tony: Well I wz wondering when ‘e left. 10 (0.2) 11 Marsha: ·hhh Uh:(d) did Oh: .h Yer not in on what ha:ppen’.(hh)(d) 12 Tony: No(h)o=

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 256

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Marsha: =He’s flying. (0.2) Marsha: En Ilene is going to meet im:.Becuz the to:p wz ripped off’v iz car which is tih say someb’ddy helped th’mselfs. Tony: Stolen. (0.4) Marsha: Stolen.=Right out in front of my house. Tony: Oh: f ’r crying out loud, =en eez not g’nna eez not g’nna bring it ba:ck? Marsha: ·hh No so it’s parked in the g’rage cz it wz so damn co:ld. An’ ez a 〉matter fact〈 snowing on the Ridge Route. (0.3) Marsha: ·hhh So I took him to the airport he couldn’ buy a ticket. (·) Marsha: ·hhhh Bee- he c’d only get on standby. (0.3) Tony: Uh hu:[h, Marsha: [En I left him there et abou:t noo:n. (0.3) Tony: Ah ha:h. (0.2) Marsha: Ayund uh,h (0.2) Tony: W’t’s ‘e g’nna do go down en pick it up later? er somethin like ( ) [well that’s aw]:ful Marsha: [H i s friend ] Marsha: Yeh h[is friend Stee- ] Tony: [That really makes] me ma:d, (0.2) Marsha: ·hhh Oh it’s disgusti[ng ez a matter a’f]a:ct. Tony: [ Poor Joey, ] Marsha: I- I, I told my ki:ds. who do this: down et the Drug Coalition ah want th’to:p back.h {·hhhhhhhhh/(1.0 )} SEND OUT the WO:RD.hhh hnh (0.2) Tony: Yeah. Marsha: ·hhh Bu:t u-hu:ghh his friend Steve en Brian er driving up. Right after:: (0.2) school is out.En then hi’ll

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 257

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 → 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

drive do:wn here with the:m. Tony: Oh I see. Marsha: So: in the long run, ·hhh (it-)/(ih-) (·) probly’s gonna save a liddle time ‘n: (·) energy. Tony: Okay, Marsha: But Ile:ne probably (0.8) is either at the airport er waiting tuh hear fr’m im, eess (0.7) Tony: O:kay. Marsha: .hhhh So: yer ba:ck. Tony: Yah. (1.0) Marsha: I see. So you’ll- you’ll hear fr’m im, (0.2) Tony: Oka:y, well: if there’s any prob’m w’l letche know. But I’m sure he’ll be here ok[ay. Marsha: [Yeh I did a:sk him tuh call me when ‘e go:t i:n [ITony: [Okay Marsha: Bu:t it wasn’t too crowded when we go:t there, so, (0.9)

First, then, there is a stretch of talk (lines 11–35) organised around Marsha’s telling about how Joey comes to be travelling differently — and later — than planned. A sequence follows (lines 36–55) largely addressed to Tony’s concern about provision for the car being returned to Northern California, ending with his acceptance of the proposed course of action (line 55), and then his acceptance (line 59) of Marsha’s reassurance (lines 56–57) about provision for Joey’s reaching home from the airport. Those acceptances mark closure of the extended sequence with its post-expansions which began with Marsha’s inquiry at line 8, and the hearable in-breath which follows (line 60) marks a boundary between that activity and the next. What is the next? “So you’re back.” What is that, and why is it here? Indeed, where is “here”? One way of characterising this turn position and juncture in the conversation is “the first turn position after the sequence of sequences set in motion by Marsha’s inquiry, ‘Did Joey get home yet?’” — the turn whose ensuing trajectory preempted a reciprocal inquiry to Tony’s “How are you” at line 5. Alerted as we now are to that sequentially relevant but absent reciprocal, we are in a position

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 258

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

to register “So you’re back” as the delayed appearance of that reciprocal — indeed, the recipient-designed, and occasion-specific realisation of that inquiry which was discussed earlier. With it, Marsha displays (albeit tardily) her awareness of, and orientation to, recent events in the life of her interlocutor which in principle compose part of the domain which such inquiries may be understood to topicalise, or to proffer the opportunity to topicalise. We may note that the form which Marsha employs for this purpose does not offer an inquiry but an observation, registers not the occasion or itinerary of the trip but its conclusion, etc. In that sense, while in form doing the job which such inquiries are designed to do — afford an opportunity for interlocutor to raise matters of priority, etc. — it does so in what is perhaps the least open way available. While allowing Tony to use the occasion to develop topic talk on that line, it does not particularly encourage his doing so. His response is in keeping with such an understanding, and the sequence is brought to closure with about as minimal a development as can be imagined, after which (at line 63) talk which begins to move toward closure of the call is developed (cf. for example, the repetition of “hear from him”). My point here has been a simple one. To understand the placement, resonance, trajectory and aftermath of this utterance, “So, you’re back,” we need to be analytically armed to register — with warrant — the absence of a reciprocal how-are-you type inquiry in the opening; to recognise orderly variants of that class of inquiries, recipient designed for the circumstances of particular conversations and their participants; to recognise this utterance as such a variant, positioned aptly by reference to the sequence structure of the talk since the place where the reciprocal was missing; and to see the interactional import of the delayed realisation of the sequence. This utterance turns out to be not merely something incidentally occasioned by another’s having returned from a trip. It occupies a highly orderly position in this conversation, one displaced from its ordinary canonical locus.

Episode 3 The third sequence is from a conversation between a young woman and her somewhat older brother. Here is how it begins: (3) Joyce and Stan,1:1–23 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 ((receiver lifted)) 3 J: Hullo:¿

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 259

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

S: J: S: J: S: S:

J: S: J: S: J: S: J: S: J:

pt Hi Joyce, it’s Stan. Hi Stan:,= =Hi can you hear me okay?〈‘ cause the record player’s on. O:h yea:h, I hear you fi:n[e. [Okay good. hh First of all how’ (s)/(d) that thing turn out with the ticket. Dju: anything happen? (0.4) Oh, I just decided ta pay it. Decide(d) ta pay how much was it¿ Fifteen fifty. Fifteen fifty? Mm hm, (0.2) Bitch. Bitch. I(h) kn(h)owh [h [I guess it would ye you figured out finally found out it’d be too much ha:ssle ta take care of it. hh I figu:red (0.4) in order: I would just haf tig- make two trips down there:,

Here again the conversation begins with the summons-answer sequence (lines 1–3), and a greeting sequence which serves as the vehicle for an identification/ recognition sequence as well (lines 4–6). Where an exchange of how-are-you sequences might have gone, however, we find an uncommon inquiry, which is nonetheless fitted to its occurrence in the opening. Recall that the business of the summons-answer sequence is the establishment of a viable medium for talk and the availability of an interlocutor to be reached through it. Then note that this inquiry is directed as well to this issue — in particular the viability of the channel, and the non-canonical status of the inquiry is registered by making it accountable (“cause the record player’s on”). And that is followed by “First of all how’d that thing turn out with the ticket.” Instead of a generalised inquiry which would provide for the recipient to select the terms by reference to which it would be answered, here Stan picks a specific matter in the biography of the other to inquire about. On the one hand this is constraining in a way in which the how-are-you inquiry is not. On the other hand, with it the inquirer can display an orientation to who-in-particular the other is and what is going on in the life of that other; it constitutes, that is,

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 260

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

a show of recipient design (as did the inquiry about a “parking place” in (1) and about “Joey’s arrival” in (2). As well, the “First of all” may be understood to project that the caller has called with a specific reason for the call, but that the matter prefaced with “First of all” is not that reason, and is being raised before that reason. In fact, the “paying the ticket” discussion leads to a number of other “preliminary” bits of topic talk before Stan introduces the reason for the call, which is a request for advice on where to shop for various items he wishes to purchase — a hat and sandals. (4) Joyce and Stan,3: 23–31 1 S: ·hhhh Well the main reason I called ya up Jess was ta 2 as:k yer uh:: advice on two little matters:uh. 3 (0.4) 4 S: I might be goin’ shopping either tomorrow er Saturday an’ I’m 5 what I’m lookin’ for is a couple a things.=〉I thought maybe you 6 might have some〈 suggestions where I could find it. 7 J: O:kay, 8 S: First of all: I’m lookin’ for: a: pair a sa:ndles:,(0.7) and a 9 hat.

The discussion of these items and where to seek them out, including considerable resistance on Stan’s part to Joyce’s suggestions, occupies several pages of transcript, and is brought to a close in the following exchange. (5) Joyce and Stan, 7:23–8:02 1 J: °Yeh- Well- (.) if you wanna take a little ri:de 2 you might find it somewhere in Hollywood? 3 (0.8) 4 S: °Hollywood. 5 (1.3) 6 S: Oh well, nah I don’t really like ta go into Hollywood (it’sa) 7 hard ta pa:rk, 8 (1.0) 9 J: [°Mm, 10 S: [·hhhh We:ll okay: at’s about all I wannid tuh (0.7) bug you 11 with.(tod[ay). 12 J: [uhhahhahh ·hh Okay Stan:, → 13 S: So are ↑you okay? 14 J: Yeah, (0.4) um: (0.2) whatta ya doing like: s: late Saturday 15 afternoo:n.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 261

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

Here as elsewhere (as noted above), Stan is a less-than-enthusiastic receiver of Joyce’s advice (lines 1–9), and then (at lines 10–11) he launches the closing section of the conversation, and Joyce aligns with his move, both by laughing at his self-deprecation (“bug you with”), thereby declining to take it seriously, and by her compliance token (“okay”). Note that the first thing done after this apparent convergence on proceeding to close the conversation is “So are you okay?” I limit myself to a few observations. 1. A move has been made to close a conversation in which there was no exchange of how-are-yous though they are relevant for this pair of interlocutors. 2. “So are you okay?” is a candidate member of the class of inquiries of which how-are-you is the default or unmarked member. 3. This then represents a move to have done such an inquiry before closing the conversation, closing having already been made the relevant activity (at lines 10–11). 4. This version of the inquiry does not ask, “how are you?” but picks a value of the answer-set, “okay,” the value whose sequential consequence is nonexpansion of the sequence (Sacks 1975; Jefferson 1980; Schegloff 1986), and formulates a yes/no question about it. For this question, “yes” is the preferred response in two respects: with respect to the question form, it is the agreeing response; with respect to the action being implemented, a “yes” will allow the activity underway — closing — to be advanced. 5. Then note that Joyce’s reply a) delivers the “yes” which the inquiry prefers, but b) delivers it with a non-final prosody (indicated by the comma) which precludes treating it as actionably complete. In fact, in the (0.4) second silence which follows, Stan does not begin a next turn, and Joyce in fact proceeds to launch a new sequence — a request sequence — an expanded version of which is developed by the parties before the activity of closing is resumed and brought to completion. Here again, then, understanding what is transpiring later in the conversation, here within its closing section, is tied to features of its opening, including evidence that the parties have retained throughout the conversation an orientation to the absence in the opening of a how-are-you sequence, and the relevance of introducing such a sequence before closing the conversation.4, 5

Upshot The point is that examining openings in Japanese or Korean (or French or Greek or Arabic, etc.) is relevant not only — not even in the first instance —

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 262

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

to challenge or confirm claims about the trans-cultural relevance of accounts of American openings. Rather, the primary relevance is to establish the grounds for analysts working on Japanese or Korean (or French or Greek or Arabic) telephone conversation material to understand the interactional import of what has occurred in an opening of a particular conversation in its own terms, and to understand the legacy of that opening for subsequent developments, that is, understanding events in the opening that may have consequences for understanding what happens elsewhere in that conversation because, for the parties, the subsequent course of the conversation may take its import from, or be informed by, what occurred in the opening or did not, and the subsequent course of the conversation may be the place to deal with that “legacy”.6

. Back to openings across cultural contexts There is another matter I would like to take up which is of general import, though it is perhaps of special concern in opening-specific material because of the density of interactional issues found there, and because of the characteristic sparseness of the linguistic resources deployed to deal with them. The matter concerns glossing and translation. Let me take this up with specific materials from one of the papers in this volume. (Almost certainly the issue comes up in other chapters as well, but the glossing practices employed in them do not allow me to see where and how they are posed.) In example (8) in Yong-Yae Park’s paper (2002) she renders the caller’s first turn as “Is this Hyenceng?”, for the Korean glossed as “oh Hyenceng  .” The issue here is this. In American openings, there is a big difference between saying — as the caller’s first utterance to answerer — “Is this Hyenceng?” on the one hand, and “Hyenceng?” on the other. The first can be heard to display a serious problem of recognition;7 the second need not, but can be used to provide an opportunity for the answerer to recognise the caller (as in line 3 in (2a) and (2b) above, or (6), (9),(10) or (11) below; cf. Schegloff 1979 :47–61). This can be especially serious if — as in this case — the persons are close, and can expect to be recognised by the other, indeed are entitled to be so recognised; in Yong-Yae Park’s data they are sisters. So there is a special burden here on workers on materials from a non-Anglo-Saxon language and culture, writing about phenomena already described for Anglo-America nor Indo-European settings. That burden is that, if the work is to be reported in English, the text and the translation

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 263

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

needs to be rendered in a fashion sensitive not only to the detail and nuance of the material being studied in its language-of-occurrence, but also sensitive to the detail and nuance in comparable English language interactions as revealed in the already extant literature.8 In Park’s paper, for example, in (8), what exactly is the import of the “” marker in this position in the opening? How should it best be rendered so as to converge with what appears to be the cognate “move” in American or British materials, or to show that what is getting done in the Korean or the Japanese is different from what is getting done in the English? And there can be, of course, quite new things in the Japanese or Korean (or the French or Greek or Arabic) openings. That is why pursuing work on Japanese or Korean or other language/cultural materials with an open and fresh mind is so important. So this is a related issue. Not only must the material be rendered to catch the right “equivalencies” or “comparabilities” in English-language material without over-reaching to do so, and to avoid incorrect equivalencies; it must find ways of bringing to attention usages with no counterpart at all in English language material. Of course, these are little discoveries, or big ones, and are just what research is about in the first place. We learn from other cultural/ linguistic materials about possibilities not present in prior work at all. One example of such a new finding is provided by Park’s account of the bearing of the particles kedo and nuntey as elements of self-identification in Japanese and Korean openings respectively. It is the relevance of these particles as markers of a projected next action which ordinarily follows directly — either reason for the call or switchboard request — that we can see underlying the consequences when no ensuing action is in fact articulated. A next action having been made relevant by the particle and then withheld, these usages make relevant the recipient’s guessing — and especially anticipating and acting on — what the projected action was. In this finding, the accountable absence of the ensuing action is made apparent, together with its import for the interaction. But then it turns out that the kedo or nuntey itself can be accountably absent, with the import that the entire business of projecting a reason for the call is made not relevant, because that is not the basis for the call’s initiation. In one sense, there is nothing quite like this in prior accounts of telephone openings that I am familiar with; in another sense, the organisational practice is familiar: something is taken to be a relevant occurrence (either canonically or occasioned by some action taken by a participant), and its subsequent nonoccurrence (should that happen) thereby becomes accountable, eventful, consequential for the ensuing course of the talk. What is special here is the way in

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 264

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

which a particle can become the instrument by which this little structure gets triggered, and, even more reflexively, the absence of that triggering particle itself becomes of consequential import for the following course of the interaction. We see here, then, more than evidence on the universality or variance in this or that realisation of openings. We see the interactional consequence of proceeding one way or another, in which the absence of components can be seen to be as much an action as their presence. Here, then, we are dealing with an amalgam of the two lines of inquiry touched on above; for the cross-cultural and cross-linguistic juxtaposition is focussed on precisely in order to get clear about the interactional import of some practice of talk in the opening in its own right and in its bearing on the subsequent trajectory of the conversation. It would be a welcome development in future work in this area if investigators who have been able to specify dimensions of variation or alternative forms of realisation in this or that cultural context (as is the case in several chapters in this volume) could go on to explore and specify the import of some form not, in the first instance, by contrast to what is done in other cultures but as a type of move-in-interaction within the culture in which it is found.

. Describing previously undescribed components of openings Several distinct steps might compose such contributions. First, formulating the practice of talking which constitutes the distinctive form of conduct found in openings of telephone conversations in country/culture X;9 and second, the action or alternative actions which this practice of talking can implement, however specified by situational particulars. In some instances such findings would link particular lexical choices with the stances or actions which they index or implement (as in the proposal that the form of how-are-you-type inquiry realised as “How have you been” is a practice for registering a notably long time since these parties have talked). In others, utterance-types not commonly found in openings, or not canonical components of them, are not just noted, but are analysed for what action they implement in the opening, and with what potential sequential and interactional consequences for the conversation.

Specimen 1 To offer just a reduced sample, consider the proposal (Schegloff 1986 :143–144) that “Did I wake you?” and its variants can serve as a “pre-apology.” Note first that,

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 265

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

from the outset, more is involved than simply registering the occurrence of utterances of this form in the opening, with a candidate interpretation. Its sequential relationship to apologising is an empirical matter, being grounded both in contingent apologies packed into a single turn in a single exchange, as at lines 5–6 in (6): (6) Charlie (Openings, #173) 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Charlie: Hello? 3 Caller: Charlie? 4 Charlie: Yeah? → 5 Caller: Hey, listen, I’m sorry if I woke ya. → 6 Charlie: [‘s all right. 7 Caller: [Hey8 Caller: Hey, listen, uh eh, what’s ...

and in the sequentialisation of the association into a pre-apology and a contingent apology in its aftermath, as in (7) at lines 3 and 5. (7) CDHQ (Openings, #328) 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Mrs W.: Hello-o? ((sleepy voice)) → 3 Mr W.: Yeh did I wake yih up? → 4 Mrs W.: Yea:h. → 5 Mr W: Sorry gal. 6 Mrs W.: That’s- (O.K. Doll),

Here, when the pre-apology inquiry gets an affirmative answer, an apology follows.10 But implicated as well are what such an utterance reveals about its sources and what it projects as its contingent consequences. For example, such utterances can register and display (and on occasion make explicit) the caller’s hearing of some anomalous quality in answerer’s voice in the answerer’s first turn(s), as in (8) and (9), or, under other contextual circumstances, it can register the caller’s awareness of the unusual social time of day at which the call has been initiated (as in (6) above), etc. (8) MTRAC, 90–2 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Marcia: Hullo? → 3 Reah: (Hi.) Did I wake you up? 4 Marcia: No:.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 266

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 → 14

(0.8) Are you sure, (1.5) Marcia: (Well,)_ hhuh huh huh .hh (0.5) Reah: ‘s this Marcia? Marcia: Yeah Reah: (Howayou,) Marcia: Yeah. You did not wake me up Reah. Reah: Oh your voice sounds different. Reah:

or (9) Wong: NNS, 3 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Recipient: Hello, 3 Caller: Tch! Hi Mei Fang? 4 Recipient: (Hmm?) 5 Caller: This is Joan Wright. 6 Recipient: Hi. [How are you. → 7 Caller: [Did I wake you up? 8 (0.4) 9 Recipient: No. 10 (0.2) → 11 Caller: Oh: you soun:ded as if [you might have been (0.2) resting. 12 Recipient: [(no really) 13 (0.2) → 14 Recipient: I have a cold. 15 Caller: Oh:::. 16 (0.4)

(8) and (9) make clear that the initiation of the “Did I wake you?” sequence is grounded in heard features of the answerer’s voice, and whereas affirmation of the waking is readily believed and acted on, denial of the waking is doubted, the asking of the question is grounded in the answerer’s “sound”, and the matter is not let go until the sound is otherwise accounted for. Such displays of “possible occasioning” implicate future trajectories of interaction, and those can have their own more or less complicated structures of relevancy. For example, “Did I wake you up?” as a question makes an answer relevant next. As a pre-apology it makes relevant next responses which will

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 267

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

either promote development of the sequence to an apology or will block such a development. In the aftermath of such an utterance, then, delivery of a response is complicated by the “cross-cutting preferences” introduced by the inquiry — a preference for agreement with respect to the question, and a preference for disagreement with respect to the pre-apology (as agreement would promote the relevance of proceeding to an apology, which is otherwise a dispreferred action). In fact, the reluctance of answerers to confirm having been awakened by reference to this dispreference for promoting the apology can be seen not only in the suspicion with which it is received (as in (8) and (9)), but in responses which say “no” but follow with a (presumably superfluous) reassurance that “it’s all right”, as in (10): (10) Charlie (Openings, #171) 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Charlie: Hello. 3 Judy: Hello, Charlie? 4 Charlie: Yeah? 5 Judy: Did- I ewake you up? → 6 Charlie: No. It’s all right. 7 Judy: Oh, okay. No I did you call earlier today?

Or ones in which the response is made contingent on the time of day, which, of course, is irrelevant to the facts of the matter (11). (11) Charlie (Openings, #157) 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 Charlie: Hello? 3 Naomi: Charlie? 4 Charlie: Yeah. 5 Naomi: Di- I wake ya- up? → 6 Charlie: I don’ know. [What time is it. 7 Naomi: [Huh 8 Naomi: It’s noon.

What the preceding paragraphs have offered is a sketchy outline of the sequential and interactional import of this utterance, “Did I wake you up?”, and the line of action it introduces into an opening. Having such accounts of the assertedly distinctive components of openings in previously undescribed settings (whether culturally or otherwise formulated), however sketchy as long as they were empirically grounded in detailed transcripts of recorded data, would

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 268

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

substantially advance our understanding of the trajectories of interaction in openings of different sorts, and would dramatically deepen our understanding of what such differences tell us about cultural differences. For they would replace the analyst’s often impressionistic and interpretive account of the cultural import of some element of an opening with the import it demonstrably has for the participants in the interaction in which it occurred. Even for the purposes of cultural analysis, this is a deeper, more consequential, increment to our understanding, and it is one grounded in the actual experience of members of the culture enacting and embodying the culture, rather than reflecting on it. (For a related argument concerned with critical discourse analysis and critical theorising more generally, cf. Schegloff, 1997 and the ensuing exchanges, Wetherell 1998; Schegloff 1998b; Billig 1999a, 1999b; Schegloff 1999a, 1999b.)

Specimen 2 There is another set of practices in the opening which was treated in the dissertation in which many of these themes were first taken up (Schegloff 1967), but which has not (as far as I know) come to more general attention. The following exchanges exemplify this practice (no ring is shown because none can be heard): (12) IND:PD (Schegloff 1967: 192) 1 Dispatch: Police Desk 2 Caller: Uh Joe 3 Dispatch: Yeah 4 Caller: This uh this is ... (13) IND:PD (Schegloff 1967: 222) 1 Dispatch: Police Desk 2 Caller: Johnny? 3 Dispatch: No, this is Jerry. (14) IND:PD (Schegloff 1967: 232) 1 Dispatch: Police Desk 2 Caller: Hey Art? (0.?) Is this Schrenken? 3 Dispatch: Yes 4 Caller: Uh Jerry? 5 Dispatch: Yeah 6 Caller: This is Dick uh Tanner 7 Dispatch: Yeah Dick

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 269

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

Openings of this sort were treated in a chapter entitled “Transformations”,11 and they resisted subsequent efforts to prepare them for publication. In retrospect, this was because, at the time, no account had yet been developed of the identification/recognition practices in ordinary (i.e., non-institutionally specific) telephone openings (of the sort eventually developed in Schegloff 1979), an account which would have provided resources for — or at least context for — the analysis of sequences like those exemplified in (12) to (14) above. Still, a rudimentary account may be worth sketching here, for its surprising relevance to other recent work. In brief, the argument offered in Schegloff 1967 was along the following lines. The organisational self-identification in answerer’s first turn (in my data at the time, “Police Desk, Can I help you?”), some version of which is characteristic in business and other institutional contexts (in the United States and in many other cultural contexts) introduces a default formulation and virtual account not only of who has been reached, but of whom the caller was trying to reach. More specifically and accurately, it embodies a virtual account of the auspices under which the caller engaged in those actions — e.g., dialling a particular number — which caused this telephone to ring etc.12 What this form of answer in effect established as the terms under which the talk was to proceed was that the speaker at that end of the interaction was — from the indefinitely large set of possible ways of characterising him — one who was manning the “police desk,” to “help” citizen callers. Several points played off this observation. First, although one issue hovering over the first moments of such a conversation concerned whether the caller had reached “the intended party” in the sense of the mechanically right telephone number, attached to a telephone in the right place, etc., it turns out that another issue was involved which sounds closely related but is in fact importantly distinct. And that is whether the caller has reached the right party in the right and relevant sense — a party grasped under the right auspices. The “Police Desk” answer of the telephone confirmed not only that the right telephone had rung, but that a member of the right category of answerer had answered, one oriented to that category membership as the one relevant for undertaking interaction of the sort which was presumed to have engendered the event in the first place. Second, as implied at the end of the prior paragraph, with this self-identification, and its introduction and confirmation of an “identity” for the answerer, went a correlative “identity” for the caller. By reference to Sacks’s account of membership categorisation devices (Sacks 1972a, 1972b), this could be understood by reference to the so-called “consistency rule” (Sacks 1972a: 33–34; 1972b: 333).

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 270

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

A first person to be categorised having been categorised with a term from the categorisation device “police/citizen”, the central category made relevant for the other person to be categorised was some category from the same categorisation device, and the default in this respect was “citizen (complainant)”. All of this was generally “invisible” (in the sense of not occupying distinct elements of the talk) because, overwhelmingly, callers had indeed come to call in the presupposed way, had found the police self-identification confirmatory of their orientation to the occasion, and accepted the implied (or “altercasted”, Weinstein and Deutschberger 1963) identity for themselves as relevant and in point. However, in instances in which the callers were not calling qua complainants, and were not calling the answerers qua helpers, but rather were, to cite one example, also police personnel calling a colleague or a friend, and in that capacity, these default understandings turned out to be problematic. The sequences exemplified in (12) to (14) above appear to be designed to transform the categorical relevancies introduced into these incipient conversations as early as possible, because different categorical identities made relevant different recipient design constraints and different appropriate turn designs and sequential and interactional trajectories. We now recognise a caller’s use of an address term for answerer in caller’s first turn as a common practice in so-called “personal” telephone conversations (a) for displaying caller’s recognition of answerer at first possible opportunity, i.e. after first voice sample, and (b) for displaying by choice of address term as putatively recipient-designed, elements of the relationship between caller and answerer, and (c) for providing a voice sample from which answerer might recognise caller and display that recognition in the next turn (Schegloff 1979, 1986). It is worth mentioning that these observations remain in point after answerer first turns which are composed of individual or household selfidentification, where that is the default cultural practice. But when placed after an organisational self-identification, as in the case of the police, this line of continuation diverges from the default stance embodied in the answerer’s first turn, and embodies the launching of an alternative tack. The alternative embodied when the address term is a first — or “given” — name is one formulated by reference to “personal relationship” as the relevant categorisation device, rather than professional/client or organisation/public. Note as well that the use of address term as a candidate identification of answerer operates at more than one level. Its proximate or “surface” sequential import is as a candidate identification, a sequence initiation (or “first pair part”) making relevant in next turn a confirmation (the “preferred” response) or rejection + correction of the proffered candidate identification. But in vali-

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 271

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

dating as correct the identification proffered by the address term, the answerer validates as well the shift in categorisation device under whose auspices the ensuing conversation is to be realised, and thereby collaborates in the transformation of the categorical infrastructure of the interaction. What has prompted my “exhuming” of this aspect of my work on openings of telephone conversations from its almost thirty five year long obscurity? It is the surprisingly similar issue of the language in which the interaction is to be conducted which is the focus of Rasmussen and Wagner (2002). The language of the interaction is, in general, even more deeply presupposed than the categorical identifications of the participants. Indeed, in the vast majority of conversations, this tacit relevancy is unlikely ever to surface at all. It is the development of both technology and international trade which underlies the potential for this otherwise tacit matter to become contingent in the materials examined by Rasmussen and Wagner, and this contingency’s relevance surfaces — as does the relevance of having reached the right party, and under the right categorical auspices — in the first turns of the conversation. I wish only to note that although these early turns appear to differ from the ones in the police calls which I studied (for example, in the Rasmussen and Wagner materials, each party offers a full or partial self-identification and not, as in my materials, a candidate identification of the other), in both settings a) the answerer’s initial turn sets the default for the conversation,13 b) the caller may align with that default in the ensuing turns, or c) the caller may undertake to change the language, though when it is language which is being changed rather than categorial relevance, the move seems to be realised in an otherwise-relevant next turn being produced in the proposed alternative language (as in Rasmussen and Wagner 2002, example (7), line 6), rather than by the launching of a sequence aimed to stabilise alternative terms of reference for the parties, as in the police data. Or so it appears. In retrospect, however, it may be remarked that the accounts developed in my 1979 paper on “identification and recognition” are consequential precisely in permitting a revision of this view. In 1965–67, these little sequences following the organisational self-identification by the police looked like sequences specially devoted to transforming the categorical infrastructure of the incipient conversation. The 1979 paper showed that callers’ first turns composed of an address term for the “heard answerer” constituted one canonical practice for caller’s co-constructing the identification-and/ or-recognition work in the openings of “personal” telephone conversations. Although this practice of talking is transforming (if subsequent talk is aligned with it), it is not a “transformation sequence”.14 It is an “identification/recognition sequence”

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 272

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

which, when placed after an organisational self-identification in which personal identity has no place, has the effect of transforming the participantidentification terms of the interaction. If this is the case, then both changes in language (of the sort described by Rasmussen and Wagner) and changes in categorical infrastructure may be understood as being introduced by simply starting to use “the-thereby-proposed-alternative”, rather than by the launching of a special sequence designed to do “transformation”. There, then, is just the kind of gain to be realised by undertaking detailed, empirically grounded accounts of practices of talk-ininteraction — in telephone conversation opening as elsewhere in talk-in-interaction. What had appeared in 1967 a cogent account of “transformation” in the opening via a special sequence to do it, can be recast by reference to work done in 1979 and in 1999 to require a rather different account.

. Conclusion Whether American, British, Dutch, French, Greek, German, Korean, Japanese, Swedish or other nationality or language/dialect is involved, inquiry into openings of conversations on the telephone have often turned what was initially designed to grasp the interactional structure of one critical phase in the overall structural organisation of the unit “a single conversation” into symptoms of cultural values and commitments, or even into what used to be termed “national character”. What may have been intended to be conversation analysis is turned into cultural analysis of a quite different stripe. There are two senses of cultural analysis worth discriminating in this context (indeed, there are many more). Working on French openings or Greek ones can straightforwardly be a way of analysing talk-in-interaction in one’s own native language and one’s own indigenous culture. In my view, this is the ideal matchup of analyst and material. And where the results can be properly characterised by reference to categories of national language and culture, this is a form of cultural analysis. Indeed, it is in this sense that many have insisted for years — in the face of complaints that CA does not take culture sufficiently into account — that conversation analysis is cultural analysis, or a form of it. The practices and organisations of practice which are its end product surely appear to be part of what one speaks of as (a) culture. But comparative cultural analysis is something else. It is something else because it focuses on those things on which cultures contrast. It thereby treats

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 273

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

as of special relevance alternatives (alternative practices, modes of conduct, etc.) which are not alternatives to one another for members of either culture. For whom are they relevant alternatives and on what grounds? More often than not they get their relevance as alternatives for academic analysts, by virtue of the theoretical or other commitments of the academic analysts, quite apart from the relevancies informing the participants in the interactions in either linguistic/cultural context. Here is where things can go astray, and where special care needs to be taken to avoid replacing the relevant orientations of the parties producing the interactions with the orientations of the researchers studying them.15 At the very least, the practices and forms being described need to be grounded in their within-culture sets of alternatives. Then we know we have got something culturally real. How then to compare them? Let us get there first; then we will know the actual shape of the problem. For now, much remains to be done in providing compelling accounts of the practices of opening and closing telephone conversations in the range of linguistic/cultural contexts awaiting careful inquiry. I have tried to sketch some paths of inquiry which would serve us well in furthering this goal. For the most part they have in common a commitment to going beyond simply assigning terminological labels or cultural interpretations (or psychological or interactional ones, for that matter), without going on to ground those in the details of the interactional data. In particular, workers in this area need a) to show the orientation of the interactional participants to the proposed interpretive account via b) its display in the immediately ensuing talk, which is generally the consequence of what has just preceded and displays participants’ understanding of what just preceded, and/or via c) its sources in preceding talk, the understanding of which it displays, while d) remaining alert to the fact that openings and closings are not autonomous stretches of talk, but were, and were designed to be, openings and closings of particular prospective and accomplished episodes of interaction, and need to be examined as such. These are familiar analytic resources in conversation analysis, but too often they are not mobilised by writers to ground their interpretive claims in the details of the data and show their convergence with the understandings of the parties, thereby converting interpretation into grounded analysis. For colleagues who are inclined to take this line of thinking to heart and have it inform their work, there are consequences. One can try to specialise in openings or closings, but not by ignoring what lies outside those domains. Just as one cannot do adequate cardiology or neurology without understanding how the body as a whole works, so can one not adequately grasp particular

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 274

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

domains of phenomena in interaction without being attentive to how the organisation of interaction more generally works. One can specialise in addition to practising competently at the whole, but not instead of it. This conception of a work life necessarily keeps the analysis internal — both to the episode of interaction and to the linguistic/cultural setting in which it occurred. And in doing so it can contribute to building up the resources which may some day permit a more robust comparative analysis than has hitherto been possible — if, that is, the interests of disciplined inquiry make it attractive to pursue such analysis.

Notes * These reflections draw in part on my discussion of several papers bringing conversationanalytic work to bear on data featuring Asian languages presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Seattle, WA in March, 1998. They have been adapted to focus on work concerned with telephone conversation in diverse cultural and institutional settings, and with conversational openings in particular. This draft was prepared while I was the grateful beneficiary of a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship and a Fellowship in Residence at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, CA, under support provided to the Center by The National Science Foundation through Grant # SBR-9022192.  The literature on telephone conversation has been preoccupied most centrally with openings and closings — in part because these are loci of specially visible — if not obtrusive — contrast with co-present interaction, most likely related to the consequences of the loss of visual access as they are embodied in components of the opening and closing sections of the interaction. And of these two loci, openings have been studied more commonly than closings, in part because they have a physically determined determinate beginning, and start from a same starting point (acoustic mutual availability), whereas closings can pose immediate issues of where to start (where they start) and how to provide for the immensely diverse preceding preoccupations and realisations out of which they are precipitated. Whatever the reasons for the predominant attention to openings, my text will overtly address itself to them, but much of what I have to say applies, mutatis mutandis, to closings as well, and interested readers should stay on the alert for where the appropriate extensions are to be made, and how.  And, indeed, a bit later she gets another phone call in which Tony begins by saying, “Joe got here I just wan’duh letchu kno:w”.  Puzzled about Joey’s non-appearance, Tony may also be oriented to the possibility that Marsha has something to tell him about a delayed departure on the drive to the north. He does not yet know that things have happened to have Joey fly rather than drive.  A Greek version of the same form of inquiry, in much the same structural location appears as (20) in Pavlidou (2002), and readers may wish to examine it for its relation to the present discussion. The author remarks that this inquiry occurs although “in the opening part of the

231_282 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:13 AM

Page 275

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

call there have been reciprocal phatic utterances” So a) the resonance between opening and closing is registered; b) it becomes relevant to know exactly what those “phatic utterances” in the opening were (were they a Greek version of how-are-you?); and c) depending on the outcome of b), one can explore the consequences for the proper understanding of this form of inquiry in the closing of there having been an exchange of how-are-yous in the opening. The key point, however, is this: first comes the exploration of how an item (whether word, particle, turn-type, action, sequence, etc.) is understood and dealt with by the parties in the interaction, and how that is to be understood in terms internal to the structure of the interaction. Only then can the comparative cultural questions be usefully posed and refer to real worldly occurrences, if, indeed, they invite being posed at all by that point.  It should go without saying, of course, that an account of canonical opening structure is a key analytic resource in understanding what is going on within the opening itself (exemplified by the discussion of (2) in the text above in particular) or in talk which just follows it or serves to terminate it. Analyses which exemplify this relevance may be found, inter alia, in Schegloff (1995; 1996; and 2002, Appendix 2).  The same is true for closings, except that closings need to be understood by reference to what has happened, or has not happened, in the preceding talk — that is, they can serve as the place which inherits the legacy of the conversation, whether the occurrence of a “thank you” to register the occurrence of a request or offer in the conversation (even if rejected), or some aspect of conduct to register the occurrence of previous efforts to close the conversation, or whatever feature of the preceding talk is treated as relevant to the conduct of the closing.  Two different problems in recognition may be implicated. In one, the caller is not oriented to the possible recognisability of the answerer (e.g., when advised to “call a certain number and ask for X”) and is seeking to establish an identification of the answerer. In the other, the caller is oriented to the potential recognisability of the answerer but has encountered trouble in recognising the answerer from the answerer’s first utterance (e.g., see (8) below, at lines 10 and 14).  It is critical to make clear that I am concerned here with problems of presentation, not investigation itself. In the research itself, inquiry must attend in the first instance solely to the features and orientations indigenous to the materials — the linguistic and cultural resources and the participants’ demonstrable orientations. If the results of inquiry should happen to converge with findings for materials in other linguistic/cultural settings, that is a separate matter and a separate finding. But inquiry should not start with findings in one linguistic/cultural setting and seek to reproduce them in another, or to avoid reproducing them in another. What is addressed in the text here is not this, but problems of presentation, when the language of presentation (i.e. the text of the paper or report) is different from the language of the materials being presented, and the latter must somehow be rendered for readers without independent knowledge of it. The problem is, in principle, general; in practice, it is currently most likely to confront researchers writing in English about non-English materials, and being thereby confronted with a readership using its English language interpretive resources to parse the gloss or translation used to render the non-English materials. Then the writer will do well to take into account how the English language gloss or rendering will “compute” in the English language idiom readers will bring to bear on its interpretation.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:16 AM

Page 276

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

 If, indeed, “country/culture” can be shown to supply the relevant terms of description, which is by no means a foregone conclusion. This issue was addressed in an abbreviated fashion in Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 291), and in note 4 of that paper, in particular: For example, that all the conversations are in ‘American English’ is no warrant for so characterizing them. For there are many other characterizations which are equally ‘true’, e.g., that they are ‘adult’, ‘spoken’ (not yelled or ‘whispered’), etc. That the materials are all ‘American English’ does not entail that they are relevantly ‘American English’, or relevantly in any larger or smaller domain that might be invoked to characterize them. All such characterizations must be warranted, and … we cannot warrant them now. Ethnic, national or language identifications differ from many others only in their prima facie plausibility, especially to those in the tradition of anthropological linguistics. The basis for this position may be found in Sacks (1972a); a discussion of unwarranted ethnic characterizations of materials and findings may be found in Moerman (1967). I know of no compelling rebuttal of this position, which appears as relevant now as it did then (with the exception of the special focus on anthropological linguistics, which has unhappily broadened to a larger disciplinary matrix).

 It does happen that an affirmative response promotes sequelae other than an apology, such as the “pre-topic closing offering” and “pre-first-topic closing offering” discussed in Schegloff and Sacks (1973: 314–317), exemplified below: Openings, #235 1 ((telephone rings)) 2 I: Hello:, 3 A: Did I waken you dear, 4 (0.5) 5 I: nn yeah. Hn. 6 A: D’you want to call me back when you’re awake? But overwhelmingly in the data I have examined “Did I wake you up?” is taken as a preapology and is played out as such.  Another practice examined in that chapter and under that rubric was embodied in a caller’s first turn which took such forms as “Who’s this?” or “Who’s talking?” (Schegloff 1967: 194–213). Sequences set off by such utterances are not discussed here.  An earlier chapter had introduced the notion “the method of the call”, and concerned the auspices under which the action-trajectory was initiated which had produced as its outcome the exchange of talk being studied. It was in dialogue with that chapter that Sacks’s discussion of “the reason for the call” (Sacks 1992, I: 773–779) was developed as a variant of “the method of the call.”  Though when this is simply the individual’s name, it may not reveal what the language default is, except (as Rasmussen and Wagner suggest) insofar as it invokes a past history of interaction between these individuals and its customary language resource.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:43 AM

Page 277

Reflections on research on telephone conversation   On the other hand, the caller’s practice in first turn which takes the form “Who’s this?” or “Who’s talking?” (see note 11 above) does appear to be specifically launching a transformation. Always answered with last name in the corpus of police calls which I was examining, it is often answered in the context of “personal calls” by a rejection of the inquiry (but cf. Schegloff 1986: 146–147).  As one anonymous referee notes, “Of course, cross-cultural differences are relevant to participants when they, themselves, come from different cultures.” And this could be so in several senses — when one or both participants have multiple cultural memberships and competencies, or when each comes from a culture not shared by the other. Although the referee complains that this is a point not contemplated ( and, by implication, possibly not contemplatable) in CA studies, this is too pessimistic a view. If such interactions occur and are somehow managed by the participants, and if the empirical record of such interactions is made available for analysis, there is every reason to figure that they are analysable with the analytic resources available within CA. If approached empirically in this spirit, such materials may well yield new sorts of findings; only a serious attempt to do the work will tell.

References Billig, Michael 1999a “Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis”. Discourse and Society 10 (4): 543–558. 1999b “Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety”. Discourse and Society 10 (4): 572–567. Godard, Danièle 1977 “Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States”. Language in Society 6: 209–219. Have, Paul ten 2002 “Comparing telephone call openings: Theoretical and methodological reflections”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K. K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 233–248. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heritage, John C. 1998 “Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry”. Language in Society 27: 291–334. Hopper, Robert 1992 Telephone Conversation. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hopper, Robert and Chen, Chia-Hui 1996 “Languages, cultures, relationships: Telephone openings in Taiwan”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (4): 291–313. Hopper, Robert and Koleilat-Doany, Nada 1989 “Telephone openings and conversational universals: A study in three languages”. In Language, Communication and Culture, S. Ting-Toomey and F. Korzenny (eds), 157–179. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/22/02

9:43 AM

Page 278

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

Hopper, Robert, Doany, Nada, Johnson, Michael and Drummond, Kent 1990/91 “Universals and particulars in telephone openings”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 24: 369–387. Jefferson, Gail 1980 “On ‘trouble-premonitory’ response to inquiry”. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 153 –185. Moerman, Michael 1967 “Being Lue: Uses and abuses of ethnic identification”. In Proceedings of 1967 Spring Meetings, American Ethnological Society. Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra (eds) 1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Park, Yong-Yae 2002 “Recognition and identification in Japanese and Korean telephone conversation openings”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 25–47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula 2002 “Moving towards closings: Greek telephone calls between familiars”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 201–229. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rasmussen, Gitte and Wagner, Johannes 2002 “Language choice in international telephone conversations”. In Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures, K.K. Luke and T.-S. Pavlidou (eds), 111–131. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sacks, Harvey 1972a “An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology”. In Studies in Social Interaction, D. Sudnow (ed.), 31–74. New York: Free Press. 1972b “On the analyzability of stories by children”. In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), 325–345. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1975 “Everyone has to lie”. In Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, M. Sanches and B.G. Blount (eds), 57–80. New York: Academic Press. 1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I and II. Edited by G. Jefferson, with an introduction by E. A. Schegloff. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1967 The First Five Seconds: The Order of Conversational Openings. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings”. American Anthropologist, 70: 1075–1095. 1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings”. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York: Irvington.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 279

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

1986 1988

“The routine as achievement”. Human Studies 9: 111–151. “On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture”. Social Problems 35 (4): 442–457. 1992 “Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided place for the defense of intersubjectivity in conversation”. American Journal of Sociology 95 (5): 1295–1345. 1993 “Telephone conversation”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, R.E. Asher (ed.), 4547–4549. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. 1995 “Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (3): 185–211. 1996 “Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context”. In Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues — An Interdisciplinary Account, E. H. Hovy and D. Scott (eds), 3–38. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. 1997 “Whose text? Whose context?”. Discourse and Society 8 (2): 165–187. 1998a “Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction”. Language and Speech 41(3–4): 235–263. 1998b “Reply to Wetherell”. Discourse and Society 9 (3): 413–416. 1999a “ ‘Schegloff’s texts’ as ‘Billig’s data’: A critical reply”. Discourse and Society 10 (4): 558–572 1999b “Naivete vs sophistication or discipline vs self-indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig”. Discourse and Society 10 (4): 577–582. 2002 “The surfacing of the suppressed”. In Studies Languages and Social Interaction: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert Hopper, P. Glenn, C. LeBaron and J. Mandelbaum (eds), Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Sacks, Harvey 1973 “Opening up closings”. Semiotica 8 (4): 289–327. Reprinted in Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, J. Baugh and J. Sherzer (eds), 69–99. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984. Weinstein, Eugene and Deutschberger, Paul 1963 “Some dimensions of altercasting”. Sociometry 26: 454–466. Wetherell, Margaret 1998 “Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and poststructuralism in dialogue”. Discourse and Society 9 (3): 387–412.

Appendix: Transcription conventions (Adapted from Ochs, Schegloff and Thompson 1996: 461–465) 1. Temporal and sequential relationships A. Overlapping or simultaneous talk is indicated in a variety of ways. [ Separate left square brackets, one above the other on two successive lines with [ utterances by different speakers, indicates a point of overlap onset, whether at the start or later. ] Separate right square brackets, one above the other on two successive lines with

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 280

 Emanuel A. Schegloff

]

utterances by different speakers, indicates a point at which two overlapping utterances both end, where one ends while the other continues, or simultaneous moments in overlaps which continue. So, in the following, Bee’s “Uh really?” overlaps Ava’s talk starting at “a” and ending at the “t” of “tough.” Ava: I ‘av [a lotta t]ough cou:rses. Bee: [Uh really?] (0.5)

B.

Numbers in parentheses indicate silence, represented in tenths of a second; what is given here in the left margin indicates 5/10 seconds of silence. Silences may be marked either within an utterance or between utterances, as in the two excerpts below: (.) C. A dot in parentheses indicates a “micropause”, hearable but not readily measurable without instrumentation; ordinarily less than 2/10 of a second. 2. Aspects of speech delivery, including aspects of intonation A. The punctuation marks are not used grammatically, but to indicate intonation. . The period indicates a falling, or final, intonation contour, not necessarily the end ? of a sentence. Similarly, a question mark indicates a rising intonation, not , necessarily a question, and a comma indicates a “continuing” intonation, not ¿ necessarily a clause boundary. The inverted question mark (¿) is used to indicate a rise stronger than a comma but weaker than a question mark. :: B. Colons are used to indicate the prolongation or stretching of the sound just preceding them. The more colons, the longer the stretching. On the other hand, graphically stretching a word on the page by inserting blank spaces between the letters or words does not necessarily indicate how it was pronounced; it is used to allow alignment with overlapping talk. Thus, Bee: Ava: Bee: Ava: Bee:

Tch! (M’n)/(En ) they can’t delay much lo:nguh they [jus’ wannid] uh- ·hhh= [ Oh : ] =yihknow have anothuh consulta:tion, Ri::ght. En then deci::de.

The word “ri::ght” in Ava’s second turn, or “deci::de” in Bee’s third are more stretched than “oh:” in Ava’s first turn, even though “oh:” appears to occupy more space. But “oh” has only one colon, and the others have two; “oh:” has been spaced out so that its brackets will align with the talk in Bee’s (“jus’ wannid”) turn with which it is in overlap. .hh hh word

word

C. in-breath out-breath D. A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption, often done with a glottal or dental stop. E. Underlining is used to indicate some form of stress or emphasis, either by increased loudness or higher pitch. The more underlining, the greater the emphasis. Therefore, underlining sometimes is placed under the first letter or two of a word, rather than under the letters which are actually raised in pitch or volume. Espe-

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 281

Reflections on research on telephone conversation 

WOrd 〉〈 〈〉

cially loud talk may be indicated by upper case; again, the louder, the more letters in upper case. And in extreme cases, upper case may be underlined. F. The combination of “more than” and “less than” symbols indicates that the talk between them is compressed or rushed. Used in the reverse order, they can indicate that a stretch of talk is markedly slowed or drawn out.

3. Other markings (( )) A. Double parentheses are used to mark transcriber’s descriptions of events, rather than representations of them. Thus ((cough)), ((sniff)), ((telephone rings)), ((footsteps)), ((whispered)), ((pause)) and the like. (word) B. When all or part of an utterance is in parentheses, or the speaker identification is, this indicates uncertainty on the transcriber’s part, but represents a ( ) likely possibility. Empty parentheses indicate that something is being said, but no hearing (or, in some cases, speaker identification) can be achieved. (try 1)/ C. In some transcript excerpts, two parentheses may be printed, separated (try 2) by a single oblique or slash; these represent alternative hearings of the same strip of talk.

231_282 v1.qxd

11/11/02

10:50 AM

Page 282

INDEX v2.qxd

12/3/02

10:24 AM

Page 283

Subject Index

accountable action 235 acknowledgements 32, 56, 118, 119, 142, 143, 146, 149, 150-152, 155, 156 address term See term of address adjacency pair 202, 217, 233, 242 agreement 201, 204, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213, 216, 218, 223, 224, 226, 267 anchor position 16, 172, 173, 182, 183, 186, 188, 196, 236 apology 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 68, 71, 74, 75, 77, 150, 265, 267, 276 contingent apology 265 pre-apology 264-267, 276 Arabic 10, 261-263 Egyptian Arabic 13 attention focuser 141, 147, 155, 169 availability check 7, 172 backchannel 142 background provider 27 Belgium 15, 114, 115 business call 35, 37, 43, 79, 112, 186, 187, 197, 269 See also work call business salutation 157, 163, 164, 169 call-waiting 7 canonical opening See opening canonical closing See closing Cantonese 11, 16, 171-200 categorical identification/identity 270, 271 categorisation device 269-271 Chinese 10, 13 closing 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 146, 155, 158, 166, 169, 249, 261, 273-276 archetype closing 202 canonical closing 16, 202, 224

pre-closing 202, 205, 207, 208, 210-214, 216, 217, 219, 220, 223, 226 code switching 114, 118, 119, 121-125, 128, 129, 271, 272 complaint 71, 72, 74, 76, 77 completion/closing down of topic 202, 204, 205, 207-211, 214, 216, 218, 219, 226, 252 compliance token 261 confirmation 29, 36, 51, 53, 78, 91, 101, 143, 149, 150, 152, 156, 169, 201, 202, 204, 205, 207, 209, 213, 216, 267, 269, 270 connection/contact work 17, 50, 172, 226, 235-237, 243 consistency rule 269 continuer 34, 37, 40 contraction 234 contrastive connective 27, 44 core sequences 9, 10, 49, 65, 68, 78, 79, 89, 172 cross-cultural comparison 81, 87, 225 cross-cutting preference 267 cultural cultural analysis 17, 250, 268, 272 cultural convention 12, 241-244 cultural difference/variation 8, 10-12, 49, 81, 171, 250, 268 cultural specificity 81, 159, 225, 249 Czech 51 default international language 128 deferential phrase 101 deferral 173, 188, 191-193, 196 delay 4, 76, 77, 116, 118, 120, 124, 125, 127, 253, 258 deletion 234

INDEX v2.qxd

12/3/02

10:24 AM

Page 284

 Index

Denmark/Danish 15, 112, 114, 115, 118122, 128, 129 diminutive 8, 55, 56, 63 directness 201, 241 discourse discourse completion test (DCT) 136, 137 discourse function 195, 196, 210 discourse marker 207, 210 dispreferred action 50, 56, 62, 159, 267 downgrader 166 Dutch See Netherlands, the endearment term 61, 63, 65, 83 English 11, 13, 16, 50, 64, 114, 115, 121, 125, 128, 129, 136, 154, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 173, 213, 263 American English 6, 10, 11, 13, 49, 65, 90, 106, 111, 160, 276 British English 11 established call 15 established language 119, 125 ethnography 135, 137, 243, 244, 246 evidential 143 extended predicate (EP) 141-144, 146 148, 155, 158, 163, 165, 169 face 14, 65 face-threatening act (FTA) 65, 143, 201 face-to-face conversation 4-7, 64, 74, 81, 98 familiarity 16, 50, 53, 56, 65, 68, 69, 78, 88, 126 Finnish 11, 111, 225 first topic See topic first topic slot See topic foreign accent 116 foreign language 7, 114, 115, 125, 126, 129 formal/formality 14, 43, 44, 50, 52, 53, 56, 63, 68, 69, 71, 79, 82, 87-95, 97, 101, 102, 104, 107, 123, 151, 157, 158, 166, 241, 243 France/French 10, 13, 15, 49, 77, 111, 114, 117, 118, 123-125, 129, 261-263, 272 functional perspective 17, 234, 235, 246 Germany/German 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 16, 49, 111, 114, 115, 117-125, 128, 129, 172, 201, 203, 225, 272

Greece/Greek 7, 8, 11-14, 16, 172, 261263, 272, 274, 275 greeting 9, 10, 39, 43, 49, 50, 53, 57, 6265, 68-72, 79-82, 87, 89, 92-98, 101104, 106, 107, 112, 115, 116, 120, 122, 123, 126-128, 156, 157, 169, 172, 173, 201, 235-237, 239, 250, 252, 254, 259 greeting substitute 68, 73 greeting token 9, 10, 87, 95, 101-103 proto-greeting 50 reciprocal minimal greeting 252 habitus 159 hedging 34 historical pragmatics 241 Hong Kong 16 honorific 158 how-are-you 9, 14, 15, 49, 53, 56, 63, 65, 66, 68-74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 87, 89, 93, 94, 96-99, 101-104, 106, 107, 172, 201, 221, 222, 235, 236, 238, 250, 252-255, 257259, 261, 264, 275 Iceland 15, 114 identification 7, 9, 10, 14, 49, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 65, 78-81, 87, 89-91, 93, 100, 107, 108, 116, 121, 125, 126, 169, 172, 173, 184, 187, 191, 201, 236, 237, 240, 242, 250, 259, 269271, 275 See also self-identification explicit identification 62, 93, 235 national identification 129, 276 non-routine identification 116 person identification 15, 118, 119, 125, 128, 243 impoliteness 98, 239, 240 inference 28, 37, 40, 127, 142, 158, 163, 234, 242, 243 informal/informality 14, 44, 65, 82, 87-90, 97, 100-102, 104, 107, 112, 234 initial inquiry 9, 65-69, 71, 73, 78, 96100, 102-104, 106, 107, 172, 173, 188, 192, 193, 196, 236, 252-255, 258, 259, 277 reciprocal inquiry 253, 257

INDEX v2.qxd

12/3/02

10:24 AM

Page 285

Index 

inquiries 139, 146, 149, 239, 242, 255, 257, 260, 261, 265, 267 insertion sequence 72, 188 institutional 136, 161, 162, 164, 187, 234, 243, 249, 250, 269, 274 inter-cultural call 7 interactional interactional asynchrony 15, 136, 159, 161, 164 interactional difficulty 125, 148, 160 interactional exuberance 16, 224 interactional import 28, 39, 42, 44 interactional preference 25, 28, 32, 157 interactional task 172 interactional trajectory 266, 268, 270 interjection 195, 196 interlocking organisation 53, 68, 69, 78, 79 international call 15 intimacy 52, 61, 62, 64, 65, 71, 73, 79-81, 83, 100-102, 104, 166, 201, 203, 225, 235, 237, 239, 240, 242 intonation 61, 120 continuing intonation/non-final prosody 90, 101, 108, 261 downward intonation 210, 226 final intonation 254 interrogative intonation 51, 90-92, 100, 101, 108, 205, 213 playful intonation 55 rising intonation 112 semi-interrogative intonation 101 turn-final prosody 254 late introduction 16 Iran 87-109 Italian 50, 126, 128 Japan/Japanese 11, 13-15, 81, 261-263, 272 Korea/Korean 14, 135, 261-263, 272 language language choice 15 language preference 118, 119, 121 language sample 116, 118, 119, 121 language switch See code switching

latching 201, 223 laughter 55, 56, 64, 80, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 217, 220, 261 Lectures on Conversation (Sacks) 3, 197 lexical import 205 lingua franca 115, 117, 119, 129 minimiser 166 misalignment 7, 159, 160 miscommunication 158 misunderstanding 7, 244 monotopical call 207, 226 move-in-interaction 264 mutual categorisation 235 national character 272 Netherlands, the/Dutch 11, 13, 17, 49, 111, 237-241, 243, 272 non-nativeness 116 North America 6, 49, 81, 233, 246 offer 15, 37, 39, 65, 89, 197, 275 opening canonical opening 14, 17, 49, 71, 79, 81, 233-236, 238, 246, 251, 252, 254, 275 non-routine opening 234 oral signature 51 ordinary person 135, 136, 162, 164, 165 organisational job/task 16, 235, 243 other-raising 89, 99, 107 overlap/overlapping talk 98, 120, 121, 124, 126, 141, 201, 210, 223, 239, 252 terminal overlap 107 participant configuration 187 particle 14, 82, 155, 158, 163, 212, 213, 226, 263, 264, 275 clause particle 141, 142, 145, 147, 155, 169 discourse particle 210, 211 particle of familiarity 223, 224 sentence-final particle 195, 196 summarising particle 210 pause 8, 34, 92, 93, 126, 208, 210, 234 Persian 13-15

INDEX v2.qxd

12/3/02

10:24 AM

Page 286

 Index

personal call 50, 55, 103 phatic response/utterance 11, 65, 201, 222, 275 playfulness/play 14, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 67, 72, 80, 81 politeness 50, 82, 87-89, 91-100, 104, 107, 158, 241 politeness level 14, 87-89, 95, 99, 101 politeness routine 88, 97, 107 politeness theory 201, 244 pre-announcement 165 pre-beginning 115, 116 pre-closing See closing pre-topic closing offering 276 preemption 16, 71, 173, 182, 196, 197, 236, 238, 255, 257 preemptive move 66, 71, 74, 78 prefatory statement 27 preparatory statement 141 pre-sequence 165 problem report 15, 16 procedural infrastructure of interaction 240, 241, 244 question-introduction 239 re-characterisation 142, 144, 148, 155, 158 reason-for-call 8, 12, 16, 30, 32-35, 37, 42, 43, 74, 75, 79, 141, 147, 152, 155, 157, 172, 173, 178-180, 183, 186, 187, 190193, 196, 197, 201, 208, 222, 226, 235, 237-239 recency 183, 184 recipient design 156, 157, 255, 258, 260, 270 recognition 7, 9-11, 14, 17, 50, 51, 53, 5665, 79, 80, 87, 89-96, 99-102, 107, 112, 113, 119-123, 126, 128, 141, 156, 157, 172, 187, 188, 191, 236-240, 242, 252, 254, 259, 262, 270, 271, 275 mutual recognition 64, 235, 254 recognition marker 60, 120 recognition practice 269 voice recognition 32, 50, 53, 56-59, 62, 79, 92, 93, 101, 235, 238-240, 252

reframing 142, 144, 155 relation work 17, 226, 235-237, 243 repair 4, 83, 118, 124, 125 embedded repair 118 other-initiated other-repair 118 request 4, 28, 34, 36, 80, 93, 125, 136, 145, 146, 148, 150, 153, 154, 158-161, 163, 169, 226, 260, 261, 275 pre-request 56, 74 resource 14, 17, 115, 121, 126, 135, 172, 262, 269, 273-275, 277 respect 88, 89, 91-93, 95-99, 104, 107 restart 34 self-identification/self-introduction 9-11, 14, 53-57, 62, 69, 70, 79, 93, 95, 112, 113, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127, 141, 155-157, 160, 163, 164, 169, 187, 237, 239-242, 263, 269-271 elaborate/extended self-identification 116-118, 126 explicit self-identification 50, 53-56, 58, 61, 62, 79, 81, 239 joke self-identification 60, 80 organisational self-identification 34, 112, 115, 120, 122, 125, 147, 155, 156, 239, 269-272 self-identification token 32 self-lowering/self-deprecation 88, 89, 93, 99, 107, 261 sequencing 32, 148 sequential sequential consequence 261, 264 sequential import 267, 270 sequential organisation 14, 87 sequential phases 236 sequential placement 172, 216 sequential resource 172 sequential structure 81, 111, 202, 235, 258 sequential task 233, 234 sequential trajectory 118, 270 sequentialisation 265 serial organisation 79 side sequence 178

INDEX v2.qxd

12/3/02

10:24 AM

Page 287

Index 

signature hello 51, 242 silence 152, 216, 254, 255, 261 simultaneous talk See overlap social call 77 Queensland Aborigines 83 Spanish 12, 51 Ecuadorian Spanish 11, 13, 225 standardised relational pair 235, 239 story preface 165 summons-answer 9, 29, 49, 50, 63, 78, 79, 81, 89, 90, 100, 173, 187, 235, 237, 250, 252, 259 Sweden/Swedish 11, 15, 49, 90, 114, 115, 272 switchboard request 7, 14, 32, 37, 39, 43, 58, 125, 141, 169 Switzerland 114, 115 Taiwan/Taiwanese 81, 83 talk-in-interaction 17, 44, 272 Tehran 14 telephobia 7 template 9, 17, 182, 234 terminal exchange 202, 211 term of address 53, 63, 64, 69, 73, 91-95, 97, 102, 254, 270, 271 tone (lexical tone) 108, 189, 190, 195, 196 tone of voice 43, 55, 56, 73, 77, 78, 210, 212 topic 11, 201, 202, 207, 208, 210, 216, 219, 235, 237, 244 first topic 66, 71, 78, 79, 103, 235, 254 first topic slot 15, 106 last topic 16, 202-204, 211, 214, 218, 219

sub-topic 207 topic boundary 196, 203, 214, 219, 220 topic bounding technique 204, 207, 226 topic initiation 12 topic introduction 7, 11 topic management 9, 12 topic marker 195, 197 topic organisation 16, 172 topic work 17, 226, 235-237, 243 topical talk 171, 208, 224, 258, 260 topicalise 14, 242, 258 transition relevance place 142, 145, 147, 148, 155, 157, 169 trouble trouble premonitor 165 troubles-talk/troubles-telling 135, 136, 161, 162, 164-166 turn multi-unit turn 239 turn design 270 United Kingdom, the (U.K.) 15, 114, 115 United States, the (U.S.A.) 8, 10, 269 universalist 10, 233, 234, 249 universality 13, 81, 234, 249, 264 urgency 16, 51, 71, 73, 183, 187, 197, 225, 234, 236 voice sample 10, 14, 29, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62, 79, 90, 91, 100, 116, 118, 126, 237, 239, 240, 252, 270 work call 55, 225, 239 See also business call

INDEX v2.qxd

12/3/02

10:24 AM

Page 288

INDEX v2.qxd

12/3/02

10:24 AM

Page 289

Name Index

Anderson, B. 244 Antonopoulou, E. 83 Atkinson, J.M. 29, 199 Bachnik, J.M. 165 Bakakou-Orfanou, E. 11, 50, 79 Beeman, W.O. 88, 89, 100 Bell, A.G. 3 Berens, F.J. 111 Bourdieu, P. 159 Brinker, K. 12, 111, 202 Brown, P. 61, 65, 143, 201, 244 Button, G. 11, 12, 16, 171, 173, 197, 202, 225 Cameron, D. 226 Casey, N. 12, 16, 171, 173, 197 Chen, C.-H. 10, 25, 81, 83, 249 Clark, H.H. 11, 202 Coulmas, F. 106 Coupland, J. 65 Coupland, N. 65 Dahl, M. 137 Doany, N. 10, 249 Drew, P. 136, 234 Drummond, K. 249 Eades, D. 83 Eglin, P. 235 Fan, K. 199 Farrell, T.J. 161 Ferguson, C.A. 82 Firth, A. 111 French, J.W. 11, 202 Fukushima, S. 136

Garfinkel, H. 18, 244 Garner, P.A. 157 Georgakopoulou, A. 80 Godard, D. 10, 25, 49, 77, 111, 171, 249 Gumperz, J.J. 244 Halmari, H. 11, 111 Have, P. ten 17, 203, 226, 236, 244, 250 Henne, H. 204, 226 Heritage, J. 18, 29, 199, 234, 244, 253 Hester, S. 235 Hirschon, R. 80 Hodge, C.T. 88, 89, 91 Hopper, R. 7-11, 25, 56, 65, 71, 78-81, 111, 165, 171, 233, 234, 236, 244-246, 249 Hoshino, T. 145 Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. 11, 17, 25, 49, 111, 237, 239, 240, 243 Hutchby, I. 63 Hymes, D. 244 Iwata, Y. 136 Jazayery, A. 89 Jefferson, G. 15, 87, 107, 109, 118, 135, 136, 142, 159, 161, 162, 164-166, 235, 252, 253, 261 Johnson, M. 10, 249 Jorden, E.H. 11, 25, 29, 44, 155 Kashiwazaki, H. 160 Kasper, G. 137 Koleilat-Doany, N. 10, 79, 171, 249 Kwok, H. 195 Laver, J. 224 Lee, H.S. 27, 29, 44

INDEX v2.qxd

12/3/02

10:24 AM

Page 290

 Index

Lee, J.R.E. 15, 135, 136, 159, 161, 164, 165 Lee, K. 27 Lentz, L. 11, 17, 241, 242 Levinson, S.C. 61, 65, 143, 201, 244 Liefländer-Koistinen, L. 11, 225 Lindström, A. 11, 25, 49, 65, 90 Luke, K.K. 11, 16, 172, 196, 202 Mackridge, P. 80 Makri-Tsilipakou, M. 83 Matoba, K. 136 Mey, J.L. 51 Moerman, M. 244, 276 Moosavie, S.M. 88, 96-98, 100 Nancarrow, O. 196 Neuendorff, D. 11, 225 Noda, M. 155, 165 Ochs, E. 28, 228, 279 Ono, R. 137 Park, Y.-Y. 11, 13, 14, 27, 37, 83, 135, 156, 157, 262, 263 Pavlidou, T.-S. 11, 12, 16, 18, 49, 50, 53, 63-65, 67, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 111, 172, 197, 201, 202, 211, 213, 219, 224-226, 274 Placencia, M.E. 11, 12, 225, 241, 246 Quinn, C.J., Jr. 165 Rasmussen, G. 15, 111, 112, 120, 129, 271, 272, 276 Ray, Y.T. 165 Rehbock, H. 204, 226 Robinson, J.D. 65 Rose, K.R. 137

Sacks, H. 3-6, 9, 11-13, 18, 49, 68, 107, 111, 118, 142, 165, 166, 171, 173, 197, 202, 204, 207, 211, 213, 224, 226, 234, 235, 238, 240, 242, 244, 252, 261, 269, 276 Sager, S.-F. 12, 111, 202 Salwen, H. 18 Saville-Troike, M. 244 Schegloff, E.A. 5, 6, 9-14, 17, 25, 28, 29, 32, 34, 49-51, 53, 58, 60, 62-64, 66, 68, 71, 73, 78-81, 83, 89, 106, 107, 111, 115, 116, 118, 142, 156, 157, 165, 166, 171-173, 202-204, 207, 211, 213, 224, 226, 228, 233-238, 240, 242, 244-246, 249, 250, 252-254, 261, 262, 264, 268270, 275-277, 279 Sharrock, W. 244 Sifianou, M. 11, 14, 25, 49, 50, 72, 77, 79, 80, 83, 171, 225, 242, 245 Silverman, D. 18 Szatrowski, P. 165 Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 14, 89 Tannen, D. 82, 165, 225 Taylor, T. 226 Terasaki, A.K. 165 Thompson, S.A. 28, 228, 279 Tiemessen, A. 11, 17, 241, 243 Tracy, K. 136 Trudgill, P. 83 Wagner, J. 15, 271, 272, 276 Watson, R. 244 Whalen, J. 136 Whalen, M.R. 136 Wiemann, J.M. 165 Wooffitt, R. 63 Yotsukura, L.A. 11, 15, 43, 83, 135, 165 Zimmerman, D.H. 136

In the PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1. WALTER, Bettyruth: The Jury Summation as Speech Genre: An Ethnographic Study of What it Means to Those who Use it. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988. 2. BARTON, Ellen: Nonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 3. OLEKSY, Wieslaw (ed.): Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 4. RAFFLER-ENGEL, Walburga von (ed.): Doctor-Patient Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 5. THELIN, Nils B. (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 6. VERSCHUEREN, Jef (ed.): Selected Papers from the 1987 International Pragmatics Conference. Vol. I: Pragmatics at Issue. Vol. II: Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Vol. III: The Pragmatics of Intercultural and International Communication (ed. with Jan Blommaert). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 7. LINDENFELD, Jacqueline: Speech and Sociability at French Urban Market Places. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 8. YOUNG, Lynne: Language as Behaviour, Language as Code: A Study of Academic English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 9. LUKE, Kang-Kwong: Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 10. MURRAY, Denise E.: Conversation for Action. The computer terminal as medium of communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 11. LUONG, Hy V.: Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings. The Vietnamese system of person reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 12. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): Discourse Particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 13. NUYTS, Jan, A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN and Co VET (eds): Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: A functional view. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 14. SCHWARTZ, Ursula: Young Children’s Dyadic Pretend Play. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 15. KOMTER, Martha: Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 16. MANN, William C. and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 17. PIÉRAUT-LE BONNIEC, Gilberte and Marlene DOLITSKY (eds): Language Bases ... Discourse Bases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 18. JOHNSTONE, Barbara: Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Paradigms, syntagms and the ecology of language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 19. BAKER, Carolyn D. and Allan LUKE (eds): Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Papers of the XII World Congress on Reading. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 20. NUYTS, Jan: Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. On cognition, functionalism, and grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 21. SEARLE, John R. et al.: (On) Searle on Conversation. Compiled and introduced by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992.

22. AUER, Peter and Aldo Di LUZIO (eds): The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 23. FORTESCUE, Michael, Peter HARDER and Lars KRISTOFFERSEN (eds): Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Papers from the Functional Grammar Conference, Copenhagen, 1990. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 24. MAYNARD, Senko K.: Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 25. COUPER-KUHLEN, Elizabeth: English Speech Rhythm. Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 26. STYGALL, Gail: Trial Language. A study in differential discourse processing. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1994. 27. SUTER, Hans Jürg: The Wedding Report: A Prototypical Approach to the Study of Traditional Text Types. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 28. VAN DE WALLE, Lieve: Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 29. BARSKY, Robert F.: Constructing a Productive Other: Discourse theory and the convention refugee hearing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 30. WORTHAM, Stanton E.F.: Acting Out Participant Examples in the Classroom. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 31. WILDGEN, Wolfgang: Process, Image and Meaning. A realistic model of the meanings of sentences and narrative texts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 32. SHIBATANI, Masayoshi and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 33. GOOSSENS, Louis, Paul PAUWELS, Brygida RUDZKA-OSTYN, Anne-Marie SIMONVANDENBERGEN and Johan VANPARYS: By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 34. BARBE, Katharina: Irony in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 35. JUCKER, Andreas H. (ed.): Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 36. CHILTON, Paul, Mikhail V. ILYIN and Jacob MEY: Political Discourse in Transition in Eastern and Western Europe (1989-1991). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 37. CARSTON, Robyn and Seiji UCHIDA (eds): Relevance Theory. Applications and implications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 38. FRETHEIM, Thorstein and Jeanette K. GUNDEL (eds): Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 39. HERRING, Susan (ed.): Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 40. DIAMOND, Julie: Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a closeknit social network. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 41. VENTOLA, Eija and Anna MAURANEN, (eds): Academic Writing. Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 42. WODAK, Ruth and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds): Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 43. JANSSEN, Theo A.J.M. and Wim van der WURFF (eds): Reported Speech. Forms and functions of the verb. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.

44. BARGIELA-CHIAPPINI, Francesca and Sandra J. HARRIS: Managing Language. The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 45. PALTRIDGE, Brian: Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 46. GEORGAKOPOULOU, Alexandra: Narrative Performances. A study of Modern Greek storytelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 47. CHESTERMAN, Andrew: Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 48. KAMIO, Akio: Territory of Information. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 49. KURZON, Dennis: Discourse of Silence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 50. GRENOBLE, Lenore: Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 51. BOULIMA, Jamila: Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 52. GILLIS, Steven and Annick DE HOUWER (eds): The Acquisition of Dutch. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1998. 53. MOSEGAARD HANSEN, Maj-Britt: The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 54. HYLAND, Ken: Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 55. ALLWOOD, Jens and Peter Gärdenfors (eds): Cognitive Semantics. Meaning and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 56. TANAKA, Hiroko: Language, Culture and Social Interaction. Turn-taking in Japanese and Anglo-American English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 57 JUCKER, Andreas H. and Yael ZIV (eds): Discourse Markers. Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 58. ROUCHOTA, Villy and Andreas H. JUCKER (eds): Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 59. KAMIO, Akio and Ken-ichi TAKAMI (eds): Function and Structure. In honor of Susumu Kuno. 1999. 60. JACOBS, Geert: Preformulating the News. An analysis of the metapragmatics of press releases. 1999. 61. MILLS, Margaret H. (ed.): Slavic Gender Linguistics. 1999. 62. TZANNE, Angeliki: Talking at Cross-Purposes. The dynamics of miscommunication. 2000. 63. BUBLITZ, Wolfram, Uta LENK and Eija VENTOLA (eds.): Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it.Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24-27 April 1997. 1999. 64. SVENNEVIG, Jan: Getting Acquainted in Conversation. A study of initial interactions. 1999. 65. COOREN, François: The Organizing Dimension of Communication. 2000. 66. JUCKER, Andreas H., Gerd FRITZ and Franz LEBSANFT (eds.): Historical Dialogue Analysis. 1999. 67. TAAVITSAINEN, Irma, Gunnel MELCHERS and Päivi PAHTA (eds.): Dimensions of Writing in Nonstandard English. 1999. 68. ARNOVICK, Leslie: Diachronic Pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. 1999.

69. NOH, Eun-Ju: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metarepresentation in English. A relevance-theoretic account. 2000. 70. SORJONEN, Marja-Leena: Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. 2001. 71. GÓMEZ-GONZÁLEZ, María Ángeles: The Theme-Topic Interface. Evidence from English. 2001. 72. MARMARIDOU, Sophia S.A.: Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. 2000. 73. HESTER, Stephen and David FRANCIS (eds.): Local Educational Order. Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. 2000. 74. TROSBORG, Anna (ed.): Analysing Professional Genres. 2000. 75. PILKINGTON, Adrian: Poetic Effects. A relevance theory perspective. 2000. 76. MATSUI, Tomoko: Bridging and Relevance. 2000. 77. VANDERVEKEN, Daniel and Susumu KUBO (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. 2002. 78. SELL, Roger D. : Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. 2000. 79. ANDERSEN, Gisle and Thorstein FRETHEIM (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. 80. UNGERER, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. 81. DI LUZIO, Aldo, Susanne GÜNTHNER and Franca ORLETTI (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. 2001. 82. KHALIL, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. 83. MÁRQUEZ REITER, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. 84. ANDERSEN, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. 85. COLLINS, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. 86. IFANTIDOU, Elly: Evidentials and Relevance. 2001. 87. MUSHIN, Ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative retelling. 2001. 88. BAYRAKTAROG
LU, ArFn and Maria SIFIANOU (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The case of Greek and Turkish. 2001. 89. ITAKURA, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. 2001. 90. KENESEI, István and Robert M. HARNISH (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. 91. GROSS, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. 2001. 92. GARDNER, Rod: When Listeners Talk. Response tokens and listener stance. 2001. 93. BARON, Bettina and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. 2002 94. McILVENNY, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. 2002. 95. FITZMAURICE, Susan M.: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic approach. 2002. 96. HAVERKATE, Henk: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. 2002.

97. MAYNARD, Senko K.: Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. 2002. 98. DUSZAK, Anna (ed.): Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. 2002. 99. JASZCZOLT, K.M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 1. 2003. 100. JASZCZOLT, K.M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 2. 2003. 101. LUKE, Kang Kwong and Theodossia-Soula PAVLIDOU (eds.): Telephone Calls. Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. 2002. 102. LEAFGREN, John: Degrees of Explicitness. Information structure and the packaging of Bulgarian subjects and objects. 2002. 103. FETZER, Anita and Christiane MEIERKORD (eds.): Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics meets conversational interaction. 2002. 104. BEECHING, Kate: Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. 2002. 105. BLACKWELL, Sarah E.: Implicatures in Discourse. The case of Spanish NP anaphora. 2003. 106. BUSSE, Ulrich: Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns. 2002. 107. TAAVITSAINEN, Irma and Andreas H. JUCKER (eds.): Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. 2003. 108. BARRON, Anne: Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. 2003. 109. MAYES, Patricia: Language, Social Structure, and Culture. A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan and America. 2003. 110. ANDROUTSOPOULOS, Jannis K. and Alexandra GEORGAKOPOULOU (eds.): Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. 2003. 111. ENSINK, Titus and Christoph SAUER (eds.): Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. 2003. 112. LENZ, Friedrich (ed.): Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person. 2003. 113. PANTHER, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. THORNBURG (eds.): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. 2003. 114. KÜHNLEIN, Peter, Hannes RIESER and Henk ZEEVAT (eds.): Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. 2003. 115. KÄRKKÄINEN, Elise: Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. n.y.p. 116. GRANT, Colin B. (ed.): Rethinking Communicative Interaction. New interdisciplinary horizons. n.y.p. 117. WU, Ruey-Jiuan Regina: Stance in Talk. A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. n.y.p. 118. CHENG, Winnie: Intercultural Conversation. A study of Hong Kong Chinese. n.y.p.