8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

1/43

ELSEVIER

jonmll ~Journal of Pragma tics 33 (2001) 1815-1857

www.elsevier.corn/locate/pragma

Q u e s t i on s an d s t r a t e g i c or i e n t a t i oni n v e r b a l c o n f l i c t s e q u e n c e s

Helmut GruberDepartment of Linguistics University of Vienna Berggasse 11 A-1090 Vienna Austria

Received 13 January 1999; revised version 30 Novem ber 2000

b s t r a c t

I n t h i s p a p e r a n o n - c o g n i t i v e , i n t e r a c t i o n a l c o n c e p t o f s t r a t e g y i s p r e s e n t e d . I t i s a r g u e dt h a t s t r a t e g i e s a r e i n t e r a c t i o n a l p r o d u c t s t h a t m a y b e r e c o g n i z a b l e f o r a n a l y s t s ( a n d i n t e r a c -t a n ts ) u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , w h e r e a s ' i n t e n t i o n s ' ( o r ' s t r a t e g i c o r i e n t a t i o n s ' ) a r e a n a l y s t s 'a n d m e m b e r s ' i n t e r p r e ta t i v e c o n s t r u c t s t h at a r e u s e d t o e x p l a i n th e b e h a v i o r o f p a r t i c ip a n t s i na n i n t e r a c t i o n . F e a t u r e s t h a t a r e u s e d t o i n f e r t h e p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g i c u s e o f a m o v e i n c l u d eg l o b a l i n t e r a c t io n a l c o n c e r n s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s (a v o i d a n c e o f F T A s i n c o n s e n t p h a s e s o f t a lk ,d o i n g F T A s i n d i s s e n t p h a s e s o f t a l k ) a s w e l l a s l o c a l a s p e c t s o f a t u r n ( i t s p r o j e c t e d n e x ta c t i o n , it s c o h e s i v e r e l a t i o n t o t h e p r e v i o u s m o v e , i ts p o s s i b l y ' u n o f f i c i a l ' u s e) . T h i s c o n c e p to f s t r a t e g y i s u s e d t o a n a l y z e d i f f e r e n t f o r m s o f q u e s t i o n s a n d t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n a l c o n s e -q u e n c e s f o r a d d r e s s e e s i n c o n s e n t a n d d i s s e n t p h a s e s o f ta l k . T h e r e s u l ts s u g g e s t t h a t t h e a t t ri -b u t i o n o f a s t r a te g i c o r i e n ta t i o n t o s p e a k e r s b y a n a l y s t s i s j u s t i f i a b l e in d i s s e n t p h a s e s o f t a l k( w h e r e t h e r e s u l t o f a s t r a t e g y i s th e s e l f- w e a k e n i n g o f t h e a d d r e s s e e ' s p o s i t io n ) r a t h e r th a ni n c o n s e n t p h a s e s , w h e r e t h e r e s u l t o f a s t ra t e g y m i g h t o n l y b e t h e a v o i d a n c e o f a n F T A . I n as e c o n d s t e p o f a n a l y s i s , t h e s e r e s u l ts a r e c o r r o b o r a t e d b y t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t s i t u a ti o n a l a n dc o n t e x t u a l f a c t o r s l i k e ' r e a l l i f e ' r o l e s o f i n t e r l o c u t o rs a n d t h e i r p o s s i b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s f o rt h e i r o r ie n t a t i o n to w a r d s t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s , a s w e l l a s p o w e r d i f f e r e n t ia l s b e t w e e n d i s c u s s a n t sw h i c h a r e e s t a b l i s h e d b y s e c o n d p o s i t i o n q u e s t io n s . 2 0 0 1 E l s e v i e r S c i e n c e B .V . A l l r i g h tsr e s e r v e d .Keywords : C o n f l i c t c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; I n t e r a c t i o n s t r a te g i e s ; M e d i a c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; C o n v e r -s a t i o n a n a l y s i s ; C o m m u n i c a t i o n p r i n c i p l e s ; P a r t i c i p a n t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s ; G e r m a n

This research was suppor ted by a grant of the 'Fonds zur Fr rderung der wissenschaf t l ichenFors chu ng' (Austr ian Scienc e Foundation), project number: P8934-HIS. A first version of this pape r waspresented at the 6th IPRA Conference, Reims, 19-24 July 1998.* Pho ne: +43 1 4277 41722; E-m ail: helmut.k.gruber@univie.ac.at0378-2166/01/ - see front m atter 200 1 Else vier Science B.V. A ll r ights reserved.P II : S 0 3 7 8 - 2 1 6 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 8 3 - 7

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

2/43

1816 H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857I I n t r o d u c t i o n

D u r i n g t h e p a s t y ea r s , d i s co u r s e an a l y s ts h av e i n v es t ig a t ed v a r i o u s a s p ec t s o f co n -f l ic t ep i so des i n conv er sa t i ons ( fo r an ov erv i e w see Brennei s , 1988 ; G ruber , 1996)in d i f f e ren t con tex t s such as lega l , i n s ti tu t iona l , and w orkp lace se t t i ngs (O Do nne l l ,1990 ; Ph i l i p s , 1990 ; M ayna rd , 1985) , i n f am i ly t a lk and f am i ly d inner s (Sch i f f r i n ,1990 ; V uch in i ch , 1986 , 1987 , 1990 ; M unt ig l and Turnbu l l , 1998) , as wel l as in ta lksho ws and phon e- in b roadc as t s (B i lmes , 1999 ; Hu tchb y , 1992 , 1996a ,b ; 1999). On eof t he majo r in t e rac t iona l cha rac t e r i s ti cs o f conf l i c t com m unica t ion t u rned o u t t o bean increased t en denc y to use f ace- th rea t en ing ac t s ( c f. Mun t ig l and Turnbu l l , 1998).H o w e v e r , G r u b e r s i n v es ti g a ti o n o f v e r b a l co n f l ic t ep i s o d es ( G r u b e r , 1 9 9 6) s h o w edt h at w eak f ace - th r ea t en in g d ev i ce s l i k e o p p o s i n g q u es t io n s a r e a l s o co m m o n l y u s e ddur ing d i spu t es . Gru ber (1996) spe cu la t ed t ha t t he use o f opp os ing que s t i ons migh tind i ca t e a s t r a teg i c o r i en t a t i on o f i n t e rac t an t s, bu t due t o the ove ra l l e thnom ethod-o l o g i ca l ap p r o ach o f h i s s t u d y t h i s co n j ec t u r e w as n o t p u r s u ed . Th e p r e s en t p ap e ra ims a t deve lop ing th i s hypo thes i s fu r ther by p resen t ing a concep t ion o f s t r a t egy int h e f r amew o r k o f an e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g i ca l l y o r i en ted d i s co u r s e an a l y s i s an d g i v i n gan acc oun t o f d i f f e ren t t ypes o f ques t i ons t ha t migh t be u sed s t r a t eg i ca ll y . Th i sp ap e r em er g ed i n t h e co u r s e o f a b r o ad e r s t u d y o f v e r b a l co n f l ic t co mm u n i ca t i o n(Gruber , 1996 , 1998) wh ich had two majo r ob j ec t i ves : ( a ) t o deve lop a genera lm o d e l o f t h e d is cu r s i v e f ea tu r e s o f co n f li c t ep i s o d es ( o n t h e lev e l o f ex t en d e ds eq u en ces ( P s a th as , 1 9 9 2 ) a s w e l l a s o n t h e lev e l o f ad j acen c y p a ir s ); an d ( b ) toinves t i ga t e t he r e l a t i onsh ip be tween d i f f e ren t s i t ua t i ona l con tex t s and the ac tua lins tan t i a ti ons o f t he mo del . The p resen t pape r r esu l ted f rom the i nves t i ga t i on o f t hel a t te r ob j ec t i ve .In the r emainde r o f t h is paper , fo l low ing som e method o log ica l cons idera t i ons , t her e s u lt s o f d i s co u r s e an a l y s is an d co n v e r s a t i o n an a l y s i s a r e co m b i n ed t o p r o p o s e anin t e rac t i ona l ( r a ther than a cogn i t ive) con cep t ion o f s tr a t egy . Then , d i f f e ren t k inds o fseco nd pos i t i on ques t i ons t ha t occ ur i n conse n t o r i n d i s sen t phase s o f ta lk a re i nves -t i ga ted t o t es t how usefu l t h is i n t e rac t iona l con cep t o f s t r a t egy is . In the c los ing sec-t ion , t he r esu l ts a re i n t eg ra t ed an d i t is show n tha t t he s t ra t eg i c use o f m ove s canon ly be accoun ted fo r i f severa l i n t e rac t i ona l f ea tu res a re cons idered s imul t aneous ly .

2 M e t h o d o l o g ic a l p r e l i m i n a r yD u r i n g t h e p a s t y ea r s , a co n t r o v e r s y h as a r i s en b e t w een co n v e r s a t io n an a l y s ts an dresearcher s i n t he e thnography o f com m unica t ion and c r it ica l d i scourse ana lys i s

camps , r espec t ive ly , abou t t he i n f luence and sa l i ence o f s i t ua t i ona l and cu l tu ra li n f luences on ac tua l i n t e rac t i on (Sch eg lo f f , 1997 , 1998 , 1999b ,c ; W hethere l l , 1998 ;Bi l l i g , 1999a ,b ; Sander s , 1999) . Whi l e t here i s a lmos t no con t rover sy abou t t he f ac tt ha t conver sa t i on ana lys i s (CA) t akes i n to accoun t t he immedia t e sequen t i a l con t ex twh en ana lys ing s t r e tches o f t a lk (Sacks e t a l. , 1974 ; He r i tage , 1984) , t here i s a d i s -pu t e concern ing the poss ib l e r e l evance o f t he wider s i t ua t i ona l con tex t fo r an ana-ly t ic i n t e rp re ta t ion o f d i scourse da t a .

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

3/43

H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857 1817S a n d e r s ( 1 9 9 9 ) r e l a t e s th i s c o n t r o v e r s y to t w o d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f p r a g m a t i c m e a n -

i n g t h a t m i g h t b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h u t t e ra n c e s :One kind of pragmatic meaning is accorded to utterances by virtue of how theutterances are positionedin relation to eac h other within an interaction; the other kind o f pragm atic mea ning is acc orded to u tter-ances by virtue of how they position speakers in relation to ea ch oth er within a com mu nity. (Sanders,1999: 132, original emphasis)

S a n d e r s a t t r ib u t e s t o C A a n i n t e re s t in th e f o r m e r k i n d o f p r a g m a t i c m e a n i n g , w h i l e( a c c o r d i n g t o S a n d e r s ) t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e l a t te r is r e s t ri c t e d t o t h e r e a l m o fe t h n o g r a p h e r s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . H i s a p p r o a c h s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s e q u e n t ia l p la c e -m e n t o f a n u t t e r a n c e c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l c o h e r e n c e o f a n i n t e r a c t i o n ' sa n d a n u t t e r a n c e ' s m e a n i n g f u l n e s s i n t h e s o c i a l w o r l d o f a c e r t a in g r o u p o f p e o p l e ,a n d c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e c o h e r e n c e o f r e l a t i o n s h ip s b e t w e e n i n t e r a c t a n t s w i t h n o n e c -e s s ar y c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h es e t w o k i n d s o f c o h e r e n c e .

H o w e v e r , I d o n o t t h i n k t h a t th i s a s s u m p t i o n h o l d s f o r a l l in s t a n c e s o f i n t er a c ti o n ,a s l a n g u a g e i s a s e m i o t i c s y s t e m t h a t s h a p e s , a n d i s s h a p e d b y , s i t u a t i o n a l a n d c u l -t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s ( H a l l i d a y , 1 9 9 4 ; M a r t i n , 1 9 9 2 ) . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s v i e w , i n t e r a c t a n t sd o n o t m a k e i n d e p e n d e n t c h o i c e s o n t h e s e q u e n t i a l a n d t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l p l a n e s o fi n t er a c t io n . R a t h e r t h e f o r m , c o n t e n t , a n d s e q u e n t i a l p l a c e m e n t o f u t te r a n c e s c o n t i n -u a l l y re f l e c t in t e r a c t a n t s' u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f t h e p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e a n d a l so w h a tk i n d o f i n te r p e r s o n a l r e l a ti o n s h i p t h e y d e e m t o b e a p p r o p r i a te a t t h a t v e r y s t ag e o ft h e i n t e r a c t i o n . O f c o u r s e , a n y u t t e r a n c e a l s o i n f l u e n c e s t h e p o s s i b l e f o l l o w i n gm o v e s .

F o r a n a l y s t s , t h i s m e a n s t h a t n o m a t t e r w h i c h p r a g m a t i c m e a n i n g i n S a n d e r ' s ( o ri n a n y o t h e r ) s e n s e t h e y f o c u s o n i n t h e i r a n a l y s e s , t h e r e i s a ( p o t e n t i a l ) r e l a t i o nb e t w e e n t h e s e d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f m e a n i n g . S u p e r f i c ia l l y v i e w e d , th i s c o n c e p t i o n o fi n t e rr e l a te d p r a g m a t i c m e a n i n g s s e e m s t o h a v e f a r - r e a c h i n g m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n s e -q u e n c e s , a s i t m i g h t s u g g e s t t h a t i t d o e s n o t m a t t e r f r o m w h i c h ' s i d e ' ( d e s c r i p t i o n so f s i t u a t i o n a l o r c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t v s . v e r b a l a n d n o n v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n d a t a ) a n a n a l y -s is s t ar t s a n d w h e r e i t ' e n d s ' . T h u s , a n a l y s t s m i g h t s t a rt t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f as t re t c h o f ta l k b y f i rs t g e n e r a t in g h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t h o w a n d w h a t i n t e r ac t a n ts m i g h ts a y i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n b a s e d o n b r o a d c u l t u r a l o r c o n t e x t u a l c a t e g o r i e s l i k ep o w e r , g e n d e r , c l as s e t c . a n d t h e n p r o c e e d t o f in d i n d i c a t io n s f o r t h e i r h y p o t h e s e s i nt h e d a t a . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , o t h e r s m i g h t s t a r t t h e i r a n a l y s i s w i t h a d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i -g a t i o n o f t h e a c t u a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a n d t h e n t r y t o r e l a t e t h e i r re s u l t s t o b r o a d e r c a t e -g o r i e s o f c o n t ex t .1

H o w e v e r , w i th i n th e r e a lm o f b o t h C A a n d t h e e th n o g r a p h y o f c o m m u n i c a t io n t h ea b o v e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l a lt e r n a ti v e s d o n o t a r is e , a s b o t h a p p r o a c h e s ( ju s t li k e m i c r o -a n a l y s is a n d e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g y , c f . W i e d e r , 1 9 9 9 ) ar e c o n c e r n e d w i t h s o c i a l in t e r-a c t io n a l c o n c e p t s ( W i e d e r , 1 9 9 9 : 1 6 5 ) w h i c h e x i s t o n l y i n s o f a r a s t h e y f u n c t i o nc o m m u n i c a t i v e l y , a s t h e y a r e v i s i b l e a n d r e c o g n i z a b l e t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s , a n d , a s

1 It is do ubtful wh ether supporters of these two approache s wo uld arrive at the sam e results in theiranalyses (som e scholars, e.g . Schegloff, 1997, prob ably w ou ld answ er thi s question negatively),although it m ight be an interesting exercise to do a m ethodologicalcom parison along these lines.

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

4/43

1818 H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857E M [ e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g y ] a n d C A u n d e r s t a n d i t, as t h e y a r e t h e re b y v i s ib l e a n d r e c-o g n i z a b l e t o a n a l y s t s a s w e l l ( W i e d e r , 1 9 9 9 : 1 6 6 ). T h u s , i n b o t h a p p r o a c h e s a n a -l y s t s h a v e t o s t a r t t h e i r w o r k w i t h a c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e ' i n t e r a c t i o n a l c o n c e p t s 'o f s i t u a te d a c t iv i ti e s a n d t h e w a y s p a r t i c ip a n t s a t t e n d t o t h e m a n d n o t b y i m p o s i n ge x t e r n a l s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s o n t h e i r d a t a .T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e a p p r o a c h e s c o n c e r n s t h e i r d i f f e r e n t v i e w s o n w h a ta s p e c t s o f i n t e r a c t i o n d e s e r v e t h e a n a l y s t s ' m a j o r a t t e n t i o n . W h e r e a s C A i s m a i n l yi n te r e s te d i n t h e g e n e r a l a n d f o r m a l ( S c h e g l o f f , 1 9 9 9d : 1 44 ) a n d n o t s o m u c h i nt h e s i t u a t e d p a r t i c u l a r s ( S c h e g l o f f , 1 9 9 9 d : 1 4 4 ), o t h e r q u a l i t a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s a ree s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d in t h e s e p a r ti c u l a rs . N o w , i f C A i s s u c c e s s f u l i n a c c o u n t i n g f o rt h e g e n e r a l, f o r m a l , a n d s tr u c tu r a l p r o p e r ti e s o f o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n s ( S c h e g l o f f ,1 9 9 9 a : 4 1 3 ) , i t p r o v i d e s a b l u e p r i n t a s w e l l a s a t o o l k i t ( S c h e g l o f f , 1 9 9 9 a :4 1 7 ) f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t io n o f a n y i n s t a n c e o f t a lk , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t so f a n a l y s ts . S c h o l ar s w h o s e m a i n i n t e re s t c o n c e r n s t h e ' g e n e r a l a n d f o r m a l ' a s p e c t so f c o n v e r s a t i o n s m a y d i s r e g a r d f u r t h e r a n a l y t i c s t e p s , w h i c h c o u l d r e l a t e a n u t t e r -a n c e ' s s e q u e n ti a l p l a c e m e n t ( a n d t h u s m e a n i n g ) t o o t h e r s i t u a ti o n a l f a c to r s , w h e r e a sa n a l y s t s i n t e r e s t e d in t h e ' p a r t i c u l a r s ' o f a c e r ta i n c o n v e r s a t i o n m i g h t v e r y w e l l s ta r tw i t h a c l o s e s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s o f a c e r t a in s t r e t c h o f t a l k a n d t h e n a s k w h a t t h e s p e -c i al s e q u e n t ia l a r r a n g e m e n t o f u t t e r a n ce s t h e y f o u n d m i g h t r e v e a l a b o u t t h e r e l a t io n -s h i p b e t w e e n p a r t i c ip a n t s e t c . T h u s , I p r o p o s e a t w o - s t e p m e t h o d o l o g y f o r th i s s e c-o n d g r o u p o f a n a l y s e s ( a n d f o r th e i n v e s t i g a t io n c o n d u c t e d i n th e f o l l o w i n g ) :1 . T h e d i s c o u r s e d a t a a r e s u b j e c t e d t o a c l o s e s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s w h i c h a l s o ta k e s

i n t o a c c o u n t c o n t e n t a s p e c t s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s ( i . e . t o p i c ( s ) a n d t o p i c c h a n g e s ) .T h i s f i r s t s t e p r e v e a l s w h e t h e r ( o r t o w h a t e x t e n t ) t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s u n d e r i n v e s -t i g a ti o n d i s p l a y c h a r a c te r is t ic s o f ' o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n s ' . W h a t e v e r t h e r e s u lto f t h i s fi r st s te p m a y b e , t h e y a l l o w t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t w h i c h s it -u a t i o n a l , c u l t u r a l e t c . c o n c e p t s a n d v a l u e s t h e p a r t i c ip a n t s m i g h t a t t e n d t o i n t h e i rin t e rac t ion . 2

2 . I n a s e c o n d s te p , t h e a n a l y s t m i g h t a tt e m p t t o f i n d o u t w h i c h o f th e s e h y p o t h e s e sa r e s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t w i d e r s i t u a t i o n a l a n d c o n t e x t u a l f e a t u r e so f t h e p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n .

I w i l l b e m a i n l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h s t e p o n e i n th e e m p i r i c a l s e c t i o n o f th i s p a p e r , n o to n l y b e c a u s e o f s p a c e r e s t r i c t i o n s , b u t r a t h e r b e c a u s e I w a n t t o s h o w t h a t t h e n o t i o no f ' s t r a t e g y ' a s i t i s d e v e l o p e d i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l s u i t e d t od e m o n s t r a t e h o w s e q u e n ti a l a n a ly s i s c a n g e n e r a t e h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t t h e r e l a ti o n s h i pb e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a n t s .

2 E ve n f the sequential analysisyields the result that the interaction s totally 'inconspicuous' in termsof sequence, this m ight be taken as an indicator ha t participants conducted an 'ordinary conversation'.

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

5/43

H. G ruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857 18193 S t r a t e g ie s i n d i s c o u r s e3 . 1 . T o w a r d s a n in t e r a c t i o n a l c o n c e p t i o n o f s t r a t e g y

In discourse analytic studies, the concept of 'strategy' has been widely used toaccount for the relation between the 'manifest' verbal and nonverbal behavior ofspeakers and their 'internal' states, thereby proposing that interactional moves arethe results of more or less conscious anticipatory planning (Goody, 1995; Drew,1995; for a detailed account of cognitive models of discourse strategies, cf. Thimm,1990). However, there are several difficulties associated with this view (cf. Greene,1990): (a) it is questionable if every 'st rategy' is always realized by the samesequence of talk. A model which is based on this assumption would either beextremely inflexible or would have to propose an almost indeterminate number ofstrategies; (b) the same strategy might be realized by different verbal sequences orthe same verbal sequence may be used to realize different strategies according to dif-ferent situational contexts. In either case, it remains unclear how an analyst coulddecide in which situation which sequence should be associated with which strategy.Greene (1990) calls this the principle of 'structural indeterminacy' of behavior.However, cognitive approaches imply that (verbal) behavior is the result of (more orless) conscious planning and intentions of speakers, although it remains an openquestion how analysts may be able to reconstruct these intentions in an unambiguousway.

In conversation analysis, according to its strict empirical and participant-orientedapproach, the notion of 'strategy' has not been widely used. Because even if speak-ers would consciously use strategies to achieve certain interactive goals, they wouldnot make them recognizable to their interlocutors, since one of the defining featuresof 'strategy' is that it must not be recognized by others in order to be successful (cf.Goffman, 1981 [1969]; Pilch, 1999).

In a 1995 article, Drew has outlined some issues which might be of interest for aCA conception of strategy. Drew's point of departure is that with its core assumptionthat human behavior is sequentially structured, CA provides a basic conception thatmight be used to account for the strategic orientations of interactants. According toDrew, the range of moves that may be used strategically is restricted to those whichproject a certain second part. Then the issue is whether the knowledge of sequen-tial patterns which underlies mental representations of action may be consciouslyexploited in interaction (Drew, 1995:114). So the analyst is left with the problemwhether the attribution of a strategic orientation to the initiator of a sequence is jus-tifiable or not.The first possible solution of this problem is to focus the inquiry on co-partici-pants' attributions of strategic orientation to other's actions (Drew, 1995: 113).However, this path of inquiry might leave the analyst with a collection of unsuc-cessful attempts of strategy use, because, as mentioned above, strategy users try tohide their strategic orientation in order to be successful. And if the addressee of astrategy sees through the other's strategic orientation and makes this orientation thetopic of a follow-up turn, the strategy has failed.

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

6/43

1820 H. G ruber /Jo urn al o f Pragmatics 33 (2001) 1815-1857S e c o n d , a n a l y s ts m a y b e a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e s t r a te g i c o r ie n t a t io n s o f m e m b e r s b y

a s s u m i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s o m e b a s e l in e o f ' n e u t r a l i n te r a c t i o n ' w h e r e t h e l o c a lm a n a g e m e n t o f t a lk is a c h i e v e d ' a u t o m a t i c a l l y ' b y p a r t ic i p a n t s a n d n o o v e r a r c h i n gp l a n n i n g s e e m s t o o c c u r . A n y n o t i c e a b l e d e v i a t i o n f r o m t h i s b a s e l i n e m i g h t b e c o n -s i d e r e d a s s t r a t e g i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d . 3 A s o l u t i o n a l o n g t h e s e l i n e s i s p r o p o s e d b yF o p p a ( 1 9 9 0 ) , w h o s t a te s t h a t i n i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t io n s , t h e b r i d g i n g o f p a u s e s a n dt h e a v o i d a n c e o f c o n f l i c t f r e q u e n t l y s e e m t o b e t h e o n l y i n t e re s t o f th e i n t e r l o c u t o r s( F o p p a , 1 9 9 0 : 1 8 4 ). A n y v i o l a t io n o f t h is p r i n c i p l e o f n e u t r a l l o c a l c o h e r e n c e( F o p p a , 1 9 9 0 : 1 8 9 ) is c o n s i d e r e d a r e a s o n f o r s u p p o s i n g t h a t t h e v i o l a t o r h a s as t r a te g i c i n t e n t i o n ( F o p p a , 1 9 9 0 : 1 9 1 , o r i g i n a l e m p h a s i s ) . T h i s i m p l i e s (a n d i n f a c tt h is is t h e a r g u m e n t F o p p a p u t s f o r w a r d ) t ha t a n y r e a c t i v e m o v e s o t h e r th a n c o m -m e n t s , e x p l a n a t io n s , o r c o n f i r m a t i o n s o f p a r t n e r ' s s t a te m e n t s h a v e t o b e v i e w e d a ss t r a t e g i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d .

A l t h o u g h t h i s v i e w , t o o , m a y r u n i n t o t h e p r o b l e m t h a t i n a c t u a l t a l k , a n a l m o s ti n d e t e r m i n a t e n u m b e r o f s tr a te g i e s w o u l d h a v e t o b e i d e n ti f ie d , i t p r o v i d e s s o m eu s e f u l s t a r t i n g p o i n t s f o r a c o n c e p t i o n o f ' s t r a t e g y ' f r o m a C A p e r s p e c t i v e :1 . i t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s tr a t e g i c u s e o f a n a c t i o n c a n b e i d e n t i f i e d b y ( a ) c o n s i d e r i n g

i t s r e l a t i o n t o t h e p r e v i o u s m o v e ( i . e . i t s s e q u e n t i a l p l a c e m e n t ) a n d ( b ) b y t a k i n gi n to a c c o u n t i ts p o s s i b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r t h e f u r t h e r c o u r s e o f i n t e r a c ti o n .

2 . I t a s s u m e s t h a t a n y d e v i a t i o n f r o m p a r ti c i p a n t s ' o r ie n t a t i o n t o w a r d s o v e r a r c h i n gp r i n c i p le s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n m a y a t l e a st b e t a k e n a s a h i n t f o r a m o v e ' s s t ra t e g icu s e . H o w e v e r , F o p p a ' s p r i n c i p l e o f n e u tr a l lo c a l c o h e r e n c e s e e m s t o b e a t o or e s t r i c t iv e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e t o i d e n t i f y t h e s t r a t e g i c u s e s o f m o v e s .

A t h i r d p o s s i b l e c a n d i d a t e f o r a g e n e r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t sm a y a d h e r e t o i s t h e m u t u a l m a i n t e n a n c e o f f a c e ( cf . B r o w n a n d L e v i n s o n , 1 9 8 7 ).F a c e k e e p i n g a c t iv i t ie s a r e at th e c o r e o f h u m a n i n t e r a c ti o n b e c a u s e t h e y g u a r a n t e et h a t s o c ia l re l a t io n s h i p s ( w h i c h a r e a p r e r e q u i s it e f o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) c a n b e m a i n -t a i n e d . B u t , a s B r o w n a n d L e v i n s o n s h o w , c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c e w h i c h f a c ek e e p i n g a c t i v i t i e s m a y b e r e l e v a n t i n a c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n ( c f . b e l o w ) . T h u s , t h e p o l i t e -n e s s e f f e c t c a u s e d b y t h e i n i ti a ti o n o f a c e r t a i n s e q u e n c e m a y p r o v i d e h i n ts a t it s p o s -s i b l e s t r a t e g i c m o t i v a t i o n .

A f o u r t h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r t h e s t r a t e g i c u s e o f s e q u e n t i a l d e v i c e s a p p l i e sD r e w ' s d i f f e r e n ti a t io n b e t w e e n t h e ' o f f i c i a l ' a n d t h e ' u n o f f i c i a l ' u s e o f se q u e n c e s( D r e w , 1 9 9 5 ) . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n r e f e r s t o t h e f a c t t h a t s e q u e n t i a l d e v i c e s h a v e s o m es t a n d a r d ( o f f i c i a l ) p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h a r e r e c o g n i z a b l e i n a n y s i t u a t io n , b u t t h a t t h e3 T h i sconcep tion of 'strategy' resemb les the traditional Chinese concept of 'ruse' or 'stratagem ' (vo nSenge r, 1999). In the ancient Chinese art of w arfare, a stratagem was con sidered a d eviation of the 'nor-mal' course of actions. Ho wev er, this deviation was a lways considered o be relative in respect to a ce r-tain situa tion and the interactan ts in th is situation.Although the traditional Ch inese teachings of stratagems mak es heavy use of concep ts lik e 'inten-tions' and 'internal planning', a m ore context-dependentnotion of strategy will be d eveloped in the fol-lowing. Interestingly, h is concept of 'stratagem ' d oe s not only accoun t for hum an strategic interaction,but also for 'strategic behav ior' of 'Mach iavellian' mo nkeys and apes (cf. Sitte, 1999; Kum mer, 1993).

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

7/43

H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 1815-1857 1821s t r a t e g i c w o r k a c h i e v e d b y a s e q u e n c e i s t i e d t o a c e r t a i n c o n t e x t a n d d o n e o n a n' u n o f f i c i a l ' l e v e l , w h i c h i s h i d d e n b y t h e o f f i c i a l l e v e l. B u t , i f th e u n o f f i c i a l u s e o f as e q u e n c e i s t o b e h i d d e n f r o m c o - p a rt ic i p an t s, i t m a y r e m a i n h i d d e n f r o m a n a l y s t s( D r e w , 1 9 9 5 : 1 3 4 ). T h u s , w h e n p a r t ic i p a n t s d o n o t e x p l i c it l y t h e m a t i z e t h e s tr a t eg i cu s e o f a s e q u e n c e , t h e i d e n t i f i c a ti o n o f ' s t r a t e g i e s ' b y a n a l y s t s i s o n l y a m a t t e r o fh y p o t h e s e s s u p p o r t ed b y v a r y i n g d e g r e e s o f e v id e n c e . H o w e v e r , a s o u t l in e d i n t h em e t h o d o l o g i c a l s k e t c h a b o v e , t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s m i g h t b e s u b j e c t e d t o f u r t h e r i n v e s -t i g a t i o n in a s e c o n d s t e p o f a n a l y s i s , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t c o n t e x t u a l a n d s i t u a t i o n a li n f o r m a t i o n .

A l l i n a l l, t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t i e s o f s e q u e n t i al d e v i c e s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s m a y b ec o n s i d e r e d i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i r p o s s ib l e s t ra t e g ic u s e :

p a r t i c i p a n t s ' e x p l i c i t o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d s t h e s t r a t e g ic u s e o f a m o v e .- a m o v e ' s r e l a t i o n t o t h e im m e d i a t e l y p r e v i o u s a c t io n .

t h e p r o j e c t e d n e x t a c t i o n o f a m o v e .t h e i m p a c t o f a m o v e f o r th e b r o a d e r s e q u e n t i a l c o n t e x t ( es p . w i t h r e g a r d t o f a c ek e e p i n g c o n c e r n s ) .

- t h e p o s s i b l e ' u n o f f i c i a l ' u s e o f a s e q u e n t i a l d e v i c e .O n a m o r e g e n e r a l l e v e l , a n d a d a p t i n g F o p p a ' s p r i n c i p l e o f n e u t ra l lo c a l c o h e r e n c et o th e p u r s u i t o f f a c e k e e p i n g a c t iv i t ie s i n t al k , th e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s m i g h t b ef o r m u l a t e d :Stretches of talk are characterized by global face keeping concerns of interactants.These concerns depend on the kind of interpersonal relationship speakers want tomaintain, i.e. in consensual phases speakers try to avoid FTAs (esp. concerning pos-itive face) , in dissent phases they are less concerned with FTA avoidance. Whenevera speaker initiates a sequence that noticeably violates these concerns, a strategic useof this sequence may be assumed. However, if a sequence of this kind is successfullyinitiated (i.e. unquestioned and undisturbed by other participants), the attribution ofa strategic orientation to the initiator remains the analyst s hypothesis, which isopen to further testing. 4

T h i s C A o r i e n t e d a p p r o a c h t o s t r a t e g i e s i n i n t e r a c t i o n i s d i a l o g i c a l l y o r i e n t e d , i . e . i tr e l ie s o n t h e b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e o u t c o m e o f a s t r a te g y i s a c o o p e r a t i v e l ya c h i e v e d i n t e r a c ti o n a l p r o d u c t o f ( at le a s t) t w o p a r t i e s. S u c h a n a p p r o a c h a l s o n e c e s -s it a te s a d i f f e r e n t i a t io n b e t w e e n t h e n o t i o n s o f ' s t r a t e g y ' a n d ' s tr a t e g i c o r i e n t a t i o n ' :w h e r e a s s t r a t e g ie s ( o r th e r e s u l t s o f s t ra t e g i e s ) a r e i n t e r a c t i o n a l p r o d u c t s ( o r ' s o c i a lt o o l s ' b y m e a n s o f w h i c h i n t e ra c t a n ts m a n i p u l a t e a n d m o d i f y e a c h o t h e r ; c f . K u m -m e r , 1 9 9 3 ) , w h i c h m a y b e r e c o g n i z a b l e f o r c o n v e r s a n t s a n d a n a l y s ts u n d e r c e r t a in

4 N ot e hat a consequence of this interactional notion of strategy (which implies that a strategy is onlyput into existence if both interactants coope rate) is the paradox , tha t in the context of verbal conflictcooperation means that the addressee (via cooperation) s put in to a weaker position. Only if he/she doesnot cooperate (e.g. questions the legitimacy of a question etc., cf. Se ction 5.4) the strategy fails.

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

8/43

1822 H. Gruber / Journal o f Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-18 57c o n d i t i o n s , t h e s t r a te g i c o r i e n t a t i o n s o f i n t e rl o c u t o r s a r e m e m b e r s a n d a n a l y s t si n t e r p re t a t iv e c o n s t r u c t s w h i c h a r e u s e d t o e x p l a i n t h e b e h a v i o r o f p a r ti c ip a n t s i n a ni n t e r a c t i o n ( n o t i c e t h a t t h e a t tr i b u t i o n o f a s t r a t e g i c o r i e n t a t i o n t o o n e i n t e r l o c u t o rb y a n o t h e r i n t e rl o c u t o r m a y a l s o b e w r o n g ; n o n e t h e l e s s i t w i l l in f l u e n c e th e i r r e l a -t i o n s h i p ) .3 . 2 . C o n f l i c t e p i s o d e s a n d s tr a t e g i e s

S e v e r a l s t u d ie s h a v e s h o w n t h a t c o n f l i c t e p i s o d e s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s d i s p l a y s p e c i f i cs t ru c t u ra l a n d i n te r a c t io n a l p r o p e r t i e s ( G r u b e r , 1 9 9 6 ; M a y n a r d , 1 9 8 5 ; M u n t i g l a n dT u r n b u l l , 1 9 9 8 ; K o t t h o f f , 1 9 9 3 ; G o o d w i n , 1 9 9 0 ). T h e t y p i c a l e n tr y s t ru c t u r e o f ac o n f l i c t e p i s o d e i s a t h r e e s te p s e q u e n c e w h i c h - i n th e s i m p l e s t c a s e - c o m p r i s e s t h ef o l lo w i n g m o v e s :1 . A : s t a t e m e n t2 . B : c o u n t e r s t a t e m e n t ( i. e. d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h A )3 . A : c o u n t e r s t a t e m e n t t o B ( i. e . d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h B , a n d p o s s i b l y in s i s t in g o n 1)T h i s s e q u e n c e t y p e w a s d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l b y M a y n a r d ( 1 9 8 5 ) a n d G r u b e r ( 1 9 9 6 ,1 9 9 8 ) w h o b o t h a r g u e t h a t t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f th e t h i rd m o v e b y A i s c r u c i a l f o r e s ta b -l is h i n g a c o n f l i c t e p i s o d e , b e c a u s e i f A p e r f o r m s a n y o t h e r a c t i o n t h a n a c o u n t e r -s t a t e m e n t t o B ( e . g . g i v i n g i n , a p o l o g i z i n g , o r j u s t b e i n g s i l e n t ) in p o s i t i o n 3 n o c o n -f l i c t d e v e l o p s ( c f. a ls o M u n t i g l a n d T u r n b u l l , 1 9 9 8 ) .

O n c e a c o n f l i c t e p i s o d e h a s b e e n e s t a b li s h e d , b o t h o p p o n e n t s n e e d t o c l a r i f y t h e i rp o i n t s o f v i e w t o w a r d s t h e c o n f l i c t i s su e d u r i n g t h e n e x t p h a s e ( t h e s t a ti n g o f o p p o s -i n g v i e w s , c f . G r u b e r , 1 9 9 6 ). T o a c h i e v e t h is c l a r i fi c a ti o n , e a c h o f th e o p p o n e n t sr e q u i r e s a t l e a s t o n e t u r n t o s ta t e th e i r p o i n t o f v i e w t o w a r d s t h e c o n f l i c t t o p i c ; i nm o s t c a s e s , t h i s p h a s e i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l o n g e r , h o w e v e r , a n d o p p o n e n t s p r o v i d ed e t a i le d a c c o u n t s o f th e i r s ta n c e , w h i l e r e j e c ti n g t h e i r o p p o n e n t s v i e w ( c f. G u l l i v -e r s e x p l o r i n g th e f ie l d p h a s e w h i c h is c h a r ac t e ri z e d b y a n t a g o n i s m b e t w e e n o p p o -n e n t s , G u l l i v e r , 1 9 7 9 ) . T h i s i n c r e a s i n g d i s c r e p a n c y o f v i e w s i s a m a j o r c h a r a c t e r is t ico f t h e s e c o n d p h a s e o f a c o n f l i c t e p i s o d e . I n m a n y c a s e s, c o n f l i c t s r e m a i n b l o c k e d i nt h i s p h a s e a n d a r e n o t r e s o l v e d a t a l l .

T h e a n t a g o n i s m b e t w e e n o p p o n e n t s is r e f le c t e d b y t h e v a r io u s f o r m s o f d i s a g r e e -m e n t s t h a t o c c u r d u r in g c o n f l i c t e p i s o d e s . D i s a g r e e m e n t s a r e p r o d u c e d d u r i n g o ri m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r a n o p p o n e n t s s t a t e m e n t , i. e. t h e y t y p i c a l ly o c c u r in s e c o n d p o s i -t i o n . T h e p r o d u c t i o n o f s e c o n d p o s i t i o n m o v e s i s l e ss r e s t r ic t e d b y p r e c e d i n g t u r n st h a n i s th e p r o d u c t i o n o f s e c o n d p a r t s i n a d j a c e n c y p a i r s , i. e. s u c h m o v e s a r e n o t p r o -j e c t e d b y p r e v i o u s m o v e s . 5 A d d i t io n a l l y , d i s a g r e e m e n t s a r e d i s p r e f e r r e d r e a c t i o n s

5 T hi s argumentation uses the following heuristic distinction: every sequence of talk may be viewedunder different perspectives, nam ely the structural wh ich is g overned by p rinciples like preference andturn-taking organization (i.e. the tum-allocationalcompon ent, Sacks et al . , 1974); a topical perspectivethat concern s all aspects of a sequenc e that contribute to the loc al and global topical coherenc e (i.e. theturn-constructional com ponen t, Sacks et al. , 1 974); and finally, an activity perspective that concerns

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

9/43

H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857 1823

which i s r e f l ec t ed i n t he i r s t ruc tu re and pos i t i on ing (Pomeran tz , 1984) . These s t ruc-t u ra l p r o p e r t ie s o f d i s p r e f e rr ed t u r n s m i g h t b e a s s o c i a t ed w i t h f ace k eep i n g co n ce r n s(Munt ig l and Turnbu l l , 1998) , i . e . hes i t a t i on phenomena , p refaces e t c . may bev i ew ed a s F TA - av o i d an ce d ev i ce s w h i ch mi t i g a t e t h e f ace t h r ea t en i n g p o t en t i a l o fd i s ag r eemen t s . F o r t h i s r ea s o n , B i l mes ( 1 9 8 8 ) p r o p o s es t o ca l l t h e s e p h en o men a' r e lu c t an ce ma r k e r s ' a s - a cco r d i n g t o B i lm es - t h ey d o n o t n eces s a r i l y i n d ica t e av io l a t i on o f p refere nce o rga n iza t i on b u t r a ther t he r e luc t ance o f par ti c ipan t s t o p ro -duce a cer t a in t u rn i n a cer t a in s i t ua t i on . Th i s r e luc t ance migh t be caused by var iousr ea s o n s , an d B i l mes ex p li c i tl y men t i o n s r ea s o n s o f e t i q u e t t e ( B i lmes , 1 9 8 8 : 1 7 3 )i n th i s co n tex t . A l t h o u g h B i l m es ' t e r mi n o l o g ica l p r o p o s a l w as n o t tak en u p b y o t h e rau thor s , h i s a rgument suppor t s t he v i ew t aken in t h i s paper ; compare t ha t i n cer t a intype s o f conf l i c t phas es o f t a lk ( e .g . deba t es ) , p re feren ce o rgan iza t i on seem s toch an g e ( G r u b e r , 1 9 9 6 ; B i l mes , 1 9 8 8 ; K o t t h o f f , 1 9 9 3 ) an d d i s ag r eemen t s d o n o t di s-p l ay s t ruc tu ra l p roper t i es o f d i sp refer red se conds ( i .e . t hey a re u t t e red w i thou t anys ign o f ' r e luc t ance ' - t h is ma y be ca l l ed the ' d i sag re em en t o rgan iza t ion o f t a lk ' ,Grube r , 1996) . 6 I f - i n t he con tex t o f t he d i sag reem en t o rgan iza t i on o f t a lk - anu t t e rance i s p rod uce d wi th ma rker s o f d i sp referen ce (o r r e luc t ance) , t hen i t i nd i ca t esa v io l a t i on o f con tex tua l ly r e l evan t expec t a t i ons o f i n t e rac t an t s .

Th r ee k i n d s o f d i s ag r eemen t s can b e f o u n d i n co n f l ic t ep i s o d es : overt disagree-ments pragm atic disagreements and opposing questions. O v er t d i s ag r eemen t si n c l u d e a l l t y p es o f u n m i ti g a t ed ex p r e s s i o n s o f d i s ag r eemen t w i t h an o p p o n en t ' sv i ew , an d t h ey a r e ch a r ac t e r i zed b y a c l o s e t h ema t i c l i n k t o t h e p r ev i o u s ( o p p o -nen t ' s ) u t t e rance . In con tras t , p ragm at i c d i sag reem en t s es t ab l i sh a m uch loo ser t he-ma t i c co n n ec t i o n t o th e o p p o n e n t ' s u t t e r an ce an d t h ey d o n o t d i s p l ay f o rma l f ea t u r e so f o v e r t d i s ag r eemen t s , b u t a r e i n t r o d u ced b y d i s ag r eemen t mar k e r s w h i ch s i g n a ltha t t he cu r ren t u t t e rance opposes t he p rev ious speaker i n some in t e rac t i ona l ly r e l e -v an t r e s p ec t ( f o r a d e t a il ed acco u n t o f t h e s e t w o t y p es o f d i s ag r eemen t s , c f . G r u b e r ,1998) . Throu gh the use o f d i r ec t and p ragm at i c d i sag reem en t s , con ver sa t i ona l i s tsexp l i c i t l y r e j ec t t he opp on en t ' s s t a t emen t (Gruber , 1996 , 1998). The se mo ves a rep r imar i l y backwards d i r ec t ed , i . e . t hey r e fe r t o t he p reced ing tu rn and may be fo l -l ow ed by a var i e ty o f m ove s , such tha t t he ir ' p ro j ec t i ng po t en t i a l ' i s r a ther weak . Inmany cases , t hey r e j ec t t he p reced ing tu rn i n an unmi t iga t ed way ; fo r t h i s r easonthe i r f ace- th rea t en ing po t en t i a l i s r a ther h igh . The th ird k ind o f d i sag reem en t (op pos-ing ques t i ons ) d i f f e r s i n bo th r espec t s f rom the p rev ious ones : a l t hough oppos ingques t i ons a re backw ards d i r ec t ed i nso far as t hey r e fe r t o the p reced ing tu rn , t hey a l sopro j ec t an ac t i on ( i . e . an answer f rom the opponen t ) .w h a t i s d o n e r e sp . w h a t o u g h t t o b e d o n e ) d u r i n g a s e q u e n c e w h o s e m a i n o r g a n i z in g p r i n c i p le i s a d j a-c e nc y pa i r o r ga n iz a t ion . O f c ou r se , t he o r ga n iz ing p r inc ip l e s o f a l l t he se pe r spe c t ive s a r e ope r a t i ve a te v e r y s t a g e o f i n t e r a c t i o n , b u t d e p e n d i n g o n t h e l o c a l s e q u e n t i a l c o n t e x t o n e o f t h e m m a y b e f o r e -g r o u n d e d w h e r e a s t h e o t h e r s o p e r a t e i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d .6 T he r e i s a n ongo ing de ba t e a s to w he th e r o r no t t h i s r e ve r sa l o f p r e f e r e nc e o r ga n iz a t ion i s a de f in ingf e a tu r e o f c o n f l i c t s e q u e n c e s. W h e r e a s B i l m e s 1 9 8 8 ) , K o t t h o f f 1 9 9 3 ) , a n d G r u b e r 1 9 9 6 ) f o u n d a m p l ee v i d e n c e f o r t h i s p h e n o m e n o n i n t h e ir d a t a, M u n t i g l a n d T u m b u l l 1 9 9 8 ) a n d D e r s le y a n d W o o t t o n2000) d id no t . O ne e x p la na t ion f o r t he se d i spa r a t e f i nd ings m ig h t l i e in t he d i f f e r e n t s i t ua t i ona l c on te x t sthe c on f l i c t da t a i n t he a bove s tud i e s c om e f r om .

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

10/43

1824 H. Gruber / Journ al of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857Under the interactional conditions of the disagreement organisation of talk withits changed preference organization and its inclination towards mutual face threats,

the use of opposing questions might seem surprising, because their overt face threat-ening potential is lower than that of other forms of disagreements. They confront theopponent only with a single topical aspect of his/her own preceding turn and do notreject the whole turn. However, opposing questions can be exploited to bring theopponent in an unfavorable situation when the topical reference they pretend toestablish relates to a distorted representation of the opponent s view, or when theyare used to tempt the opponent to produce a statement which can be easily coun-tered. In these cases a strategic use of opposing questions may be postulated.Additionally, second position questions in arguments establish a power differen-tial between interactants (Hutchby, 1996b), as the second position speaker is able tochoose when to put which question after the first speaker s statement of opinion.This line of interpretation of opposing questions will be pursued in the last sectionof this paper, where sequential and contextual aspects of the data are broughttogether.

4 D e s c r i p t i o n o f d a t a b a s e a n d s e t ti n gMy study is based on analyses of approx. 35 hours of videotaped interaction in an

Austrian TV- talk-show, C l u b 2 . In contrast to other, similar types of programs, thislate-night live show is open-ended, with 4-8 persons seated in a living room-like fur-nitured studio without a studio audience, the moderator (or host ) being a journalistexperienced in moderating discussions. The TV cameras were manipulated in a waythat even experienced persons could not decide which camera would be recording ata certain moment. Thus, it was impossible for the participants to talk directly to thecamera (i.e. to the TV-audience) instead of interacting with each other (this does notmean that they might not have oriented towards an overhearing audience in produc-ing and shaping their turns, cf. below). Most of the participants did not know eachother prior to the discussion. Topics ranged from scientific to current social andpolitical issues. Spontaneous conflicts between participants occurred very frequentlyand were in fact part of the program concept (although they were not fostered by themoderators, as was the case in some confrontational talk shows on several commer-cial channels in Germany in the late 1980s and early 1990s). As the program makerswere very cooperative in providing me with data and background information, I wasable to choose only discussions in which mainly lay persons participated.

The aim of the show was not only to provide viewers with different views of thetopic under discussion, but also to present people as they are in real life ; in fact,after 20-30 minutes participants behaved in a rather natural way. Previous discourseanalytic studies of the C l u b 2 setting (Frei-Borer, 1991, 1993; Lrffler, 1989) as wellas my own comparison of C l u b 2 discussions with data from spontaneous conversa-tions and institutional settings (Gruber, 1996) showed that these discussions parallelnaturally occurring conversations in all relevant aspects like topic-flow, asymmetri-cal distribution of speaking time, turn allocation to different speakers, turn-taking

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

11/43

H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 1815-1857 1825b e h a v i o r , a n d i n t e r r u p t i o n / o v e r l a p s e q u e n c e s . T h u s , m y d a t a a r e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h ep o l i ti c a l d e b a te s B i l m e s ( 1 9 9 9 ) i n v e s t i g a t e d a n d f r o m t h e c o n f r o n ta t i o n a l t a l k - s h o w sa n d p h o n e - i n b r o a d c a s t s a n a l y z e d b y H u t c h b y ( 1 9 9 9 ) .

H o w e v e r , t h e r e i s o n e r e s p e c t ( w h i c h i s o f s p e c i a l r e l e v a n c e f o r t h i s p a p e r ) i nw h i c h Club 2 d i s c u s si o n s m i g h t d i f f e r f r o m ' o r d i n a r y ' ( t w o p a r ty ) c o n v e r s a t io n s :A l t h o u g h t h e s e tt in g o f t h e d is c u s s i o n s r e s e m b l e d a m i d d l e - c l a ss l i v i n g r o o m w i t h n os t u d i o a u d i e n c e , a n d a l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a Club 2 d i s c u s s i o n w o u l d n e v e rk n o w w h i c h o f t h e v a r io u s T V c a m e r a s i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d w o u l d r e c o r d a t a c er ta i nt i m e ( c f. a b o v e ) , t h e y m i g h t b e a w a r e o f t he f a c t t ha t t h e y w e r e n o t p r o d u c i n g t h e irt a l k s o l e l y f o r t h e i r i m m e d i a t e i n t e r l o c u t o r , b u t a l s o f o r s o m e o t h e r ' u n a d d r e s s e dr e c i p i e n t s ' ( i. e. th e o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s o f t h e d i s c u s s io n , c f . G o f f m a n , 1 9 8 1 ) a s w e l l a sf o r a n o v e r h e a r i n g a u d i e n c e w h o w a t c h e d t h e s h o w i n t h e i r h o m e s . T h u s , i n e a c hClub 2 e x c h a n g e d i s c u ss a n t s m i g h t d e s i g n t h e ir t a lk n o t o n l y f o r t h e a d d r e s s e d r e c i p -i e n t b u t a l s o f o r u n a d d r e s s e d r a t i fi e d a n d u n r a t i f ie d r e c i p i e n t s ( in G o f f m a n ' s s e n s e ;G o f f m a n , 1 9 8 1 ) .

A s p a r t ic i p a n t s h a d d i f f e re n t d e g r e e s o f m e d i a e x p e r i e n c e , a s e c o n d h y p o t h e s i s( s u p p l e m e n t a r y t o th e o n e f o r m u l a t e d i n S e c t io n 3 .1 , a b o v e ) m a y b e f o r m u l a t e d :The extent of participants media experience is reflected in certain design features oftheir talk which indicate that participants design their turns not only for the imme-diate addressee but also for an overhearing audience (as well as for the unaddressedrecipients in the discussion).T h e r e m a y b e d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n s f o r t h i s p o s s i b l e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d st h i rd p a r t i e s : d i s c u s s a n t s m i g h t d e s i g n t h e i r t u r n s f o r t h e u n a d d r e s s e d r e c i p i e n t s i nt h e s i t u a t i o n i n o r d e r t o g e t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e m a n d t h u s g a i n a n a d v a n t a g e i n t h e s i t -u a t io n ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d d i s c u ss a n t s m i g h t a l s o w a n t t o im p r e s s th e o v e r h e a r i n ga u d i e n c e i n th e i r h o m e s f o r r e a s o n s l i k e v a n i t y , p o li t ic a l i n t e r e s ts e t c .

T h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h is s e c o n d h y p o t h e s i s w i l l a l s o (l i k e t h e i n v e s t ig a t i o n o f th eq u e s ti o n o f p o w e r e x e r t e d b y m e a n s o f s e c o n d p o s it i o n q u e s ti o n s ) m a k e u s e o f t h em e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o c e d u r e o u t l in e d i n S e c t i o n 2 , a b o v e , a s it h e l p s t o r e l a t e t h e o u t -c o m e o f t h e d e t a i l e d s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s o f th e d a t a t o c o n t e x t u a l u n d s i t u a ti o n a lf a c t o r s .

T h e d a t a w e r e t r a n s c ri b e d u s i n g t h e H I A T s y s t e m 7 d e v e l o p e d b y E h l i c h a n dR e h b e i n ( E h l i c h a n d R e h b e i n , 1 9 7 6 , 1 9 7 9 ; E h l i c h , 1 9 9 3 ). A l t h o u g h n o n v e r b a l

7 The main difference betwe en HIA T ('Halbinterpretative Arbe itstranskription' - 'heuristic interpreta-tive auditory transcription', with the addition that it can also be e xtended to non verbal interaction in thecase of audio-v isual tapes', Ehlich, 1993 :125) and other transcription system s is its organization in anal-ogy to a musical score to represent the contributions of m ultiple participants while preserving an accu-rate representation of time (Ehlich, 199 3:129). Thu s, the basic representational un it in the transcriptsis not the li ne but the 'ar ea ', i.e. an iconic representation of the u tterances of all conv ersationalists overa certain time. O verlaps, instances of sim ultaneous speech etc. can thus be easily see n in the transcripts.HIA T allow s the transcription of all relevant discourse features that are de alt w ith in other transcriptionsystem s, but it offers the ad ditional advan tage that it is easy to rea d becau se of its iconic representation

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

12/43

1826 H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857b e h a v i o r w a s o b s e r v a b l e , i t w a s o n l y t r a n s c r ib e d w h e n i t w a s r e l e v a n t fo r th e o n g o -i n g i n te r a c ti o n . T h e a m o u n t o f d a t a a n a l y z e d a s s u re s t h a t t h e g e n e r a l iz a t i o n s w h i c ha r e d r a w n f r o m t h e e x a m p l e s i n S e c t io n s 5 a n d 6 o f t h is p a p e r r e s t n o t o n l y o n t h ec i t e d e x t r a c t s , b u t h a v e a b r o a d e m p i r i c a l b a s i s .

5 R e s u l t s

I n th e r e m a i n d e r o f t h is p a p e r , I w i l l s h o w h o w a n o p p o s i n g q u e s t i o n s s e q u e n t i a lp l a c e m e n t a n d t h e k i n d o f c o h e s i v e t i e it e s t a b li s h e s t o t h e p r e c e d i n g t u r n a r er e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d i f fe r i n g d e g r e e s o f c e r t a i n t y w i t h w h i c h c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s ts a n da n a l y s t s a t t ri b u t e a s t r a t e g ic o r i e n t a t i o n t o p a r ti c ip a n t s . F o u r k i n d s o f o p p o s i n gq u e s t i o n s w i l l b e d i s t in g u i s h e d : e x p l i c it , r h e t o r i c a l , i m p l i c i t a n d d i s t o r t i n g o p p o s i n gq u e s t i o n s ; i n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e a r e w h a t w i l l b e c a l l e d e n t i c i n g q u e s t i o n s . T h e y d i f f e rf r o m e a c h o t h e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e x p l i c i tn e s s o f th e o p p o s i t io n a l o r i e n t a ti o ne x p r e s s e d a n d t h e c lo s e n e s s o f th e t h e m a t i c c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n p r e c e d i n g t u r n a n do p p o s i n g q u e s t i o n .

I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a f u l l a c c o u n t o f th e p o s s i b l e s t ra t e g ic u s e o f s e c o n d p o s i t i o nq u e s t i o n s , I f i r s t d i s c u s s t h e f u n c t i o n o f s t r a t e g i c a l l y u s e d q u e s t i o n s f ocus sh i f t i ngq u e s t i o n s ) i n c o n s e n t p h a s e s o f t al k .5 . 1 . F o c u s s h i f t i n g q u e s t i o n s

F o c u s s h i ft in g q u e s t i o n s o c c u r in c o n s e n t p h a s e s o f ta l k . I n th i s q u e s t i o n f o r m a t ,o n e d i s c u s s a n t p i c k s a n e l e m e n t o f t h e p r e v i o u s t u r n , w h i c h , a l t h o u g h i t w a s m e n -t i o n e d , w a s n o t i n it s t o p i c a l f o c u s , a n d m a k e s i t t h e t o p i c o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t r e t c h o ft a lk . B y u s i n g t h i s f o r m a t , t h e i n i t i a to r o f th e f o c u s s h i f t ( th e q u e s t i o n e r ) d o e s n o tp e r f o r m t h e s h i ft h i m s e l f b u t ra t h e r p r o m p t s t h e a d d r e s s e e t o b r i n g th e f o c u s s h i fta b o u t . F o c u s s h i f t i n g q u e s t i o n s s h a r e s o m e s t r u c t u r a l a n d s e q u e n t i a l f e a t u r e s w i t ho p p o s i n g q u e s t io n s ; t h is w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6 , b e l o w .

E x t r a c t 1 s h o w s a n i n s ta n c e o f t h is c o n v e r s a t i o n a l d e v i c e . T h e e x t r a c t c o m e s f r o ma T V - d i s c u s s i o n w h i c h w a s b r o a d c a s t i n F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 8 d u r i n g th e W a l d h e i m a f f a i ra n d s h o r t l y b e f o r e th e 5 0 t h a n n i v e r s a r y o f A u s t r i a s A n s c h l u B t o N a z i G e r m a n y . It st it le , V i e l g e p r t i f te s O s t e r r e i c h ( S o r e l y t ri e d A u s t r i a ) , o n t h e o n e h a n d p r o v i d e dc o n s i d e r a b l e t h e m a t i c s p a c e i n t h a t i t d i d n o t r e s tr i c t t h e d i s c u s s a n t s c o n t r i b u t i o n st o o n e o f t h e t w o b i g i s s u e s t h a t w e r e r e le v a n t in th e c u r r e n t s it u a ti o n . O n t h e o t h e rh a n d , i t a l s o e x p r e s s e d a s l i g h t l y i r o n i c a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e s e i s s u e s .

of data. Pu nctuation s u sed to ind icate sentence intonation and therefore does not follow the usu al ortho-graphic conv entions. Qu estion marks indicate rising intonation, fu ll stops indicate falling intonation.Restrictions of place prevent an ex haustive description of HIA T; E hlich (1993) offers a comprehensiveaccount of the system.

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

13/43

H. Gru ber / Journal o f Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857 1 8 2 7

Extract 1 :8- ( 9 5 )L m :S W m :C m :

W as w i i r d en S i eW h a t w o u l d y o uGew6hnl i ch e r s t , wenn s i e schmerzen . / l ach t /

n o r m a l l y , a s s o o n a s t h e y h u r t . / l a u g h i n g /U n d d a g i b t sA n d t h e r e a r e

I C 6 )m ;

[-(97)

98)

m :

gei s t i ge Krank hei t en , d i e ve r such t m an zu verd r~ ingenm e n t a l d i s e a s e s , w h i c h y o u t r y t o r e p r e s s

I s t dasI s t h i s

ve rd r~ ge n , verd rangen , b i s es zu sp~ it i s.r e p r e s s , r e p r e s s u n t i l i t s t o o l a t e

die 6ster reichische Krankhei t , Verdr~-agung?t h e A u s t r i a n d i s e a s e , r e p r e s s i o n ?

E s w u r d eI t w a s

( 9 9 )m :

clm~.. )

(IO1)-m .

j edenfa l l s HIER, wurde s i e en tdeck t , n i ch t . H I Ra t le a s t d i s c o v e r e d H E R E , i t w a s d i s c o v e r e d , w a s n t it. H E R E

w u r d e s i e en t d eck t , J ETZT w u r d e s i e h i e r en t d eck t u n di t w a s d i s c o v er e d , N O W i t w a s d i s c o v e r e d h e r e a n d

s i e w u r d e h i e r en t d eck t v o n S i g mu n d F r eu d . W i r s i n di t w a s d i s c o v e r e d h e r e b y S i g m u n d F r e u d . W e a r e

s C a p i t a l l e t t e rs i n d i c a t e e m p h a s i s , q u e s t i o n m a r k s i n d i c a t e q u e s t i o n i n g i m o n a t i o n , f u l l s t o p s a r e u s e dt o m a r k f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n ( i . e . c l a u s e b o u n d a r i e s ) . T h e d i s c u s s a n t s ' i n i t i a l s a r e i n u p p e r c a s e , a l o w e lc a s e ' m ' ( m a l e ) o r ' f ' ( f e m a l e ) i n d i c a t e s t h e i r g e n d e r .

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

14/43

828 H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857

IC 02)m: nicht ganz zuf~illig das Land, aus dem Sigmund Freudn o t to t a ll y b y ch a n ce t h e co u n tr y w h er e S i g m u n d Fr e u dIC103)m: stammt.

c o m e s fr o m('Vielgepriiftes Osterreich', 11.2.88)

Lm's focus shifting question in A97-98 follows a short turn by Cm in A95-97,which is itself a complement to a lengthy turn by SWm who had, in a rathermetaphorical way, compared Austria's situation at that time to a patient with achronic (physical) disease which comes to a sudden outburst. Cm's turn contains acomplex nominal group with an embedded (relative) clause ('mental diseases, whichyou try to repress, repress until it's too late', A95-96) as a modifier. By its positionand intonation, this noun phrase is the clearly marked focus (i.e. 'New' , cf. Halliday,1994: 296ff.) of Cm's turn.

In his question, Lm singles out two concepts which were already mentioned byCm, 'disease' and 'repression', thus establishing a close link between his turn andthe previous one. But simultaneously he shifts the thematic focus from 'mental dis-eases' (A95) to the 'Austrian disease' (A97) which may be 'repression' (A97), thus'highlighting' a minor topical aspect of the preceding turn and linking it to a the-matic aspect of the overall discussion ('Austria').

By using the format of a yes/no question, he establishes a conditional relevancefor an answer in which the addressee (Cm) has to decide whether or not he agrees.Cm (A97-106) does in fact agree and presents some reasons for his positive answer.Thus, Lm succeeds in performing a focus shift. By the use of the question format, headopts the role of the 'instigator' of the shift, whereas Cm is the 'performer'.

When we look more closely at the thematic relation between focus shifting ques-tions and their preceding turns, it becomes clear that they are neither other-initiated-repairs (Schegloff et al., 1977) nor formulations (Heritage and Watson, 1979). Thatis, they neither mark current speakers' problems with any aspect of the previous turnnor do they present any kind of 'summary' of the conversation so far. Their onlyinteractional significance is the projection of a focus shift in the answer by the sim-ple fact that a question places constraints on the discourse options available to itsrecipient (Hutchby, 1996b: 484). But as they are questions in second position(Hutchby, 1996b), which are quite closely related to the immediately preceding turn,they also make this turn a 'questionable turn' .Taking together the thematic and interactional aspect of focus shifting questions,we find the following sequence:SWm: Statement: Austria's situation is like

the one of a physically ill patient(A62-94)

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

15/43

H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857 1829Cm: Complement: There are also mental Focus on topic A, mentioning of B

diseases (A94-96) (questionable turn)Lm: Focus shifting question (A96-97) Question: conceming B(Focusing on B, focus shifting question)

Cm: Elaborate agreement (A97-106) Answer: concerning B(Focus on B, focus shift)Notice that through the use of focus shifting questions, the same speaker whose turnis made a questionable tum is also put in a position to perform the focus shift. Theuse of focus shifting questions may reflect speakers reluctance to introduce newaspects of a topic immediately after another speaker s turn. Instead, questioners usefocus shifting questions to put previous speaker (whose topical contribution couldhave been continued) in the position to perform a focus shift him-/herself. Thus, bygoing second and instigating a focus shift (but having it performed by previousspeaker), current speaker balances the face threat that a change of topic posits. Onthe other hand, going second and prompting a co-participant to perform an actionthat current speaker hesitates to carry out him-/herself is also an indication of takingup a position of control over others and thus a possible sign of situational power (cf.Section 6 below).It may not be mere chance that focus shifting is often used by moderators, as itresembles the prompts and cooperative recycles Heritage describes as typicalmoves o f interviewers in media interviews (Heritage, 1985). These moves aredesigned to prompt interviewees to further develop their position for the overhearingaudience in a direction proposed by the interviewer. Notice, however, that eventhough the Club 2 discussions were not interviews, the fact that mainly moderatorsused this format could indicate that the use of focus shifting questions reveals theprofessional journalists orientation towards the media setting.Focus shifting questions cannot be accounted for by applying the baseline-devia-tion criterion (cf. above), because they mitigate a possible threat to the positive faceof the addressee, i.e. their use can be explained by reference to the mutual concernsfor face mantainance of interlocutors. Their use may rather be explained by refer-ence to the unoffic ial use of the question format: on the official level the ques-tioner initiates a question-answer sequence, on the unofficial level he/she alsocauses a focus shift.5.2. Opposing questions

Second position questions may also be used to express an oppositional stancetowards the preceding speaker s turn and to force this speaker to react. The use of thequestion format puts an interactional as well as a topical constraint on the answerer:addressee has to provide an answer and has also to react to an opposing turn.5.2.1. Explicit opposing questions

Explicit opposing questions are used in interactional contexts where disagree-ments are not yet the unmarked forms of reaction (cf. above) and speaker s

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

16/43

1830 H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857d i s ag r eemen t w i t h t h e p r ev i o u s tu r n h a s t o b e f o r m a l l y mar k ed . Th u s , t h is q u es t io nf o r ma t o ccu r s i n s t re t ch es o f ta l k w h e r e n o p r ev i o u s d i s ag r eem en t b e t w een s p eak e r sh as o cc u r r ed o r a t t h e b eg i n n in g o f co n f l ic t s eq u en ces w h en t h e d i s ag r eem en t o r g a -n i za t i on o f t a lk has n o t ye t been fu l l y es t ab l ished . S imi l a r t o focu s sh i ft i ng ques t i ons ,t h i s ques t i on fo rmat i s u sed a f t e r l ong tu rns du r ing which the p reced ing speakerexpressed h i s /her op in ion on the cu r ren t t op i c o f t a lk .

Ex t r ac t 2 p r e s en t s an ex amp l e . I t co mes f r o m a d i s cu s s i o n o n ( w h a t u s ed t o b e )the a l te rna t ive sc ene s annual v io l en t dem ons t ra t i ons i n f ron t o f t he Vienn ese O perah o u s e d u r i n g t h e f amo u s O p e r a B a l l . E l m i s an A u s t r i an w r i t e r , w h o d e f en d s t h ed emo n s t r a t io n s a s b e i n g d i r ec ted ag a i n s t th e s y m b o l i c mean i n g o f th e O p e r a B a l l a sa s ign o f t he cap i t a li s t sys t em. EL m h as be en ( and s ti ll is ) t he ma s t e r o f cerem onieso f th e O p e r a B a l l an d a l s o o w n s t h e mo s t p r e s ti g i o u s V i en n es e d an c i n g s ch o o l . H edefends t he ba l l , o f cour se .Ex t rac t 2 :- ( 3 4 8 )E I m :

E L m :

- (349)E l m :E L m :

i r g en d w i e zu e r k l ~ e n i n d em - S ch r e i b en da . d ab d as e i ns o m e h o w t o e x p l a i n i n t h is - p i e c e o f w r i t in g h e r e . t h a t t h i s i s( d ab d i e d o r t) v e r s am m el tt h a t t h e r e t h e y a r e )g a t h e r i n g

S Y M B O L i s p r ak ti s ch, j a ? e s i s e i n S y m b o l d af tir , e s i sp r a c t i c a l l y a S Y M B O L . r i g h t ? i t i s a s y m b o l f o r i t. i t i ss ind al le . j a . j a ja .a l l . we l l . we l l .

350)I m:

351)I m:

-(352)-E I m :E L m :

e in S y m b o l da fi ir f ti r e i n S y s t e : m w o / j a w e n i g e r / w e n i g ea s y m b o l f o r a s y s te m w h e r e / w e l l f e w e r / a f e w

Leute t i ber t ausende f i ber Mi l l i onen andere en t sche iden .p e o p l e d e c i d e a b o u t t h o u s a n d s o r m i l li o n s o f o t h er s .

u n d d e s is pr a k ti sc h e i n / e i n S y s t e m w a s w i r i m K o p fa n d i t i s p r a c t i c a l l y a ~ a s y s t e m w h i c h w e h a v e i n o u rj a .wel l .

i - (353)E l m :

---~1 EL m :

haben .h e a d s .Her r Eibe l nu r dar f i ch Ihnen e inmal e ineM r . E i b e l m a y I j u s t p u t a c o u n t e r q u e s t io n

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

17/43

H . G r u b e r / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 3 3 2 0 0 1 ) 1 8 1 5 - 1 8 5 7 83

- ( 3 5 4 )E L m : G e g e n f r a g e s te l le n ? h a m S i e e i n a n d e re s S y s t e m i m K o p f ?

to you ? Do you have a different system in your head?

- (355)-E l m :E L m :

j a . - j a w i s s e n S i e d a swell. - well you kn ow this

d as i r g en d w i e e i n e A l te r n a ti v e d azu i s ?which is somehow an alternative ?

- (356)-E I m :Dw:

E L m :

i s i mmer d i e /is always the/z u m O p e r n b a ll e i n an d e re s S y s t e m ? o d e r w a s ?a differe nt system fo r the Ope ra Ball ? or what ?nein . nein .

n o . n o .

- (357)-E l m :E L m :

n a . s ch au n S i e . d e s i s j a / p o l i t i s ch e n S y s t em.no. look. this is/political system.

e r / e r r e d e t j e t z t v o m G e s a m t s y s te mhe/he is talking about the overall system now

- ( 3 5 8 )E I m :E L m :

d es i s j a d e s P r o b l em. s ch au n S i e.this is the problem look.p o l i ti s ch en S y s t em.

political system.I E 3 5 9 )I m:

I E3 6 0 )I m:

d e s is j a g e n a u / d e s z e ig t j a g e n a u / i m e i n / a h / i h a h e shis is exactly/this shows exactly/I mean/uhm uhm it

geh t einfa ch net - - ah - - a Be ispiel .is simply not possib le - - uhm - - an example.

( F e i n d b i l d O p e r n b a l l , 2 2 .2 .9 0 )Th e e x ch an g e i n Ex t r ac t 2 o ccu r s d u r in g t h e b eg i n n i n g p h as e o f t h e d is cu s s i o n , w h end i scussan t s s t a t e t he i r v i ew o f t he t op i c fo r t he f i r s t t ime. E lm had had an ex t r emelylong tu rn ( s ta r t ing i n A1 59) i n wh ich he had pu t fo rward an e l abo ra t e ver s ion o f h ispos i t ion . O ther speak er s had sev era l times u nsuc cess fu l ly t r ied t o s top h im. InA 3 5 3 - 3 5 5 , ELm co mes i n w i t h h i s o p p o s i n g q u es t i o n . I t co mp r i s e s t w o p a r t s :

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

18/43

1832 H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-18571 . M r . E i b e l m a y I j u s t p u t a c o u n t e r q u e s t i o n to y o u ? [ h e d g e d p e r f o r m a t i v e - i l lo -c u t i o n t a g ]2 . D o y o u h a v e a d i ff e r en t sy s t e m i n y o u r h e a d ? w h i c h is s o m e h o w a n a l te r n a ti v e ?[ o p p o s i n g q u e s t io n ]T h e f i r s t p a r t i n d i c a t e s th e k i n d o f a c t i v i ty ( t h e i l l o c u t i o n , i n s p e e c h a c t t h e o r yt e r m s ) E L m is p e r f o r m i n g ( p u tt in g a c o u n t e r q u e s t io n ) a n d h a s t h e f o r m o f ah e d g e d p e r f o r m a t i v e ( F ra s e r, 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e u s e o f t h e s e d e v i c e s h as b e e n d e s c r i b e d

a s a p o li te n e s s s t r a te g y b y w h i c h t h e s p e a k e r w a n t s t o c o m m u n i c a t e t h e a s s u m e du n w i l l in g n e s s o f th e h e a r e r to d o w h a t t h e s p e a k e r w a n t s h i m t o d o ( B r o w n a n dL e v i n s o n , 1 9 8 7 : 1 4 6) . U n d e r t h is p e r s p e c t iv e , t h e h e d g e d p e r f o r m a t i v e in E L m sq u e s t i o n m i g h t b e v i e w e d a s a p o l i te e x p r e s s i o n o f s p e a k e r s a s s u m p t i o n t h a t E l md o e s n o t w a n t t o b e a s k e d a c o u n t e r q u e st io n . B u t a c lo s e r l o o k a t E L m s w h o l et u r n r e v e a ls t h a t it is o n l y t h e h e d g e d p e r f o r m a t i v e w h i c h m a r k s t h e q u e s t i o n a s a no p p o s i n g q u e s t io n , b e c a u s e t h e s e c o n d p a r t o f E L m s t u r n d i s p l a y s a l l f e a tu r e s o ft h e a b o v e d e s c r i b e d f o c u s s h i f t i n g q u e s t i o n s . E L m e s t a b l i s h e s a c l o s e t h e m a t i c l i n kt o E I m s p r e c e d i n g tu r n t h r o u g h th e re p e t i ti o n o f t h e t e rm s s y s t e m a n d i n y o u rh e a d ( A 3 5 4 ) 9, a n d h e f o r m u l a t e s a y e s / n o q u e s t i o n , t h e r e b y p u t t i n g E I m i n a p o s i-t io n t o p r o v i d e a n a n s w e r a n d f o r c i n g h i m t o d e c i d e b e t w e e n a g r e e m e n t a n d d i s-a g r e e m e n t . 1 I n h is a n s w e r ( A 3 5 5 - 3 6 0 ) ( w h i c h is c o m p l i c a t e d b y a n o t h e r - i n it i a te dr e p a i r m a r k e r o f D w ( A 3 5 6 ) c o n c e r n i n g E L m s q u e s t i o n ) , E l m a v o i d s a g r e e in g o rd i s a g r e e i n g . T h i s m i g h t b e t a k e n a s a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n e r h a d i n d e e d h i th i m a t a w e a k p o i n t , b e c a u s e E l m h a s d i ff i cu l t ie s in p r e se n t i n g a n a l t e rn a t i v es y s t e m .

T h e t h e m a t i c a n d s t r u c tu r a l a s p e c ts o f t h is s e q u e n c e a r e p r e s e n t e d b e l o w :E l m :

E L m :E l m :

S t a t e m e n t : t h e O p e r a B a l l i s a s y m - F o c u s o n A , m e n t i o n i n g o f B ( q u e s ti o n -b o l f o r t h e c a p i ta l is t s y s t e m ( A 1 5 9 - a b l e t u rn )3 5 3 )I l l o c u t i o n t a g ( A 3 5 3 - 3 5 4 ) + E x p l i c i t o p p o s i n g q u e s t i o n ( f o c u s o n B )q u e s t i o n ( A 3 5 4 - - 3 5 5 )D e f e n s i v e s t at e m e n t ( A 3 5 5 - ) A n s w e r : s e lf d e f e n s e ( fo c u s o n B )

I n th i s c a se , t h e h e d g e d p e r f o r m a t i v e d o e s n o t s e e m t o s e r v e a s a f a c e k e e p i n g d e v i c eb u t r a t h e r as a n i l l o c u t i o n ta g , w h i c h m a k e s i t o b v i o u s t h a t E L m i s b u i l d in g u p ac o u n t e r p o s i ti o n and also is i n it ia t in g a t h e m a t i c f o c u s c h a n g e o f th e o n g o i n g t a lk b yw h i c h E I m i s p u t i n a n u n f a v o r a b l e p o s i ti o n . T h e e x p l i c i t m e n t i o n i n g o f th e i l lo c u -t i o n i s in t e r a c t i o n a l l y r e l e v a n t a t t h i s p o i n t o f th e c o n v e r s a t i o n , a s n o c o n f l i c ts e q u e n c e h a s y e t d e v e l o p e d , i . e . i t o c c u r s i n a s e q u e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e m u t u a l

9 The E nglish translation captures this repetition only partly. In G erman it is possible to use the sameform im K opf with two different referents ( wir , Sie ).10 In fact, this second part of EL m s turn alone could perfectly serve as a focu s shifting question, as itwo uld shift the thema tic foc us of the ta lk from the description of the presen t (capitalist) system (Elm sturn) to a different system an alternative (ELm s question).

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

19/43

H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001) 1815-1857 1833F T A - a v o i d a n c e o f s p e a k er s m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d . B y u s i n g a n e x p l i c i t o p p o s i n g q u e s -t i o n, E L m o p e n l y i n d i c a t e s th a t h e t h re a t e n s E I m s f a c e .

T h u s , t h i s k i n d o f s e c o n d p o s i t i o n q u e s t i o n c a n b e a c c o u n t e d f o r b y a p p l y i n g t h eb a s e l i n e d e v i a t i o n c r it e ri o n . B u t i n c o n t r a s t t o f o c u s s h i f ti n g q u e s t io n s , n o u n o f f i -

c i a l u s e c o u l d b e i d e n t i fi e d . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , th e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e il l o c u t i o n t a gr u l e s o u t a p o s s i b l e u n o f f i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n a s a f o c u s s h i f t i n gq u e s t i o n .5 . 2 .2 . R h e t o r i c a l o p p o s i n g q u e s t io n s

O n c e a c o n f l i c t s e q u e n c e h a s b e e n e s t a b l is h e d , a g r e e m e n t w i t h a p r e c e d i n g t u r n i sn o l o n g e r t h e u n m a r k e d o p t i o n f o r r e ac t i v e t ur n s . T h e r e f o r e , th e e x p l i c it a n n o u n c e -m e n t o f a f o l l o w i n g d i s a g r e e m e n t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , c e r t a i n t y p e s o fo p p o s i t i o n a l s e c o n d p o s i t i o n q u e s t i o n s c a n a l s o b e f o u n d i n t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l e n v i -r o n m e n t .

E x t r a c t 3 s h o w s i n i n s ta n c e o f a r h e t o r i c a l o p p o s i n g q u e s t i o n , i .e . a n o p p o s i t i o n a lq u e s t i o n f o r m a t t h a t en a b l e s a q u e s t i o n e r t o p r o v i d e t h e a n s w e r ( w h i c h i s u n f a v o r -a b l e f o r t h e o p p o n e n t ) h i m / h e r s e l f . T h e e x c h a n g e c o m e s f r o m t h e s a m e d i s c u s s i o n a st h a t in E x t r a c t 2 , b u t i t o c c u r s l a t er d u r i n g a c o n f l i c t s e q u e n c e b e t w e e n E L m a n d D f .D f w a s a t h e n l e a d i n g p o li t ic i a n o f th e G e r m a n G r e e n p a r t y , h o l d i n g s i m i l a r v ie w st o w a r d s t h e O p e r a B a l l a n d th e d e m o n s t r a t io n s a s t h o s e d e f e n d e d b y E l m .E x t r a c t 3 :- (987)E L m : n u r . i c h s e h e n i : c h t - w i e S ie d i e s e n L e u t e n h e l f e n

o n ly . I d o n o t s e e - h o w y o u w a n t t o h e lp t h e s e p e o p l eG I m ? : j a .yes .- 988)E L m :

- 989)E L m :

V ( 9 9 0 )- ->~ Df :E L m :

- ( 9 9 1 )D f :E L m :

w o l l e n d a d u r c h d a b S ie n u n - a l so K E I N E F e s t e m e h ri n th i s w a y t h a t y o u - n o l o n g e r h o l d A N Y c e l e b r a t io n s

f e i e m n u r n o c h s a g m a m a l T r ii b sa l b l as e n , d a s b r i n g tj u s t l e t s s a y h a n g y o u r h e a d . t h a t d o e s n o t se r v e t h e s e p e o p l e

w e r r e d e t d e n n h e u t e A b e n dW h o t a lk s a g a i n s t c e l e b r a ti o n s i ni i b e r h a u p t n i c h t s f t ir d i e s e M e n s c h e n .i n any r e spec t .

h i e r g e g e n F e s t e t i b e r h a u p t? d a r u m g e h t s d o c h g a r n i c h t.g e n e r a l t h i s e v e n i n g ? T h i s i s n o t t h e i s s u e.n aj u s t

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

20/43

1834 H. Gruber / Journ al of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-185 7

1E992): d a s m t i s s en S i e j e t z t a u f b a u e nt h is i s s o m e t h i n g y o u h a v e t o b u i l d u p n o w

L m : M o m e n t w i t r e d e n m o m e n t a n u m D A S / u m d a s griS :13 te/a m o m e n t a t p r e s e n t w e a r e ta l k i n g a b o u t T H E / a b o u t t he b ig g e s t /

- ( 9 9 3 )E I m ? : j a j a .

y e s y e s .D f : d a m i t S i e s i ch l e i c h t e r - d a g e g e n ( x x x x x x x ) k 6 n n e n .

t o h a v e i t e a s i e r t o x x x x x x ) - a g a i n s t i t.E L m : u m d a s g rtJ Bte B a l l f e s t i n W i e n .

a b o u t t h e b i g g e s t b a l l i n V i e n n a .( ' F e i n d b i ld O p e m b a l l ' , 2 2 . 2 .9 0 )

E x t r a c t 3 p r e s e n t s th e e n d o f a n e l a b o r a t e tu r n i n w h i c h E L m h a d t r i e d to r e je c t , a n da r g u e a g a i n st , D f ' s v i e w . I n A 9 8 9 , a p o s s i b l e t ra n s i ti o n r e l e v a n c e p l a c e ( T R P , S a c k se t al ., 1 9 7 4 ) c o m e s u p ( a f te r 'h a n g y o u r h e a d ' . ) t h a t is m a r k e d b y a c l a u s e b o u n d a r ya s w e ll as b y E L m ' s i n to n a ti o n . B u t D f d o e s n o t r e s p o n d i m m e d i a t e ly a n d E L m a d d sa n e v a l u a t iv e s t a t e m e n t to h is t u rn ( A 9 8 9 - 9 9 0 ) . I n a s h o r t o v e r l a p w i t h E L m ( A 9 9 0 )D f s ta r ts a n o p p o s i t i o n a l tu r n ( A 9 9 0 - 9 9 1 , A 9 9 2 ) c o m p r i s e d o f t h r e e p a r t s ( rh e t o r i c a lo p p o s i n g q u es t io n , A 9 9 0 - 9 9 1 - a n s w e r , A 9 9 1 - c o u n t e r s ta t em e n t , A 9 9 2 - 9 9 3 ) . T h ew h o l e s e q u e n c e h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e :E L m :D w :

s t a tem en t : abandon i ng ce l eb r a t ions Focus on Ad o e s n o t h e l p a n y b o d y ( A 9 8 7 - 9 9 0 )- W ho ta l k s aga i ns t c e l eb r a t ions . .. Rhe t o r i ca l oppos i ng ques t i on ( Focus on A)( A 9 9 0 - 9 9 1 )

Th i s i s no t t he i s s ue ( A991) An s w er ( 'A i s i r r e l evan t ' )t h is i s s om e t h i ng you have t o m ak e Co un t e r s ta t em en t

s t ick . .. ( A99 2- 99 3)

S i m i l a r t o t h e a b o v e s e c o n d p o s i t i o n q u e s t i o n s , D f e s t a b l i s h e s a c l o s e t h e m a t i cl i n k b y r e c y c l i n g t h e t e r m ' c e l e b r a t i o n s ' ( ' n o t ... a n y c e l e b r a t i o n s ' i n E L m s 't u rn , A 9 8 8 , ' c e l e b r a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l ' i n D f ' s t u rn , A 9 9 1 ) i n p a r t 1 o f h e r t u rn . T h i sf ir s t p a r t r e s e m b l e s t a lk r a d i o h o s t s ' c h a l l e n g e s o f t h e ' a g e n d a - r e l a t e d n e s s ' o fc a l l e r s ' t u r n s ( H u t c h b y , 1 9 9 6 b ) . B u t i n c o n t r a s t to t a lk r a d i o h o s t s, D f d o e s n o tg r a n t E L m t h e f l o o r . I n s t e a d , s h e p r o v i d e s t h e a n s w e r t o h e r o w n q u e s t i o n i n p a r t2 o f h e r t u r n ( 't h i s i s n o t t h e i s s u e ' ) r e j e c t i n g E L m ' s e n t i r e p r e v i o u s t u rn a s ' o f ft h e t r a c k s ' .T h u s , t h e u s e o f r h e t o r i c a l o p p o s i n g q u e s t i o n s d o e s n o t o n l y c h a l l e n g e t h e ' a g e n d ar e l a t e d n e s s ' o f t h e p r e c e d i n g t u rn , b u t r a t h e r p r o v i d e s a p o s s i b i l it y f o r c u r r e n ts p e a k e r t o r e j e c t h i s / h e r o p p o n e n t ' s t u r n a s b e i n g ' i r re l e v a n t t o c u r r e n t t o p i c ' . T h i st h r e a t is c o u n t e r e d b y E L m i n A 9 9 1 - 9 9 3 w h e r e h e re s t a te s ( p a r t ly in o v e r l a p w i t h

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

21/43

H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857 1 8 3 5

Df s formulation of part 3 of her turn ~~) the topic o f the current talk ( we are talkingabout the biggest ball in Vienna , A992-993).In general, rhetorical opposing questions display similarities as well as dissimilar-ities with the previously discussed kinds of second position questions: like the sec-ond position questions discussed above, they establish a close thematic link to thepreceding turn. But in contrast to other second position questions, current speaker(and not preceding speaker) produces the answer which contains an aggravatedrejection of the preceding turn, i.e. rhetorical opposing questions enable currentspeaker to reject the preceding turn as irrelevant .The placement of a rhetorical question before the rejection of the preceding turnmay also be viewed as an elaborate hesitation phenomenon in Pomerantz s (1984)sense and thus as a marker of dispreference (or reluctance, in Bilmes, 1988, sense).Under this perspective, the use of rhetorical opposing questions during conflictepisodes (when disagreements are the preferred reactions) may also be accounted forby the baseline deviation criterion, because their face threatening potential is lowerthan that of direct or pragmatic disagreements. That is to say, their use displays adeviation from speakers expected orientation: when mutual face threats areexpected, the use of a move with comparably low FTA potential is unexpected.5 2 3 Imp licit oppo sing questionsThe third kind of opposing questions shares features with the previously describedones as well as with the question formats that will be described in the next sections.In this respect they represent a transition between second position questions that donot display clear hints for their strategic use and those where evidence for a strategicuse is rather strong. Implicit opposing questions provide a powerful opportunity forspeakers to provide opponents with unfavorable interpretations of their points ofview and establish an obligation for the opponent to make explicit his/her positiontowards these interpretations as the following extract shows.

Extract 4 comes from a discussion on the aim and object of the obligatory Aus-trian military service for young men. HI3m is a university student, presently servingin the army. Although he is not questioning the general principle of military service,he heavily criticizes the recruits daily routine as characterized by a combination ofnonsensical and partly contradictory orders and by long periods of idleness whichare artificially filled with routine tasks that could also be performed by regular staff.LIm is the then Austrian minister for defense. He, of course, supports the presentstate of the army and military service as correct and sufficient. KRf is a youngwoman who would like to serve as a volunteer in the army, something which at thattime was impossible for women in Austria. She is an even more enthusiasticdefender of the army than is LIm.H T h e t h i r d p a rt o f D f s t u r n i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n s o f a r a s it i s a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t s p e a k e r s d o a t t ri b u t e s t r a t e -g i e s t o e a c h o t h e r (a t l e a st d u r in g c o n f l i c t se q u e n c e s ) : D f s t a t e s th a t E L m i s b u i l d i n g s o m e t h i n g u po n l y t o h a v e i t e a s i e r t o a r g u e ( t h a t s w h a t s h e p r o b a b l y s a y s i n th e i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e p a rt o f h e r u t t er -a n c e ) a g a i n s t i t. T h u s , s h e i s i n s i n u a t i n g t ha t E L m c o n s c i o u s l y g i v e s a n i n c o r r e c t a c c o u n t o f h e r p o s i t i o nj u s t t o h a v e i t e a s i e r t o c o u n t e r ( c f. b e l o w , 5 .2 . 4 ). T h i s s h o w s th a t s t r a t e g i e s a r e a n i n t e r p r e t iv e re s o u r c et h a t s p e a k e r s d r a w u p o n t o m a k e s e n s e o f o p p o n e n t s m o v e s .

8/14/2019 Gruber[01]

22/43

836 H. Gruber / Journal of Pragmatics 33 2001) 1815-1857

Extract 4:-(1970)HOm:KRf:

na zerst heiBts ma is der mtindigef i r s t y o u a r e t o l d y o u a r e t h e r e s p o n s i b le

nimmer unterordnen.n o m o r e s u b o r d