Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation

This paper reports on an investigation of instances of lexical replacement repair, in which a speaker replaces one lexical choice with another, sampled from Dutch spontaneous interaction. The study is driven by the question as to what motivates a speaker to produce a particular instance of self-repair with or without prosodic marking with or without notable prosodic prominence and the notion that a close consideration of the discourse context in which the repair is embedded, and its function in that context, is paramount in addressing this question. The study explores the empirical grounds for two proposals regarding the function of prosodic marking one in which marking is a response to the speaker s embarrassment or unease at the error or infelicity and one in which marking is done for the listener s benefit to highlight particularly important information. This paper describes three discourse contexts in which prosodic marking is notably common, and argues that both proposals find some support in these contexts. The analysis suggests that speakers decisions for or against prosodic marking are based at least on considerations of epistemic authority, precision and exaggeration, and discourse coherence. KEY WORDSSelf-repair, prosody, discourse coherence, epistemic authority, precision and exaggeration ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Section: Additional Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discourse constraints on prosodic marking in lexical replacement repair

Plug

2015

“…So a question should be answered, a greeting returned, a request should be granted or rejected, an invitation accepted or declined and so on. ii Likewise, complaint sequences have been understood in terms of an initial action, the complaint, making relevant a specific type of paired action, one which either affiliates or disaffiliates with the complaint -the positive, affiliative response being 'preferred' over negative or disaffiliative responses, which are dispreferred (examples in the literature of complaint sequences treated as adjacency pairs include Dersley and Wootton 2000, Drew 1998, Pomerantz 1984:63 and Schegloff 1988). An example which might seem to illustrate the character of complaints as initiating adjacency pairs is the following, from a telephone conversation between two women, one of whom (Robbie) has recently started teaching at a school at which Lesley has taught in the past.…”

Section: Affiliation Through Collaborating In Complainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ii For more on adjacency pairs, see for example Sacks 1992: 521-541 and elsewhere;Heritage 1984, Schegloff 2006 iii On the use of figurative expressions -'ticking over' meaning 'idling', not putting any effort of drive (to complete the motor metaphors) into work -in complaint sequences, especially drawing them to a close, and their role in agreement/affiliation, see Holt 1988 andHolt 1998. iv Comic Relief is a charity event in the UK, really a series of events, focusing on one day each year when TV shows, for instance, all have some comic theme and are aimed at raising money for charities (mostly children's charities) through viewer donations. The focal day for these events in known as Red Nose Day, when children are encouraged to wear red noses to school, and there's lots of boisterous fun.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation

Drew

Walker

2009

Self Cite

178

This report, arising from a study of affiliation and disaffiliation in interaction, addresses an apparently 'anomalous' finding in relation to complaint sequences in conversation. In some of the cases we collected in which one speaker was complaining on behalf of the other (their coparticipant), taking her side in some matter, the one on whose behalf the other was complaining did not affiliate with the complaint. Instead they resisted the complaint (again, one made on their behalf) and demurred to 'go so far'. This finding is anomalous in the sense that if A is complaining on behalf of B, in respect of some harm done to B, then it might be expected that B would go along with the complaint, and affiliate with A. To account for how it might come about that B demurs from 'going as far as' A, we explore how complaints are frequently introduced in conversation. We show that complaints may emerge through a progression in which 'the complainant' does not initially go on record with a complaint, but instead secures the other's participation in co-constructing the complaint. Hence the 'complaint recipient' may be the first to make the complaint explicit, in a sequence of escalating affiliation. In the 'anomalous' cases, it appears that this escalation goes too far for the putative complainant (B). Going too far: complaining, escalating and disaffiliation

“…Molly receipts this with the SCT oh okay (Schegloff, 2007) and turns away from Hannah (Rossano, 2012), thereby treating the sequence as nearing completion. In overlap (line 5), Hannah also orients to sequence closure by turning away from Molly while producing an upshot just so you know (see Drew and Holt, 1998), which serves to end her warning to Molly. And so this sequence has arrived at possible completion, as each participant has disengaged both verbally and bodily (Goodwin, 1981).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequence recompletion: A practice for managing lapses in conversation

Hoey

2017

Conversational interaction occasionally lapses as topics become exhausted or as participants are left with no obvious thing to talk about next. In this article I look at episodes of ordinary conversation to examine how participants resolve issues of speakership and sequentiality in lapse environments. In particular, I examine one recurrent phenomenon---sequence recompletion---whereby participants bring to completion a sequence of talk that was already treated as complete. Using conversation analysis, I describe four methods for sequence recompletion: [ 4 _ T D $ D I F F ] turn-exiting, action redoings, delayed replies, and post-sequence transitions. With this practice, participants use verbal and vocal resources to locally manage their participation framework when ending one course of action and potentially starting up a new one.