Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AUTHOR ""
TITLE "Telephone Calls: Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures"
KEYWORDS ""
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Telephone Calls
Pragmatics & Beyond New Series
Editor
Andreas H. Jucker
University of Zurich, English Department
Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland
e-mail: ahjucker@es.unizh.ch
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
Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
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.
Table of contents
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 cross-
cultural scope and scholarly exchange, interactional import and
consequences
Emanuel A. Schegloff
Index
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page vii
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-to-
date information on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. (tenhave@pscw.uva.nl)
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. (kkluke@hkusua.hku.hk)
Yong-Yae Park is Full-time Lecturer in the Department of English at Seoul National Uni-
versity in Korea. She received her doctoral degree in Applied Linguistics from the Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests include conversation analysis, teaching
English as a foreign language, cross-linguistic, cross-cultural pragmatics, and discourse
analysis.(parky@snu.ac.kr)
Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou is Professor in the Department of Linguistics, Aristotle Uni-
versity of Thessaloniki. Her research interests include telephone and classroom interac-
tion, 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.
(pavlidou@lit.auth.gr)
Gitte Rasmussen is Associate Professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense. She
has done research in intercultural communication and international business communica-
tion. (gitter@language.sdu.dk)
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. (scheglof@soc.ucla.edu)
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 inter-
ests are in politeness theory and discourse analysis in an intercultural perspective. (msi-
fian@enl.uoa.gr)
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.
(nikazm@ku.edu)
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page viii
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. (ly26@umail.umd.edu)
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. (jwa@language.sdu.dk)
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 with-
out 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 con-
versation 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.
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
. Background
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 actu-
ally 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 ini-
tiate 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 estab-
lishing the caller’s identity gets delayed.
It is not our intention to go into a prolonged discussion of Sacks’s first lec-
ture 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 tele-
phone 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.
For a very long time in human history face-to-face conversation was the pri-
mordial 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 tele-
phone, 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
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 par-
ticipants is not similarly available to the analyst. Recordings of telephone con-
versations, 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
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 typi-
cally do not contain such complications. Finally, telephone calls tend to have
clearly defined boundaries, making it possible for the analyst to study con-
versational 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 situ-
ation 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 con-
versations 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, stud-
ies 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 attrac-
tion 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 experimen-
tal conditions. Due to the requirement of naturalness, it is not usually possi-
ble to control for situational variables (topic, role relationship, etc.) when
FM_170 v1.qxd 11/25/02 10:00 AM Page 7
3 E: [Nai;]
yes
‘Yes?’
((The rest of the conversation runs in German))
4 B: Ja, hier ist Barbara. Kann ich bitte den Wolfgang sprechen?
‘Yes, this is Barbara speaking. Can I talk to Wolfgang please?’
5 ((short pause, due to some uncertainty about the caller’s iden-
tity: 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))
6 S: Ja, Bärbel, aber du kannst erst mal E und mir Guten Tag
‘Yes, Bärbel, but you can say hello to E and me
7 [sagen.]
first.’
8 E: [((hangs up))]
9 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 back-
grounds 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 inconven-
ience which their calls might be causing the other party: they try to avoid hold-
ing 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 exist-
ing 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
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
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 vol-
ume. 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 vol-
ume. It is therefore not surprising that in spite of its title (Telephone Conversa-
tion), 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-in-
progress may nevertheless be abandoned (the title of Button’s paper is “mov-
ing 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
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 clos-
ing 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 ini-
tiation 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 commu-
nities. On the other hand, the basic situation of the telephone call and the inter-
active 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 possibili-
ties 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 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
the two editors for the 6th International Pragmatics Conference in Reims in July
1998. In the call for papers we said,
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 cross-
culturally 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 tele-
phone 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
chapter reports on a study of 120 Japanese and 120 Korean telephone open-
ings. 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 lin-
guistic 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 conversa-
tion openings in Greek”, examines openings using data from an extensive cor-
pus 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 self-
identification. However, in contrast to American, Persian, and Japanese calls,
the Greek ones appear to be more informal, more solidarity-based, and ori-
ented more towards co-participants’ positive face. Sifianou points out that
Schegloff’s canonical opening is played out in full only in calls where the par-
ticipants are socially distant. In calls involving close friends or relatives, the
opening is typically either reduced (with for example identification and recog-
nition 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 organisa-
tion 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 cor-
relation 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
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 top-
ics in Hong Kong telephone calls”, focuses on topic organisation using record-
ings 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 conversa-
tions 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 previ-
ous 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 tele-
phone 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 communica-
tion 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 con-
versationalists’ concern for parting company without causing any bad feelings.
In the final part of the volume theoretical and methodological consider-
ations are highlighted for discussion. Paul ten Have, in a chapter entitled
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 17
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 param-
eters 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 dis-
cussion 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
One consequence of this is that the presentation of the data cannot be unified through-
out 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 Inter-
action 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: Appleton-
Century 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. Anglo-
Americans”. 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.’”. Commu-
nication 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
1998 “Greek and German telephone closings: Patterns of confirmation and agree-
ment”. Pragmatics 8: 79–94.
2000 “Telephone conversations in Greek and German: Attending to the relation-
ship 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
Yong-Yae Park
. Introduction
Yong-Yae Park
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).
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
. 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 daugh-
ter). 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
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 modi-
fied 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 tele-
phone conversation tapes collected.
. Analysis
After the summons-answer sequence, that is, the first “hello” or “this is X’s resi-
dence” 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:
Yong-Yae Park
5 C: senjitsu wa doomoariga[toogozaimashi ta
the.other.day thank.you.very.much
‘Thank you so much for the other day.’
6 R: [a iie na[n-
oh no nothing
‘No, (it was) nothing.’
7 C: [obaachan
mother-in-law
‘My mother-in-law
8 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
→ 3 C: =ano ne:
that
‘Umm. You know what?’
4 R: hai
yes
‘Uh huh.’
5 (0.4)
→ 6 C: ashita sukoshi: shichiji sukoshi
tomorrow a.little seven.o’clock a.little
‘I’m wondering if we can call
7 maeni takushi yoberu ka na
before taxi can call
a taxi for tomorrow morning a little before seven.’
8 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
Yong-Yae Park
3 (.)
→ 4 C: ney: yeki i hyen[cang i ntey yo?
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 an wa?
that people how come.
‘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 eyo? hhh
come thought
‘You thought they have?’
10 R: na nun ka ncilala ss ci?
I go thought
‘I thought they have.’
11 C: acik twu an wa ss eyo
yet come
‘They haven’t come yet.’
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 pro-
viding 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
will determine whether Korean speakers share the same tendency as Japanese
speakers in this context, as shown earlier in (11) and (12).
Yong-Yae Park
2 R: yepwuseyyo?
hello
‘Hello?’
3 C: yepwuseyo::,
hello
‘Hello.’
4 (0.3)
5 R: yey
yes
‘Yes.’
6 C: yey Cho Cinshikssi tayk i ci yo?
yes Cho Cinshik.Mr. place
‘Um. Is this Mr. Cho Cinshik’s residence?’
7 R: yey yey
yes yes
‘Yes.’
→ 8 C: yey:: yeki Nonsan kwunminhoy ntey yo¿
yes here Nonsan community.group
‘Umm. This is the Nonsan community group.’
9 (.)
10 R: yey
yes
‘Uh huh.’
11 C: talumianikwu yopeney cehi ka hoywen
no.other.reason.than this.time we member
‘We are in the process of
12 cwusoluk ul saylo mantul ketun yo?
directory newly make
making a new directory for the members.’
13 R: yey
yes
‘Uh huh.’
14 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 con-
cerning 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
Yong-Yae Park
3 C: yepwuseyyo?
hello
‘Hello.’
4 A: ney,
yes
‘Yes.’
5 C: ce yekiyo¿ LA-ey iss-nun
umm here- L.A.- exist-
‘Umm. This is
→ 6 Lee Minhee ntey yo
Lee Minhee
Minhee Lee at L.A..’
7 A: a: yey yey yey
oh yes yes yes
‘Oh, yes, yes, yes.’
8 C: yey annyenghaseyyo?
yes hi.
‘Yes. Hi (Are you doing well)?’
9 A: a yey [yeyhh
oh yes yes
‘Yes.’
10 C: [hh
hh
‘hh’
11 C: a:
umm
‘Umm.’
12 A: e
um
‘Um.’
13 C: eti oychwulha si ess napo ayo
where go.out seems
‘You must have been out,
14 [akka cenhwaha nikka an kyey si=
a.little.while.ago call since not exist
since you weren’t there when
15 A: [yey yey
yes yes
‘Yes, yes.’
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 39
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:
Yong-Yae Park
7 (0.3)
8 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 some-
times 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.
→ 3 C: a boku da
oh I
‘It’s me.’
4 R: hai
yes
‘Yeah.’
5 C: un nanka (0.2) Yooko mada kae te nai
yes somewhat Yooko yet return
‘Umm. Yooko isn’t back yet?’
6 R: e:: dekake ta yo
yes go.out
‘Umm. She went out.’
(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.
Yong-Yae Park
→ 3 C: e na ta
yes I -
‘Yeah, it’s me.’
4 R: e kulay
yes be.so
‘Yeah.’
5 C: kulay
be.so
‘Yeah.’
. Conclusion
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 moment-
by-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 sugges-
tions, 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 con-
tracted 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
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: Univer-
sity 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, Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles.
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 46
Yong-Yae Park
Transcription conventions
In the examples, bold face is used to highlight the item(s) under discussion.
Abbreviations
Maria Sifianou
. Introduction
Maria Sifianou
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 per-
sonal 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 ((telephone rings))
→ 2 R: ′ Ela!
come-
‘Hello!’
3 C: Paid/ mov, pov 0ceres -ui e/mai eg*;
child my where you.knew that am I
‘How come you knew it was me, dear?’
In this instance, the caller questions the recipient’s atypical answer form, inter-
preting 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 hanging-
up 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
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 expres-
sion 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 multi-
functionality 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
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
Maria Sifianou
4 R: Nai.
yes
‘Yes.’
→ 5 C: G L1na e/mai, na tov pz, uelei*taue;
the Lena am to you- I.tell you.finished-
‘It’s Lena, can I ask if you’ve finished.’
(8) 1 ((telephone rings))
2 R: Parakal*;
I.request
‘Hello?’
→ 3 C: Eg* e/mai.
I am
‘It’s me.’
4 R: Ti k2neue; To kau2laba. ((both laugh))
what you.do- it I.understood
‘How are you? I know.’
5 C: E/matue kal2.
we.are well
‘We’re fine.’
Maria Sifianou
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 embar-
rassment 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
answerer’s geia tas (“hello”) that she may not have been recognised. How-
ever, 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((telephone rings))
2A: 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 ap- uo 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 ((telephone rings))
2 A: Nai;
yes
‘Hello?’
3 C: Ka/uh;
Keti
‘Kate?’
4 A: B2na.
Vana
‘Vana.’
→ 5 C: ©Ela ko,kla mov, ui k2neis; Sas
come- doll my what you.do you--
‘Hello my darling, how are you?
6 mp1rdeya p2li.
I.mixed again
I mistook one of you for the other again.’
7 A: ′Ela bre je/a den peir2fei
come- - aunt not matters
‘Come on auntie, it doesn’t matter,
8 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
Another interesting set of examples from my data which indicate that recog-
nition 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) 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 recip-
ient 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:
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 expres-
sion 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
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 ((telephone rings))
2 R: Parakal*;
I.request
‘Hello?’
3 C: Ag2ph mov ui k2neis;
love my what you.do
‘How are you my love?’
4 R: Kal2, ete/s ui k2neue;
well you- what you.do-
‘Fine, how are you?’
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 prob-
lematic, 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 face-
threatening 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 ((telephone rings))
2 R: Parakal*;
I.request
‘Hello?’
3 C: Mairo,la. ((in a singing voice))
Mary-
‘Mary.’
4 R: ′Ela.
come-
‘Hi.’
5 C: Ti k2neis;
what you.do
‘How are you?’
6 R: Kal2, et,;
well you
‘Fine and you?’
→ 7 C: Orgitm1nh pov den 1xz uhl1wzno.
furious that not I.have telephone
‘Furious because my telephone is out of order.’
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?”), illus-
trating 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 fre-
quently 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 ((telephone rings))
2 A: Parakal*;
I.request
‘Hello?’
3 C: Kalhtp1ra.
good.evening
‘Good evening.’
4 A: Kalhtp1ra.
good.evening
‘Good evening.’
5 C: Svgn*mh gia uhn en-xlhth,
sorry for the disturbance
‘Sorry to disturb you,
6 m0pzs e/nai eke/ h Anatuat/a;
perhaps is there the Anastasia
is Anastasia there by any chance?’
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, note-
worthy 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
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 ((telephone rings))
2 A: Nai;
yes
‘Hello?’
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 70
Maria Sifianou
4 G Mau/na e/mai.
the Matina am
It’s Matina.’
5 R: Ceia tov kor/uti mov, p*s e/tai;
health to.you girl my how you.are
‘Hello my girl, how are you?
6 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 inter-
locutors may introduce the first topic. Many of the preemptive moves discussed
involve literal responses to the initial inquiry. However, since in Greek, overt self-
identification is infrequent and greetings can often be omitted between inti-
mates, 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 extrin-
sic matters of urgency. However, what emerges from my data is that even such
cases are not exceptional or problematic. They are simply marked as situa-
tion-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 ethno-
centric eyes or rather formal interactions. I will first consider an example
where the recipient initiates a situation-specific turn (which however, I can-
not see as exceptional), and then consider (28) which is atypical and idiosyn-
cratic. 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
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 pre-
invitation 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 birth-
days 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 ((telephone rings))
2 R: L1geue;
speak--
‘Hello?’
→ 3 C: ′Ela Eir0nh kalhtp1ra, pol,xronh.
come- Irene good.evening, many.years
‘Hi Irene, good evening, many happy returns.’
4 R: Evxaritu*.
thanks
‘Thank you.’
→ 5 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.’
→ 6 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 oblig-
atory in Greece, it sometimes becomes extremely difficult to reach somebody on
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 75
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.
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 ((telephone rings))
2 R: Nai;
yes
‘Hello?’
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 76
Maria Sifianou
→ 3 C: A! kal*s 0rjes!
ah well you.came
‘Ah! Welcome back!’
4 R: Evxaritu*.
I.thank
‘Thanks.’
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 recip-
ient’s second negative response is not convincing either, probably due to a per-
sistent 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.
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
Maria Sifianou
Maria Sifianou
etc.). It may be the case that a closer look at the features of setting and inter-
locutors 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 cross-
culturally 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 vol-
ume 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 grati-
tude to my colleagues Eleni Antonopoulou, Arin Bayraktaroğlu, 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 vari-
ety 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
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 Hop-
per 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 ques-
tionable. In all of Park’s and Yotsukura’s examples, the answerer speaks first.
References
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 con-
versational 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
Pavlidou, Theodossia(-Soula)
1994 “Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences”. Jour-
nal 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 Lan-
guage 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 Perspec-
tive. 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. Har-
mondsworth: 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
Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm
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 tele-
phone 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 rela-
tives, 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 rela-
tive formality and informality of the relationship of the speakers. This phe-
nomenon has received some attention from sociolinguists who have studied
how lexical variants are correlated with relative social status in Iran. Accord-
ing 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 rela-
tionship, 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
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 self-
lowering 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 speak-
ers, as the speakers’ social distinctions are strongly associated with the polite-
ness 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 dis-
play taarof to each other not only verbally but also nonverbally. In other words,
taarof routines may be performed by Iranian interactants verbally and non-
verbally. 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 immedi-
ately 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 summons-
answer 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
In Persian telephone conversations, for both informal and formal types of rela-
tionships, 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 illus-
trates the summons-answer sequence in these telephone openings.
(1) 1 ((telephone rings))
2 R: alo?
hello
‘Hello?’
In line 2, R answers the phone by uttering alo?. Similar to halla in Swedish tele-
phone 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 ((telephone rings))
2 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 conver-
sation. For example, if someone is called he may answer by saying baleh. Sim-
ilar to alo (“hello”), baleh (“yes”) may also be uttered with an interrogative
intonation or a continuing intonation.
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. Sub-
sequent 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, mean-
ing “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 tele-
phone opening. This is a telephone call between two acquaintances.
(4) 1 ((telephone rings))
2 R: alo?
hello
‘Hello?’
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 92
Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm
3 (0.7)
4 C: khaanoom Taleghani?
Mrs Taleghani
‘Mrs Taleghani?’
5 R: bale,
yes
‘Yes.’
In line 4, the caller produces the recipient’s last name with interrogative into-
nation 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.
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
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 identi-
fication. 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 khanoom,?
may.peace.be.with.you well are.you- Mrs
‘Hello, are you feeling well?’
Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm
This section focuses on the greeting and how-are-you sequences in formal Per-
sian 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 vari-
ety 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.
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 expres-
sion, 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 recip-
ient not only displays recognition of the caller by responding to Taleghani’s greet-
ing, 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-are-
you 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 how-
are-you sequences. This is a conversation between two acquaintances who
have no personal relationship.
Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm
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. Fara-
haani’s first pair part of the how-are-you sequence is followed by the sec-
ond 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 con-
versations (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-partici-
pants 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 exam-
ple 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.
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 greet-
ings in Iranian interaction must be followed by some other discourse. It is
considered impolite and indicative of a lack of mutual respect for two Ira-
nians 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 conver-
sation opening.
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 99
polite (Beeman 1986; Moosavie 1986). Finally, the caller delivers the response
to recipient’s inquiry in line 6.
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 dis-
plays 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 ((telephone rings))
2 R: alo:,?
hello
‘Hello?’
3 (.)
4 C: Ali,?
Ali
‘Ali?’
5 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 pro-
duces joonam (“my dear/darling”) which is the second pair part of the identifi-
cation/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
By uttering the recipient’s first name, Fati, the caller displays that he has recog-
nised 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 semi-
interrogative intonation (i.e. somewhere between a continuing and an inter-
rogative 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.
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 chetori,?
well.I.am you- how.are
‘I am well, how are you?’
12 C: in Babak oomad?
this Babak came
‘Did Babak come?’
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 well-
being 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
(14) 1 C: salaam.
hello
‘Hello.’
2 R: salaa::m,
hello
‘Hello,’
3 (.)
4 C: khoobi?
well.are.you-
‘Are you feeling well?’
5 R: merci.
thank you
‘Thank you.’
6 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 receiv-
ing 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.
3 C: Farhad,?
Farhad
‘Farhad?’
4 R: joonam,
dear.my
‘My dear.’
5 C: salaam
hello
‘Hello.’
6 R: salaam azizam
hello dear.my
‘Hello my dear.’
7 C: beh Fariba begoo ina
to Fariba say.you- they
‘Tell Fariba that they
8 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 greet-
ing term salaam, in line 5. The recipient answers the caller’s greeting by pro-
ducing 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.
example of a conversation between two friends, and is the first time that day
that they are talking to each other.
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 appear-
ance, 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 per-
form “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
. Conclusion
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 com-
mon 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 conversa-
tion 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 Interna-
tional 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
All my telephone conversation data were transcribed according to the transcription nota-
tion developed by Gail Jefferson (1984). The following symbols were used in the transcripts:
. 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.
mine Emphasis is indicated by underlining.
° ° A degree sign is used to indicate a passage of talk which is quieter than the
surrounding talk.
(hhh) Audible aspirations
.hhh Audible inhalations
(( )) Vocalisations that are not recognisable, i.e. the transcription is not clear.
〉mine〈 Part of an utterance is delivered at a pace quicker than the surrounding talk.
( ) Items in doubt are enclosed within single parentheses.
[I used Utterances starting simultaneously are linked together with
[I saw left-hand brackets.
I us[ed to When overlapping utterances do not start simultaneously,
[he is 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.
(0.3) 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
. Introduction
5 R: haj Tommy?
hello Tommy
‘Hello Tommy?’
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 tele-
phone 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 conver-
sations negotiate the language of the call.
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
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 signifi-
cant 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 open-
ing 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 iden-
tifies 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 treat-
ing 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
The production of Jørgen Gade’s turn in lines 3 and 4 deserves a few com-
ments. The units are delivered at a slow pace. In line 3, the first turn construc-
tional 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 self-
identification 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 iden-
tification 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 trans-
ferred 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 prob-
lems, 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 com-
petent 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 aware-
ness 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 iden-
tification 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
When answering the call in line 2, the operator has suggested French as the lan-
guage 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
5 C: [gute ] mo:rgen.
good morning
‘Good morning.’
6 〉es geht gut und bei di:r:〈
it goes well and at yours
‘Fine and how are you?’
7 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 pro-
nunciation, 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 lan-
guage sample and does not necessarily allow the recipient to identify a lan-
guage 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. Identi-
fication 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.
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
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 iden-
tifies 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
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 nor-
mally uses with his business partner Wiesenbrinck. Maybe because this hap-
pens 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 pre-
sentation 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 him-
self 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 suffi-
cient 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.
A closer look at Arne Bøje’s first turn in (8) shows that there is a short gap fol-
lowing 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 volun-
teers 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.
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
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
Yvette please
‘Yvette please.’
12 (0.8)
13 A: y:es: an:d eh ↑who are you?
14 (0.4)
15 C: Belin:da,
16 A: y:es: (0.2) j:ust one moment ple:ase,
17 C: °danke°
thank you
‘Thank you.’
18 (6.5)
19 R: allo?
hello
‘Hello?’
20 (0.3)
21 C: ja hallo Yvette hier ist Belinda:.
yes hallo Yvette here is Belinda
‘Yes hello Yvette, here is Belinda.’
22 R: ↓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
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 pro-
duced in French (hallo) and is followed by a self-identification in German. Com-
pared 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 lan-
guage 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 lan-
guage, 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 com-
pany, 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 com-
munication 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 open-
ings. In these encounters, identification of caller and language is less routinised
and raises interactional obstacles which must be removed.
8 (8.0)
9 R: Turedife:r Ferrari?
10 C: ts good morning Ferrari?
11 (0.4)
12 C: the[t is] Jørgen Gade for ai bee cee company in Denmark.
13 R: [ja:?]
14 R: yes. hh- hello Jørgen.
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.
. Conclusion
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 com-
panies 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 pat-
terns 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 con-
versationalists.
In Rasmussen (2000) the role of national identification is discussed in detail.
References
Berens, Franz J.
1981 “Dialogeröffnung in Telephongesprächen: Handlungen und Hand-
lungschemata 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. Aal-
borg: 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. Anglo-
Americans”. Applied Linguistics 14: 408–429.
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 130
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 Inter-
action 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 conversa-
tion”. Language: 361–382.
P II
. Introduction
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 “troubles-
telling” 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 serv-
ice 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 lit-
erature as being “institutional” in nature, they are in fact not conversations
among institutional representatives. Rather, they represent a hybrid type of inter-
action 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 “troubles-
telling” and “service encounter” in such settings can be problematic for conver-
sationalists 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 “interac-
tional asynchrony”, due to a different type of mismatch of expectations based on
varying levels of experience among service recipients and service providers.
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 hospitality-
oriented 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
Beginning with the attention focuser e:to desu ne?, Yamamoto signals a transi-
tion 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
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 iden-
tification of any delivery, with Yamamoto. Yamamoto then volunteers addi-
tional 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
Yamamoto, being no doubt hesitant to place the blame on Kobe Shipping pre-
maturely, 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 motiva-
tions. 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 ship-
ment. When Kaneda guesses the nature of the problem, Yamamoto attempts
to mitigate the face threat by using the evidential. Indeed, she may not actu-
ally 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 cer-
tainty 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
this minimally in line 35, saying only hai, and Kaneda puts her on hold, pre-
sumably 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 (reflect-
ing different surroundings, or context), followed by another, and so forth.
The extended predicate, or more specifically, the nominal no (or n) func-
tions 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 con-
taining the EP. That situation may of course change from moment to
moment, as we have observed in this call when new information is pre-
sented by the two conversationalists. But the purpose of employing the EP
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 145
In line 48, Yamamoto haltingly starts to mention the signature, which is nec-
essary 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 inter-
locutor — 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 utter-
ance 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
In line 52, Yamamoto might have raised further concerns or perhaps inquired
about other shipments. Instead, she reiterates her request (in the plain, non-
potential 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 con-
veys 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 assis-
tance, and the conversation ends with Kaneda’s acknowledgment in line 55.
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
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 pro-
posing 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
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, oshirabe-
how 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 forthcom-
ing, 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.
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
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 for-
mally 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, say-
ing 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: ukete-
previous 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
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
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 num-
ber, 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
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 differ-
ing shapes and trajectories of the two calls, as well as the ways in which prob-
lems 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
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 rou-
tinely are designed to afford categorial confirmation that the caller reached
what he intended, typically by self-identification (e.g., “American Air-
lines”), 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 self-
identification 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 — typi-
cally between well-acquainted participants, such as friends, sisters, and spouses.
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 157
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 frag-
ments or inverted sentences. Taken together, this indicates that speakers in
JBCs are selecting a careful, rather than casual style of speech, which is in keep-
ing with general business practice among non-intimates in Japan. We may also
note that the opening and closing sections are characterised by highly ritu-
alised 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 pres-
entation? 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 natu-
ral 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 publish-
ers. 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 call-
ing 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
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 expec-
tations 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 han-
dling. 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 dis-
positions 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 numer-
ous 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 Japan-
ese 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 refl-
ected 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 serv-
ice providers to step forward and offer assistance which would address a per-
FM_170 v2.qxd 12/5/02 7:27 AM Page 160
As was suggested in the Introduction, the JBCs examined for the present inves-
tigation 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 serv-
ice providers. Both Yamamoto and Yamada have been presented in this analy-
sis 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
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 res-
olution 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 deliv-
ery.”). 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 tem-
porarily assumed by conversationalists in the calls; (2) their experience in ful-
filling 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 communi-
cate 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
well-developed, role-specific expectations and strategies. The fact that the cus-
tomer’s narrative more closely approximates a “troubles-telling” than a prob-
lem 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 tem-
porarily 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 inter-
relationship 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 Univer-
sity 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 intro-
ductions 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 grate-
ful 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
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 (Sche-
gloff 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 preced-
ing 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
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 affir-
mative reply. Though it sounds much like the ha of Ha-ha-ha no hanashi, there is no seman-
tic 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 emo-
tional 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 “con-
veying 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
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, Urbana-
Champaign: 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”. Lan-
guage Learning 45 (2): 191–223.
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. Edited by G. Jefferson, with an introduc-
tion 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
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.
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
Appendix 3: Abbreviations
. Introduction
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 recogni-
tion, greetings and initial inquiries, and they made use of similar sequential
resources to achieve these tasks. Some differences were found too; for exam-
ple, 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:
The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls
The Hong Kong calls are thus examined with reference to the following ques-
tions: (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
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 ((telephone rings))
2 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
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
10 keoi waa ne occupy si- cyunjat wo
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.’
The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls
4 R: hai aa hai aa
yes yes
‘Yes Yes.’
→5 C: wai h ngo gamziu wangwo nei
hey I this.morning look.for- you
‘Hey h I spoke to you this morning.’
6 batgwo jigaa zoi wan nei soeng baaitok nei
but now again call you want ask you
‘But I’m calling again to ask you
7 jat joeng je aa
one thing
a favour.’
8 R: haak
yes
‘Yes?’
→9 C: nei jau AE gaa ho
you have American.Express
‘You’ve got an American Express haven’t you?’
10 R: hai aa hai aa
yes yes
‘Yes, I have.’
11 C: nei homhoji bong ngo deng fei aa
you can.not.can help me reserve ticket
‘Can you help me reserve some tickets?’
12 R: haak deng me fei aa
yes reserve what ticket
‘Yes, what kind of tickets?’
13 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 intro-
duction are done in separate turns by the recipient and the caller respectively.
(3) 1 ((switchboard))
2 R: wai
hello
‘Hello?’
171_200 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:41 AM Page 176
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.’
The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls
6 R: hai
yes
‘Yes.’
7 C: aaKarl aa
Karl
‘This is Karl.’
→ 8 R: wai dim aa
hello what
‘Hi, what’s up?
9 C: gonggan dinwaa aa
talk- phone
‘Are you on the phone?’
10 R: haa
what
‘Pardon?’
11 C: gonggan dinwaa aa
talk- phone
‘Are you on the phone?’
12 R: m hai aak
not be
‘No.’
13 C: m hai aa=
not be
‘No?’
14 R: =o hai aa tung nei aa maa
oh yes with you
‘Oh yes I’m on the phone with you.’
→ 15 C: aa::::: (1.0) tausin ngo daa bei Aaron
just.now I call to Aaron
‘Ah, I’ve just called Aaron up.’
16 R: hai
yes
‘Yes.’
17 C: waa joek haago laibaai- e::
say make.an.appointment next week
‘To arrange a time next week,
18 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
In (3), the caller takes up the recipient’s initiation and introduces reason-for-
call 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).
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 hai ukkei lo
he be where he be home
‘Where is he? He’s home.’
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 ((telephone rings))
2 R: Hello
3 C: wai mgoi Sue [aa
hello please Sue
‘Hello Sue please?’
→ 4 R: [hai aa ngo wangwo nei aa
yes I call- you
‘Yes. I’ve called you.
→ 5 ngo saudou laak, nei [sau (...)
I receive- you receive
I’ve got it. Have you received (...)’
6 C: [hai aa hai aa
yes yes
‘Yes yes.
7 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.’
8 R: [o
oh
‘I see.’
171_200 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:41 AM Page 180
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 partici-
pants 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((switchboard))
2R: 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 ((telephone rings))
2 R: wai
hello
‘Hello?’
171_200 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:41 AM Page 182
3 C: wai
hello
‘Hello?’
4 R: hai hello:
yes hello
‘Yes, Hello?’
5 C: zungjyu ceotjin laa nei:=
finally appear you
‘You finally appear.’
6 R: =ngo batlau dou ceotjin gaa laa:
I always all appear
‘I always appear.’
7 C: aijaa nei sengjat m hai ukkei aa:
ah you always not at home
‘God you’re never at home.’
8 R: ganghai mhai, faangung aa daailou::
of.course not go.to.work big.brother
‘Of course not. I have to work, big brother.’
9 C: hhh ngo m hai nei daailou::
I not be your big.brother
‘I’m not your big brother.’
10 R: o (.) hai, muimuizai
oh yes little.sister
‘Oh Yes, little sister.’
11 C: huh huh
→ 12 R: dim aa, neidei 〉 ze 〈 neidei singkeijat
what you- I.mean you- Sunday
‘What’s doing? Are you guys really
13 haimai gaa
is.not.is
going out on Sunday?’
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. How-
ever, 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
. 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 ((telephone rings))
2 R: wai
hello
‘Hello?’
→ 3 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?
4 (.) haakkau seonhou aa
black.ball signal
The black rainstorm signal is up right now.’
(11) 1 ((telephone rings))
2 R: wai
hello
‘Hello?’
3 C: sailou
younger.brother
‘Younger brother?’
4 R: hai
yes
‘Yes.
→ 5 C: di eh jaumou lauseoi aa godou
eh have.not.have leak there
‘Is the um (roof) leaking there?’
(12) 1 ((telephone rings))
2 R: wai
hello
‘Hello?’
171_200 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:41 AM Page 184
. “Recency”
When a topic has just recently come up but no conclusion has been reached, it
can be brought up right after identification.7
The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls
6 jat go percent aa
one percent
one percent.’
7 R: jat go percent aa
one percent
‘One percent?’
8 C: hai aa
yes
‘Yes.’
(14) 1((telephone rings))
2R: 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 〈 daai- daai h-
hey hey hey hey about about
‘Hey hey hey hey, about- about-
7 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 hai
but actually he not be
‘Actually he
10 gam:: gam gap jiu [gaa zi bo
so so urgent need
doesn’t need it so so badly.’
171_200 v2.qxd 12/3/02 7:30 AM Page 186
The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls
and that the way first topic is introduced has a very important role to play in
shaping the character of a call.
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) identi-
fication or recognition problems, (3) initial inquiries developing (temporarily)
into fully-fledged topics.
(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 R: wai dim aa
hello what
‘Hi, what’s up?’
→ 9 C: gonggan dinwaa aa
talk- phone
‘Are you on the phone?’
→ 10 R: haa
what
‘Pardon?’
→ 11 C: gonggan dinwaa aa
talk- phone
‘Are you on the phone?’
→ 12 R: m hai aak
not be
‘No.’
→ 13 C: m hai aa=
not be
‘No?’
→ 14 R: =o hai aa tung nei aa maa
oh yes with you
‘Oh yes I’m on the phone with you.’
15 C: aa::::: (1.0) tausin ngo daa bei Aaron
just.now I call to Aaron
‘Ah, I’ve just called Aaron up.’
16 R: hai
yes
‘Yes.’
17 C: waa joek haago laibaai e::
say make.an.appointment next week
‘To arrange a time next week, em,
18 gamgo laibaai ceotlei sikfaan aa
this week come.out have.a.meal
this week for a meal.’
The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls
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.
The initiation and introduction of first topics in Hong Kong telephone calls
10 ((clear throat))
gam ne ((clear throat))
so
that’
11 R: wai nei zou matje aa
hey you do what
‘Hey what’s wrong?’
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 con-
dition (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 ((telephone rings))
2 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 hou
not be quite good
‘Not so good.’
10 huh [huh huh huh huh
11 R: [dimgaai aa
why
‘Why not?’
171_200 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:41 AM Page 194
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 com-
bination of wai (“hey”) and hai aa (“yes”); see (20)), and the interjection laa,
as in the following example:
(22) 1 ((telephone rings))
2 R: Coengwaa Fogei
Cheung.Wah Technology
‘Cheung Wah Technology.
3 C: mgoi Miss Lam aa
please Miss Lam
‘Miss Lam, please?’
4 R: aa, ngo hai
yes I am
‘Em, speaking.’
5 C: o ngo hai Ekko Design Mary Ho
oh I am Ekko Design Mary Ho
‘This is Mary Ho of Ekko Design.’
6 R: hai hello Mary aa
yes hello Mary
‘Yes hello Mary.
→ 7 zau laa ngo sautau jau jat fung seon
then I on.hand have one letter
‘Look, I’ve got a letter with me.’
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 parti-
cles (Kwok 1984) which have been shown to have discourse functions such
171_200 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:41 AM Page 196
. Conclusion
It can be seen from the data presented in this chapter that in the Hong Kong tele-
phone calls, just as in other speech communities reported in the literature, par-
ticipants 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 resem-
blance 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” circum-
stances. 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 linguis-
tic forms these will obviously be different from markers found in other lan-
guages. 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 pres-
ent study is an attempt to replicate previous work and to contribute compara-
ble 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 vol-
umes. 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-in-
advance item”. They remark: “A formal agenda is an instantiation of a method of topic initia-
tion 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 known-
in-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 pre-
emption 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
References
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
The Cantonese data used in this chapter have all been romanised using the Lin-
guistic 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
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
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 tele-
phone calls (Pavlidou 1991, 1994), more specifically, at the use of phatic utter-
ances (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 rela-
tionship 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 rela-
tionship 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 clos-
ings, 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
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 Stan-
dard 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. [turn 1: A offers to close (pre-closing)]
B: Okay. [turn 2: B accepts (second close component)]
A: Goodbye. [turn 3: A takes the first terminal turn]
B: See you. [turn 4: B reciprocates]
((end of call))
But in order for the first turn to function as a pre-closing, i.e. as a proper ini-
tiation 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 pro-
duce 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
. The data
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 conversa-
tionalists 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 tele-
phone call. Especially when familiarity of the readers with the object-language,
in our case Greek, cannot be presupposed, it becomes extremely difficult some-
times 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 neces-
sary at times to use extensive excerpts in order to provide better grounds for a
discussion of my analysis with other researchers.
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 agree-
ment. 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
4 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))
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 prag-
matic 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
(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
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 con-
sists 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
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 acci-
dents, 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?’
3 B: Nai ja koimhj* (l/go ak-ma)
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
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
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 tech-
niques for closing down a topic discussed above are independent of the speci-
fics of the topic. They can be applied by conversationalists whatever the topic
happens to be.
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 con-
versation (see also line 2 of (5)).
201_230 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:47 AM Page 211
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 exam-
ple, 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.
3 ′Anue 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
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 sec-
tion 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 him-
self 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 com-
plex pre-closings. For example in the following, Loip-n (“So”) is combined
201_230 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:47 AM Page 213
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 affir-
matively, 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”. Sim-
ilar 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-clos-
ings (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 trans-
lated 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]
1 A: Yra/a ja p2rz. [′O,ui *ra 1rj]ei ja p2rz gia na
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
4 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))
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 orien-
tation to terminating the call with the ′Anue that precedes the beginning of
leave-taking.
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 prob-
lem 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 clos-
ing.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
5 (1)
6 A: (′Euti ja pz;)
so will I.tell
‘Is that what I should tell her?’
7 B: Nai. Su2th Arituou1lovs tuhn Ttimitk0.
yes bus-stop Aristotle- at.the Tsimiski-
‘Yes. At the Aristotle bus stop on Tsimiski street.’
8 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,
9 ε: ja e/mai ed* p2nz eg*.
eh will am here upstairs I
eh, I’ll be right here upstairs.’
10 B: Enu2cei. ′Egine.
in.order it.became
‘All right. Okay.’
11 A: °Mm.° Avu2.
hm these
‘Hm. That’s all.’
12 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
13 wvtik2=
of.course
of course.’
14 A: [Ts ]((non-linguistic sound expressing hesitation))
15 A: =Thn p0res uh D0mhura;
her you.called the Dimitra
‘Have you called Dimitra?’
16 B: ′Oxi, u*ra ja uhn p2rz.
no now will her I.call
‘No, I am going to call her now.’
17 A: Mm. Kal2.
hm good
‘Hm. Good.’
18 B: Ok1i;=
Okay
‘Okay?’
201_230 v1.qxd 11/11/02 10:47 AM Page 216
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 Aristo-
tle 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 intro-
duces 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 accept-
ance 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 equivoca-
tion. This is certainly true sometimes, but it presupposes a conversational divi-
sion 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
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
(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
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?
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.
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 exam-
ple 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
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 con-
sents 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
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.
. 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 commu-
nication, 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 simul-
taneously 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 inter-
actionally necessary work for the smooth completion of the conversation:17 it
builds on the partner’s consensus to part and, thus, forestalls feelings of rejec-
tion or animosity (cf. Laver 1975, 1981). But the canonical closing encom-
passes 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 prob-
lem 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
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 inti-
macy 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 conversation-
alists are quite concerned about enhancing their relationship, showing soli-
darity 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 similar-
ity 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 cul-
ture, it may well be the case that my analysis of Greek calls between famil-
iars 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 chap-
ter, in particular the audience of our panel on telephone conversations at the 6th Interna-
tional 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 tele-
phone calls stemmed from everyday experience, and not out of an interest in the struc-
ture 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 encoun-
tered 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
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 open-
ing a telephone call conversationalists have to do connection work, relation work and topic
work, but it is applied to closings.
References
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 reflec-
tions”. 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 Conversa-
tional 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 Germanisten-
Kongresses, 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 Phi-
losophy, 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
1998 “Greek and German telephone closings: Patterns of confirmation and agree-
ment”. Pragmatics 8(1): 79–94.
2000 “Telephone conversations in Greek and German: Attending to the relation-
ship 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 Lan-
guages 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 Lan-
guages 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] 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.
(words) Talk in single parentheses indicates that transcription is uncertain.
((words)) Double parentheses indicate transcriber’s comments.
(2) 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
= 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”.
word 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 bound-
ary.
; 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.
°words° 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.
word 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
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 Amer-
ican 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 theo-
retical and methodological arguments in this dispute between his “universal-
ist” position and the various contributions that stress cultural differences. I do
not claim to be impartial, but I will try to be fair.
The three paragraphs that precede Hopper’s statement quoted above ade-
quately 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 pic-
ture 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
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 pos-
sibilities 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 sequen-
tial 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 par-
ticipants 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, alter-
natively, 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 “belong-
ing 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 result-
ing from a “reduction”, that is applied to it.
. A functional perspective
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 pur-
sued 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
7 R: HA hh hh
8 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.’
9 R: [goed
good
‘Okay.’
The above example not only illustrates the three kinds of work discussed previ-
ously 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, confirma-
tion of having reached the right destination” (Schegloff 1986: 123; his italics).
The general conclusion regarding the American habit of answering the tele-
phone 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 exam-
ple, 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.)
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 organisa-
tional 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” fol-
lowed 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 sub-
sequent 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
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 frame-
work, 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 Houtkoop-
Steenstra’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
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 ana-
lytic “levels” as the procedural infrastructure of interaction and various cultural
conventions? Quite often, such conventions are discussed in terms of their gen-
eral 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 histor-
ical 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 con-
sulted normative sources, especially manuals published by Dutch telephone
companies and books on etiquette, and on the other, descriptive ones, includ-
ing 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 spe-
cial 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 tele-
phone 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
second phase, from 1925 until the mid 1960s, the telephone company manu-
als 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 reason-
for-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
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. Further-
more, 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. Distribu-
tional 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.
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
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 misunder-
standing, confusion and/or talking at cross-purposes. It makes a basic differ-
ence, 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 infrastruc-
ture 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 gene-
ral 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
. Final remarks
References
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 Every-
day 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 intersubjec-
tivity in conversation”. American Journal of Sociology 98: 1295–1345.
1993 “Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation”. Research on Lan-
guage 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 Lan-
guages 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 inter-
disciplinary 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
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
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 some-
thing 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 open-
ings 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 open-
ings 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
11 Ava: Mm hm,
12 (0.4)
13 Bee: Whe:re.
14 Ava: t! Oh: just any pla(h)ce? I wz jus’ kidding yuh.
15 Bee: Nno?=
16 Ava: =[(°No).]
17 Bee: =[ W h y] whhat’sa mattuh with y-Yih sou[nd HA:PPY,] hh
18 Ava: [ Nothing. ]
19 Ava: u- I sound ha:p[py?]
20 Bee: [Yee]uh.
21 (0.3)
22 Ava: No:,
23 Bee: Nno:?
24 Ava: No.
25 (0.7)
26 Bee: ·hh You[sound sorta ] cheer[f_ ul? ]
→ 27 Ava: [°(Any way).] [·hh ]How’v you bee:n.
28 Bee: ·hh Oh:: survi:ving I guess, hh[h!
29 Ava: [That’s good, how’s (Bob),
30 Bee: He’s fine,
31 Ava: Tha::t’s goo:d,
“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 implemen-
tation 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 long-
time-no-see version of how-are-you, that is, a version that builds into its con-
stitution 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
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 recog-
nition of caller, such as an address term. Although Marsha resists this con-
straint 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 uncer-
tainty about who the caller is. That Tony hears it this way, or finds himself con-
strained 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, con-
structed 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-are-
you”; “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
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 deliv-
ers 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 con-
structional 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 recip-
rocal 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.
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 accept-
ance (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
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
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 mak-
ing 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
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 consi-
derable resistance on Stan’s part to Joyce’s suggestions, occupies several pages
of transcript, and is brought to a close in the following exchange.
Upshot
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 ren-
dered so as to converge with what appears to be the cognate “move” in Ameri-
can 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 inter-
action. 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 non-
occurrence (should that happen) thereby becomes accountable, eventful, con-
sequential 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
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 pro-
ceeding 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.
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, how-
ever 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 poten-
tial 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
from the outset, more is involved than simply registering the occurrence of utter-
ances of this form in the opening, with a candidate interpretation. Its sequential
relationship to apologising is an empirical matter, being grounded both in contin-
gent 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: [Hey-
8 Caller: Hey, listen, uh eh, what’s ...
and in the sequentialisation of the association into a pre-apology and a con-
tingent 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
5 (0.8)
6 Reah: Are you sure,
7 (1.5)
8 Marcia: (Well,)_ hhuh huh huh .hh
9 (0.5)
10 Reah: ‘s this Marcia?
11 Marcia: Yeah
12 Reah: (Howayou,)
13 Marcia: Yeah. You did not wake me up Reah.
→ 14 Reah: Oh your voice sounds different.
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 mat-
ter is not let go until the sound is otherwise accounted for.
Such displays of “possible occasioning” implicate future trajectories of inter-
action, 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
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 sequen-
tial 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 set-
tings (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
Specimen 2
There is another set of practices in the opening which was treated in the disser-
tation 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
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 categori-
sation 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 com-
plainants, 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 differ-
ent 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 conversa-
tions (a) for displaying caller’s recognition of answerer at first possible oppor-
tunity, 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 self-
identification, 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 con-
tinuation 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
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 trans-
formation of the categorical infrastructure of the interaction.
What has prompted my “exhuming” of this aspect of my work on open-
ings 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 mate-
rials 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 other-
wise-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 infra-
structure 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-recog-
nition 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
. Conclusion
Notes
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 inter-
action. 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 (exem-
plified 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 con-
versation, 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 ori-
ented 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 encoun-
tered 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 prac-
tice, 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 inter-
pretive 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
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, espe-
cially 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 pre-
apology 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 out-
come 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
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 trans-
formation. Always answered with last name in the corpus of police calls which I was exam-
ining, 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, possi-
bly 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 reflec-
tions”. 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
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 identifica-
tion 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
Index
Denmark/Danish 15, 112, 114, 115, 118- Greece/Greek 7, 8, 11-14, 16, 172, 261-
122, 128, 129 263, 272, 274, 275
diminutive 8, 55, 56, 63 greeting 9, 10, 39, 43, 49, 50, 53, 57, 62-
directness 201, 241 65, 68-72, 79-82, 87, 89, 92-98, 101-
discourse 104, 106, 107, 112, 115, 116, 120,
discourse completion test (DCT) 136, 137 122, 123, 126-128, 156, 157, 169,
discourse function 195, 196, 210 172, 173, 201, 235-237, 239, 250,
discourse marker 207, 210 252, 254, 259
dispreferred action 50, 56, 62, 159, 267 greeting substitute 68, 73
downgrader 166 greeting token 9, 10, 87, 95, 101-103
Dutch See Netherlands, the proto-greeting 50
reciprocal minimal greeting 252
endearment term 61, 63, 65, 83
English 11, 13, 16, 50, 64, 114, 115, 121, habitus 159
125, 128, 129, 136, 154, 160, 161, 163, hedging 34
164, 166, 173, 213, 263 historical pragmatics 241
American English 6, 10, 11, 13, 49, 65, Hong Kong 16
90, 106, 111, 160, 276 honorific 158
British English 11 how-are-you 9, 14, 15, 49, 53, 56, 63, 65,
established call 15 66, 68-74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 87, 89, 93, 94,
established language 119, 125 96-99, 101-104, 106, 107, 172, 201, 221,
ethnography 135, 137, 243, 244, 246 222, 235, 236, 238, 250, 252-255, 257-
evidential 143 259, 261, 264, 275
extended predicate (EP) 141-144, 146 - Iceland 15, 114
148, 155, 158, 163, 165, 169 identification 7, 9, 10, 14, 49, 53, 55, 56,
59, 62, 63, 65, 78-81, 87, 89-91, 93,
face 14, 65
100, 107, 108, 116, 121, 125, 126,
face-threatening act (FTA) 65, 143, 201
169, 172, 173, 184, 187, 191, 201,
face-to-face conversation 4-7, 64, 74, 81, 98
236, 237, 240, 242, 250, 259, 269-
familiarity 16, 50, 53, 56, 65, 68, 69, 78,
271, 275
88, 126
See also self-identification
Finnish 11, 111, 225
explicit identification 62, 93, 235
first topic See topic
national identification 129, 276
first topic slot See topic
non-routine identification 116
foreign accent 116
person identification 15, 118, 119, 125,
foreign language 7, 114, 115, 125, 126, 129
128, 243
formal/formality 14, 43, 44, 50, 52, 53, 56,
impoliteness 98, 239, 240
63, 68, 69, 71, 79, 82, 87-95, 97, 101,
inference 28, 37, 40, 127, 142, 158, 163,
102, 104, 107, 123, 151, 157, 158, 166,
234, 242, 243
241, 243
informal/informality 14, 44, 65, 82, 87-90,
France/French 10, 13, 15, 49, 77, 111, 114,
97, 100-102, 104, 107, 112, 234
117, 118, 123-125, 129, 261-263, 272
initial inquiry 9, 65-69, 71, 73, 78, 96-
functional perspective 17, 234, 235, 246
100, 102-104, 106, 107, 172, 173,
Germany/German 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 16, 49, 188, 192, 193, 196, 236, 252-255,
111, 114, 115, 117-125, 128, 129, 172, 258, 259, 277
201, 203, 225, 272 reciprocal inquiry 253, 257
INDEX v2.qxd 12/3/02 10:24 AM Page 285
Index
inquiries 139, 146, 149, 239, 242, 255, latching 201, 223
257, 260, 261, 265, 267 laughter 55, 56, 64, 80, 206, 207, 209, 210,
insertion sequence 72, 188 212, 217, 220, 261
institutional 136, 161, 162, 164, 187, 234, Lectures on Conversation (Sacks) 3, 197
243, 249, 250, 269, 274 lexical import 205
inter-cultural call 7 lingua franca 115, 117, 119, 129
interactional
interactional asynchrony 15, 136, 159, minimiser 166
161, 164 misalignment 7, 159, 160
interactional difficulty 125, 148, 160 miscommunication 158
interactional exuberance 16, 224 misunderstanding 7, 244
interactional import 28, 39, 42, 44 monotopical call 207, 226
interactional preference 25, 28, 32, 157 move-in-interaction 264
interactional task 172 mutual categorisation 235
interactional trajectory 266, 268, 270
interjection 195, 196 national character 272
interlocking organisation 53, 68, 69, Netherlands, the/Dutch 11, 13, 17, 49,
78, 79 111, 237-241, 243, 272
international call 15 non-nativeness 116
intimacy 52, 61, 62, 64, 65, 71, 73, 79-81, North America 6, 49, 81, 233, 246
83, 100-102, 104, 166, 201, 203, 225,
235, 237, 239, 240, 242 offer 15, 37, 39, 65, 89, 197, 275
intonation 61, 120 opening
continuing intonation/non-final canonical opening 14, 17, 49, 71, 79,
prosody 90, 101, 108, 261 81, 233-236, 238, 246, 251, 252,
downward intonation 210, 226 254, 275
final intonation 254 non-routine opening 234
interrogative intonation 51, 90-92, 100, oral signature 51
101, 108, 205, 213 ordinary person 135, 136, 162, 164, 165
playful intonation 55 organisational job/task 16, 235, 243
rising intonation 112 other-raising 89, 99, 107
semi-interrogative intonation 101 overlap/overlapping talk 98, 120, 121,
turn-final prosody 254 124, 126, 141, 201, 210, 223, 239, 252
late introduction 16 terminal overlap 107
Iran 87-109
Italian 50, 126, 128 participant configuration 187
particle 14, 82, 155, 158, 163, 212, 213,
Japan/Japanese 11, 13-15, 81, 261-263, 272 226, 263, 264, 275
clause particle 141, 142, 145, 147, 155,
Korea/Korean 14, 135, 261-263, 272 169
discourse particle 210, 211
language particle of familiarity 223, 224
language choice 15 sentence-final particle 195, 196
language preference 118, 119, 121 summarising particle 210
language sample 116, 118, 119, 121 pause 8, 34, 92, 93, 126, 208, 210, 234
language switch See code switching Persian 13-15
INDEX v2.qxd 12/3/02 10:24 AM Page 286
Index
Index
Name Index
Index
Lee, J.R.E. 15, 135, 136, 159, 161, 164, 165 Sacks, H. 3-6, 9, 11-13, 18, 49, 68, 107, 111,
Lee, K. 27 118, 142, 165, 166, 171, 173, 197, 202,
Lentz, L. 11, 17, 241, 242 204, 207, 211, 213, 224, 226, 234, 235,
Levinson, S.C. 61, 65, 143, 201, 244 238, 240, 242, 244, 252, 261, 269, 276
Liefländer-Koistinen, L. 11, 225 Sager, S.-F. 12, 111, 202
Lindström, A. 11, 25, 49, 65, 90 Salwen, H. 18
Luke, K.K. 11, 16, 172, 196, 202 Saville-Troike, M. 244
Schegloff, E.A. 5, 6, 9-14, 17, 25, 28, 29, 32,
Mackridge, P. 80 34, 49-51, 53, 58, 60, 62-64, 66, 68,
Makri-Tsilipakou, M. 83 71, 73, 78-81, 83, 89, 106, 107, 111,
Matoba, K. 136 115, 116, 118, 142, 156, 157, 165, 166,
Mey, J.L. 51 171-173, 202-204, 207, 211, 213, 224,
Moerman, M. 244, 276 226, 228, 233-238, 240, 242, 244-246,
Moosavie, S.M. 88, 96-98, 100 249, 250, 252-254, 261, 262, 264, 268-
270, 275-277, 279
Nancarrow, O. 196 Sharrock, W. 244
Neuendorff, D. 11, 225 Sifianou, M. 11, 14, 25, 49, 50, 72, 77, 79,
Noda, M. 155, 165 80, 83, 171, 225, 242, 245
Silverman, D. 18
Szatrowski, P. 165
Ochs, E. 28, 228, 279
Ono, R. 137 Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 14, 89
Tannen, D. 82, 165, 225
Park, Y.-Y. 11, 13, 14, 27, 37, 83, 135, 156, Taylor, T. 226
157, 262, 263 Terasaki, A.K. 165
Pavlidou, T.-S. 11, 12, 16, 18, 49, 50, 53, Thompson, S.A. 28, 228, 279
63-65, 67, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 111, Tiemessen, A. 11, 17, 241, 243
172, 197, 201, 202, 211, 213, 219, Tracy, K. 136
224-226, 274 Trudgill, P. 83
Placencia, M.E. 11, 12, 225, 241, 246
Wagner, J. 15, 271, 272, 276
Quinn, C.J., Jr. 165 Watson, R. 244
Whalen, J. 136
Whalen, M.R. 136
Rasmussen, G. 15, 111, 112, 120, 129, 271,
Wiemann, J.M. 165
272, 276
Wooffitt, R. 63
Ray, Y.T. 165
Rehbock, H. 204, 226 Yotsukura, L.A. 11, 15, 43, 83, 135, 165
Robinson, J.D. 65
Rose, K.R. 137 Zimmerman, D.H. 136
In the PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES the following titles have been pub-
lished 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/Phila-
delphia, 1989.
5. THELIN, Nils B. (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990.
6. VERSCHUEREN, Jef (ed.): Selected Papers from the 1987 International Pragmatics Con-
ference. 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. Am-
sterdam/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/Phila-
delphia, 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. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia, 1991.
13. NUYTS, Jan, A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN and Co VET (eds): Layers and Levels of Repre-
sentation 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/Philadel-
phia, 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, func-
tionalism, 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. Amster-
dam/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 Japa-
nese 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 Tradi-
tional 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. Amster-
dam/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 SIMON-
VANDENBERGEN 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 impli-
cations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.
38. FRETHEIM, Thorstein and Jeanette K. GUNDEL (eds): Reference and Referent Accessi-
bility. 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 close-
knit 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. Am-
sterdam/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/Phila-
delphia, 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. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia, 1998.
51. BOULIMA, Jamila: Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. Am-
sterdam/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 cogni-
tion. 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 Interna-
tional 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 rel-
evance-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 Eng-
lish. 2001.
72. MARMARIDOU, Sophia S.A.: Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. 2000.
73. HESTER, Stephen and David FRANCIS (eds.): Local Educational Order. Ethno-
methodological 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 Propo-
sitional 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 Commu-
nication. 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 per-
spective. 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. Linguis-
tics 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 vari-
ability 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.): Dis-
course 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.