Chapter 9

9 Participation within multiparty
conversation
Responses to indirect complaints
about a co-present participant
Ray Wilkinson, Julie Bouchard,

Veronica Gonzalez Temer, Antti Kamunen,
Julia Katila, Carla Cristina Munhoz Xavier
and Anca Sterie
1. Introduction: Goffman and participation

A central theme of Goffman’s work on participation in social interaction,
extending from his PhD thesis (1953) through works such as Frame Analy-
sis (1974) to his late influential paper on Footing (1979), was the limita-
tions of the dyadic ‘speaker’-‘hearer’ model (a model sometimes discussed
using other terms, such as ‘addresser’ and ‘addressee’ (Jakobson, 1960)).
Among other critical arguments, Goffman suggested that this model was
regularly applied to contexts for which it was ill-suited, such as gatherings
consisting of more than two participants. He also argued more generally
that the categories of ‘speaker’ and ‘hearer’ were too unspecific to usefully
capture the details of participation. In Footing, he proposed that these cat-
egories could be broken down into ‘smaller, analytically coherent elements’
(1979, p. 6), and he then proceeded to present a series of participant roles,
dissecting the category of ‘speaker’ into various production roles, and –
more relevant for the themes of this chapter – that of ‘hearer’ into a num-
ber of reception roles.
Copyright © 2023. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
In that paper Goffman makes a distinction between hearers who are ‘rati-
fied participants’ and those who are not. In the case of the former, a further
distinction can be drawn between ‘addressed’ and ‘non-addressed’ hear-
ers. While in a two-person encounter the hearer can be assumed to be the
addressed recipient, in larger encounters there can be one or more hearers
who are not currently being addressed by the speaker (although of course a
speaker can also address more than one hearer at a time, including all par-
ticipants as a whole (Goffman, 1974, p. 565)). In the case of non-ratified
participants, there can be bystanders who can function as ‘overhearers’,
who are perceptually able to catch something of the encounter whether
they intend to or not, or as ‘eavesdroppers’ who may surreptitiously use
DOI: 10.4324/9781003094111-11
Mondada, L., & Peräkylä, A. (Eds.). (2023). New perspectives on goffman in language and interaction : Body, participation and
the self. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from sheffield on 2023-10-29 15:32:19.
196 Ray Wilkinson et al.
the access they have to gain information. These more finely discriminated
roles, in particular the range of reception roles, allowed Goffman to high-
light, among other things, various types of ‘subordinate communication’
(such as ‘byplay’, ‘crossplay’ and ‘sideplay’), in relation to the ‘dominating
communication’, as well as how each of these types of subordinated com-
munication types might take concealed (‘collusive’) forms.
Goffman notes that the participation roles he identifies can provide the
analyst with ‘a cross-sectional, instantaneous view’ (1979, p. 11). That is,
when one participant is speaking, ‘the relation of any one such member to
this utterance can be called his participation status relative to it, and that
of all the persons in the gathering the participation framework for that
moment of speech’ (Goffman, 1979, ibid.).
The influence of Goffman’s model on subsequent research into participa-
tion has been significant. For example, a number of researchers (e.g., Dynel,
2010; Levinson, 1988) have drawn on the model outlined in Footing and
modified it, particularly by adapting or adding to Goffman’s participant roles.
In this chapter, using the methods and findings of Conversation Analysis
(CA) (Clift, 2016), we aim to build on the insights of Goffman and subse-
quent researchers (in particular Levinson, 1988) regarding participation in
social interaction. The analytical perspective of this chapter, however, dif-
fers somewhat from that of Goffman and subsequent researchers who have
built on his typology of participant roles. Rather, our approach has simi-
larities to that of Charles Goodwin and Marjorie Harness Goodwin (e.g.,
Goodwin & Goodwin, 2004; Goodwin & Goodwin, this volume) who
have provided a mixture of appreciation and critique of Goffman’s work
on participation. In particular, Goodwin and Goodwin (2004) argue for
A somewhat different notion of participation, one focused not on the

categorical elaboration of different possible kinds of participants, but
instead on the description and analysis of the practices through which
different kinds of parties build action together by participating in struc-
tured ways in the events that constitute a state of talk.

(p. 225, italics in original)
Following on from Goodwin and Goodwin’s approach, and in line with

standard conversation analytic practice, our interest is not so much in
what Levinson (1988, p. 218) terms ‘post-hoc analytical categorization’
but rather in participation as a participants’ issue (Heritage, 1984), that
is, how persons in conversation can be seen to organise their participa-
tion in situ. Analytically, our focus is not on participant roles but on the
organisation of social action and of the practices which participants use
to constitute actions and organise participation within interaction (Sche-
gloff, 2010). Specifically, we highlight how within multiparty conversation
Participation within multiparty conversation 197
a certain form of action, i.e., an indirect complaint about a co-present par-

ticipant (Pillet-Shore, 2015), can be shown to have implications for the
interactional participation of different types of hearers, including, in par-
ticular, that of a certain type of non-addressed participant, the complainee
(the party being complained about). In the Conclusion we return to the
insights into participation provided by Goffman, and those who built on
his work, such as Levinson (1988), and discuss the approach used here as
one way of taking forward work in this area.
2. Actions and responses to actions: indirect complaints about a

co-present participant
According to Schegloff (2010, p. 38), a central focus of CA concerns the
analysis of ‘the organization of action in interaction, the organizations of
practices for accomplishing those actions and courses of actions, and the
basic infrastructure for the while domain’. It is by employing these prac-
tices that participants are able to produce understandable actions (such
as requests, assessments or complaints) and together achieve coherent
sequences of actions (such as question-answer sequences) across two or
more participants. From this perspective, the organisation of sequences of
actions (Schegloff, 2007) and the organisation of turn-taking (Sacks et al.,
1974) are both centrally involved in how persons organise their participation
within interaction. While these are two distinct forms of social organisation,
they can operate together. For example, a sequence-initiating action (i.e., the
first pair-part of an adjacency pair, such as an information-seeking question)
can make conditionally relevant a type-fitted responsive action (a second
pair-part, such as an answer) from an addressed participant, thus selecting
that party to speak (Schegloff, 2007). In terms of turn-taking, at the next
transition-relevance place the current speaker should then stop speaking and
the addressed party, and no one else, should speak next (Sacks et al., 1974).1
In a two-party conversation, the party being selected to speak or participate
next can be assumed to be the one other than the current speaker. Within
a multiparty conversation, addressing practices can be deployed with the
initiating action to single out a particular party to participate next (Lerner,
2003). These practices can be explicit, such as gazing at a particular party or
using an address term, or implicit and tied to aspects of the context, such as
when the circumstances make it clear that there is only one party to whom
that particular utterance can be heard as being addressed (Hayashi, 2013).
In multiparty conversation, while an action regularly makes relevant a
response from, and hence the participation of, the addressed party, and
only that party, it is possible that actions can have other types of implica-
tions for participation. Schegloff (1996), for example, has noted that an
utterance can have action implications for a non-addressed participant.
However, while this type of phenomenon was discussed in early conversa-

tion analytic work (Jefferson, 1972, p. 306; Sacks, 1992, vol. 1, pp. 523–
534), it has not been extensively explored empirically. One exception is a
study by Lerner (2019) who shows that sequence-initiating actions, such as
compliments, can make relevant additional sequence-initiating actions (i.e.,
further compliments) from non-addressed participants (as well as making
a response from the addressee of the compliment conditionally relevant).2
Analysis of the type of phenomenon investigated here, where a responsive
action (in this case, a response to a complaint) is made relevant from a non-
addressed participant has, however, been little explored (though see Lerner,
1992, Excerpt 6 and the related discussion).
In this chapter we will present evidence from the participants’ talk and
embodied conduct that they are orienting to a response from the com-
plainee as being relevant. As regards complainees, this can be in the form of
the production of a type-fitted response, such as a denial. In the case of the
person producing the complaint, it can be, for example, gazing at the com-
plainee during the complaint. For other participants it can take the form of
gazing at the complainee to see how the complainee responds or reacts (see
Goodwin, 1984; Levinson, 1988) or of withholding full turns-at-talk until
the complainee has possibly responded.
Excerpt 1 provides an example of an indirect complaint and the types
of responses it can make relevant (or conditionally relevant) from partici-
pants. Prior to this the excerpt, Mum has accused 19-year-old daughter
Emily of going out in her (Mum’s) clothes without permission, and in retal-
iation has locked her bedroom door, meaning that Emily cannot now use
the household bath which is accessed via Mum’s bedroom. As the excerpt
starts, Emily, her 14-year-old brother Tom and Mum are in the dining
room and Emily is phoning Dad in an attempt to enlist his help. As Emily
waits for Dad to answer, she and Mum continue their argument (lines 1–5).
Excerpt 1
01 MUM: you continue to be how-how you are:, and

02 you won’t be washing anywhere in this house.
03 EMI: do you know what? (0.3) I don’t ca:re.
04 (0.4)
05 MUM: [good.]
06 TOM?: [( )]
07 (1.4)
08 EMI: hi da:d, (.) can you speak to mum please cos
09 I need to have a bath and she’s taken the
10 key:s (0.3) because she’s being spiteful.
11 MUM: no I’m not being sp[iteful
12 EMI: [>yes you are<
13 MUM: [I just don’t want you in my roo:]m.
14 EMI: [>I haven’t done anything<. ]
15 (0.3) I haven’t done anything. (0.2) wrong.
16 (0.3)
17 are you gonna help or not?
When Dad answers the phone, Emily requests that he speak to Mum (line 8).
She also provides a reason, which assigns blame to Mum for deliberately
doing something – taking the keys – that is stopping Emily doing what she
‘needs’ to do, i.e., having a bath. She ends by assigning to Mum a blame-
worthy motivation for her action: being spiteful (line 10; see Excerpt 1a).
Excerpt 1a
10 EMI: because she’s being #spiteful.
emi: >>gz down------------------->>
mum: >>gz to her food------------>>
tom: >>gz ahead------------------>>
fig: #fig.9.1
Figure 9.1
Emily’s request is a sequence-initiating action that makes conditionally rel-

evant a response from Dad in the next turn in the form of either granting
or declining her request (Heritage, 1984). At the same time, Emily’s turn
is also hearable as an indirect complaint about a co-present participant
(Mum). At this point it will be useful to explain what is meant by ‘indirect
complaint’.
2.1 Indirect complaints about a co-present party
Heinemann and Traverso (2009, p. 2381) note that ‘broadly speaking,

to complain means to express feelings of discontent about some state of
affairs, for which responsibility can be attributed to “someone” (to some
person, organization or the like)’. As such, an attribution of blame can be
central to complaints (Schegloff, 2005), and the complained-about per-
son’s activity may be portrayed as morally reprehensible and deliberate
(Drew, 1998). Both of these features are present in Emily’s turn, as well
as an expression of her own discontent as a result of Mum’s behaviour.
Common practices that are used in the construction of complaints include
negative observations (Schegloff, 1988) and extreme case formulations

(Pomerantz, 1986).
Emily’s complaint is ‘indirect’ in that it is about a participant who is
not the addressee (Pillet-Shore, 2015). This contrasts with a ‘direct com-
plaint’, where the complaint is about the current addressee and may be
produced either in the presence of one or more co-participants in the
encounter (e.g., Schegloff, 1988), or not (e.g., Dersley & Wootton, 2000).
Three types of participants involved in the production and reception of a
complaint may be distinguished: the speaker making the complaint (the
complainant), the person whom the speaker is addressing while making
the complaint (the addressee) and the person being complained about (the
complainee). While in direct complaints the addressee and complainee are
the same person, in indirect complaints these roles are typically filled by
different participants (although this separation is not always absolute, as
will be seen in Excerpt 2).
Most research into indirect complaints has focused on complaints about
non-present persons (e.g., Drew, 1998). One study which has analysed
indirect complaints about a party who is co-present is Heinemann (2009),
whose study is of caregivers and a care recipient within the institutional
setting of home help visits. In Heinemann’s data, indirect complaints by a
caregiver about a recipient are regularly responded to by the care recipi-
ent with, for example, a denial, although these responses are typically
ignored by the caregivers. Another caregiver will regularly affiliate with
the complaint. When an indirect complaint is made by the care recipient
about a care giver, these complaints are also typically rejected, often by
another care giver in support of her colleague. Heinemann thus highlights
the asymmetry as regards how indirect complaints are managed within this
institutional setting.
2.2 Responses to indirect complaints about a co-present party

Each of the types of complaint (direct, indirect about an absent party or

indirect about a co-present party) has distinct implications regarding how
it may be responded to. In the case of indirect complaints about an absent
party, an affiliative response is typically the expected response from the
addressee, with that response taking forms such as a matching assessment,
an agreement or a co-complaint (Drew, 1998; Pillet-Shore, 2015). Relevant
responses from the addressee/complainee to direct complaints include deni-
als, excuses and apologies (Schegloff, 1988, 2005). In a situation where one
or more co-participants witness a direct complaint, their reactions to the
complaint have implications for the complainee as well as the complainant;
for example, affiliating with the complaint is hearable as disaffiliating from
the co-present complainee (Heinemann & Traverso, 2009).
Indirect complaints about a co-present party can also have interactional

implications for more than one party. For example, Emily’s turn in lines
08–10 of Excerpt 1 has distinct implications for the participation of two
types of hearers; as well as making a response conditionally relevant from
Dad, it also, we will show, makes concurrently relevant (Lerner, 2019) a
response from the complainee, Mum.
One form of evidence that an action makes a response relevant is that
regularly following that action a type-fitted response is provided (Schegloff,
2007). In the case of Excerpt 1, Mum produces a type-fitted response to
Emily’s complaint, i.e., a denial (line 11). Mum’s response in this case is
notable; it is produced despite Emily selecting Dad as the next speaker (see
Lerner, 2019), and is produced as a next turn, following the normal beat
of silence between turns. (Unfortunately, Dad is not audible on the record-
ing, so we do not know whether he has started to speak at this point or
not. However, Emily’s pursuit of a response from him in line 17 suggests
that if he has spoken, he has not at that point responded to her request). In
addition, Mum’s response results in the participation framework changing,
with Emily suspending her phone conversation with Dad and engaging
again with Mum (see Excerpt 1b).
Excerpt 1b
13 MUM: [I just do#n’t want +you in my roo:]m.
14 EMIL: [ >I ha#ven’t done anything<. ]
emil: >>gz to mum------------------------>>
mum: >>gz ahead------------------------->>
tom: >>gz to fork--------+gz to MUM----->>
fig: #fig. 9.2
Figure 9.2
It is possible to see how the party who is the target of an indirect

complaint, such as that produced by Emily in Excerpt 1, may have an
interactional motivation, despite not being the addressee, to respond to
the complaint and possibly ‘put the record straight’ (cf. Drew, 1987).
Unlike with direct complaints in a two-participant interaction or indirect

complaints about a non-present party, the complainee’s conduct that is
being treated as blame-worthy via the indirect complaint is discussed in
front of one or more other recipients. As such, the complaint has the
potential to harm the complainee’s public reputation, and possibly (as is
perhaps particularly relevant in Excerpts 2–5 below) embarrass them.3
Also, while in these complaint sequences the complainant is telling the
addressee, and possibly other participants, about events that they were
not party to, the complainee is knowledgeable about these events and can
use this epistemic status (Heritage, 2012) as a warrant for participating
at this juncture and perhaps challenging the complainant’s presentation
of the reported events (such as, in Excerpt 1, Mum denying that she is
acting out of spite).
Goffman’s work on participation, including the framework outlined
in Footing (1979), would appear to have little to say about Mum’s par-
ticular participation status in relation to Emily’s complaint in Excerpt 1.
In Goffman’s scheme, Mum would have the same participation status as
Tom (i.e., an overhearer of Emily’s conversation with Dad) even though
Emily’s turn is ‘about’ her and clearly has distinct interactional implica-
tions for her, including, as we suggest, for her subsequent participation. In
this regard (as well as others) Levinson’s (1988) expansion of Goffman’s
(1979) framework is an improvement, with its additional reception roles,
including a distinction between, for example, an ‘addressee’ and a ‘tar-
get’. While Levinson defines the addressee as the ‘proximate destination’,
a target is defined as the ‘informational/illocutionary destination of the
message’ (1988, p. 170). An unaddressed participant can be the ‘indirect
target’ of the message where the party is a ratified participant, or a ‘tar-
geted overhearer’ where they are not. In relation to Excerpt 1, Emily’s
turn in lines 08–11 could be described in Levinson’s terms as an ‘indirectly
targeted utterance’ (Levinson, 1988, p. 210) and Mum’s participation sta-
tus in relation to that turn as a ‘targeted overhearer’. In addition, and
similarly to the argument presented in this chapter, Levinson suggests that

an indirectly targeted utterance can make a response relevant from a non-
addressed participant.4
In her study of indirect complaints, Heinemann suggests that the pro-
duction of this type of complaint is ‘not an everyday phenomenon’ (2009,
p. 2449). As part of a larger project exploring speakers’ use of third person
reference forms which mention a co-present party (for example, names
and pronouns such as ‘he’ and ‘she’) we found five examples of indirect
complaints. These examples constitute the data in this chapter. While mak-
ing up only a small percentage of our overall database (of around 200
examples), these five examples display that indirect complaints do occur in
mundane conversations. Due to the small number of examples, however,
the findings presented here should be viewed as preliminary. The languages

spoken in the excerpts are English (in some cases spoken by non-native
speakers) and Finnish.
3. Non-serious and playful indirect complaints about a co-

present participant and their responses
In Excerpts 2–5, unlike Excerpt 1, the indirect complaint is hearable as,
and is treated by at least one of the participants as, ‘non-serious’ or ‘play-
ful’. Holt (2016) draws a distinction between non-serious and playful turns
(while acknowledging that there can be considerable overlap between
them). An action is treated as non-serious by being responded to with, for
example, laughter, rather than being treated as having the ‘real’ or ‘serious’
sequential implications that it would normally have (Sacks, 1992). A play-
ful turn, on the other hand, solicits a ‘real’ response, while also inviting
the recipient to affiliate with the playfulness and ‘play along’. Turns can
regularly be ambiguous (for participants in the first instance) as to whether
they are serious or non-serious/playful (Holt, 2016).
Indirect complaints about a co-present participant which are hearable
as non-serious or playful have distinct implications for different types of
participants, as we will show in this section. For the complainee, they make
relevant a response to the complaint (as was suggested is also the case in
Excerpt 1). That response can either affiliate with the complaint (e.g., in
the form of laughter) or disaffiliate from it (e.g., by producing a denial).
In our excerpts, the complainee regularly responds disaffiliatively to the
complaint. For recipients other than the complainee (the addressee and
other recipients), the indirect complaint provides an opportunity to dis-
play affiliation. This is regularly what occurs in Excerpts 2–5; commonly,
one or more of these recipients laugh in response to the complaint, form-
ing at these moments an alliance or ‘team’ (Heinemann, 2009) with the
complainant, presenting what is hearable as a shared stance toward the
complainee. It is also possible (though less common in our data) for non-
complainee recipients to disaffiliate from the complaint.
In this section we present four excerpts of non-serious or playful com-
plaints about a co-present participant. In the first two (Excerpts 2 and 3)
the complaints are quite brief (produced over one turn) whereas in Excerpts
4 and 5 they are elaborated over more than one turn.
3.1 Brief indirect complaints
In Excerpt 2, a couple, Carol and Lucio, are hosting five other fellow stu-
dents for a pizza lunch. The participants are mainly non-native speakers of
English with different native languages and the group speak in English. As
the excerpt starts, Lucio has just finished humorously recounting an epi-
sode he was involved in with Carol and her mother where (in his version of
events) the women were discussing how a grooming set would be a good
present for various men in their lives and he advised them otherwise. Carol,
who has been the main butt (Goodwin, 1984) of Lucio’s telling, responds
and challenges Lucio’s version of events. This includes in lines 3–5 where
she gazes toward some participants across the table and produces an indi-
rect complaint about Lucio.
Excerpt 2
01 LUC: y- you needed some male’s advice
02 AND: hih
03 CAR: . (but) the problem is that hes very evil=
04 I mean he was mocking me- and he
05 [was mocking me with my mum?]
06 AND: [gh hih hih hih hih hih- ].hh
07 ??: [(mmhm)
08 [((Luc shrugs, wipes mouth, swallows drink))
09 LUC: no I wasnt mocking you=I was ju-just saying-
10 give you giving you good advice to you and
11 your mum that this would have been a
12 nightmare.
For the recipients, Carol’s complaint may be ambiguous as to whether it

should be heard as primarily serious or non-serious/playful; extreme case
formulations, such as very evil in this case, can be a recurrent practice
used in complaints (Pomerantz, 1986), but exaggeration can also be used
to highlight talk as non-serious (Drew, 1987). If heard as non-serious or
playful, the complaint provides an opportunity for affiliation in the form of
laughter, and one (but only one) of the participants, Andrew, affiliates with
laughter at this juncture (line 6).5
There are several forms of evidence here that the participants are treat-
ing a response to Carol’s complaint as relevant from Lucio. First, there
is evidence from the complainant’s (Carol’s) eye gaze. During her com-
plaint about Lucio she shifts her gaze (Excerpt 2a), such that by the second
‘mocking’ in line 4 she is gazing at him (resulting in mutual gaze):
Excerpt 2a
03 CAR: (but) the prob+lem is that hes ve+ry evil=

car: >>gz down-----+gz twd others-----+gz down->
luc: >>gz down--------------------------------->
04 CAR: I mean he was mocking #me- and+he
car ------------------------------->+
luc --------> ... gz to CAROL----->
fig: #fig. 9.3
05 CAR: +was #mocking me with my mum?
car: ->+--gz to LUCIO------------->>
luc: ----------------------------->>
fig: #fig. 9.4
03 CAR: (but) the prob+lem is that hes ve+ry evil=
car: >>gz down-----+gz twd others-----+gz down->
luc: >>gz down--------------------------------->
04 CAR: I mean he was mocking #me- and+he
car ------------------------------->+
luc --------> ... gz to CAROL----->
fig: #fig. 9.3
05 CAR: +was #mocking me with my mum?
car: ->+--gz to LUCIO------------->>
luc: ----------------------------->>
fig: #fig. 9.4
Figure 9.3 Figure 9.4
Carol’s gaze here can be seen to treat Lucio as accountable for respond-
ing (Stivers & Rossano, 2010), and indeed on completing her complaint
she maintains her gaze to Lucio until after he starts his response (line 09,
Excerpt 2b).
Excerpt 2b
08 (0.3) (1.2)
luc: shrugs wipes mouth, swallows drink
luc: gz down------------------------------>
car: >>gz twd LUCIO------------------------>
09 LUC: no I wasnt mocking you=I was jus#just saying
luc: ----------------------- ..... gz twd CAROL->>
car: --------------------------------------------->>
fig: #fig. 9.5
Figure 9.5
Carol’s turn in lines 3–5 thus has a hybrid quality; by referring to Lucio,
she verbally rules him out as the addressee of the utterance (Lerner, 2003).
However, by turning her gaze to him during her turn and holding it there,
she can be seen as marking the complaint’s relevance for him and as sig-
nalling that a verbal response or non-verbal reaction from him may be
expected.
Second, reacting to Carol’s complaint and her gaze toward Lucio, none
of the non-complainee recipients produce a major turn-at-talk at this point.
Here, and in other examples in this section, there is a sense of these recipi-
ents treating the indirect complaint as initiating a colloquy between the
complainant and complainee, and thus taking on the audience role where
actions like laughter may be produced, but not more-than-minimal turns-
at-talk (see Lerner, 2019). In situations where the complainant elaborates
on the initial complaint (see Excerpts 4 and 5) and non-complainee recipi-
ents do then produce full turns-at-talk, these turns remain oriented to the
complaint, typically affiliating or disaffiliating with it. In Excerpt 2 this
sense of holding off from producing more-than-minimal turns-at-talk until
the complainee responds persists during the one and a half seconds between
the end of Carol’s complaint (line 5) and Lucio’s response (line 9) which
is delayed in part by Lucio swallowing his drink then wiping his mouth.
Third, as regards the complainee, Lucio, he responds to Carol’s indirect
complaint and does so with a type-fitted response i.e., a denial (line 9). He
then goes on to provide an alternative formulation (Dersley & Wootton,
2000) of his action as that of giving advice, a less blameworthy activity
than mocking.
Excerpt 3 (see also Sacks et al., 1974; Levinson, 1988) is from an audio-
taped recording of a conversation between a group of students. Immedi-
ately prior to this, Mark, who is visiting the student dorm where Karen,
Sherri and Ruthie are present, has announced that he has come to bor-
row some class notes from Ruthie. Sherri asks Mark whether he has come
to talk to Karen (hearably suggesting that this might normally have been
Mark’s motivation) and he answers with a no, before going on to provide a

reason. Mark’s answer in lines 3–6 is also hearable as an indirect complaint
about Karen.
Excerpt 3
01 SHE: you didn't come t' talk t' Karen?
02 (0.4)
03 MAR: no, Karen: (.) Karen 'n I 'r having a fight.
04 (.)
05 MAR: . after-sh' went out with Keith
06 (the night before)
07 SHR?: [( )
08 RUT: [UH HUH HUH HUH HUH
09 (0.2)
10 RUT: .huh .huh.
11 ???: ((sni[ff))
12 KAR: [w'l Mark you never asked me ou:t
13 (0.8)
14 MAR: it's true::.=it [h(h)as happ- [.hhhh
15 KAR: [s::o::, [whut c’n I do,
16 I can’t sit home waiting for you [ ( )]
17 MAR: [well Go:]d
18 you know my door’s open day ‘n [ni:ght=
19 RUT?: [uh hhh
20 MAR: =hh heh [heh hh
21 RUT?:
[huh huh hih [hi::h
22 KAR: [‘specially night.
23 SHE: HEH-HEH-heh-he:h heh heh heh
02 (0.4)
03 MAR: no, Karen: (.) Karen 'n I 'r having a fight.
04 (.)
05 MAR: . after-sh' went out with Keith
06 (the night before)
07 SHR?: [( ) Participation within multiparty conversation 207
08 RUT: [UH HUH HUH HUH HUH
09 (0.2)
10 RUT: .huh .huh.
11 ???: ((sni[ff))
12 KAR: [w'l Mark you never asked me ou:t
13 (0.8)
14 MAR: it's true::.=it [h(h)as happ- [.hhhh
15 KAR: [s::o::, [whut c’n I do,
16 I can’t sit home waiting for you [ ( )]
17 MAR: [well Go:]d
18 you know my door’s open day ‘n [ni:ght=
19 RUT?: [uh hhh
20 MAR: =hh heh [heh hh
21 RUT?: [huh huh hih [hi::h
22 KAR: [‘specially night.
23 SHE: HEH-HEH-heh-he:h heh heh heh
Mark’s utterance is hearable as a complaint in that he takes a negative

stance toward Karen, displaying her as being responsible for doing some-
thing blameworthy that has impacted negatively on him. Mark’s complaint
is not heard as being totally serious; Ruth reacts to the complaint with
laughter (line 8–10), thus hearably appreciating Mark’s barbed comment
and affiliating with it.
Karen, the complainee, treats the complaint as playful (Holt, 2016). She
orients to the relevance of a response by producing (line 12) a type-fitted
response to the complaint (i.e., a justification: see Atkinson & Drew, 1979)
while ‘playing along’ with Mark’s complaint; her response also functions
as a counter-complaint, teasingly implying that if Mark had asked her out
she might have said yes (and see lines 15–16). This playful flirting stance
between the two continues in later turns (see lines 17–18 and 22).
There is also evidence from the non-complainee recipients that they are
treating a response to the complaint as relevant from Karen. As in Excerpt
2, between the complaint (lines 3–6) and the complainee’s response
(line 12) there are no more-than-minimal turns at talk produced by the
non-complainee recipients, suggesting a withholding of talk in light of
the complainee’s possible response.6 During this period (which lasts for
around 2.5 seconds), Ruth affiliates with the complaint by laughing (line
8) then breathes in after her laughter (line 10), and someone (not Karen)
sniffs (line 11).
3.2 More elaborated indirect complaints
Excerpt 4 is from a Finnish family dinner involving a couple, Sofia and

Mika, their two-year-old child (who does not talk here) and Sofia’s sis-
ter Emma, who is visiting. Sofia and Mika have just bought a house, and
Emma enquires of them both if they are looking forward to moving in
(line 1).7 It is Mika who responds, producing a playful complaint about
Sofia (starting in line 3).
Excerpt 4
01 EMM: no odotattekste ny (0.5) innolla sitä
well wait+do+you now (0.5) eagerly that
well are you now eagerly waiting to
02 kämppään (.) muuttam ista,
to+house (.) moving
move into the house
03 MIK: ahem. (.) >sofiaha ei se ei tee<
ahem. (.) name+ha no it no do
ahem. >y’know Sofia doesn’t she doesn’t do<
04 mitää muuta
anything else
anything else
05 ko ˚kattelee˚ niitä kuvia,
but ˚look at˚ those pictures
but look at those pictures,
06 ˚se=o=nytte˚ (.) monta kuukautta jo,
˚it=has=now˚(.) many months now already
she’s been now for many months already
07 SOF: [˚huh huh˚
08 EMM: [huh huhh
09 MIK: ˚siel on˚ joku kakskyt kuvaa ja
˚there is˚ like twenty pictures and
˚there are˚ like twenty pictures and
10 sit se aina <selailee> niit
then it always flips+through them
then she’s always <browsing> them
11 SOF: hah hah [hahh
12 EMM: [heh heh heh
13 MIK: [sit se yrittää heittää mun
then she tries throw my books
then she tries to throw my books
14 kirjoja roskii ja,
into+the+litter+bin and
into the litter bin and,
15 EMM: HEH HEH [HEH HEH HEH HEH HEH
16 SOF: [heh heh heh
((four lines omitted during which Mika twice starts

saying ‘I have to inspect’ as Emma laughs and starts to
join in with the joking. Line 21 is Mika’s third attempt))
21 MIK: täytyy tarkistaa oikeesti roskapussit täällä

I have+to inspect for real litterbins in+here
(I) have to inspect seriously the bin bags here
22 ettei heitä
so+that+not throw
so that she doesn’t throw away
23 émitään mun kirjoja. se kattoo et mulla on
any of my books. it looks that I have
any of my books. she sees that I have
24 EMM: [h(h)HEHh(h)eh heh hehh hehh h(h)h h(h)h
25 EMM: [heh heh heh heh heh
26 MIK: [kaks olutkirjaa sanoo että (0.5)
two beer+books says that (0.5)
two books about beer and says that
27 MIK: toisen voi sit varmaa heittää pois
one+of+them+gen can then probably throw away
one of them can probably be thrown away
((seven lines omitted during which Emma laughs and joins

in with Mika’s complaint, saying that one of the beer
books was a present from her))
35 MIK: [voisko se
could it
could it
36 SOF: [˚( )˚
37 MIK: =olla missä sä nyt oot
=be where you now are
=be where you are now
38 (0.5)
39 SOF: éno ei se oo.
well no it is.
well it’s not.
Created from sheffield40 (0.5)
on 2023-10-29 15:32:19.
41 EMM: ahhh
27 MIK: toisen voi sit varmaa heittää pois
one+of+them+gen can then probably throw away
one of them can probably be thrown away
((seven lines omitted during which Emma laughs and joins

Participation within multiparty
in with Mika’s complaint, saying that one of the beer
books was a present from her))
conversation 209
35 MIK: [voisko se
could it
could it
36 SOF: [ ˚( ) ˚
37 MIK: =olla missä sä nyt oot
=be where you now are
=be where you are now
38 (0.5)
39 SOF: éno ei se oo.
well no it is.
well it’s not.
40 (0.5)
41 EMM: ahhh
42 SOF: =emmää (.) nytte (.) myyny niitä (.)
=I+did+not (.) now (.) sell them (.)
=now I didn’t sell them
43 mää ny aattelin et sul on sit kaks et
I now thought that you have then two that
I just thought that you have two so the
44 @toise voihhehhhh@
another could
other one could be hhhhhhh
45 EMM: ˚heh heh˚
Throughout most of this spate of talk, Mika can be heard as jokingly com-
plaining about Sofia. That this is a complaint is evident from the negative
stance (Schegloff, 2005) he displays toward her actions; first, that she is so
keen to move into the new house that she has done nothing else recently
except looked through photos of it (lines 3–6, 9–10). He then (lines 13–14,
21–23, 26–27) complains that she has been taking it upon herself to throw
out some of his books (presumably in preparation for the move), including
his books about beer. Throwing out his belongings, apparently without ask-
ing him, is hearable as a blameworthy activity which causes him discontent
(Heinemann & Traverso, 2009). At the same time there are features of Mika’s
talk that signal its playful and teasing nature. In particular, he describes Sofia’s
actions in an exaggerated manner (Drew, 1987); for instance, he uses extreme
case formulations such as ‘doesn’t do anything else’ (lines 3–4) and ‘always’
(line 10). While these practices can also be part of serious complaints, here
the tone is playful and both Sofia and Emma respond to them as humorous.
Sofia, the complainee, affiliates with the playful complaints at some points
by laughing (lines 7, 11, 16). However, at the end of this episode (lines
42–44) she responds more seriously, producing a type-fitted response to
the indirect complaint, in the form of an admission (see Atkinson & Drew,
1979), or at least a partial admission.
Emma affiliates with Mika’s complaints by laughing (lines 8 and 12 inter
alia). Later, she also playfully co-complains (thus orienting to Mika’s talk
as a complaint albeit a playful one), pointing out that one of the beer books
was a present from her (data not shown here).
That Emma treats a response to Mika’s complaints as relevant from
Sofia is evident from her eye gaze. Twice during the complaints she turns
to gaze towards Sofia, suggesting that she is expecting a verbal response or

non-verbal reaction from her (see Goodwin, 1984; Levinson, 1988). The
first occasion is as Mika is producing his utterance in lines 3–6. As he says
ko kattele (‘but look at’) Emma turns her gaze from Mika to Sofia (Excerpt
4a). By this point in Mika’s utterance it will be clear to the recipients that
Mika’s utterance is emerging as a complaint about Sofia, and probably a
playful one. At the point Emma’s gaze reaches Sofia, Sofia is gazing at Mika
with a hint of a smile.
Excerpt 4a
05 MIK: ko katte lee # niitä kuvia
but look at # those pictures
emm: gz to SOFIA---->>
sof: >>gz to MIKA -------------->>
fig #fig.9.6
Figure 9.6
The second occasion is during Mika’s statement (lines 21–23) that he has
to check the bins in case Sofia has thrown away any of his books (Excerpt
4b). Emma, who is laughing, holds her gaze toward Sofia until after Sofia
has finished taking a bite from her sandwich, perhaps to see what Sofia’s
response or reaction will be at that point.
Excerpt 4b
23 MIK: mitään mun kirjoja. se kattoo et mulla

any of my books. she sees that I have
24 EMM: h(h)HEHh(h)eh ¤heh *hehh #¤hehh h(h)h h(h)h
Emm: >>gz to MIKA--- eyes closed--- gz to SOFIA--->>
Sof: >>gz twd MIKA--------*gz to sandwich--------->>
fig #fig. 9.7
Figure 9.7
Excerpt 5a is from the same conversation as Excerpt 2. At this point in

the lunch, the participants have schismed (Schegloff, 1996) into two con-
versations, with Lucio and Aurélio, who are sitting next to each other at
the table, having a separate conversation from the rest of the participants
(their conversation, much of which is inaudible on the recording, is not
shown). As the excerpt starts, Andrew picks up a spoon from the table and
presents it to Carol with a smile (lines 2–4). It is evidently a dirty spoon,
and Andrew’s action enlists her (as the co-host of the lunch) to remedy the
problem. Andrew’s action can also be seen as blame-implicative in relation
to the hosts, whose cutlery this is. In response, Carol produces an indirect
complaint (line 5) about her co-host Lucio, deflecting the possible blame
for the dirty spoon onto him by presenting him as neglectful regarding his
responsibility for washing the dishes in their house.
Excerpt 5a
01 CAR: look at Andrew

02 ((Andr glances at Car, lifts a spoon))
03 CAR: what?
04 ((Andr, smiling, presents spoon to Car))
05 CAR: ah this is Lucio [doing the dishes,
06 MAR: [gh heh heh (.)

07 [heh heh HIH HIH HIH HIH heh
08 ???: [((laughter by other(s)))
09 ((Car [picks up spoon))
10 CAR: [every time I get something,
11 MAR: [heh heh heh HIH
12 ???: [((laughter by other(s)))
13 MAR: [HIH HIH HIH HIH HIH HIH
14 [((Car walks to sink and puts spoon in))
15 CAR: I mean he cleans the house [very well,]
16 MAR: [yeah, (.)] but,
17 CAR: but-, (.) doing the dishes is something that
18 he will ne:ver gonna learn. (.) .hh (then)
19 sometimes I (don't do) the di:shes, (.) so
20 every time that- >most of the times I do the
21 dishes< (0.3)[every time I get something I
22 [((Car takes spoon from drawer))
23 have to put it back (.) a[gain,]
24 MAR: [yeah]
25 but you don't say tha:t
26 [this is also Lucio doing the dis(hh)hes
27 [((Mar picks up and shows spoon))
28 (.) you (only) say for the other spoon.
((seven lines omitted where there is joking

and laughter as Car finds a place on the
table for the new spoon))
36Francis
the self. Taylor & . but we are aware that its soap anyway it’s not-,
LUC:Group.
Created from sheffield37 (1.0)
on 2023-10-29 15:32:19.
38 CAR: AH he was [listening to
39 LUC: [°( )°
13 MAR: [HIH HIH HIH HIH HIH HIH
14 [((Car walks to sink and puts spoon in))
15 CAR: I mean he cleans the house [very well,]
16 MAR: [yeah, (.)] but,
17 CAR: but-, (.) doing the dishes is something that
18
212 Ray he
19
will ne:ver gonna learn. (.) .hh (then)
Wilkinson et al.
sometimes I (don't do) the di:shes, (.) so
20 every time that- >most of the times I do the
21 dishes< (0.3)[every time I get something I
22 [((Car takes spoon from drawer))
23 have to put it back (.) a[gain,]
24 MAR: [yeah]
25 but you don't say tha:t
26 [this is also Lucio doing the dis(hh)hes
27 [((Mar picks up and shows spoon))
28 (.) you (only) say for the other spoon.
((seven lines omitted where there is joking

and laughter as Car finds a place on the
table for the new spoon))
36 LUC: . but we are aware that its soap anyway it’s not-,
37 (1.0)
38 CAR: AH he was [listening to
39 LUC: [°( )°
40 CAR: [it!=
41 ???: [ uhh huh huh [heh heh
42 ???: [hih hih hih
Marta and some other participants affiliate with Carol’s complaint

about Lucio by laughing in response (lines 6–8). Carol then expands on
her original complaint (lines 10, 15, 17–23). These further complaints
about Lucio’s poor dishwashing contain a regular practice for constructing
complaints, i.e., extreme case formulations, here in the form of every time
(lines 10 and 20) and never (line 18). In lines 24–28 Marta again displays
a stance regarding Carol’s complaining about Lucio. However, unlike her
affiliative stance earlier in the form of laughter (e.g., lines 6, 11, 13), here
the stance is disaffiliative, using a version of Carol’s words from earlier to
playfully (see the laughter tokens within dishes) suggest that Carol is ignor-
ing the clean cutlery on the table that presumably Lucio has also washed.
Unlike in the previous excerpts, up to this point there has been no
response from the complainee (Lucio). For the participants, it can be pos-
sible to see that one reason for this is that while Lucio is at the table and
clearly within earshot of the ongoing conversation he appears engaged in
a separate conversation and may not be following the talk of Carol and
those interacting with her. However, in line 36, around 30 seconds and
several turns after Carol’s original complaint, Lucio produces a type-fitted

response to that complaint in the form of a justification; he plays down the
blame-worthy nature (Dersley & Wootton, 2000) of his dishwashing by
suggesting that what was on the spoon was only soap. Lucio’s justification
can be seen as evidence that he has heard at least some of Carol’s complain-
ing, and that he treats a response to Carol’s indirect complaint as relevant,
even at a distance from the original complaint.
Another form of evidence that a response from Lucio was expected comes
from Carol’s reaction to his response; she smiles and points toward Lucio,
while saying ah! He was listening to it!, thus directing the other recipients’
attention to the fact that Lucio has revealed himself as having been an over-
hearer (Goffman, 1979) of Carol’s complaint(s) (lines 38–40 Excerpt 5b).
Excerpt 5b
37 (0.2)&(0.8)
car &...>
car >>gz down--->
38 CAR: #& + AH: he was & lis&tening +to
39 LUC: °( )°
car: &points at LUC&,,,,,,&
car: smiling-----------==---------------->
car: +gz ahead--------------------+...
luc: >>gz twd CAR--- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, gz down->
fig: #fig.9.8
40 CAR: +it,=
car: ----------------->>
car: +gz to Frieda,,,
41 ???: uhh huh huh heh heh
Figure 9.8
In effect, this excerpt is a form of ‘deviant case’ (Heritage, 1984), where

a participant’s orientation to a deviation from the norm provides evidence
that the oriented-to element of talk (here, a response from Lucio) was nor-
matively expectable. In a situation where a normatively expectable bit of
conduct is absent (or, as in this case, belatedly produced), participants reg-
ularly draw inferences as to the reason for the breach of the norm (Herit-
age, 1984). Here, Carol insinuates that Lucio was earlier pretending not to
hear her complaint, a blame-worthy attribution that draws laughter from
some of the recipients (lines 41–42).
4. Conclusion
Among other achievements, Goffman’s writings about the ‘social situation’
(i.e., ‘the full physical arena in which persons present are in sight and sound
of one another’: Goffman, 1979, p. 10) and how persons participate within
it highlighted the importance of broadening the analytical focus beyond the
addressee of an utterance to include other reception roles. This element of
Goffman’s work has been taken forward by subsequent researchers such as
Clark and Carlson (1982), Levinson (1988) and Dynel (2010) who have
built on the set of participant roles that Goffman outlined in Footing and
developed new categories.
The approach to participation we have adopted here starts not from par-
ticipant roles but from an investigation of action and sequences of actions
within multiparty conversation. One link between the work presented here
and that outlined above is Levinson’s (1988) discussion of ‘indirectly targeted
utterances’ which, he argues, can make a response conditionally relevant
from the indirect target within the setting which he primarily investigates (a
televised political debate programme with a panel of politicians and commen-
tators, a chair and a studio audience who ask the questions).8 Our examina-
tion of indirect complaints about a co-present party and the response made
relevant from that party has some similarities to the phenomenon outlined by
Levinson. At the same time, however, there are analytical differences between
the two approaches. For example, Levinson’s (1988) description of indirectly
targeted utterances is broad, incorporating a range of social actions, and from
the data shown in his report it does not seem to be the case (nor does it
seem to be argued there) that all types of indirectly targeted utterance make a
response relevant.9 Our approach, on the other hand, has been to start with
a specific social action (indirect complaints about a co-present participant) in
a specific context of language use (mundane multiparty conversation) in order
to examine the nature of this action, including its response relevance.
As well as providing a description of the use of a particular action which
has previously received little investigation (although see Heinemann, 2009),
the analysis adds to our knowledge of sequences of actions. Specifically,
it adds to accounts of sequence organisation concerning how actions can
make a response relevant (conditionally relevant) from an addressed party
(Schegloff, 2007) by providing evidence (from the talk and embodied con-
duct of complainants, complainees and other participants) that a particular
action can also make a response relevant from a non-addressed party. In
this regard, the investigation identifies a feature of multiparty interaction
(as compared to dyadic interaction) concerning how within this context an

individual action can make responses concurrently relevant from more than
one party (cf. Lerner, 2019). In sum, what we have highlighted here is one
way in which the production of an action within multiparty conversation
provides expectations and opportunities concerning how individual parties
might endogenously organise their participation within social interaction.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Celia Kitzinger, Sue Wilkinson, Helen Cameron,
Agnes Kovacs and Robin Sokol for their input to this project in its earlier
stages. We are also grateful to Rebecca Clift for permission to use the data
shown as Excerpt 1.
Notes
1 For the distinction between ‘parties’ and individual ‘persons’ (or ‘participants’),
and hence between ‘multiperson’ and ‘multiparty’, see Lerner (2003).
2 For the distinction between ‘relevant’ and ‘conditionally relevant’ see Robinson
(2016).
3 See also Atkinson and Drew (1979, pp. 112–114) concerning how a lack of a
response from a participant in response to an accusation can lead to others infer-
ring that the accused is guilty.
4 Levinson uses the term ‘conditionally relevant’ (1988, p. 215).
5 One other participant produces a short non-lexical vocalisation (line 7). Its con-
tent, however, is unclear on the recording.
6 In line 6 there is a very brief vocalisation from Sherri but this is unintelligible on
the recording.
7 Emma is here using the Finnish plural form of ‘you’, te.
8 Although Levinson (1988) also discusses the excerpt from mundane conversa-
tion that we present here as Excerpt 3.
9 For example, when a counsel interrogates a witness in court, with the witness be-
ing the addressee and the jury being the indirect target of the cross-examination
being conducted (Levinson, 1988, p. 197).
References
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal
interaction in judicial settings. Palgrave Macmillan.
Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58(2),
332–373.
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Dersley, I., & Wootton, A. (2000). Complaint sequences within antagonistic argu-
ment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 375–406.
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25, 219–253.
Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 295–325.
Dynel, M. (2010). Not hearing things-Hearer/listener categories in polylogues. me-
diAzioni, 9, 177–206.
Goffman, E. (1953). Communication conduct in an island community (Doctoral

Dissertation). University of Chicago.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Northeastern University Press.
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25(1/2), 1–30.
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participa-
tion. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies
in conversation analysis (pp. 225–246). Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A
companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Blackwell.
Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (this volume). Embodied participation in social
encounters.
Hayashi, M. (2013). Turn allocation and turn sharing. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers
(Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis. (pp. 167–190). Blackwell-Wiley.
Heinemann, T. (2009). Participation and exclusion in third party complaints. Jour-

nal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2435–2451.
Heinemann, T., & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41, 2381–2384.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowl-
edge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.
Holt, E. (2016). Laughter at last: Playfulness and laughter in interaction. Journal
of Pragmatics, 100, 89–102.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language
(pp. 350–377). MIT Press.
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interac-
tion (pp. 294–233). Free Press.
Lerner, G. H. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a prac-
tical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15(3), 247–271.
Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a
context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201.
Lerner, G. H. (2019). When someone other than the addressed recipient speaks
next: Three kinds of intervening action after the selection of next speaker. Re-
search on Language and Social Interaction, 52(4), 388–405.
Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in
Goffman’s concepts of participation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving
Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 161–227). Polity Press.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2015). Complaints. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The in-
ternational encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 186–192). John
Wiley & Sons.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.
Human Studies, 9, 219–229.
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson
(Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 1–44). Oxford University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Basil Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew & A.
Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89–135).
Polity Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in
action, interaction and co-participant context. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott
(Eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues – An inter-
disciplinary account (pp. 3–38). Springer.
Schegloff, E. A. (2005). On complainability. Social Problems, 52(4), 449–476.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “Mobilizing re-
sponse”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 38–48.
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.

Chapter 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 Participation within multiparty

Ray Wilkinson, Julie Bouchard,

1. Introduction: Goffman and participation

A somewhat different notion of participation, one focused not on the

tured ways in the events that constitute a state of talk.

Following on from Goodwin and Goodwin’s approach, and in line with

a certain form of action, i.e., an indirect complaint about a co-present par-

2. Actions and responses to actions: indirect complaints about a

However, while this type of phenomenon was discussed in early conversa-

01 MUM: you continue to be how-how you are:, and

Emily’s request is a sequence-initiating action that makes conditionally rel-

2.1 Indirect complaints about a co-present party

Heinemann and Traverso (2009, p. 2381) note that ‘broadly speaking,

negative observations (Schegloff, 1988) and extreme case formulations

2.2 Responses to indirect complaints about a co-present party

Each of the types of complaint (direct, indirect about an absent party or

Indirect complaints about a co-present party can also have interactional

It is possible to see how the party who is the target of an indirect

Unlike with direct complaints in a two-participant interaction or indirect

similarly to the argument presented in this chapter, Levinson suggests that

the findings presented here should be viewed as preliminary. The languages

3. Non-serious and playful indirect complaints about a co-

3.1 Brief indirect complaints

For the recipients, Carol’s complaint may be ambiguous as to whether it

03 CAR: (but) the prob+lem is that hes ve+ry evil=

Figure 9.3  Figure 9.4 

Mark’s motivation) and he answers with a no, before going on to provide a

Mark’s utterance is hearable as a complaint in that he takes a negative

3.2 More elaborated indirect complaints

Excerpt 4 is from a Finnish family dinner involving a couple, Sofia and

((four lines omitted during which Mika twice starts

21 MIK: täytyy tarkistaa oikeesti roskapussit täällä

((seven lines omitted during which Emma laughs and joins

((seven lines omitted during which Emma laughs and joins

to gaze towards Sofia, suggesting that she is expecting a verbal response or

23 MIK: mitään mun kirjoja. se kattoo et mulla

Excerpt 5a is from the same conversation as Excerpt 2. At this point in

01 CAR: look at Andrew

06 MAR: [gh heh heh (.)

((seven lines omitted where there is joking

((seven lines omitted where there is joking

Marta and some other participants affiliate with Carol’s complaint

several turns after Carol’s original complaint, Lucio produces a type-fitted

In effect, this excerpt is a form of ‘deviant case’ (Heritage, 1984), where

(as compared to dyadic interaction) concerning how within this context an

Goffman, E. (1953). Communication conduct in an island community (Doctoral

Heinemann, T. (2009). Participation and exclusion in third party complaints. Jour-

You might also like

1. Introduction: Goffman and participation

2. Actions and responses to actions: indirect complaints about a

2.1 Indirect complaints about a co-present party

2.2 Responses to indirect complaints about a co-present party

3. Non-serious and playful indirect complaints about a co-

3.1 Brief indirect complaints

Figure 9.3 Figure 9.4

3.2 More elaborated indirect complaints