Assessing answers: Towards a third-turn proof procedure?

1 Assessing answers: Towards a third-turn proof procedure? UCSB; Language, Interaction, and Social Organization Lucas M. Seuren PhD Candidate University of Groningen l.m.seuren@rug.nl lucasseuren.weebly.com

2 Problem How can social interaction work? Requires (i) coordinated action (ii) by two or more participants (iii) who have no access to each other s intentions or understanding A problem of intersubjectivity: How can two unique individuals have anything in common? Intersubjectivity is not there (Schutz, 1967)

3 Intersubjectivity in action Rules for producing and understanding action Mechanisms of conversation: Conditional relevance Turn-taking Next-positioning (Next-turn) Proof Procedure (Garfinkel, 1967; Schegloff, 1968; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Jefferson, 1978; Moerman & Sacks, 1988; Sidnell, 2013)

4 Proof procedure Regularly, then, a turn's talk will display its speaker's understanding of a prior turn's talk, and whatever other talk it marks itself as directed to. (Sacks et al., 1974: 728)

5 What about Speaker B? B displays to A how B understood A s turn A now has evidence whether B understood him/her B does not have evidence whether s/he correctly understood A (cf. Heritage, in press)

6 (Tacit) Confirmation Speaker A can forego repair opportunity Moving on means adequate understanding (Robinson, 2014) Speaker A can provide uptake Accepting answer confirms understanding (Heritage, 1984; Koole, 2015)

7 Example [Rah:12:4:ST] 1 Jen: -> =[Okay then I w] z askin= er en she says yer 2 -> working tomorrow ez well. 3 Ida: Yes I m s pose to be tihmorrow yes, 4 Jen: -> O[h:::. 5 Ida: [Yeh, (Heritage, 2012: 10)

8 Additional proof Jenny receipts the response with oh: claims now-knowing Implies that she previously did not know Confirms that she had done a request for information (a real question) (Heritage, 1984, 2012)

9 Why confirm? Macbeth & Wong (2016: 587-588) take issue with term confirm What need has Ida? Not initiating repair also, tacitly, confirms Why not with every action? Lots of sequences have no third-position confirmation Ignores the parties local, demonstrable orientations and understanding

10 Sequence-closing Thirds Broad range of practices; e.g., Oh Okay Assessments Propose closing of the ongoing sequence But! Any sequence is potentially complete after an SPP (Schegloff, 2007; Beach, 1993; Heritage, 1984)

11 Research Questions What need have participants of sequenceclosing thirds? How can we as analysts use sequence-closing thirds to ground our analyses?

12 Data 21.5h of mundane phone interaction Students talking to friends/family Recorded at Utrecht University in 2011 & 2012 18 cases of is goed (15h) 48 other assessments (3.5h)

13 Data 21.5h of mundane phone interaction Students talking to friends/family Recorded at Utrecht University in 2011 & 2012 18 cases of is goed (15h) 48 other assessments (3.5h)

14 My claims Two types of assessments State of affairs (gezellig, leuk / nice ) Arrangements (is goed/ that s fine ) Deal with different dimensions Valence Deontics Display an orientation to the sequenceinitiating action (third-turn proof procedure)

15 Evidence Take different prefaces State of affairs: oh, wow, zo, oeh Arrangements: oké Can be combined into one turn Oké does different work from is goed (in Dutch) No proposal, no is goed Same practice in second position

16 State-of-affairs (1) BO1 00:49.4-00:53.9 07 Lis dus steeds meer verant[woord]elijkheden. so ever more responsibilities so ever more responsib[iliti]es. 08 Kee [( )] 09 (0.8) 10 Kee ja:h, yeah yea:h, 11 (.) 12 Lis leu[k fun fu[n 13 Kee [inderdaa:d (maar) indeed but [indeed (but)

17 Arrangements (2) VO1 01:12.4-01:24.6 05 Esm ja: gewoon in het begi:- in het begin,=ja ik yeah simply at the star- at the start yeah I 06 moet nou voorlopig >gewoon iedere< donderdagavond have.to now for.now just every Thursday.evening 07 terug >maar de rest< van de week eh.hh >ben ik< back but the rest of the week am I 08 #all your:s#. yea:h simply at the star:- at the start,=yeah I have to go back >simply every< Thursday evening for now >but the rest< of the week eh.hh I m #all your:s#. 09 Mon oké, is goed. okay is fine okay, that s fine.

18 Evidence Take different prefaces State of affairs: oh, wow, zo, oeh Arrangements: oké Can be combined into one turn Oké does different work from is goed (in Dutch) No proposal, no is goed Same practice in second position

19 Preface: state-of-affairs (3) BE1 02:27.8-02:31.7 01 Fle hoe lang >gaan jullie nou:<? how long go you.pl now how long >are you going<? 02 (0.4) 03 Loe e::h zeven dagen, seven days e::h seven days, 04 (0.8) 05 Fle oh das la:ng. oh that.is long oh that s lo:ng.

20 Preface: arrangements (2) VO1 01:12.4-01:24.6 05 Esm ja: gewoon in het begi:- in het begin,=ja ik yeah simply at the star- at the start yeah I 06 moet nou voorlopig >gewoon iedere< donderdagavond have.to now for.now just every Thursday.evening 07 terug >maar de rest< van de week eh.hh >ben ik< back but the rest of the week am I 08 #all your:s#. yea:h simply at the star:- at the start,=yeah I have to go back >simply every< Thursday evening for now >but the rest< of the week eh.hh I m #all your:s#. 09 Mon oké, is goed. okay is fine okay, that s fine.

21 Preface: deviant case (4) BO1 09:26.5-09:36.8 05 Loe [ wan]t e::h [becau]se e::h 06 dan kom je dus nadat je met de jongens bent geweest. then come you thus after you with the guys have been then you ll come after you ve been out with the guys 07 (0.7) 08 Kar j:a. y:eah. 09 (0.2) 10 Loe o:ké gezellig.= okay neat o:kay neat.=

22 Preface Oh-prefaced assessment: state of affairs Information Okay-prefaced assessment: arrangements Other types of actions Adjectives deal with valence* Is goed deals with deontics (Heritage, 1984, in press; Schegloff, 2007)

23 Evidence Take different prefaces State of affairs: oh, wow, zo, oeh Arrangements: oké Can be combined into one turn Oké does different work from is goed (in Dutch) No proposal, no is goed Same practice in second position

24 Composite turn (5) DV1 00:23.4-00:38.5 11 Kyr =en da:n: gaan we mis schien heel even nog (0.2) and then go.pl we maybe very briefly still 12 e:hm (0.2) rondlopen door de stad?<en dan kom ik wel walk 13 een keertje: richting huis. through the city and then come.sg I ADV a time direction home =and then we ll maybe very briefly go (0.2) e:hm (.) for a walk through the city?<and then I ll come home at some point. 14 (0.5) 15 Mar > s goed<? gezel[lig? is fine nice > s fine<? ni[ce?

25 Composite turn Different dimensions of arrangement Is goed deals with the deontics Gezellig deals with the valence See also excerpt (4): 10 Loe o:ké gezellig.= okay neat o:kay neat.= Reconfirming plans (no deontics) Gezellig deals with valence (cf., Seuren & Huiskes, in press: ex.2)

26 Evidence Take different prefaces State of affairs: oh, wow, zo, oeh Arrangements: oké Can be combined into one turn Oké does different work from is goed (in Dutch) No proposal, no is goed Same practice in second position

27 No is goed (6) FR1 10:48.7-11:04.0 06 Ant want tot hoe laat moet je naar school_ because until how late have.to you.sg to school because until what time do you have to go to school_ 07 Cha.pt tot drie uur:. until three o clock.pt until three o clock:. 08 (0.6) 09 Ant o:#ké#. (0.3) maar wel voor 't #eten# dan he?= okay but ADV before the dinner then TAG o:#kay#. (0.3) but before #dinner# then right?= 10 Cha = JA: >ja #ja#<. = YEA:H >yeah #yeah#<. 11 (0.8) 12 Ant #nah#. (.) dan zie'k je morgen. PRT then see.i you tomorrow #well#. (.) then I ll see you tomorrow.

28 Evidence of absence Giving an answer is postponed No arrangements/proposal Only okay, no is goed Okay registers the answer as an answer Is goed accepts the answer as a proposal Double-barreled (Schegloff, 2007)

29 Evidence Take different prefaces State of affairs: oh, wow, zo, oeh Arrangements: oké Can be combined into one turn Oké does different work from is goed (in Dutch) No proposal, no is goed Same practice in second position

30 Second Position (7) ST1 06:34.6-06:48.0 06 Eli ik kom morge:n <gewoon rond v:ier uur I come tomorrow just 07 of zo thuis>_ around four o clock or something home I ll come home tomorrow <just around four o clock or something>_ 08 (0.6) 09 Pad o ké:. o kay:. 10 Eli ja:_ yea:h_ 11 Pad >ja< (0.6) das goed? yeah that.is fine >yeah< (0.6) that s fine?

31 Proposals Second position agreement Das goed deals with deontics Oké is treated as not enough Only registers/acknowledges cf. Remote requests/proposals (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1985; Lindström, in press)

32 Revisit Claims Two types of assessments: State of affairs (valence) Arrangements (deontics) Vary in their linguistic design Free-standing adjectives Phrasal/Clausal Show orientation to second and first turn Request for assessable Request for proposal

33 Third-turn proof procedure? Third turn provides evidence, but: Not intentionally; not done to confirm Depends on the type of SCT Only in cases of alignment Weaker than next-turn proof procedure, but: Next turns necessary, also not done to confirm Also requires alignment Third-turn evidence procedure

34 Outlook Crosslinguistic? Nothing in English so far Requires good setting (cf., Stevanovic & Peräkylä, 2012) Different SCTs Loads of practices, not much research - Oh, okay, laughter, etc. Lineair syntax? - oh oké is goed gezellig Why that now?

35 References Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for casual Okay usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325 352. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299 345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1 29. Heritage, J. (in press). Epistemics, Conversation Analysis, and Post-Analytic Ethnomethodology: A Rebuttal. Discourse Studies. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219 248). New York: Academic Press. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1985). Kan een verzoek met ja worden geaccepteerd? [Can a request be accepted with a yes?]. TTT Interdisciplinair Tijdschrift Voor Taal- En Tekstwetenschap, 5, 23 40. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219 248). New York: Academic Press. Koole, T. (2015). The Interaction Tool. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 86 100. Lindström, A. (in press). Accepting Remote Proposals. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: Naturalistic studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. John Benjamins.

36 References Macbeth, D., & Wong, J. (2016). The story of Oh, Part 2: Animating transcript. Discourse Studies, 18(5), 574 596. Moerman, M., & Sacks, H. (1988). On Understanding in the Analysis of Natural Conversation. In M. Moerman (Ed.), Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis (pp. 180 186). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Robinson, J. D. (2014). What what? tells us about how conversationalists manage intersubjectivity. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 47(2), 109 129. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696 735. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075 1095. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening Up Closings. Semiotica, 8, 289 327. Seuren, L.M. & Huiskes, M. (in press). Confirmation or Elaboration: What do yes/no declaratives want? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2). Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic Conversation Analytic Methods. In: J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77 99). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä A. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297 321.

37 Acknowledgments Presented at: UCLA Conversation Analysis Working Group UCLA Socio 244C Special thanks to Tanya Stivers & John Heritage

38 From oh to is goed 01 Nao maare::hm: (1.1) ((slikt)).pt.h but bute::hm: (1.1) ((swallows)).pt.h 02 (0.8) 03 e:h >hoe laat< ben je thuis? how late are.sg you.sg home e:h >at what time< are you home? 04 (2.3) 05 Rom over: <half uur:tje ofzo>. in half our.dim or.something in: <half an hour or something> 06 (0.5) 07 Nao oh. (.) oké. (.) is goed.= oh okay is fine oh. (.) okay. (.) that s fine.= 08 =.hh doe je dan wel effe::hm, (.)! (0.3) de deur do you.sg then ADV just the door op slot enzo, on lock and.such =.hh will you then just,! (0.3) lock the door and such,