421368
DIS13610.1177/1461445611421368Maíz-ArévaloDiscourse Studies
Article
Gender-based differences
on Spanish conversational
exchanges: The role of
the follow-up move
Discourse Studies
13(6) 687­–724
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461445611421368
dis.sagepub.com
Carmen Maíz-Arévalo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Abstract
The aim of this article is to analyse Spanish conversational structure, more concretely, to
investigate in depth the role of the third move, or follow-up, outside classroom discourse. Since
first introduced by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), the follow-up move has attracted a great deal
of attention, as proved by numerous studies. However, these studies have mostly focused on
English while Spanish has been neglected. The present study intends to fill in this gap by analysing
a corpus of 50 conversational exchanges in Peninsular Spanish. The analysis is qualitative and
based on Tsui’s (1994) conversational framework, which has proved methodologically useful. As
results will show, the presence or absence of the third move in Spanish conversations seems to
rely heavily on a gender-based distinction.
Keywords
conversational structure, follow-up move, gender, Peninsular Spanish
1. Introduction
Traditionally, it has been commonly accepted in Conversation Analysis that most conversational exchanges1 typically consist of two turns and two moves2 – that is, initiation
and response – which give rise to adjacency pairs such as greeting–greeting, question–
reply, request–response and so on. As opposed to this structure, three-turn exchanges
have usually been related to classroom discourse, where students expect some kind of
Corresponding author:
Carmen Maíz-Arévalo, Departamento de Filología Inglesa I, Facultad de Filología, Universidad Complutense
de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
688
Discourse Studies 13(6)
feedback from the teacher or follow-up move (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975). Thus, in
classroom discourse, the most frequent structure is that of question–response–feedback,
as supported by the extensive bibliography (Chin, 2006; Cullen, 2002; Lee, 2007; Nassaji
and Wells, 2000; Sinclair and Brazil, 1982, among others).
While the presence of the follow-up move in classroom discourse is mostly unquestioned, there is no clear agreement as to its presence in ordinary, spontaneous conversation (García Gómez, 2000, 2004; García Gómez et al., 2002; Mishler, 1975). As clearly
stated by Sinclair (1992: 85), the number of moves in a conversational exchange is far
from definitely established: ‘Is conversational discourse made up essentially of twomove structures or three-move structures? [. . .] The problem is not going to be resolved
by a majority vote.’
Analysts, however, usually support one of the following three approaches:
(i) The prototypical conversational unit consists of two moves.
(ii) The prototypical conversational unit consists of three moves.
(iii) There are two types of follow-up move: obligatory and non-obligatory.
The two-part exchange as the prototypical conversational unit is supported by authors
like Burton (1981: 63), who claims that the third move is almost exclusively found in
classroom data. Consequently, she argues in favour of a two-part exchange in ordinary
interaction since ‘feedback or follow-up hardly ever occurs, only in minimal ritual
encounters’. Consequently, she proposes to eliminate the third move on the grounds that
it does not take place:
This repeated lack of feedback or follow-up being the case, any coder using the layout of three
major columns, opening, answering, follow-up, that works so neatly for the classroom data,
merely finds himself with an empty third column. Surely an adequate reason for deleting that
third column. (Burton, 1981: 63)
Together with Burton, ethnomethodologists also argue in favour of a two-part exchange
(adjacency pair) as the basic conversational unit. Thus, Schegloff and Sacks (1973:
297–8) claim that:
Given a speaker’s need to know whether his message has been received, and given a recipient’s
need to show that he has received the message, we have the essential rationale for the very
existence of adjacency pairs, that is, for the organization of talk into two-part exchanges.
On the other hand, other authors consider that the follow-up move is not only applicable
to classroom data but also to natural conversation. Thus, Goffman states that ‘ritual
interchanges are typically three-part’ (1981: 23) and observes ‘how misleading the
notion of adjacency pair and ritual interchange may be as basic units of interaction’
(1981: 48). Both Heritage (1984) and Mishler (1975) go further in asserting that ‘not
only are ritual interchanges made up of three parts, so are non-ritual interchanges’
(Mishler, in Tsui, 1994: 27). In a more recent study on family arguments, García Gómez
also reaches the conclusion that:
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
689
Maíz-Arévalo
La disputa verbal parece tener un sistema de turnos específico, que consiste en un intercambio
tripartito como su unidad básica conversacional, donde el movimiento de continuación tiene
una función esencial en la interacción. (García Gómez, 2004: 1183)
(Verbal conflict seems to have a specific turn system, which consists of a three-part exchange
as its basic conversational unit, where the follow-up move plays an essential role in the
interaction.)
Finally, an intermediate approach is taken by those authors who claim that there can be
both obligatory and optional follow-ups, pointing out that:
There are, in discourse, tripartite structures, structures with three obligatory elements alongside
bipartite structures, structures with two obligatory elements which may or may not be followed
by a third, optional element. (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975: 51)
However, this apparent intermediate solution has also proved quite problematic. Stubbs
(1981), for example, proposes an alternative approach so as to distinguish optional from
obligatory follow-ups. In this approach, an obligatory follow-up gives rise to the following
exchange structure: I R/I R, where I stands for Initiation, I/R for Response/Initiation and R
for Response. On the other hand, an optional follow-up produces the structure: I R (F).
Stubbs’s approach is criticized by Berry (1981: 124) on the grounds that ‘it loses
sight of the similarity between obligatory and optional feedback, that both typically
occur in third place, and of the difference between obligatory feedback and responses’.
Berry goes on to argue that Stubbs ‘has no way of specifying the circumstances under
which each would occur’ (1981: 124). The same criticism can be directed at Sinclair and
Coulthard whose ‘coding scheme does not capture [either] the difference between
obligatory and optional feedback’ (Berry, 1981: 122) and to Coulthard and Brazil, who
argue that follow-ups are ‘neither predicted nor predicting’ (1992: 71).
Summing up, disagreement among authors regarding exchange structure is undeniable. In my view, this is partially due to their different opinions with regard to the
functions of the follow-up. In other words, considering evaluation as the only function
of the follow-up restricts it to classroom discourse and other testing/quizzing exchanges.
However, as Tsui has observed, ‘providing an evaluation is not the only function of the
follow-up move’ (1994: 31). On the contrary, ‘[the follow-up] has a general function
of acknowledging the outcome of the interaction that has taken place in the initiating
and responding moves’ (1994: 54). Her claim is supported by other authors (Coulthard
and Brazil, 1992; García Gómez, 2000, 2004; García Gómez et al., 2002; Mishler,
1975); thus, Mishler argues that ‘[the follow-up] is a sign on the part of the questioner
that his question has received a response, adequate or inadequate, appropriate or inappropriate’ (1975: 32). Likewise, Coulthard and Brazil mention that ‘[F] serves to
acknowledge receipt of information’ (1992: 68). On the whole, there seems to be a
pragmatic motivation for its occurrence, namely, ‘letting the other know we have
understood/paid attention to his/her contribution’.3
The aim of this article is to investigate in depth the role of the third move, or followup, in Spanish conversational exchanges, focusing on its main functions and how it may
be affected by the interlocutors’ gender.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
690
Discourse Studies 13(6)
2. Method and data
The data used for the analysis consist of 50 non-elicited audio-recorded two-interlocutor
conversational exchanges in Peninsular Spanish. Most of the participants recorded
were family members and close friends or old acquaintances. The recording period
spanned two months, and in order not to bias the data the recordings were carried out
randomly, without knowing what the topic(s) might be or which participants would be
involved.
Since for methodological clarity I decided to focus just on two-participant conversations, part of the recorded material had to be discarded for future research on polylogues. This decision, however, has negatively affected the balance of the variable of
gender. Ideally, the corpus should have included a balanced number of conversational
pairs – that is, male–male, female–male and female–female. However, most of the conversations in the corpus took place between female speakers (22 cases) or both female
and male speakers (21 cases), while conversations involving only two male speakers
amount to a much lower number (seven cases). On the other hand, this unbalance could
be a sign of a gender difference, with the women in the corpus being more prone to
casual conversation than the male participants.
All the data were surreptitiously recorded in order to avoid ‘unnatural’ conversation,
but the participants were afterwards asked for permission to reproduce their conversations. With regard to the transcription of the exchanges, it has been kept simple for the
sake of clarity.
However, to provide the reader with as much contextual information as possible, each
example is preceded by a table with information about the field and tenor,4 as used in
Halliday and Hassan’s analysis of the context of situation (1989). In my view, their definition of context is quite clear and comprehensive while at the same time offers the
analyst a useful tool to describe the somewhat fuzzy notion of context. According to
Halliday and Hassan (1989: 12):
(a) The FIELD of discourse: refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social
action that is taking place.
More concretely, the examples are preceded by the following information:
(i) The social situation during which the exchange of information is taking place.
(ii) The kind of initiating move performed by the interactants. In this respect, it can
be argued that some speech acts – especially when they take place in the initiating
move – are more prone than others to elicit a follow-up move (Tsui, 1994).
Thus, for example, a directive in the initiating move will preferably be followed by the
addressee’s realization of what is demanded or requested; this realization being commonly followed by a third move with the speaker’s appreciation. Likewise, it could also
be argued that other speech acts like commissives or assertives are less likely to elicit a
further F-move. In the present analysis, I shall also consider whether the kind of speech
acts occurring in the initiating move plays a significant role in determining the presence
of the third move in Spanish conversational exchanges.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
691
Maíz-Arévalo
For this purpose, I shall be using Sinclair and Coulthard’s taxonomy of initiating
moves (1975). Thus, they distinguish three main moves:
• Elicit: which would mainly include the traditional “questions”.
• Direct: which refers to acts such as commands or requests.
• Informative: which would be related to acts such as statements.
b) The TENOR of discourse: refers to who is taking part, the nature of the participants,
their statuses and roles.
This is especially relevant in the current analysis since it deals with significant variables like gender, symmetry or distance in the relation between the interlocutors. Thus,
each of the examples will be preceded by information regarding the participants and the
relationship between them (e.g. age, gender, type of relationship).
In the present analysis, however, I have decided to focus upon gender differences and
to leave aside both distance and power. The reasons why these latter variables have not
been considered in the present article are given in the following paragraphs.
With regard to distance, most conversational exchanges (43 out of 50) in the corpus took place between family members and friends, while only seven involved two
strangers. This imbalance is due to the fact that it was much more accessible to record
the first group without entering privacy issues (participants were asked for their permission afterwards). Furthermore, all the exchanges involving two strangers are minimal ritual encounters (e.g. shopping, asking for the time or the name and so on) and
follow a clearly structured sequence apart from being extremely brief. All in all, I was
more interested in the ‘less’ predictable casual conversations between family
members and (close) friends.
As for power, I must admit it is extremely complex to determine the power relationship in conversations (especially between family members). While I believe that friends
can be regarded as symmetrical in power, it is much more difficult to determine the
power relationship between family members like husband–wife or mother–daughter. In
fact, power relationships are not absolute but dependent on the context. As we will see in
example (20), the daughter’s request for water is accompanied by her saying ‘since you
are there’, which might be due to the fact that she is asking her mother and that maybe
she regards her mother as her superior. Likewise, I have considered husband–wife
relationships as symmetrical since, at least in my data, the relationship appeared to be so.
I am well aware, however, that this is not always the case in other cultures (including the
Spanish culture on some occasions).
In summary, of the different variables at play – for example, gender, distance and
symmetry, I have determined to focus on gender. Future research, however, is needed on
distance and power and their say in the presence or absence of the follow-up move.
3. Functions of the follow-up move
The follow-up move (henceforth, F-move) can be defined as the third move of a threepart exchange produced by the same speaker who has produced the initiating move (I).
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
692
Discourse Studies 13(6)
The head act of the follow-up move is the follow-up act. As for its realization, the F-move
can be performed both by verbal and non-verbal means such as laughing, nodding and so
on, as illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1
Field
Situation
Having lunch together
Moves
Elicit–Answer–Acknowledgement
Tenor
I
R
F
Translation:
I
R
F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
54
53
Gender
Female
Male
Type of relationship
Family members (husband and wife)
A: ¿quema?
B: no, es que me gusta dejar la boca así.
A: (laughs)
A: is it hot?
B: no, it’s just that I like opening my mouth like this.
A: (laughs)
Example 2 Field
Situation
On the underground, information exchange
Moves
Elicit–Answer–Acknowledgement
Tenor
I
R
F
Translation:
I
R
F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
54
18
Gender
Female
Male
Type of relationship
Family members (mother and son)
A: ¿Contra quién jugáis?
B: contra el Vallecas
A: (nods)
A: and who are you playing against?
B: against Vallecas
A: (nods)
As already mentioned in the previous section, the F-move can carry out more functions
than merely evaluating the response to the speaker’s initiating move. Some of these functions are: accepting the outcome of the preceding information, showing appreciation,
minimizing face5 damage, showing a state of acknowledgement and so on. Tsui (1994)
distinguishes three subclasses of follow-up acts in the case of English: endorsement,
concession and acknowledgement.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
693
Maíz-Arévalo
(1) Endorsement: F serves to ‘endorse the positive outcome of the interaction’ (Tsui,
1994: 200). In other words, it is prospected by a positive response. This group
includes agreement (usually ‘upgrading’ the addressee’s response), appreciation/
thanking, commenting and evaluating.
(2) Concession: F serves to ‘accept a negative outcome’ (Tsui, 1994: 203). Its occurrence is also pragmatically motivated, since a negative response6 is, for most
speakers, face-threatening. This is especially so for the addresser (who receives a
dispreferred response) but also for the addressee, who risks being considered
impolite. Thus, concession helps to signal that the speaker has not taken offence
and that the relationship between interlocutors is not at risk. As a consequence,
the omission of a concessive follow-up is likely to imply offence and will be
significantly interpreted as such. As Goffman (1981: 21) points out:
Potentially offensive acts can be remedied by the actor through accounts and apologies, but this
remedial work must appear to be accepted as sufficient by the potentially offended party.
(3) Acknowledgement: F serves to ‘acknowledge that the response has been heard,
understood and accepted and that the interaction has been felicitous’ (Tsui, 1994:
205). As will be shown in the data, it is typically realized by a limited class of
minimal responses such as um, ah or bueno, by a non-verbal response or by
repeating what the previous speaker has said in low key (Coulthard and Brazil,
1992), as in example 3 below:
Example 3
Field
Situation
In class
Moves
Elicit–Answer–Acknowledgement
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
23
26
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
-Close (strangers)
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) F (acknowledgement) Translation:
I
R
F
A: ¿cómo te llamas?
B: Eva González.
A: Eva González.
A: What’s your name?
B: Eva González.
A: Eva González.
As it can occur after positive and negative responses, it is also quantitatively more frequent than the other types. Closely related to acknowledgement is the use of a second
follow-up move (F2). In this case, the F-move not only shows acknowledgement of the
previously received information but facilitates a shift of turn in favour of the other interlocutor, who usually changes the topic as well and initiates a new conversational
exchange, as illustrated by example 4 overleaf:
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
694
Discourse Studies 13(6)
Example 4 Situation
Bumping into an old acquaintance (one of speaker
A’s school teachers) leads to a longer conversation
about A’s current studies (she is doing her PhD).
The extract focuses on B’s own PhD studies, which
he carried out some years ago.
Moves
Elicit-Answer-Acknowledgement+Comment
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
26
45
Gender
Female
Male
Type of relationship
Acquaintances
I (elicit:inform) R (positive) F (endorsement) F2 (turn-shifting) I (elicit:inform) Translation
I R
F
F2
I
A: ¿de qué la hiciste?
B: de Hussel, un filósofo alemán
A: bueno, suena interesante …
B: bueno …
A: ¿y cómo va todo por el cole?
A: what was it about?
B: about Hussel, a German philosopher
A: well, sounds interesting …
B: well …
A: and how is everything at school?
4. Data analysis: The follow-up move in Spanish
conversational exchanges
As already mentioned, one of the main objectives of the current analysis is to ascertain
whether the follow-up move in Spanish is comparable to its English counterpart. It goes
without saying that most previous studies focus on English while other languages have
been more neglected. Likewise, the presence or absence of the F-move may also be
determined by cross-cultural differences. For these reasons, it is therefore necessary to
carry out analyses like the present one.
According to Tsui (1994), different initiations prospect different responses, which
also lead to different classes of follow-up acts. For methodological purposes, the analysis
has been subdivided into three main groups according to the type of initiating move:
elicit, direct and informative. Responses to these initiating moves will also be considered,
with special attention to whether they are preferred or dispreferred.
4.1 Initiating move: Elicit
Questions are typically eliciting moves where the speaker is willing for the addressee
to provide the missing information in the form of a response. Answering a question
with the required information is therefore the preferred move, whereas not providing
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
695
Maíz-Arévalo
the desired information can be considered as dispreferred, even challenging. According
to Tsui (1994), preferred responses are likely to elicit either an endorsement or
acknowledgement in the F-move, whereas dispreferred responses are usually
followed by a concession move.
In order to decipher whether preferred or dispreferred responding moves play a significant role in the elicitation of a follow-up move, I shall consider first the kind of
response provided by the addressee.
Examples 5 to 7 illustrate the following conversational exchange:
•• Initiating move: elicit
•• Response move: answering the question (preferred)
•• Follow-up: endorsement
Example 5
Field
Situation
In class, two students comment on the
development of their course
Moves
Elicit–Answer–Endorsement
Tenor
I (elicit:inform) R (reply) F (upgrading)
I (elicit:inform)
Translation
I
R
F
I
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
23
23
Gender
Type of relationship
Female
Classmates/friends
Female
A: Oye […] ¿y aquel trabajo que estabas haciendo?
B: Pues ya casi lo tengo terminado
A: Eso es genial […]
B: a propósito, ¿cómo lo lleva tu amiga?
A: Listen … how about that paper you were writing?
B: it’s almost finished
A: that’s great …
B: by the way, how is your friend doing?7
Example 6
Field
Situation
At home, a wife (A) and her husband (B),
who has just arrived home from work.
Moves
Elicit–Response–Endorsement
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
45
Gender
Type of relationship
Female
Male
Family members (husband/wife)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
44
696
Discourse Studies 13(6)
I (elicit:inform) R (positive) F (endors:comment) Translation
I
R
F
A: Y hoy… ¿has tenido un buen día?
B: Tranquilo tranquilo
A: Anda, mira qué bien.
A: and today… did you have a good day?
B: quiet quiet
A: now, that’s good.
Example 7
Situation
In class, two classmates comment on a
paper they had to hand in and which the
teacher seems to have forgotten.
Moves
Elicit–Response–Endorsement
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
22
23
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Classmates/friends
I (elicit:confirm) R (positive) F (endors:comment) Translation
I
R
F
A: ¿Qué trabajo? ¿el del Heineken effect?
B: sí el del Heineken effect … hace ya …
A: ¡eso fue en navidad!
A: the one of Heineken effect?
B: yes, that one … that was …
A: that was at Chrismas!
Another frequent form of endorsement is the expression of gratitude on the speaker’s
part:
Example 8
Situation
One student enters the class for a
minute just to check whether the room
is occupied.
Moves
Elicit–Response–Endorsement
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
In her 20s
23
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Strangers
I (elicit:inform) A: Perdona,[…]¿tenéis clase aquí?
B: Sí sí
R (reply) F (endorsement:appreciation) A: Ah vale, gracias.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
697
Maíz-Arévalo
Translation
I
R
F
A: Excuse me … have you got a class here?
B: yes, yes
A: oh, okay, thanks.
It is important to mention that the absence of endorsement:appreciation is extremely
noticeable, especially if the conversational exchange takes place between strangers:
Example 9
Situation
In the street, B is accompanied by a
friend, to whom she addresses the final
turn.
Moves
Elicit–Response–No follow-up
Field
Speaker A
Age
Tenor
Speaker B
In her 20s
35
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Strangers
I (elicit:inform) R (reply) F
I (inform:express) Translation
I
R
F
I
A: Perdone, ¿tiene hora?
B: Las siete menos cinco
A: (silence)
B: Fíjate, ni gracias.
A: Excuse me, have you got the time?
B: five to seven
A: (no response)
B: Look, not even ‘thank you’.
Finally, endorsement can also include evaluation in eliciting exchanges to which the
addresser already knows the answer. This is the most typical exchange in classroom discourse, as mentioned in the second section. Not surprisingly, however, there are only two
examples in the corpus since in spontaneous conversation it is not frequent for the
speaker to ask questions for which s/he already knows the answer. Example 10 illustrates
endorsement:evaluation.
Example 10
Field
Situation
At home, two siblings are playing Trivial
Pursuit.
Moves
Elicit–Response–Endorsement
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
24
17
Gender
Female
Male
Type of relationship
Family members (siblings)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
698
Discourse Studies 13(6)
I (elicit:inform) A: ( reads out) ¿en qué fecha tuvo comienzo la
revolución francesa?
R (positive) B: mmm […] quince…no, catorce de julio del […] mmm.mil
setecientos ochenta y nueve, mil setecientos ochenta y nueve
F (endorsement:evaluation) A: ajá, vale
Translation
I
A: what year did the French revolution take place?
RB: h uh … fifteenth … no, fourteenth of July … huh, seventeen
eighty-nine
F
A: uh,uh, okay.
As shown by the previous examples, eliciting moves seem to prospect a three-move
structure, especially when the response is a positive or preferred one – that is, the speaker
is provided with the requested information. There are two cases, however, where the
speaker may not be provided with the requested information. On the one hand, it may be
the case that the addressee lacks the relevant information, offering then a dispreferred
response. On the other, the addressee may purposefully challenge the initiating move,
which is even more dispreferred than the former case and can cause deep conflict between
the interlocutors (García Gómez, 2004).
The example below illustrates unintended dispreferred responses where the addressee
lacks the requested information and responses where the speaker intentionally challenges the interlocutor. As argued by Tsui (1994), negative or dispreferred responses
frequently prompt a concession F-move. This concession F-move is very similar to
endorsement:appreciation but only occurs after dispreferred responses where the
requested information is not provided. As opposed to endorsement:appreciation, the
linguistic realization of concession is very frequently accompanied in Spanish by
hedgers like bueno (‘well’):
Example 11
Field
Situation
At the street, speaker A is looking for a bus
stop. B does not know the answer.
Moves
Elicit–Response–Concession
Tenor
I (elicit:inform) R (negative rep.) F (concession) Translation
I
R
F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
24
17
Gender
Female
Male
Type of relationship
Strangers
A: Perdona, ¿la parada del 83?
B: Lo siento, pero no lo sé.
A: Bueno, gracias de todas formas
A: Excuse me, 83 bus stop?
B: I’m sorry, but I don’t know.
A: well, thanks anyway
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
699
Maíz-Arévalo
As the examples show, endorsement is frequently employed after positive or preferred
responses, while concession typically occurs after dispreferred ones. Acknowledgement,
on the other hand, is the most frequent type of follow-up, due to the fact that it can
appear after both preferred and dispreferred responses, its general function being
to acknowledge the reception of information. In Spanish, it is usually realized by
items such as ‘ah’, ‘ya’ (equivalent to ‘I see’ in English), non-verbal means such as
nodding and by repeating the addressee’s response in low key. There are also examples
(especially after negative responses) where acknowledgement is followed by what we
could interpret as concession. In Tsui’s framework (1994), these cases correspond to
optional post-head (post-h) acts:
Example 12
Situation
Field
Moves
At home, a mother (A) and her daughter
(B). B is getting dressed to go out.
Elicit–Response–Acknowledgment/
Concession
Tenor
I (elicit:inform) R (negative rep.) F (ack/con) Translation:
I
R
F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
44
24
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/daughter)
A: ¿te vas con el lacito rojo?
B: no hombre
A: ah, yo que sé
A: Are you leaving with the red ribbon on?
B: Oh dear, no I’m not.
A: well, I don’t know.
In example 12, for example, ‘ah’ could be interpreted as the head act acknowledging the
reception of information, whereas ‘yo que sé’ (‘I don’t know’) would be better analysed
as the post-h act expressing concession itself. Example 13 illustrates a similar case:
Example 13
Situation
Field
Moves
At home, a mother (A) and her daughter
(B). B is studying in her room. A goes to
check if she is doing all right.
Elicit–Response–Acknowledgment/
Concession
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
44
24
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/daughter)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
700
Discourse Studies 13(6)
I (elicit:inform) R (negative rep.) F (acknowl/concession) Translation:
I
R
F
A: ¿Tienes frío para poner la calefacción?
B: No
A: Ah, bueno… Es que no está puesta.
A: Are you cold enough to turn the heater on?
B: No
A: Oh, okay… It’s because it’s not on.
The post-h act (in bold) provides a piece of information which is taken for granted and
which (apparently at least) lacks all ‘informativeness’. However, it provides the reason
for asking the question. This often happens when a negative response is received as a
face-saving device. It could be explained as a concession, that is, A has interpreted B’s
reply as face-threatening (maybe she is cold herself and wishes B to agree in order to
switch on the radiator) and she tries to minimize the damage.
4.2 Initiating move: Informative
In terms of speech acts, informative moves refer to those utterances where speakers state
some piece of information, as for example in speech acts like statements or expressives, to
follow Searle’s taxonomy (1969). As opposed to eliciting moves, where the preferred
response is clearly an answer to the question posed by the speaker, it is more difficult to
determine with exactitude what the preferred response to an informative move might be.
Since informing the interlocutor is usually intended as a means to strike up a conversation,
it could be argued that, most commonly, the preferred responses to an informative move
might be either a comment to the information previously offered or an eliciting move
requiring further development of such information. Silence, on the other hand, might be
considered as dispreferred, even challenging in most contexts. In functional terms, the
F-move in this context might be employed to acknowledge the addressee’s response.
In example 14 below, speaker A provides B with new information. B tries to make
him elaborate in the most expected (preferred) way – that is, by asking for more
details. However, A challenges this move by initiating a new exchange and eliciting
this information – that he already knows – from B. The F-move that follows B’s
response is evaluative and she further provides yet another F-move.
Example 14
Situation
Field
Moves
At home, a husband (A) and his wife
(B) comment on a piece of news he has
heard.
Informative–Elicit–Challenging move–
Endorsement
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
44
45
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (husband/wife)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
701
Maíz-Arévalo
I (inform:report) I (elicit:inform) I (elicit:inform) R (positive) F (endors:eval) F2 (endors:comment) Translation
I
I
I
R
F
F2
A: Hoy cumple años Felipe González
B: ¿Y cuántos cumple?
A: ¿cuántos crees?
B: cincuenta y tres
A: Casi. Cincuenta y cuatro.
B: Ah, es de la edad de mi hermano Pepe.
A: Today is Felipe Gonzalez’s birthday
B: And how old is he?
A: How old do you think?
B: fifty-three
A: Almost. Fifty-four.
B: huh, he’s my brother Pepe’s age, then.
Example 15
Situation
Field
Moves
At home, a mother (A) and her daughter
(B) talking about A’s visit to B’s brother’s
highschool and her interview with his
tutor.
Informative–Elicit–Response–Followup(acknowledgement)
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
45
28
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/daughter)
I (inform:report) A: Además, la entrada que ha tenido en la sala del exámen ha
sido hombre, ¡menudas vacaciones que te has tirado ¿no?!
¿ya estás aquí?
B: pero ¿a quién?
I (elicit:inform) A: a Miguel, el profesor.
R (positive resp.) B: uhuh
F (acknowled.) Translation:
I A: Besides, the entrance he’s had in the examination room
has been ‘oh dear, what a holiday you’ve had, haven’t
you? Are you back then?
B: but to whom?
I
R
A: to Miguel, the teacher.
F
B: uhuh
Examples 16 and 17 illustrate what seems to be the other most common or preferred pattern when the initiating move is informative. The initial information is followed by a
comment on the part of the addressee and an F-move by the former interlocutor. This
three-move structure is quite formulaic with some informative moves involving
compliments (Maíz-Arévalo, 2010).
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
702
Discourse Studies 13(6)
Example 16
Field
Situation
Two friends, (A) compliments (B) on a
bracelet she is wearing.
Moves
Informative–Comment–Endorsement
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
30
35
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Friends
I (inform:report) R (positive) F (endors:comment) Translation
I
R
F
A: Me encanta tu pulsera.
B: ¿Sí? Es un regalo de mí para mí.
A: Pues me encanta.
A: I love your bracelet.
B: Really? It’s a present from me to myself.
A: Well, I love it.
Example 17
Field
Situation
Two friends, (A) compliments (B) on a
tunic she is wearing.
Moves
Informative–Comment–Endorsement
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
30
35
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Friends
I (inform:report) R (positive) F (endors:comment) F2 (endors:thank) Translation
I
R
F
F2
A: ¡Qué caftán más chulo!
B: Si llego a saber que hacía tanto calor no me lo pongo.
A: Pero es muy bonito, te queda muy bien.
B: Gracias.
A: What a cool tunic!
B: Had I known it’d be so hot I wouldn’t have worn it today.
A: But it’s really nice, it really suits you.
B: Thank you.
As can be observed, we can argue for a recurrent three-move pattern with a follow-up
move endorsing the response to the initial informative move. The following two examples
are different even though they also seem to abide by the preferred pattern described in
the previous paragraphs. However, the content of the responding move may be perceived
as a challenge by the interlocutor who initiates the exchange. This might not be so blatant
in example 18 below – although it is difficult to determine how A interprets B’s
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
703
Maíz-Arévalo
‘question’ but it is clearly challenging in example (19), where the initial informative
move is followed by an ironic comment which is correctly interpreted as such by A, as
her own comment makes clear. In my view, A’s remark ‘sí hombre, será del que tú has
comido’ (oh well, it’s not as if you’d eaten that much) is better analysed as a combination
of an F-move (‘sí hombre’ [‘oh well’]), where the speaker acknowledges the reception of
information but also the irony of B’s comment. ‘Será del que tú has comido’ is then an
Initiating move, challenging B’s irony and discarding it as improper. In fact, B’s silence
can be regarded as an admission that his irony is not adequate in this context (let us not
forget he is talking to his mother).
Example 18
Situation
Field
Moves
At home, A (B’s brother) has received a
phone call from a friend of his.
Informative–Elicit(challenging)–
Response–endorsement
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
17
24
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (brother/sister)
I (inform:report) I (elicit:inform.) R (positive) F (endors:comment) Translation
I
I
R
F
A: Ha llamado Marcelino.
B: ¿Y qué?
A: Que ya está bien
B: Ah, me alegro.
A: Marcelino has phoned.
B: so what?
A: He is already fine
B: Huh, I’m glad to hear it
Example 19
Situation
Field
Moves
Informative-Comment-Follow-upInitiating-No response
Speaker A
Age
Tenor
At home, during lunch time. A (B’s
mother) comments on the fact that
there is no more chicken left.
Speaker B
17
44
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/son)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
704
Discourse Studies 13(6)
I (inform) R (negative resp.) F/I (challenging) Translation:
I
R
F / I
A: Ya se acaba el pollo.
B: ¡bieeeennnn!
A: Sí hombre, será del que tú has comido.
B: (silence) A: The chicken is almost finished.
B: Greeeeeaaaaat!
A: Oh well, it’s not as if you’d eaten that much.
B: (silence)
As in the case of initiating:elicit, examples show that the occurrence of the F-move – and
therefore of three-move exchanges – also seems to be expected in initiating:informing.
In the next section, I shall focus on the last type of initiating move: directives.
4.3 Initiating move: Direct
In terms of speech acts, initiating move:direct would include acts like requests,
commands, offers (since the speaker who initiates the exchange expects the addressee
to accept their offer) and so on.
Positive – that is, preferred – responses are likely to be followed up by an F-move:
endorsement expressing thanks and appreciation for the service rendered, such as
example 20 shows:
Example 20
Field
Situation
At home, lunch time.
Moves
Direct–(non-verbal)Response–
Follow-up: Endorsement
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
35
63
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/daughter)
I (request for action) R (positive/non-verbal) F (endorsement:appreciation) Translation
I
R
F
A: Ay, ¿me traes un vasito de agua ya que estás ahí?
B: (brings the glass)
A: Gracias, eres un cielo.
A: Oh, can you bring me a glass of water since you are there?
B: (brings the glass)
A: Thanks, you’re a sweetheart.
On the other hand, it is observable that the absence of endorsement:appreciation is
not so noticeable among family members and friends, although this depends on the
kind of service rendered to the addressee. Thus, if the service is regarded as highly
demanding, an endorsement:appreciation is usually required and expected and its
absence will be noticed and interpreted as rude, as example 21 shows:
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
705
Maíz-Arévalo
Example 21
Field
Situation
At home, just before lunch time.
Moves
Direct–Response–(F1 is absent)-F2
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
50
23
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/daughter)
I (request for action) A: niña, ¿bajas a por el pan tú que estás vestida?
R (positive) B: jo, es que estoy … bueno vale, para que luego digas.
I (inform: express) B: muchas de nadas ¿eh?
R (positive) A: ay niña, perdona, pero es que estoy con la comida y no me entero …
F (endors:comment) B: vale, porque soy una hija guay que si no …(both laugh)
Translation
IA: honey, can you go and buy some bread since you’re dressed to go
out?
RB: oh dear, I am … well, okay, so that you don’t complain later (goes and
buys bread, she comes back ten minutes later and gives the bread to her
mother, who does not thank her for her “service”)
B: You’re welcome, eh?
I
RA: oh honey, I’m sorry, I’m busy with lunch and I didn’t realise …
FB: ok, just because I’m a great daughter, otherwise … (both laugh)
The analysis of the data endorses Tsui’s claim that the follow-up is also prospected (i.e.
predicted), contrary to other authors’ views that it is neither predicting nor predicted
(Coulthard and Brazil, 1992; Francis and Hunston, 1987). However, it is more likely to
be prospected not by the response itself but by the initiating move. In other words, a
requesting exchange initiated by a directive often prospects an endorsement in the
follow-up move, even if the response is negative. This is shown by example 22:
Example 22
Field
Situation
In a shop, the customer (A) addresses the
shop assistant (B).
Moves
Direct–Response–F1 (endorsement)
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
36
Mid-30s
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Strangers (Customer/Shop assistant)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
706
Discourse Studies 13(6)
I (requestive) R (temporization) R (neg. rep) F (appreciation) F2 (acknowledge) Translation
I
R
R
F
F2
A: Hola, me gustaría ver una chaqueta de estas en la 40.
B: sí, un momentito por favor …
B: lo siento, pero en la 40 no nos queda nada.
A: Bueno, qué se le va a hacer. Gracias de todas formas.
B: A usted.
A: Hello, I’d like to see one of these jackets in size 40.
B: yes, just a moment please …
B: I’m sorry, but we don’t have anything left in size 40.
A: well, that’s life. Thanks anyway.
B: thank you.
It may be argued, however, that examples like 22 are quite prototypical in our daily life
and it would be unlikely for the customer to be offended by the shop assistant’s response.
In other words, it could be said that the shop assistant’s response is dispreferred but
unintentionally so, and therefore unchallenging. In example 23, on the other hand, the
addressee seems to be offended by the response offered, which is far from expected.
This offensive response might not be intended as such by speaker A, but it gives rise to
what can be analysed as an Initiating move. In this case, B does not produce the whole
utterance but it is obvious that her ‘entonces’ (‘then’) is followed by the implicit question ‘why do you say you are hungry?’. Again this Initiating move is followed by a silent
response, which may show B’s (the daughter) admission that her response might have
been offensive even if she did not intend it to be so.
Example 23
Field
Situation
Just before lunch time.
Moves
Direct–Response–Response–Initiating
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
23
50
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (daughter [speaker A]/
mother [speaker B])
I (inform:express) R/I (elicit:inform) R (negative rep) I (elicit:implicit question) Translation:
I
R/I
R
I
A: Tengo un hambre …
B: ¿te pongo y comes?
A: No, ya espero a papá
B: Entonces
A: I’m starving …
B: Shall I set your lunch?
A: No, I’ll wait for dad
B: then?
Example 23 shows speaker B’s misinterpretation of A’s statement, which was intended as
a mere comment and not as a hint or an indirect request for lunch.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
707
Maíz-Arévalo
5. Main problems and discussion
As shown in the previous section, the data seem to point to a three-move exchange as a
convenient unit for analysis in Spanish spontaneous conversation (García Gómez,
2000, 2004; García Gómez et al., 2002). Likewise, Tsui’s taxonomy does seem to
account for most of the examples in this way. However, there are some problems when
faced with particular cases, especially those where the follow-up move was totally
absent (not even a non-verbal response was provided). In fact, these examples are so
numerous this might lead us to challenge our previous conclusion that a three-move
exchange is more plausible as a minimal conversational unit than a two-move one.
Furthermore, this seems to be reinforced by the fact that in none of these examples does
the other interlocutor notice the absence of the follow-up move and the exchange is
accepted as ‘complete’, even if the initiating move prospects a follow-up in all of them.
In fact, they all start with an initiating:elicit move, which as we have seen, typically
prospects the following three-move structure: I / R / F. This is illustrated by examples
24 to 30 which follow. Example 29 is particularly interesting, since the last two turns
also mark the complete end of the conversational exchange and one of the interlocutors
stands up and goes somewhere else, thereby ending the conversation in what seems
quite an abrupt way. In fact, his initiating move:elicit (‘hey, by the by, where is your
mum?’) is positively responded to by the addressee (‘I reckon she’s in the shower’), but
no F-move of acknowledgement is produced and there are no meta-comments on the
other interlocutor’s part. It can be assumed that, were she upset or annoyed at his leaving without acknowledging her piece of information, she might have said so since there
are other examples in the corpus where speakers blatantly manifest their annoyance at
not being ‘acknowledged’.
Example 24
Field
Situation
At lunch time.
Moves
Elicit-Response
Tenor
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) F
Translation:
I
R
F
Speaker B
Speaker A
Age
62
63
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (husband/wife)
A: ¿Quién ha echado esas manchas ahí? (points out)
B: Eso han sido estos.
A: (no response)
A: Who has made those stains there? (points out)
B: It has been them.
A: (no response)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
708
Discourse Studies 13(6)
Example 25 Field
Situation
At lunch time.
Moves
Elicit-Response
Tenor
I (elicit:inform)
R (negative resp.) F
Translation:
I
R
F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
62
35
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (father/daughter)
A: oye, ¿no estarás grabando?
B: no, no, tranquilo
A: (no response)
A: listen, you’re not recording, are you?
B: no, I’m not, don’t worry.
A: (no response)
Example 26
Field
Situation
Two brothers, doing homework together.
Moves
Elicit-Response
Tenor
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp) F
Translation:
I
R
F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
16
Gender
Type of relationship
Male
Male
Family members (siblings)
15
A: ¿pero esto cabrá en una hoja?
B: yo creo que sí.
A: (no response)
A: but, will this fit on one sheet?
B: I think so.
A: (no response)
Example 27
Field
Situation
A son (A) and his mother (B), talking
about his future outdoor activity.
Moves
Elicit-Response
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
16
45
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (son/mother)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
709
Maíz-Arévalo
I (directive) R (negative res.) F
Translation:
I
R
F
A: ve al instituto si quieres y le preguntas al tutor.
B: no, no, si ya he ido muchas veces y sé lo que hay.
A: (no response)
A: go to the school and ask my tutor, if you like.
B: no, no, I’ve been lots of times and I know what’s on.
A: (no response)
Example 28
Situation
A father (A) and his daughter (B),
they’ve just come back from a walk
together.
Moves
Elicit-Response
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
63
35
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (father/daughter)
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) F
Translation:
I
R
I
R
F
A: ¿por que te quitas la gorra?
B: es que me duele la cabeza …
A: ¿con la gorra?
B: no … y sin la gorra.
A: (no response)
A: why do you take off your cap?
B: I’ve got a headache.
A: with your cap on?
B: no … without the cap too.
A: (no response)
Example 29
Situation
A father (A) and his daughter (B), they’re
talking about a scarf (B) has given
(A) for his birthday. (A) has just lost it.
Moves
Elicit-Response
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
63
35
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (father/daughter)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
710
Discourse Studies 13(6)
I (elicit:inform) A: ¿por lo menos tres o cuatro mil pesetas?
B: hombre, era muy suavita …
R (positive resp.) A: (no response)
Re-I (inform:report) B: cómo te iba diciendo … la compré en el Corte Inglés … me dijeron que
era de muy buena calidad[longer pause]
I (inform:report) A: la he debido perder en el tren, lo siento.
R (positive resp.) B: bueno, qué le vamos a hacer (sighs)
I (elicit:inform) A: oye, por cierto, ¿dónde anda tu madre?
R (positive resp.) B: creo que se está duchando
Translation
I
A: at least three or four thousand pesetas?
R
B: well, it was really soft
A: (no response)
Re-IB: as I was telling you … I bought it in El Corte Inglés … was told it was
very good quality [longer pause]
I
A: I must have lost it on the train, I’m sorry.
R
B: well, that’s life (sigh)
I
A: hey, by the by, where is your mum?
B: I reckon she’s in the shower.
R
(They stop talking and the father stands up to go somewhere else)
Example 30
Situation
A son (A) and his mother (B),
commenting on the interview with the
tutor of his brother.
Moves
Informative-Response
Field
Tenor
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) F
Translation:
I
R
F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
17
45
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (son/mother)
A: ¿y a cuántas clases ha faltado Miguel?
B: a las de él, a todas
A: (no response)
A: So, how many classes has Miguel missed?
B: his, all of them.
A: (no response)
However, these ‘exceptions’ are not limited to exchanges initiated by an eliciting move,
there are also cases where the initiating move is informative, as illustrated by example
31 opposite:
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
711
Maíz-Arévalo
Example 31
Situation
A father (A) and his daughter (B),
talking about some mail advertising
houses and flats.
Moves
Informative-Response
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
63
35
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (father/daughter)
I (informative) A: Mira, venden uno por cuatro millones, lo que pasa es que sólo tiene un
dormitorio … y está amueblado y todo
R (positive resp.) B: ah, está bien de precio.
F
A: (no response)
Translation:
IA: Look, they sell one for four million, the thing is that it’s got one room
only … it’s even furnished and all.
R
B: oh, the price is fine.
F
A: (no response)
As already pointed out, although the follow-up move is absent in all these cases, its
non-occurrence goes unnoticed by the interlocutors. According to Tsui (1994: 37), however, ‘in conversations between interlocutors who know each other very well, the followup is more frequently absent’, which would explain examples 24 to 31, where in fact all
the interlocutors belong to the same family circle. This view is also shared by other
authors who claim that:
Two-part exchanges occur only between family and friends, but three-part exchanges occur
between both friends and strangers. (Stubbs, 1981: 118)
Presumably, not all exchanges require this kind of support [i.e. the follow-up]. Where
participants are well known to each other, in familiar situations and without specific business
to transact, it may be possible to have long stretches of two-move conversation without the
need for follow-up. (Sinclair, 1992: 85)
From this perspective, it could be argued that the follow-up is optional when there is a
close relationship between the interlocutors, as is the case with family members. Thus,
the F-move is not necessary although ‘there is always the option’ (Sinclair, 1992: 85).
Such an assumption apparently explains the previously mentioned examples, which in
fact did take place among family members. Likewise, it would also account for the fact
that, in those cases where the speakers are family members, we can find both three-and
two-part exchanges. However, the main problem arises when confronted with examples
such as the following, where the absence of the follow-up is highly noticed and its
‘production’ demanded by the interlocutor, even though these exchanges took place in
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
712
Discourse Studies 13(6)
exactly the same family setting as the examples above. Thus, even if they are not quantitatively significant, these examples cannot be discarded since, as Schegloff (1993: 110)
pointed out: ‘the best evidence for some phenomenon or practice can often be derived
from negative cases, which may display an orientation by the participants to the very
practices from which they depart’.
A common feature shared by all these ‘deviant’ cases is the repetition of somewhat
formulaic expressions which metadiscursively demand the interlocutor’s production of
an F-move of acknowledgement (e.g. ‘are you listening to me?’). Thus, it can be observed
that while the F-move is absent in some cases but goes unnoticed, in these cases not only
is it highly noticed but also demanded. What are the reasons for this apparent deviation?
In other words, why are these interlocutors annoyed if no F-move is produced in some
cases and not in others? If we look at the contextual variables, it can be observed that all
these cases share the following characteristics:
• All the cases present ordinary situations between family members, therefore it can
be assumed that the type of relationship between the interlocutors does not have a
determinant role to play.
• The initiating move is always ‘elicit’, that is, the speaker asks a question from
the addressee. This question always gets a positive response (preferred option).
However, as already seen throughout this section, there are plenty of examples
(29 is a good case) where this response is not followed by any F-move
acknowledging the receipt of information, and its absence goes unnoticed by
the interlocutor.
• All the exchanges take place between female interlocutors (F-F) but none of them
involve the other two pairings: female–male or male–male speakers.
In other words, taking into account the different variables, it can be said that gender is
the one that underlies these apparently ‘deviant’ cases. As already mentioned, the event
in question does not seem to happen by chance, especially because ‘the participants in
the interaction have put significance on that particular event – that is, that the participants
have demonstrated that the event is relevant to them’ (Golato, 2004: 24).
In the following section, I will analyse in depth these particular cases, paying special
attention to the determining variable of gender and the underlying rationale for these
differences.
6. The F-move and gender
As already mentioned, there is a relatively small number of examples in the present corpus (four cases) that seem deviant since the absence of the F-move is both explicitly
noticed and its production demanded by the speaker. This is done by means of expressions like ‘are you listening to me?’. Even if they are not quantitatively relevant, I have
already shown that these cases are qualitatively significant and therefore cannot be
discarded (Schegloff, 1993). These conversational exchanges are displayed below
(examples 32 to 35):
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
713
Maíz-Arévalo
Example 32 Situation
A daughter (A) and her mother (B). (A)
has a headache and is taking a new kind
of tablet (B) has provided.
Moves
Informative-Response-(F)-Elicit
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
35
64
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/daughter)
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) F
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) F (endors:comment) Translation:
I
R
F
I
R
F (endors:comment) A: ¿cómo se toma esto? (shows a tablet)
B: pues con agua …
A: (no response)
B: ¿me estás oyendo?
A: (nods)
B: mujer pues dilo.
A: How can I take this? (shows a tablet)
B: well, with water …
A: (no response)
B: Are you listening to me?
A: (nods)
B: then, say so.
Example 33
Situation
A daughter (A) and her mother
(B). (B) is reading a book (A) has
recommended.
Moves
Informative–Response–(F)-Elicit
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
35
64
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/daughter)
I (elicit:inform) A:¿Qué tal está el que te estás leyendo?
R (positive resp.) B: muy bonito … muy bien … pero ése no es de Andalucía …. Es el único que
no es … Bueno, es sobre una andaluza pero es distinto.
F
A: (no response)
I (elicit:inform) B: ¿me estás oyendo?
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
714
Discourse Studies 13(6)
Translation:
I
A: What about the book you’re reading?
RB: it’s very nice … quite good … but this is not about Andalusia … it’s the
only one that … well, it’s about an Andalusian girl but it’s different.
F
A: (no response)
I
B: are you listening to me?
Example 34
Field
Situation
Two sisters talking about some pictures
they are looking at together.
Moves
Informative–Response–(F)-Elicit
Tenor
Speaker A
Age
Speaker B
35
38
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Siblings
I (elicit:inform) A: ¿Y esa dónde dices que es?
R (positive resp.)
B: hmm, uy, no me acuerdo del nombre del sitio … pero es en Jordania ….
A: (no response)
F
B: ¿me estás oyendo?
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) A: sí, sí, claro.
F (acknowledgement) B: ah, bueno.
Translation:
A: and where is that again?
I
RB: h uh, oops, I don’t remember the name of the place … but it’s
somewhere in Jordania.
B: are you listening to me?
I
R
A: yeah, yeah, of course.
F
B: ah, okay.
Example 35
Field
Situation
A mother (B) and a little daughter (A)
are choosing a DVD to watch.
Moves
Informative–Response–(F)-Elicit
Tenor
I (elicit:inform) R (positive resp.) F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
3
38
Gender
Female
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (mother/daughter)
A: ¿Ponemos el de Caillou?
B: … el de Caillou, el de las manzanas ….
A: (no response)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
715
Maíz-Arévalo
I (elicit:inform) I (positive resp.) F (endors:comment) Translation:
I
R
F
I
R
F
B: a ver, señorita. ¿Estamos?
A: jo, ¡que sí!
B: pues dilo.
A: can we watch Caillou’s?
B: … Caillou, the one of the apples …
A: (no response)
B: let’s see, young lady, are we (listening)?
A: aw, yes, yes!
B: well, say so.
Example 35 is particularly remarkable since it is the only example in the present corpus
involving adult and child female interlocutors. The adult interlocutor, when getting no
F-move from the child, instructs her to say something to acknowledge that she is listening. Since it is the only example available, it is impossible to ascertain whether the
mother’s behaviour would have been the same had the child been a male interlocutor.
Thus, even though cases like 32, 33 and 34 are not numerous, the fact that they exist
cannot be arbitrary, as the metalinguistic comments of the interlocutors do also show. If
closeness is the variable that determines whether or not the F-move is compulsory or
optional, why do examples like the above exist?
As seen before, there is a strong tendency in the present corpus for the follow-up to
appear when speakers are female, whereas those cases where it is absent usually involve
male speakers, who are also the speakers who produce the initiating move. In fact, speaker
A only demands an F-move (‘are you listening to me?’) if B is another female speaker.
It is also noticeable in the examples that whenever two male speakers engage in conversation, they neither produce any F-move nor are they are expected to do so. Example 29,
repeated here for the sake of clarity as 36 and 37, serves to illustrate this point. Quite interestingly, in 37 the relationship between the interlocutors is not even one of closeness. In both
cases, the interaction involves a male speaker and a female one. As can be observed, the
male speaker initiates the exchange but does not provide any follow-up. On the contrary,
those exchanges initiated by the female speaker are further accompanied by an F-move.
Example 36 Situation
Field
Moves
A father (A) and his daughter (B). They
are commenting on a scarf which (B)
gave (A) for his birthday. (A) has just
lost it.
Informative–Response–ElicitResponse-(F)
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
64
35
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (father/daughter)
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
716
Discourse Studies 13(6)
I (inform:express)
A: era mejor que la otra
R (positive resp.)B: claro que era mejor, como que me costó mucho mas, pero mucho más
pero no te lo voy a decir
I (elicit:inform)
A: ¿cuánto …? ¿por lo menos tres o cuatro mil pesetas …?
R (positive resp.)
B: hombre, … era muy suavita …
Re-I (inform:report) B: cómo te iba diciendo … la compré en el Corte Inglés … me dijeron que
era de muy buena calidad [longer pause]
I (inform:report)
A: la he debido perder en el tren, lo siento.
R (positive resp.)
B: bueno, qué le vamos a hacer (sighs)
I (elicit:inform)
A: oye, por cierto, ¿dónde anda tu madre?
R (positive resp.)B: creo que se está duchando
(They stop talking and the father stands up to go somewhere else)
Translation
I
A: at least three or four thousand pesetas?
R
B: well, it was really soft
A: (no response)
Re-IB: as I was telling you … I bought it in El Corte Inglés … was told it was
very good quality [longer pause]
I
A: I must have lost it on the train, I’m sorry.
R
B: well, that’s life (sigh)
I
A: hey, by the by, where is your mum?
R
B: I reckon she’s in the shower.
(They stop talking and the father stands up to go somewhere else)
Quite remarkably, (B) does not seem to notice the absence of the follow-up and she does not
‘demand’ its production.
Example 37
Situation
A teacher (A) and one of his former
students (B). They have not seen each
other since high school.
Moves
Informative-Response-Elicit-Response-(F)
Field
Tenor
I (elicit:inform)
R (positive resp.)
F I (elicit:inform)
R (positive resp.)
F
I (elicit:inform)
I (inform:express)
R/I (elicit:inform)
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
40
23
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Old acquaintances (not very close)
A: ¿tú qué estás estudiando?
B: bueno, yo hacía filología inglesa.
A: (no response)
A: ¿y qué haces ahora?
B: Ahora estoy haciendo el doctorado.
A: (no response)
A: ¿y ya tienes pensado de que vas a hacer la tesis? (pause)
A: mi tesis fue muy malilla.
B: ¿de qué la hiciste?
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
717
Maíz-Arévalo
R (positive resp.)
A: de Hussel, un filósofo alemán.
F (endors:comment) B: bueno, suena interesante.
F2 (turn-shift)
A: bueno…
Translation:
I
A: and what are you studying?
R
B: well, I studied English Linguistics.
A: and what are you doing now?
I
R
B: now I’m doing my PhD.
I A: and have you already thought what your thesis will be about? (pause)
I
A: my thesis was quite bad.
R/I B: what was it about?
R
A: about Hussel, a German philosopher.
F
B: well, it sounds interesting.
F2 A: well…
As example 37 shows, the conversation between A and B shifts from two-move exchanges
to three-move exchanges. Whenever A makes the Initiating move, B co-operates and
produces a preferred – and expected –response. However, none of B’s responses are
accompanied by an F-move and she does not seem to notice it, even if the relationship is
not a close one. On the other hand, B provides an F-move after A’s response (‘bueno,
suena interesante’). It is only to shift the turn – and very possibly the topic too – that A
produces the last F-move in the extract.
Thus, it can be argued that closeness is not the determining factor when deciding
whether the F-move is perceived as optional or obligatory, but gender.
Furthermore, there also seems to be a pattern according to which, whenever male
speakers produce an F-move, this usually has a marked effect (humour, sarcasm, etc.).
Example 38
Field
Situation
A father (A) and his daughter (B),
walking out in the park.
Moves
Informative–Response–F
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
63
35
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (father/daughter)
I (inform:report)
R (positive resp.)
F (endors:comment)
Translation:
I
R
F
A: Mira que perro tan enorme (points out)
B: por Dios … parece un tigre
A: sí hombre, de Bengala.
A: Look at that enormous dog (points out)
B: oh my God … it seems like a tiger
A: Sure, man, Bengal.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
718
Discourse Studies 13(6)
In example 38, A’s F-move (‘sí hombre, de Bengala’ / ‘sure, man, Bengal’) is a typical
form of agreement in which the respondent upgrades the statement with which he or she
is agreeing.
Example 39
Situation
A father (A) and his daughter (B), the
father is preparing drinks. (C) is (A)’s
wife.
Moves
Elicit–Response–(F)–Elicit–Response–F
Field
Tenor
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
63
35
Gender
Male
Female
Type of relationship
Family members (father/daughter)
I (elicit:inform)
R (positive resp.)
F
Re- I (elicit:inform)
R (positive resp.)
F (endors:comment) I (inform:express)
Translation:
I
R
F
I
R
F
I
A: ¿qué quieres tomar?
B: lo de siempre.
A: (no response)
A: … ¿y qué es lo de siempre?
B: pues un moscatel.
A: ¡por finnnn!
C: vamos Miguel, que ya sabías que era eso.
A: what would you like to drink?
B: the usual.
A: (no response)
A: … and what is the usual?
B: well, sweet wine.
A: at laaaaaast!
C: come on, Miguel, you knew it was that.
In example 39 B’s positive response was followed by a Re-initiation, which frequently occurs when the speaker wishes to seek clarification. This is one of the circumstances described in Tsui (1994) where the F move is absent, which renders
the structure I R Re-I R F. The F move ‘at laaaast!’ is clearly an acknowledgement of
the outcome (almost triumphantly) of A successfully forcing B to specify exactly what
he wanted. Its somewhat ironic ring is pointed out by speaker C: ‘come on, Miguel,
you knew it was that’.
Likewise, in those conversations in the corpus where both interlocutors are male,
there seems to be a tendency to produce an F-move when humour and camaraderie are
involved, as in example 40:
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
719
Maíz-Arévalo
Example 40
Situation
Two friends (A) and (B), are talking
about football, particularly about the
defeat of Real Madrid (aka ‘the
Galactic team’) against Alcorcón
(a local team).
Moves
Elicit–Response–Inform–Response–F
Field
Tenor
I (elicit:inform)
R (negative resp.)
I (inform)
R (positive resp.)
F (endors:comment) Translation:
I
R
I
R
F
Speaker A
Speaker B
Age
36
33
Gender
Male
Male
Type of relationship
Close friends
A: ¿a qué no sabes cómo llaman al Alcorcón?
B: ni idea.
A: Darth Vader, porque se ha cargado a los galácticos, jajaja
B: … qué bueno, tío.
A: es bueno, sí.
A: do you know what they call Alcorcón football club?
B: no idea.
A: Darth Vader, because he’s killed the ‘galactics’, hahaha.
B: … man, that’s a good one.
A: it’s good, isn’t it?
Why do female speakers have a stronger tendency than male speakers to act this way?
In other words, why do the female speakers in the present corpus seem to feel the need
to close the exchange with a follow-up move as opposed to the male speakers? It has
already been mentioned that the production of the follow-up is pragmatically motivated.
In general terms, the F-move shows the addresser’s co-operation with the addressee by
ensuring that the latter’s contribution has not been ignored. This is clearly the case with
endorsement:acknowledgement but also with other acts such as agreement, evaluation or
minimization of an offence (i.e. concession).
In this sense, it can be stated that co-operation is probably the main motivation for the
production of the follow-up move. Significantly, co-operation has often been considered
by different authors as ‘stereotypically associated with women’ (Mills, 2003: 167) and
belonging to what has traditionally been termed as ‘women’s style’ (Cameron, 2000), a
point shared by Coates (1986: 11), who claims that ‘women typically adopt a co-operative
mode’, Ervin (1990) or Lindblom (2001: 1616) who claims that ‘because in personal ads
women less frequently break maxims than do men, they are more cooperative’.
This also seems to be the case in Spanish, as noted by authors such as Bengoechea
(2004) and Martín Rojo and Gómez Esteban (2004) among others. Bengoechea (2004:
118) points out that one of the features of the female conversational style is ‘la indicación
expresa de su escucha e implicación en la conversación’ (the express indication that
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
720
Discourse Studies 13(6)
they are listening and involved in the conversation). As opposed to that, the male
conversational style in Spanish is characterized by the fact that:
Los hombres están acostumbrados a hablar sin que otros hombres den señales de interés, o
simplemente de escucha, ni hagan preguntas (lo cual no significa que no estén pendientes de sus
palabras: simplemente no lo manifiestan como hacen las mujeres). (Bengoechea, 2004: 125)
(Men are used to speaking without other men showing any signs of interest or merely that they
are listening. Neither do they ask questions [which does not mean they are not listening: they
simply do not manifest it they way women do].)
These different ‘conversational styles’ in English and Spanish may account for the fact
that women expect an F-move (a clear sign that their interlocutor is listening to them),
especially when the interlocutor is another woman. Thus, when the female addressee
chooses not to produce the F-move (just as a male speaker might do), the other female
interlocutor is at a loss and there is a breakdown in the communicative process, as shown
by the recurrent question: ‘¿Me estás escuchando?’ (‘Are you listening to me?’). On the
other hand, if the conversational exchange is taking place between two male speakers,
we have observed that they do not seem to expect any F-move.
Quite significantly, the female participants in the corpus under study did not pose the
somewhat ‘formulaic’ question ‘are you listening to me?’ when their male interlocutor
did not produce an F-move, maybe because they were unconsciously sensitive to the fact
that male speakers do not usually produce this type of move and that their conversational
style is different.
Recently, however, this question of whether women are more or less co-operative than
men in conversation can be deemed a bit over-simplistic, especially since new genera­tions
of women – especially teenagers – seem to be adopting a masculinized discourse (García
Gómez, personal communication, and Maíz-Arévalo, 1998), and there seems to be an
increasing democratization of styles in younger generations (Martín Rojo and Gómez
Esteban, 2003).
Quite remarkably, in the present corpus at least, the female speakers who are at a loss
for words when the expected F-move is not produced are mostly over 60. However,
future research on a more extensive corpus is necessary to determine whether this
‘behaviour’ is also changing and current teenagers do not only leave F-moves empty but
do not expect them if this happens.
7. Conclusion
This article has aimed at studying the presence of the follow-up move in 50 conversational exchanges in Peninsular Spanish, always involving two interlocutors, the main
aim being to find out whether Spanish exchanges are organized either in two-move or
three-move structures. For that purpose, a corpus of 50 conversations (mostly in family
settings but also among strangers) was recorded. In order to provide as much contextual
information as possible, each example has been accompanied by an informative table
based on Halliday and Hassan’s (1989) notion of context of situation. Within this
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
721
Maíz-Arévalo
concept, the contextual information presented has attended to the aspects of field and
tenor. As for the conversational analysis proper, the main theoretical framework has
been Tsui’s taxonomy on English conversation since in our view it offers the most
complete taxonomy on types of follow-up moves according to their function in the
conversational exchange.
Together with Tsui’s, Sinclair and Coulthard’s taxonomy of initiating moves (1975)
has also been extremely useful in classifying the examples according to the type of initiation, given the fact that some initiations may be more prone to prompt an F-move than
others. Thus, the examples have been divided into three different groups, according to
the type of initiating move:
• Elicit: which would mainly include the traditional ‘questions’.
• Direct: which refers to acts like commands or requests.
• Informative: which would be related to acts such as statements.
The present analysis leads us to conclude that the three-part exchange seems to be a
‘more powerful’ unit of description for exchange structure (Tsui, 1994: 25), not only in
English but also in Spanish conversation (García Gómez, 2000, 2004; García Gómez
et al., 2002). As shown by the examples, the presence of the F-move does not seem to
be only motivated by the initiation move. In fact, we find the F-move independently of
whether the initiation move is an elicitation, a direct or an informative. A deeper analysis shows that gender seems to play a crucial role when dealing with this third move and
its absence (García Gómez et al., 2002). Most authors explain its absence by arguing
that the follow-up is likely to be absent among family members and friends (Sinclair,
1992; Stubbs, 1981; Tsui, 1994). However, results show that there seems to be, even
among family members, a pattern according to which female speakers tend to produce
three-part exchanges whereas, among male speakers, a two-part exchange seems to be
more common.
Most significantly, the data show that female speakers do indeed prefer including a
follow-up move in their conversation either when talking to another female interlocutor
or, especially, to a male interlocutor, where they always produce an F-move. In this last
case, we cannot even find any examples where female speakers do not acknowledge the
male interlocutor’s response. On the contrary, male speakers prefer two-move conversational exchanges and provide a third move whenever it is informatively relevant or for
other purposes such as humour or irony. When the conversational exchange involves two
male speakers, the follow-up is usually absent and not expected except when humour or
camaraderie are involved. Such a difference was accounted for in terms of female speakers’ general tendency towards a more co-operative conversational style (Cameron, 1995;
Coates, 1986; Tannen, 1991). Unfortunately, it must be admitted that simplistic generalizations should be avoided due to the limitation of the corpus. Future research including
a higher number of examples as well as different contexts such as more male–male conversations is needed to ascertain whether it is possible to make a more general claim
regarding the presence or absence of the follow-up move in Spanish conversational
exchanges. Likewise, and as more recent research on gender has shown, future research
on a more extensive corpus should also help us understand how features such as the
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
722
Discourse Studies 13(6)
presence or absence of the follow-up move contribute to the ‘construction’ of gender,
now that the boundaries are increasingly fuzzy (Litosseliti and Sunderland, 2002).
Indeed, we can no longer simply state that women are more polite or more cooperative
than men, given that the relationship between gender and language is extremely complex
and should not be reduced to stereotypes and generalizations (Mills, 2002, 2003, 2008).
Notes
1.The exchange has been defined as ‘the minimal interactive unit’ (Stubbs, 1983: 128) and as
‘the basic unit of interaction’ (Sinclair, 1972: 64).
2. According to Tsui (1995: 7), ‘a turn is seen as everything one speaker says before another
speaker begins to speak’. Moves, on the other hand, can coincide with turns but not
necessarily so.
3. This is roughly what one of my informants replied when I asked her why she always said
something after the other’s response.
4. The third element in Halliday and Hassan’s framework (1989: 12) is mode. However, since
mode mostly deals with ‘the part the language is playing’ and ‘the channel’ used and the data
are restricted to natural spoken conversations between two interlocutors, it is not considered
relevant to include it as part of the contextual information before each of the examples.
5. We use the term face as it appears in Brown and Levinson (1987).
6. Positive responses are defined as those which fully fit the pragmatic presuppositions of the
addresser (Tsui, 1994).
7. A’s second intervention consists of two moves (F and I) within the same turn. After her followup on B’s positive response, she initiates a new exchange and what seems to be a new topic.
References
Bengoechea M (2004) La comunicación femenina. In: Rincón A (coord.) Perspectiva de género
en la comunicación e imagen corporativa. Vitoria: EMAKUNDE/Instituto Vasco de la Mujer,
113–147.
Berry M (1981) Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis. In: Coulthard M and Montgomery M
(eds) Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 120–145.
Brown P and Levinson S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Burton D (1981) Analyzing spoken discourse. In: Coulthard M and Montgomery M (eds) Studies
in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 61–81.
Cameron D (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
Cameron D (2000) Good to Talk? Living and Working in a Communication Culture. London:
SAGE.
Chin C (2006) Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’
responses. International Journal of Science Education 28(11): 1315–1346.
Coates J (1986) Women’s Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coulthard M and Brazil D (1992) Exchange structure. In: Coulthard M (ed) Advances in Spoken
Discourse Analysis. London: Routlegde, 50–78.
Cullen R (2002) Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal 56(2):
117–127.
Ervin E (1990) The rhetoric of courtship: Conversation and cooperation in newspaper personal
ads. ERIC, ED318072.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
723
Maíz-Arévalo
Francis G and Hunston S (1987) Analyzing everyday conversation. In: Coulthard RM (ed.)
Discussing Discourse. Birmingham: ELR, 107–148.
García Gómez A (2000) Analysing casual talk: Topic as a structuring frame. Pragmalingüística
8–9: 123–142.
García Gómez A (2004) Turnos de habla y relaciones de poder en las disputas familiares. In:
Villayandre Llamazares M (ed.) Actas del V Congreso de Lingüística General. Vol. II. León:
Arcos/Libros, S.L., 1175–1186.
García Gómez A, Maíz Arévalo C and Núñez Perucha B (2002) On the existence of the follow-up
move in spontaneous conversation. In: Falces Sierra M, Díaz Dueñas M and Pérez Fernández
JM (eds) Proceedings of the 25th AEDEAN Conference. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Goffman E (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Golato A (2004) Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential
Organization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Halliday MAK and Hassan R (1989) Language, Context and Text. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Heritage JC (1984) A change-of-state-token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: Atkinson
J and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
299–345.
Lee Y (2007) Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal
of Pragmatics 39(1): 180–206.
Lindblom K (2001) Cooperating with Grice: A cross-disciplinary metaperspective on uses of
Grice’s cooperative principle. Journal of Pragmatics 33(10): 1601–1623.
Litosseliti L and Sunderland J (eds) (2002) Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Maíz-Arévalo C (1998) Towards a new construction of femininity: From future wife to superhero.
In: Antón-Pacheco A et al. (eds) Estudios de la mujer en el ámbito de los países de habla
inglesa. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 129–140.
Maíz-Arévalo C (2010) Intercultural pragmatics: A contrastive analysis of compliments in English
and Spanish. In: Blanco Gómez ML and Marín Arrese J (eds) Discourse and Communication:
Cognitive and Functional Perspectives. Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad Rey
Juan Carlos, 175–208.
Martín Rojo L and Gómez Esteban C (2003) Lenguaje, identidades de género y educación. In:
Lomas C (comp.) Identidades masculinas, igualdad entre los sexos y coeducación. Barcelona:
Paidós Educación.
Martín Rojo L and Gómez Esteban C (2004) El género del poder. El estilo femenino en las organizaciones laborales. In: Rincón A (coord.) Perspectiva de género en la comunicación e imagen
corporativa. Vitoria: EMAKUNDE/Instituto Vasco de la Mujer, 149–177.
Mills S (2002) Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity. In: Litosseliti L and
Sunderland J (eds) Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
69–90.
Mills S (2003) Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mills S (2008) Language and Sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mishler EG (1975) Studies in dialogue and discourse: An exponential law of successive questioning.
Language in Society 4: 31–51.
Nassaji H and Wells G (2000) What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of
teacher–student interaction. Applied Linguistics 21: 376–406.
Schegloff E (1993) Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on
Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 99–128.
Schegloff E and Sacks H (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 7(4): 289–327.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016
724
Discourse Studies 13(6)
Searle J (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Sinclair J (1972) A Course in Spoken English: Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair J (1992) Priorities in discourse analysis. In: Coulthard M (ed.) Advances in Spoken
Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Sinclair J and Brazil D (1982) Teacher Talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair J and Coulthard M (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University
Press.
Stubbs M (1981) Motivating analysis of exchange structure. In: Coulthard M and Montgomery M
(eds) Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 107–119.
Stubbs M (1983) Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Tannen D (1991) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago.
Tsui AB (1994) English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsui AB (1995) Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin.
Author biography
Carmen Maíz-Arévalo obtained her PhD in English Linguistics in 2001, being an English teacher
since 1995. Currently Dr. Maiz-Arevalo holds the position of full time lecturer at the Universidad
Complutense, where she is teaching Pragmatics, Semantics and English. Her fields of interest are
mainly speech act theory, politeness, gender and language and applied linguistics. She has published
several articles on these issues and taken part in numerous congresses, both national and international. Besides her research and teaching activities, Carmen Maiz-Arevalo is also the secretary of
the Revista de Estudios Ingleses, published yearly by the Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2016