Journal
of Pragm:~tics
7 (19X3) 657-6377
651
North-Ilolland
A
ECTION
AVATE
ERSAT
c
Marjorie
HARNESS
GOODWIN
Within conversation
“mitigated”
(Eabov
participants
and Fanshel
tively
in an “ aggravated’.
the most
request
studied
tive (“ Gimme
two
conversations
actions.
(“ You
the wire
with
of urban
This
children.
For example,
may either
In all, over
to take
be formatted
now?“ )
as a
or as an impera-
paper investigates
aggravated
correcting
and disagreeing
activities
black
fashion.
a directive
usin g the wire cutters
cutters!“ ).
related
IN CHILDREN’S
may elect to perform
speech actions in either
1977: 84-86) or modulated
ways. or alterna-
(i/~/d.) or unmodulated
of ali speech
for information
dealing
AND DISAGRIXMENT
175 correction
ways of
~~ in the
and disagree-
ment sequences
form the basis of the present
study. draw-n from 200 hours of
transcrihcd
conversations
which took place as children
conducted
their play
activities
among themselves
over a period of a year and a half.
Within conversation
there are ways of performing
activities
such as initiating “repair”
which
(Schegloff
can either
* The
fieldwork
Mental
Health
phy,
constiruting
Author’s
Columbia,
of
Willlam
on an earlier
grant
research
University
Jefferson.
et al. 1977) or providing
propose
the basis
vewon
SC 29208,
speaker’s
Richard
of this paper.
M. Harness
1 am
Holmes,
I
alone
was made
administered
grateful
correction
competence
of this study
(17216-01).
Pennsylvania.
Lahov,
address:
037%2166/X3/%3.00
initia!
to
Erving
am respomible
Goodwin,
Dept.
poas~ble by a
through
and, in particular,
of another’s
to perform
the Center
Hoffman.
to Emanuel
Umversity
USA.
’
1983.
Elaevier
Science
Publl\hers
Institute
R.Y. (North-Hclland)
which
of
Ethnogra-
Goodwm.
Schegloff
for any deficiencies
of Anthropology,
National
for Urban
Charles
speech
the correc-
Gait
for comments
reman
of South
Carohna.
tion him/herself
which question
the trouble
or indicate
lack of confidence
rather than assert that a repair
source
to him/herself
correct
in such ability. Those forms
is in order or allow initiator
of
the utterance
are performed
signal
or modulated
way, in contrast
to forms which
of a correction
or perform
that correction
themselves,
the need
would
term
aggravated
or unmodulated.
With
respect
blatantly
which I
to a related
disagreement,
a speaker may take up a position
of opposition
with
the entire action put forward by prior speaker either in a way which
expression
of disagreement
indicating
a counter-position
As
Goffman’s
argued,
much
the other
(1967,
of adult
party
not emerge
course
forms
propriate
2. Other-initiated
In adult
preference
trouble
“other”.
pointing
way
of face
with
to the
regardless
for example,
of
to a trouble
source;
al.
1977:
discord
(Goodwin
the
conflict
is
1980, 1982) and
in interaction.
of mitigated
norms
to
does
governing
age-culture
and
aggravated
situationally
of
Of
ap-
participants,
as
has argued.
the
377).
to the Jefferson
for indicating
potential
has
deference
repair in adult conversation
attributed
to speaker
by other.
he/she
allows speaker
another
et
communication
coparticipants
source generally corrects it him/herself.
initiates a repair such a turn generally
according
immediately
By way of contrast,
in the continuum
be attributed
activity.
respect to
defers the
fashion.
concern
that
of children
conversation,
Schegloff
et al. (1977)
for self-correction:
that is. the party
(Schegloff
to face
concern
of encounters.
of dealing
and
or unmodulated
has as an underlying
feature
usage,
(1976)
it or by openly
and watchful
differences
can
language
Ervin-Tripp
analysis
in the interaction
a primary
underlying
language
1971)
conversation
as an explicit
provide
modulates
in an aggravated
in interaction
not at all uncommon
can
and
1
in what
would call a mitigated
intonation
argued
that there is a
produces
a turn with a
When party other than speaker,
is occupied
with little else than
to correct
a trouble
source
is
Even though
other could provide
the repair,
opportunity
to do the correction
him/herself
Consider
system
rather
competence
have
who
the
[l] in which
than
following
example.
punctuation
as grammatical
transcribed
markers
are used
symbols:
(1) GTS:11:2:54
A:
B:
‘E likes that
Wait-er?
A:
Waitress,
[I]
Data
waider
sorry,
are transcribed
al. (1974:731-733).
over there,
according
A simplified
A: Trouble
source
B: Locate trouble
A : Provide remedy
to the system
version
debeloped
of this transcription
by Jefferson
system
and described
appears
in Sacks
in the appendix.
et
Two important
features
the operations
of locating
separated
utilized.
in distinct
Rising
characterize
this other-initiated
the repairable
and supplying
turns.
intonation
Second,
a particular
is constructed
3. Aggravated
In contrast
partial-repeat
to repair
correction
operations
for dealing
the following
Starca:
contour
is
out for revision,
“er”. This
that speaker
intonation
contour
assist in clarifying
formats
in children’s
comersation
performed
in adult
conversation
in a mitigated
pointing
to the trouble source and supplying
into a single turn. Two progressively
more
with a trouble
source
in prior
“I’ll
Be There”
speaker’s
the correcaggravated
talk are shown
in
example:
(2) 10-19-70-92
((singing
a line from
1. A: You and I must make a pack,
2. B:
singled
as a problem.
way, among children,
tion may be collapsed
strategies
of intonation
(33 T) is used over the term
as indicated
by the question
mark following
displays
an action of uncertainty
and requests
what
form
repair format. First,
a candidate
repair are
We must
bring
by the Jackson
Five))
star://l.il:
tion,
3. c‘: Starcja tion,
4. D: Starrlution.
boy it’s sa///vation.
5. A: Sulvation.
In lines 2 and 3 two recipients
vated forms of initiating
a repair.
of A’a singing provide
instances
They single out the part of prior
of aggraspeaker’s
utterance
which contains
the trouble
source
through
contrastive
stress and
utilize
falling
rising (312T ; Gunter
1974:61)
intonation
instead
of rising
intonation.
Rather
than proposing
claimed
trouble
in understanding,
which
occurs
marks
with rising intonation,
that recipient
considers
incorrect.
When
to trouble
source,
such
forms
they permit
falling rising
a part of prior
are used
initial
self:
(3) 9-15-70-l
((discussing
a dog))
A: I play with Alfie all the time.
B: You like Ralphie
C: Rulphie,
A : Rulphie,
B: Alfie. Alfie.
donchu.
alone,
speaker
intonation
speaker’s
however,
to provide
displays
utterance
in that
challenge;
unmistakably
they merely
a correction
it
point
him/her-
(4) 9-3-71-9
A: You keep
your
clothes
B: I do nor. I change
c‘: Every
on.
every
ueek.
What
chu talkin
about
wbeek.
D: Every week, heh hell heh
B: I mean every u’ay.
(5) 9-19-70-3 ((discussing
bikes))
A: This gear hard to push. Just ride this gear.
B: Gear, What chu talkin
A: 1 mean urn brake.
about
//
gear.
In contrast
to examples
3 5 in which
initial speakers
(A) provide
correction
themselves,
in line 4 of example 2, D hearing the trouble source
only
indicates
A’s initial
A:
trouble
Rather
is in error;
utterance
he also provides
the remedy
for the trouble
in
himself:
source
D: [point
to trouble
than
error
what
the
not
source]
proposing
a second
self to come
D’s turn
remedy]
the competence
to self-correct.
producing
+ [provide
turns
part
such
of the turn,
in with
the remedy.
in example
2 provides
petence,
it is possible
come in and provide
of the party
as this
one
other
does
Nevertheless,
merely
whose
propose
turn
self’s
not leave
because
a pointing
contains
the
incompetence.
a specific
By
place
for
the first component
to prior
(though admittedly
rare in my data)
a correction
simultaneous
to other.
speaker’s
of
incom-
for self to attempt
to
In the following
in line 3 a partial
repeat.
signalling
the trouble
source.
occurs as the first part of B’s turn. This is followed by the initiation
of another
possible
element
even
more
these
two elements.
in a correction
blatantly
indicates
a correction
sequence,
that
prior
a contradiction
speaker
is in error.
(“It’s
not-“),
Finally
which
following
occurs:
(6) 10-19-71-6
1.
A: Come
2
3. B:
in the house
on //
there,
Love sick chair,
again
It’s not-
tonight.
It’s cailed,love.
following
utterance
in there,
It’s not no love sick
They
layin
chair.
Love chair.
4. A:
B’s turn
[correction]
Big love sick chair
contains
multiple
elements:
[partial
repeat] + [contradiction]
+
+ [restated
contradiction].
Although
there is no pausing
or space
explicitly
calling
for a turning
of the
each of these
elements.
over to prior
speaker,
in that
the correction
is delayed
by the partial
repeat and contradiction,
A can come
same time 3s B in a collaborative:
Note.
howaer,
correction
that
collaborative
self’s
in thia example.
simultaneously
correction
remedy
passing
with
with
overlapped
the
despite
other.
to have
rest
the
first
two
turn
of contradiction.
talk.
seq~~ence
elements
self (A)
of other’s
subsequent
but
other
terminated
in
+ [correctionj
sequence
(7) when
self-correct
and
this example
we
after
persists
have
the
with
and
structural
of the (partial
just
examined
partid
repeat.
her initial
version
until
provides
the
the
not only
is
is noticeably
preferred
the
of contradiction.
permit
further
equivalences
of corrccrepeat] + [contra~~iction]
in (6)
initial
at the
overrides
Thus.
pattern
and actively working to maintain
a state
trajectories
for the sequcncin g of corrections
examination
of the relative arrangement
tion sequence
elements.
An expansion
following
the
the fact that
the
a restatement
by other’s
opportunity
self-outcome
Alternative
in after
is provided
speaker
in
chooses
the correction
the
not
to
occurs.
In
the correction
sequence
begins when recipient
R, hearing error (“I
the twenty seventh last summer” )
produces
a repeat of what
got these on April
prior
speaker
tion,
using
recycles
who
had
also
finds
summer!”
error
- which
the correction
(line
with
the trouble
in A’s utterance,
aggravated
is similar
sequence.
to “It’s
initiating
then
does
A
last summer.
And
I pays
is .summer
huh.
4. A:
the twenty
seventh-
April
April
6. C: ‘April
7. B:
provides
to
the
the next
(line
in example
the correction.
for vcrifica-
(in lines 4 and
unchanged.
sequence
not-”
co~~cede
by a request
A then
Recipient
clement
5)
C’.
in the
6) ~ “April
isn’t
6. As b’ continues
with
C enters
with another
explicit
recycled
insistent
version ol
item simultaneously
in lines
correction.
with
an
accounting
for
description:
3. B: April
5.
source
then
correction
(7) 6-3-71-f) ((discussing
shoes))
1. A: I had mines last urn- April.
2.
followed
3). Speaker
~ “No it’s not!” ~ answering
n’s
both B and C provide the replacement
IO. Only
her initial
was in error.
intonation
utterance
more
contradiction
line 5. Then
which
rising
her initial
progressively
9 and
said
falling
It’s i//n
I got these
for them.
And
last summer.
on April
the twenty
I went over //
That’s
seventh
where
in ‘4pril.
is in the summer!
isn’t summer!
the- it’s in the
8. C: No it‘s not!
9. B: .spring
time!
10. C: ‘bpring.
11. C: Well i got these
in the spring.
CUL it was might
hot that
day.
we live.
This
sequence.
aggravated
like
types
example
2.
A:
3.
4/5.
B: repair
A: repeat
6.
C: contradiction
7.
B: correction
8.
C: counter
9.
B:
trouble
of initial
initiator
action
source
such
repeats
source
without
choose
repeat
more
remedy
as 6 and 7 where
precede
not
of lines 445
of correction
with justification
partial
repeats
contradictions.
of self-correction
leave an exp!icit
may
ever
initiation
A : acknowledgement
In sequences
trouble
to trouble
11.
possibility
might not
towards
source
10.
partial
a progression
moves:
initiation
correction
C: ‘correction
occur,
6, shows
of correction
Such
even though
initiator
turn transition
space
to supply
correction,
and
contradictions
an ordering
both
allows
for the
of the correction
sequence
(as in 6) or trouble
source
given
a slot
to provide
such
(as in 7).
4. Aggravated
Two
contradiction
alternative
partial
repeat,
formats
and replacement
for correcting
viz. contradiction
of these formats
formats
discussed
correction
prior
speaker’s
and replacement.
simultaneous
talk
talk
by two
recipients
which
omit
will now be discussed.
can be considered
more aggravated
than
above in that they provide
unquestionable
prior turn.
Different
ways of performin g the same activity
prior speaker’s talk through negation
are indicated
which
formats
the partial
repeat
opposition
to a
of contradicting
in the following
to initiator
the
Roth
an item
example,
of the trouble
in
in
source
occurs:
(8) 10-20-70-82
A: She only in the seventh grade and look like she in the // tenth
B: UH UH. SHE IN THE TENTH
GRADE
OK ELEVENTH.
C: ‘She ain’t
B:
C:
Her sister
in no seventh
gra:de.
in eighth.
‘She’s in the eleventh
A: OH::
grade.
grade.
no: it’s a- it’s another
girl look like she did.
In this fragment,
“UH UH” signals immediately
the negative position
taken with regard to prior speaker’s
talk. It is foilowed
by a correction
being
within
the same turn. C’s utterance.
provides
a contradiction.
As
provides
goes
a possible
on to make
source
However,
without
correct
prior
Although
may
and
correction
partial
repeat
one
and
item
in
occur
preface,
correction
from
Hasan
reading
Here,
of the situation
as in example
within
no
time as B’s.
simultaneously.
and
C‘
6. pointing
the same
opportunity
also
B
turn-space.
for
“self”
to
is provided.
8 precedes
altogether
Hallida?
of
for A’s initial
to the contradiction
example
occurs
at the same
C continue
to talk
of the correction.
providing
the
be eliminated
procedure
ment
explanation
her version
to trouble
which
B and
with
a correction
(1976:145)
a sentence
by
a contradiction,
sequence.
call “ substitution” ,
another
having
such
by making
or “the
a similar
moves
use of a
replace-
structural
function” .
With replacement
there is no longer need of first pointing
to the
element
of an utterance
for which an alternative
version
is provided.
The
utterance
correcting
a prior one frequently
maintains
a shape similar to that of
the prior
utterance
with
with emphatic
stress,
preceding
utterance.
non-accented
or non-salient
ment
1974).
‘4:
(10)
A:
B:
A:
(11)
A:
R:
A:
(12)
A:
B:
A:
of the
item
being
it as alternative
contrasts
with
intonation
is used
replaced.
produced
to a similar item in the
adult
talk in which
a
expressions
of disagree-
O-23-70-19 ((While playing ‘dead blocks’ A thinks B must
from 15 because he first thinks that B has hit an opponent’s
go backwards
(Yeager
(9) 10-19-70-144
Get your
‘4:
B:
the exception
and thus marking
Such a format
over
For example:
four guys,
--) You get thrrc guys.
I mean three guys.
You go to fourteens
((directed
((talking
to C))
to C’))
checker.))
dummy.
--) I go to my .cixteens.
You do not cuz you hit him.
Oh: that’s
right.
You
9-23-70-l 1 ((playing
‘dead blocks’ or ‘coolie’))
Man I’m in the hottest spot in town! The kula!
-+ heh heh! You mean you in the c,oldest.
The hottest
man. Cuz I wanna get out!
11-2-71-7 ((A is answering
an accusation
And that happened
last year.
--) That happened
this year.
Last year. Cuz I was in the sixth
grade
from
then.
U))
missed
him.
(13)
10-24-70-26
((arguing
about
A:
You only got three.
--j I got four.
You only got three.
B:
I got four. ((pointing
A:
Oh that’s
right.
Jefferson
(1978)
A:
B:
As
trajectories.
source
and
accepts
noted,
sequence
the correction
12, trouble
“XYX”
expanded
to doll which
has
An “XYY”
source
pattern.
Here
children
correction
(as in 9 and
may
B has playing
is also considered
in which
rather
none
of such
of the other
are constructed
Jefferson,
of activities
of the sequence
She states
examined
markers
seriously.
by Schegloff
in that
laughter
contain
such
disagreements
of “exposed”
she calls “ accountings”
occur
occurs
version
a child.
of various
Example
activity.
as outright
the correction
as an obJective
et al. (1977:378)
precedes
forms
with
prior
correction
speaker’s
(1978) states
in conjunction
9-13, correction
the record straight
that a class
event
is, as for Jefferson
(1978). not simply a
about something
which can be construed
of a game
of contest.
a move
to another.
number
but
talk.
with other-correction.
are part
having
the correction.
of modulation,
in the world, such as the pronunciation
devoid
These examples
are. however.
are counter moves opposing
prior moves
made
initial
sorts such that they are
11 in the data set above
particular
phrasing.
Instead,
corrections
selecting
until
of experience,
(1978:3):
With examples
matter of setting
has
11
be
an
examples
in her discussion
as in cxamplex
Of course
either
of these sequences
can
of turns, as in example
13. which exhibits
in Lonversations
an instance
However
different
of the trouble
an
are modulated
by paralinguistic
performed
jokingly
rather than
provides
take
and
the expansion
to accept
speaker
is provided
with evidence
for an alternative
when B points to a doll which can also be considered
Other-corrections
may
initiator
10). Alternatively.
decline
house))
a child))
sequences
can develop
initiator
sequence
can ensue.
into a longer series
“XYXYY”
how many
teammates.
of selected
issued
teammates
C. to progress
finds
should
error
to a new
not only
be,
in the first place.
in A’s prior
which
in (9) A. a member
example.
B. by countering,
the directive
(12) B’s correction
For
of a word or a
of ‘accountings’.
but
tells
also
phase
C what
puts
themselves
of B’s team.
of the
A in his place
By way of a second
defense
game.
the appropriate
to an accusation
for
example,
initiated
in
by U. The fragment in example 10 occurs in the midst of a game in which
participants are constantly cheating and redefining the rules of the game.
Finally,
example 13 is only the tail end of a series of moves in which thcrc is
disagreement about how many children the mother of playing house has.
The
situation
in which the corrections of examples 9-13
contest. It is thus quite different
occur is one of
from that which prevails amidst most adult
correction sequences. Jefferson (1978) discusses how ongoing activities can get
disrupted when unembcddrd forms of other-correction
(which she anulyzcs as
“exposed”) with their characteristic attendant “ accounting”
the official
business on the floor.
Whatever
correction is discontinued as participants
activities become
else was going on prior
to the
play out the correction sequence. In
the cases of 9-13,
however, the activity of challenge, in one form or another. is
what constituted
the prior
ongoing activity. Therefore. other-correction is a
activity
of
continuation.
rather
than a disruption
of an ongoing
challenge/counter challenge. Rather than removing participants from the
business at hand in a kind of “side sequence” (Jefferson 1972). corrections
provide a solution to how to continue what participants were up to all along.
while creating a new focus of interactive discord.
One final important fcaturc of all the examples considered thus fur dcscrves
mention.
In each case there is at some point
recognition
of the need for
correction to occur. either through initial speaker of the trouble source providing a correction or acknowledging the correction of other ( U). or through other
not pursuing a counter following an explanation provided by A (as in examples
11-12).
Such actions provide a sense of closure to the sequence as participants
work towards setting the record straight: correction sequences arc thcrcfore
contrastive with children’s disagreements in which reaching an outcome is
much less clear-cut (Goodwin
5. hlitigation
Iiaving
1982:87-88).
in disagreement sequences among adults
examined some of the techniques for accomplishing aggravated othcr-
correction I now want to examine the relationship of children’s forms of
aggravated disagreement to ways in which adult disagreement is performed.
Within adult conversation a preference structure. the preference for agreement
(Sacks 1973) may be seen to influence both the shape of sequences and of turns
in a disagreement. Disagreements are expected to occur in certain environments (i.e.. as responses to self deprecations, compliments.
accusations. criti-
cisms, and apologies (Pomerantz 1975:7)). However, as Sacks (1973) and
Pomcrantz (1975, 1978) have argued, massively throughout conversation agreements are organized as prcfcrred activities and disagrecmcnts as dispreferred
activities.
In that disagreements are treated as actions to be deferred prior to actual
expressions
of disagreement,
forms expressing
“ predisagreement”
(Sacks 1973)
occur. These ‘prefaces’
are then followed by statements
of disagreement
within
the
same
preface
(14)
turn:
[preface]
Well,
The
uh usually
Yes she does,
preface
in
B’s
disagreement.
Alternatively
Note
(15)
A:
major
type
of disagreement
come
remains
utterance,
the
in
“well’.
this
of delay
case
may
(0.7)
until
she.
be used
pause
is then
to withhold
following
he provides
followed
a
disagreement.
speaker
an explicit
by
request
A’s
assertion,
for confirma-
the pause:
G,26:(Y)7:30
live in thih-
You could
inna
does
following
unanswered
following
in on Friday.
sometimes,
a strategy
for example
which
tion
One
For example:
SBL: L.-3
A: She doesn’t
B:
+ [disagreement].
is an agreement.
in this area.
I belie:ve
you c’d recrlly live in this area
tent.
(0.7)
A : Y’know?
B: I think you’d if- if- if (you did it you’d
Not
only is disagreement
as delayed
preface
here delayed,
by A’s recompletion
“I
think”
possible
rather
this turn
in several
dispreferred
A second
questioning
for making
and
than
actual
but response
of his turn.
a clause
different
be) ro(h)bbed,
using
events.
ways
to A’s utterance
In addition,
the conditional
Thus,
even
displays
though
is marked
it is modulated
“if”,
which
by the
references
disagreement
an orientation
is done,
to disagreement
as a
activity.
way in which
disagreement
may
be delayed
is through
the use of
repeats, partial repeats, requests
for clarifications
(forms also used
other-initiated
repair) which occur as pre-disagreement
turns. For
example:
(16) G.76:67
Seven
A:
sat on uh:
f i f t een .
B:
A:
B:
A:
one side,
and
eight
on the other
side.
+ In a one forty one?
Well they h- it was a cargo
4
plane.
and //
they had had
o Really?
This
cargo
C:
Oh it was-
B:
Oh:
OH::,
//
except
up in the front
our suit-
There
were
f-
As examples
14-16
and pre-disagreements
agreement
positioning.
in that
6. Aggravation
The
shapes
activity
they
constitute
in children’s
of turns
as well
different
illustrate,
components
such
demonstrate
an orientation
formats
of delaying
disagreement
disagreement
sequencing
for marking
is being
of such
explicit
turns
are
associated
by a disagreement
with aggravated
wifhin
from
early
disagreement
done
as an aggravated
quite
different.
forms
turn
of correction,
the .rume turn.
For
Several
will be considered
a discussion
of such turns’ possible
trajectories.
First, the initial part of an aggravated
disagreement
elements
gaps
for
disagreements
in which
as the
ways
as agreement
prefaces.
towards
the preference
may
prior
make
immediately
example,
a partial
falling-rising
intonation
(itself an aggravated
intonation
turn containing
other disagreement
components:
contour)
to
use of
followed
repeat
using
may initiate
a
(17) g-2-71-12
A:
B:
(18)
A:
B:
We found a frog.
A frog.Y’all did not.
+
8-2-71-4
+
(19)
Y’all gonna walk in it?
Walk in it, You know where
10-26-70-7
A:
B: +
((Girls
My mother
Dirty
em all up.
pneumonia
In these
examples,
repeat
but rather
challenge
(18-19)
Other
+ partial
don’t
elements
repeats
than
have been
want
B does
water
discussing
me to dirty
Would
dirty
that
your
not
leave
why A doesn’t
rather
Terry
+
a turn
provides
a contradiction
immediately
afterward.
have a sweater
on))
up.
you come
space
(17)
following
or
an
down
his/her
explanation
which can be used to initiate disagreement
include
with falling intonation
(indicated
by a period):
go and get your pick.
I’m not goin in the house
What pick.
have
The toilet
with
clothes?
(20) 10-12-70-12
A:
B:
from?
all a my clothes
mother
all of your
come
now.
partial
for
the
wh-terms
(21) 6-3-71-12
And Sunday
n :
them pretxls,
B:
+
when we go down there we got to .Jerry Corner
tch! Buy some yarn
and
everything.
Whu/ pretzels.
You don’t
(22) 9-23-70-7
When it snows
A:
B:
We don’t
have
outside
know
what
you talking
and get all
about.
vvhere y‘all have gym at
no gym.
In the basement.
C:
B:
--f Whut basement.
Disagreements
produced
with
with
question
the
No we ain’t.
accusations
falling
characteristically
intonation;
applicability
of
the primary
the
are
force
accusation
for
prefaced
of denial
the
by “who”.
is to call
person
to whom
into
it is
addressed:
(23) 10-12-71-39
Why y’all fightin.
A:
B:
+ Who.
1 ain’t
(24) 10-19-70-69
Oh that’s
A:
fightin
right.
nobody
He was
gettin
ready
to beat
your
butt
that
night.
remember.
B:
+ Who.
Nope.
(25) 10-12-71-85
How come
A:
B:
+ Who
= He didn’t
y’all wanna
all us. Who
do nothin.
fight rxe all the time.
gonna
fight
you what
you
say.
)lou stand
there
lyin
rising
intonation,
are
also
back.
‘The terms
used
“what”
as disagreement
(26) 10-7-70-10
Go inside.
A:
B:
(17)
A:
B:
+ Huh?
and
“huh”,
produced
with
prefaces:
He might
bc up Raymond.
He ain’t up. He just went
9-28-70-40
((discussing
glass rings))
what
to .rleep.
types
Can’t use this kind.
--f What? We alreadysh- C’andy
of soda
show
bottles
him them
may
things.
be used
to make
I
(28)
1 l-l l-70-7
((discussing
Her mother
A:
B:
---f Huh?
didn’t
a child
want
She said CUL her sister
care of her while
who is being
fostered))
her.
ran away
she go to work
an she ain’t have
nobody
take
to
so.
Turn-initial
prefaces
can be characterited
by three different
intonation
contours,
depending
upon their semantic
content.
These
e!ements
arc not
unlike predisagreement
moves in that they defer ;I move of opposition
by
placing
turn.
various
other-initiated
However
initiator
repair-like
components
of the correction
moves
in the beginning
so quickly
or counter
that no turn space is provided
bq the party disagreeing
speaker to come in with a revision or restatement
of his/her
initial
Kather
ment
both
the initial
are produced
Increasingly
omitting
more
any
immediately
with
types
is provided
in moves
through
be produced
by
A format
for
elements.
which
expressions
unequivo-
of “polarity”
1976: 178):
(29) 10-31-70-S
It look like you was only playin
+ No! He come: over there thro\\in
with him, the way you was fightin
punches
so I threw em back!
10-12-71-105
((arguin g about who called a fight))
Then tomorrow
shr the one who called it.
(30)
A:
+
(31)
A:
H:
and the disagree-
may
repair-like
position
A:
B:
B:
disagreement
of disagreement
other-initiated,
in turn initial
Hassan
marking
for initial
statement.
unit.
disagreement
opposition
and
of the turn
aggravated
prefaces
displaying
cally signal
(Halliday
part
as a single
of the
to the disagreement
Uh uh.
You honev.
10-21-70-3
You didn’t
+
have
to go to school
today.
Yes we dru’ have
to go to schoo!
today.
did you.
The effect of opposition
markers such as “yes”, “no”, and their equivalents
the entire utterance
well as tokens of disbelief
such as “Alz:“. is to bracket
as
as
polar
be
in relation
themselves
to that
constitute
which
(32) 9-25-70-b ((B’s cat walks
Oh what’s his name.
A:
R:
A:
B:
Puff.
4
is preceded
a turn:
Uh uh:,
It is .so her name.
by))
by it. In fact
such
terms
may
(33) 3-23-71-3
A:
B:
A:
B:
She went
with
Freddy
didn’t
she. And J’OU wanted
to go with
Freddy.
+ Ah:,
You did one time.
Yeah,
one time.
In examples
of the turn:
moves
thus
demonstrating
considered
In contrasting
moves
towards
the initial
examples
17-28
progressively
more
component
with
because
ment
turns
used
is such
to them
7. Trajectories
is provided
29 -33.
to prior
that
prior
29-33
forms
in prior
moves
it is possible
of disagreement.
semblances
repair.
by party
they
of aggravated
repair
than
which
a challenge.
disagreeing
and the
prefaces
makes
of
In addition,
for a response
the turn
to the ~cflorz proposed
by prior
by way of contrast,
opposition
is immediately
action. The shape of these aggravated
disagreedo not permit
to their
talk or the action
rather
to see
In 17 28,
of other-initiated
in other-initiated
of or counter
prior
speaker
to make
any
move
completion.
correction
As was stated earlier, correction
moves
to prior
moves
in that
speaker’s
examples
check
to a refutation
In examples
with respect
relevant
performed
intonation
contour
over the partiai repeat
over the “wh” + partial repeat and “who”
intonation
space
quickly
speaker.
signaled
with
aggravated
an understanding
no turn
moves
the action
of the turn possesses
rising
the component
that
business
counter
a disagreement.
However
the falling-rising
falling intonation
contour
contrast
you had to open ~)‘OLIY
big mouth.
32 and 33 disagreement
is accomplished
~1s the exclusive
next utterances
following
“uh uh:“. or “Ah:“, provide
in reply,
was itself
(1.2) Then
and disagreement
and disagreement
are
they challenge
either
put forward
by prior
sequences
related
kinds of next
an element
in prior
speaker.
I earlier
argued
that
because the subject matter of a correction
sequence
frequently
is some type of
objectively
definable
event in the world,
especially
when pronunciation
or
word
selection
towards
that
than
closure
is at
issue,
of some
with the activity
of correction,
with disagreement,
relative
power
it is possible
sort with
or one’s
when
correction
few turns.
generally
much
one’s
character
for
relatively
perspective
is at stake.
sequences
less of the “self”
on the world,
Nonetheless,
to
move
It may also be the case
is invested
one’s position
as we shall
of
see with
the final example
of this paper, example
39, correction
sequences
can indeed
span several turns.
Examples
of trajectories
of adult or mitigated
disagreement
in the data of
Schegloff
occurring
function
et al. (1977) show movement
towards
termination
of the sequence
rather
quickly.
A predisagreement
move, for example.
can itself
to solicit
from
prior
speaker
revision
of a prior
position:
671
(34) CMHQ:I:12?
A:
He’s not ULI there.
B: ‘Snot up there?
A: I ain’t seen im up there.
After predisagreement
need not modify
his/her
occurs
frequently
Predisagreement
Revision
moves have been provided,
position
and disagreement
in children’s
argumentative
however,
prior speaker
can become
explicit,
as
sequences:
(35) 10-19-70-69
A: Who ran down there to save your butt.
B: Who, who ran down to save w7~ butt,
A: That’s right!
Predisagreement
B:
Disagreement
Nobody
saved
In the following
she is a good
Backdown
me.
A has been
talking
about
Teresa
refusal
Smith.
In line 1 he states
that
fighter:
(36) 10-l 3-70-E
A:
That
girl could
hang.
Predisagreement
R: Who. = Teresa?
c‘: Teresa Smith?
A: Yeah:
Predisagreement
she //
could
bang.
Backdown
refusal
Disagreement
C: Ah:,
B: I bet chu I could
beat
Predisagreements
can
down (examp!es
35-36).
towards
maintaining
ment turns.
In slightly
than
to persuade
the sequence
(37) 9-25-70-6
than
aggravated
occur.
the other
towards
to either revisions
case participants
closing
down
sequences
party
(34) or refusals
to back
display
their orientation
a continued
outright
Justifications.
series
opposition
of disagree-
moves.
rather
as in line 5 of (37) below,
to accept
one’s
perspective
may
which
work
to
its termination:
((continuation
1. A: Oh what’s
Disagreement
thus lead
in which
rather
predisagreements
attempt
move
more
her.
of example
32))
his name.
2. B: Puff.
3. A: Uh uh:,
4. B: It is so her name.
5. A: What’s
the name
(0.3)
Mr.
Ray
said
(0.3)
it was
sompm,
Didin
or
somp’m.
6. B: Who?
7. A: Didin. He called him Didin.
8. B: Puff. Oh wait. Sh- he call him Didn’t.
him.
(0.6) That’s
what
my mother
call
In their most
explanations:
aggravated
(3X) 10-19-70-28
A: I’m on Michael
B:
A:
No you not.
Yes I is.
C:
No you ~rn’t.
B: Yeah?
forms,
however,
disagrccmcnts
are devoid
of an\
side.
You gonna
get shot
too you come
here.
In this sequence,
opposition
is displayed
through
terms of polarity
in the
second
through
fourth turns at talk as. in turn. speakers
disagree
with prior
utterances.
tions
These
position
are not occupied
taken;
of opposition.
argument”
actions
being
with
they
providing
are occupied
terms
between
a quarrel
are
instead
In Piaget’s
or opposition
the fifth turn,
and
turns
for positions
the sequence
assertions
(Piaget
a type of dispute
“ accompanied
by
actions
accounts
with
displaying
shifts
from
a “ primitive
1926:66)
in which
or
or justifica-
solely
to a “quarrel”
divergence
promises
a
in
in opinion
of actions”
(Piagct
1926:66).
Sequences
12 and
cases,
the
following
(39)
of “ primitive
13) maintain
attempt
of Johnny’s
1 ((Johnny’s
seated))
1. A:
Donchu
(0.3)
Yes.
3. A:
(0.4)
What color
4. B:
It’s something
5.
It’s hot hot
6. C:
like Johnny
Johnny’s
11. c:
12. D:
13. B:
14. c‘:
15. D:
hike
against
is orange.
=
= [g;;;:
bike
is orange.
among
it down.
gold.
a tree where
you egg.
children
despite,
to close
bike.
bike is orange
=
= It’s orange.
Johnny’s
Gold.
party
is an orange\:
)
[ Johnny’s
8. c:
[;~ ;;;:I
bike is leaning
(
Is- this is gold.
=
third
which
even
aggravation
you got.
7. D:
10. B:
bike,
occur
towards
got a bike Sharon.
2. B:
9. D:
(which
orientation
of a disinterested
the color
9-15-70-l
argument”
a clear
ages
in some
In
the
is disputed.
the children
are
17. n:
It’s orange.
No Terry.
1x. c‘:
Is Johnny’s
19. n:
(0.4)
Gol:d.
20.
(0.4)
Orange.
16. C:
C:
21. 11:
22. A:
23.
C’:
24.
n:
25.
c‘:
26. B:
27. D:
28. A:
bike orange.
It’s gold.
It’s ‘““[;;I&
:ANGL::
Gol:d ‘hh
Or:ange,
$MdL),
It’s morei;:;;;:
29. Ll:
30. c:
31. B:
32. n:
33.
C:
34. B:
eh- now!
GOLD.
[ GOLD.
It’s orange.
Two against
[
35. n:
36. n:
37.
3X. B:
39. D
40. C:
41. A:
two.
Gold.
(1.0)
Two against
It’s gold.
Two against
twoi;les
two,we won.
Who beat
(
((chanting))
Two
44. A:
I’\1 bring-
I betcha
4s.
bring
46.
the time.
42.
D:
vvmng,,
against-
,Two
against
I betcha
43.
47.
ivho
). girl got //
B:
Alfie
You like Kalphie
48. c:
49. A:
Ralphie.
Ralphie,
50. B:
Alfie.
With
become
sequence
I c’d (
I’m the only one three
out she bring
on top.
two we Mon.
it out to me.
)
a them
hh I play
ask ta
Alfie
~11
donchu.
Alfie.
this example
the similarities
between
correction
even more apparent.
The moves which oppose
have characteristic
as in correction
gonna
with
sequences.
features
Mowever,
of one word
the sequence
and disagreement
prior moves in this
replacements
does
or substitutions
not terminate
quickly,
as correction
sequences
has the appearance
in line 4
the assertion
B’s perspective)
into
can
From
be
perceptions
tenaciously).
After
these
prefatory
utterance
as in examples
color
of Johnny’s,
B’s:
promoting
descriptor,
from
is called
is not one
alternative
(and
maintained
closely
how aggrsvabegins in line
of the group:
C, however.
B’s
prior
that
with
works
39. however,
is “ something
which
to permit
to display
subatitu-
are unequivocal,
in example
a move
for a prior
Generally
which
her bike
is designed
C actively
turns
description
replies
move
or substitution
“ YOLI egg”.
within
B, in line 4. states
disagreement.
more
out of a replacement
person
descriptions
though
gold
at issue
maintained
to examine
even
because
In this fragment
opposition
the color of the bike in front
9-l 3. The disagreed-with
ambiguous.
with
I want
therefore
fashion.
are
and
of B’s turn
in B’s talk that
the event
objective
turns_
activity
you egg.
an insult
of this sort follow
somewhat
tive
remarks,
many
(and
clement
of them
is constructed.
with B about
is constructed
and
spans
it is the entire
perspective
in any
in front
bike is orange
description
tions
upon
event
rather
a descriptive
the participants’
tion in this sequence
6 when C disagrees
This
do, but
Moreover.
the bike is like Jonny’s
than
decided
of the
Johnny’s
that
rather
question.
which
generally
of a dispute.
like”
is
the
is strongly
contras-
differences
without
disagreement.
Forms
of aggravated
disagreement
occur repetitively
throughout
the dispute. In line 7 stress is placed on the word “gold”
w-hich is formulated
as a
word
to be heard
“is”.
one
as a substitution
of the standard
for “orange”.
techniques
used
and also a standard
technique
for
disagreement.
This form is. however,
being
tunity
withdrawn
in favor
for less aggravated
other
one-word
and some
modulatin,
withdrawn
of the more
disagreement
replacements
are accented,
begins
with
questions
they
the verb
in English.
0 both
other-correction
and
and is, in fact. displayed
as
exposed
nonquestion
form.
is thus explicitly
rejected.
follow;
are produced
The turn
to construct
occur
as screams.
An opporNumerous
as the only
part
as indicated
by capital
of the turn.
letters
in the transcipt.
One
further
observed
towards
could
in
argument
this
reconciliation.
possibly
of both
screamed
increased
lead
positions
that
sequence
an
A, in line
to a resolution.
in the
“0R::ANGE”
volume
and
orientation
is provided
dispute.
in line
elongation
replacements
follow. and when A
orange”
he sides with one of the
With regard to this fragment
statement
allowing
considerable
by
22. state
in that
Instead,
towards
disagreement
examination
“It’s
mixed”.
this description
however,
Such
a second
time,
be
move
a description
admits
the validity
it is overlapped
23, a one-word
replacement
of sounds.
Further
rounds
enters
can
of a re.jected
by C’s
marked
by
of one-word
line 23. with “It’s
more
parties against another.
a number
of observations
can be made.
room for variation
in its interpretation
A
is
selectively
action.
heard
as
Throughout
modulated
third party
might
and
answered
make
with
an
use of highly
argumentative
sggravatcd
forms of opposition.
Once disagreement
has begun.
to move towads
reconciliation
is explicitly
rgectcd.
himself
have effected
tation.
Finally.
when,
after
another
erroneous
participants
one
exposed
a new “round”
with
a compromise.
regard
sequence
instead
to the content
of disagreement
other-correction
of argument
promotes
of this fragment
has
sequence
been
is enter-cd
next
rather
an attempt
The party
further
bq a
u ho
argumen-
we can notice
closed.
than
that
as in line
43.
into in lines 48 and 49. as
begins.
8. Conclusion
Garvey
(1977:43)
has
noted
that
conventions
that guide sequencing
tion exchanges”
(Garvey 1977:43)
have
been
utterances
found
within
to be characteristic
in the absence
of children’s
of “ justifications”
habe, however,
of a position
conversation
moves. Cycles
or “repetitions”
Levinson
in conversation
try to avoid
1978: 118) and conversation
play
with
the
disputes.
Such
recyclings
of
(as distinguished
from recyclings
been reported
to be ;I dispriferrcd
or thesis)
among adults
procedure
for constructin, 0 arguments
in discourse
analysis
have generally
considered
speakers
children
of “ assertion~counter-asscr(Brenneis
and Lein 1977:X)
(Labov
analysts
and
(Coulter
lY79). Researchers
disagreement
Fanshel
have argued
something
1977:84;
that
Brown
and
self-correction
is preferred
as the outcome
in repair sequences
(Schegloff
et al. 1977). Within
children’s
conversation,
however,
aggravated
disagreement
are activities
that
by features such
participants
work to achieve in their own right, as evidenced
as intonation
contours.
turn shapes and patterning
in sequences
display rather than put off the expression
of opposition.
of talk which
Appendix
The
following
is a simplified
version of the system for transcribing
utterances
Only those
symbols
developed
by Jefferson
(Sacks
et al. 1974:731-733).
relevant
to the present analysis are included.
1 Sryuencin~
//
Iristcuwc
P: THAT
LADY
GONNA
BEAT
[
YOUR
,‘/
BUTT!
5’: I WANT1’: THAT LADY
BEAT
current
lapped
GONNA
YOUK
BUTT!
[
S:
.Exyltrnutior~
Double
obliques
or brackets
indicate
the point at which a
I WANT-
speaker’s
talk
is ovcr-
with the talk of another.
676
C‘:
Johnny’s
0 range.
(0.0)
bike
is
=
D: = Gol:d.
between
A:
start of a next piece of talk.
Numbers
in parentheses
indi-
Donchu
got
a
bike
the end of a prior
cate elapses
seconds.
Shuron.
(0.3)
2. Sound
‘) I.,.
The
equal
signs
indicate
“latching”;
there is no interval
time
and
in tenths
of
B: Yes.
Production
A: Oh what’s his name.
C: Is Johnny’s bike orange,
Punctuation
used
markers
but
for
ing intonation.
r:un-
nin,
Q: Gol::d.
Itulics
P:
The): ain’t Spanish,
whwh- what
0
B:
(0.5)
and
indicate
is prolonged.
was he &in,
the prior
Multiple
indicate
syllable.
a
Italics
indicates
various
and
talk
more
proforms
may
involve
volume.
indicates
prior word
The degree
the
“ Really?
that
colons
longed
and/or
marks
intonation.
syllabic
The dash
A
falling-ris-
Question
Colons
pitch
we was-
for
for rising
of stressing.
C: And
intonation.
is used
are used
You was up there
A period
falling
comma
not
symbols.
intonation.
indicates
C:
are
as grammatical
a cut-off
or sound.
sign indicates
it precedes
of
that
is low
in
voiume.
UC
P:
They
TALK
POKtaric-
c‘: So you
would
twenty five cents
(hh)
Upper
case
indicates
increased
volume.
can.
so(h
spend
fo(hh)r
The
[ (h) ] within
indicates
either
grits,
parentheses
explosive
laughter
or
aspiration.
breathless-
ness.
3. Rwderk
(
guides
P: (take
1
Single
my place)
parentheses
transcribers
about words
((
1)
D: ((chanting))
againstagainst
Two
Two
two we M’on.
are
not
contained
indicate
certain
therein.
Materials
in double
parentheses indicate
features
of the
audio
materials
tual verbalizations.
other
than
ac-
677
References
Brenneis,
D.
and
L.
diaputcs’.
In:
Academic
Press.
Brown,
Levinx~n.
ed., Question\
Umversity
Coulter,
Press.
J., 1979.
Iirvin-‘fripp,
Harvey,
1976.
1977.
Sybil
Play.
E., lY71.
Relations
Goodwm,
M.H.,
Guntcr,
actl\ity.
1982.
K.. 1974.
M.A.K.
Jefferson,
G..
G.,
first
of
phenomena‘.
In: EN.
C’ambrldge:
C‘ambrldge
MS.
some
Univzraltv
IL:
Basic
York:
Amerxan
t-nglish
Dlrectlves
of dispute
Press.
Hooks.
Basic
formal
Books.
cultural
procedures
for
the
construction
of a
7:674&695.
management
Columbia,
among
urban
SC‘: Hornbeam
1976. Cohesion
in:
In Fngllih.
D. Sudno\*,
and embedded
black
chlldl-en
American
Press.
London:
ed.. Studies
correctIon
on conversation
1977.
analysis,
Therapeutic
thought
I.ongman.
in social
Interxtlon.
m convuwtlon.
human
dissertation.
ed..
Press.
H.. 1973.
Neu
York:
Paper
InteractIon
and
pre\cnted
at the
ethnomethociology.
Current
H., E.A.
Schegloff
EA.,
G.
Dibrsion
M. 1974.
Sociologxal
Speech
the
in the
research
and
G. Jefferson.
Language
Nek
and
H.
Sacks,
styles
American
Arnrrru~n
Sciences,
Umversltv
of C’alifornia.
Irvine.
of multiple
constwnts’.
of con\ersatlonal
interaction.
Neu
and
of related
pitch
an associate
interet
the preference
Inrtltute.
A simplest
Ann
for agreement.
Arbor.
systematica
include
1977.
The
preference
Language
53: 361-382.
contours
on negatives.
Souological
(b. 1944) received
Articles
Kc ‘I’rubner.
on the co-operation
Summer
1974.
Goodwn
clvldrcn’,
Paul
of agreements/dl.\agre~menth.
York:
Paper
MI.
for the org,miration
of
50:696-735.
m conversation.
She IS presently
for the construction
as conversation.
Kegan
features
analysis:
of America
55: Supplement
Carolmd.
of Social
notes
organization
Association
MLITJOTIL,Hurne.rs
London:
of wnx
in conversatmn
Society
Jefferson
of repair
meetingsof
a study
responses:
Studies
m conversation.
organuation
p\qchotherapy
pp. 79% 112.
at the Lmguistic
turn-taking
dwzour\e:
of the chrld.
assessments:
1978. ‘Comphment
J. Schenkeln,
presented
and
Second
doctoral
A..
Pennsylvania.
York:
Press.
A.. lY75.
Academic
Yeagcr,
polltenw
Interaction.
sequences.
structure
Ethnologist
sequences’.
J., 1926. The language
Schegloff,
New
ln dialogue.
D. Fanshel.
Unpublished
Sacks,
in pubhc.
K. Hasan,
conference
Academic
Pomcrantz.
Sack\,
chlldrcn’a
NCM
SC.
Pomeranv.
In:
Harvard
Chicago.
197X. On exposed
W. and
Piaget,
to
d~wourse.
pp. 294-338.
Columbia,
York:
MA:
ritual.
Pro~chws
Sentences
and
working
Labov,
the
American
1972. ‘Side
Press.
Jefferson,
approach
Child
Y:76-Yb.
Halllday,
Free
usage:
in social
of argument
19X0. He-saitl-she-said:
,MH..
in language
strategies
there“ “ :
Cambridge,
Goffman,
!zthnologiit
edh..
5.1~ 12X.
lnteractlon
GoodwIn,
pohteness:
properties
“1s
E., 1967.
dispute
a sociolrngul\tlc
MItchelI-Kernan.
1978 ‘Umversala
Goffnran,
gossip
fruithead” .
C.
pp. 56-289.
in Society
C,
‘“You
and
and
Elementary
S..
Language
1977.
pp. 49-65.
P. and SC.
Goody.
Lein.
S. Ervin-Tripp
Association,
New
for
Paper
York.
self-correction
presented
Journal
111 the
at the Sprtng
of
the
Amcram
543.
her doctorate
professor
’ Procease~
E~hnolo~~rr
9:76-96
(1982)
of a gossip
dispute
activity’,
in anthropology
in anthropology
of dispute
management
and ‘He-wd-\he-said:
AmerrCun
from
E~hnoiogi.\r
the Unrversity
at the University
formal
7.674-695
among
cultural
of
of South
urban
black
procedures
(1980).