1.3 Core Section 3: Participants’ orientation to actions
We have said that actions in talk are sequential, and that one action follows another. Respondents next actions show an orientation to the action done in the previous turn. This means that a next speaker may produce a relevant co-ordinated next action.
In the extract below, a Health Visitor (HV) makes an observation about a new born baby and ends this with a tag question. Tag questions (isn’t it?, hasn’t she? won’t it?) invite agreement and affiliation with the associated observation. And this is just what happens below:
We have said that actions in talk are sequential, and that one action follows another. Respondents next actions show an orientation to the action done in the previous turn. This means that a next speaker may produce a relevant co-ordinated next action.
In the extract below, a Health Visitor (HV) makes an observation about a new born baby and ends this with a tag question. Tag questions (isn’t it?, hasn’t she? won’t it?) invite agreement and affiliation with the associated observation. And this is just what happens below:
Text 10a
Heritage & Sefi (1994:367) [4A1:1] The baby is presumably sucking or chewing on something.
Heritage & Sefi (1994:367) [4A1:1] The baby is presumably sucking or chewing on something.
The father (F) does agreement, and upgrades the assessment, ‘he certainly is’.
So, participants’ may orient to the action by producing the expected next action.
Of course, this doesn’t always happen. If we look at the next turn in the extract above, we see mother (M) producing a very different next action.
So, participants’ may orient to the action by producing the expected next action.
Of course, this doesn’t always happen. If we look at the next turn in the extract above, we see mother (M) producing a very different next action.
Text 10b
Her assessment, ‘he’s not hungry’ and the account that follows (‘he’s just had his bottle’) treats HV’s turn not as an observation/assessment but as a potential criticism (implying that the baby’s is enjoying chewing on something because he’s hungry).
Remember the data we looked at earlier, where the daughter complains about the state of the house? Her complaint invited an empathic or affiliative response, which recognises the complaint-worthiness of the matter, such as the following (made up) response:
Remember the data we looked at earlier, where the daughter complains about the state of the house? Her complaint invited an empathic or affiliative response, which recognises the complaint-worthiness of the matter, such as the following (made up) response:
Extract 11a
5 C: pffouh I’m fed up↑ with this house
6 M: yes, it’s awful isn’t it
5 C: pffouh I’m fed up↑ with this house
6 M: yes, it’s awful isn’t it
But instead, M orients to the complainable matter (the leak in the bathroom) but downgrades its complainable status rather than empathising.
Extract 11b
5 C: pffouh I’m fed up↑ with this house
6 M: oh well it’s only water (.) I mean
5 C: pffouh I’m fed up↑ with this house
6 M: oh well it’s only water (.) I mean
C in her turn orients to M’s ‘not appreciating the problem’, with an upgraded and more detailed description of what is complaint-worthy – there is always a leak in the bathroom. Here, then, M orients to the problem and her daughter’s complaint-building but with a ‘not too bad’ response which doesn’t recognise the legitimacy of the complaint, and D orients to this by escalating the complainable matter.
Finally, we saw earlier in Drew’s court case how the witness (W) clearly orients to and rejects A’s version of events and how her version of events rejects the inference that there was interest or even intimacy between them.