Rebecca Clift

Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction

© Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift 2007 and Cambridge University Press, 2009. Reported speech, whereby we quote the words of others, is used in many different types of interaction. In this revealing study, a team of leading experts explore how reported speech is designed, the actions it is used to perform, and how it fits into the environments in which it is used. Using contemporary techniques of conversation analysis, the authors show how speech is reported in a wide range of contexts - including ordinary conversation, storytelling, news interviews, courtroom trials and medium-sitter interactions. Providing detailed analyses of reported speech in naturallyoccurring talk, the authors examine existing linguistic and sociological studies, and offer some insights into the phenomenon. Bringing together work from the most recent investigations in conversation analysis, this book will be invaluable to all those interested in the study of interaction, in particular how we report the speech of others, and the different forms this can take.

Inshallah: Religious invocations in Arabic topic transition

The phrase inshallah God willing is well known, even to non-Arabic speakers, as a mitigator of any statement regarding the future, or hopes for the future. Here we use the methods of conversation analysis (CA) to examine a less salient but nonetheless pervasive and compelling interactional usage: in topic-transition sequences. We use a corpus of Levantine (predominantly Syrian) Arabic talk-in-interaction to pay detailed attention to the sequential contexts of inshallah and its cognates across a number of exemplars. It emerges that these invocations are used to secure possible sequence and topic closure, and that they may engender reciprocal invocations. Topical talk following invocations or their responses is subsequently shown to be suspended by both parties; this provides for a move to a new topic by either party. (Arabic, religious expressions, conversation, conversation analysis, topic)* Copyright

Actions in Practice: On details in collections

Several of the contributions to the Lynch et al. Special issue make the claim that conversation-analytic research into epistemics is ‘routinely crafted at the expense of actual, produced and constitutive detail, and what that detail may show us’. Here, we seek to address the inappositeness of this critique by tracing precisely how it is that recognizable actions emerge from distinct practices of interaction. We begin by reviewing some of the foundational tenets of conversation-analytic theory and method – including the relationship between position and composition, and the making of collections – as these appear to be primary sources of confusion for many of the contributors to the Lynch et al. Special Issue. We then target some of the specific arguments presented in the Special Issue, including the alleged ‘over-hearer’s’ writing of metrics, the provision of so-called ‘alternative’ analyses and the supposed ‘crafting’ of generalizations in epistemics research. In addition, in light of Lynch’s more general assertion that conversation analysis (CA) has recently been experiencing a ‘rapprochement’ with what he disparagingly refers to as the ‘juggernaut’ of linguistics, we discuss the specific expertise that linguists have to offer in analyzing particular sorts of interactional detail. The article as a whole thus illustrates that, rather than being produced ‘at the expense of actual, produced and constitutive detail’, conversation-analytic findings – including its work in epistemics – are unambiguously anchored in such detail. We conclude by offering our comments as to the link between CA and linguistics more generally, arguing that this relationship has long proven to be – and indeed continues to be – a mutually beneficial one.

Who Knew?: A View from Linguistics

Heritage and Raymond’s groundbreaking paper (2005) not only opened up a whole investigative domain for students of interaction, but also, as these two subsequent papers (Heritage 2012a, 2012b; hereinafter EA and EE) show, has profound implications for work in the range of disciplines from which those students have traditionally emerged. As someone whose entry point was linguistics, I offer a few observations on possible ways in which this work has, to borrow a phrase of Gail Jefferson’s, “roughed up the ground” (2003, p. 221). It has, without doubt, achieved Evans and Levinson’s “highest level generalization” with unparalleled “empirical ‘bite’”—but, unlike much of linguistics, it does so by methodologically starting from the “bite,” not the generalization. Since a primary focus of EA is action, and of EE, the sequence, my comments cluster around these two broad areas.

Visible Deflation: Embodiment and Emotion in Interaction

This article identifies one embodied practice for implementing a recognizable action in interaction: what is here called “visible deflation.” This practice appears to embody a negative stance in response to a prior turn: one that is recognizable, and glossable, as “exasperation” in response to a prior turn. A number of instances of the practice captured in family interactions reveal how bodily resources are mobilized and organized with respect to the sequence of talk in which they are embedded; collectively they contribute to ongoing research in three domains: embodiment, the interactive construction of emotion, and family interaction. Data are in American and British English.

Lexical misunderstandings and prototype theory

This paper uses examples of conversational understandings, misunderstandings and non-understandings to explore the role of prototypes and schemata in conversational understanding. An investigation of the procedures by which we make sense of lexical items in utterances by fitting prototypes into schemata is followed by an examination of how schemata are instantiated across conversational sequences by means of topics. In interaction, conflicts over meaning illuminate the decisive role of social and cultural factors in understanding. Overall, understanding is seen to be critically dependent on principles of categorisation and contrast, which form the basis of both cognitive and sociocultural means of organisation.