Gramley, Stephan; P?tzold, Kurt-Michael. A Survey of Modern English

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

etc. and be disappointed when none of these things happen. For exclamations, there is

the famous case of Henry II’s apocryphal utterance, ‘Will nobody rid me of this turbu-

lent priest?’ This may have been no more than an angry exclamation (in question

form), but some of his knights took it to be an order and went to Canterbury and killed

Thomas à Becket. Henry may, of course, have deliberately exploited the illocutionary

indeterminacy of his exclamation so as to claim later that he had not given an order. This

ambiguity explains why it is sometimes necessary to point out explicitly how the H is

meant to understand an utterance, e.g. an added I was only joking or this is an order.

These phrases prove the general point that meaning is an interactive category: it is the

H who at any given time determines the meaning of utterances, not the S, though the S

may be more explicit in a later contribution to the conversation. This has been called the

hearer-knows-best principle and applies to the interpretation of spoken discourse just

as much as to literary works.

7.2.2 Conversational principles

Searle has said that to derive the meaning of indirect speech acts such as Can you pass

the salt? Ss need ‘a theory of speech acts, a theory of conversation, factual background

information, and general powers of rationality and inference’(1969: 176). In his seminal

article of 1975 Grice sets out to explain the inference process through which Ss derive

meaning from H utterances. He starts from the basic assumption that people work together

to achieve some goal in a conversation. This cooperative principle manifests itself in

certain consequences, which he summarizes in four ‘maxims’.

1 Quantity:

(i) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current

purposes of the exchange).

(ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

2 Quality:

(i) Do not say what you believe to be false.

(ii) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

3 Relation: Be relevant.

4 Manner:

(i) Avoid obscurity of expression.

(ii) Avoid ambiguity.

(iii) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

(iv) Be orderly.

(ibid.: 46)

There are, of course, activities in which these maxims apply only in a limited way,

e.g. discussion between enemies, political speeches, press conferences or police inter-

rogations. Parliaments which allow ﬁlibustering clearly suspend maxims 3 (‘Be relevant’)

and 4 (‘Be brief’). Grice recognizes that Ss can choose not to stick to the maxims, and

172 USES AND USERS OF ENGLISH

therefore his point is rather that ‘people will interpret what we say as conforming to the

maxims on at least some level’ (Levinson 1983: 103). Take this example, which seems

to be in breach of the maxim of quantity (‘Be informative’), since it is obvious from the

answer that B is also aware of the low temperature:

A: Cold in here, isn’t it?

B: Okay, I’ll shut the window.

A’s utterance is apparently not informative because it contains no new information

for B. According to Grice, B will interpret A’s utterance as implying that A wants B to

do something about the low temperature, in fact, that A is uttering some sort of request.

This is the obvious interpretation when B assumes A to be relevant despite surface appear-

ances. Here is a further example involving the maxim of relevance:

A: Can you tell me the time?

B: Well, the milkman has come.

The chain of inference is described by Levinson as follows:

Assume B’s utterance is relevant; if it’s relevant then given that A asked a question,

B should be providing an answer; the only way one can reconcile the assumption

that B is co-operatively answering A’s question with the content of B’s utterance is

to assume that B is not in a position to provide the full information, but thinks that

the milkman’s coming might provide A with the means of deriving a partial answer.

Hence A may infer that B intends to convey that the time is at least after whenever

the milkman normally calls.

(Levinson 1983: 107)

According to Grice’s inference scheme, therefore, Hs usually make the assumption that

though Ss seem to be breaking the cooperative principle, at a deeper level they are not

doing so. Grice’s maxims are to be understood as a device to move from what people

say to what they really mean. It can be doubted whether inference sequences like the

second one above take place very frequently. In the Cold in here, isn’t it? example a

scheme like Grice’s becomes unnecessary when the conversational inference becomes a

conventional one.

Although the Gricean principle with its associated maxims can be useful in selecting

and rejecting possible readings of utterances, it does not address the question of why

speakers are so often indirect in expressing what they have in mind. To go back to

Cold in here, isn’t it?, why does A not say Could you close the window? or even Close

the window!? The answer seems to be that A wants to get B to do something and to be

polite at the same time, and so chooses a form of expression which does not impose

on B too much, thus giving B a certain freedom to react to this veiled order. A could

have been more informative, but only at the cost of being rude to B. In this case, as in

many others, the politeness principle overrules the cooperative principle with its four

maxims, including the quality maxim. Other examples include white lies (I’m terribly

sorry but we’ve got something on already tonight), which can be used to avoid having to

do something without giving offence. As Leech points out, the more indirect a speech act

1111

1011

4111

20111

5111

30111

40111

47111

SPOKEN DISCOURSE 173

is, the more polite it tends to be, because indirect speech acts ‘increase the degree of

optionality, and . . . because the more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and

tentative its force tends to be’ (1983: 108). He lists these examples (in increasing order

of indirectness and politeness): Answer the phone; I want you to answer the phone; Will

you answer the phone?; Can you answer the (tele)phone?; Would you mind answering

the phone?; Could you possibly answer the phone? (ibid.).

Irony is also sometimes linked to the politeness principle: in cases where one cannot

avoid giving offence one should at least do it in a way that does not obviously clash with

the politeness principle. Fixed expressions like That’s all I need (‘Why did this have to

happen to me?’) or that’s a ﬁne/pretty kettle of ﬁsh (‘a messy, confusing situation’) clearly

mean the opposite of what they seem to be saying and thus go against the quality maxim.

As there is often no reason why speakers should not be cooperative, the obvious

explanation is that they say untrue things to save the politeness principle. This comes out

even more clearly where the ironic expression is a comment on people and their actions,

e.g. You’re a real genius (= ‘You’re an idiot’) or How brilliant! (‘How stupid’). It has

to be admitted, however, that avoiding the offending terms does not mitigate the strong

impression on the part of the H that the S thinks he or she is the one who is wiser and

superior to the H – an implication no doubt resented by H.

The politeness principle can account for some of the S-choices that Grice’s maxims

do not explain – as can other principles not discussed here (for example the charity prin-

ciple ‘Construe the speaker’s remarks so as to violate as few maxims as possible’ and

the morality maxim ‘Ss should not do things, or make Hs do things, that they ought not

to’ mentioned in Bach and Harnish 1979: 68). But neither speech act theory nor the various

inference schemes seem to be able to explain how utterances that can have many mean-

ings in isolation come to have only one in a particular context. It has been said of the

example Cold in here, isn’t it that it can be an indirect request to close the door, but, as

Sadock points out, it is inﬁnitely ﬂexible: ‘But it can also convey a request to open a door

or to bring a blanket or to pay a gas bill. In fact it’s difﬁcult to think of a request that

the utterance could not convey in the right context’(1978: 286). It should be added,

however, that the speech context (or co-text) often constrains the interpretations that can

be put on an utterance (see 7.4.1. on the concept of the adjacency pair).

7.3 CONVERSATIONAL INTERACTION

Every utterance in a conversation has a double status. Seen from the point of view of

speaker meaning, it expresses what the S has in mind; seen from the point of view of the

interaction between conversational partners, it is a move in the conversational game that

S and H jointly play. In this section we will discuss some aspects of the interactional

structure of conversations, basing our treatment on Edmondson (1981) and Edmondson

and House (1981).

Conversations are made up of encounters, which can be divided up into phases, which,

in turn, consist of at least one exchange. Exchanges have two or more moves, which

themselves consist of one or more acts.

174 USES AND USERS OF ENGLISH

7.3.1 Encounters

Encounters are the highest unit of conversational structure. It is usual to distinguish three

phases within them: an opening phase, a central phase in which the main business of the

respective encounter is dealt with, and a closing phase. While conversational partners are

fairly free to negotiate the topics for the substantial part of the encounter, they are much

more restricted in the choice of things that can be mentioned in the opening and closing

phases, which are marked by a high degree of conventionality.

7.3.2 Phases

Openings The opening phase consists of exchanges in which the partners in a poten-

tial conversation acknowledge one another’s presence, decide whether they want to

enter into a longer conversation and explore whether the other person is available for

conversation. There are three types of expressions that can be used as openers: expres-

sions directed to the other (Sleep well?; Have a good journey?); self-oriented expressions

(Before I forget; Thirsty work this); and neutral remarks (on the weather etc.) In non-

solidary encounters where the social status of speakers differs, social superiors will use

other-oriented expressions while social inferiors produce self-oriented ones. This is so

because social inferiors ‘are not allowed to invade the psychological world of the superior,

as this would infringe the status rules which hold between them’ (Cheepen and Monaghan

1990: 33). However many conversations are also started with shared world tokens,

expressions which are both self- and other-oriented (e.g. Excuse me; Sorry to bother you;

I’ve been longing to meet you).

Encounters can be divided into transactional encounters, which have some business

other than a simple social meeting (a job interview, a loan application, a purchase of

some kind), and interactional encounters, whose sole purpose is the establishment and

conﬁrmation of social bonds. In both types the exchange of greetings belongs to the pre-

opening phase. On the other hand, while small talk (about the weather, a new dress or

car, the behaviour of the cat/dog, or the height of a child) provides the topics in inter-

actional encounters, it must be regarded as a pre-topic in transactional encounters, which

move on to the real purpose of the encounter in the central phase. In interactional encoun-

ters with strangers, the opening phase involves a gradual, step-by-step disclosing of and

request for more or less personal details about the other person, for example, where they

live, come from, went to school etc., after which the conversation can move on to matters

of mutual interest such as ﬁlms, restaurants, a foreign country, a book, ﬂying experiences,

hobbies etc. Topic changes are frequent and usual. People not only direct their efforts in

the opening stage towards establishing common ground by choosing safe topics, but also

refrain from introducing controversial ideas or from disagreeing with their interlocutor,

who might feel threatened. This is again in keeping with the general maxim that one

should support the H. Disagreements or contradictions, if they come up at all, tend to be

introduced by appropriate softening devices or will be kept back until a later stage in the

encounter when enough common ground and mutual goodwill have been established.

Endings As a conversation is nearing its end, participants often make a comment about

the quality of the current encounter (it’s been nice talking to you or it was nice meeting

1111

1011

4111

20111

5111

30111

40111

47111

SPOKEN DISCOURSE 175

you) and refer to possible future meetings. Phrases such as I mustn’t keep you; I’d better

let you go; I’m afraid I must get back to work are used in order not to appear too ready

to close the encounter. It can be difﬁcult to get out of boring or unproductive conversa-

tions, so that you might have to use strong signals like standing up or tidying up the scene

of action, which will bring the conversation to its end even if your partner should not

want to ﬁnish it just yet. As the ending of conversations is also a cooperative undertaking,

both must agree to stop, usually by using such tokens as right (then), okay or hesitations

and references to some other topic or activity. It is only in extreme cases that you leave

using a direct excuse like Sorry, I’ve got to run or Sorry, I must rush. In this situation

there is rarely the time, or the desire, to reassure the other that you like his/her company

and looks forward to renewing the contact (I hope we’ll meet again; hope to see you

again soon; I’ll be in touch; or I’ll write soon). It is also quite common to ﬁnd pre-ﬁnal

side sequences, in which an earlier topic is brieﬂy mentioned again. Final goodbyes

come in various forms depending on the tenor of the social relationship of the speakers,

e.g. (good)bye now, so long, cheerio, see you, be seeing you etc.

It should be stressed that many of the speech acts mentioned, though they may appear

banal and trivial at one level, are an important part of the social competence of all native

speakers. This becomes immediately apparent when you come across someone who does

not make the appropriate social noises. Some people do not feel like engaging in small

talk, either because they think it silly or because they are not aware that it is expected of

them. Such people are likely to be perceived as strange and difﬁcult, if not unfriendly or

threatening.

Central phase While some research has been carried out into the boundary

sequences (openings and closings), not much has been done on the central section of

conversations. Cheepen and Monaghan 1990, however, have found that the central phase

in interactional encounters (which they call conversation) consists of two main elements,

speech-in-action and stories. Speech-in-action occurs at, or near, the beginning of an

encounter and consists of comments by the participants on various aspects of their immed-

iate environment. Comments on the nature of the social encounter (e.g. how nice to see

you) are less common than those which relate to objects and conditions that are observ-

able by the participants (such as the weather, the scenery, pet animals, the speakers

themselves; see the discussion on openings above). Speech-in-action functions ‘as a base

for the telling of story, to which the speakers refer between instances of story, and from

which the bulk of new conversational topics arise’ (ibid.: 45).

Stories are extended stretches of speech and consist of more than one turn. Stories

can feature the storyteller (this has been called a recount), or can focus on other

people (narrative) or a specially remarkable event (anecdote), and can have a particular

moral point (exemplum). At the workplace, anecdotes, recounts and exemplums (in this

order) are more frequent in casual conversation than other forms like jokes, comments,

observations or opinions. There are marked gender differences: men’s stories tend to be

about a ‘hero’ overcoming a particular difﬁculty, while women are more likely to tell

anecdotes that involve embarrassing, humiliating or worrying situations. While male

stories are calculated to elicit admiration, women’s stories provoke laughter.

In telling stories, special care must be taken by Ss because other participants are likely

to break in at possible ﬁnishing points. Storytellers therefore often get permission to tell

a story by using a story preface (e.g. you know what happened to me this morning?

176 USES AND USERS OF ENGLISH

or have you heard the one about x?). Ss must ensure that stories ﬁt well into the conver-

sation and are clearly marked off from other talk. They can achieve this by using a disjunct

marker (e.g. oh) to indicate that what follows is not directly related to the preceding

utterance and/or by repeating a word, phrase etc. which links the following story to

earlier talk. The stories themselves tend to have clearly marked beginnings and endings

and some general point or message. Speech-in-action is used to bring the listeners

back to the present time so that other Ss can then tell their stories, which often show simi-

larities (in content, speciﬁcation, moral) to the preceding story – another instance of

hearer support in operation. This telling of parallel narratives enhances the point of the

ﬁrst story and thus achieves a shared world view, perhaps the most important function

of conversations.

Stories generally have the structure of state–event–state, i.e. they narrate an event,

which arises out of a particular state and which brings about a change in the world, a

new state. Stories in naturally occurring conversation are speciﬁcally about clearly deﬁned

human beings, are told in dialogue form and allow participants to agree on evaluations,

which contribute to social bonding between co-conversationalists, which is the ultimate

goal of interactional encounters. As participants can take control of the conversation at

different times, they feel they are equals, which is another condition for good social

relationships.

The main body of the conversation can also contain passages in which conversational

trouble arises. Sometimes this is overt and has to do with the wrong choice or the mis-

understanding of lexical items, which temporarily interrupt the smooth ﬂow of conver-

sation and bring about side sequences. More serious trouble is covert and arises either

because one or more of the participants feel threatened in their conversational status

or because of a failure to agree on an evaluation. This trouble can be repaired by a

negative evaluation sequence of a highly exaggerated nature, in which all speakers make

comments on, for example, an absent person. This scapegoat repair helps speakers

to create unity and harmony again. After a scapegoat repair speakers often move back to

an earlier topic (this is called a topic loop). Presumably even more effective in re-

establishing good relationships are delayed repairs in which conversational trouble is

put aside until a later stage in the conversation, when it can be ﬁtted into some earlier

topic and dealt with in such a way that the offended parties are reconciled and inter-

actional harmony restored. Both side sequences and the sequence trouble – repair – topic

re-run/topic loop show that naturally occurring conversation is not an unstructured

activity, as has often been asserted, but that conversations have a goal and that conver-

sationalists monitor closely the way conversations develop and try to ﬁnd the right

moment for what they want to say.

7.3.3 Exchanges

A phase consists of one or more head exchanges, in which the main business is trans-

acted. Related but less important matters are dealt with in minor exchanges, which occur

before or after the head exchange. These pre- and post-exchanges are optional, although

it is not uncommon to ﬁnd more than one such subordinate exchange, especially in the

case of post-exchanges.

1111

1011

4111

20111

5111

30111

40111

47111

SPOKEN DISCOURSE 177

Pre-exchanges Pre-exchanges have various functions; for example, they introduce

a topic (I’ve got a bit of a problem) or seek advance commitment (Could you do me a

favour? or Could you spare a moment?). They are also commonly employed by Ss to

check on possible objections by Hs before they make their main move:

pre-exchange A: Have you got anything on tonight?

B: No, not really.

head exchange A: Well, would you like to go to the cinema?

B: I’d love to.

A can be sure that, whatever else B may come up with, B will at least not be able to say

that he or she has other plans. If B had answered in the positive, A might well not have

invited B in order to avoid the danger of being turned down. The beneﬁts of pre-exchanges

are, however, not all on S’s side: B is also spared the potentially embarrassing situation

of having to turn down an invitation. This example also shows that pre-exchanges lead

directly to head (or other) exchanges and that the S who initiates a pre-exchange also

produces the ﬁrst move in the directly following (head) exchange.

While Ss use pre-exchanges in order not to be turned down, Hs use them before they

commit themselves one way or another (this is called a pre-responding exchange):

A: Have you got anything on tonight?

B: Why do you want to know?

Post-exchanges Post-exchanges, on the other hand, conﬁrm or make more precise

the outcome of a preceding exchange. Examples with more than one post-exchange are

quite frequent (A and B have just reached a solution to a baby-sitting problem):

A: . . . I’ll bring my friend round tonight.

B: Yeah okay.

A: What time would you like?

B: Oh any time about eight thirty’ll be ﬁne.

A: Oh, yes alright ﬁne. Well, I’ll bring her round tonight.

B: Yeah.

(adapted from Edmondson 1981: 102)

This example shows that post-exchanges are often employed to bridge the central or

business and closing phases of an encounter. Here the ﬁrst post-exchange conﬁrms the

outcome reached in the preceding conversation, while the second settles a detail of the

outcome and the third closes the conversational encounter. We can therefore say that post-

exchanges can be either substantial (the second exchange in the example) or ritual

(exchanges one and three), where the outcome of the exchange is the same as that of the

previous exchange.

So far we have dealt with one way of linking head exchanges to pre- or post-exchanges,

that of subordination. Edmondson also proposes a second type, that of coordination, which

takes either the form of chaining or of reciprocation. The following question-answer

sequence illustrates the chaining process:

178 USES AND USERS OF ENGLISH

A: Well, can you prescribe anything for the allergy?

B: Does it itch at all?

A: Yes, it itches quite a lot.

B: Do you get scabs forming on it . . .?

A: No.

B: Hm hum. It’s just on your face and hands, is it?

A: And my arms.

B: And your arms. Is it on any other place of the body?

A: Well, it’s spreading, yeah.

B: Well, I think I can prescribe some ointment for you . . .

(adapted from Edmondson 1981: 110)

This question-answer sequence shows all the conditions for chaining: the exchanges all

have a common topic, a skin problem; the information asked for by the doctor could have

been got in one block question which would have contained all the other questions; the

pre-responding exchanges are of the same type (question-answer), and B’s intentions are

the same in all the exchanges (eliciting information).

Reciprocation is commonly found in small talk, where the partners to a conversation

are nice to each other, asking about one another’s health (How are you?. . . And how are

you?), volunteering information about themselves etc. Reciprocal exchanges illustrate

again the hearer support principle, can be started by either partner and can appear in

chained sequences.

7.3.4 Moves

Exchanges consist of two or more head moves, in which at least one partner in the conver-

sation engages in talk in order to achieve some result. Once this goal is obtained, the

participants can either embark on a new exchange or end their conversation. It is the

conversational goals by which exchanges are deﬁned while the individual moves are char-

acterized by the role they play in reaching these conversational goals. We will distinguish

the head moves initiate, satisfy, counter and contra and three supporting moves, namely

grounders, disarmers and expanders.

Head moves In the simplest case, an exchange consists of two moves only, a stim-

ulus and a response: S initiates a conversation and H reacts positively to this move. The

move that gets the conversation going is an initiate, and the H’s positive reaction to it is

a satisfy:

A: Excuse me, could you tell me the time?

B: It’s half past three.

Moves need not always be realized, as is the case with B’s satisfy in the next example:

A: Have you got coffee to go?

B: Milk and sugar?

A: Yes, please.

1111

1011

4111

20111

5111

30111

40111

47111

SPOKEN DISCOURSE 179

This example can be made explicit as follows:

A: Initiate

B: [Satisfy;] Initiate

A: Satisfy

The positive answer, the satisfy to A’s initiate, remains unspoken; otherwise, B’s ques-

tion, the second initiate, would not make sense. On the other hand, just as a satisfy can

be omitted, whole sequences may be added in an exchange before the outcome is achieved.

Another way of responding to an initiate is with a refusal, either a ﬁnal or a provi-

sional one. The ﬁrst, called contra, realizes an ultimate reaction in the negative, and it

is quite possible to ﬁnd exchanges with more than one contra, as in

Initiate A: Coming to Alan’s party tonight?

Contra B: ’Fraid I can’t, I have to ﬁnish this essay.

Initiate A: But the whole gang are coming.

Contra B: Sorry, I really must hand it in ﬁrst thing tomorrow morning.

Initiate A: What a shame, we specially asked Susan to come along for you.

Contra B: Yeah, well, I’d love to come but I really can’t.

Satisfy A: Oh well, some other time then.

B maintains his/her contra until the exchange is eventually closed by A, who takes back

his/her initiate by offering a satisfy to B’s third contra.

The second negative move, the counter, is valid only for a certain time and is taken

back in the course of the exchange:

Initiate A: I think we should invite the whole family.

Counter B: Oh God their kids are so loutish.

Satisfy A: Yeah I agree they’re pretty horrible – but

Initiate you know – they did put up with our lot last time.

Satisfy B: Oh God alright – invite them then – and the bloody dog.

(adapted from Edmondson and House 1981: 40–1)

B’s ﬁrst reaction is provisional (a counter), not a contra, because it is taken back in B’s

second contribution. Note also that although A agrees with B’s counter (i.e. satisﬁes it),

A does not give up her/his initiate. Contrast the following exchange, in which again B’s

ﬁrst reaction must be classiﬁed as a counter:

Initiate A: I think we should invite the whole family.

Counter B: Oh God the kids are so loutish.

Contra A: Oh come on – they’re not that bad.

Satisfy B: Yeah perhaps you’re right – but even so – I

Contra don’t want to have to cook for the whole family – I’ll be

exhausted.

Satisfy A: Oh well – if you feel like that about it – let’s forget the whole

business.

(adapted from Edmondson and House 1981: 40–1)

180 USES AND USERS OF ENGLISH

Here A gives up her/his initiate in the last move, thus offering a satisfy to B’s contra of

the preceding move. A counter is, then, only a provisional negative reaction, and it also

differs from a contra in its potential consequences. First (as in the ﬁrst example of a

counter above), the acceptance of a counter does not necessarily mean that the S who

offers a satisfy to a counter takes back the initiate. Second, as in the second example of

a counter, if the counter is met with a contra and the S who has produced the counter

goes on to take back this counter, i.e. produces a satisfy to the other’s contra, this does

not necessarily mean that he or she accepts the original initiate. It should also be noted

that a satisfy always refers to the immediately preceding move, and that while no exchange

can be closed by a move other than a satisfy, producing one does not always bring the

total exchange to an end. Thus there are, in the last two examples quoted above, two non-

closing satisfy’s, one responding to a counter and the other to a contra.

There seem to be very few restrictions on the order in which moves can follow on one

another. In theory, any move can be combined with any other move, with the exception

of the satisfy, which must follow on one of the other moves. There are, however, restric-

tions on the number of moves Ss can make in any one contribution. The normal turn

(see 7.4.1) consists of one of the moves mentioned so far. Ss can make more than one

move in any given turn only if their ﬁrst move is the satisfy of a counter or contra. After

the satisfy of an initiate, however, there is again competition between both participants,

i.e. either speaker can make a move. Change of speaker within the exchange is thus deter-

mined by interactional structure, but conversationalists are free to negotiate whose turn

it is outside the exchange structure.

Supporting moves The basic move inventory is to be distinguished from supporting

moves, which are relevant, but subsidiary to head moves. Their function is deﬁned in

terms of their semantic relationship to head moves. Grounders give reasons for (conver-

sational) behaviour; disarmers are used to apologize for a possible offence before it is

committed; and expanders provide more than the absolute bare minimum of information

asked for. Whether speakers make use of these moves depends on how they view the

situation, and in particular on how appropriate, or necessary, they think them for their

conversational goals. Though supporting moves are thus partly a matter of speaker

strategy, there are strong social pressures which make their use almost obligatory. Normal

politeness would require speakers to produce reasons for requests, or to apologize for

potential offences. Indeed, speakers may well feel they have to use more than one of these

supporting moves, e.g. grounders in this example:

The woman stopped at her husband’s shoulder. ‘If the king of kings is ready it’s high

time we were going. Cathy’s had quite enough sun for one day and the tide’s coming

in fast. And we’re late for tea already.’

A nice voice, less reﬁned than the expression, with affection taking all the sting

out of the marching order.

(A. Price (1977) Our Man in Camelot,

Sevenoaks, p. 23)

Apart from showing the importance of non-verbal means (affection) in interaction, the

last example also illustrates that Ss employ supporting moves strategically to anticipate

possible wishes, doubts, questions or hesitations by H with respect to a head move.

1111

1011

4111

20111

5111

30111

40111

47111

SPOKEN DISCOURSE 181