Aligning as a team in multiparty conversation

ELSEVIER

J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (I 9 9 6 ) 2 9 1 - - 3 1 9

Aligning

as a team

in multiparty

conversation

e

Helena Kangasharju* Department

of Finno-Ugric Languages,

U p p s a l a U n i v e r s i t y , P . O . Bo_r 5 1 3 , U p p s a l a . S - 7 5 1 2 0 S w e d e n R e c e i v e d J u l y 1995

Abstract In multiparty conversation, participants can make references to various multi-person social units, whose members can be co-present individuals or outsiders. The participants in a conversation can also be members of different kinds of collectivities based on external ties (e.g. a family or a negotiating team). From the point of view of interactional analysis, associations are not significant until they are made relevant in the conversation. This article focuses on the analysis of one kind of occasion-specific c o l l e c t i v i t y , r e f e r r e d t o a s a t e a m , w h i c h is c r e a t e d i n s i d e a g r o u p . T h e c r e a t i o n o f t e a m s is f a v o r e d in i n t e r a c t i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t s where the participants are in some way divided into subgroups. One such environment is d i s a g r e e m e n t in m u l t i p a r t y c o n v e r s a t i o n . W h e n t h e r e is d i s a g r e e m e n t in a multiparty conversation, it i s t e m p t ing for the other participants to join one of the opposing sides. Thus, conflict within a group is a l s o o f t e n b e t w e e n t w o o p p o s i n g s i d e s . This article examines in detail the organization of a single interactional environment: the teaming up of two participants in a multiparty, institutional conversation in which a conflict has arisen. Firstly, I describe a range of practices that can be exploited in making visible the alignment of two participants in the interaction. I also analyze the practices that are simultaneously used to make visible disaffiliation with the opposing side. Secondly, I describe how the creation of a team affects the participation framework in the conversation and how the options offered by the participation framework are exploited in making the team visible. F i n a l l y , I d i s c u s s s o m e p r a c t i c e s f o r m a k i n g r e l e v a n t s o m e o t h e r t y p e s o f c o l l e c t i v i t y in c o n versation.

1. Introduction

: Interactional

teams

One characteristic of multiparty others or they can treat themselves conversationalists. This gives rise

conversation is that participants can be treated as part of a subgroup within the larger group to what could be variously called an alliance,

~ I a m i n d e b t e d t o A u l i H a k u l i n e n a n d J o h n H e r i t a g e . in p a r t i c u l a r , f o r m a n y c o m m e n t s d u r i n g the p r e p a r a t i o n o f this article. * E-mail: helena.kangasharju@ ling.su.se 0 3 7 8 - 2 1 6 6 / 9 6 / $ 1 5 . 0 0 C o p y r i g h t © 1996 E l s e v i e r S c i e n c e B . V . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d SSO1 0378-2166(95)00051-8

by of a

useful ideas and

292

H. KangashaJju

/ Journal ~" Pragmatics

26 (1996) 291-319

an association, an ensemble, or a team. In addition, those present can be members of various kinds of collectivities based on extra-interactional, pre-established relationships (e.g. a married couple or a football team), whose members can be co-present or not. These different kinds of associations may or may not become relevant units in the organization of talk: if someone speaks to or addresses someone else as a member of an association, the unit of participation in interaction may be widened from an individual participant to a multi-person unit. In this way, an association becomes a consequential social unit. Following Lerner (1993:214), I shall use the term association as a general, superordinate term, referring to all kinds of collectivities potentially available to the participants in a conversation, independently of whether or not relevance of the association has been interactionally established. The kind of association t h a t is o f relevance here is what I shall refer to as a team. A team is characterized by the fact that the participants explicitly act as an association making this association visible to the other participants. Teams can be based on extra-interactional relationships or they can emerge spontaneously in interaction. The latter have been specifically referred to as interactional teams (Lerner, 1987: 152), because establishing the relevance of an association in a conversation is always an interactional achievement: it is something t h a t is j o i n t l y c r e a t e d b y t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . The relevance of an incipient team can be established in several ways (cf. e.g. Lerner, 1993: 220ff.) which are based on the relationship between speakers and their addressed recipients. Firstly, participants can be addressed as an association. Secondly, a participant can speak as a representative of an association, or participants can speak in consecutive turns as an association. Thirdly, a speaker can confer with another participant as to the relevance of an association. Fourthly, an association can be referred to by someone who is not a member of the association. In earlier research (Kangasharju, 1991) I investigated the action of two-member teams in business negotiations, i.e. pre-established teams. The research indicated that the existence of a team could bring systematic turn and sequence types to conversation. On the basis of this, we can, to some extent, talk about team talk (see also Francis, 1986, and Lerner, 1987, 1993). Team talk means inter alia that members of the same team often continue, complete or repair each other's turns or they can take a turn on behalf of another member of the team. My attention in this article will be directed at interactional teams. There are conversational environments that favor the formation of such teains. These include situations where the participants are in some way divided into different or opposing sides. Opposing sides emerge naturally in competitive situations or in situations involving disagreement or conflict. However, opposition is n o t a p r e r e q u i s i t e for the formation of a team. A team can be formed when participants collaborate in the telling of news or a story or explain something together. Collaborative situations make it r e l e v a n t to distinguish between knowing and not-knowing recipients. According to Lenler (1987: 153), explainings and story-tellings provide systematic environments for teaming up, i.e. for co-explaining and co-telling. The emergence of a team can, in turn, have various kinds of procedural consequences for a conversation. For example, collaborative story-telling can lead to competition between the coalition,

H . K a n g a s h a l j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 2 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 2 91--319

293

story-tellers. It has been shown, for example, that married couples can use certain procedures to prevent competitive talk when they talk about something that is familiar to both (Goodwin, 1981: 158). There are also multiparty situations in which there are only two sides, since one of the sides is treated as a collectivity. In a classroom, a public speech or in a press conference, for example, one participant can treat all of the other participants as a collectivity. There are also situations in which a group of people can act as a collectivity, for example, an audience that responds with applause or laughter or a class of students who respond in chorus (see l_~rner, 1993). In all of these cases, the unit of participation in interaction is broadened from individual participants to a multi-person unit, and the collectivity may become a consequential social unit in the organization of talk. 1.1. Aligning

as a team

in conj7ict

situations

This article discusses a particular type of team: the association of participants in an institutional conversation involving conflict. In dealing with the conflict, two members of the group join up to support a certain position against an opposing position. The focus of the article is on the practices through which team members make the relevance of the team apparent to other participants in this kind of sequential environment. In such cases, the initiator of the team is a subsequent speaker who aligns with a previous speaker. A simplified version of the structure of the sequence to be analyzed is as follows: A B C A

Argument Counter-argument Endorsement of B Defense, Acquiescence,

Silence,

etc.

The sequence can be structurally more complex, but, from the point of view of the analysis, the most interesting is turn C, which endorses the previous speaker. This turn has its own special features. It is not a normal second pair part of an adjacency pair: the turn is taken by someone who was not addressed by the previous speaker and, although based on the previous turn, it is not a response t o it. C i s a n o t h e r counter-argument to A and it has the status of an optional turn; the sequence does not in any way presuppose or project the production of C and it would be complete without C. The position of C also seems to influence its linguistic form: if C is uttered immediately after B, its form often differs from the form it has when it occurs in a later position. It is not unusual for a C-type turn occurring immediately after a B to be a word-for-word repetition of B. The following is an example of repetition in connection with alignment as a team: j

text

The English as possible_

translation of the Finnish Transcription conventions

transcript is a free translation are given in the Appendix.

which

is as close

to the

source

294 Example

Helen Eva Vicky Lena

Helen Helen Eva Vicky Lena

Helen

H. Kan.~asha~ju / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 291

319

1

t/is o n m e i l n y p u o l t u n t i i m e n n y ei mit~iiin o l l a s a a t u a i k a s e k s . ---4 * n o o l l a a h a m e p / i / i s t y * , n o o l l a a h a m [e p~i/isty n a a , a i k a t a u l u t ( - - - ) l [o__:llaa m e p a l j o s a a t u a i k a s e k s ] (se o n j o v~h~t) ( - - - ) (.) .joo .hhh

--~ --~

we've been sitting here for half'n hour and got nothing done. *well after all we've got through*, well after all we'lve got through these, timetables (---)] [we've got lots of things done ] (it is a l r e a d y a l i t t l e ) ( - - - ) (.) .yeah .hhh

Repetition is o n e w a y o f i n d i c a t i n g agreement, although it c a n , o f c o u r s e , a l s o b e used for other purposes. Other ways of indicating agreement include assertions of agreement ('I think so'), agreement tokens ('yeah'), upgraded assessments and anticipatory completions of another speaker's turn (Lemer, 19 8 7 : 131 ff.). T h e s e d e v i c e s can also be used to display a team. W h i l e it i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o d r a w a s h a r p d i s t i n c t i o n between participants simply agreeing with each other, on the one hand, and establishing the relevance of a team, on the other, we can nevertheless s a y t h a t a t e a m is v i s i b l e i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n to a greater or to a lesser extent. A feature that can be used to distinguish team alignment is t h e f a c t t h a t , i n t h e c a s e o f a t e a m , t h e p r i m a r y r e c i p i e n t s o f t h e d i s p l a y o f a g r e e ment are often the other participants and not the person the speaker is agreeing with. This can be seen, for example, in the bodily orientation of the speakers or in the f o r m s o f a d d r e s s : t h e s p e a k e r m a y b e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e p e r s o n s h e is a g r e e i n g w i t h as a topic of conversation (see example (5), line 25 below). This phenomenon is comparable to the use of teaming completions ( L e r n e r , 19 8 7 : 1 5 7 ; s e e a l s o e x a m p l e (8) in this article), which also take as primary recipients the rest of the group and not the person whose turn is completed. In any case, the duration of an interactional t e a m v a r i e s : it c a n b e p r o d u c e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s t r e t c h o f t a l k o r it c a n b e m a d e r e l e v a n t t h r o u g h l o n g s e q u e n c e s . T h e e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e o f a t e a m is t h a t a c o l l e c t i v e u n i t of two or more participants e i t h e r a s s p e a k e r s o r a s r e c i p i e n t s -- i s m a d e a v a i l a b l e to the participants in the course of interaction. T h e c r e a t i o n o f t e a m s i n c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e : the emergence of two conflicting points of view in a multiparty conversation often leads to two opposi n g s i d e s , a n d it is t e m p t i n g for the participants to associate with one of the opposi n g s i d e s . T h u s , c o n f l i c t s w i t h i n a g r o u p a r e o f t e n d y a d i c i n c h a r a c t e r , t o o . It h a s a l s o been claimed that conflicts in tnultiparty conversations are in principle the same as in two-party conversations. However, very little research has been done on multip a r t y c o n f l i c t s , a n d e v e n i f t h e c o n f l i c t is b e t w e e n o n l y t w o s i d e s , it s e e m s h i g h l y l i k e l y t h a t it i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m d i s a g r e e m e n t between two people in a dyad (see

H. K a n g a s h a l j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 2 9 1 ~ 1 9

e.g. Goodwin and Goodwin, tial to form teams.

1990:

86ff.). One reason

for this difference

295 is the poten-

1.2. Data

The examples dealt with in this article are taken from one meeting of an institutional committee consisting of six members. The committee met 25 times in 1991 a n d 1 9 9 2 , a n d it f u n c t i o n e d as part of a co-operative project whose objective was to develop rehabilitation services and services for the disabled in a Finnish municipality. The meetings were between two organizations in the municipality: social services and health services. There were three social services representatives and three health representatives. The meetings generally lasted for 1 to 2 hours; most of the meetings have been video-taped and transcribed. This article focuses on one interesting segment in the data. The composition of the committee m a k e s it p o s s i b l e to t a l k a b o u t at l e a s t t h r e e types of team. Firstly, the committee as a whole can be seen as an institutional team with the common objective of compiling a final report on its findings. The markers of this team include the extensive use of the pronoun me 'we" and references to 'this committee'. Secondly, the committee is composed of two institutional teams: workers in the social services and those in health services, who formally belong to two different organizations. There are also indicators of these teams in the interaction: references to one's own team or background organization can be made, for example, with the institutional use of me 'we" or with expressions like meillgi terveyspuolella "with us on the health side', and the other team can be referred to with corresponding expressions with the pronoun te 'you (pl.)'. Thirdly, spontaneous interactional teams can emerge, as in any multiparty conversation. In addition, various other kinds of collectivities can be made relevant in and through talk; members of the group can b e l o n g t o t h e s e c o l l e c t i v i t i e s e i t h e r w i t h i n t h e g r o u p o r o u t s i d e it. T h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s for participants to act as individuals and as members of many different collectivities make the participation framework of such conversations an interesting subject of research. The interaction in the committee can be regarded as institutional 2 at least in the sense that the task given to the group has a clear effect on the conversation and its structure. This can be seen, above all, in the topic of talk and the use of time and, occasionally, in the allocation of turns. On the other hand, the interaction is not always task-oriented. There are sections where the participants move into a conversational mode: the topics of talk do not deal with the task at hand and the conversationalists talk about their feelings and experiences as private individuals and lay-persons. That the participants are aware of a shift in mode is occasionally seen in the interaction: for example, someone will say on aika siirtydi asiaan "it's time to get back to the matter at hand" or tgillainen r6nsyily olisi hauskaa jos siihen olisi aikaa "this kind of waffling would be fun if we had the time for it'. 2 F o r more details of the characteristics of institutional conversation, see e.g. Drew a n d Heritage (1992: 23ff.).

296

H. K a n g a s h a l j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1990) 2 9 l ~ 1 9

To date, relatively little research has been done on institutional multiparty conversations, and even less research has been done on conversations where participation opportunities for conversationalists are symmetrical. Research on multiparty convers a t i o n s h a s f o c u s e d o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t r u c t u r e t h a t is i n s o m e s e n s e a s y m m e t r i c a l : for example, news interviews (Clayman, 1992; Greatbatch, 1992) and court proceedings (Atkinson and Drew, 1979; Atkinson, 1982). Moreover, the research has addressed fairly little the question of the specific ways in which multiparty conversation differs from dyadic conversation.

2. The 2.1. The

conflict background

to the con/Tict

The sequence w h i c h i s t o b e a n a l y z e d is t a k e n f r o m t h e s e c o n d m e e t i n g o f t h e committee, which dealt with the organization of the group. The members of the group are as follows. The social services are represented by Helen, a social worker, Wicky, a nursery teacher, and Lena, who has a position at the management level in the municipality's social services. Health workers are represented by Simon, a health center doctor, Gina, a matemity clinic nurse, who works in the same health c e n t e r as S i m o n , a n d E v a , w h o is e m p l o y e d as a rehabilitation secretary in the health services. Since bodily posture, eye contact, gestures, and movements as well as the positioning of the participants with respect to one another are clearly significant in this sequence, the seating arrangements are shown in the following diagram. The partici p a n t s a r e s i t t i n g a r o u n d a s q u a r e t a b l e . It m a y b e w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g that the seats were chosen by the participants themselves. The perspective is t h a t o f a v i e w e r o f the video. (H) Eva (S) Helen (HI S i m o n

G i n a (H) l~ena (S) Vicky (S)

Diagram 1. Sealing a r r a n g e m e n t s and instilutional b a c k g r o u n d of participants (H=Health Services, S=Social Services) The meeting starts off with the issue of a conflict which began in the first meeting when Lena (S) was chosen as chairperson 3 and Eva (H) as secretary. The choices were made fairly quickly, and at least Simon, the health center doctor, wants to talk about the choice of chairperson again. Prior to the sequence that I analyze, the meeting proceeded as follows. The chairperson Lena starts off by saying that after their first meeting Simon had requested that the matter of the chairperson be dealt with again in the following meeting. Lena 3 The F i n n i s h p u h e e n j o h t a j a ~ c h a i r m a n / c h a i r w o m a n ' is gender-neutral, hence it has been translated as chabperson_

H. Kangashatju

/Journal

of Pragmatics

26 (1996) 291-319

297

takes this up as the first item on the agenda and gives Simon a chance to state his reasons for wanting to deal with the matter again. The crux of Simon's argument is that the chairperson Lena and the secretary Eva represent 'management" and, for this reason, they are not the best choices for the job. In Simon's opinion, the chairperson and the secretary should be people involved in "practical work'. Simon also indirectly asserts thai 'the people responsible for the committee" should work in the h e a l t h c e n t e r w h e r e S i m o n a n d G i n a w o r k . It is p o s s i b l e t o i n t e r p r e t t h i s as s u g g e s t ing that Simon himself should be the chairperson and Gina the secretary. Example 2 is from the beginning of the meeting at the stage where the question of who should chair the meetings is raised. Example 2 ( 12.12.1) 1 Lena - j a : : t o t a : ( 1 . 1 ) ^ e n n e n k u n menn~i~in s e n p i d e m A m f i l l e n i i n ( 2 . 1 ) puhutaanko siita mita: (1.3) Simon viimeks, otti esille tan:, 2 3 k o k o u k s e n ( 0 . 5 ) j ~ l k e e n # e t t a # ( 1 . 1 ) e t t a t o t a tat~i > p u h e e n j o h t a j u u t t a 4 # v i el ~ i v o i t a i s # k e s k u s t e l l a < . (0.4) 5 6 Simon n i i n tai ( 0 . 4 ) se y l e e n s a k i k o s k i sit~i ( 1 . 8 ) t a n , ty/Sryhm~in n i i n k u sis~iista 7 o r g a n i s o i t u m i s t a j a sit~i e t t a ( 0 . 5 ) miss~i m e 8 o i k e e s t a a n ( 0 . 8 ) l i i k u t a a n j a m i t a ty~St k e h i t e t ~ i a n n i i n , m u l l t u l i se ( 1 . 6 ) t u n n e l m a sit s e n k o k o u k s e n j ~ i l k e e n e t ( 0 . 4 ) 9 10 ett~i e t t a ( 1 . 3 ) s e k a , e - ( 1 . 7 ) E v a e t t ~ t u o t a ( 0 . 3 ) L e n a n i i n ( 0 . 3 ) te 11 e d u s t a t t e n i i k u m e ij ~ i n k a n n a l t a £ s e m m o s t j o h t o o £ . (2.3) 12 13 S i m o n £ j a : , te e t t e o o n i i n k u taall~i ( 0 . 4 ) v a r s i n a i s e s t i t~Sissa j a s i t t e n , m u s t o l i s £ ( 1 . 1 ) e t ( 0 . 7 ) se t i l a n n e o l i s n i i n k u , s i l l ~ t a v a l l a t~i~ilt k~iyt~inn/Sn 14 t a s o l t e n e m p i I~htevti~i. 15 (4.3) 16 17 L e n a j o o . (.) ^ n o k ~ i y d a a n t a s t a k e s k u s t e l u ^, j a : -- ( ( g o e s o n ))

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Lena

Simon

Simon

Lena

-- a n d : : w e l l : ( 1 . 1 ) Abe_fore g o i n g f u r A t h e r t h e n ( 2 . 1 ) s h a l l w e t a l k a b o u t w h a t : ( 1 . 3 ) S i m o n last t i m e , t o o k u p a f t e r t h i s : , meeting : (0.5) #that# (1.1) that well this >question of the chair #could be# discussed once more<. (O.4) y e s o r ( 0 . 4 ) it g e n e r a l l y w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h ( 1 . 8 ) t h e , s o r t o f i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h i s c o m m i t t e e as w e l l as ( 0 . 5 ) w h e r e w e ' r e actually (0.8) moving and what kind of work we're developing so that, I h a d the (1.6) f e e l i n g t h e n a f t e r the m e e t i n g t h ' t (0.4) that that (1.3) both, er- (1.7) Eva and well (0.3) Lena well (0.3) you represent from well our point of view £some kind of management£. (2.3) £ a n d : , y o u a r e n o t w e l l h e r e , ( 0 . 4 ) a c t u a l l y at w o r k a n d t h e n , I ' d t h i n k £ ( 1 . 1 ) t h a t ( 0 . 7 ) t h e s i t u a t i o n s h o u l d w e l l , in a w a y b e approached more from the point of view of this practical level. (4.3) r i g h t . (.) A w e l l l e t us h a v e a d i s c u s s i o n o n t h i s ^, a n d : - - ( ( g o e s o n ))

298

H. K a n g a s h a p j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 2 9 1 ~ 1 9

After this, Lena goes on at length to explain, among other things, that she does not oppose a change of chair. After this long turn, Lena proposes a 'round table discussion' on the matter. The others tacitly accept this proposal addressed to the collectivity and, thus, they ratify a participation framework with a shared opportunity to participate (see Lerner, 1993: 215), i.e. where each can respond as an individual. In addition, they accept Lena's right to allocate the order in which the others can speak. Lena gives the first turn to Vicky (S), who does not have a clear position on the matter. She nevertheless concludes her turn by speculating about an alternative chairperson and decides on Simon (H): Example 3 (12.12.2) I Vicky m t . j a a . m a e n o s a a k y l R i n y t s a n o o t~ih~tn * > v h t a ~ i n m i t g ~ i n < * . 2 ( 1 . 2 ) ett~i t o t a (.) m u s t t~i~i o n k u i t e n k i a i k a p i e n i a i k a j a p i e n i ( 1 . 8 ) 3 p i e n i (.) tfi~i k o k o o n p a n o #ett~i t o t a # ( 2 . 0 ) j a : (.) j a : se: ett/a: ( 3 . 0 ) m m . (.) 4 e n m~i (.) _en m~i o s a a s a n o a n y t ( 0 . 6 ) k u k a se sitte o i l s ( 3 ( ( s t a r t s g a z i n g 5 at S i m o n ) ) * p u h e e n j o h t a j a * ( 0 . 5 ) o i s k o ( ( n o d s at S i m o n ) ) se s i t t e 6 S i m o n ( 2 . 0 ) j o s s~i o l i s i t * p u h e e n j o h t a j a (.) s~i o o t k / i y t ~ i n n 6 n 7 t y 0 n t e k i j ~ i tii~ilRi*. ( ( n o d s at S i m o n ) ) 8 (2.0)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vicky

((smacks)) well. I simply can't say *>anything about this<*. ( 1 . 2 ) I m e a n (.) i t h i n k it is a f t e r all r a t h e r a s h o r t t i m e a n d a s m a l l ( 1 . 8 ) s m a l l ( 3 g r o u p # s o t h a t # ( 2 . 0 ) a n d : (.) a n d : t h e f a c t : t h a t : ( 3 . 0 ) m m . (.) I c a n ' t (.) I c a n ' t s a y n o w ( 0 . 6 ) w h o c o u l d t h e n b e (.) ( ( s t a r t s g a z i n g at S i m o n ) ) * t h e c h a i r p e r s o n * ( 0 . 5 ) w o u l d it ( ( n o d s at S i m o n ) ) b e S i m o n t h e n ( 2 . 0 ) i f y o u ' d b c * t h e c h a i r p e r s o n (.) y o u a r e d o i n g p r a c t i c a l w o r k h e r e * . ( ( n o d s at S i m o n ) ) (2.0)

The end of the turn (lines 5--7) can be interpreted in a number of ways. Vicky could be interpreted as simply voicing aloud her speculations about Simon as an alternative chairperson, or she could be asking Simon if he wants to be chairperson. A third i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is t h a t s h e i s p r o p o s i n g t h a t S i m o n b e t h e c h a i r p e r s o n : the particle jos 'if' (line 6) can be used in Finnish to begin a proposal. In any event, Vicky voices the alternative of Simon as a chairperson, and she does not question this alternative. T h e n e x t s p e a k e r i s S i m o n , w h o s e t u r n i s s o l o n g t h a t it c a n n o t b e i n c l u d e d t b r lack of space. In this turn, Simon does not unambiguously reveal how he has interpreted Wicky's turn. Nevertheless, it i s p o s s i b l e t o i n t e r p r e t S i m o n a s h a v i n g s a i d that he regards himself as a possible candidate for the chair. T h e t h i r d s p e a k e r is t h e p r e s e n t c h a i r p e r s o n Lena, who says she is prepared to g i v e u p t h e c h a i r , b u t a l s o s a y s t h a t s h e is i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n t i n u i n g a s t h e c h a i r . T h u s , in this turn Lena leaves the matter for the others to decide. The turn after Lena's turn is given to Gina, who announces that she will support Simon on the condition that the objective is to develop the services of the area catered for by their own health center. Although agreement with a previous speaker is e x p r e s s e d w i t h a c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f r e s e r v a t i o n , o n e c o u l d s a y t h a t t h e f i r s t i n t e r actional team is created in this turn:

H. Kangasha~ju / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 2 9 1 - 3 1 9

299

Example 4 (12.12.6) L e n a ( ( g i v e s the turn to G i n a b y g a z e ) ) G i n a m a o o n k y l sin~ins~i S i m o n i n ( 1 . 5 ) k a n n a l tai > e t siis i h a s a m a a m i e l t ~ i < k o s k a : ( 0 . 8 ) j o s m e n i m e n o m a a t~it~i S u u r n i e m e n p a l v e l u t y 6 t ~ i n i i n k u k e h i t e t ~ i a n s_it~i..hhh (.) n i i n s i l l o n m~i k a t s o s i n ett~i, o n ( s u o s i t t a v a sit,i). (-) Lena Gina

( ( g i v e s the turn to G i n a by g a z e ) ) I d o in p r i n c i p l e a g r e e w i t h S i m o n ( 1 . 5 ) o r > I m e a n I f u l l y a g r e e < b e c a u s e : ( 0 . 5 ) i f w e a r e d e v e l o p i n g t h e s e S u u m i e m i s e r v i c e s in p a r t i c u l a r t h e m . . h h h (.) s o in t h a t c a s e I ' d t h i n k t h a t , it (must be favored). (.)

Thus, when four of the six members of the group have made their position known, no-one has presented counter-arguments to the arguments on which Simon based his proposal for a change of chair. In addition, one of the members, W i c k y , h a s -- a t l e a s t i n d i r e c t l y -- p r o p o s e d that Simon be chair, and another member, Gina, has expressed support for the arguments that Simon has presented. In other words, at this stage, Simon has received support both for a change in chair and his own candidacy for the chair.

2.2. The sequence

analyzed

The events described which the disagreement

in the previous surfaces:

section

preceded

the following

sequence,

in

E x a m p l e 5 (12.12.3---4) 01 E v a m i n ~ e n k y l l f i sitfi t o t a : ( 0 . 6 ) mfi m ~ e n n i i n k u n n ~ e t t a I d o n o t in a n y c a s e w e l l : ( 0 . 6 ) I d o n ' t I d o n ' t k i n d o f s e e t h a t 02

puheenjohtajalla olis muka jotain (0.5) merkityst~= t h e c h a i r as i f w e r e o f s o m e ( 0 . 5 ) s i g n i f i c a n c e

03 H e l e n

=mm.=((nods))

04 Eva

= s i i h e n ett~i pystyyk~5 ( ( g l a n c e s at H e l e n ) ) = f r o m t h e v i e w p o i n t o f w h e t h e r o n e is a b l e ( ( g l a n c e s at H e l e n ) )

05

n i i n k u n (.) t ~ s s a t y / S r y h m a s s a o l e e n l a s - (.) m u k a n a j a s o r t o f (.) t o b e p r e s - (.) w_ith t h i s c o m m i t t e e a n d

06

p y s t y y k 0 n i i n k u n v a i k u t t a m a a n t~in t y ~ S r y h m a n t y / Sh 6 n ett~i ( 1 . 2 ) whether or not one can kind of have an influence on the work of this committee (1.2)

07

ett~i t o t a : (.) m u n m i e l e s t t i n i i n k u n ttia o n n i i n p i e n i t y t J r y h m ~ i t h a t w e l l : (.) I t h i n k w e l l t h i s is s u c h a s m a l l c o m m i t t e e

so

300

H_ K a n g a s h a p j u

08

09

/ .lournal

of Pragnlatics

tiis pit,is niinkun kaikkie ottaa se vastuu, where well everybody ought to take the Vicky

10 Helen

((nods

291--319

responsibility,

a little bit))

inm.=((quick H

26 (1996)

nod))

.....

11 E v a

=samallaisena =in a similar

(0.4) samallaisena ja sit musta se ettil (0.7) ensinnilkiian (0.4) similar way and then I think that (0.7) in the first place

12

rail en oo mikililn I'm not any kind

hallinnon (0.4) of administrative

enkil johto(0.6) tason (0.4) or management

ihminen (0.6) level

person

13

vaan teen ihan (.) kiiytilnn6n p e r u s - t y 6 t i i ( 0 . 7 ) t2U_0_til j a t o t a : ( 1 . 5 ) but I just do (.) practical ground-level work (0.7) work and well: (1.5)

14

ja ja (0.8) ja enkil and and (0.8) and

15

puheenjohtaja the chair and G .....

mil nAii ollenkaan hyvanil sitil ettil: (.) et sek~i I wouldn't like it at all that: (.) that both

et sihteeri seceretary

ois terveydenhuollosta were from the Health

et sitten (0.6) Services so that

16

jos se sielt if the chair

17

niin sit tAytyy sihteerin then the secretary must

182

(ram.)

19 Eva

muu.=et mun mielest se on ihan else.=I find that this is my quite

20

e hdoton mun niinkun an unconditional well

21

m~i en tosiaan I really don't

nilil niinku (0.3) kind of (0.3) see

22

tilil t y 6 r y h m i l this committee

o huono is poor

23

tunne olevansa tasavertanen (.) tiis *ty6ryhmiiss~i*. feel equal (.) in this *committee*.

24

(1.1)

terveydenhuollon is coming from

puolelta tulee over there from

then

puheenjohtaja the Health Services

olla joku muu. be someone else.

(0.3) (0.3)

(0.5) (0.5)

ihan niinkun (1.0) ihan ihan quite well (1.0) quite quite

edellytys sille et tfitil tyOtti tehd~iiin. prerequisite for doing this work. mit~iiln estetany hindran-

tai mun mielest or I think that

(0.5) jos jokainen jilsen ei niinku (.) (0.5) if every member doesn't kind of (.)

((points

in Eva's

direction

with

her

thumb))

(0.6)

H. K a n g a s h a p j u / Jot4rnal o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 291--319 25 Helcn

m~i on kyl kans ihan samaa mielt~i ku Eva et ei silo ninku I f u l l y a g r e e w i t h E v a t o o I m e a n it i s i s w e l l o f n o L .......................................................................

26

m u m m i e l e s t m e r k i t y s t ~ i e t ( 0 . 4 ) sill~i e t k u k a o n p u h e e n j o h t a j a . significance in my opinion (0.4) who takes the chair. E

27

.............

E

301

.............

j a j a t o t a : ( 0 . 7 ) k u i t e n k i t~i~i o n t o s i a a n n i i n p i e n i r y h m ~ i . ( 0 . 5 ) e t and and well: (0.7) after all this is really such a small group. (0.5)

so that

28

e n m~i n i i n k u ( . ) j a : n y t ( . ) e n m ~ i n i i n k u o o k o k e n u mitenk~i'a I kind of (.) and: now (.) I haven't sort of felt in any way that ((points in Lena's direction with her thumb)) E ................... L ............... E .........................................................

29

Lenaa tai sua ny minti~in pomoina $tai(h) tai se(h)emmosina$ Lena or you are any kinct of bosses $or(h) or k(h)ind ors

30

hallinnon ihmisin~i et tota noin ni (1.1) et et (.) hh (.) p~iinvaston administrative people so that well (1.1) th't th't (.) hh (.) on the contrary

31

Lenalla saattaa olla se niinku ulkopuolisena niinku (0.6) Lena may have well as a sorl of an outsider well (0.6) E ...........................................................

32

toisenlainen (1.2) ehk~i meilleki (.) vSh~in vieraampi tapa niinku different (1.2) maybe for us too (.) a slightly more distant way of sort of E ........................................................................ V ................

33

hahmottaa n~iit~i m u t k u i t e n k i looking at things but anyway

semmonen (0.4) tapa the kind of (0.4) way

ihan quite a L ............

mik~i (.) that (.)

.............................................................................

34

sitten (0.3) antaa naeille jotain then (0.3) gives us something

35 Eva

( ......

36 Helen

=niin. =yes.

l_is~i~i.=jotai u u t t a . more.=something new.

).=

V ......................................................................

L ............................

37

Eva et semmosena niinku semmosina (.) niinku niin sanottuina I mean in the form of a kind of (.) well in the lorm of so-called ................................................................. n ............

38

£kysymyksina£. (0.4) mit~i ulkopuolin[en £questions£. (0.4) that an outsid[er can [

pystyy ] 1

]

tyhmin~ stupid

302

H. KangashaJju

Helen

39

H ....

/ Journal of Pragmatics

26 (1996) 291--319

[ $ j o t k a ei ] oo tyhmi~i.$ [$which are] not stupid.$ L + V ............................................................

40 Eva

£ N I I J O T K A E l O O T Y H M I J ~ £ m u t t a ettia n i i n £YES WHICH ARE NOT STUPID£ but in the form

41

s a n o [ttui ] n a of so-called

[

1

42 Helen

[niin.] ((nods)) [yes. ] L + V .............................................................................. G ........

43 Eva

semmosina tyhmin~i kysymyksin~i joita u_lkopuolinen pystyy t h e k i n d o f s t u p i d q u e s t i o n s w h i c h a n o__uutsider is a b l e to L-l-W

....................................................................

44

h e l p o m m i n tekem~t~tn k u n se j o k a o n j o siin~t= p o s e m o r e r e a d i l y t h a n t h e o n e w h o i_s a l r e a d y i n s i d e =

45 Helen

=mm.

[mm. ((nods several times))

Eva's first turn (lines 1--23, excluding the acknowledgment tokens) presents a clearly dissenting position in the group, miter her turn, there are three viewpoints presented on the question of the chair. Simon presents arguments in favor of a change of chair and Gina supports him. Eva does not accept the arguments put forward by Simon. A third viewpoint is represented by Wicky and Lena, who have not clearly expressed their position but have not said that they oppose Simon's arguments. Helen is now in an interesting position; it is h e r t u r n t o e x p r e s s h e r p o s i t i o n after Eva. As we see, Helen teams up with Eva. In the following, I shall analyze the argumentation structure of the sequence, changes in the participation framework, and the means by which Eva's and Helen's team and other kinds of multi-person units are made available to the participants of this talk-in-interaction. My objective at a more general level is to show that there are systematic means by which various kinds of collectivities can be made relevant in multiparty conversation.

3. Making 3.1.

a team

Argumentation

visible

in multiparty

conversation

structure

The sequence analyzed in this article contains argumentation: claims and arguments are presented in favor of certain things and against others. From the point of view of the argumentation s t r u c t u r e , it i s i n t e r e s t i n g to look at the kinds of argu-

H. Kangctshatju / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 2 9 1 ~ 1 9

303

m e n t s t h a t a r e u s e d ; b u t f r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , it i s p a r ticularly interesting to look at the purpose to which arguments are put and the way in which they are jointly constructed t¥om common resources. First, I shall discuss Eva's first turn (lines 1--23). Eva does not explicitly address h e r t u r n t o a n y o n e i n p a r t i c u l a r , b u t h e r u s e o f t h e p a r t i c l e m u k a ' a s i f ; s u p p o s e d l y '4 (line 2) picks out Simon as a recipient. The partic!e muka in Finnish indicates that the speaker reports a source whose credibility she regards as questionable. The credibility of the source is also questioned by the conditional form olis (line 2) of the verb 'be'. These expressions of doubt are attached to an argument that was originally presented by Simon. Thus, Eva makes available to the other participants that her turn is above all a response to the arguments presented by Simon. To use Goffman's (1981: 144) terms, Simon is both the original author and the principal of the argument, and, in this sense, he can also be regarded as the main focus of the counter-arguments. Eva's formulation thus attributes the arguments to be contested to Simon and also makes the rejection of them relevant. At the same t i m e , E v a ' s t u r n is d i r e c t e d at t h e i n t e r v e n i n g turns that did not challenge Simon's arguments. It is well-known that conversationalists make a good deal of use of both the content and form of elements brought to the conversation by others as resources for their own talk. Eva's turn is a selective interpretation and a summary of what Simon had earlier said. In her turn, Eva deals above all with the arguments that Simon has m a d e r e l e v a n t i n h i s b i d f o r a c h a n g e o f c h a i r ( e x a m p l e 6 is p a r t o f e x a m p l e 2 ) : Example 6 1 Simon 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Simon 9 10

y e s o r ( 0 . 4 ) it g e n e r a l l y w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h ( 1 . 8 ) t h e , sort o f i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h i s c o m m i t t e e a s w e l l as ( 0 . 5 ) w h e r e w e ' r e actually (0.8) moving and what kind of work we're developing so t h a t , I h a d t h e ( 1 . 6 ) f e e l i n g t h e n a f t e r t h e m e e t i n g t h ' t ( 0 . 4 ) that that (1.3) both, er- (t.7) Eva and well (0.3) Lena well (0.3) you represent from welt our point of view Esome kind of management£. (2.3) £ a n d : , y o u are n o t w e l l h e r e , ( 0 . 4 ) a c t u a l l y at w o r k a n d t h e n , I ' d t h i n k £ ( l . 1) t h a t ( 0 . 7 ) t h e s i t u a t i o n s h o u l d w e l l , i n a w a y b e approached more from the point of view of this practical level.

Eva deals with three of the topics that Simon, partly implicitly, has brought i c s 1--3) a n d i n a d d i t i o n p r e s e n t s h e r o w n p o s i t i o n o n e q u a l i t y i n t h e g r o u p 1 Internal organization of the committee and significance of the chair l i n e s 1---6) 2 Taking responsibility in the group (lines 7--8, 11) 3 'Management level' versus 'practical workers' (lines 1 I--13)

up (top(4):

(Eva's

turn,

4 The E n g l i s h translation "supposedly" does not really c o n v e y the semantic feature "not credible" which muko conveys.

304 4

H. Kangashasju

/ Journal

of Pragmati,'s

Equality in the group: a. R e l a t e d t o t h e c h o i c e o f c h a i r a n d s e c r e t a r y b. Among members of the group (21--23)

26 (1996) 291

319

(14--20)

Because the arguments presented by Eva are also made use of when the participants align as a team, I shall analyze the treatment of each topic separately. The alignment of Eva and Helen is initiated in the middle of Eva's first argument, i n w h i c h s h e m a k e s it c l e a r ( l i n e s 1--2 a n d 4 - - 6 ) t h a t s h e d o e s n o t a c c e p t t h e v i e w t h a t the chair is significant from the point of view of whether or not one can have some influence in the committee. The first part of this utterance is followed by Helen's agreement token mm (line 3) and her nod. This is the first sequential locus where Helen can express agreement with Eva, and with this acknowledgement token Helen makes available to others that she is part of the confrontation. The token mm is a simple device tbr displaying agreement, and in this context it can be interpreted as a pre-agreement, which can be made explicit later on. Next Eva makes relevant the question of responsibility in the group (lines 7--8 and 11). When Eva says that everyone has to take responsibility in a small committee, she further diminishes the significance of Simon's standpoint that the chairperson is more important than the others. This argunlent of Eva's is, again, followed by Helen's agreement token (line 10). Helen's synchronization of both this and the previous mm (line 3) with Eva's speech is very precise. In Simon's turn (example 6) a number of collectivities are made relevant. First, he refers to the committee as a whole (line 2). Secondly, he categorizes Eva and Lena as representatives of management by using both of their names and the Finnish plural pronoun te 'you (pl.)" (line 5). Simon's use of the pronoun meiddn 'our' shortly after this (line 6) places Sinlon in a collectivity that excludes Eva and Lena, but the other members of this subgroup are not specified. This third collectivity is nevertheless specified at the end of the turn (line 10) when Simon talks about the "practical level', which indicates that he is dividing the group into two: the management, to which Eva and Lena belong, and the practical workers. What is significant is that Simon makes relevant a distinction between the categories of 'management level' and 'practical level' and uses this distinction as an argument for a change of chair. This is a question of categorization based on how a speaker values the resources of the participants (see also Schegloff, 1992: 109). When someone asserts something about another participant, the latter generally has the right to confirm or reject the assertion. Thus, in principle, conversationalists can tacitly accept a categorization by not responding to it, or they can negotiate a b o u t it o r a r g u e a g a i n s t it. T h e c o r r e c t i o n of a categorization in interaction depends, among other things, on whether the characterization is favorable or not. If the categorization is unfavorable, it is typical for the person categorized to question it; but if it is favorable, then it is generally accepted. 5 Thus, arguing against a description that

s

John H e r i t a g e . p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n .

H. K a n g a s h a r j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 20 (1996) 2 9 1 - 3 1 9

305

has been given by someone else also reveals something about the arguer's interpretation of the effect of the description. In this conversation, Eva defends the status quo. Being a member of management is, in Simon's description, claimed to be disadvantageous f o r a c h a i r p e r s o n a n d s e c r e t a r y , a n d t h u s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n is n o t t o E v a ' s advantage. In lines 11--13 she explicitly rejects Simon's description of herself as a management-level person. U p u n t i l l i n e 12, E v a h a s r e a c t e d t o t h e t o p i c s t h a t w e r e r a i s e d b y S i m o n i n t h e discussion. At the end of the turn, she takes up a completely new problem: the equality between health and social service representatives in the committee. Here for the first time, the existence of the two institutional teams is made relevant, and this feature is taken advantage of. Eva herself is the secretary, and like Simon she belongs to the health services team. Eva describes a possible future situation where t h e c h a i r p e r s o n is a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e h e a l t h s e r v i c e s ( p a r t o f e x . 5, l i n e s 1 4 - - 1 7 , E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n ) : " .. a n d a n d ( 0 . 8 ) a n d I w o u l d n ' t l i k e it a t a l l that." ( . ) t h a t b o t h the chair and secretary were from the Health Services so that then (0.6) if the chair is c o m i n g f r o n t o v e r t h e r e f r o m t h e H e a l t h S e r v i c e s t h e n t h e s e c r e t a r y m u s t b e s o m e o n e e l s e '.

This utterance could be interpreted as Eva imagining a situation in which Simon is the chairperson. Eva finds this problematic: from the point of view of equal representation, she could not continue as secretary as this would mean that both the secretary and the chairperson are from the same organizational team. Here, Eva brings to the attention of the others an additional problem, which makes Simon's proposal difficult to carry out. Eva concludes her turn (lines 21--23) with an evaluation that makes the viewpoint of the entire committee relevant: the equality of the members has an effect on whether or not the group functions effectively. The emphasis o n e q u a l i t y is a n i m p l i c i t c r i t i c i s m o f S i m o n ' s v i e w t h a t t h e c h a i r p e r s o n is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e other members. In the subsequent turn (lines 25--34), Helen makes her association with Eva availa b l e t o t h e o t h e r s : a t e a m is c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s t u r n . T h i s a s s o c i a t i o n i s i n d i cated in many ways. One of these is an almost parallel way of arguing the point. The arguments are partly the same as Eva's, and, moreover, the organization of the argumentation in the first part of Helen's turn (lines 25--29) is almost exactly the same as the argumentation at the beginning of Eva's turn (lines 1--12). Helen not only demonstrates that she agrees with Eva's arguments, she also repeats and partly elaborates on them. When someone uses the contents or expressions of another participant in a conversation, this is usually marked. Helen, too, indicates in her turn that she is not the original author of the arguments. The first argument is preceded by a clear source m a r k e r : m i i o n k y l k a n s i h a n s a m a a m i e l t g i k u n E v a e t ... ' I f u l l y a g r e e w i t h E v a t o o ...'(line 25). Here Helen not only gives the source, but also indicates that she supports the argument, i.e. she is its co-principal (Goffman, 1 9 8 1 : 1 4 4 f f . ) , a n d t h i s is also reinforced by mum mielestgi 'in my opinion, I think' (line 26). The insignificant r o l e o f t h e c h a i r p e r s o n is a r g u e d b y H e l e n o n t h e s a m e g r o u n d s a s E v a : t h e g r o u p is small. Again Helen indicates that the argument has been borrowed with the particle

306

H. KangashaJju /.lourl~al o f Pragmatics 26 (1990) 291--319

tosiaan "really' (line 27), which refers to something that has been said before. The third topic, Eva and Lena's possible status as representatives of 'management', is also taken from Eva's previous turn, but Helen elaborates o n it. S h e s h i f t s t h e p e r spective so that she deals with the topic on the basis of her own experience, and, thus, she herself becomes the author. The elaboration of arguments presented by someone else can also be regarded as a means of showing association. The last of Helen's arguments (lines 30--34) is concerned with the status of the present chairperson Lena as an 'outsider' in the group. This topic was not taken from Eva, but it was implicitly referred to by Simon in his first turn (see example 2), where he asserts that Eva and Lena do not work in the Health Center. This utterance of Simon's divides the committee into two groups: those who work in the area of the Health Center and those who do not. Eva and Lena belong to the latter group as they work in the central offices. In Simon's turn, this property of Lena's is made into a feature that diminishes her suitability for the chair. Although Helen clearly ratifies Simon's division into "us' and the outsiders with her use of the pronoun me 'we" (line 32), unlike Simon, she sees Lena's status as an outsider as an asset. In other words, Helen makes here an other-correction: she corrects the description given by Simon of Lena. While it is typical in conversation to give preference to self-correction (Schegloff et al., 1977: 375ff.), in instances like this dispreference for correction by another may be relaxed (see also Lerner, 1993: 230). In the final part of the sequence (lines 3545) Eva and Helen again show that they belong to the same team in number of ways. This stretch will be dealt with in more detail in sections 3.2 and 3.3. From the point of view of the argumentation, this final stretch expands and reinforces the positive effects of Lena's status as an outsider. Lena and Helen ratify (lines 36, 40, 42 mad 45), complete (lines 35 and 39), and repeat (line 40) each other's turns. Thus, the stretch involves team talk in many forms. This sequence shows how Eva and Helen function as a team to defend Lena's position as chairperson and also, in a sense, create a 'new' Lena from the elements that Simon had earlier brought to the discussion. The elements are dealt with from a new perspective: the importance of the chairperson is overridden by the responsibility of the whole committee and Lena's criticized status as an outsider is made into a positive characteristic. From the point of view of dealing with the conflict, Eva's and Helen's team defends the status quo in the group and weakens Simon's arguments for a change in chair. 3.2. Changes

in t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n

framework

In the analyzed sequence, the options offered by the participation framework of the conversational situation are exploited by the participants when they align as a team. On the other hand, the creation of a team clearly affects the participation framework. In this section, I shall concentrate on changes in the participation framework and the positions in which speakers place themselves and other participants when they are aligning as a team. One way to study institutional conversation is to do a comparative analysis: institutional conversation can be compared to ordinary conversation. The preferred basis

H. K a n g a s h a J j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 2 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 291

319

307

of comparison in this instance is ordinary, casual conversations between peers, and the focus is on how institutional conversation differs from this. For example, one can look at whether or not the social status of a participant is regarded as significant in the interaction by participants in an institutional conversation. On the basis of this, one can determine whether or not the participants are really oriented towards particular institutional features (Drew and Heritage, 1992: 19ff.) Institutional conversation may have many conventionalized procedures, stemming from such factors as efficiency, fairness, and task assignment (Atkinson, 1982), and these make it formally different from ordinary conversation. One such feature is turn-taking: according to the conventions of the situation, certain participants may have the right to determine the topic of talk, the order in which participants are allowed to talk, the length of turns etc. If these conventions are not followed, sanctions may be imposed. Nevertheless, as seen in the conversational sequence analyzed in this article, the application of these procedures can often be negotiated: by mutual agreement participants can alter the procedures. A chairperson was chosen by the committee, but the role of the chair was not explicitly discussed in the group. In the first meeting of the committee, the current chairperson Lena mentioned only in passing (the transcript is not included here) that it is enough for the chair to allocate turns, and this remark did not prompt further discussion. This superficial treatment of the matter could have been one of the reasons why the issue is debated in the subsequent meeting. When the debate on the chair begins, turns are allocated by the chairperson. Lena proposes a "'round-table discussion", and expresses her proposal in such a way that she addresses her talk to the audience as an association. The proposal is accepted without argument and this can be regarded as a ratification of the proposed procedure; moreover, tacit agreement, which may be accompanied by nodding, seems to be usual when a collective is assenting to a proposal that is put to them. Strictly enforced, the procedure accepted by the group means that each participant uses one turn in the order that has been allocated by the chairperson. Lena allocates the first turn to Vicky, but during Wicky's turn (example 3") and immediately a f t e r i t , it b e c o m e s obvious that strict chairing procedures can be relaxed, and this can be accepted by common, tacit agreement. Wicky indicates that she is not adhering to an allocation of turns by the chair by addressing Simon with a direct question at the end of her turn (line 6) and she also addresses Simon by name : E x a m p l e 3" I Vicky ((smacks)) well. I simply can't say *>anything about this<*. ( 1 . 2 ) I m e a n (.) I t h i n k it is a f t e r a l l r a t h e r a s h o r t t i m e a n d a s m a l l ( 1 . 8 ) 2 s m a l l (.) g r o u p # s o t h a t # ( 2 . 0 ) a n d : (.) a n d : t h e f a c t : t h a t : ( 3 . 0 ) m m . (.) 3 I c a n ' t (.) I c a n ' t s a y n o w ( 0 . 6 ) w h o c o u l d t h e n b e (.) ( ( s t a r t s g a z i n g 4 at S i m o n ) ) * t h e c h a i r p e r s o n * ( 0 . 5 ) w o u l d it ( ( n o d s at S i m o n ) ) b e 5 S i m o n t h e n ( 2 . 0 ) i f y o u ' d b e * t h e c h a i r p e r s o n (.) y o u a r e d o i n g p r a c t i c a l 6---~ w o r k h e r e * . ( ( n o d s at S i m o n ) ) 7 8 (2.0)

308

H. Kangashap~iu / J o u r n a l

of Pragmatics 26 (1990) 291

319

T h u s , i n l i n e 6, V i c k y s w i t c h e s t h e t u m - t a k i n g system of the meeting to approximate turn-taking in ordinary conversation by choosing the next speaker herself: she changes from a 3rd person to a 2nd person singular form of address. Simon adapts to this by responding directly to Vicky, and the chairperson does not interfere. After this, turn-taking continues according to the conventions of ordinary conversation for a few turns: short comments are given by Lena, Simon and Vicky (these turns are not included in the transcriptions in this article). The same kind of spontaneous turntaking occurs after Simon has taken his first round-table turn, but for the most part t h e m e e t i n g is c h a i r - c e n t e r e d , in other words, turns are allocated by Lena, who uses gaze, for example, to allocate a turn. Thus within the space of approximately two minutes, the interactants have tacitly accepted two different systems of turn-taking: (a) turns are allocated by the chair and they are, in principle, addressed to the chair (or to the whole group) and (b) turns a r e t a k e n o n o n e ' s o w n i n i t i a t i v e a n d t h e y c a n b e d i r e c t e d at a n y o n e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e conventions of ordinary conversation. These two systems, which I shall refer to as the chaired turn-taking and the ordinary turn-taking, can be seen in the conversation for the duration of the time that the issue of the chair is dealt with, and they affect the participation framework in an interesting way. One of the consequences o f t w o a l t e r n a t i v e t u m ~ - t a k i n g s y s t e m s is t h a t at l e a s t to some extent, a participant can, without fear of sanction, choose whether or not to immediately r e a c t to a t u r n t h a t is d i r e c t e d at h i m o r h e r . P a r t i c i p a n t s s e e m to e x p l o i t the possibility of this choice in this conversation. Eva's first turn (lines 1--17) does not explicitly indicate Simon or any of the others who have already spoken as recipient(s) of the turn. However, the content of the turn makes Simon's earlier turn relevant to the other participants. In addition, Eva indirectly criticizes the rest of the collectivity, who did not argue against Simon. Because the conversation has strayed from chaired turn-taking, Eva could in principle address Simon directly. However, she chooses another alternative, which at least c a n h e i n t e r p r e t e d a s a d h e r i n g t o c h a i r e d t u r n - t a k i n g , a l t h o u g h it i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a q u e s t i o n o f a d d r e s s i n g t h e t u r n t o t h e c h a i r : s h e w a i t s u n t i l it is h e r t u r n i n t h e r o u n d table discussion and does not direct her turn to anyone in particular, i.e. she can be interpreted as speaking to the whole group. According to Greatbatch (1992: 279), speaking to a chair can sometimes be used to mitigate confrontation. Disagreement d i r e c t e d a t a c h a i r -- o r , a s i n G r e a t b a t c h ' s case, to the interviewer i n a n e w s i n t e r v i e w -- i s m i l d e r t h a n a c o u n t e r - a r g u m e n t addressed directly at the person being criticized. Another feature in Eva's first turn t h a t is r e ~ n i n i s c e n t o f d i s a g r e e n l e n t e x p r e s s e d to a t h i r d p a r t y i n a n e w s i n t e r v i e w is that the turn begins with a direct expression of disagreement. In ordinary conversation, where turns are generally addressed directly at their intended recipients, expressions of disagreement are often mitigated in various ways (see e.g. Pomerantz, 1984), Mitigations are used in an attempt to prevent the creation of overt conflict. In a chaired institutional conversation, the situation can be different. According to Greatbatch (1992: 275ff.), interviewees in news interviews directly express their disagreement with other interviewees when they can express their disagreement to a third party, i.e. the interviewer. Mitigations are not needed because the presence of a

H. Kangasha*ju

/ Journal

of Pragmatics

20 (1996) 291~

19

309

third party in itself functions as a mitigating element. This feature may function in the same way in multiparty conversation in which there is a chairperson. Helen acts according to the same kind of participation framework as Eva at the beginning of the turn in which she is teaming up with Eva (lines 25--27). She does not address her turn directly at Simon, in spite of the fact that her arguments are primarily directed at Simon's arguments. Helen can be regarded as speaking to the whole group, and some of the time her talk is directed at the chair: at the beginning her gaze is mostly directed at Lena (line 26). Participation based on the chaired system is also indicated by the fact that Helen talks about Eva as a topic of conversation (line 25) rather than address her directly. However, immediately after this, Helen changes her stance towards Eva in the middle of the turn: she addresses Eva with the pronoun sua 'you' (singular) in line 29. This shift once again changes the participation framework from a chaired one into one that at least appears to be more like the framework of an ordinary everyday conversation, in which turns are addressed directly at the intended recipient. This shift is clearly seen in the last part of the sequence (lines 29--45) where, for example, the chairperson Lena is made into a topic of conversation by being explicitly named (lines 29 and 31). Addressing Eva is another marker of Helen's affiliation with Eva. Nevertheless, this stretch involves a participation framework that is slightly different from the one in example 3, where Vicky directly addresses Simon and directs an utterance in the interrogative form to him. In that case, Simon can be interpreted as being the actual recipient of gicky's question. In contrast, the primary recipient of Eva's and Helen's talk is the whole group, at whom their arguments are directed. For the most part, they simply act as a collectivity instead of as two individual speakers, and expand their turns into an entire team sequence. In this sequence the responses of Eva and Helen turn into what Lerner (1993: 235) refers to as "a conjoint accomplishment of which the residents are co-principals". The participation framework jointly created by all of the participants also provides them with the chance to show conjoined participation and to stretch the norms of this (semi-?)institutional conversation. The fact that no one else in the group takes a turn between the turns of Eva and Helen could stem from a problem mentioned by Lerner (1987: 154ff.). When two or more participants constitute their positions as members of a team, the position of co-present participants can become a problem. A team is a phenomenon that can significantly influence the established positions and call for a re-assessment, and this kind of re-assessment takes time. Eva and Helen have put the others into different positions: Lena has partly been taken into the team of Eva and Helen, and Simon and Gina, who supported him, have, at least indirectly, been excluded from the team. In contrast, gicky's position is unclear: at the beginning she showed signs of affiliation with Simon, but she has also nodded acquiescingly after Eva's argument (line 9). As well as Eva's and Helen's team, there are other collective units of participation that are made visible in the sequence. Helen makes relevant Eva's and Lena's treatment as 'bosses' (lines 28--29), thus also making them into a collectivity. In line 34, Helen divides the group in yet another way: the group consists of "us', which

310

H. K a n g a s h a l j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 ( I 9 9 0 ) 2 9 1 - 3 1 9

includes among others Helen herself, and those who are not "us', which at least includes Lena. When Eva talks about 'stupid questions t h a t a n o____u_utsider i s a b l e t o pose more readily than the one who is already inside' (lines 43---44; see also line 31), she makes relevant the social units of 'outsiders" and 'insiders' within the group. The formulation leaves open which group Eva herself belongs to, but what is essential seems to be the fact that once again Eva brings to the fore the positive aspects of being an outsider. Eva and Helen generally orient more towards all of the members of the committee (e.g. lines 5--7, 21--23, 27, 34) than towards the members of their own organizational groups. This is natural because Helen and Eva belong to different organizations and the conflict is not between organizational teams. The only point at which Eva makes the organizational teams relevant is when she emphasizes that the chairperson and the secretary cannot be from the same team (lines 14--16). Eva even disaffiliates herself from her own organizational team in line 16 (discussed in more detail in section 3.3). Focusing on the entire team and emphasizing general equality constitutes a counter-argument to Simon's implicit claim that there are members of unequal status in the group. At the end of the transcribed stretch of talk Eva's and Helen's alignment as a team has changed the chaired participation framework completely. At the end, the conversation is a dialogue between two participants and it involves i n t e r a l i a overlapping talk and the completing of another person's turn. The participation framework is nevertheless also influenced by various non-linguistic devices, above all gaze, which I shall deal with in section 3.3.2. 3.3. Aligning

and

distancing

devices

The argumentation structure of the analyzed conversation and its participation framework has partly demonstrated how associations can be formed between the conversationalists. In this section, I shall look more closely at some further ways in which conversationalists show affiliation on the one hand and, on the other hand, disaffiliate themselves from other participants in the group. Some of these devices are systematically used for this purpose. Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that the same means can also be used t'or other purposes. The devices I shall analyze include linguistic expressions, gaze, posture, facial expressions, movements, gestures, laughter, and other noises. 3.3.1.

Linguistic

devices

The more or less linguistic devices I deal with in this section include source markers, collaborative turn sequences, upgrading assertions of agreement, the repetition and paraphrasing of elements of another speaker's speech, and demonstratives. S o u r c e m a r k e r s . If there are no markers of attribution, the talk we hear is normally attributed to the speaker. If the speaker uses someone else's talk or speaks on behalf of someone e l s e , t h i s is u s u a l l y m a r k e d in some way. These markers have been referred to as source markers or quote market's (see e.g. Lerner, 1987: 149). In the

H. Kangashalju / J o u r n a l o f Pragmatics 26 (1996) 2 9 1 - 3 1 9

311

sequence analyzed in this article source markers are also used to indicate a collectivity. Explicit source markers are those that indicate what source has been used. An e x a m p l e o f t h i s is H e l e n ' s 'I fully agree with Eva too' (line 25). Often source markers are more implicit. Examples of implicit source markers are the particles muka 'as if; supposedly" and tosiaan "really', which make relevant the source in question and at the same time express an assessment of the credibility of the source. From the point of view of association, the particles muka 'as if; supposedly' and tosiaan "really" (lines 2 and 27) form a striking contrast: they clearly function as signals of affiliation and disaffiliation in this conversational sequence. Muka and the s t a t e m e n t t h a t i t is c o n n e c t e d t o m a k e r e l e v a n t t h e e a r l i e r t u r n s i n w h i c h t h i s c l a i m is p u t f o r w a r d . A s a s o u r c e m a r k e r , m u k a p u t s t h e c l a i m c o n n e c t e d t o it i n d o u b t , b u t , in a multiparty conversation, it a l s o m a k e s a c o l l e c t i v i t y of those who have put forward or supported the claim, as well as disaffiliates the current speaker from this collectivity. The particle tosiaan "really', on the other hand, is a source marker that indicates a f f i l i a t i o n a n d it is a d d e d to a r g u m e n t s that a speaker agrees with and wants to consolidate. Goodwin (1981: 1 15) has an example of the English expression really, which more or less corresponds to Helen's use of the particle tosiaan (line 27): a subsequent speaker strengthens a claim made by a previous speaker by repeating its content so that the only new element is really. While really reinforces the claim m a d e b y t h e p r e v i o u s s p e a k e r , it a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s u b s e q u e n t speaker stands independently behind the claim. In Goffman's terms (1981 : 144), Helen takes a coprincipal stance on the argument. T h e s e q u e n c e i n c l u d e s y e t a n o t h e r s o u r c e m a r k e r t h a t is u s e d t o i n d i c a t e a c o l l e c tivity as a source.

E x a m p l e 7 ( p a r t o f e x a m p l e 5) t Eva I m e a n i n t h e f o r m o f a k i n d o f (.) w e l l i n t h e f o r m o f s o - c a l l e d s t u p i d 2 £questions£. (0.4) thai an outsid[er can 3 Helen [ $ w h i c h are n o t s t u p i d . $ 4 Eva £ Y E S W H I C H A R E N O T S T U P I D £ b u t in the f o r m The passive form of Eva's expression niin sanottu 'so-called' in niin sanottuina t y h m i n ~ i k y s y m y k s i n i i ' i n t h e f o r m o f s o - c a l l e d s t u p i d q u e s t i o n s ' ( l i n e 1, e x , 7 ) a t t r i b utes the stupid questions to an unnamed collectivity. The expression "'socalled"marks "'stupid questions" as a delicate item and, at the same time, makes the matter into a general case rather than just Eva's opinion. The expression "so-called" i s t h e m a r k e r o f a n i m p l i c i t a t t i t u d e a n d i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e e x p r e s s i o n it q u a l i f i e s i s in some sense questionable, b u t it d o e s n o t s p e c i f y t h e w a y i n w h i c h it is q u e s t i o n able. In fact, at this point, Eva has a double marker of implicit attitude, as she also ' s i g n s " q u o t a t i o n m a r k s i n t h e a i r ( l i n e 1); i n w r i t i n g q u o t a t i o n m a r k s t y p i c a l l y f u n c tion in the same way as "'so-called". Whether or not Eva herself belongs to the group of doubters is not made clear at this stage, but immediately thereafter Helen makes explicit Eva's implicit "'so-called" in line 3 by negating the stupidity of such questions. Eva's and Helen's affiliation is clearly demonstrated at this point, too.

3 i2

H. K a n g a s h a ~ j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 2 6 ( 1 9 9 0 ) 2 9 1

319

Collaborative turn sequences and upgrading assertions of agreement. Sacks has pointed out (e.g. Fall lecture 2, 1965 [1992]) that participants in a conversation can demonstrate association by jointly producing a s y n t a c t i c u n i t t h a t is g e n e r a l l y p r o duced by one speaker alone. According to S a c k s , t h i s i n v o l v e s "'a k i n d o f e x t r a o r d i nary tie between syntactic possibilities and phenomena like social organization". Jointly produced utterances indicate that syntax can be used inter alia to organize participants into teams. Collaborative turn sequences are also an indication that participants analyze each other's expressions syntactically. An example of a collaborative turn sequence is a n a n t i c i p a t o r y completion (Lerner, 1987), where another participant completes a not-yet-completed utterance. Anticipatory completions demonstrate the syntactic analysis of participants, as the completion often begins at a point that can be predicted, i.e. in a so-called opportunity space (Lerner, 1987: 69). Anticipatory completions can also be used as indications of a team. According to Lerner (1987:157), teaming anticipatory completions differ from other completions in that the recipient of the completion is n o t t h e speaker whose expression has been completed but the other participants in the conversati on. In the sequence analyzed there are completions that are reminiscent ofbut not i d e n t i c a l t o -- t h e a n t i c i p a t o r y c o m p l e t i o n s described by Lerner. The first of these is in line 5 (example 8), where Eva continues Helen's turn: 8 ( p a r t o f e x a m p l e 5) 1 Helen --- o n t h e c o n t r a r y L e n a m a y h a v e it w e l l as a n o u t s i d e r w e l l ( 0 . 6 ) 2 q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ( 1 . 2 ) m a y b e f o r us t o o (.) a s l i g h t l y m o r e d i s t a n t w a y o f 3 sort o f l o o k i n g at t h i n g s b u t a n y w a y t h e k i n d o f ( 0 . 4 ) w a y that 4 (.) t h e n ( 0 . 3 ) g i v e s us s o m e t h i n g m o r e . = s o m e t h i n g n e w . 5 Eva ~ ( . . . . . . ).+ 6 Helen =yes. 7 Eva I m e a n in the f o r m o f a k i n d o f (.) w e l l in the f o r m o f s o - c a l l e d s t u p i d 8 £ q u e s t i o n s £ . (0.4) that an o u t s i [ d e r c a n 9 Helen ~ [ $ w h i c h are n o t stupid.$ 10 E v a E Y E S W H I C H A R E N O T S T U P I D £ b u t in t h e f o r m 11 of so-[called] 12 H e l e n [yes. ] ( ( n o d s ) ) 13 E v a t h e k i n d o f s t u p i d q u e s t i o n s w h i c h a n o u t s i d e r is a b l e to p o s e 14 m o r e r e a d i l y t h a n t h e o n e w h o is a l r e a d y i n s i d e = 15 H e l e n ram. mm. ((nods several times)) * = Finnish partitive case form of a noun that cannot be identified

Example

Eva's completion is followed by Helen's acceptance i n l i n e 6. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the exact wording of Eva's completion could not be clearly heard, but its grammatical f o r m c o u l d b e e s t a b l i s h e d . It i s a F i n n i s h p a r t i t i v e c a s e f o r m w h i c h a g r e e s w i t h t h e p a r t i t i v e i n H e l e n ' s u u t t a " n e w ' . I n t h i s i n s t a n c e it is n o t a q u e s t i o n o f a c o m p u l s o r y completion, a s H e l e n ' s t u r n i s f o r m a l l y c o m p l e t e i n i t s e l f a n d it a l s o h a s f a l l i n g i n t o nation. However, in other respects the completion corresponds to an anticipatory completion: it i s a c o m p l e t i o n or an addition that is accepted by the previous

H. Kangasha~ju / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 2 9 1 - 3 1 9

313

speaker. Helen's utterance is available for Eva as a unit that can be completed and t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h a c o m p l e t i o n c a n o c c u r is p r o j e c t a b l e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h i s i s n o t necessarily a multiple component turn-constructional u n i t , b u t it c o u l d b e . According to Lerner (1987: 93), a completion selects the previous speaker as the next speaker without any specific address term, since the initiator of the expression p r e c e d i n g t h e c o m p l e t i o n h a s t h e r i g h t t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t is a s u i t a b l e w a y o f c o n t i n u i n g t h e u t t e r a n c e . O n c e m o r e , it i s a q u e s t i o n o f t e a m t a l k o r t e a m i n g c o m p l e t i o n i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e p r i m a r y r e c i p i e n t o f t h e c o m p l e t i o n is t h e r e s t o f t h e g r o u p a n d not the person whose turn is completed. Lerner (1987:157) sees this as a systematic distinction between teaming anticipatory completions and other anticipatory completions. The other completion in the sequence is Helen's parenthetic addition (line 9, example 8), where she explicates what Eva's "'so-called stupid questions" means. This completion is also systematically reminiscent of anticipatory completions: the speaker uses a relative clause, which requires an antecedent in the syntactic construction used by the previous speaker, and the person whose turn has been comp l e t e d c o n f i r m s t h e c o m p l e t i o n . In t h i s i n s t a n c e , b o t h t h e c o m p l e t i o n a n d its a c c e p t a n c e a r e t e a m t a l k , w h i c h is d i r e c t e d a t t h e w h o l e g r o u p . E v a ' s a c c e p t a n c e c a n b e regarded as an upgrading assertion of Helen's completion, b e c a u s e it is u t t e r e d l o u d l y a n d it i n c l u d e s b o t h t h e r e i n f o r c i n g n i i n " r i g h t , y e s ' a n d w o r d - f o r - w o r d repetition. Thus Eva accepts both a parenthetic comment by another within her own turn and the content of this completion. Repetition and reformulation of previous speaker utterances. Affiliation can also be shown by the repetition or reformulation of the linguistic expressions of the previous speaker. Helen not only repeats Eva's arguments in her first turn, she uses completely identical words and formulations a s E v a ( c o m p a r e l i n e s 1--2 a n d 2 6 , 7 a n d 2 7 , 12 a n d 3 0 i n e x a m p l e 5 ) . T h e r e p e t i t i o n o f w o r d s a n d e x p r e s s i o n s n o t o n l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t a s p e a k e r h a s c a r e f u l l y l i s t e n e d t o t h e p r e v i o u s t u n a , it o f t e n a l s o i n d i cates agreement with what was said (Goodwin, 1981:115). Repetition can also be the reformulation of the same content. Discussed above was the example of how Helen (line 9, example 8) made Eva's "so-called" more s p e c i f i c . T h e r e is a l s o a n e x a m p l e i n t h e s e q u e n c e o f h o w E v a r e f o r m u l a t e s H e l e n ' s expression. W h e n H e l e n a s s e r t s ( l i n e s 2 3, e x a m p l e 8) t h a t L e n a h a s " a s l i g h t l y more distant way of sort of looking at things", Eva expresses approximately the same content by talking about "so-called stupid questions" ( l i n e s 7 - - 8 , 13, e x a m p l e 8). Further evidence of paraphrase is t h e p a r t i c l e e t ( l i n e 1 5 ) " s o ; t h u s ( i n o t h e r words/I mean)', which is one of the typical ways of beginning a paraphrase in spoken Finnish (Raussi, 1992). The fact that Eva presents this paraphrase on behalf of another speaker is here a sign of team alignment. Demonstratives as markers of disaffiliation. It is w e l l k n o w n t h a t d e m o n s t r a t i v e s can indicate social closeness or distance (see e.g. Lyons, 1977: 668ff.; Laury, 1994). Eva refers to her own background organization with the demonstrative adverb sielt "from (over) there': jos se sielt terveydenhuollon puolelta tulee puheenjohtaja niin sit tdytyy sihteerm olla joku muu 'if the chair is from over there from the Health Services then the secretary must be someone else" (lines 16--17). This way of referring

314

H. K a n g a s h a r j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 20 (1996) 291--319

to one's own background group is m a r k e d and distancing: it w o u l d be more e x p e c t e d t o r e f e r t o o n e ' s o w n c l o s e g r o u p w i t h t h e p r o x i m a l a d v e r b tiigiltii ' f r o m h e r e ' . T h e a d v e r b siellgi " t h e r e ' is m o r e a d d r e s s e e - c e n t e r e d , i . e . it r e f e r s t o t h e addressee's s p h e r e o f i n f l u e n c e , a n d E v a u s e s it t o m a k e t w o o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of health services, Simon and Gina, a collectivity and the indirect target of her talk. At the same time, she positions herself outside the health services team. Distancing can also be seen in the use of gaze, which I shall discuss below. All of these distancing devices make relevant the existence of two teams: Eva indicates in this conversational sequence that she does not belong to the same camp as Simon and Gina. In doing so, Eva also breaks up her own organizational team. 3.3.2. Eye and body movements Some of the significant gazes of the participants in the conversation are marked in the transcription. Marking all of the gazes was not possible and, moreover, even if t h e d a t a w e r e to b e c a r e f u l l y v i d e o - t a p e d , t h e e x a c t d i r e c t i o n o f g a z e is v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e , O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t is h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e m s e l v e s in a multiparty conversation could register the gazes of others with complete precision. Thus, direction of gaze in this article refers to the orientation of the face towards the other, and not to the movement o f t h e e y e s , w h i c h is a h n o s t i m p o s s i b l e to code unambiguously. According to Goodwin (1981: 53), for example, it is p r e cisely the turning of the face or head towards the other that provides the signal to w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t s r e s p o n d . A s a r e s u l t , i t is o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n gaze and other gestures and movements; for this reason, I shall primarily deal with them in conjunction with each other in this section. G a z e is n o t o n l y u s e d t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about the other participants in a conv e r s a t i o n , it is, i n i t s e l f , a s o c i a l a c t : it c a n b e u s e d , f o r e x a m p l e , t o d i r e c t a t u r n a t a n o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t a n d it is a l s o a m e a n s o f s h o w i n g t h a t o n e i s l i s t e n i n g . T h e m o v e ment of gaze can also indicate something about how the participants organize themselves vis-a-vis each other. An interesting question in multiparty conversation is t h e d i r e c t i o n o f g a z e w h e n a participant wants to direct talk at the whole group. Bales (1970: 67) points out that in order to direct talk at the entire group, a conversationalist must avoid looking at a n y o n e p r e s e n t f o r t o o l o n g , o t h e r w i s e it m a y a p p e a r t h a t t h e t a l k is b e i n g a d d r e s s e d to a particular participant. It has also been noted that a listener looks more at the speaker than the speaker looks at the listener (see e.g. Kendon, 1967: 59ff.) and that the gaze of a listener or its absence can significantly affect the talk of the speaker (Goodwin, 1981: 57ff.). In the earlier discussion on the participation framework, I pointed out that Eva does not address her first turn (lines 1--23) at anyone in particular, i.e. she can be r e g a r d e d a s s p e a k i n g t o t h e w h o l e g r o u p . T h i s is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e w a y i n w h i c h h e r g a z e is d i r e c t e d : h e r g a z e d o e s n o t r e s t o n a p a r t i c u l a r l i s t e n e r f o r l o n g e n o u g h f o r h e r t u r n t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s b e i n g d i r e c t e d a t a p a r t i c u l a r r e c i p i e n t . A n e x c e p t i o n is the gaze that she directs at Helen after Helen's first acknowledgment token (line 4). I f H e l e n ' s m m i s i n t e r p r e t e d a s t h e f i r s t s i g n a l t h a t s h e is a l i g n i n g w i t h E v a , E v a ' s gaze can be regarded as a sign that she has registered this co-operative signal. A

H. K a n g a s h a t j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 291--319

315

decisive point in the emergence of a team is the locus where a proposed member of the incipient team, i.e. in this instance, Eva, can either accept or reject the proposed t e a m . A t t h i s p o i n t , it s e e m s t h a t E v a a n d H e l e n ' s t e a m i s b e i n g m u t u a l l y i n s t i g a t e d . The direction of gaze often involves very small and delicate movements. Eva most clearly distances herself from Simon and Gina's position. For example, after indicating this in words with the adverb sieltd "over there" (line 16), she takes a quick glance at Gina. This quick glance makes Gina the recipient of this distancing expression. Participants in conversation can show how they interpret the action in process in many non-verbal ways. Such interpretations are seen, for example, in Simon's gaze and movements. Simon's movements and posture change as Eva shifts from one argument to the next. When Eva uses the adverb muka 'as if; supposedly' at the beginning of her turn to indicate that she does not accept Simon's view of the chairp e r s o n ( l i n e s 1--8), S i m o n l o o k s in E v a ' s d i r e c t i o n , b u t n o t d i r e c t l y at E v a . S i m o n ' s way of looking can be regarded as his adaptation to the stance taken by Eva. As Goodwin (1981: 1 0 3 ) p o i n t s oiat, t h i s k i n d o f r e a c t i o n is t y p i c a l w h e n a r e c i p i e n t p e r c e i v e s t h a t t h e s p e a k e r is a b o u t t o b e c o m e d i s a f f i l i a t e d : t h e r e c i p i e n t ' s u s e o f gaze indicates understanding and acceptance of the participation framework proposed by the speaker. Thus, the participants act in co-ordination and co-operation even in situations of disaffiliation. When Eva begins to talk about Simon's categorization of her (line 12), Simon clearly changes his position: he looks downwards and smiles slightly at the point where Eva says hallinnon " a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ' . T h i s is a n o t h e r p o i n t a t w h i c h h e s h o w s t h a t h e h a s l i s t e n e d t o E v a ' s t a l k a n d h a s i n t e r p r e t e d it. T h e n e x t c l e a r c h a n g e o f position is when Eva says terveydenhuollosta " H e a l t h S e r v i c e s ' ( l i n e 15), a f t e r w h i c h S i m o n l o o k s s t r a i g h t a t E v a u n t i l t h e b e g i n n i n g o f l i n e 19. T h i s g a z e c a n b e i n t e r preted as Simon seeing himself as the fully-fledged target of Eva's turrl, because at t h i s p o i n t t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y t o w h i c h S i m o n b e l o n g s is m a d e r e l e v a n t . S i m o n ' s g a z e also distinguishes the last two utterances in Eva's turn. At first Simon looks down (lines 19--20), but then he looks at Eva again (lines 21--23). The changes in Simon's gaze cannot be said to influence Eva's talk, which in itself is not surprising as Eva has already disaffiliated herself from him. Both Eva's talk and the fact that she avoids looking at Simon are typical of a situation where a participant is disaffiliating: she treats Simon as someone who is physically present, but not entirely relevantly present (see Goodwin, 1981: 96). Helen uses gaze in her first turn in a variety of ways. At the beginning of the turn both her talk and gaze make the entire group the target of her talk. This is seen, for example, in the fact that she makes Eva the topic of talk (line 25) and even points in Eva's direction with her thumb without looking at Eva. Even though Helen primari l y d i r e c t s h e r t a l k a t t h e e n t i r e g r o u p , s h e r e p e a t e d l y u s e s g a z e -- a n d i n l i n e 2 9 t h e p r o n o u n o f a d d r e s s s u o ' y o u ' ( s g . ) -- t o m a k e e i t h e r E v a o r L e n a t h e p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t o f h e r t a l k . A t t h i s p o i n t in t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n , a n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h r e e p a r t i c i p a n t s can be seen: with her talk and gaze Helen includes Lena in the team formed by Eva and herself. In contrast, not once does Helen look at Simon or Gina, at least not conspicuously, which again reinforces the existence of two teams.

316

H. Kangashalju / Journal o f Pragmatics 26 (1996) 291--319

When teams are created in a conversation, those who have not unambiguously been positioned in a team are in an interesting position. Vicky is in this position in t h i s s e q u e n c e : s h e h a s n o t c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d h e r o p i n i o n a n d is t h u s a p o t e n t i a l m e m b e r o f H e l e n ' s a n d E v a ' s t e a m . I n a d d i t i o n , E v a ' s a r g u m e n t is f o l l o w e d b y a n o d from Vicky (line 9). When Helen's use of the pronoun me 'we' (lines 32 and 34) m a k e s r e l e v a n t a c o l l e c t i v i t y t h a t c o u l d i n c l u d e a l l e x c e p t L e n a , H e l e n ' s g a z e is s w e e p i n g o v e r V i c k y , t o o . A t t h e e n d o f t h e s e q u e n c e , it is n o t i c e a b l e t h a t E v a l o o k s at Vicky a lot (lines 37, 40, 43-44). This could result from something in Wicky's b e h a v i o r t h a t is c a t c h i n g E v a ' s a t t e n t i o n , b u t it i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h i s w i t h a n y c e r t a i n t y s i n c e V i c k y ' s f a c e is n o t v i s i b l e o n t h e v i d e o . The synchronization of gaze and talk is very precise: for example, in line 39 Helen begins to complete Eva's turn precisely when Eva begins to look at her. Not once do Eva or Helen directly look at Simon, and the only glances directed at Gina are when Eva quickly glances at her when uttering the expressions sielt 'over there' ( l i n e 16) a n d u l k o p u o l i n e n p y s t y y " a n o u t s i d e r is a b l e " ( l i n e 4 3 ) . I n t h e s e c a s e s t o o , t h e p o s i t i o n i n g o f t h e g a z e is s i g n i f i c a n t : s i e l t ' o v e r t h e r e " is a m e a n s o f d i s a f f i l i a tion from the representatives of the Health Service, Simon and Gina, and the status of being an outsider is one of the main arguments used by Simon against the current chairperson. 3.3.3. Smiling and laughter Smiling and laughter are means of affiliation, although they can also be used for other purposes (see e.g. Jefferson, 1984). In the sequence, Eva smiles twice and in b o t h i n s t a n c e s h e r g a z e i s d i r e c t e d at L e n a ( l i n e s 3 8 a n d 4 0 ) . T h e s m i l e s a r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h t u r n s i n w h i c h L e n a ' s s t a t u s a s a n o u t s i d e r is d i s c u s s e d a n d w h i c h c o n tain a noticeable number of softeners. It is possible to interpret Eva's smile as a softe n e r , t o o . T h i s i s r e i n f o r c e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t i n b o t h i n s t a n c e s E v a is t a l k i n g a b o u t ' s t u p i d q u e s t i o n s ' , w h i c h -- w i t h o u t a n y s o f t e n i n g -- c o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s t h r e a t e n ing to Lena or insulting her. Instead, the 'stupid questions' are intertwined with a number of verbal and non-verbal softeners. These softeners could also include Helen's laughter in line 39. On the other hand, this laughter and a simultaneous, mutual gaze also indicate Eva and Helen's closeness and affiliation. T h e o t h e r s t r e t c h t h a t c o n t a i n s l a u g h t e r i s in H e l e n ' s f i r s t t u r n ( l i n e s 2 9 - - 3 0 ) : s h e laughs when she rejects the view that Lena and Eva are bosses: pomoina Stai(h) tai se(h)emmosina$ hallinno ihmisingi 'any kind of bosses $or(h) or k(h)ind of $ administrative people'. This laughter too is also connected with other kinds of softeners. For example, the use of the colloquial pomo 'boss' (line 29) can be regarded as a lexical softener. The only ones who laugh in this conversation are speakers. According to Jefferson (1979), within-turn laugh tokens are often used as recognition invitations and they make recipient laughter relevant as the assertion of understanding or affiliation. T h e r e i s n o r e s p o n s e t o t h e l a u g h t e r in t h i s s e q u e n c e : S i m o n l a u g h s ( e x a m p l e 2) when he proposes a change in the chair, but no-one else laughs. Helen laughs when she talks about 'bosses', but no-one else laughs. It can be assumed that laughter that f u n c t i o n s a s a s o f t e n e r i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m o t h e r l a u g h t e r i n t h a t it d o e s n o t e n t i c e o t h -

H. K a n g a s h a t j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 2 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 2 9 1 - - 3 1 9

317

ers to join in. The fact that the others do not join in with the laughter can also be explained by the situation. The only people who show affiliation in this conversation are participants of the same team. As the talk of team members is primarily directed at other participants and not to members of the same team, indicators of affiliation cannot be found amongst the intended recipients. The response to laughter fits in with the other indications of affiliation in this conversation. Apart from Helen's smile when she looks at Eva during Eva's turn (lines 37--41), listeners in this conversation hardly smile at all. Helen's smile can be interpreted as a marker of affiliation. Simon's smile (line 12), on the other hand, is different: when Eva rejects Simon's claim that she is part of the management, Simon does not look at Eva but down at the table and he smiles quickly as she says the word hallinnon 'administrative'. This smile cannot be interpreted as a marker of affiliation; it is a listener's reaction to what is being said: Simon shows that he knows what Eva is talking about.

4. Conclusions Multiparty conversation makes it possible for two or more participants to treat themselves or be treated as a collective. Moreover, in multiparty conversation -- a s i n any conversation -- v a r i o u s t y p e s o f m u l t i - p e r s o n units can be made relevant. This article has illustrated how a team that includes two of the participants in a conversation is made available to the other participants in a number of systematic ways which include argumentation and other linguistic means as well as gaze, gesture, movement and smile. When members of a team show affiliation with each other in a systematic way, they also use systematic means to create an 'opposition' and distance themselves from this opposing team. In addition, the article has discussed the means by which other collectivities are made relevant in the conversation. A t e a m t h a t is s p o n t a n e o u s l y created in a conversation is the result of interaction: it does not exist until it is jointly created by the participants. The analysis has shown that in the creation of a team, participants take advantage of the options offered by both the sequential structure of the conversation and its participation framework. A team is also context-creating: a single turn can change the direction of the action and the participants' stance towards each other. The creation of a team puts those who are not aligned with either side in an interesting position. In the conversation discussed in this article, the team turned out to be a phenomenon that is consequential in conversation. The creation of a team changes the participation framework of a conversation and it leads to so-called team talk: completion of a turn by another member of the team, repetition of parts of another's turn, and, in general, talk produced in collaboration with others and from common elements. In situations of disagreement, aligning as a team has the same features as other conversations where the participants show agreement. Nevertheless, one of the differences lies in the fact that the members o f a t e a m m a k e it c l e a r t h a t t h e p r i m a r y r e c i p i e n t s of their turns are the other participants, whereas in ordinary displays of agreement the primary recipient is the person the speaker is agreeing with.

318

Appendix:

H. Kangashatju

Transcription

/ Journal of Pragmatics

26 (1996) 291--319

conventions

[] (se) (---)

Onset and end of overlapping talk. Talk that the transcriber is uncertain about. Indecipherable talk. (1.2) Pause timed in tenths of a second. (.) Micro-pause (less than 0.2 seconds) T a l k t h a t is m a r k e d l y slower than the surrounding talk. Talk that is markedly faster than the surrounding talk. >joo< siihen< Break in the air stream. Pitch that is higher than that of the surrounding talk. ^ai *ei* Soft or whispered speech. Creaky voice. #niin# £kyllR£ S p e a k e r is s m i l i n g . $vaikka$ Spoken with laughing voice. si(h)iin~i Injection of laughter into a word. mukana Prominence. KAIKKI Increased volume. .hh Inbreath. lilt Smacking sound. ((coughs)) Transcriber's comments. X ........ Speaker's g a z e is d i r e c t e d at X ( w h e r e X s t a n d s f o r G Helen; L = Lena; V = Vicky). ett~i: Lengthening of sound. viel~i? Rising intonation. viel~i. Falling intonation. Even intonation is not marked.

= Gina;

E = Eva;

H =

References A t k i n s o n , J. M a x w e l l , 1982. U n d e r s t a n d i n g f o r m a l i t y : N o t e s o n t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n o f "formal' interaction. British Journal of Sociology 33:86--117. A t k i n s o n , J . M . a n d P. D r e w , 1979. O r d e r in c o u r t : T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n j u d i c i a l s e t tings. London: Macmillan. B a l e s , R o b e r t F., 1970. P e r s o n a l i t y a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r . N e w Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t a n d W i n s t o n . C l a y m a n , S t e v e n E., 1992. F o o t i n g in t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f n e u t r a l i t y : T h e c a s e o f n e w s - i n t e r v i e w d i s c o u r s e . I n : P a u l D r e w a n d J o h n H e r i t a g e , e d s . , T a l k at w o r k , 163--198. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i versity Press. D r e w , P a u l a n d J o h n H e r i t a g e , 1992. A n a l y z i n g t a l k at w o r k : A n i n t r o d u c t i o n . I n : P a u l D r e w a n d J o h n H e r i t a g e , e d s . , T a l k at w o r k 3 ~ 6 5 . C a n l b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . F r a n c i s , D a v i d W . , 1986. S o m e s t r u c t u r e s o f n e g o t i a t i o n talk. L a n g u a g e in S o c i e t y 15: 53--79. G o f f m a n , E r r i n g , 1981. F o r m s o f talk. O x f o r d : B l a c k w e l l . G o o d w i n , C h a r l e s , 1981. C o n v e r s a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n s p e a k e r s a n d h e a r e r s . N e w York: Academic Press. G o o d w i n , C h a r l e s a n d M a r j o r i e H a r n e s s G o o d w i n , 1990. I n t e r s t i t i a l a r g u m e n t . I n : A l l e n O. G r i m s h a w , e d . , C o n f l i c t t a l k , 85 117. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . G r e a t b a t c h , D a v i d , 1992. O n t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f d i s a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n n e w s i n t e r v i e w e e s . I n : P a u l D r e w a n d J o h n H e r i t a g e , e d s . , T a l k at w o r k , 2 6 8 - - 3 0 1 . C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press_ J e f f e r s o n , G a i l , 1979. A t e c h n i q u e f o r i n v i t i n g l a u g h t e r a n d its s u b s e q u e n t a c c e p t a n c e ] d e c l i n a t i o n . I n : G . P s a t h a s , e d . , E v e r y d a y l a n g u a g e : S t u d i e s in E t h n o m e t h o d o l o g y , 7 9 - - 9 6 . N e w Y o r k : I r v i n g t o n .

H. K a n g a s h a l j u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 2 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 2 9 1 - 3 1 9

319

J e f f e r s o n , G a l l , 1 9 8 4 . O n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n o f l a u g h t e r i n t a l k a b o u t t r o u b l e s . I n : J. M . A t k i n s o n a n d J o h n H e r i t a g e , e d s . , S t r u c t u r e s o f s o c i a l a c t i o n : S t u d i e s in c o n v e r s a t i o n analysis, 347--369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kangasharju, Helena, 1991. Neuvottelu keskusteluna [Negotiation as conversation]. Publications of the Helsinki School of Economics No. B-112. K e n d o n , A d a m , 1 9 6 7 . S o m e f u n c t i o n s o f g a z e d i r e c t i o n in s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . A c t a P s y c h o l o g i c a 26: 22--63. Laury, Ritva, 1994. Conversational use and basic meaning of Finnish demonstratives. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the Conference on Cognitive Structure, Discourse and Language, University of California, San Diego, Nov. 11--13, 1994. Lerner, Gene H., 1987. Collaborative turn sequences: Sentence construction and social action. Unpublished dissertation. University of California, Irvine. L e r n e r , G e n e H . , 1 9 9 1 . T h e i n i t i a t i o n o f " i n t e r a c t i o n a l l e a r n s " in c o n v e r s a t i o n and some consequences. Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara. L e r n e r , G o n e H . , 1 9 9 3 . C o l l e c t i v i t i e s in a c t i o n : E s t a b l i s h i n g t h e r e l e v a n c e o f c o n j o i n e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . T e x t 13 : 2 1 3 - - 2 4 5 . L y o n s , J o h n , 1 9 7 7 . S e m a n t i c s 1---2. C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge University Press. Pomerantz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispref e r r e d t u r n s h a p e s . I n : J. M . A t k i n s o n a n d J o h n H e r i t a g e , e d s . , S t r u c t u r e s o f s o c i a l a c t i o n : S t u d i e s in conversation analysis, 57 101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raussi, Anne, 1992. Et[t~i]-partikkelilla alkaval lausumat keskustelussa [Conversational utterances inlrod u c e d w i t h t h e p a r t i c l e et[t~t] ( ' t h a t ; s o ' ) ] . M a n u s c r i p t , D e p t . o f F i n n i s h l a n g u a g e , H e l s i n k i U n i v e r s i t y . Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Two volumes, edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell. Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1992. On talk and its institutional occasions. In: Paul Drew and John Heritage, eds., Talk at work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 101--134. S c h e g l o f f , E m a n u e i A . , G a i l J e f f e r s o n a n d H a r v e y S a c k s , 1 9 7 7 . T h e p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n in t h e organization of repair for conversation. Language 53:361 382.