Language as Action
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139


A significant number of calls made to Kids Help Line are seen by the organisation as not requiring counselling support, but are rather young people testing or ‘checking out’ the service. Although the status of many of these ‘testing calls’ is self-evident, determining the authenticity of others presents the helpline counsellors with a dilemma: confronting the caller if they have doubts about the caller’s reason for calling while, at the same time, avoiding a premature challenge when the call is genuine. We examine the various interactional strategies that the counsellors artfully deploy in their determination of the status of a call. Outright challenges are rare, and counsellors typically will employ devices that announce their suspicions indirectly and which, at the same time, seamlessly accomplish the mundane business of responding to a call in ways which treat the callers with respect.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baker, C.D. ; Emmison, M. ; Firth, A.
    2005 ‘Calibrating for competence on a software helpline’. InCalling for Help: Language and Social Interaction on Telephone Helplines, edited by Baker, C.D. ; Emmison, M. ; Firth, A. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.143
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.143 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barton, A.
    1999 ‘Prank calls: Plague or purpose?’ Kids Help Line Newsletter. March.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Danby, S. ; Emmison, M.
    In press. ‘Kids, counsellors and troubles-telling: Morality-in-action on an Australian children’s helpline’. InMorality and Interaction edited by Cromdal, J. ; Tholander, M. New York: Nova Science. doi: 10.1558/japl.v9i2.25733
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v9i2.25733 [Google Scholar]
  4. Drew, P.
    1997 ‘ “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation’. Journal of Pragmatics28: 69–101. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  5. Emmison, M.
    1993 ‘On the analyzability of conversational fabrication: A conceptual inquiry and single case example’. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics16 (1): 83–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Emmison, M. ; Danby, S.
    2007 ‘Troubles announcements and reasons for calling: Initial actions in opening sequences on a national children’s helpline’. Research on Language and Social Interaction401: 63–87. doi: 10.1080/08351810701331273
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701331273 [Google Scholar]
  7. Grice, H. P.
    1969 ‘Utterer’s meaning and intention’. The Philosophical Review78: 147–177. doi: 10.2307/2184179
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2184179 [Google Scholar]
  8. Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Victoria
    Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Victoria 2006 Campaign to Stop Nuisance Calls to Triple Zero (000). RetrievedAugust 18, 2006, from: www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/e741a30016eaac/035d963eff 5840dfca2570f8007c4ca9!OpenDocument.
  9. Potter, J. ; Hepburn, A.
    2003 ‘”I’m a bit concerned”: Early actions and psychological constructions in a Child Protection Helpline’. Research on Language and Social Interaction36: 197–240. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_01
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_01 [Google Scholar]
  10. Schegloff, E. A.
    1997 ‘Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair’. Discourse Processes23: 499–545. doi: 10.1080/01638539709545001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Schegloff, E. A. ; Jefferson, G. ; Sacks, H.
    1977 ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’. Language53: 361–82. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  12. Searle, J. R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Assay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  13. Van Leeuwen, T.
    2001 ‘What is authenticity?’ Discourse Studies3 (4): 392–397. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003004003 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error