Pragmatics and Society - Volume 5, Issue 2, 2014

This paper examines how a standardized question is launched and received in a corpus of performance appraisal interviews, with a focus on how pre-­formulated questions are translated into interaction. Using conversation analysis, we demonstrate that the same question becomes many different actions in practice. Prefaces as well as prosodic and lexical alterations make relevant different responses, and as such, the question can be recruited to initiate diverse interactional projects such as assessments and other socially delicate activities. As a consequence, goals of uniformity and standardization may be subverted. The interactional adaptations further evidence the strength of recipient design as reformulations also result in more fitted and personalized answers. Our study contributes to the understanding of standardization versus interactionalization, and points to the strong interrelationship between question design and the fitting of response options.

This article addresses the epistemic domain of adult make-believe activities in innovation workshops. In particular, we demonstrate how adults initiate imaginary transformations of objects while displaying an orientation to a general order of make-believe in which everyone has equal epistemic rights, and how this can be displayed both verbally and nonverbally. This distribution of equal rights is only overridden by external or locally derived roles, and once invoked they override the general preference for epistemic symmetry, after which interlocutors orient to establishing epistemic congruence, despite the obvious presence of epistemic asymmetry.

Medical records are documents of tremendous social importance. They have been the subject of much medical and sociological research, in particular regarding validity, accessibility and readability. This paper uses Conversation Analysis to add an aspect to the understanding of medical records that has been missing so far, namely how medical records are produced as interactional accomplishments; specifically, how hospital staff members during meetings conversationally negotiate and reach conclusions, treatment recommendations, and other types of consequential decisions. The process involves four steps: assessing patients, interpreting implications, drawing conclusions, and dictating conclusions on tape. The key finding is that participants throughout the process orient towards a need for consensus, whilst at the same time acknowledging the doctors’ interactional leading roles. This insight can enhance our understanding of medical records in hospital settings as constructed and negotiated realities.

This paper integrates methods associated with language socialization and pragmatics to examine how participants in one middle school dance program use the indefinitely referential language of ‘some people’ as a robust resource for socializing embodied competencies related to dance, linguistic competencies related to the ability to use ‘some people’ in indexically and pragmatically complex ways, cognitive competencies related to error-correction and problem-solving, and social-moral competencies related to responsibility-taking. A key argument is that the referential vagueness inherent in ‘some’ as an indefinite determiner contributes fundamentally to the usefulness of ‘some people’ as a language socialization resource in this community of practice.

This paper takes a cross-linguistic look at two notorious examples of contemporary slang: American English dude and German Alter. Both have received considerable attention in the media and some initial sociolinguistic inquiry. It is shown here that both items share a number of properties, some quite obvious, others subtler and possibly less stable. This includes features from all levels of linguistic analysis and covers both formal and functional aspects. The seminal similarity between dude and Alter is of a syntactic nature: while both NPs can occur within argument structure, their default is in vocative position. Based on this structural parallelism, other domains are analyzed, including semantics and bleaching effects, phonological and orthographic variation. Particular attention is given to the sociocultural and sociopragmatic potential of dude and Alter, including their role as indexicals for certain youth groups and their subsequent stereotypization. This paper tracks both the similarities and the subtle differences in the usage and function of dude and Alter. It is argued that this lexical parallelism, albeit coincidental, highlights the role of vocative forms in the discursive makeup of both English and German.

This paper examines two realisations of the television talk show in North America: The Oprah Winfrey Show and Dr. Phil, looking specifically at how they function within the sub-genre of ‘therapeutic talk show’ in keeping with Livingstone and Lunt’s (1994) classification of talk shows. Talk shows are defined by Ilie (2001) as “semi-institutional discourse” having features of a given setting (TV studio), topic- and goal-oriented talk, high degree of topic control, as well as restrictions on time and turn-taking. Theorists examining this sub-genre of therapeutic talk show have argued that it provides a valuable means by which stories otherwise unrecognized have a forum, or that values of truth and honesty can be conveyed (Livingstone & Lunt 1994; Masciarotte 1991; Carbaugh 1988). However, theorists such as Abt and Seesholtz (1994) view therapeutic talk shows as potentially demeaning to guests who appear on them as well as a means by which suffering can be trivialized. Through an examination and analysis of requests for information, both direct and indirect, which are the principal features of all interviews, I look at how Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil problematize the narratives told by their guests. Both hosts rely heavily on one type of request, B-Event assertions functioning as indirect requests for information, to provoke specific response. My findings indicate that these talk shows do not in fact provide a forum for talk that would otherwise not be considered as suggested by Livingstone and Lunt (1994). Both Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil appropriate the stories provided by their guests; they also participate in their own overarching meta-narrative whereby as ‘heroes’ they solve their guests’ problems within a given time frame. Guests’ narrative responses share more with the speech act of confession than with free self-expression. The speech act of confession encouraged by these therapeutic talk shows serves in turn to reinforce conservatively-held values on the part of the at-home audience for whom such confession is also entertainment.