Syntax and Lexis in Conversation

Studies in Discourse and Grammar Studies in Discourse and Grammar is a monograph series providing a forum for research on grammar as it emerges from and is accounted for by discourse contexts. The assumption underlying the series is that corpora reflecting language as it is actually used are necessary, not only for the verification of grammatical analyses, but also for understanding how the regularities we think of as grammar emerge from communicative needs. Research in discourse and grammar draws upon both spoken and written corpora, and it is typically, though not necessarily, quantitative. Monographs in the series propose explanations for grammatical regularities in terms of recurrent discourse patterns, which reflect communicative needs, both informational and socio-cultural.

Syntax and Lexis in Conversation Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction

Edited by

Auli Hakulinen University of Helsinki

Editors

Sandra A. Thompson University of California at Santa Barbara Department of Linguistics Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA

Margret Selting Paul J. Hopper Carnegie Mellon University Department of English Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA

University of Potsdam

Volume 17

Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction Edited by Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements 'Concessive Repair.'XElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Sandra A. Thompson University of Potsdam / University of California, Santa Barbara

Our paper describes a two-part constructional schema which English conversationalists deploy for the retraction of their own overstatements and exaggerations. The schema invokes a 'stronger than/weaker than' scale, which allows speakers to concede exceptions but at the same time preserve the essence of their initial description. As a construction, Concessive Repair is so wellentrenched that the second part is often omitted or co-produced. Although the practice occurs in the same sequential locations as classical repair, it shows a preference for next position. In contrast to other ways of backing down, Concessive Repair makes an explicit display of the reasons for revising a prior formulation and by displaying rationality, accomplishes 'being accountable'.

i.

Introduction

In a recent study of falsehoods and retractions, Drew (2002) documents how speakers on occasion find it necessary to construct descriptions or claims which, strictly speaking, are not 'true' but are required by the contingencies of the sequential moment to be strong and dramatic versions of 'the facts'. Upon their production such overstatements or exaggerations may go unnoticed on the conversational surface. Alternatively recipients may register them skeptically by withholding full endorsement or failing to concur in next turn. But whether overstatements are registered as such or not, their producers often find it expedient to retract or weaken the initial version in subsequent talk. This is the conversational task with which we are concerned here. Our paper describes one way in which English conversationalists handle the job of retracting their own overstatements and exaggerations. Although the practice we identify is not the only means available for backing down from a strong or extreme formulation, it is patterned and can be described as a two-part constructional schema. This pattern, as we shall show, in effect 'grammaticizes' those retractions which Drew describes as being "constructed as exceptions, leaving the initial version as essentially

258 Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Sandra A. Thompson

correct" (2002:38). Since the practice is repair-like and has much in common with what we have described in earlier work as conversational concession (Couper-Kuhlen & Thompson 2000), we shall refer to it as 'Concessive Repair'. The clearest examples of overstatement in conversation involve what Pomerantz (1986) has termed 'extreme case formulations' - unmitigated, categorical claims about what is or is not the case in the world. Extreme case formulations are mobilized to do adversarial work in complaining, accusing, justifying and defending: they accomplish this by anticipating and countering potentially unsympathetic hearings. As Pomerantz shows, recipients may on occasion challenge the status of an extreme case formulation (and the claim it is being used to warrant), leading to a reformulation of the description and a weakening of the claim. Her example of this is the following (the excerpt comes from a call to a Suicide Prevention Center in which the caller admits to having a gun at home and provides the following account for it):

Retracting overstatements: 'Concessive Repair' 259

consider instances which do not involve a recognizable-on-production overstatement but which are oriented to by the recipient as needing retraction and ultimately lead to speakers invoking Concessive Repair.

2. The practice In this part of the paper the term 'Overstatement' is reserved for clear instances of extreme case formulations. Extract (2) from a telephone conversation between two cousins, Deena and Mark, contains a prototypical example from our materials.1 Deena has been talking about how expensive her daughter Melinda's wedding is going to be and Mark has sympathized. Mark now proposes to close down this part of the conversation by generalizing that children are worth the money which parents invest in them.

(1) Pomerantz (1986:226) 1 —» Caller: 2 3 Desk: 4 5 Caller: 6 Desk: 7 8 9 => Caller: 10 Desk: 11 =>• Caller: 12 Desk:

Mm hm, It- u- Everyone doe: s don't they? (1.7) Yah ee- e_-ah::: ih You have a forty fi:ve and it's loaded. Mm:mm, A:nd uh (0.4) I suppose maybe everyone in:hh evrywuhin Burnside Park has one I don't kno:w, (0.7) Well no: but I mean- (0.2) a lot of people have guns Oh su: [re, [I mean it's not- (.) [unusual. [I s::- I: see.

The expression 'everyone' in line 1 makes this an extreme case formulation. When challenged by Desk in lines 3-4 and 6-7, the caller responds (lines 9 and 11) in a way described by Pomerantz as "disclaiming the contrastive status" (1986:226). This could be thought of as a lay description of the practice we wish to explore here. In Pomerantz's understanding, extreme case formulations are recognizable on production as exaggerations because they involve extreme expressions such as every, all, none, best, least, always, absolutely, etc. Edwards (2000), however, rightly points out that any unqualified statement can be taken as 'logically' absolute, even though it may lack an overt marker of semantic extremity (2000:349). In everyday conversation, many (according to Edwards, most) objectively extreme descriptions are not retracted at all but are allowed to stand. On the other hand, even objectively non-extreme descriptions may be subsequently retracted if they are challenged or if speakers wish to forestall a potential challenge to them (2000:369). The notion of'overstatement' as we use it here encompasses both these categories: objective exaggerations, i.e. semantically extreme statements, as well as those statements which are treated as in need of qualification by recipients and speakers. In the following we first examine retractions of objective extreme case formulations with the Concessive Repair format, and then

(2) HolfcMay 88:2:4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Mar :

Dee: Mar: Dee: Dee:

Mar: Dee:

->•

=> a Dee : =>• a Mar:

=>• b Dee: Mar: Dee:

.hhhh tWe : 11 ( . ) X dunno I we. view the f :::::: :act that your kids're your assets really an' we'd rather spend our money on our kids than [waste it]= [That is ]= =[exactly h o w X 1 = [on ourse_lves or anlything else[.hhh hhhh [That is exactly what we said I sa_id to Dwayne as Icmg as we've got a bit of [money to- (.) you know as tl°n