Cnaprrn 5

The dynamics of dialogue

5.1 Conversation as the habitat of dialogical principles

Dialogisrn is a gcneral frarnework for undersLanding discourse, cognition ancl

communication. However, its basic principles are derivecl frorl observations of
talk in fbcussed, face-to-face encountcrs between people; the principles are most
salient in conversational interaction and they can be more clearly statecl by
rsference to such data. An empirically adequate theory ol'dialogue must be basecl
on authentic discoulse. To introduce the basic notions of clialogisrn I will
therefbre use a number of examples, which are mainly drawn from conversations
in infonnal settings.
My lirst items are borrowed from Tannen (1984), which is t cornprehensive
discourse analysis of'one single, rnore than four-hour long clinner table conversa-
tion, which took placc at Thanksgiving in Belkeley in 197g. Six per.sons, all
around 30 years of age, were present: De(borah) (i.e. the author of rannen
1984)' P(eter), c(had), St(eve), sa(lly) (who was sreve's former girrtr.iend), ancl
Da(vid). Extract (1) occurs rather early in the four-hour recording; a couple of
the participants have discussed some intelesting books (by Erving Goffman, in
fact) that they have read, and now De(borah) asks p(eteL) about his general
reading habits:
)

l
68 APPROACI,IINC DIALOCUE IFIE DYNAMICS OF DIALOCUE 69
)

) (l) READING, EATING AND BEING BUSY (Tannen 1984: tt1-2)r ZO. Pt whaL I've been doing is cubting Oot. o.t my sJ'gp¡r'
oY! ( (sighs) )
2I. De:
l (...) ZZ. n,
-
=and I've been ({Sl- laughs)) (1.5 ) and I [s-
[1 do thaE too
1. De: do you read?
¡ (1.0) buL iE's Painful.
),. P: do I read? 24. P: =yeah. fj-: ve, six hours a n:qht, and
) (0.s) 25. Dei =oh Ggd, how can you dg it. you survive?
.|. De: clo youread t.hings jusE. for fun? (r.0)
) (1.0) 26. Pt yeah late afternoon meetings are hard (De: mmm) (1'0) but
I 4. P: yeah (1.0) right. now I,m reading Norma ,Jean the Termrte
Queen ((Iaughs)) - 2'1. De:
ouLside of that I can keep going lpretty wel]"
[noL sleeping enough is
I De: whab,s that? (1.0) Norma.tean like uh: (1.0) Marilyn
roe ?
Mon- Lerrible (1.0) I'd much raLher noL eaL but lnot slg:p
[ ( (Sa laughs) )

] (). P it's (.) no (,) it.,s a book about -- (2,0) a housewrte 28. P: I probably should not eaL so much, ic wouLd (') iL would
(xxx) uh (0.5) save a IoE of time.
'|. De:
I It . p:
is it a novel or
it.,s a nfvel .
what.. 29. De; j-f ym (like reall-y) busy I don'h I don'E r don'L eat' I
don'L Yeah I just don'! eaL but [r
t ()
. De:
10. P:
yeah?
before t.hat (f.0) I read Lhe French Lieut.enanL.,s Woman?
30. P: tI- (') I tend to spend a
lot. of t-ime eating and preparing and [(xx)
I ll.. De;
have you lread t.haL?
[oh yeah? no. who wrote that.?
31. De: [of: r never Prepare
food. (2.0) I eatl whaLever I can geu my hands on'
, t4, L.i uonn fowles. 32: P: =yeah.
I l. De; yeah I,ve heard t.haE. he,s good.
t I4: P: he,s a great wriber. I think he,s one of t.he best writ_
The seconcl extract from the same dinner-table discoursc, and the talk lras now
I L

I (i
. De:
li
. P;
=hm. (xxx )
he's really good.
focussed on hands (sic!):

] l'l. De: (xxx) (2) SHAKING HANDS WITH RUBINSTEIN (Tannen 1984: t22-3)
(3.0)
I lll . Il:
l'). l)c:
but I get. very busy. (1.0) [y,know?
l. sa: r shook hancts wiEh Rubinstein once? (1'0) land his hand
I (1.0)
lyeah I (, ) hardly ever read.
z' sL:
Logehher.
[Ysgh we did

a 3.
4.
Sa:
St:
thaE's right. we were together' wasn't iL incredible?
( (laughing) ) oh it was like a cushion.
a l. Scc Appclrdix I tbl a sutrltna¡'y of the tlanscliption convcntio¡rs adopterl in the cxarnplcs. There 5.
6.
Da:
Sa:
=whaL's this?
tI (0.5) we shoolk hands with Rubinst-ein'
a ¡lr(i sot¡¡c iltconsistcncies in tho ways excerpts ale leploduced. These alc rnainly due to
;unorgst tl)c sout'cc tr.anscr.iptions uscd in works cited.
diffcr.cnces 7. St:
(2.0)
lRubinsbein's hands ' ]
a In rclation to CA practices (cf. Atkinson & Heritagc 1984) (antl also to my own inter.actionist
t:tr:tlo, itccottlirtg to which rnany subtlc intcrdependencies and dctails of delivety coulcl (and
shoulcl,
B. De: and he had --?
9. Sa: =his hands --
) wlrt:rl np¡rto¡r|iate) bc cxploled; on thc inlportancc ol'natrow transct.iption, sec the compar.atrve 1,0. De: short sEubbY hands?
11. Sa: =Ehey were like (0.5) ljelly. bhev were like -- (1'0)
a r:xtrlcisc i¡t I-ltrtchby & WoolTitt 1998:8.51'f.), transcriptions are very rnuch sirnplified.
rrrr' rrr;rinly tlrc lblhrwing:
Thc r.easons
(¡r) I hc tjxcofpts atc usecl to illustratc antl discuss points of gcner.al signiñcance. The airn is not an
12. st: [a famous concerE Pianisb
Sa: they were like (0.5) puLhy. (0.5 )
) t:xll:tttslivc analysis ol'thc individLral exccrpts. In gelclal, I ar¡ lnore conccfned with clilnen-
13 . De: Ireally?
l-4. Sa: Ijusu (.) complet-ely sofL and Illmp.
, r;i.'s .l .rca.i.g othot than thoso which ar.e depcndcnt on subtle tirning and pr.osody.
(lr) 'l lrc sourcc transcr.ipts cited arc often simplilied in the originals.
15. St: [mush
(1.0) ( (De chuckles) )
) (' ) oxcclpts have been translated fior¡ another language, i.c. Swcclish, which urakes thc L6. Sa: jusL mush. it. was as though t-here was lno bone
"iov(rral
Ir:¡lrlitiotl ol'solre vc¡bal subtlcties as rvell as thc prosodic pattcr.ns very pr.oblematic. 17 ' st : land warln '
) ¡l ',h(,lll(l lrlso bc slid, howcvcf, that CA tlanscri¡rtions ale also selectivei for.cxarnple, lhuy pay vcr.y 18. De: and shorL shubbY fingers?
, lrrll( ¡l ¡lll(lllt¡orl to oxactly tirncd pauscs, at thc expcnsc of stress patterns, intonation
contours etc. No

a Ir,rrr'.r ri¡rl (:¡1il c:ll)tutC Cvctything.

a
a
 70 5
APPROACHINC DIALOCUE
THE DYNAMICS OF DIALOCUE
1l
u
19. Sa:
iilitf_"."obv rinsers bur. jusr.< (0.5) t.oLally
covered
3
(r.0)
20. St: faE.
topical cpisocle i'vorved, Deborah's soriciring init¡ar¡uc
unrerated to what went before (the talk on reading
in r: r, is not entrrcly 5
21 . Sa: =fat coffrran not crtecr here),
though apparently it came a bit r"r'expecteclly.2 yet,
r"h..on,.^,ror","r"uon." on¿
sequential dependence are of course rnore clearly
crisplayecr, once we have movecr
into a topically more close-knit sequence. one ca.not
5.2 The sequential orgar¡ization r.ip oiit any singlc urterance
of a social activity and understand what it means in i.solation, fbr example by figuring out what the
words mean in and by thernselvcs. This is obvious
The first point to notice about for both nlinimal responses
a dialogue is like l:8, l: 12 and2:20 or expandecl ."rpons"s3 like
terizecr as a scries of inr,ividuar be adequarerv crrarac- l: 19, l,;;;r2:4: itis
speaker is thorougrrly clependent
acrions. #l 'l::::l
utterance, act or turn by any
just impossible to understancr the rneaning
or. appr.eciate the significance of,
for
on what h.racn
s or her interlocutor(s) example, "five, six hours a nighr,, (l: 24), ,.John
same interaction;"we are clo(es) in thl Fowles,, qt:iZ¡,.,',at,, (2:20)
conrionted with or "it was like a cushion" (2:4) without knowing
tntcract antl commur . what question, ih"y onrr", o.
what local contexts they appear in' Many uttcrances
uncrersroocr i,, i,or.,il;1::,;i**i;f
signincun."
,, ".,T,:l1t.:;jt;^;ll:l;
intrinsicarrf
they make pe.fect sense in thcir particular
the positio'also
arc quite elriptic, ancl yel
seque'tial position. Trre relevance of
applies to initiativcs which takc rp
|K:,r,"1íi;rt,ijfilH:::ionar aeoli"n,
on rrrei, n.* topics or topical
', aspects, such as r: lg or 2: r. Each ancr every
contr-i,ution t<l a clialogLre gcts
If, co.rcspon<iingly, wc p'r.ase
rhe issuc i, r.cl.ms or interpreted partiaty on .he basis of thc
scqLrentiaily prior conr.ributions. con_
would claim uttsrance rneaning, wc
that the incrivicruar utterance-has verscly, these prior cantributions crispray
no communicativery rercvant their ,sequentiar implicatlveness,
lffitfi:*ilt;if in isoration' ñ
verbar comporition oi (Schegloff &
Sacks 1g73: 2g6) througrr this impact

actors
I
mobilir" inr'"..lJrlq;:11[:t"'oning
"*;; tr," urrerance
(and other contcxtuol
r*torr) ror"
thc lbllowing contributions. we can thcreforc
on the situated meanrng or,
say that crementary contributions
to discoursc are 'doubly contextual' (Heritage
Turning now to the excerpts, lgg4a:242); thcy are responsive
take, for examprc, peter's to prior contexts ancl contribute to rcnewinfcontcxts.
question in r: 2, .,cJo
unclerstood in rclation
lTil'#l#1"'" ro Dcborah's preceding
quc.srion
tion or a prior ,,t".or"i"l",.lut,Jt,,'llltin"Jtlv to ask to' o."p"tition or.rorin.o-
5'3 coordinatio' ancr synchronization of utterancc
barri'g theobvious.h;;;;;"",;:-^]l]^ "i'-*'ne words as that pt'ior uucrance, seg'rcnts in diarogrre
Arguablv,.Pet"' di,l ;r;;qriti
whar Deborah ,o"on."'i:," ll.f'-u-notnt' ,n¿"..rton¿
The principle of sequentiarity cloes not ncccssarily
rcacri.g rrabits in,, rncan that uttera'ce.s ancr
Pctcr's counrcr'-qrrcslio.; dr,:ffi ;:J"::l1"JH,;:;'r"f"".Hkltr,'"::;*T
in.r'csponu'n, ,u ,',"r]rrrc
actions litcralry foilow eacrr other in
or partially
the interactro,r3 .flrcy ..,-, o" ,u"r,tancoLr.s
ovcrrap. The crucial aspects actuaily
rcforrnuratcs rrcr.ow¡l prcvlous
quesrior (t: t) in l;3, acicling ol' different segments with rcspect to each
concern and pacing tr-re tintitrg
lbr firn,,), whictr otrrer (Clark 1996: 42). separate
scqucntialry depencrcnt
'conimunicati""
on both l:^,o;.i;;";;n,(,Just
l, the ri.ri the speaker,s (Deborarr,s)is rhen actlons by different speakers ¡nu.st bc coorcrinattcl
ancr nrutuaily a<.ljustcci in
nto'tt.:...!11.
and on | : 2, i'c' thc add¡'essce's jtl ;;;ü';r,"r abor¡r perer.,s reacring inrcrcsrs,
rocar
sr-rbtlc process of dove-tairing utterance segmenr.s. 'fhe joint a

"'
rcquest for adc]itionar
spcci fication or wrrat
alignment involvcs
of cornrnunicative projcct rrc sort
is supfosc¿ to-c"ont.it,rt"
Thc u¿terances 1: 2 ancr r: to.
3 tht,s u"t*lgoocr crear of rcconrexruarizing an elc'rcnr fro¡r
their positioning within a..pa'ticurar or.trreir rneaning f).orn a prior cpisorle, according ro rho
scqucnce of comrnunicative 3¡ J,l 'i;1*r'rple raxono¡ny
point applics quitc gc'c'ary actions. This 3.
to act.s in iir.o,ur". Evcn On rninimal ancl expancled responses, set:
ch. 9.
the vcry first act in the
4. In lirct, thc idca of a strict
(cf how of rhc 'writtcn ranguage bias'
rine.s arc;,'.,;ii;;:;[i":lTl,::l'jl':iJ:x.ilr1,T,:'jl:cr
a
rl
a 72 APPIIOACFIING DIALOGUE .I'HE
DYNAMIC.S OF DIALOCUE 73

r.l pace and rhythm, stress ancl inl.onation patterns, ancl non-verbal
accompaniment. things talkcd about; Dianne knows about rhe palticular asparagus pie (Jeffs pic)
Many interactions exhibit astonishingry perfect timing and synchrony, others
- involve asynchronies that may be per.ceived as nrisalignnents ancl uncomfortable
being assessed in tlie talk, rvhile clacitr joins in with gcncral ¿rssessrncnts. Note
the clillerences in tcnsc and rcfercntial exprcssions: Di¿rnnc uses thc past tense
- moments. To sec such subtleties, one needs rathcr detailecl transcriptions
of a (3: l: "madc", "was") and spccilic rcf'erence (3: l: "it (was so good)"), whereas
{ kind that have not been trsed in this book.s Clacia uses the present (generic) tense (3: 2: "l love") or. the hypothetical
{ To see some aspects of timing in a very short exccrpt, consider the folrow- conditiorlal (3: 4: "that'd be") and a gencric rcf-elcncc (3: 2: "that"), presurnably
ing strip of discourse taken frorn Goodwin & Goodwin (1992): ref'erring to asparagus pies in gcncral.
- (3) THE ASPARAGUS PiE (coodwin & Goocrwin, 1992: In the first exchange given (3: l-2), we sce Diannc pro.jecting (what is
r6g-1i2, er passim)
- ((D = Dianne, C = Clacia.6)) apparcntly going to be) an asscssmeut, and clacia perceiving the initiation
{, ("s:so:") of the asscssrrcnt cven bclbro thc rnailt asscssirrg itcm (,,goo:cl',) has
1. D: Jeff made an asparagus pie been pronounced: shejoins in (3: 2), apparently hersell aclopting the assessment
- projcct cued by Dianne as her own. Clacia contributcs to the assessment, overtly
{ r t was <s : : sg[_¡> <goo : d> translblming it into a joint one, though sho doe.s it frorn her point-of-view,
<--1----> <--2--->
expfessing a gcneric apprcciatiorr of asparagus pics (ratlicr than ol' Jeffs
- 2. L: [<f love> sit>. <oyeah I love t.ha;to specific pie).
- <--3 ---> <4-> <5---- The sccond excl.range unfolds in a rather sirnilar way. The assess¡ncnt
- ((in intervening l_urns, Dianne describes in great-er det.ail
Jeff.s
pfogfesses Íl'orn a preparatofy stage to a pcak of hcightcned r¡utu¿il involvement,
asparagus pie) and thcn throLrgh a stage of withclrawal, all orchcstratccl both by verbal anc.l
- )

vartous non-velbal means. Thus, wc can clisccrn an a¡iscssllcllt sLt'l,lcturc aDDroxl-

3. D: en t.hen jus'(cut-up) Lhe broc,_,r Lhe asparagus coming
- rnately as l'ollows (cf. Coodwin & Gooclwin, op. cit.: 182):
- lout in spokes.<=oib wz s<o gooclo>
<6--- <---?---> A. precursors to assessnrcnl (=B)
- 4. C: ll. pcak ol' involvc¡'nent (¡ointly ltlorluccd as.sossrncnts)
loo(<oh Go:d thah'd be fanLasLrc)oo
- <B---- C. proccdurcs l'or withdr¿rwing f'r'orn (B)
- Legend: <1> = D lowers upper trunk¡ <2> = D: nocl wit.h eyebrow
flash; <3,4> = C nods; <5> = C st.art.s to wit.hdraw gazei Thc episoclcs analyzcd cntbocly scvcral cornmunicativc pro.jccts at the thc same
- withdraws gaze from C; <7= D: assessmenL headshakes; <B><6>D= D
tirnc (on cotlltrtutticalivc plo.jocts, scc ch. ll); wc can soc tlle ntr-rlti-firnctionality
(rraws qaze = wit.h_
of ul.terartces, actions and cliscoL¡rse scgrnents clearly illustlatccl. For cxanrltle, the
-{ cpisoclcs cxcnlplificcl can bc l'¡carcl not only as assossnlou[s. Tlic cliscou¡sc
cooclr,vin & Goodwin analyzc thc fincly attunecl verbal anc.l non-verbal
aspccts of contributiolts atc also resourccs fbr closing tl,te topics illvolvccl. The asscssn.lcr.rts
this "snrall activity.systerrr" (op.cit.: lgl) in gr.cat cletail, making'rany
observ:i_
- tions. wc sec how the activitics arc collaborativcly proclucccl,
but with difrerent
seern lo malk the cvcnts or eit'curnstanccs nrcntionccl, clr thc stoly l-olcl, as worth
rnenLioning or telling (as 'mentionablcs'or'tellables'). At the same tirne, in thc
-{ .untributions by the two intcrlocutols due to the a.syrnmetfy of
knowleclgc aboLrt sccond exchangc, thc convclsationalists.jointly pro.jcct and carr.y out a topic
closuLc (op.cit.; 170). By withdlarving gazc whilc saying "spokes", ancl thcn
- r. (ll. llr. l. lowering her speech volurne, Dianne proposcs a (pro.jcct of) topic crosure, ancl
{ (r 'l lrt: ¡roirttcd llrackcts (<, >) insidc antl unrlcl the fclova¡t parts of thc vcfbal uttcfanccs
clacia, in ancl through hcr ,roflo voc¿ L¡ttcrancc "onoh Go:cl tllat'cl be j'antast-icoo",
lndicate
{ rvltttr: i¡t ll¡lrc thc associatccl para-linguistic geslurcs occu¡'. Note,
thercfore, that < > cloes nor carry
lcccpts this and contributcs to closurc by lorvering volurne cvcn rnore ancl by
ir:i t rrrvcrrio.¿rl (CA) nrcaning (srowctr-ciorvn spccch) in upgrading thc asscssr.ncnt (froni "goocl" l-o "f'anta.stic"). 'l'lrLrs, tllo closur.c pro.iect,
) this particurar. exarnDrc!

-
 74 APPROACHINC DIALOCUE
too' unfolds acco'ding to the patte'n:
first initiation/proposal, then acceptancc
and
.¡oint completion (cf. ch. I1.4).
5.4 Co-accomplishrnent i¡r concerted
activities
structures in cliscourse take shape
through the collaboration of the interactants
involved' This applies to participation
un¿ interaction, to meaning and content,
and also to expr.essions used
in clialogue.
In and through their- clialogue contributlons,
parties guicre each other,s
¡tarticipation in clialogue.T Due to various asymmetries
of knowredge anci
interests, parties are often not equal in these enclcavours.
one party may some_
times, at thc cxpense of the others, take on more of the role
perspcctive setter' This was, of the guide ancr
for exampre, true of Deborah in (r). An
cat participation is typicar asymlror.'-
of many insiitutional rnteractions, in which
als profession_
to ask questions, ancl ray clients, patients
'"nd and intcrvicwecs respond to
these questions (ch. l2).
Another point is the joint crevelopment
of topics and conversational episodes
(ch' 10)' Note, fbr exampre, thc
topic creveroprnenr in (1) with topics gliding
fi'om habits of reaai'g to eating (ancr
preparing food) via tark on srceping
habits.
This is clearly a rcsurt of trie collecti*,
ori¿ collaborativc , devero¡tment antr
negotiation of meaning. True
cnough, Deborah seems to be trre
one who ir.rtr.oduc_
es eating (l: 27), but she
does it becatrsc trrere has been talk
on rack of tirne and
on slceping, r'c tarrcr. r.opic fir.sr
rnenrioncd b, t";;ll, ;; ;;,
;wcvcr, in
his turn is depencrent on_the comrnon
Lopi. oi reaciing which the two together
developecl i'to the topicar aspcct
of ".ncring time for reacring wrren you are
busy" (cf. i: l8), which providccrthe very
bricrgJf.r.pr.ocecding to talking aboutother
ways of saving r'imc (r: lgfr.).
Topics, rh-en, are typically joi'r consrructions;
takes two to cstablish something it
as a topic, ancl thc san," is true fbr
ment the clevelop-
and closing of topics (ch. l0). simila.ry,
speech events, e.g. miscommu¡lication
cornrnunicatiu" prf".rc ona
sequonccs, arc coilaborativcly managecr
(cf' ch' ll)' convcrsationarists
are p^r.ners in co¡rccr.tccr activities.
The co-accornprisrrnrcnt of discursivc
activir,ies ancl thc r.esurting texts (wih
their topics) is a property first ancl
lbremost of the intcractions ancl thir
meanings,
7. On 'guidcd parricipation', cf. ttogoff(1990).
U
THE DYNAMICS OF DIALOCUE
t5
but it applies to exprcssions, i,e. the more overt behavio,rar units, as
weil. Thus,
conversationalists typicaily borrow worcrs from each other, when
they builcJ up
their utterancesi the other's utterances provicle the basis for frequent
repetitions
of key words, Re-use' or repetition, of others' (and onc's own) words
is typical
of irnpromptu speech and conversation (ochs 1979). (Also, the occurrence
of
particular words may "touch off' the use of semantically
phonologicalry or
sirnilar words (ibid.: 74). rn aclcrition, prior worcrs occasion
anuphoric practices
such as the use of pronouns and ellipsis.) Thus, (1) is replete
with occurrences
of the sarne (or lexicaily crosery reratecl) wor<Js over adjacent uuerances;
compare' e.g. "read" (and the wholc constr.nctio' ,,do I/you
rcacr") in r: r,2,3,4,
"Norma Jcan" in r:4,5, "book" to "nover" in l:6,7,,,novcl,'in
l:7,g,,,goocl,,
in l: 13,16 (and "good" to "grcar, bcst" in r: 13,r4) crc., at involving
across differcnt speaker.s' turns. Trre same applics
rran.sitions
of couLse to (2),;hich is an
cpisode where two speakers tell about a common
expcrience, that of shaking
hands with Rubinstein. In (2), wc witness how a
sto.y can be told collabora-
tively, with a lot of reciprocal reeclback sceking ancr giving,
cruetting (speakcrs
saying almost rhe same thi'g at the same timc;8 aricr
.olpt"tionr"of orher,s
uttcl'ances and thoughts. For exarnple, Sally's sentencc
in 2: lg is left unfinishctl
by her, but Steve steps in and supprios a worcl, "thr"
wliich completes tlrc
sentence,e whereupo' salry herserf iÁmediately
cchocs this cornpletion. Togeth_
er, in talking about Rubinstcin's hands in lincs 2:
|*12,r 4-16, they composc
two different'three-part rists', "they were like.iclry,
thcy weLe rike...they wcr.o
like putty, just mush", ancl "cornpletcly soft ancl linip
ancl warm,,,both lists
initiated by Sally and compreted by Stcvc. The colraborative
use of such rists is
a t'esou[ce fbr thcm both to demonstr¿ltc
lheir sharecl cxperiences ancl to c.'str.rrc(
the telling of thern.l0 As a result, [rre coherent,
situatccr interpretation rs assor'
bled over two speakers' rjifferenf uttel.ances.
I' othcr words, in clialogue spcakers oftcn "appr.opriate otlrcr,.s w.rrrs,,
(Wertsch lggl: 59). Speakers ar.c cleeply
depcnclent on others, not only in llrc
8. Cf. 'conversational cluet' (Fa)k l9g0).
9 This pltenontcnon is ustrally callccl 'coll¡borative cornplction'
(Lcr.ncr I9g9), ,s¡rr)rrl;ril.,r.;
cotnplerion'(wilkes-Gibbs 19g6, r99.5) of ¡proxy
conrprerion,(crark & wilkcs_ciibr>s r9t1(r). sr.r:
also Sacks (1992: r: 321' 6qff..et passirnj
o,i'.o-p,o,lr.i,rg utrcr.anccs,. [.c'rrcr (r¡r.cir.: r./ r¡
cnaracte¡ izes collaborativc col.pletion ¡s follows: "ln
tlic cou.sc of'onc s¡rc,kcr.,s tur.n, lr'rrc,rr s¡rcrrkr:r
begins to speak, proclucing an-.t¡tterance whiclr
is a syntactically flttccl continLrati.n,1.*t: r:r¡r.rt.rrl
speaker''s uttcrancc-in-p[ogress". seo arso
Leucra¡ ¿ Rlrtaki .othcr-corr¡rrcri.rr
(lggB) o¡l
10. On thc usc of three-part lists, see Jelfcrson
fl990).
 THE DYNAMICS OF DIALOGUE
I(t APPROACHING DIALOGUE

Thcpointabouttl]isexamplehastoclowithhowtlrescadolescentsclevelopthelr
torrrr pcrspective of'cultural competence (using worcls tiorn thc Ianguagc
lrrrr¡1
I¡irr[rtl tl6wu to them), but also in the most local contexts, from tltterance
and
to
felicitotts
il; ;t"':'tilt it"ffi j;:* trfi frl H"i,il:.:"Jil,11,.i;,'li' l" i:3,
comments, on pflor co ,,iuck you" (4: l0), which makes Roger
¡tl(li¡lcc, whefe tlley fincl each other'S woIdS reasonably relevant snubs him wirh rhe expression
lor'tlre crrltont cotlcerns, alld llence appropriate them fOr their own use' Bakhtin
;;^ñ, it "literally"' This
counter this exptetrve
commenl ty mockingly (it seerns) taki.g
( l()li | : 293-zl) capturecl this insight in the famous wofcling: "the word is half
l99l: providesLouisewithanoppo,tuni.yforanother,sirrrilarly..furrny''Oomment(4: Al
r,olnool)c olsc's" (cf. Wcrtsch 70)' (note "hey" as a sudclen recall marker) reminds
'l'lrc locally occasionccl appropriation of ol.her's words seems to be a l2). This, iu turn, oppu'"nily 17)tells'However'
oiuiopi.orrvrelateJjoke(a: l3)'whichhesubsequently(4: the subject,'(4: 15)
rrrrivcrs¡l clialogical phenomenon, ancl it is sometimcs called'tying''llThere are lrimself oi..clranging
in the meantime, Al has excuipated
ol t:orn.sc crnpirical variations in its use ancl occttt'fence. Childfen and adoles- (presumably through
il.r" on" who "brought it up"
claiming that Louise ls actllally
r t.rrtr;, lor. oxar-n¡tlc, seem petrticularly pronc to takc up others'
worcls and in
4'. 12, \.e. the contribution
which rnacle Al associate to thc joke' as indicated
r.(,il(:cl)lri, t'ouse lheln and Of'ten elabOrate On them in a moCking way. The
(1992 I:538-9): 4:13).Al,ssiclecommenton..notcharrgingtlrcstrbjcct''(4:15)makesRoger
Iolhrwin¡1 is an exanrple discussed by Sacks
i,,u",y"tanothct.mockingremark(a:16).Sackssuggests(op.cit.:540)thatthe
(.1) ,l'llli BII(TH CONTROL PILLS (Exce|pt taken florn ¿t convetsaliott .tyingstrtrct,ures,,i.e.the"localrecotrtextualiZa|ions(ch.B)ofconceptsinprior
thelapy session. T=therapist, in ptiirs), pr.oviclc conversationalists, at leas|
¡ctwccu several teenagers attencling a groLlp tlttefances (tying ut|crances toge|'lrer
dcvcloping topics'
) l(.,.1{1¡ge¡', A=Al, K=l(en, L=Louise) in Uti, OinU oi situations, with a resoulce for
cor.rvelsationalists clevelop topics .iointly
Il in such a way that no topic is
I
'l'; 'cepL LhaL it is parL of the function of the group Lo pioptt'y' if speakers appropriate words and
uniqr,rely a partictrlar inclividualis
beltin l-o share uh in some of Lhese things' so that the each olhcr's uttcranccs arrcl thoughts' then
)
or.hers can undersl-and Lhemselves (xx;<) concepts from each othel ancl cornplete
cause-ef]'ect l'elal'itllls in discourse'
) lt: wcl.,L l-hab's why we're pumpin'."him we are obviously facecj withvcly cornplex
,1,: ri ghU. right. no, I vras (xxx) answerlng Ken '
) A: I l]ave to adapL myself Lo the idea thau I wanL -- Nospcaket.isaloneinarrthorirrghcrutterance;tosolneextentshcshatcsthc
|l: you clon't feel secure with us. responsibilitylbrwhatgctssaiclwithlierfellowconversatiorralists(ch.6).
t 'l': l¡ut-chu don'b... wanna -- actors tfy to gLriile each other''s participa-
/\ : t:llatt's right. l
Through the interltlay of thcir actions,
I 'l':¡rslsaicl...earlieryoudon.'twantLoadapt"'yourselfout
oI exisL.ence, Al
donandunclerstanclingsinclialogL¡e.Thereisareciprocalandmutual,p$L|y
sirnultaneous , shapittg of the discourse'
) ¡r; l'¡n gonna blackmail You.
l.rrr:)< you ( (K indicabes J"aughLer) ) Il. cliscotrrse, with its cotlstittrcnt cpisoclcs arrcl |-opics, clcvclops as a .joint

t l{ | l){rLtrer not, I become pregnant easy heh hehh heh hhhh

((t,rug¡hs) constrttction,tlrenitseemslrarcltoexplairiitpr.oper.lybyrecor'rrseonlyto
I lll,i
((k
( ( l;rrrghs )
l,rrr<flt:; ) )
)
) tal<e birbh control piIls ' inclividualspeakerintentions(ch.11.2).Ut|"eranccsdonotrealiseconrmunicative ¿i
intentions Lhat have becn ostablishecl p|ior
to vc|balization; rather' [hcre ts
l r,t
)y [ .jaw... saw a real neaE ... j oke
lr(
Irn .l i t:Ll e green Pills? constant interplay bctwcen the spcaker,
his'illtcrlocutor'(s) arrcl contexts' Vc|bal-
t l(: I
( lr¡ , ¡¡¡¡,'lr, rr ly couc¡hs ) )
I w,:ul- down to Lhe Porfs O'CalI Village, not to be izatio, ancl contcnt formalion arc locally ancl .jointly producccl, ancl httve emer'

I l¡, I'
r:lr,rrr<yi.nc¡ the subjecL buL she broughL iL
¡rrrl l:tt be change -- *I wouldn'L change
up --
the subjecL*
genr qualities.

l¡rl l:lrere was a birth con-- Lhey had a joke shop wi[h a
) l/ /\
l)irl.ll conLrol pill and iL was nade ouL of styrofoam' puL
il I)()l:ween your le- legs' n press very hard'
) { I r, l,ilr,tlr; ,rrr, I A joins in) )
) 12. .Non.focal, trtca¡ls, i¡t tl]is cotltcxt' tlrat a contribt¡tion
ties up witlr sernantically and contextually

I II ',,r, 1.,. (l()().1), lvl.ll. Cioothvi¡r (1990: 177f.) ('iorrilat tying').

so-fnr pcliphclal or tangcntitl aspccts of a prior contlibution Scc also ch 9 3

)
I
 78 :
APPROACH¡NC DIALOCUE
THE DYNAMICS OF DIALOCUE I
5.5 Interaction as expressing ancl tcsting
mutual understanding
7A
T
"[...] To some extent, primacy berong.s to trrc respJ'sc, us
the acrivating F
corn¡nunication serves to clevcrop
rnechanism ,fbr exposing o¡re's
srrarecl and mutuar uncierstancrings.
The chief
principle: it creates thc grouncl fonunderstancling,
it prep.res tlre grouncl for an
active and engaged understancring. unclcrstancling.o,,.,.r,o F
inherent in dialogue itseli in the
own ancr testing the ofter,s uncieistanaings
successive steps ofseque'ces of
is response."
fruitiJ¡l onry in the
T
turns. Thus, each urterance in
a.ialogue, e.g. in (l), (2), (3) or (4),
utterances and
can be raken
Accordingly, in authentic dialogue each speakcr uses her.
own turn to display F
ro expose parts of its speaker's
provi.so, of course, that much
unrierstandirg of a
or'this understlnaing ""rtain
iopi.oi
"rp""r,
wirh the
how she takes up trre other's prior contribu[ion. conversery,
take the other's response as an indication of how
each speaker can F
need-not always fepfesent any.rernarkabte
is taken over from others
creptrr of uncrerstanciing on the
a'cr he has just heard and respondecl to. Specifying
he (the other) undersiancrs what
or deterrnining understancrings
F
thc speaking incrividuar. At the .same
time,'speakcr.s use uttefances to
part of
ericit
"involves a comprex back-ancr-forth process
of,negotiation both between speaker F
re.sponses from Lheir intcrlocutors
ancl to test tl and heare¡ and between what has alreacly been
saicl ancl what curr.ently is being 5
ropics anci topicar aspccrs. For exarnpre,
p'ovisionally rimitecr Lrnderstandi'g "."
J;':;t;;T;,'.1TllT:,:il1:il: said." (Shotter 1993: 2'/).
Schegloff (lgg4: 3g) also points out that ,,uttcranccs ts
and that Dcborah's r: 3 r'cp'csents
of, what Deborah,s question in
an attempr o¡l hcr part to specify
r: r is about, speakers' understanding"' one might propose,
are built to dispray
as a rninor amencrment, that they ts
clearly what she rlreant in r: r. At
having hcard petcr's r:2, craims
reast, trris seems to be what
a rittle ¡norc
she,/zer¿, ar.ter
display parts of speakers' undcrstanding, sincc
interpretation which never get expressed. yet,
thcrc arc clcar.ly some layers of ts
her int.rcsf to have been in r: r. peter,s
the'is his answer.to l:3, and indirectly r:4 that by displaying parts of rheir uncrerstanclings
one can say, following Schegroff, F
understanding, or. knowleclge accessible
at th,
a f , l, anc.l provides (parts ot) his
accessible and therefore communicativery
sperkers make them pubricly
rclevant. othcr parts of incrivicluars, ts
Deborah's communicative projcct.
rn r: 5,
l:4, whiclr cvidentry compriscs a request ror dJ;l;I;:1l",::ff,Jffi:l:1 understandings may remain privatc, and therefbre
until they somehow get expresscd or ,,leak out,,.
cornr¡unicativcly irrelevant, F
tnvolved itr Pctcr's
fr-rrther inr.ormatio¡r on so¡,e details
answcl'(1:4). Ancl so on, and similarly Speakers know, at some revel, whar. r.hey H
Iogues. in thc other <.lia_
.say ancr what thcy mean by their
ultc[ances. This mcans that they can orcrinarily,accounI
ror', i.". exprain or F
u'derstanding a prior uttera.ce ancr
activities' Inclecd, unclerstancling
rcspo'cling l.o it arc crosely ¡.erateci
justily what thcy say ancl why (they think
refer to this as thc'accountability'of social
that) thcy clo it. Ethnometlrodologists ts
elcrncn[s, fitting it into,some kincr
an act or an utter.ancc involves, as
of context, prior
central tors use their utte.ances to. <lemonstrate, or
actions. As wc have seen, interlocu-
E
to it by prcparing an aclequate rcsponse.
knowlccrge ctc, ancr reacting
wllen sathtin says that all unclerstanc.l_ interpret what is going on.la This aspect'as
clocurnent, to each other how trrey
F'I
i.g is rcsponsive, r.his rnust be taker to
rer.er.to both rctr.ospective erernents,
i.e.
ers are 'held accountabrc' fo. their actions
a crearry moral dimensio.; speak-
ancr uttera'ccs, anci use the very sarne Fl
assigning a situated intcr.pretation
utterance, ancr prospccrive cr¡pe1ts,
to somethir
i::::ff#illi;rli;,,l,lliJ
utterances to 'account' fbr what thcy rncan
(Garfinkel 1967: 1).ls
Thus, if understancrings are to be commLrnicatccr, f-I
rvhich was just encounrered.r3
i.". p."po'.il!
be achieved, "onc's resporsive actio'
anci intcrsubjcctivity is to
FI
-l
Bakhtin^thus ioints to the fact that to thern (i.e. otrrers, r¡ttcranccs/pL) can
standing ol' somcbody's utte.ancc the u'crcf_ bc
ordi'ar.iry r,.,volues active tr.eatment
of [hat
uttcrance, this treatmcnt partially
consisting ln thc forrnuration
of an actu¿rr ,res_
4
4
ponse" i'c' a utterance. (In some cases, st¡ch
'cw a r.eaction may of coulse
rcrnain a silen{.,,,iltner" response.) In Bakhin,s (l9gl:2g2)

I3' Thus' both the uttcla¡lco and tltc utt<lefstantling

worcls: l4 To so¡rte cxtcnt, it is a qLrcslion of tJcrnonst'ating to
to'rterpret what is going on, which opens up
politcncss phcnorncna' scc Brrwn
the othcf how one wouk) wuttt rtunor
for opportLr'itics ot r",r,"rr.,r
1inj""",i
& [-cvinson tqgz) au¿ also attcrnpts at clownr.ight "*0r.r.,"" to"
l5 on'cpistcmic'(ancl othe'ki'dsof)r'esponsibilityfb¡discursiveactiors,secpornmctvcit(t99la) dcception.
her
4
4
surroLtnding act¡on context' Ñlo.c
ol'it arc [¡i-di'cctionaily r.eratc¿ to thc lrnrnsdiate
ttn thi.s "ianus-ficec,jl nn,ur. of
dialogue conrributions in ch. 9.
ancl Lincll & Ma.ková (1993) see
trotion of 'accountabiliry', scc c.g.
also lr'lLrhlhiiuslc¡'& IIanó (1990). on
Gar.finkcl (t967), Wat.son & Shal.r.ock (199i),
rhc clhnorncrhodological F1
:lrong orrrors.
a
t APPI].OACHINC DIAI-OCUE
{
{ reflected only in the exprcssion of one's own speech" (Bakhtin I986: 9l). ln
a other words, there is a l'airly close interdependency between uncleLstancling ancl
a responding/speaking (preparing for one's own verbalizations), ¿ind not thc gleat
divide assunied by rnonologism, i.e. between an active speaker, who h¿rs alreacly
t¿ undcrstood what he wanLs lo say, ancl a "passive" r'ecipient, whose task is mcrcly
{ to recreate the speaker's undorstancling. Both speaking ancl listcning involvc
sense-making (ch. 6).
- The fbunclation of col.¡rmunication and intersubjectivity lie.s in interlocl¡tors'
- display of understanding, or partial understanding, and of (partially?) shared ancl
- mutual understantling, in and through their utterances. But communication clocs
not prcsuppose or produce total shareclness of' meaning; rathcr it consists in
- people's altempt.t to expo.te and test thcir wtderstandings. Shotter (1993: l)
) arglles: "Most of the tilnc, we realize, wc do not fully unclerstand what another
a person says. Indeed, in p|actice, shared r,rnderstandings occur only occasioniilly,
if they occul at all. Ancl whcn thcy clo, it is by people testing and checking eaclr
- otlier's talk, by thenr questioning and challenging it, refbrmulating ancl elaborat-
- ing it, and so on." Coodwin & Goodwin (1992) arguc that "in or.dcr to achievc
coordinatcd action participants rnust display to each othel the intelligibility of thc
- cvents Lhey are cngaged in, including wh¿rt activities are in progl'css ancl what
- thcy expect to happcn next." (p. i73). This is what wc have seen actors doing
- lcpeateclly in the examples above.
Speakers do not, and cau not, express all aspecLs of rneaning tliat coulcl bc
- tnaclc relevattt fol the irrterpretation of' thoir uttcranccs, or fbr the sitLration at
- lalge. I{athcr, speakers givc cues to thc interprctation ol'their Llttcr¿rnccs, i.c. tlicy
givc indications ol' their undcrstanclings o[- things talkcrl aboLrt and of' thc social
- initi¿ltivc' strLtctLlrc, Lhc tnovem.entf'ont what is gi v,:rr in pliol contcxt /o solno-
iclcntitics and intcrpcrsonal lclations that afe presupposecl, ol alc bcing clevclopccl
- ancl achicvcd. In othcr rvords, unclerstanclings arc inl'crrc¿l ll'oni uttcrauccs-iu-
{ contcxts (ch.8), ratllcl than cxprcssed in uttoranccs. Curnpcrz (1982, 1995) has
t tlcvclopccl a l.hcory ol' contcxtualization cues and co¡tvclsation¿rl inl'ercncing,
t rvhich bLrild.s upon thcsc kinds of insights.
t Wc can suln tlp Lhesc points by clairning that discursive intcr¿rction is Lrsccl
lo cxposc and tcst rnntual undclstanding. In the tcxtulcs of actions, fcsponscs,
t It¡ttl Itcw fcsponses to thesc actions and re.sponscs, eirch corrversatio¡r¿¡list is "able
{ Io ¡ttonitor not ortly wh¿rt the othcl says but rvhat thc othcl unclclstancls (himscll)
t Io hrvc said" (Bihncs 1988: 35).
t I6, In sornc cascs locirl plorlrrction is lirnitcd to asllccts
-
)
ra
I'HE DYNAMICS OF DIALOCJUE ul
5.6 The local production of nreaning ancl cohcrencc
Shared understanclings in diirloguc arc suppoltcd by thc intcrprctivc work done
by actofs in intcraction; achicving (or, as clhnornothodologists sornetinrcs put it,
"doing") unclerstanding is tr "pructical 'problcnr' r.vhich is ioutinoly 'solvccl' by
social actors in the course oi theiL dcalings with onc a¡lothcr"' (Hcritagc 1984a:
54litalics in original). in this co¡nnrunicativc pr'occss intcrlocutors manul'¿rcture
utteranccs and mcanings oll a morncnt-to-lnolnent (tufn-l.o-turrr or Lttterancc-to-
utterance) basis. Discoutsc, understandings and relcvant contcxts nrc subjcct to
local production. In (4') we saw this illustratccl in l casc ol'rapicl topic transitions,
but the general principle is valicl I'or all ar.rthcntic tliseor¡r'sc,l6 cuc,r whon l"ho
various constil"uent. uttcranccs are hclcl togothcl lty asltccts oi global cohcrcnce
(sce ch. l2 on different conrnrunicative gcnlt.s). Uttcranccs are building-blocks
in thc local production of'rncaning and colrclcnce: "the initiation o['an action and
and thc rcsi)ousc to it (i.c. in apploxirnatcly what I rvill call (ch. ll) a local
corlmunicative projcctiPl) creatc the intrnorliatc scqLrcntia[ contexI ol' these
cvcnts (i.c. tlle cvents lvhcre situalecl unclcrslancling takcs place/Pl-), ancl occa-
sions ¿is well as exhibits analysis and understancling ot' thc Lrnlblding coursc ol'
intcraction" (Bodcn & Zimmelnt¿rn 199 l: l0). ThLough this incrcrnental ploccss,
undelstandings are constalttly updatcd.
Elementary discourse conlributiorrs, whother thcse are takcn to be sentcnce-
sizccl 'iclca ur.tits' ol turns at talk (cl'. cli. 9), contain thc ¡csou¡ccs fbr responding,
clisplaying ortc's r-rnclelstirnding and taking the cliscoursc lurthcr by introducing
ncw contcrrt. Tb,is double.-sicl.cdnc,Es of'tllc discoLrrsc contlibutior.t, its 'r'csponse-
tltirrg rrer'u, will bc cliscusscrl a[ soulc lcrrgth in ch.9.2. At tlrc lcvcl of'scr¡ucnccs
and cpisocles thcre is a sintilar rlcltrble-sirlcclncss (ch. 10.7). inclccd, thcre is a
ubiquitotrs ancl inhcrcttt (cusiou iu conrmunication and cliscor-rlsc, and its consl"itLr-
cnts, betrvectr cxhibititrg t'clcv¿utcc ancl coholcnco with rcspcct to whal- is givcn
and ploving o¡tportunitics lbt'ncw initiativcllnrl ncw scn.so-rraking; at a dcepcr
lcvcl, if you will, a dialcctics bctwccrr stability artd changc.
Dialoguo contributiolls, lvc havc just algucrl, alc procluccd in thcir. locai
contcxts. But this docs not tcll thc rvholc tr.utll. -flrc ploclucts ol"'sr¡all" local
pcrformance, sLrch as in thc lecital of a writtcn tcxt.
of pironc:tir prcisorlic and palalinguistic
82 APPROACI-I tNG DIALOC UE
actions add up to discorrrscs and texts, which also exhibit global regularities. At
the same tirne, local productions take place in the contexts of, socio-cultural
traditions, within a 'continuity of' practices' that extencls far beyoncl single
situations. Meanings are ol course not constantly createcl ab novo; rather,
mcaning potentials are part of actors' knowledge of language and are usecl in the
negotiation of sitLrated interpretations (ch. 7.2).
5.7 Dialogrre as a series of opportunities for ..r"uont continuations
In dialogical interaction, alrnost everything, i.e. every urterance or even some-
times the absence ol' an uttcrance, gets a rneaning. There is a continuous effor.t,
on the part of actors (and observcrs), tbr meaning, to make scnse of what is
happening around them. This holds especiaily for discourse, where behaviours
are couched in a symbolic system (i.e. language). In a dialoguc, even silences are
sometimes social acts with meaning.s. consider an episoclc like the following:
(5) WHAT TIME IS IT? (contrivccl exarnple, aficr Bilmes lggg: 46_9)
l-. A: what time is itz
2, B: ( (no overt response) ) a moral (or 'proto-moral'; Linell & Romrnerveit l99g) dimcnsion of clialoguc.
3. A: thank you very much
This simple cxample cau bc used to illust¡'ate several funcla¡norrtal propcrtics of
dialoguc. I[ .shows, f]rst of all, how a response can be r.elevantly absent. This is
possible becausc A's initiative (query) has establishecl a seqirential slot, wherc a¡
answcr is cxpcctcd. Thc abscncc of thc answer thus gets a mcaning through it,s
position inascquence. B's silcnce is not simply an cmpty space, but a signilrcant
'sileuce-in-context'. seconclly, it shows how people orient to rules, without being
totally constrainccl by thcrn. Though the sequence may be consiclerecl pr.agrnati-
cally odd, it is not rneaninglcss. on the contrary, "to break thc rule is no less
mcaningful than to obcy it" (Bilnrcs 1988:46); "not answering is usually
meaningl'ul preci.scly lrccausc it is a violation" (Bilmes, op.cit: 49litalics or.iginal).
By "doing silence", not ansrvering, B shows "a corrcct way to cro a snub" (ibic.l.:
49). In othcl wolcls, not obcying Lhe rule, anti thereby provicling a certain soci¿rl
meaning, shows that lhe rule is "in cfrcct". similarly, by "cloing thanking" (5: 3)
uncler thesc circumstanccs, A can bc hcarcl as being sar.castic.
Sornc o[ the insights just rcvicwcd arc oftcn cliscus.scd undcr' tlic rubric oi
relevance. In principle, every'contribution to a clialogue sets up cor.rclitions of
THE DYNAMICS OF DIALOCUE 83
relevance; some kincls of next actions arc rlore ,"l"unn, continuations than
others. For example, Deborah's firsbquestion l: I in (l) creates a social expecta-
tion on the addressee, Pcter, to respond in a certain way; fir.st, Deborah has
posed a question, which rather strongly solicits (ch. 9.4) a response ti.om him,
and, furthermore, the formulation, or specilic clirection ancl reference, of thc
question requires that a relevant response should specifically concern his reading
habits. As we saw, Peter did not appear to understancl l'ully what kind of answer
was required of him, and yet he had to provicle somc relevant response. Hencc,
instead of providing an answer, he produced another type of relevant response,
a request fol clarification. This can be considerecl relevant primarily because it
can be regarded as a cooperative action takcn to carry firrther the communicative
project initiated by Debolah. In hcl turn, sh¿ will then, altcr peter's l: 2, be
requircd to provide a relevant response to the ncw "micro-.situation" which has
emerged from the priol contributions. Aftcr Deborah's l: 3 acldr.essecl to peter,
lre is again expected to respond relevantly, given the new conclitions set up
locally in the sequence, etc. Providing relevant next contributions thus amounts
to building coherence in the joint <Jiscourse (Hopper 19g3; Allwoocl l9g5).
Eaclr contribution to dialogue is l'ramed by expectations, entitlements and
obligatiotts with respect to possible meaning attributions ancl actions. This is then
By saying something, a given speaker takes on some responsibility for what she
says or does. For exanrple, an assertion normally commits the speaker to the
truth of what is asserted; Sally and Steve, through thcir conü.ibutions to (2), havc
put themselves in a position wlrere they canno[ cleny that thcy oncc shook hands
with Rubinstein, unless of coulse they explicitly annul their previous statements
(e,g. by clairning "no, wc were jusr kidcting").
But, as we have notcd, utterances also obligc or invitc the other.interlocu-
tor(s) to respond, and to do so in a relevant m¿urnor. we could say that caclr
cont|ibution occasions a new nticro-.situation with speciftc conclitions on relevctrtt
continuations (ancl paltly new expectations, eñtitlernents ancl obligations). oi
course, next speakers alc not totally constr.ained by thesc relevancc conciil.ions.
They can initiate new topics, for exarnple, thouglr this of,ten lorces ihem to clo
some extra work, i.e. explaining that what thcy say now is not irnmediately
relevant to the preccding discourse. (Incleecl, in spite of the juvenile habits of
doing non-lbcal 'tyings', Al, in 4: 15, appalently l'elt some dcmancl for him to
t:xplain how his contribution could be taken as rr)levant, ',without changing thc
subject".) Another possibility is fbr an actor to f'loLrt rhc principle of rclevance,
I
I rJ4 APPI(OACHING DIALOGUE TTIE DYNAI\4ICS OF DIALOCUE 85

)
) irs dicl in 5: 2, thereby creating a cartain interactional effect. Indecd, if this
ll
¡ was thc intended cffcct, B may well have considered 5: 2 as a situationally
lclcvant response, although it obviously violated social rules of etiquette.
I At any given moment, an unfblding discourse is often indeterminate (from
¡ lho ¡roints of view of speaker, addressee, and observer', rvho, in addition, may
I lurvo nrt¡tually partially inconsistent intelpletations); this is quite often true
t ¡nrlicularly of the illocutionary values of specific contributions; is the speakcr
inlirlrling or advising, asserting or requesting, being serious or tlon-selious, or
t tIring sevelal of those tliings at the same time (which is not uncommon)'/ This
t nrt:irns tllat the addrossce i.s often faccd with several options ol'how to resptlnd.
Al lhc sarnc tirne, the existence and experiencc of the discoursc zrs it actually
I rrrirtclializecl may srrstain an illusion, on the part of analysts as well as actors,
I tlrirt tholc werc, aftcr all, not so many other opporLunities for diflerential
t irrlcr'¡llctations and discursive developments. When somebody has responded in
make eliscout'ses and contexts clnerge in and through thr¡ir aatiolls (eh' 8)' As a
result the cliscot¡rse tnovcs through topical episodcs ancl across episode bound-
aries (ch. 10). ThroLrgh their discursive and interactive work actors cal'ry out
various communicative projects (ch. ll).
Suclr pro.iects are embedded rvithin and
co-constitute activity types, in which col¡municative [asks at'e solved, often in
routine-like ways (colnmunicative genres) (ch. l2).
In other words, the pragmatics of language use is dynamic (Thomas 1995).
At the same time, it is not an easy task fbr analysts to bc consistcnt in applying
a clynarnic perspective; we oftcn slip back into trsing static [erms and conccpts.
To sonre extent, this is uncloubtedly linkccl up wilh protllcrns fclated to the
,written lar.rguage bias' (ch.2.5;.18 But it nray also be partly clue to a necessity
lbr ar.ralysts to "lieeze" their objects of'stucly witliin partictrlal scicnti{tc projccts.
This latter point will be discusscd in ch' 14.

I ir spccific way, and the fir'st speaker does not object to the irnplied ir.rterplctation
of lri.s plior utterancc, botlr interactants are somewllat cornmitted to this intclpre- 5.9 Summary: Some dialogical principles
a lrrf ion (ch. ll.3). Other opportunities for interpretation thal. may have been there,
chapter, I have pointed to a numbcr ol' chalacteristics of
a lrirvc sirrrply got "los[" through this process (cf. ch. 10. l0). Actors cannot pursue
tlro consccprences of'all possible arnbiguities, if they want to nrake progless in
In this introcluctory
social interaction and discoursc as thcy appcar to us, il'we tfy to apply consis-
a tlrt'il cornnrunicativc projccts. I7
tently a clialogistic analytical ft'amework. Many of' lhesc aspects will be further
a elaborated in strbseqr,rent clraptcrs (scc the cross-rcl'crences made above). Bef'ore

a tlrat, however, I shali surnmarize somc aspccts ol' clialogue in terms ol three
5.tt 'l'hc rlynanrics of discourse units funclantental dialogicctl princi¡tle.s.t') I shall also indicate that the choice of thesc
a pr.inciples is partly a m¿ttter of wliich pelspective you choose as an analys[
a 'l'o tlt:st:r'ibc ttlk-in-intclaction onc necds a vocabulary based on tlynamic lather (ch.5.10).
a tlrir¡r slirlic conccpts (ci. Markovh & Foppa 1990). Thc r.¡nits arc units of intcrac-
tirrrr, rrt:tiorrs wlrich bring about, or attcmpt to bring about, changcs in cognitivc 5.9.1
a :r¡ltl r;o¡¡lnrrr¡ricativc st¿rtes. A comtnunicalivc acl,ion original.cs in onc lrlcro-
Scquuttinlity

a r;rlrlrliorr irnrl croatcs a ncw micro-situation, which in turn makes various more or The first principle says that all cliscouLsc, whetlicr rnonological ol dialogical, has

a Ir':;r; s¡rtrcific continLrations relevant. Such are thc elementary contributions to

,lr:rIr11rrt: (t;lr. 9). Intcrlocutors are engaged in building sil"uated discourse, i.e. thcy
a fundamental sequential organizcttion. Eaih constituent action, contribution or
sequence, gets significant parts of its r¡caning irom the position in a sequence
a (which in real-time interaction is of coulse temporal in nature). That me¿rns that
, one can never fully unclerstand an uttcrance or an extract, if it is takcn out of the

, I / ( l r,or¡rt: of (il¡firrkcl's (1967) rvell-known cxperirnents. A theorctical cliscussion ofalternative

a r'rrtr", rrl rrt('rl)rolation and con[inuation fol a givcn piecc oItliscoulse may rcvell the alnbtguities
irr¡l nrrltrl)l( rr1r¡ror'trrnitios, but thc co¡nbinations soott bcconlc too nulr)crous lo bc accotlntcd for 18. For somc aclditional consiclcratiort of this ¡roint, sce also Lincll (1997).

a rvrtlrrr rr'.r,o¡rrlrlt; linrits ol's¡lacc. Scc Ilo¡¡¡uetvcil (1980) fol some thcorctical ctlculations, ancl 19. Alter.nativcly, onc rnay think of thcsc as threc clabolations (in diflerent tlirections) of one

a Itlrrrr l,.ull.rr ,t Wt:iznriur (1988) for a partial clabolation ol an ar¡thcntic exaurplc. dialogical prirrciplc, as Bakhtin (1986) and Toclotov (1984) Inight p|efer it. Cl'. t:h 5.9.4.

a
a
'

"i--
i:, ,:

^ q
86 APPIIOACHING DIALOGUE
{
sequence which provides its context.to
THE DYNAMICS OF DIALOGUE 81
,fi
(A more accurale formulation would be were taken from dialogues, in which actions on,t r.oni,lgs wcrc actuaLlyjointly ñ
"taken out of the sequences which provide
its contexts", since scquences ol very
different scopes constitute relevant contexts.2r Cf. constructed (e.g. through collaborative complction). In sorne cases, even sen_ d
All
ch. g.)
discourse is essentially contextualized. When pieces of
discourse are
tence-sized (or smaller) constituent expressions were jointly produced. But also
lengthy monological specch evenrs (o' written texts, fbr that matter) are clialogic- d
taken out of their original context, and usecr, maybe discussecl or commenteci
upon' they occur i' a new context, that or the quoting
ally built up, even if the construction of the overt const¡uction is not always 6
discourse, the ciiscussion
or commentary. In other words, it has been recontextual¡zecl.
At the micro_level,
obviously a joint venturc. Yet, there is a social character, in that this cliscourse
;r
instances of recontextualization occur routinely;
these a.spects ar.e indeed
too is other-oriented; it is designcd for sorne (par.ticular or anonymizecl) recipi_
ents (ch. 6.5). We may therefore talk about a virtual (rarher than actual) joinr
G
fundamental to human communication (ch. g).
construction in these cases; the sender (speaker or writer) interacts with a .virtual t
5.9.2 Joint construction
other',23 when he makes his message other-oriented. F
5.9.3 Act-activity interdepenclence É
Language and discoursc arc r'u'clarner.ually socialphenomena.
in communication is of a social-interactionar origin,
The Ianguage usecl F
and in the child's socializatiorr; furthermorc, it is
both in its historicar genesis
socially tradecl clown, distr.ibut_
Acts, ut[erances and sequences in discourse are always essentially situatecl
an embedding activity (dialogue, encounter) which the interactants
within Fr
cd, negotiatcd, ancl lecreated in intcraction. But,
above all, discourse itself, which produce, This activity can r,o.st often be secn as represcnting
l0intly ñ
is the main lbcu.s in this book, is cleeply sociar anc.l interactional
dialogue is a joint construction (or a co-const*rction,
Jacoby &
in nature. A
ochs r995); it
some generar type
or as belonging to a particular genre. Some mearring aspects or, the erementary H
something which participants (to varying degrees) possess,
experience and do
is acts derive fiorn the I'act that thcy are embeclclccl within, and
contribute to Fr,l
together'. This collective constluction is rnade
possible by the reciprocally and
realising, this overall activity. At the same time, the activity type
or genre is H
,tutually coordinated actions and interactíons by different
actors.2i No part is
shown, in a wittgenstei'ian scnse, i.c. implicitly shown ,.oth",l ihnn
lbrmulated ("said"), in the ways actors express thcmsclves in cliscor.rrse.
explicitly
Fi
entirely one single inclivi<iual's p.oclirct. or expcrience.
distribution of contributions r.o the co-constructeil
on the other han<i, the
clialogue is usually asymmetri_
ent acts and embedding activities rnutually clcline, of co-constltute,
Constitu-
each other i. Ft
cal (ch. 1 1.6).
a part-whole rclationship.
FlI
In several respccts, the'e are of course irnportant clifferenccs bctween
The prope'ty of act-activity intercrependence (or co-constitution) is
easily demo'strated in those conlr¡unicative genr.es which arc
most
F!
tnonologue a'd dialogue (as clcri'ecl in ch. 1.3). The
cxarnplcs brought up so far perhaps also institutionalry congcalecr (scc e.g. exarnpres (1,
However, thc point can bc clemo'stratecl with respect to mundanc
task-oriented, and
2) of ch. r2).
exarnples, súcl.r
4
ñ
as the extracts above, as well. For cxample, Lo'ise's casual
20' Thc usc of extracts frorn clialogucs, which is a plactical
(such as in papels o| books on authcntic
noccssity in analysis ancl exposition
remark about birth
control pills (3: l2) contributcs to the enacting of the entire rnocking
activity,
Fq
cliscoulsc), rirust ther.cfor.c be done with caution. Sorne ot rather than to thc overa'ching fiarnc of group tlrcrapy, frorn
the 'dialogicality' of thc nuthcntic picce of discor¡r'sc
will get brackcted by this kind of operatron.
which the acloles_ á
cents seem to have moved out telnporar.ily. peter's remark
11. ":
principle.of sequcntiarity, ancr cvcn ¡nore so the notion
rntcrple[ation
or'
.sequcnce,,
in this work than in c(onversation) A(narysis) (e.g. Arkinsorr
'scquence' rcfcrs
arc given a br.oader
& Fter.itagl r9g4), where
that he shoulcl not oat
so much in order to savc time (r: 2g) is characteristically part
of the conversa-
tio.al activity in which the partics arc involvecl; it is not pn.t ot, say,
-1
F1
to a local, closc-knit sequencc, such as an acrjaccncy pair.or. a ,.apni,.
22' I¡ is possible to talk about the rnutual cooÍdination necessarily involved
.,"qu"na".
ling session on issues of clict. conversely, [he sanre !rtrerances get
a counsel_
íq
4
in co¡nnlunication in some of their
tcrnls of coopclation (cf'. Clice 1975; Allwood l9?6)
or.collaboration. Howevcr., it should be notctj

(1
that thc basic coor<lination still leavcs a lot of room
for compctitivc attirudcs ancl stratcgies on the
part of rnutually opposcd actors (e.g. Linell
1990). For an analysis of concepts like ,comrnonaliry,,
'r'eciplocity', and 'rnutuality' with re!;ard
to dialogue, see Craumann 0995).
23. This concepr is el¡boLated upon in IJráren (1992).
4
a
:
I
I APPROACHING DIALOGUE
TllE DYN¡\ivllCS OF' I)IALOCtJE E9

I nr('il¡ilil11 bcing interprcted as paft of the activities.just mentionecl. Their

I f
'1rnr
r¡rtt:r'rrt:ti..al significa'ces woulcl have been diflercnt, if they had been par.t
of,
5.10 Differing perspectivcs on di:tlogic:'rlity

I :.,ry, rr rnctliclrl interaction such as a doctor consultation.

'l lrc rtct-activity Principles similar to thc threc sketched here have bccn ¡rroposccl in thc litcr.aturc,
I interdependence is anothet' f'eature of the cssential situated-
r¡(':;:r ol rll tliscourse contributions. It will be fur-ther
explored in the chapters on
thoLrgh sornetimcs unclel sor¡cwhat clifl'crcnt ua¡ne.s. Duranti (199 l) clcals

I t,rrlt'.\ls (ch' 8)' and activity types and comrnuricative genres (ch. l2). Many
roughly with these ¿rspccts of dialoguc Lulclcr the hcaclings ol' scclucntiality,
intefactivity, and retlexivity, respectively. In aclclition, hc givcs 'rnLrlti-function-
I ,r';l)('( ls 0l' rliscourse, such as patterns of topic progression,
coherence ancl ality' as a fourth principle o1'dialoguc (scc ch. I1.2). otlrcr specific examples
I l);ilrr(:rl)lrtron structures, are activity- or gerlre-specific, rather than subjectcd to
rrrivt:¡slrl lulos.24
could be added. However, it scems important to acknowlcclge the general point
I that the particr"rlal analytical pelspectivc acloptecl will have reporcussions on
whiclt propelties stand out as the rnost ccntr'¿rl dialogical fc¿rtures oI cliscour.sc.
I 'r.().'l rl .ruperorclínate princi¡tle: Reflexivity between clisco¿r,se ancl contexts
Acco'dingly, in this chapter (anci to some extenr. througliout this book) I
a 'llrr: tlrlt:o dialogical
principles dcal with thc fact that lhc
have taken as a point of dcpaltr.rrc that therc is onc common cliscoursc jointly
speal<er.,,is in clialogue attcnclcd to in dialogue, rathcr th¿rn a nurnbcr of trnconncctccl uttcranccs 6y
I r.vitlr" lris intcrlocutor(s) and a matrix of contcxts. As I will arguc
in ch. lJ, there diffcrent individual spcakcrs. (However, in sorro rnulti-party settings, there are
I r:; ;r rilr¡lli-wiiy reflexive lelation between discour.ses ancl their
contexts. In fact,
tlrr: (.rr''.oflcxivity' is oftcn used roughly in thc sense of ,clialogicality'(as
quite often several parallel floors o[ cliscourse.) The rel¿rtive coher.ence anci unity
I It'rrr is u.sccl hcrc).2'5 Rcflexivity means that two or.clers of phcnornena are
that of tltc discoLtt'se, rather than the preclicamcnts of thc difler.ent actors i¡volvecl,
I rrrtrrrrsicrrlly fclatc(l, so that one of thern is conceptually implicateci
by the other,
are thus constitLrtive of this particular. pcrspective. If, altcrnatively, wc look
upou
a disct¡rsive interaction as a strugglc on thc part of- t.hc i¡rterlocutors to acirieve
I ;rrrl vicc u"'ru.2l'In other worcls, rhe two mutually constitutc eacli other (or at
It';r:;t llrt:y clo so paltially). For cxarnprc, trre positioning in tlie sequencc
(somc sulficic't dcglcc ol) intcrsubjcctivir.y or to obtain cliscr-¡rsive powcr
over
I rrrlo (tlrc intcractional status ol) thc singlc contr.ibution (tur.n) in clialoguc,
is built othels, then the weighting of the above-rncntionccl ancl othcr ,dialogical prin-

I r ottvt:tscly, lhc scquenco is consLituted by the contributions

ancr
embeclclec] within it.
ciplcs'nray change. Witlrin
rnLrlti-lirnctionality
Lhis latter pefspoctivc, we woLrlcl str.css f'eaturcs Iike
(of
uttcrances ancl contribL¡rions) (ch. I 1.2), polyvocality
'llrt' t:r¡ntributions by the
a differcnt intcrlocutors rcflect each other, ancl
.jointly (ch. 6.5), disc.epant rclcvances ancl corrpeting com.runicative pr.ojects (chs. g.9,
Ir'rlrrr:o rrrouning. Finally, of course, the activity anc.l thc elcmentary acts afe
a rIrrt|¡irl¡y constitutivc; they ar.e r.eflcxivcly relaLcd too.27
II.6-1), dourinancc and por.vcr' (ch. r2.g), asymrncrr.ics of k'owlccige ancl
participation (Ivlalková & Foppa 199 l), ancl complcnrcntar.ity of,clialogue
a (ch. ll.6). Put in other worcls, which clialogical pr.inciplcs gct lbregrounclecl
r.oles
rnay
a have to do witli whicll activity typcs a'cl cornrnunicativo gcurcs wc wanr
to
) '' l l lrr: :rrlltt¡llcrlls
filr activity-spccificrty gcnclalizc to cognitivc opcrations. Whcrcas piagct h.rcd
te
irnalyze (clr. I2).
"r'l
ttlr rt trrtivcrslllly valid thcoly of cognitive opcrations, later lcscalch
has rcrlucccl t¡c powcr of this I sliall clevote scll¿lratc chapters to contcxtsj, clerncnl"ary contributiclps to
) llr|ory by (lclltollstratillg tlie clontain- ol task-spcciñcily of many cognitive pr.actices (e.g.
I{ogoll dialogue, topics and episoclcs, commr¡nicative projects, ancl activity types
I I¡,')O).

I)tttrttttt (1991, cl. ch' 5.10) takes 'r'eflexivity'to ¡¡can Iouglrly

act-activity co-constitution.
on. Bcfore procecding to tlicrn, lrowcvcr, I shall cjcal witli thc clialogistic
later
acco.rnt
) .'r, Iiov;i (1995) discusses ,conplenrcnturit¡,' as thc firnilarncntal dialogical
lVl¡¡¡
prirrciplc, in a way
ol' .spcakcr'- I istcner rcl ation.s ancl I i ngu is t-ic rncar rrg.
r r

rvl¡r' ll rotrlillly cottcs¡lon<ls to how the reflexiviry between

) discourse ancl contexts is trcated hcre.
'' / lrr¡rlrlisrl irrsists on rc{lcxivc lclation bctwcc¡l ¡nany conccpts, cf. ch. 13.1.
A primary ancl
) l1'¡r' trr¡ t ¡r5(: (rotlccrlls thc lclationslrip betweon'figule'and'grounrl', wlrich nrust bc clcfinerl
¡n tcr¡¡s lallguagc and ctlgttitiott. ]'his is thc notion of rcflcxivity rclcrring to, on tho onc hanrl, thc ability
"l ' r¡ Ir t'lll(rt. witll rcga[(l to thi.s, thc paircd conccpts of 'discot¡r'sc' and its 'contexts' are a special ol.
, , .r'.r (r l¡ ll ).
speaket's lo leflcct upon attd corllrnerlt on thcir ow¡r tlrinking a¡rd,
on tlrc othcr hand, the capacrty
natural langttages to exprcss propositions about languagc itself'. A similar
of
I I lrrlr' llr;rl tllis tlotiotl of lcflcxivity is clill-erent fro¡n
anothcl o¡lc which is cornr¡o¡ in analyscs of applied to culturc (Fornis 1995; Cidderrs i99l).
notion of r.cflexivity can bo

I
I ll
Ll
&