Fooling
Nixon Nixon aske aske Miss Miss Thoma Thoma ho he husba husband nd Dougl Douglas as Corn Cornel ell, l, like like he wear wearin in pant pant outf outfits its "H does doesn' n' mind mind," ," sh repl replie ied. d. "D they they os less less th gown gowns? s? "No, "No, said said Miss Miss Thom Thomas as "The "The chan change ge," ," comm comman ande de th Pres Presid iden en with with wide wide grin grin as other other repo reporte rters rs an came camera rame me roar roared ed with with laug laughte hter. r. t 7 7 z E v e n inin g Bulletin (Philadelphia), 1973]
FOOTING
t at at i ss on on de
is ic ll po st in ti o f 1 .9 .9 7 id ia in he Sth Ov Offi Office ce th pa tici ticipa pant nt an asse assemb mbla lage ge of gove gover~ r~me ment nt offi offi~~er an news newspa pape pe repo report rter er gath gather ered ed in thei thei prof profes ess~ s~on onal al capa capa~I ~I
ht du
nl
th
ou
ve he th in
ul
jo
WASH WASHIN INGT GTON ON [UPI [UPI]]-Pr Pres esid iden en Nixon Nixon gentl gentlem eman an ~f the old school,teas school,teased ed newspap newspaper er woman woman yester yesterday day about about weanng weanng slacks slacks to th Whit Whit Hous Hous an made made it clea clea that that he pref pref rs dr sseson sseson Afte Afte bill bill-s -sig igni ning ng cere ceremo mony ny in th Oval Oval Offi Office ce th re ent stoo stoo up ro hi desk desk an in te sing sing voic voic said said to UPl' UPl' Hele Hele Thom Thomas as "Hel "Helen en ar you still still wear wearing ing slack slacks?Do s?Do you pref prefer er ~he~ ~he~ actua actually lly Every Every time time se girls girls in slac slacks ks it remi remind nds.m s.m of Chma Chma Miss Miss Thom Thomas as some somewh what at abas abashe hed, d, tol the Pres Preside ident nt that that ChIChInese nese wome wome were were movin movin towa toward rd West Wester er dres dress. s. "Thi "Thi is no saidin saidin an unco uncomp mpli lime ment ntar ar way, way, bu slac slackscando kscando some someth thing ing fo som peopl peopl an someit someit can't can't." ." He hast hasten ened ed to add, add, It .T As Nixon Nixon Attor Attorne ne Gene Genera ra Elliot Elliot L. Richardson, Richardson, FBIDirec.tor FBIDirec.tor Claren Clarence ce Kelley Kelley and othe high-r high-ranki anking ng law enforc enforceme eme~t ~t offici officials als smiling [sic], Miss Miss Thom Thomas as di piro piroue uett tt fo th Pres Presld ld.e .ent nt.S .She he wa wear wearingwhi ingwhite te pants pants navy navy blu jers jerseyshir eyshirt,long t,long white white bead bead an navy navy blue blue pate patent nt leat leathe he shoe shoe with with re trim trim G r t ef ef u a ck ck no no wl wl e g m n t appear appeared ed (25[19 (25[1979] 79]:1:1- 9).
is ma
t o Semiofica, w he he r
t hi hi s p a e r f iirr s
uc
or
i g i fi fi c n t on w ay ay s pear pearan ance ce," ," th chie chie onst onst aint aint bein bein favo favora rabl ble, e, deli delive vere re by some someon on with with n t p r t ab ab l us ve be ge g ro ro u tu
hi
p ro ro b
it on th ve ts th pthat that th emar emarks ks shou should ld be whom whom they they ar acqu acquai aint nted ed li t ru ru ct ct u l l th ou he su je to
in
ke
to
segm segm ntal ntal elat elatio ion, n, orde ordere re by work work requ requir irem emen ents ts func functi tion onal ally ly spec specif ific ic auth author orit ity, y, nd th like like Cont Contra rari riwi wise se plan planni ning ng sess sessio io
Forms
Talk
Footing
dialect] when they want to encourag open an free discussion amon students.
Finally,
it
el cate or fo
"unserious activity begins (A change ma also simultaneously occu in po ture er ndee very br adly with r. Nixo risi fr is de .)
um erz. Scra
be rese
ia gu
in al os ever corn
ar co le te
et ee
of co ersa iona
ife.
direct or reported speech selection of recipient 3. interjections 4. repetitions 5. personal directnes or involvement 6. ne an ol informatio 7. emphasis 8. separation of topi an subjec 9. discours type e.g. lectur an discussion 2.
come from what linguist generall here referrin to la ua ia ec
call"code switching, code he work of oh um er
On on occasion,whe we as outsiders, steppe up to grou of locals engage in conversation ou arriva caused significan alteration in th casualposture of th group. Hand were remove fro pockets and looks changed. Predictably, our remark elicited codeswitc marked simultaneously by change in channe cues (i.e.,sentenc speed, rhythm mor hesitatio pauses etc.) and by shif from (R [a regional Norwegia dialect] to (B [an official, standard for of Norwegian grammar. ployed
on
th et nicall
om gene us (i id.,
25):
Likewise when resident [i Hemnesberget northern Norway step up cler 's esk, gree in an inquir es ab fa affair tend to be exchange in th dialect,while th business part of th transactio is carrie on in th standard er
en an
usines
an
it
erfu ctor
ervice re ationships
Teachers report that whil formal lectures-where interruption are not encouraged-are delivered in (B)[an officialstandard for of Norwegian], the speake wil shift to (R)[a regional Norwegian
re
portan
fo ou
rp se here Gu
otes classr om observations th Gu eq ential statemen teac er to ro
er
an hi co or
erze rovide hree of firs -graders th
differen stance were involved th firs clai on th children's im diat be avior, he ec nd review experience to co e, an he hird side re ar part cu ar hild (Cook- umperz an Gu perz 1976:8-9): Now listen everybody At ten o'cloc we'll hav assembly.We'll allgo out together and goto th auditorium an si in th firs tw rows Mr Dock th principal, is goin to spea to us When he comesin, si quietl and listen carefully 3. Don' wiggle your legs Pa attentio to what I' saying 2.
co ti uous te
an
ss he fa
that si nifica
hift in al gn
Fooling
Fo ms of Ta II
"footing.'
In roug
summary:
Participant's alignment, or set or stance or posture or projecte self is so ehow at issue. 2. he projection ca be held across stri of behavior that is less long than grammatica sentence or longer so sentence gram ar 't el a l t ha t ch lt i t s ee m l e t ha t cognitiv unit of so kind is involved minimally, perhaps, implied. continuu must be considered from gros change in stance to tl if to at an ce ed 4. Fo speakers code switchin is usuall involved an if no this then at leas th soun marker that linguist study: pitch, volume, rhythm stress tona quality. 5. he bracketing of "highe level" phas or episod of interacio is co on in lv ew in in li al e, se in as t we e t w t a i al l s u tained episodes
ev ap el co ed it pointing ou that participants over th course of thei speaking constantly change thei footing, thes change bein persistent featur of natura talk As suggested, chang in footing is ver commonly languagelinked if no that then at leas on ca clai that th paralinguistic marker of languag will figure Sociolinguists, therefore, ca lo th in in in tl th ar co te is er literary an psychologica area then presumably they must find structural mean of doin o.In this pape an to ak pass at analyzin th structural underpinning of change in footing. ll ap ed am in im ti no tion of speake an hearer an om of ou unstated presuppo sitions abou spoken interaction. 2.
An initial statementappear in Goffma (1974:496-559).
raditional analysis of saying an
ha gets said ee
tacitl
dividual ar engage together in it urin an moment in time on il be speaking hi ow thoughts on matter an expressing hi ow feelings, howeve circumspectly; the other listening. Th full concer of th person speaking is give over to speaking an bein said Th discourse, then woul be th main involvemen of both of them nd in effect thes tw individual ar th only id in at in is ll ts ir doings bein imperceivabl by others that is "inacces ible." ve th course of th interactio th role of speake an hearer il be interchanged in suppor of statement-repl format th acknowledged current-speaking right-th floor-passin back an th in ly at oi ai ti talk. Th two-person arrangemen here describe seem in fact to inform th underlying imager have abou face-to-face in teraction. An it is an arrangemen fo whic th term "speaker an er ly tl ly er in fectly adequate fo al technica needs. Thus it isfel that withou requirin basi change in th term of th analysis an odification of conditions ca be handled: additional participants ca be added, th ensemble ca be situated in th immediat presence of nonparticipants, an so forth. Itismy belief that th language that tudent have draw on fo talkin abou speaking an hearin is no el adapte to it purpose. nd believ this is so both generall an fo consid eratio of so ething like footing. It in ta te es ke speaker an hearer) fo granted instead of decomposing them into smaller, analyticall coherent elements am e, th ea ea organizationally very significan too, sometime even touch. In
Forms
Talk
th management of turn-taking, in th assessment of receptio throug visual back-channel cues in th paralinguistic function of ge ticulation in th synchron of gaze shift, in th provisio of evidence of attentio (a in th middle-distanc look), in th assessment of engrossmen throug evidence of side-involve nt an acia pres ionll thes ay it is pparen th ig cr cial th or eake an or th hearer or he ef ec iv on ct alk, aker an eare ha be in itio to toatch ac ther he ac that teleph ni an actica thou th ua hann l, an th ritten tr ncription talk ls ee ef ective is ot aken as ig that indeed conveyin word is th only thin that is crucial, bu that reconstruction an transformation ar very po erfu processes.
Th easies improvemen on th traditiona paradigm fo talk is cogn ze ha ny iv om ight lway be pa of talk am ly bs antive at rall ou de et interactio co prisin al that relevantly goes on from th mo themselves an continuing unti they finall clos this activity t. enin il typicall rk by th ar ic ants turnin from thei severa disjointed orientations ovin to et an bo il dd es ne noth r; he cl ng ei copresence Typically, ritual brackets will also be found, such as greetings and farewells, these establishing and terminating open, official join engagement that is ratified participation. In sumcounte th participants will be oblige to sustai involvemen in ha is bein ai an en th ng etch ccur en give mrment no talk ma be occurring, an ye th participants ll il in "sta talk." er e, nc ne as that an encounte will have features of it own-if only an initiation er nation pe io ar ed either then ecom
Footing
plain tha an cross-sectional perspective, any instantaneous slice focusing on talking, no talk, necessarily misses important features. ertain issues such as th or done in summonings th
"filling in of ne participants), th role of "preclosings," seem especial epen en th questi un as le ivin credit to th autonomy of "a talk asa unit ofactivit in ts righ do in su g e n e r i s fo analysis is crucia step But, of course only ne question ar opened up Fo although properties of nicely bounde social encounte (and even easier to assu that an selected occasion of talk derive from such unit), ther ar apparently lots of moment of talk that cannot be so located. nd ther ar lots of encounters so intert ined it othe encounters as to eake th clai of an of them to autonomy. So thin on must return to cross- ectional analysis to examining'momenfs broa labeling of what on is lookin at-suc as "conversation, "talk, "discourse"-is very premature. Th question of substantive it on that il ev ntuall have to be ad es d, ve oment' talk to talk about, an pply he le ou
blithely usin labels that migh on er atio
listener). Th proces of auditing what speake says an follow in th gist of hi remarks-hearin in th communication-sysem ns is om th ta to is in ui he om th ocia slot in whic this activity usuall occurs namely officialstatu as ratified participan in th encounter. Fo plainly, we migh no be listenin when indeed we have ratified socialplace in th talk an this in spit of normativ expectations on th part of th speaker. orrespondingly it is eviden that he ar no an officialparticipant in th encounter, we migh stil be followin th talk closely, in on of tw socially differen ays: either
Footing
Fo ms of Ta
have purposel
engineered this resultin
about, in "overh arin ." In rief stening, an omeo stenin pant.
in "eavesdropping,"
or
ra if ed ar icipan ay ot ay no ratified ar ic
aura rang of person wh ar no ratified participants an whos access to th encounter, howeve minimal, is itself perceivabl by th official participants Thes adventitious participants ar "byan er ." Thei re ence sh ul be co sidere he ru e, ot th exception. In so circumstance they ca temporaril follow th intent becoming thus overhearers. In othe circumstance they ma surreptitiousl exploi th accessibilit they find they have wh secretly listen in on conversation electronically Ordinarily however, we bystanders politely disavail ourselve of thes latter opportunities, practicing th situationa ethi whic oblige us to warn thos wh are, that they are, unknowingl accessible obligin us al to enac ho di interest nd isatte in an al
(M ch
he etiquett
of ystander
an
enerated fr
is th on ho he spea er addr sses hi visual tten on an to wh incide al he ex ec to ur ve he spea ng role Bu obviousl two-person encounters howeve common ar no th nl kind thre or ff ci ar icipants ar ften fo d. ad re is re arks to he circ as ole, enco as ng al is hearer in hi glance accordin them somethin like equa status hearer on must distinguis
th addresse
distinctio betwee official recipients is ofte accomplished ex clusivel throug visual cues although vocative ar availabl fo anagin hr gh au bl ones ad re se
ever ld
recipient(
re co
of th conversational paradigm ar bein
realized.)
information; fo example, th language spoken "who
(whether
wh
hich
he ar ic an
ea er an
ic
ar ic pant
ystander
will re
co te
th it
standing
conversation woul
an it
ar
sten
ea ly
then "subordinate co munication
"d
lica ed
os ible ar at et it he fl fo ex ende peri
increasingly chil th involvemen assumption
recipien from "unad-
inatin
co
un cati n"
gnif ca
an
no
en en part cula ai he truc ra implic tion
of th remainin
become
participants
recognizable pos-
ts vicinity Indeed ther ar
he no be able to glea considera-
he earing us ai ed ou aradig atic istene ur ou to be an am guou ac an ddit onal sense. Th ra fied ea er
Thos maintainin
subordinat
communicatio
relative to
Forms
Fooling
Talk
pointe effort to concea what it is they ar communicating. Thus "byplay" subordinated communicatio subset of ratified participants "crossplay": communicatio betwee ratified partici ants an ystander across th boundaries of th ominan encounter; "sideplay": respectfully hushe words exchange en tirely amon ysta ders atur is pe ant; in ou cult re each of these three forms of apparently unchallengin communication is manage throug gestural marker that ar distinctiv an well standardized an assume that othe gestur communitie have thei ow sets of functional equivalents. When an attemp is made to concea subordinate communication "collusi n" occurs hether ithi th bo ndarie of an encounte (collusiv byplay or across thes boundarie (collusiv ss re ts r, tw standers surreptitiously editorializ on what they are overhearin (collusiv sideplay). Collusio is accomplished variously by conrd lu 't re s, allusi ords oste sibl mean fo al participants bu whos additional ea in il be caught by only some Allied to collusio is "innuendo, whereb speaker, ostenir ti rd ress re rl remark it patent bu eniabl meaning, meanin that ha target more so than recipient, is typicall disparagin of it an ismean to be caught by th target whet er this be th ad ressed recipien or an unaddresse recipient, or even bystande (Fishe
1976). furthe issue. In recommending earlie that conversation ld to ru ta th is fi ed er ss th participants coul desist from thei talk at an moment when th requirements of or gave reason an pres mabl return to it he th curren attentio requirements th task ma this palpably feasible In thes circumstance it is imaginable that th usua ritualizatio of encounters woul be muted, an stretche si ri le th re 't efinable as either interludes betwee differen encounters pauses it in an encounter. Unde thes co diti ns (and many others an "o en stat talk ca evelop articipa ts avin
ri ti li lurr ~a th la se into si it ar marking, as though ad in bu anothe interc ange to chroni conversatio in progress. Here somethin must be addresse that is neithe ratified participatio no bystanding ut peculiar condition between. There remains to conside th dynamics of ratified participa ti ai ly st ra et in te inin av conventional practices are to be found for distinguishably accom plishing both An plainly, tw differentl manned encounters ca occu unde conditions of mutual accessibility, each bystand in th other.P poin here owever is anothe issue: th ri ht to leav an to join take together impl circumstance in whic si si ty fo re rt ip spli an ra encounters merging. An it appear that in some microecologica social circumstance thes variou change ar frequent Thus at tabl during convivia dinner of eigh or so participants marked st rt is ft fo re feel it ecessary to police hi listenership no so much to guar agains eavesdropper (for indeed at tabl overhearin hardly to ), ri stra ra incipien joiners. In such environments interruption pitc rais in an trun rientati seem to acquir specia function an si nificance. (Not ho passenge sittin in th fr nt seat of taxi ca function as pivot, no addressing hi fellow passengers in th ac seat no th driver effectivel trusti th rive to determin et er to ac as on erso an ad ressee an al this withou th driver's taking hi eyes of th road or dependin te th rk ro rt tr tions. Anothe exampl of structural instabilit is to be observed personnel fo
momentarily inclusiv encounter, which ca then
3. On standard arrangemen is mutual modulation presente as equall allocatin th availabl soun space; anothe (a suggested) is differential muting. whereb thos in on of th encounters unilaterally constrai thei commuti to
Forms
Talk
rc in personally gree member of th othe with afte whic greeting partners ar exchange an anothe pair of greeting interchanges follows, an afte this, more sustaine regrouping ca occur. Consider no that in dealin with th notion of bystanders shif wa tacitl made from th encounte as poin of referenc to so ething some at id r, namely th "socia situation, defi in this as th full hysica aren in hich erso resent re so r. (T rs s, ri kind bein intended concerning th relationship in whic they r. ro tinely it isrelativ to gathering, no merely to an encounter, that ra io to si re fo example, spea er il odif ho they speak, if ot at they rt su ra of nonparticipants. Indeed as Joel Sherze ha suggested, when reportin on having hear someon sa something, we ar likely
ethe verheard them bystander. Perhap th cleares evidence of th structura significance of th social situatio fo talk (and incidentally of th limitation of behavior when we ar by ourselve ye in th immediat presence of passing strangers. Proscriptiv rules of communicatio oblige us to desist in us of speech an wordlike articulate sounds Bu in fact ther is id ariety circumstance in hich il audibl addres statements to ourselves, blur ou imprecations an utte "respons cries, such as O o p sl . E e ld , an th li (Goffman, "Respons Cries, 1978 an this volume). Thes vocaliza providin evidence to everyone wh ca hear that ou observable ligh is ot so ething that sh ul be take to define s. To that in ju te se .in th social situatio ho ca perceive ou plight il also hear ur co me it ou t, then that se some resp ns ro sp fi in ro fo ry
Footing it ou ta in th conversation fl or to so ha is sought is no hearer bu overhearers, albeit intended ones Plainly, th substantiv atural unit of ic self-directe remark an re sponse crie ar ar ne ot be conv rsation, hate er else Finally, observ that if on start WItha particula IndI~Idua in th ct of spea in -a cr ss-sectional instantane us Ie ne ca es ribe th role or function ll th severa me bers of th encompassing socialgathering from this poin of referenc (whether they ar ratified participants of th talk or net) couchin th descriptio in th concepts that have been reviewed Th io is ra hi "participation status relative to it an that of al th person in th gatherin th "participation framework" fo that moment of speech Th same tw term ca em lo ed en th oi refere ce is shifte from gi en articula spea er to so ein r: iv ts f. al this of course is that an utteranc does no carv up th worl beyond th speake into precisel tw parts, recipients a~ nonrecipients bu rather open up an arra of structurally dIffere~ tiated possibilities, establishing th participatio framewor In hich th spea er il be guidin hi deli er
have argued that th notion of hearer or recipien israthe crude. In r, st icte se th ordinary conversation Bu conversation is no th only contex of talk bviously talk an (i modern societ ta th form of platform monologue, as in th case of politica addresses, standco ed routines lectures ramati recitations, an oetr readings Thes entertainments involv long stretche of word fr le re larg se of list ners an exclusiv laim to th fl or Talk afte en talk omes fr th podi m, ha oe th hear in is an audience no se fell co versatio alists di ence hear in wa specia to them Perhap in conjunctio with
Fo ms
Footing
Ta
th fact that audience em er ar furthe remove ph sicall from th speake than coconversationalis migh be they have th ri ht to ex mi th sp aker irectl it an pe ness th ig ff nsiv in conversati n. xc pt fo thos very specia circumstance en fo ex mple th audience ca se rd's cause, action ca only be recommended fo late consideration, no curren execution. Indeed an fundamentally, th role of th audience is to appreciate remark made no to repl in an direct re re re it "back-channel" response alon iswha is mean to be availabl eriod) rarely et it Th term "a di nce, is easily xtende to th se ea talk on th radi or TV bu thes hearer re iffere in bviou an im ortant ay fr th se ar li it esse to it Live witnesse ar coparticipant in social occasion responsiv sl
th se tc lay; bu agai th ma ay in ic thes tw ki ds earers re in th same positi should 't blin ne to th very im ortant ay in ic thei circumstance iffer. sp fro
re thes listeners, an re ther ar so many pers replie us mitted
re indeed as suggested, sign of agreement It is presumably becaus ns in an au ienc that irec querie an or leas ostp ed to time he th id audience assa to repl in or to somethin that sp aker in tt rd re ra in modern Wester dramaturgy ar eternall sealed of from th audience belongin entirely to self-enclosed, make-believe realm-although th actors wh ar performing thes characters (and wh in wa ar also cu of from th dramatic action migh well appreciate sign of audience attentiveness.
ss rd ry s) ss roupin ff th stage, ut to imagined recipients; in fact, broadrs re re re th re re st volves conversational mode of address, but, of course merely re is re th in
contrast to conversation' speaker, th former having audiences, th latter fellow conversationalists Bu it must be born in mind that at oe on upon th pl tfor is only inci entallyanal ti ally-talk. Si gi ca ccur ther (thi eing an ther rd re ), 't ra in ol rd at all, such as instru en playin ha tricks jug-
au ie ce an roje
vaudeville Th variou kind spea in feat re spee
broa cast audience th spea er ow st li is fo ll of recipien entity is involved Stil furt er multiplicities of meanin us be ad ressed Podi ms ar ften placed on stag this said it ec me pl in that odiu an thei limpet ar no th nl things on find there. Stag actors ar foun there, too, perf rmin sp eche to ne nother in char cter al arra ge so they ca listened in se
re
"audie ce," to refe to th se
re ho listen to
rd olitical speech an
of audience ar not, analytically ve ts (t us mes' term), bu
of stag events here are, fo exampl ch rc congre atio of th re iv list ty herein an active interc an is sustai ed of call an an swer et ee iniste an ch rc goers. ther ar lots of e an s o f c o r s t h o nl y a y t o r ga ni z d ra ma ti c r o u ct io ns , u rm es e traditional theatr providin on exampl (Becke 1970), ou ow burlesqued melodram almost another.
Fo ms
Ta
Footing
social arrangements in whic single speaking slot is organiza tionally central, an ye neithe stag even it it audience no co versatio it it participants is taking place. ather, somethin bindin is cour trials, auctions, briefin sessions an course lectures ar examples lthoug thes podium occasion of bindin talk ca ofte suppor participants wh ar full in th audience role, the als necessarily suppor another clas of hear ers, ones ho ar or co itte by ha is said an have or to ar th il cu in at ta ments. hether on deal it podium events of th ecreational, congregational or bindin kind participatio framewor speit il th ll en ad io al to eric co er at participatio framewor paradigmatic of two-person tal doesn't tell us very uc ab ut participatio framewor as such
VI
ea er e, versationa encounte to th social situatio co
er ti
ca th
lk en in
in whic
io th encoun
iu in ases
at
am
prototypical unit to consider is nevertheless co versatio chat owever this assu ptio us be questioned too. al th ci cu cognitiv concernco on subjec atter-bu less impl so is at enti tt io clear, th object of it less so Listener ar oblige to avoi starin directly at th speake to long lest they violat hi territoriality an ye they ar encouraged to direct thei visual attentio so as to obtain gesticulator cues to hi meanin an provid hi it
evidence that he is bein into th speaker' ords
attended It hich afte all, cann
ut of cour e, it is possible fo view-i betwee
be seen
It
speake to direct th visual
hich ca fo omen ther il bea ha difference speake an both cognitiv an isua attentio nd
person as
he
tw individual talkin to each othe re ar on ep cr th t. must consider anothe possibility: when patien show physitry-on shoe pinches, or
tailor demonstrates ho je te to
th ne
jacket
if ar ip co er in tt io ea th contex of th utterance; physically elaborated nonlinguis ti undertakin is on in hich nonlinguisti events ay have th floor. (Indeed, if language is to be traced back to so primal cene better it is traced back to th occa iona need of grunte orld join task than to conversation in an throug hich common subjective universe is generated.") ne standard nonlinguisti contex fo utterances is th perfunctory servic contact, wher server an client come together momentarily in coordinated transaction often involvin mone on side an go ds or ervice on th ot er nother involves thos assing contacts betwee tw trangers herein th ti al ar ed agew negotiated lthoug full-fle ge ritual interchang is ofte foun in thes moments, physical transactions of some kind form la te is bearin on th management of interaction. Frequency, duration an occasion ofmutua an unilateral gaze ca mark initiation an terminatio of turn at talk p hy si ca l i st an ce , e mp ha si s i nt im ac y g en de r a n s o f or th -a n of co rs c ha ng e i n f o t in g S e f o x am pl e A r y l n d D ea n ( 1 6 5) . countervie
in Falk (1980).
Forms
Footing
Talk
te th an th ords spoken hether by on participan or two, ar an integral part of utuall coordinate ph sica un ertaking no talk Ritual is sooften truncate in thes settings becaus it isnonconork, no utterances that
il ordinarily be th chie concer of
otherwis have been th routin interdigitatio of thei acts that er al inte chan betwee them is os likely il tu ex an tions. Take fo example, mother-child pediatri consultation in Scotti public health clinic as recently ep rted by Strong ly it le
ll al
solicitudes.
ts
tl
cket
tl
it la
he
othe sits before th doctor's de an briefl as ti at ly itl an enti et ee ia call poised to speak, bu peakin only he poke to al os th in ceremoniously addresse queries with notetaking, note-reading, thoughtful musings, instruction to students physica manipula
things as file an io
equi ment-all
of
hich action appear
er's te
ea te
ar
to to
ei
an in
to 's
ct
le al
at their organizatio
significance.
connection with an extended join task as he tw mechanics, separately locate around car, exchange th ords required to diagnose repair an chec th repairin of an engine fault. audi transcriptio of twenty inutes of such talk ight be very li le inte ld ould contai long tretches answered only by echanica
it no ords verbal directives ound an mechanical ound ly ig ev contex of on utteranc be anothe utterance. So too, game encounters of th kind say, that playin bridge ed ives nd indeed in th
ls
ic en le e. hite ouse cene presente
to initially,
an embedded part of ider conversation bu an embedded part tual ed ic ed th erem ig in bill. On clearl finds, then that coordinate task activity-not co
on interest in effectivel
pu suin
th
acti it
at hand in
to
phases of an examination, or checklist, no conversation an ca in 's trib ty
doctor's questionin (a in th organization of talk), ha im te ce ia ly ll ex change is no peec envi on ent. ha is eing sustained,
eq io
in ce
contextual matrix hich render an utterances especially brie ones eaningful. nd thes ar ot unim ortant ords it take lingui to ve look them Itis apparent then that utterances ca be an intimate func tionally integrated pa of omething that involves ther ords only in peripheral an functi nall optional ay natu ally speech event.
Fo ms
Beginnin
Fooling
Ta
it
th
co versatio al paradigm
av
trie
to de
incidentally argued that th notion of conversational encounte suff th rd re sp ken; social occasion involvin po iu ma in olved, situatio th hole surr und, must al ay be considered Proth s, s' ti (1974:54): "The common dyadic mode of speaker-hearer specifies sometime to ma y, sometime to few, sometime th wrong participants." ssar re th conversational paradigm th notion of speaker. In canonica talk on of th tw participants move hi li up an do to th accompanimen of hi wn facial (a some time bodily gesticulations an word ca be hear issuin from lo
so
al
machine, body engage in acoustic activity or if ou ill, an individual acti in th role of tterance pr duction. is func tionin as an "animator. nimato an recipien ar ar of th
node in
communicatio system rs se rm sp ," ry ofte eclo ds th issue, having additional things in mind this bein on reason wh "animator" cannot comfortabl be termed social role merely an analytical one. So re r" se timent that ar bein ex ressed an th word in hich they are encoded. Sometime on ha in mind that "principal (i th legalisti sense) is involved that is someon hose position is established by th word that ar spoken someon whos belief have
ls in somuch it as with erso active in some partic la social identity role some specia ca acit as member of group, ffice, category relationship, association or whatever, some socially ba~ed.s~urce of self-ide tificati n. Ofte this il mean that th individual speaks explicitly or implicitly in th name of "we, no "I (but fo re ee ri fe ), "we" in lu el (S eg lb rg 1973:129-5 Moerman 1968:153-69). And, of course th same individual ca.n ra idly alte th socialrol in hich he is acti e, even though IS capacity asanimato an auth remain co stant- ha in committee meetings is called "changin hats." (This, indeed is what Gumper ha ampl illustrated. In thus introducin th name?r capacity in hich spea s, th speake goes some distance in establishing corresponding reciprocal basi of identification for thos to ho this stand-taking is ad ressed To degree, then, to el in re to se to tt to le ap it re actio ar presen (Weinstei an Deutschberger 19 3:454-66). Al of this work is consolidated by naming practice and, in many languages, throug choice amon availabl second-perso pronouns.
tor, ri ether, ca be said to tell us abou th "productio
utterance.
se
rm sp
,"
ft
format
of an es
ti tor, r, an principa are one. What coul be more natural ~,onatur~~I.ndee. th in se rm In this sense, le alon th masculin pronou as th unmarked singular form. But, of course th implie overlaying of role ha extensiv institutionalized exceptions Plainly reciting full memorize r ea d in g a lo u d fr ep re scri to im ords ha no an in formulating, an to expres pinions, belief an sentiments do no hold ca openly speakfor someone else an in
Footing
F or m o [ T a
in pe
si io l at t
h i s el f t o
vi ng nt st
ne th
"fresh talk," that is th
so
si ul
ne
xtempo aneous
ns io of o ft e t h
be or im
ongoin
il
formulatio
of
situation,"
u rs el f t a t h it on ic th fina consider tion Just as we ca listen to
t es t conversation
do so li te i ci p do ow he in to temporal intersti es within or betwee inte change sustaine by othe participants (Goffman 1976:275-76, oreover, once others tacitl have give us th promis 28-29). or im un to t, we st ju to be st
th s.
it te
ut
in it
logica matter ar engaged, bu th freewheeling self-referential char cter of sp ec receives no place. Th essentia fancifulness t al k i s s ed . th se ui ti i n i s i cs , so o g p ro v le th pe up si bility of findin some structural basi fo ve th subtlest shifts in footing. in ng de in t at e t ru ct ed , tricky II embedding,
oles lready consider in connection with principal. Yo hear an individual grun ou an unadorned, nake uc
utter-
s:
be he
VI
current desire belief perception
th dd ss is nl in lv ic ti th h ro u th ll oc la ha ut la
nd th ns ns io crude, th firs potentiall concealing comple differentiatio of particip tion statuses nd th se ond, comple qu stions of production format Th delineatio of participatio fram wo an production format provides structural basi fo analyzin change in oot-
oo is os th nd un
or intentio
im
of whoeve
th
im nd xp ss
v ai l st ll
it
particular so ia apacity, th word taking th ir uthority ro this capacity any, if no most utterances however, re no constructe
beginnin of this paper. ut th view that result syst maticall si plifie th bearin of pa ticipation fr mework an produc tion form ts on th structur of utte ances. turdy, sober, socio-
throug
D av i A be rc r m bi e ( 19 65 :2 ) i vi d w ha t e r c al l f r s h t al k i nt o conversation involvin rapi exchange of speaker-hearer roles, an mono logue, whic involves extended one-person exercise featurin vaunte styl t ha t a p r o c h t h f or ma li t w ri tt e f or m
so eone afte ll wh belong to th worl that is spoken about, h e o rl d pe ng s. is is mployed, an astonishin lexibility is created.
th office of
pe sona pronoun, typicall
III,"
jigure-a described
Forms
Fooling
Talk
o n t h n g h ed g li in du of perfor ativ odal verb (I"wish, think, "could hope tc om si le tr ng om ta ur nd w al . bl st is du d, it on
tt
ls
ou
to furthe inte rupt th flow by inte je ting
ig
ni at
lo
fluently exhibiting
sa
in
ke
ly ha
pr vent th
od
th
property ma kedl
in iv ua
thor an principals ar also possible so
di ferent from
in di
ollowing th sa
argu
th ng ti
sy
hu
woul
embody t ri e
Second as Hocket (1963:11 recommends unrestricted dis-
ha
di
sp ke
nt id
o n e l s e said, some ou te t o t e n es el f
It ai
he wi do
n i t o s ai d su bl not necessarily stated."
sh
th window
version:
ie
following: (1)
wh re 1) refl ct so ething that is currentl
utte ed th unadorne
it-is
and, although quit unadorned, this st tement will be understood
th
Sh
nt ui y, hi
quota tively:
that
ys lf from saying that," ou descriptio ot t.
say:
io
remedial statemen
oblige to describe ours lves we need no includ in this descrip-
le
th it le
true of th individ(2 an embedded
8. Some generative semanticists have argued that an unadorne uttera nc e i m l i h ig he r e rf or ma ti v v er b a n p ro no un , e . . , " I s ay , " av er , " de ma n , " e tc . t h i m l ic at i b ei n t ha t a l s t t em e t s r e m a b y f ig ur e m en ti o e d o r i m l i d , n o l iv in g i nd i i du al s e e f o e x m pl e R os s 1 9
Fo ms of Ta
Fooling
an ator is an arlier ncar at of pres nt peaker nd (3 is doubly embedded figure namely stil earlie incarnatio of an earlie incarnation. th ug in ui ts have pr ided us wi very sefu re tents rect an in ir ct uo ation, he av ee less el rd
at ar
ot
n.
or exam e, if
It ho ld clear, hen, that th sign fi ance ro uction format anno ea th un es on face up to embeddin unctio of ch alk. or ob io sl when we shif ro ayin omet ng rs lves re rt at omeone el ai ar ha in ou fo ti g. nd o, oo en sh ft from ep rtin ou curren feelin s, ee ings the" ad re si se f, th
eone re ea edly
inal in s. su es ed he as peaker we pr ec ourselves in curren an locall active capacity then ou copartici-
tterance (" ay-f ri ") In si la ay ca oc an acce or dialect, projecting stereotype figure or in th manner that ag ct rs ha anne at er uotati rovi es .' I,
fres
al ha
(Laber
an
omenta il an of
ci lizing nfan
97
It
esp. ec
ng istica y,
talk in this self-dissociated 9·
ce se an an an ny
tw
in
). If thes
tr
ci
ut or la fu projec
he
to
rd
ie
iq
currentl present, live individual wh is animatin th utterance. Bu that isnot quit so Second-perso pronouns ar equall two-faced, referrin to figure in t at em en t a n c ur r n tl y r es e t , l i i nd iv i u al s e n a g i n h ea ri n w ha t s pe a e r i s s ay in g b o t h m . M or eo ve r b ot h t yp e r on ou n r o t in el y a p p ea r e m e d e d p ar t o f u ot e s ta te me nt s id
in
th
i n w hi c c as e t h i n i vi du a w h h a s er ve d a s l iv e c ur re nt l p re se n n im a to ha hersel become figure in lower-orde statement. Th bridging powe d es cr i e s T h s ce n i n w hi c
They
narrative, an this will be much th sa
eral er
fanciful way.l? ic
ar ly de er ined corr sp ndin ly Bu as of re la as even he el sele or oursel ca on "a erca t" th other figure i n t h s to r y leavin th hearer of th replay undeter-
s p a ki n a n h e r i i s c ur re nt l a n a ct ua ll y th li tu li ti e ve ry on e l is t n in g w il l k no w w h i s r ef er r to " sh e. " th il ie " we " o r " I o r " ba b o r a t er m e n e ar me n t h c hi l ' s a me , a n l is pi n l d t h i s b ei n
ocia structur de ra ge
ur
t,
sort of self whomsoever
en to
of co sidera le
peak rs an hearer ca br ef
shift.P (Ad-
talked for, o ll s t ed d
to In io to e ar s a n n o t o r ob ot s- a t he s t h a re n w il l s pe a f or , t oo . il ig ll t, rg Herber Mead notwithstanding, th chil does no merely lear to refe to itself fo it th fi le e mb e t h s t t em en t n d m an n r is m o f z o - fu l o f b ei n i n i t o w v er b behavior. It ju rm il ll il in late year to describe it ow past action whic it no longer feel ar characterth rm il ll t at e t ha t i s u ot e a s s om et hi n o me on e e ls e s ai d ( On e m i h t s a t h ea ha th il capacity to embe "particularize others"-whic others take together form heterogeneous, accidental collection teething ring fo utterances an no bal team.) It s tr ik e m e t he n t ha t l th ou g a re nt ' b ab y t al k ( an d t h t al k lexicon, it laminative features ar anything bu childlike. No do thin parent to lt vide by Schieffeli (1974) Ro
Fo ms of Ta
ittedly, if th
Fooling
listen il
is also
ha acte in th stor he is list ning in
IX
It
list ne 's concer
with th tale
th
to ti
this pictur
s, us itself st
omplicat
by th
ti th oncept of embed-
listen rs
ia this complication itself cannot be clearl seen unless on appreciti th pation ramewo ks re subj to tr nsfo ation. or it turn ou that in somethin like th thologic sens we quit routinel ritualiz participatio frameworks that is we self-consciously th ti ip is in
haracteriz tion of arious rotago ists in th tale or to back tr ck or ection fo ny felt ailure to sustai na rative requir ts te l, in
embe interaction arrangements Take collusion, fo example. This arrangemen ma no itself be om on bu om on surely is pp rently unseriou ollu
io te
tt
ti
ta
oc ur d.urin s~orytelli g.
or du in
narrativ
ju ctur s: to reca fo ne ir
fr th
strategi te
th tellin of
to
tale as ivia
displa th Quee in he full domesti round includin shoppin an picnickin wit he Family Someho the producers an stars of th program manage ~oge through th _wholeshow without displaying much tha could be deemed madvertent, re~ea~mg,unstaged, or unself-conscious in part, no doubt, becaus much of royal hf ISprobably manage thi wa even in th absenc of camera ut .oneex ,; ti id hi through. he Quee an th embers of th Fa~II? occasionall reverte to telling family stories or personal experiences to thei mterlocutor. Th storie no doub were carefully.selecte (a al storie m~st be~,b~t in th tellin of them th roya personages coul no bu momentarily li to th unre al ta ce of stor teller allowing thei hearer th momentar (relative) intimacy of stor listeners. What coul be conceive of ?s "hum~nity is thus practically inescapable. Fo there is democrac implied narrahon;. th lowest ~an~in tha~activity is no very lo by society' stan ar s-th righ an blig tion to list to st ry from erso to ho we i ti o t el l 2. Int~restingly, the texts that folklorist an sociolinguists provid of ~veryday stones ofte systematically omit th narrativ frame breaks tha very likely occurred throughout th actual teIlings Here th studen of storie ha ~actfull accepted.th teller's injunction that th shif in footin required to introduc correction or someothe out-of-fram commen beomitte fro th officialrecord. Ofte omitted, too, is an appreciation of th frequenc with
ig nse -a pr ctic so etimes ployed to onve pinion th coul no sa el be convey th ough ctua innu ndo, le alon direct brough into smal conv rs tional
ircl
to
rk
st ee talkin abou neighborhood business to th th te ti iv
om unica-
next door th
which hearers change footing an inject in passing their ow contribution to th tale (G od in 978, sp hap. an chap 4, t. ).
Fo ms of Ta ap arentl ki er appr ciat ha la er in ui straight woul be directly to invoke shared interest an competency, no particularly masculin one, an henc similarity he neighbor migh be disincline to confront.) itness th wa in whic th physical contact, focusing tone an loving endear ment appropriat ithi th privac of courtshi encounte ca be performe in fu to an unsuitable candidat as se piec to et into th focu attentio de nviv al ir le th am rt of ircle,ho ca re on to at aker coparticipants but bystander engaged in irreverent sideplay. Or even he tw individual ar quit alon together an cannot possibly be overheard, ho on ma mark th confidential an cl ve tatu it of os by itchin into is er natura conversation is laminate in th manner thes illustra tion suggest; in an case conversation is certainl vulnerable to such lamination. An eac increase or decrease in layering-eac move en closer to or furthe from th "literal"-carrie it it change in footing. nc it is seen that participatio framewor ca be parenthesized an se into an alie environment, it should be eviden that al th participatio frameworks earlie describe as occurring outsid of conversation-tha is arrangements involvin an audience or no officialrecipien at all-ar themselves candidates fo this reframin process; they too, ca be rese into conversa tional talk nd of course with each such embeddin change of footin occurs Th private, ru inativ self-tal ma em ploy amon stranger when ou circumstance suddenly requir explaining we ca playfull restag in conversation no so much projecting th words, bu projecting dumbfounde person projectin th words So too on such occasions, we can momentaril affect podium speech register or provid theatrical versio (burlesqued, melodramatic of an aside. Al of which, of course provides extr warrant-indeed perhaps, th main warrant-fo differentiating variou participatio framework in the first place. It
spoken pass fa beyond ordinary conversation.·Bu it is just as true that thes frameworks ar brough back into conversation
natur an
divides, tal frivolously embeds, insets and intermingles am ti ts an pu an or on thei ta e, an enac participatio framewor an production format in ou con-
versation.
have deal till no it changes in footin as though th individua were involved merely in switchin from on stance or alignen to an ther is ag is ts lf to chanical an oo ea y. ns icie ly po iv th be ding ritualizatio work Fo ofte it seem that when we change VOIc -w et er to peak or anot er pect ur lves or or omene ls li hten ou di co it da te enac en of minating th prio alignmen as holdin it in abeyance with th understandin that it will almost immediatel be reengaged. So too, he give up th floo in conversation thereb taking up th footin of recipien (addressed or otherwise) we ca be ar ante in ex ecting to ee er th peaker le he am footin from whic we left it As suggested, this is clearl th case when narrator allows hearer to "chi in," bu such perceivedl em or ry egoi ne's os tion al to nd he storytelling isn' featured Soit must be allowe that we ca ~o~d he fo ting ac ever ou tu ns talk thin ne alignment, an ther ca ll encl ed ut in talk it seem routin that hile firmly standing on tw feet jump hich ul epar th ns itutio al niches in whic hard-pressed functionar is constraine to routinel sustain more than on stat of talk simultaneously Thus throughou an auction, an auctioneer ay interspers th utterances he direct to th biddin audience it severa stream of out-of am co nication epor ac le po en ro gh microphone to recordin cler in anothe room instructions to assistants on th floor, an (les routinely) greeting to friend
Fo ms of Ta
Fooling
in ee in ta th re tyle as asides respectfully inserted at junc ex e, ic /t in il ty reported in forthcomin pape by Tannen an allat) pediaic an in ti it e, dressing he youthful patien in "motherese," no ustainin conversation-lik exchange it th mother no turnin to th of talk an
accoun couche
in th
regi te of medica reporting.
er
on
by-stand th curren stream of communicatio hils lion hold" fo th attentio of th pivota person to reengage them nd on deal it th capacity of dexterou speake to jump back an forth, keepin differen circle in play
XI
Toend,let us return to th ixon scen that formed th introduc tion to this paper. he elen Thomas pirouetted fo th presianothe stance that of oman eceiving comments on he ap pearance doub th forces at work ar sexism an presidents en ap ty to ti ac en le in th more extended performanc of another. he elen homa pirouetted fo th president, sh as employin form of behavi indigenous to th en iron en of th et at ti ea al in ac in it es in ew eren apparently foun this transplantatio odd. T h a t is ho experi ence is laminated. he ne report of this conference it el does no tell us bu at ix er es joshin of s. Thomas no merely as bracketing device signal that th substantiv phas of th cere on as over bu to ho it al ap th ch
loudly they ay have seen hi ge tu as forced ooden,an artificial separating hi from them by behavioral veil of design an self-consciousness Al of that ould have to be understood alignmen to thos present, of hi footing. nd believ linguisti it ch footings beco anifest, helpin us to find ou ay to structura ba is fo analyzin them