Agreement and Epistemics in Mexican Spanish Talk

University of Essex

Department of Language and Linguistics

Agreement and Epistemics in Mexican Spanish Talk

by

Ariel Vázquez Carranza

Supervised by

Dr. Rebecca Clift

A Research project submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of MA in Linguistic Studies

September 2009

Agreement and Epistemics in Mexican Spanish Talk — Ariel Vázquez Carranza

-2-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS….………………………………………………………..3

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION….…………………………………………………4

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGICAL PRELIMINARIES………………………...6

2.1. SEQUENCE AND ADGENCY..…………………………………………6

2.2. PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION…… ………….……………………...7

CHAPTER 3. AGREEMENT IN ASSESSMENT SEQUENCES …………………9

3.1. ASSESSMENT SEQUENCES... ….………...……………………………9

3.2. A PREFERENCE FOR AGREEMENT. ...…………………………….....9

3.3 THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT………………………………………..10

CHAPTER 4. AGREEMENT AND EPISTEMICS IN MEXICAN SPANISH

ASSESSMENT SEQUENCES……………….………..…………………………...12

4.1. THE DATA…………...…………………………………………………12

4.2. RESOURCES TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT AND THE INDEXING OF

EPISTEMIC RIGHTS ………………………………………………………………..12

4.2.1 ASSESSMENT + TAG QUESTION….. …………………..……12

4.2.2 TURN INITIAL “NO”…………………………….…………….14

4.2.2.1 Turn-initial “no”: a prior study……………………...14

4.2.2.2 Turn-initial “no” in our data…………...……………18

4.2.3 REPETITION……………………………………………………..20

4.2.3.1 Repetition as an agreement practice....……………....20

4.2.3.2 Indexing Epistemics with Repetitions…...……………23

4.2.4 ANTICIPATORY COMPLETION……. .……..………….……..28

CHAPTER 5 FINAL REMARKS…………………………………………………..30

APPENDIX A Transcription Conventions... …..……………………………………32

APPENDIX B Translation Abbreviations… ..………..……………………………..34

REFERENCES…………………………………………..………………………….35


-3-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Rebecca Clift whose without help

and encouragement I would not have been able to write the present dissertation nor to

know the fascinating field of Conversation Analysis, thank you for sharing your

knowledge in CA and specially for believing in me.

I would like to extend my sincere acknowledgment to my beloved wife, friend,

partner, and colleague who has been my courage and strength, thank you for your

unconditional support and for being a guidance force in my life.

Finally, I would like to thank to my beloved parents in Heaven; I hope to make you

proud.

Ariel VÁZQUEZ CARRANZA

Colchester, September 2009


-4-

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Conversation Analysis (henceforth CA) is the field focused on talk “as a

vehicle for action and its concerns with how participants collaborate in constructing

recognizable and coherent courses of actions” (Clift et al., 2006: 1). In other words,

CA aims to reveal the organization and development of actions in conversation (so-

called talk-in-interaction). Conversation analysts, by means of analysing naturally

occurring talk, have developed this particular approach to language use, which has

exposed not only the organization of talk (e.g. Sacks et al.; 1974; Schegloff, 2000),

but also how the actions that occur in talk are accomplished (e.g. invitations, Drew,

1984; greetings, Schegloff, 1986; agreements and disagreements, Pomerantz, 1984;

topic shift, Drew and Holt, 1998; etc.).

The present study is framed within the methodological basis of CA and

focuses specifically on the action of assessment which Goodwin and Goodwin (1987)

define as the turn-at-talk performed action where speakers and recipients evaluate in

some fashion the persons and the events being described in their talk. This paper

carries out (as far as the author knows) the first analysis of assessment sequences from

a corpus of naturally occurring Mexican Spanish conversations. Particularly, it looks

at the linguistic resources used to achieve agreement in this type of sequences; and,

following Heritage and Raymond’s (2005) study on the managing of epistemic rights

in assessment sequences, this work also seeks to expose how this social activity is

carried out in Mexican Spanish talk. For instance, let us see excerpt (A) which starts

with J evaluating a beach V has recently been to.

(A) [Dinner at Ester’s: 45:50]

1 J:�� que sí es muy virgen todavía esa parte ¿no? 2 that yes be (PRES) very virgin still that part [IND] no? 3 that part is still untouched, isn’t it? 4 E: °sí° 5 °yes° 6 °yes° 7 V: sí o sea es este_ digamos que= 8 yes or be it [DM] be (PRES) this [DM] we say (IMP) that= 9 yes I mean_ lets say that= 10 E: [°más ecológico° 11 [°more ecological° 12 [°it’s more environmentally friendly° 13 V: =[para el turismo mexicano es como más desconocido. 14 =[for the mexican turism be (PRES) like more unknown [IND]. 15 =[for the mexican tourism is relatively unknown yet.


-5-

One notices in excerpt (A) that there are different features displayed in the

interaction that point out V as the coparticipant with the putatively knowledge to

evaluate the place. That is, before J’s assessment (…es muy virgen todavía esa

parte…), for example, he inserts a tag question (¿no?) which invites the coparticipants

to agree with the assessment. By doing so, J indexes second access to the knowledge

about the beach. We can observe that E agrees with the assessment, line 4, and tries,

unsuccessfully, to anticipate and complete, in line 10, V’s accounts; however, she

does it quietly; by contrast V not only agrees with the assessment but also offers a

complete explanation (para el turismo mexicano es como más desconocido).

The paper is organised as follows: the second and third chapters present

methodological preliminaries and theoretical concepts important for the development

of this study such as sequence organization, preference for agreement, and the terms

of agreement revealed by Heritage and Raymond (2005). In the fourth chapter, we

proceed with the analysis of our data; in this section, we present the linguistic

resources used to show agreement and we illustrate the intersection of this resources

and the managing of epistemic rights. The linguistic resources found in our data are

four: assessment + tag question, collaborative completion (both of them have a similar

epistemic function as their English counterpart); turn initial no, which is the only

linguistic resource of which a previous study was found; and repetition which, in our

data, is the most recurrent resource used to express agreement. Finally, we conclude

offering final remarks.

It is important to highlight that in our study the reader will find excerpts of

conversations in English and Spanish. Evidently, the excerpts taken from our data are

in Spanish; that is why, as noticed in excerpt (A), we offer the translation of the

transcript which consists of one line with the literal translation followed by one line of

the equivalent meaning in English.


-6-

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGICAL PRELIMINARIES

2.1 SEQUENCE AND ADJACENCY

One theoretical principle of CA states that participants project actions in

conversation and by doing so they require the deployment of subsequent actions by

their recipients (Heritage, 1998; Schegloff, 1972); these courses of actions are

denominated sequences. For instance, a request utterance projected by a given

participant requires to be followed by either an utterance of concession or an utterance

of declination which is expected to come from the recipient of the request. It is

important to highlight the fact that adjacency pairs (Sacks, 1992) is the term

designated to ordered sequences as the one described, do not always come strictly

adjacent one to the other, there are times when they are distributed in the sequence as

Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008:43-4) exemplified with excerpt (a).

(a) [Levinson, 1983: 304]

1 A: Can I have a bottle of Mich? 2 B: Are you over twenty-one? 3 A: No. 4 B: No.

In line 1, the first part of the adjacency pair is deployed by A; however, in line

2, instead of completing the sequence with the second and complementary part of the

adjacency pair, B utters the first part of another adjacency pair1. The insertion of the

“new” adjacency pair does not imply that B ignores or opts not to answer the

question; rather that B needs further information to formulate his response. After A

answers the incorporated question, line 3, B shows the remaining orientation to the

first prompted adjacency pair and completes the sequence with its second part, line 4.

That is, in excerpt (a) there are two accomplished question-answer adjacency pair

sequences, one inserted in the other; and the entire excerpt could be nominated as a

sequence of request. Finally, one can notice with this example that the adjacency of

actions in talk denotes the mutual understanding of the participants, what is more, the

example above also shows that “next turns” in talk, for example line 2 (Are you over

twenty-one?), “are a strategic position in which parties… may ‘react’ to what another

has said/done” (Schegloff, 2000); in this case, B’s reaction acknowledges A’s prior

turn by not ignoring but conditioning the request. 1 This adjacency pair is called an insertion sequence (Schegloff, 1968; 1972).


-7-

2.2 PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION

We mentioned before that the first part of an adjacency pair conditions what is

expected to come in the second position of a sequence (e.g. requests are expected to

be followed by concessions or declinations). In addition to this, the structural

characteristics of the second part of an adjacency pair is designed by the type of

action that the turn projects; that is, concessions, for example, do not have the same

structure than declinations. CA delineates this difference of structural design in terms

of preference organization; it must be noted here that “preference” does not refer to

the individuals’ preference, but to the accomplishment of actions in talk (e.g. a request

prefers a concession; an invitation prefers an acceptance; an assessment prefers an

agreement; etc.). There are preferred and dispreferred turns (Pomerantz, 1984);

research has shown that the former are straightforwardly and immediately performed

turns (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008); and the later are turns which are performed after

delay, with turn-initial markers (e.g. “well” or “hu”), and with some accounts on why

the preferred response is not carried out (Levinson, 1983: 307). Furthermore, it is

argued that “preference organization refer[s] to the set of practices through which

persons manage courses of action that either promote or undermine social solidarity”

(Heritage and Raymond, 2005: 16).

We can see the characteristics just mentioned in the following assessment

sequences.

(b) [VIYMAC: 1:2] (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008: 47) 1 Jo: T’s it’s a beautiful day outside isn’t it? 2 Lee:�� It’s gorgeous.

(c) [SBL: 2.1.7.-14] (Pomerantz, 1984:73) 1 A: …’cause those things take working at, 2 (2.0) 3 B:�� (hhhhhh) well, they [do but,_ 4 A: [They aren’t accidents, 5 B: No, but they take working out but on the other hand, some people…

In excerpt (b), line 2, we can notice a short, simple and with no delay turn, this

is a preferred second part which shows the accomplishment of the agreement

prompted in the first position of the sequence. On the other hand, in excerpt (c)

overwhelmingly, the turn in line 3 shows complexity: it is delayed by a two-second

silence, line 2; then in line 3 there is laughter followed by the turn-initial marker,

“well”; and even though there is an agreement element (“they do”), it is contrasted


-8-

with “but” which is considered a disagreement component (Pomerantz, 1984); finally

in line 5 there is what seems to be the beginning of the accounts for disagreement; all

these features make the turn a dispreferred one where disagreement is undermined.

So far, we have described how actions carried out in talk are orderly

performed in pairs and how these sequenced practices possess a specific structure

depending on the action preference. With these understandings we proceed to the

following chapter, devoted in general to assessment sequences; first we refer to the

preference for agreement in assessment sequences; and then we show the intersections

of turn-design, sequential positioning, and epistemic rights in assessment sequences as

exposed in Heritage and Raymond (2005).


-9-

CHAPTER 3

AGREEMENT IN ASSESSMENT SEQUENCES

3.1 ASSESSMENT SEQUENCES

Goodwin and Goodwin (1987) point out that in an assessment action an actor

(the assessor) assumes a position towards the matter that is being assessed (the

assessable); furthermore, due to the fact that this action possesses a public character,

where the assessment projects not only the assessor’s experience of the assessable, but

also his or her competence to assess; the assessment action is eligible for evaluation

by the other party and it provides the resources for the accomplishment and

negotiation of co-experience. It has been noted that assessment sequence consists of

first and second position assessments (Heritage and Raymond, 2005), the former is

the assessment that starts the sequence, and the latter is the response to the first one

which can be an agreement, disagreement, or adjustment (Heritage, 2002; Pomerantz,

1984), being agreement the preferred turn.

3.2 A PREFERENCE FOR AGREEMENT

In Erving Goffman’s (1967) seminal study on face2, it is claimed that the

desire to be regarded positively and unimpeded in face-to-face interactions is

considered a universal of human conduct (Heritage and Raymond, 2005).

Subsequently, it has been demonstrated (e.g. Lerner, 1996; Pomerantz, 1978, 1984;

Sacks, 1987) that “there is a ‘bias’ intrinsic to many aspects of the organization of talk

which is generally favourable to the maintenance of bonds of solidarity between

actors and which promotes the avoidance of conflict” (Heritage, 1984a: 265); that is,

the practices involved in preference organization (described in 2.2) contribute to the

conservation of solidarity and the avoidance of discord between participants; we can

see an instance of this in excerpt (c) above.

In addition to the preference for agreement, Heritage and Raymond (2005)

distinguish that there are mechanisms in the design of preferred actions of assessment

sequences that participants use to manage and negotiate their epistemic rights to

knowledge and information. They argue that “persons in the jointly of evaluating

2 “The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributed – albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself” (Goffman, 1967: 5).


-10-

states of affairs are concerned not only with agreement but also with who is agreeing

with whom (Schegloff, 1996a: [182])” (p. 17), what they denominate: the terms of

agreement.

3.3 THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT

Raymond and Heritage (2006: 684-5) review their previous work by

highlighting three main characteristics that are crucial for the negotiation of epistemic

rights to knowledge in talk. Before turning to the review, it is important to mention

that epistemic rights to knowledge overwhelmingly either involve the upgrading or

downgrading of epistemic access to the assessable and/or the epistemic rights to

assess the assessable.

I. Participants in conversation must have access to the state of affairs in order to

assess them. Otherwise, participants can solely arrive to a simulacrum of agreement3.

II. Participants rank their access to the matter being assessed, it could be first-

hand (and immediate) access, or second-hand (mediated) access.

III. First position assessment entails primacy of rights to evaluate the matter being

assessed. The evidence to support this claim is threefold: (i) The distribution of

practices in assessment sequences shows that downgrading assessment practices occur

in first position whilst upgrading assessment practices take place in second position.

(ii) The assessments deployed in first position are most of the time downgraded but

not upgraded; and vice versa, that is, most of the time second position assessments are

upgraded but not downgraded. (iii) In most cases downgrading first position

assessments are performed by speakers who, at least at first appearance, possess lesser

epistemic rights to assess the assessable; and upgraded second position assessments

are deployed by speakers who, at least at first appearance, have greater epistemic

rights to evaluate the assessable. However, when both speakers have got putatively

equal access to the assessable, the epistemic implications are cancelled by speakers’

practices (e.g. tag question used to downgrade first position assessment which is

responded with a declarative in second position).

Table 1 (taken from Raymond and Heritage, 2006: 685) shows the distribution

of practices involved in the terms of agreement. It exhibits the intersections of

epistemic rights to assess and sequential positioning, but most importantly, for the

3 Simulacrum of agreement refers to the situation where although participant(s) achieve agreement by managing a raw affiliation with the evaluation, they lack experience over the assessable.


-11-

purposes of the present project, it exposes the fact that, overwhelmingly, the

management of epistemic rights in talk have an effect on the design of turns since we

can notice that linguistic resources are displayed to index epistemic rights when

agreeing in assessment sequences. This reality is revealed by the authors in their

work (Heritage and Raymond, 2005) after having analysed conversations in American

and British English.

Table1. Linguistic resources for marking epistemic authority/subordination in assessment sequences.

First Position Second Position

Unmarked [Declarative]

[Declarative]

Downgraded Evidentials [Assessment]+[Tag Question] Downgraded-“firstness”

Upgraded Negative Interrogatives [Confirmation]+[Agreement token] [Oh]+[Assessment] [Assessment]+[Tag Question] [Negative Interrogative]

Up to this point, we have presented the characteristics of assessment

sequences; it has been argued that there is preference for agreement; and it has been

denoted the fact that even when agreeing, speakers negotiate their epistemic rights to

knowledge by the deployment of positioning linguistic resources. In what follows, we

will present findings regarding these matters, but in naturally occurring Mexican

Spanish conversations; we particularly focus on the resources used to express

agreement.


-12-

CHAPTER 4

AGREEMENT AND EPISTEMICS IN MEXICAN SPANISH

ASSESSMENT SEQUENCES

4.1 THE DATA

The present analysis is based on a corpus of six conversations from which five

of the interactions were recorded in Toluca de Lerdo4, Mexico; and the other two

interactions are telephone conversations recorded in Wivenhoe, England. All the

participants are university-educated middle class native speakers of Mexican Spanish.

We now give a brief description of the conversations and the participants involved:

Dinner at Esther’s is a conversation that occurs between Esther (henceforth

E), José, (henceforth E), who is E’s husband, Vero (hereafter V), and Ariel (hereafter

A), who is V’s husband. The conversation takes place at E and J’s house when V and

A went to have dinner with them. V and E have been friends for about five years

while for the rest of the participants this occasion is the first time they meet each

other. At Martita’s is an interaction that takes place at Martita’s house. Martita

(henceforth M) is V’s cousin; and this conversation took place when V, A, and V’s

father went to visit M and her family. At the Dentist is the interaction between V, A,

and a dentist; it was recorded when V had an appointment with the dentist (hereafter

D). Finally, Conversations with Nelly I, II are recorded telephone conversations

between V and Nelly (hereafter N) who is V’s best friend.

4.2 RESOURCES TO EXPRESS AGREEMENT AND THE INDEXING OF

EPISTEMIC RIGHTS

In this section, we present the practices used to index epistemic rights and how

these practices are distributed in assessments sequences. The resources found in the

data are the following: assessment + tag questions, turn-initial “no”, repetitions, and

anticipatory completions. Let us start with the linguistic resource that has got similar

epistemic functions as its English counterpart, assessment + tag questions.

4.2.1 ASSESSMENT + TAG QUESTION

The deployment of an assessment + tag question formula is used to downgrade

epistemic access to the state of affairs on the grounds that: this formula indexes a

4 Toluca de Lerdo is the capital of the State of Mexico and is located 63 km to the west of Mexico City.


-13-

categorically secondary connection to the assessable in relation to the coparticipant

(Heritage and Raymond, 2005); furthermore, the tag question “introduce[s] an

invitation to agree with… [the assessment] …as a feature of its surface syntax”

(Raymond and Heritage, 2006: 687); that is, the recipient is invited to answer the

question not to agree with the assessment so as to follow the preference for contiguity

(Sacks, 1987).

Let us observe excerpt (1) where V has been talking about the hotel where she

stayed when she went on vacation:

(1) [Dinner at Esther’s: 43:25] 1 V: ↑las fotos que vienen en internet >te puedo decir< que no le hacen justicia al lugar. 2 ↑ the photographs that go (PRES) in internet [IND] > to you I can say (PRES) [IND]< that they no do (PRES) justice to the place [IND] 3 the pictures on the internet >I can tell< do not show the real beauty of the place. 4 (.3) 5 E: ¿de verdad?= 6 of true? [EXP]=

7 really? 8 V: =o sea es mucho más bonito 9 =or be it [DM] it be (PRES) much more beautiful [IND] 10 =I mean it’s much more beautiful 11 E: a:y qué lindo 12 oh: what pretty [EXCL] 13 oh: that’s nice 14 V: y tiene >diferentes habit[aciones< 15 and have (PRES) >differ ent r[ooms< [ IND] 16 and it’s got >different r[ooms< 17 E:�� =[y la playa es bonita ¿no? 18 =[and the beach be (PRES) beautiful [IND] no? 19 =[and the beach is nice, isn’t it? 20 V: sí [sí sí 21 yes [yes yes 22 yes[yes yes 23 E: [o sea es_ 24 [or be it [DM] it be (PRES) 25 [I mean it’s_ 26 V: o sea está muy tranquila este:: poca gente:… 27 or be it [DM] it be (PRES) very calm [IND] this [DM] few people… 28 well, it’s really quiet er:: there’re few people…

It is clear that V has got first-hand access to the hotel and the beach described,

since she is the one who had the experience. This fact is corroborated by E’s reactions

to V’s assessments performed in lines 1 and 11: the first assessment is followed by a

newsmark5 ¿de verdad? (line 5), and the second one by another assessment that does

not evaluate the beauty of the place, but the fact that the hotel was much nicer than the

pictures on the internet: ay qué lindo (line 11). Then, in line 17, E joins the evaluation

activity, but due to the fact that she has got secondary access to what is being

evaluated, she deploys an assessment + tag question formula: y la playa es bonita

5 Newsmark are “objects that specifically treat a prior turn’s talk as news for the recipient rather than merely informative” (Jefferson 1981 in Heritage, 1984b: 340).


-14-

no?; by doing so, E invites V (following the contiguity of the conversation) to

respond to the question rather than to agree with the assessment.

In excerpt (2) below, V initiates the sequence by saying that even though they

(she and her husband) did not do much while they were on vacation, they would get

very tired; this statement is followed by accounts on possible causes of their tiredness.

With this sequence, we want to present the scenario where the epistemics are

cancelled by the use of assessment + tag question formula which is deployed in first

and second position, lines 6 and 10. That is, speakers, by inviting the coparticipant to

respond the tag question of the assessment turn, show that they do not posses

putatively information about the assessable (the factors that could make people tired).

(2) [Dinner at Esther’s: 52:23] 1 V: o sea no hacíamos nada y nos cansába(hh)amos. 2 or be it [DM] we no do (PAST) anything [IND] and we tired (IMPER) [IND] 3 I mean, we didn’t do anything but still we got tired. 4 E: [hhh hh 5 V: [hhhh h[hhh 6 E:�� [bu(h)eno es que el calor agota mu:::cho el calor y el agua ↓¿no? 7 well is that the heat tire (PRES) [IND] much the heat and the water no? 8 w(h)ell, the thing is that the heat makes you really tired the heat and the water, isn’t it? 9 (.) 10 V:�� sí la humeda:d y todo eso ¿no? 11 yes the humidity and all that no? 12 yes, the humidity and all that right? 15 E: °sí ps (.) te desgasta = 16 °yes (.) to you tire (PRES) [IND]°= 17 °yes°, (.) it makes you tired= 18 V: =pero muy_ muy bonito… 19 but very_ very beautiful… 20 but it was very_ very nice…

4.2.2 TURN INITIAL “NO”

We start this section with a brief review of an earlier finding regarding the use

of turn-initial no in Spanish conversation; then we present data that show the

intersections of turn-initial no, sequence positioning, and epistemic rights in talk.

4.2.2.1 Turn-initial “no”: a prior study

In Mendoza-Denton’s (1999) paper on stance-taking and linguistic and social

use of discourse markers, the author analyses one conversation of a group of five

Latina girls6 from a Northern California high-school. In one segment of the study, she

describes the design of a turn that consists of an initial phonological independent no

6 Four out of the five girls have got Mexican linguistic background: three of them come from the central region of Mexico, and one was born in Los Angeles but spend her childhood in Mexico (p. 277-8).


-15-

that does not carry any negative semantic meaning, and which is followed by a

positive declarative utterance. She denominates this turn as “turn-initial collaborative

expansion” (p. 281) on the grounds that the turn design ventures for the floor in

conversation and inserts an explanation. The instance given by the author is, excerpt

(d), where Andrea and Laura construct a mutual agreement:

(d) [Mendoza-Denton, 1999: 290]

Andrea: =NO ↓no, ↓no, ↑yo no digo que si están revueltos los dos, yo digo que- [(.3)que (.) ve_] =No, no, no. I’m not talking about when they’re both together. I’m saying that [(.3) that (.) see_] Laura: � [No, pero, no, pus,] o sea, tu sabes, no, cada quien= [No, but, no, pus,] o sea you know, no, each one= Andrea:� =no, claro, propia onda= =no, of course, own thing=

After Andreas’ first intervention where she gives clarification to avoid

misunderstanding, Laura and Andrea deploy a turn-initial collaborative expansion so

as, in Lauras’ case, to take the floor and introduce a statement, and in Andreas’ case,

to obtain again the floor and insert an agreement. By doing so, the speakers do what

Mendoza-Denton calls a coconstructed agreement. The author argues that a similar

operator in English would be the structure yeah but as in the excerpt (e) where Nancy

tells Hylda what her doctor said about acne. In the interaction, Hylda agrees with

Nancy and adds an explanation to the one given by Nancy’s doctor:

(e) [Mendoza-Denton, 1999: 281]

Nancy: He says ‘t’s all inside you it’s ‘n emotional thing’n. =hhh e[:n] Hylda: [yeah] buh whatchu ea:t if you eat greasy food=

In our data we did find instances of turn-initial collaborative expansion. In

excerpt (3), where V and M talk about the worrying of the lack of safety on the

streets, we notice that after M agrees with V’s assessment, line 4 there is a pause

which indicates that the floor is free to be taken; so, both speakers overlap when

commencing a turn: on the one hand, V, who presumably is going to give an account

on the problem, line 8, does not complete her turn; and on the other, M, by deploying

a turn-initial collaborative expansion, bids for the floor and inserts a declarative

explanation: no y da pendiente quiero decirte, line 11. After these actions, V responds


-16-

to M’s intervention with a turn-initial no followed by an agreement token, line 14, this

is the type of turn-initial no usage of which we talk latter in this section.

(3) [At Martitas: 20:42]

1 V: en todo o sea este (.) no te puedes dormir pero ahora sí que ni por un minuto 2 in all or be it [DM] this [DM] (.) no you can sleep (PRES) [IND] but now yes that nor for one minute 3 all the time, I mean (.) one can’t get distracted not even for a minute 4 M: exactamente no. 5 exactly no. 6 exactly, you can’t. 7 (.) 8 V: [porque este:_ 9 [because this_ 10 [because_ 11 M:��[↑no y da pendiente cre_ quiero decirte 12 [↑no and it give worry (PRES) [IND] I want to tell you (PRES) [IND] [EXP] 13 [↑no and it’s worrying, I’m telling you 14 V: no claro 15 no clrear [EXP] 16 no of course 17 M: da mucho pendiente ya andar en (.) en la calle yo simplemente 18 it give worry (PRES) [IND] walk on (.) on the street I simply 19 it’s so worrying even to be on the street, I, for example, 20 los niños que luego salen no te creas me da pendiente de los niños… 21 the kids that then go out (PRES) [IND] no you relieve [EXP] give worry of the kids (PRES) [IND]… 22 when my kids go out I get very worried, believe me…

In addition to the introduction of the turn-initial no designed turn, Mendoza-

Denton argues that “it is possible that European American English speakers’

preference for agreement are satisfied with yeah but whereas other speakers may be

following different rules and may perform the same function… with a negative

instead of a positive marker” (Mendoza-Denton, 1999: 282). To support her claim she

gives evidence of an interaction in English where turn-initial no is used with similar

characteristics as its Spanish counterpart:

(f) [Mendoza-Denton, 1999: 282]

A: Why don’t you do it like this. It’s better that way. S: No, yeah you’re right.

Here, excerpt (f) shows the interaction, observed by Mendoza-Denton,

between two Jewish American women. She remarks that immediately after the

interaction she inquired speaker S about the turn-initial no performed, and she was

informed that the practice was not a repair and that it was common in S’s repertoire.

The strongest claim of Mendoza-Denton is that, taking into account the latter

revelations, the concept of agreement preference, one of the most important


-17-

theoretical notions of CA, requires to be elaborated. She formulates this position as

follows:

One interesting consequence of the finding that turn-initial collaborative expansions have surface disagreement shapes in Spanish is that it requires an elaboration of one of the most important concepts in conversation analysis: agreement preference, that is, that agreement is preferred and negation is dispreferred… Conversation-analytic research has bone this prediction out for American and British speakers… and has been shown to be an important dimension in patterning the behaviour and distribution of such phenomena as request, invitation, repair, and assessment sequences. I suggest that agreement preference may be gradient rather than categorical and the different speech communities, speakers, or individual situations may have a weaker or a stronger form of this preference rule. A weak form of the rule would allow speakers to display agreement through what may look on the surface as an opposition marker, such as the turn-initial no, or to express conflict and disagreement through apparently collaborative strategies such as constructions (Mendoza-Denton, 1999: 282).

Despite the fact that Mendoza-Denton’s paper partially follows the

methodology and goals7 of CA, her findings are important to the not-yet-explored

study of turn design and performed actions in Spanish talk-in-interactions, specifically

for the Mexican variety. However, the fact that in Spanish conversations there are

“surface disagreement shapes” (turn-initial no) in preferred responses, does not entail

that a foundational concept, such as agreement preference, requires further

elaboration, at least not in its operative basis. That means, it is a reality that the design

of turn depends not only on the linguistic resources that each language provides its

speakers with, but also on how the speakers of a given society utilise these resources

in conversation; even so, no matter what the turn characteristics are, the practices in

agreement preference sequences will project the preference for the achievement of an

action and the maintenance of solidarity bonds between participants; otherwise one

will be referring to a different concept.

To conclude this review, we consider that Mendoza-Denton’s suggestion

(second paragraph of the citation) is framed in a misconception of the analytical

emphasis taken in CA. In first place, the suggestion creates the impression that the

author considers the concepts emerged from CA (e.g. preference for agreement) to be

established rules or ways of talk, rather than theoretical resources to explain the

organization and development of actions in conversation. And secondly, we believe

that Mendoza-Denton’s suggestion may need further explanation, because we

consider that agreement preference practices are indeed gradient in the sense that their

7 The paper emerged from a bigger sociolinguistic project on a community of practice (Mendoza-Denton, 2008).


-18-

deployment will depend on the context being constructed in a given talk; but they are

also categorical since they define a specific resource used in the organization of talk.

4.2.2.2 Turn-initial “no” in our data

Resuming the analysis of our data we present instances of turn designs where

turn-initial no indexes epistemic access to knowledge. Particularly, we show that turn-

initial no, deployed in the second position of an assessment sequence, upgrades the

access to evaluate the assessable. Let us see the following interaction sustained

particularly between V and E where they talk about E’s pregnancy.

(4) [Dinner at Esther’s: 00:01:03] 1 V: >¿estás otra vez esperando?< 2 >you be other time wait (PROG) [IND] 3 >are you expecting again? 4 E: ↑sí [ya estoy_= 5 ↑yes [already be (PRES) [IND] 6 ↑yes[I am_= 7 V: [.hhh cua:nto:= 8 [.hhh how much= 9 [.hhh how far= 10 E: =[ya tengo tres meses 11 =[already I have three months (PRES) [IND] 12 =[I am three months pregnant 13 V: =[es que luego tú usas ropa que ni se te ve: [o sea qué onda contigo= 14 =[be that then you use (PRES) clothes that no see (PRES) [IND] [or be it [DM] what wave with you [EXP]= 15 =[the thing is that at times with the clothes you wear one can’t [see, I mean what’s up with you 16 E [°sí° 17 [°yes° 18 [°yes° 19 V: =¿verdad? debe de tener así súper entallado((addressing A)) 20 =true? she must of have (PRES) [IND] like this super tight 21 =don’t you think? she’s got to have them very tight((addressing A)) 22 así >paraque< ["¿a poco tres meses ya?" 23 like this >for that< [“to less [EXP] three months already?” 24 like this >so that< people go like [“really three months?” 25 E: [hhhh hhh 26 [hhhh hhh 27 V: [así súper entallado para que se vea 28 [like this super tight for that it see (PRES) [SUBJ] 29 [like this really tight so one can see 30 E [hehh hhh> vo(hh)y a usar así (.) para que se vea 31 [hhhh > I go to use (FUT) like this for that it see (PRES) [SUBJ] 32 [hhhh > I’m go(hh)ing to wear tight clothes so everyone can see 33 J °cuatro° ((J tries to insert a repair about E’s pregnancy months)) 34 °four° 35 °four°((J tries to insert a repair about E’s pregnancy months)) 36 V:�� ↓no: sí: ya se te ve: 37 no, already it see (PRES) [IND] 38 ↓no, one can see it already 39 E:�� ↑no: ya: ya: [°ya° 40 no: already: already: 41 no: you can you can [yes


-19-

In excerpt (4), the sequence starts with the news that E is three months

pregnant, lines 1-10; then, V starts the argumentation that one cannot notice E’s

pregnancy due to the clothes that E wears, line 13; in line 30, after E agrees with V’s

argumentation by announcing that she will wear tight clothes, V inserts a turn-initial

no followed by a statement, line 36, (no, ya se te ve), but in this case the no particle

functions as a negative operator, that is, the turn is a repair, it negates the

argumentations previously expressed (es que luego tú usas ropa que ni se te ve…); with this

turn V evaluates, in first position, the fact that E’s pregnancy is evident indeed; V’s

evaluation disregard E’s primacy to evaluate her pregnancy (let us recall that first

position assessment entails primacy of rights to assess the assessable); so, to mitigate

this action, E responds to it with a similar formula, line 39, no ya ya; however, in this

case the particle no does not operate as a negation, but it expresses that E’s position

on the matter is a “settled” one (Raymond and Heritage, 2006: 690), that is, it is a

position held independently of the evaluation conveyed in first position by V.

Moreover, the independence, projected in the turn, communicates that the information

provided in first position is not new for E; this is an upgrading practice positioned in

second position of the sequence.

(5) [At Martitas: 20:42] 1 V: en todo o sea este (.) no te puedes dormir pero ahora sí que ni por un minuto 2 in all or be it [DM] this [DM] (.) no you can sleep (PRES) [IND] but now yes that nor for one minute 3 all the time, I mean, one can’t get distracted not even for a minute 4 M: exactamente no. 5 exactly no. 6 exactly, you can’t. 7 (.) 8 V: [porque este:_ 9 [because this_ 10 [because_ 11 M: [↑no y da pendiente cre_ quiero decirte 12 [↑no and gives worry (PRES) [IND] want to tell you (PRES) [IND] [EXP] 13 [↑no and it’s worrying, I’m telling you 14 V:�� no claro 15 no clrear [EXP] 16 no of course

Excerpt (5) (which is a reproduction of excerpt (3), above), shows a similar

instance; here, V agrees with M by the deployment of a turn-initial no followed by the

agreement token, no claro, line 14. In this case, V projects an independent settled

position which agrees and offers sympathy to the coparticipant assessment.

In sum, we can conclude that there is evidence to suggest that the turn design

formed with turn-initial no + statement, and turn-initial no + agreement token are


-20-

displayed in second position to establish a settled position in regard to the assessable,

which means that these turn designs are used to upgrade assessments in second

position. Let us now turn to the most recurrent practice in agreement sequences found

in our corpus, repetitions.

4.2.3 REPETITION

To begin this section we present repetition the way we found it in our data: as

an agreement practice; then we proceed to show how repetition in conjunction with

other turn construction units8 such as vocatives or other single words (whose stressed-

syllable vowel is lengthened or superlative words) is used to index epistemics. We

conclude with the recapitulation of the section.

4.2.3.1 Repetition as an agreement practice

Let us start with excerpt (6), below, which is a conversation between E’s child,

V and A; as can be corroborated in the audio file of this interaction, there is another

conversation taking place between E and J at the same time; however, for the

purposes of this project we only reproduced the transcript of the former conversation.

The excerpt starts when the child is being interrogated by V about the child’s desire of

having a van, ¿quires una camioneta?; after the presumably positive response from

the child, A inserts a turn-initial no, which is operating as a negator, followed by the

declarative account …porque contaminan, line 5; V shows agreement with this

statement by producing the agreement token, sí, followed with a vocative, Dani (the

child’s name), and an expanded repetition of A’s statement; that is, …las camionetas

contaminant más, line 8. Then a three-second pause comes, and in the awaiting of a

respond from the child, V inserts an statement which is a reformulation of her

previous agreement, consumen mucha gasolina; and here is when E joins the talk by

deploying an agreement formed with the agreement token, sí…, and a repetition of the

statement, ...consumen mucha gasolina.

(6) [Dinner at Ester’s: 40:50] 1 V: ¿quieres una camioneta? ((addressing to the child)) 2 you want (PRES) one van? [IND] 3 you want a van? ((addressing the child)) 4 (3) ((the child responded affirmative))

8 Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) introduce the notion that turns in conversation are constructed out of units; these units “broadly correspond to linguistic categories such as sentences, clauses, single words…or phrases” (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008) .


-21-

5 A: no porque contaminan 6 no because they pollute (PRES) [IND] 7 no because they pollute. 8 V: sí Dani las camionetas contaminan más 9 yes Dani the vans pollote more (PRES) [IND] 10 yes, Dani vans pollute more 11 (3) 12 V: consumen mucha gasolina 13 they consume (PRES) much gasoline [IND] 14 they consume a lot of gasoline 15 E:�� sí consumen mucha gasolina 16 yes they consume (PRES) much gasoline [IND] 17 yes, they consume a lot of gasoline

We argue that these practices: declaratives in first position, and agreement

token + repetition of first positioned assessment, and agreement token + reformulation

of first positioned assessment, both in second position, project an unmarked situation

where speakers show unmediated access to the assessable.

There are also cases, as excerpt (7) shows, where the agreement token is

collocated before the repetition. Here, V and N are talking about the importance of

being competent in the languages one speak; V comments about the difficulties of

writing a formal message in Spanish after not having done it for a long time; but she

highlights the difference between not been used to writing formal messages, and not

knowing how to write them, es diferente no estar acostumbrado, a no saber, line 10.

N agrees with the statement by repeating what V stresses more in her claim, a no

saber, followed by the agreement token, exacto.

(7) [Nelly Conversation II: 12:01) 1 V: ...que hasta hay veces nos pasa cuando queremos escribir un un 2 …that even there are (PRES0 time [IND] that it happened (PRES) [SUBJ] when we want (PRES) to write one one [SUBJ] 3 ...and there’re even times when we want to write a a 4 mensaje este (.).hh así formal en en en español .hh como que 5 message this (.) .hh like this formal in in_ in spanish .hh like that 6 message (.) .hh a formal message in Spanish .hh and it’s not 7 te cuesta trabajo porque no estás acostumbrado (.3) pero 8 it cost (PRES) work [IND][EXP] because no one be (PRES) used to (.3) but 9 easy because you are not used to doing it (.3) but 10 bueno es diferente a estar acostumbrado (.5) a no saber 11 well it be (PRES) different to no be (PRES) used to [IND] (.5) to no one know (PRES) [IND] 12 well, one thing’s not being used to it(.5) and another’s not knowing how to 13 N:�� a no saber exacto= 14 an another not knowing how to, right 15 V: exa[::cto= 16 absolutely= 17 abs[olutely= 18 N: [ o sea no es que escriban (.) todo ahí mal español pues 19 [ or be it [DM] no it be (PRES) that they write (PRES) (.) everything wrong Spanish then 20 [ I mean, it’s not like they write (.) everything wrong in Spanish


-22-

We notice that the V’s turn (from line 1 to line 10) is constructed with several

units or sentences9; the final statement, line 7, is a compound unit: one part is …es

diferente no estar acostumbrado, and the second part is. …a no saber which is

particularly stressed by V; the two sentences are divided by a short pause.

Overwhelmingly, what is being repeated by N is the stressed part, which is the second

part of the statement, a no saber, line 13. We suggest that the stress V adds to this unit

indicates that the unit is the crucial part or the one that is the point or climax of the

entire turn. That is why it is the part repeated by N in her agreement. This is, N

indentifies the crucial unit of the turn, and she projects her agreement, particularly by

repeating the crucial part of V’s turn construction.

A similar example is found in the following passage that shows the interaction

occurring during a visit to the dentist. Here, D (the dentist) is suggesting V (the

patient) to have her retainer cut just as the one A has got. In line 12, A tells V that if

the retainer does not hurt her there is no point in having it cut: pues si no te lastima

pues mmm para qué; this turn is a conditional constructional unit whose first clause, si

no te lastima, is more elaborated than the second, para qué which could have been

completed with cortarlo (to have it cut); we may argue that this gives the first clause

more importance; so, overwhelmingly, D agrees with the suggestion by deploying the

agreement token sí, followed by the repetition of the first clause of the previous

suggestion: sí, si no te lastiman. In other words, by elaborating more one clause than

the other A shows that this unit is the crucial one; and the coparticipant corroborates

this by repeating it in her agreement turn.

(8) [At the Dentist: :0:07:33] 1 V: las otras están casi al ras de lo que es el di↑ente 2 the other be (PRES) almost to the level of the that be (PRES) the teeth [IND] 3 the other one is almost at the level of the teeth 4 D: pero lo que pasa es que yo las cortaría como a la mitad del diente 5 but the that happened is that I cut (COND) like to the half of the ted [IND] 6 but the thing is that I would cut them at the level of the tooth 7 así (.) deberían ir así °así° 8 like this (.) should go (PRES) like this like this [IND] 9 like this (.) it should be like this °like this° 10 (5) 11 D: como tú quieras (inaudible)= 12 like you want (PRES) [IND]= 13 as you wish (inaudible)= 14 V: =no sé= 15 = I no know (PRES) [IND] 16 =I don’t know=

9 A turn in conversation is considered the organizational unit that houses grammatical units (e.g. sentences) (Schegloff, 1996).


-23-

17 D: =mira como la de_ 18 =look (IMPR) like the of_ 19 =look, like the one he’s_ 20 V: aja 21 yeah 22 A: pues si no te lastima pues m: para qué 23 well if no it hurt (PRES) well for what 13 well, if it doesn’t hurt you m: what for? ((to have it cut)) 14 D:�� sí, si no te lastiman 15 yes, if no hurt (PRES) 15 yes, if it doesn’t hurt you 16 (.5) 17 A: yo pensé que sí te lastiman_... 12 I think (PAST) that yes it hurt (PRES) [SUBJ] 18 I thought it hurt you_...

As we have shown, the practices just described do not index any kind of

epistemics (neither access to the assessable, nor rights to assess it); they have shown

to be solely agreement practice. But we see below that repetition could also be used to

index epistemics in the design of turn.

4.2.3.2 Indexing Epistemics with Repetitions

Let us start with excerpt (8), below. It shows how a vocative in conjunction

with repetition in second position assessment can be used to index primacy of right to

assess. Here, E and V remember the time when E was pregnant with her first child. In

line 10, V tries to establish the exact month in which she saw E pregnant, but V shows

uncertainty about the dates, she projects this in her turn by enlarging the vowel,

…comoo, and making a pause; this situation can be regarded by the coparticipant as

an asking-for-completion practice; E realizes this situation and completes V’s

statement, at the same time V tries to do the same, but she first gives the wrong

month, so she repairs by saying lauder the correct one, ocho. After the overlapping, E

repeats what she said in the previous turn, but this time inserts a vocative, V’s name,

at the end of the turn, moreover, she lengthens the final vowel of the name, Veroo;

this action establishes E’s turn as first position assessment and shows E’s putatively

epistemic right to know and assess her pregnancy due to the fact that the vocative

addresses directly the coparticipan whose previous intervention had inaccurate

information. Then V inserts an agreement token + reformulation of first positioned

assessment to show agreement: sí ya estabas para a punto, E responds with a

confirmation which is a repetition of V’s agreement.

(9) [Dinner at Ester’s: 0:00:43 ] 1 V: >si’sque o sea< yo a Dani la conocí así(.)cuando estaba en la 2 >yes be that or be it [DM]< I to Dani know (PAST) like this [IND] (.) when she was in the (PAST) [IND]


-24-

3 >imagine< I met Dani like this (.) when she was 4 pancita ((addressing A)) 5 belly 6 in the belly ((addressing A)) 7 E: cuando yo estaba así hhhh (inaudible)((addressing A)) 8 when I be (PAST) like this ((inaudible)) ((addressing A)) 9 when I was like that hhhh (inaudible)((addressing A)) 10 V: .hh y: ↑SÍ: de hecho te vi como: (.)[de siete meses >OCHO 11 and ↑YES: of fact I see (PAST) to you like (.) [of seven monthds >eight 12 .hh and ↑YES in fact I saw you when you were (.)[seven months >EIGHT months pregnant 13 E: [>ya tenía< como ocho ↑me:ses 14 [>already I have (PAST)< like eight ↑mothds 15 [>I was< around eight ↑months pregnant 16 �� ya tenía ocho meses Vero::= 17 already I have (PAST) months Vero:= 18 I was eight months pregnant Vero:= 19 V: sí ya estabas para:: a punto= 20 yes already you be (PAST) for to point [EXP]= 21 yes you were just about to= 22 E: sí ya estaba para a punto de: 23 yes already I be (PAST) for to point of: 24 yes I was just about to

In the examples presented so far in this section (4.2.3), we can notice that

when coparticipants are repeating, they reproduce units which are sentences in their

own right; that is, they are grammatically complete sentences or clauses (e.g. subject

+ predicate). However, as Schegloff (1996b: 55) argues, in talk-in-interactions,

grammatical units that occur in turns are not always sentences or clauses. We see in

the following passages that smaller units such as single words can have the same

function as “bigger” turn construction units.

Excerpt (10) shows a passage of the conversation where E, who works for a

chemical manufacturer that produces flavours, is commenting that for example

products such as the cereal brand Honey Bran does not have real honey, but artificial

honey flavouring; she goes on saying that she, meaning her company, sells the

flavours to them. Through the first part of the passage, up to line 16, V keeps

confirming the information given by E. Then in line 19, A makes an assessment

which he downgrades, pues es que tiene todo ya sabor¿verdad?, which is responded

by E and V, but E does it with more authority by emphasising and repeating the

pronoun, todo, which can be considered as the crucial unit of A’s assessment. With

this action, E indexes her putatively epistemic rights not only to assess, but also her

first-hand access to the assessable due to the fact that from the beginning of the

excerpt she demonstrates and she is even ratified as the one who possesses epistemic

right to knowledge.


-25-

(10) [Dinner at Esther’s: 1:03:25] 1 E: todo eso de:_ este: las Honey Bran con miel. ¿con miel? o sea con sabo[rizante de miel 2 all that of this [DM] the honey bran with honey. with honey? or be it [DM] with flavour[ing of honey 3 all of_ uh the Honey Bran with honey. with honey? with ho[ney flavouring 4 V: [°sabor miel° 5 [°flavour honey° 6 [°honey flavour° 7 E: o sea claro o sea yo se los vendo o sea (hh)[ya sab(hh)es ¿no? 8 or be it [DM] of course or be it [DM] I sell (PRES) them [IND] or be it [DM] [already you know (PRES) [IND] no? 9 yeah sure I mean I do sell you the flavouring I mean [you know 10 V: [todo lo del saborizante tal 11 [all the of the such-and -such flavouring 12 [any kind of flavour 13 [tú se los vendes 14 [you sell them to them (PRES) [IND] 15 [they buy it from you 16 E: [sí exacto. 17 [yes right. 18 [yes right. 19 A: pues es que tiene todo ya sabor ¿vea? 20 then [DM] be that have (PRES) all already flavour [IND] true? 21 the thing is that now everything has artificial flavour, right? 24 V: [sí 25 [yes 26 [yes 22 E:�� [todo todo 23 [all all 23 [everything everything 25 E: le decía el otro día a… 26 I tell (IPMER) [IND] the other day to… 27 I was talking the other day to…

Below, in passage (11), we have a similar case, but this time we show how the

lengthening of the vowel that carries the stress of a word is used to upgrade epistemic

access to the matter of affairs. The excerpt was taken from a telephone conversation

between V and N who live in Europe, England and France respectively. It is important

to highlight that both participants posses plenty of experience flying from Europe to

Mexico. In previous turns, V has being advising N about changing the date of a flight,

the excerpt shows a topic that was inserted into the advice; this inserted sequence is

about the flights to Mexico during summer. In lines 7 and 8, V makes an assessment

in regard to the flight to Mexico she took last summer and she explains that it was

crowded because many people go to Mexico in summer: …llenísimo así el vuelo y

todo, pus porque son muchos que pus sí se van el verano a méxico y eso; there is a

short overlap where N responds to V’s advice, but after the pause N takes the turn to

agree repeatedly with V’s assessment, sí, pues sí, sí muuuchos; what is particularly

interesting is the repetition of the crucial unit, muchos, and the lengthening of its

stressed vowel: muuchos. We argue that on the one hand, there is further evidence that

repetition is a resource that is included in the construction of turns, designed to agree

with a previous assessment; and on the other, we suggest that the lengthening of a


-26-

stressed vowel is a way to emphasise it, and this practice is used to upgrade in second

position. That is, by emphasising the crucial part of the agreed statement, the

coparticipant is showing that the piece of information is not new for her; in other

words this practice establishes a settled position.

(11) [Nelly Conversation I: 07:22 ] 1 V: porque sí cuando nosotros nos fuimos es época en que mucha gente se va 2 because yes when we go (PAST) be (PRES) [IND] time in that much people go (PRES) [SUBJ] 3 yes because when we left it was the time when many people leave 4 (.5) 5 N: sí. 6 yes. 7 V: porque estaba llenísimo así el vuelo y todo (.5) pus porque son 8 because it be (PAST) very full like this the flight and all [IND] (.5) pus because be (PRES) 9 because the flight was packed and all (.5) because there’re 10 muchos que pus [sí se van el verano a México y eso 11 much [IND] that pus [yes they go (PRES) the summer to Mexico and that [IND] 12 there’re many [who go to Mexico for the summer 13 N: [(>a:h mira pus si< vamos a preguntar) 14 [(>a:h look (IMP) [EXP] pus yes< we go (PRES) to ask [IND] 15 [(>a:h ok I think< we’re gonna ask) 16 (.5) 17 N:�� ↑sí, pues sí, sí mu::chos 18 ↑yes, pues [DM] yes, yes mu::ch 19 ↑yes, right, yes ma::ny 20 V: mhm mhm .hh pues sí toda la gente que vive acá o que quiere ir 21 pues yes all the people that live (PRES) [IND] here or that they want (PRES) to go 22 mhm mhm all the people who live here or those who want to go 23 de vacacio:nes o así 24 of vacatio:n or like this 25 on vaca:tion or so 26 N: exa:cto 27 right 28 right 29 V: ¿no? 30 no? 31 isn’t it? 32 N: (si pues si así [pasa siempre) 33 (yes pues yes like this [happend (PRES) always [IND] 34 (it’s always li[ke that) 35 V: [>por eso te digo< a nosotros siempre nosotros siempre 36 [>for that I say (PRES) to you< to us always we always 37 [>that’s why I’m telling you< we always we always…

In our data we find cases were repetition and turn-initial no are deployed to

upgrade in second position so as to establish the putative rights to assess the

assessable. Excerpt (12), below, shows the interaction where V, in line 1, explains

how expensive going to London is despite the fact that she has a discount card. In line

8, E downgrades an assessment which presumably V responded nodding. Then in line

12, J projects another assessment which is downgraded as well; this action is

responded by V with a turn-initial no, which indexes a settle position and repeats the

crucial unit of the assessment, but in this case, V superlatives the adjective of the

evaluation, that is in stead of simply repeating caro she uses the superlative of the


-27-

adjective, carisimo. Then in line 18, E agrees with V’s response, and V, line 21,

repeats her previous assessment what makes it a “new” first positioned assessment,

this “firstness” is also manifest in the use of London in stead of it. This passage shows

that although the first position assessment was downgraded, the response to this not

only agrees with it, but also, by the deployment of turn-initial no, the repetition of the

crucial unit (word) in its superlative form, and the construction of new assessment, the

coparticipant establishes her putative rights to assess the state of affairs.

(12) [Dinner at Esther’s: 0:22:39] 1 V: porque ir a Londres es es caro o sea compramos una tarjeta de 2 because go (PRES) to London be (PRES) [IND] expensive or be it[DM] we buy (PAST) a card of 3 because going to London is very expensive, we bought a card for 4 estudiantes también para descuento pero aún así pagamos quince libras cada uno 5 students also for discount but still we pay (PRES) fifteen pounds each one 6 students also to get a discount but even so we still pay fifteen pounds each 7 (.5) 8 E: y está a una hora ¿no? 9 and it be (PRES) to one hour no? [IND] 10 and it’s only an hour away, right? 11 (1) 12 J: es caro Londres ¿vea? 13 it is expensive (PRES) [IND] London isn’t it? 14 London is expensive, isn’t it? 15 V:�� >no y Londres es carísimo 16 >no and London be (PRES) the most expensive [IND] 17 >no and London is very expensive 18 E: >sí. 19 >yes. 20 >yes. 21 V:�� Londres es carísimo a parte 22 London be (PRES) the most expensive to part [IND] 23 London is very expensive on top 24 E: te te vas con lunch 25 you go (PRES) [IND] with lunch 26 you you take something for lunch 27 V: sí claro… 28 yes, of course…

We conclude this section by arguing that there is evidence to suggest that

repetition is a practice used to show agreement in Mexican Spanish. We have argued

that speakers design their turn in a certain way (e.g. under-elaborating or stressing

turn units) so as to indicate the crucial unit of their turn, and in turn, coparticipants

overwhelmingly, repeat the crucial unit when agreeing. We have shown that the

agreement turn designs that include repetition are as follows:

i) Agreement token + repetition of first positioned assessment (excerpt, 6) ii) Agreement token + reformulation of first positioned assessment (excerpt. 6) iii) Repetition of the crucial unit + agreement token (excerpt, 7) iv) Agreement token + repetition of the crucial unit (excerpt, 8) v) Repetition and vocative (excerpt, 9)


-28-

vi) Repetition of crucial unit (stressed word) (excerpt, 10) vii) Repetition of crucial unit (single word) and lengthening of its stressed vowel (excerpt, 11) viii) Repetition of crucial unit (single word) in its superlative form (excerpt 12)

In regard to indexing epistemics, we have seen that v, vi, vii and viii are used

to upgrade epistemic rights in second position. Now, let us turn to anticipatory

completion which is the final agreement practice that was identified in our data.

Equally to agreement + tag question, this resource has a similar epistemic function

as its English counterpart.

4.2.4 ANTICIPATORY COMPLETION

Lerner (1996) argues that in agreement sequences a speaker can show

agreement with a prior turn by deploying an utterance which is not claiming

agreement per se. He reveals that anticipatory completions, which he defines as the

finishing of a turn by another speaker, can work as an agreement practice; but to do

so the anticipatory completion must fulfil the following criteria: i) the anticipatory

completion turn must have preference shape, that is, the turn has to be contiguous

with the preliminary component, and the completion turn has to be unmarked (e.g.

do not show a particular intonation); ii) the structure of the turn has to be

structurally connected with the prior utterance (i.e. there has to be syntactical

affiliation between both utterances, the prior and the anticipatory completion); and

iii) the structural equivalent utterance has to be treated as what the coparticipant

would have said.

Excerpt (13) shows the interaction between E and V where V is commenting

that she and her husband have found a furnished place where to live, characteristic

of the place which is assessed by V as good in line 1: …super bien amueblada.

Then, in line 4, V starts giving an account on why that characteristic is good, que

para nosotros…, and at the same time E deploys a comment of sympathy, qué bien,

line 7. In line 10, V continues with the account, …es un super; V does not finish the

turn, but E projects an anticipatory completion, una bendición, line 13. Although,

the completion does not exactly match with the grammar of V’s turn because the

article produced by V is masculine, un, and the article of E’s completion is

feminine, una, the anticipatory completion is syntactically correct since the

incomplete uttered evaluative sentence, es un super, is perfectly completed with an

adjective, una bendición; moreover, V in line 16, confirms the completion.


-29-

(13) [Dinner at Esthers 0:04:39] 1 V: y lo súper_ gracias((addressing J who is giving them some drinks)) súper bien amueblada 2 and the super_ thank you ((addressing J who is giving them some drinks)) super good furnished 3 and what’s great_ thank you ((addressing J who is giving them some drinks)) what’s great it’s furnished 4 [que para nosotros= 5 [that for us= 6 [which for us= 7 E: [qué bien [EXCL] 8 [what good 9 [that’s good 10 V: =es u:n súper_ 11 =it be (PRES) a super_ 12 =it’s a great_ 13 E:�� >una bendición 14 > a blessing 15 >a blessing. 16 V: sí. 17 yes.

In regard to epistemics, we argue that E’s turn is a simulacrum of agreement

due to the fact that E lacks experience even though she manages affiliation with V’s

assessment.


-30-

CHAPTER 5

FINAL REMARKS

In general we have exposed four turn design features (assessments + tag

questions; turn-initial no, repetition, and collaborative completion) which are

deployed in Mexican Spanish agreement sequences; we have presented further uses of

turn initial no; we have shown evidence to suggest that repetition is a very recurrent

resource to express agreement in Mexican Spanish conversation; and we have seen

practices that function as their English counterpart: tag questions and collaborative

completion.

We have exhibited as well the intersection of the four resources and epistemic

rights to knowledge; that is, we have offered evidence to support the claim that the

rights to evaluate the assessable are “ordinarily patrol and defended by individuals”

(Heritage and Raymond, 2005Ñ 34) in talk. From our data we draw Table 2 which

presents the distribution of the linguistic resources for managing epistemic rights.

Table 2. Linguistic resources for managing epistemic rights in Mexican Spanish Assessment Sequences

First Position Second Position

Downgraded [Assessment]+[Tag Question]

Upgraded [Turn initial no + statement/agreement token] [Repetition + vocative] [Repetition of crucial unit (stressed word)] [Repetition of crucial unit (single word) and lengthening of its stress vowel] [Repetition of crucial unit (single word) in its superlative form]

As we can notice the distribution of the linguistic resources follows the same

pattern as the distribution of the English linguistic resources (Table 1, chapter 3). This

corroborates the terms of agreement exposed by Heritage and Raymond (2005),

principally the one that argues that first position assessment entails primacy of rights

to evaluate the matter being assessed; that is why there is a “recurrent social need to

compensate for the primary claims of first position and the secondary claims of

second position” (Raymond and Heritage, 2006: 685).


-31-

The findings presented in this project could be considered as an initial study of

assessment sequences in Mexican Spanish, but particularly a preliminary work on the

managing of epistemic rights in Mexican Spanish talk.


-32-

Appendix A

Transcription Conventions10

� Pointing hand in the left margin signals specific parts of an extract

discussed in the text.

(1) The number in parentheses indicates a pause in seconds.

(.2) The number in parentheses indicates a pause in tenths of a second.

(.) The dot in parentheses indicates a micro pause.

[ Square bracket indicates the point at which overlapping starts.

= Equal signs ordinarily came in pairs – one at the end of a line and

another at the start of the next line or one shortly thereafter. They are

used to indicate two things. (i) If the two lines connected by the equal

sings are by the same speaker, then there was a single, continuous

utterance with no break or pause, which was broken up in order to

accommodate placement of overlapping talk. (ii) If the lines connected

by two equal signs are by different speakers, then the second followed

the first with no discernible silence between them, or was ‘latched’ to

it.

>word< “More than” and “less than” indicate that the talk they accompass was

produced noticeably quicker than the surrounding talk.

>word “More than” before an utterance or a word indicates that the segment

initiates noticeably quicker.

↑↓ Pointed arrows indicate a marked falling or rising intonational shift.

: It indicates that the prior sound is prolonged, the more colons the

grater the extension of the stretching.

10 The transcription convention were taken from Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008), and Emmanuel Schegloff’s homepage available at: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/TranscriptionProject/page4.html


-33-

“word” The utterances between quotation marks indicate that the talk was

produce with an intonation that denotes reported speech.

.hh It indicates in-breath.

hh It indicates laugher the more ‘hs’ the longer the laughter.

wo(hh)rd ‘hs’ between words indicate laughter infiltrated in the speech.

wor_ It indicates that a words is cut off.

stat_ It indicates that a statement or account is cut off.

under Underline words or underline fragments of a word indicates speaker

emphasis.

WORD Capitals indicates increase of volume.

(guess) Words in parentheses indicate a best guess as to what was said.

((word)) Words in double parentheses indicate descriptions of transcription

events.

°word° Degree sings indicates that the talk is soft or quiet.

¿word? The two questions marks indicate that the talk is produced with questioning

intonation at the beginning and end of the utterance (only in Spanish).

word? In English, one question mark indicates question intonation.

[Dinner 0:23:34] Extract headings refer to the transcript source, the numbers in brackets

indicate the hours:minutes:seconds where the part referred can be found in

the recording.


-34-

Apendix B

Translation abbreviation

COND Conditional (e.g yo las cortaría…/ I would cut them…)

DM Discourse marker (e.g, o sea es mucho más bonito/ I mean, it is

much nicer)

EXCL Exclamation (e.g., ay qué lindo/ oh that’s nice…)

EXP Expression (e.g., de verdad?/ really?)

FUT Future (e.g. voy a usar…/ I’m going to…)

IMP Imperative (e.g. digamos que/ let’s say that)

IMPER Imperative (e.g. nos cansábamos/ we got tired)

IND Indicative (e.g. no te puedes dormir pero ahora sí que ni por un

minuto/ one can’t get distracted not even for a minute)

PAST Past (e.g. yo a Dani la conocí así/ I met Dani like this)

PRES Present simple tense (e.g., es caro Londres/ London is

expensive)

PROG Progressive (e.g. estás otra vez esperando?/ are you expecting

again?)

SUBJ Subjunctive (e.g. así súper entallado para que se vea/ like this

really tight so you can see)


-35-

References

Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) 1984. Structures of social actions. Newcastle: Cambridge University Press Clift, R.; Drew P.; & Hutchby, I. 2006. Conversation analysis. In J-O. Ostman and J. Verschueren (eds.) in collaboration with ElineVersluys. Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Drew, P. 1984. Speakers’ reporting in invitation sequences. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds) 129-151. Drew, P. and Holt, E. 1998. Figures of speech: figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in society 27, 495-522. Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. 1987. Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1, No. 1, pp. 1-54. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Rituals: essays in face-to-face behaviour. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. Heritage, J. 1984a. Grafinkel and Ethnomethdology. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Heritage, J. 1984b. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds) 299-345. Heritage, J. 1998. Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analysing distinctive turn-taking systems. In S. Cmejrková, J. Hoffmannová and J. Svetlá (Eds). Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of IADA (International Association for Dialog Analysis). Tubingen: Niemeyer Heritage, J. 2002. “Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: a method of modifying agreement/disagreement.” Pp. 196–224 in Ford, C., Fox, B., and Thompson, S. (eds.) The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. 2005. The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction. Social Psichology Quaterly, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 15-38. Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. 2008. Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Jefferson, G. 1981. The abominable “ne?”: a working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response. In Schroder P. (ed), Sprache der

Fegenwart. Düsseldorf: Padagodischer Verlag Schwann Lerner, G. 1996. “’Finding Face’ in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction.” Social psychology quarterly 59:303–21.


-36-

Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mendoza-Denton, N. 1999. Turn-initial “no”: collaborative opposition among Latina adolescents. In Bucholtz, M. et al. (eds), Reinventing identities: the gendered self in

discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. Mendoza-Denton, N. 2008. Homegirls: language and cultural practice among Latina

youth gangs. London: Wiley/Blackwell. Pomerantz, A. 1978. Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Jim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational

interaction, 79–112. New York: Academic Press. Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds) 57-101. Raymond, G. and Heritage, J. 2006. The epistemic of social relations: owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35pp. 667-705. Sacks, H. 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social

organisation, 54– 69. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on conversation. ed. G. Jefferson. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell. Sacks, H.; Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696-735. Schegloff, E. A. 1972. Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In D. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 75-119. Schegloff, E. A. 1986. The routine as achievement. Human studies 9: 111-115. Schegloff, E. A. 1996a. Confirming allusions: toward an empirical account of action. American journal of sociology, 112 (1): 162-216. Schegloff, E. A. 1996b. Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E. et al. (eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. 2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in society 29: 1-69.

Agreement and Epistemics in Mexican Spanish Talk

Documents