Article published In:
Spoken Interaction Studies in AustraliaEdited by Rod Gardner
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Series S 11] 1994
► pp. 153–172
Edited by Rod Gardner
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Series S 11] 1994
► pp. 153–172
A very delayed acceptance to an invitation in a French conversation
Many studies have been concerned with sequence organisation, adjacency pairs and preference organisation in English conversations. However, there is a need to investigate how these structures apply to other languages, and this paper undertakes such a task in analysing a French telephone conversation. In the conversation analysed, the two base parts of an invitation sequence, the invitation and its acceptance, are separated by 113 turns of talk. The methodology uses the Jeffersonian transcription system and Conversation Analysis techniques. What is remarkable about the data analysed in this study is its striking similarities to an English conversation examined by Schegloff (1990). The parallels with Schegloff’s single case analysis constitute evidence of a phenomenon equally occurring in French, with a massive delay between the first pair part (FPP) and the second pair part (SPP) and the complex local organisation and expansion sequences that result from it.
References
Atkinson, J.M. and J. Heritage
(1984) (eds.) Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G. and J. Lee
(eds.) (1987) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Davidson J.
(1984) Subsequent version of invitations, offers, requests,and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) 102–128.
Heritage J.
(1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) 299–345.
Jefferson G.
(1984a) On the organisation of laughter in talk about troubles. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) 346–369. 
(1984b) On stepwise transition form talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positoned matters. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) 191–222.
Jefferson, G., H. Sacks and E. Schegloff
(1987) Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button and J. Lee (eds) 152–205.
Pomerantz A.
(1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) 55–101.
Sacks H.
(1987) On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button and J. Lee (eds.) 54–69.
Schegloff E. A.
(1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (ed.) Analysing discourse: text and talk. Washington: Georgetown University Press: 71–93.
(1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) 28–52.
(1988) On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: a single case conjecture. Social Problems, 35,4: 442–457.
Schegloff E.A.
(1990) On the organisation of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (ed.) Conversational organisation and its development. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation: 51–77.
Schegloff E. A., Jefferson G., Sacks H.
(1990) The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. In G. Psathas (ed.) Interaction competence. Washington: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and CA and UP of America: 31–61.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Routarinne, Sara & Liisa Tainio
2018. Sequence and turn design of invitations in Finnish telephone calls. Journal of Pragmatics 125 ► pp. 149 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.