Cover not available
Part of
From Pragmatics to Dialogue
Edited by Edda Weigand and István Kecskés
[Dialogue Studies 31] 2018
► pp. 113–136

Bounded segments of interaction

The case of redressing the breach of a cultural norm once it is flagged

This study examines naturally occurring instances of “bounded segments” of interaction. A bounded segment has a start point when interacting persons launch a task or activity, and a completion point when they reach closure. The importance of bounded segments from a dialogical perspective is that they account for the extensiveness of most interactions, and for the combination of successive action-reaction pairs into a progression from start point to completion point. In the instances we examine, the start point occurs when a participant flags a breach of a cultural norm by the other, and the end point occurs when the flagger is satisfied that the breach has been redressed, or the parties mutually give up trying to achieve an acceptable resolution.
Keywords: activity analysis, dialogue analysis, bounded segment, start point, completion point, cultural norm, normative breach
Article outline
  • 1.Bounded segments of interaction
    • 1.1The start point
    • 1.2Carrying on to reach a completion point
  • 2.Remedial work
  • 3.Data
    • 3.1Case one: Beth discloses to a suitor that her “ex-boyfriend” has a key to her house
      • 3.1.1Producing the trouble source
      • 3.1.2The start point: Flagging the trouble source
      • 3.1.3The cultural norm that Beth breached: How women should treat suitors
      • 3.1.4The remedial exchange
      • 3.1.5The completion point
    • 3.2Case two: Will discloses to co-workers that he wishes he could get a divorce
      • 3.2.1Producing the trouble-source
      • 3.2.2The start point: Flagging the trouble-source
      • 3.2.3The cultural norm that Will breached: To whom one discloses marital disaffection
      • 3.2.4Will continues his disclosure despite its being flagged as a trouble-source
      • 3.2.5Remedial exchange: Will backs away from and then recants his disclosure
      • 3.2.6The completion point
    • 3.3Case three: Peter discloses that he shot some cats and a dog while hunting
      • 3.3.1Producing the trouble-source
      • 3.3.2The start point: Flagging the trouble-source
      • 3.3.3The cultural norm that Peter breached: Which animals recreational hunters can kill
      • 3.3.4Pursuing a remedial exchange in the face of resistance
      • 3.3.5The remedial exchange
      • 3.3.6The completion point
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.07san
References (17)
References
Drew, Paul. 1998. “Complaints about transgressions and misconduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(3–4): 295–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul and Kathy Chilton. 2000. “Calling just to keep in touch: regular and habitualised telephone calls as an environment for small talk.” In Small Talk, ed. by J. Coupland, 137–162. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M. 2015. Everyday troubles: The Micro-Politics of Interpersonal Conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara 2015. “On the notion of pre-request.” Discourse Studies 17(1): 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Hewitt, John P. and Randall Stokes. 1975. “Disclaimers.” American Sociological Review 40(1): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1 and 2, ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 2003. “Conversational socializing on marine VHF radio: Adapting laughter and other practices to the technology in use.” In Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Phillip Glenn, Curtis LeBaron, and Jenny Mandelbaum, 309–326. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1995. “Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3): 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Gene H. Lerner. 2009. “Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(2): 91–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Marvin B. and Stanford Lyman. 1968. “Accounts.” American Sociological Review 33(1): 46–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sterponi, Laura. 2003. “Account episodes in family discourse: the making of morality in everyday interaction.” Discourse Studies 5(1): 79–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Caught red-handed: How Italian parents engage children in moral discourse and action.” In Talking about Right and Wrong, ed. by Cecilia Wainryb and Holly E. Recchia, 122–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Rationality of performance.” Philosophia Scientiae 18(3): 1–21.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Săftoiu, Răzvan
2019. The Dialogic Turn in Language Study. Language and Dialogue 9:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.