Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lecture Twelve^
Sequencing: Utterances, Jokes, and Questions
For the linguists, almost exciusiveiy the iargest unit of investigation, the
iargest unit they seek to describe, is a sentence. So grammar is directed to
providing rules for generating sentences, and every time you have a
different sentence, the grammar is to b)e reapplied. If we want to study
natural activities in tiieir naturai sequences, we have to deai with, for
exampie, the obvious fact that a sentence is not necessariiy a '(X)mpiete
utterance'. Thus, linguistics is not sufficient, at least so far as it's by and
large done. There is one major exception and it's extremely close to what
I'm trying to do. That is Fries' book The Structure of English, 1952.
We want to constmct some unit which wiU permit us to study actual
activities. Can we constmct 'the conversation' as such a unit? Can we in
the first place make of it 'a unit' - a naturai unit and an analytic unit at the
same time? The question then becomes, what do we need, to do that?
First we need some rules of sequencing, and then some objects that wiQ
be handled by the ruies of sequencing. Now, if we restrict our attention at
the beg^mang, to two-party conversations, then we can get sometiiing
extremeiy simpie though not triviai, I assure you. And tiiat is, that for two-
party conversations the basic sequencing format is A-B Reduplicated. It's
not trivial in that with tiiree-party conversations it's not the case that the
sequencing ruies are A-B-C Redupiicated. There's sometiiing else; what it
is, I don't know. So: A-B Reduplicated. One party talks, then the other
party taiks, then the first party taiks again, etcetera. I use the term 'two
party' so as to provide for the fact that tiiis does not necessarily mean two
persons. The 'two-party' conversation may be a basic format such that
conversations iiaving more than two persons present can take a two-party
form. That would invoive persons dividing themseives up into teams of a
sort, and aitemating according to team memi)ersiiip, where, then, one team
talks - a whole series of persons might talk for that team - then the other
team, etcetera.
Restricting our proper considerations to two-party conversation with the
[169]
352 [170]
tions, then there is no specific length tiiat a conversation takes, to b>e 'a
conversation*. And there may be no generic way buUt into the ruies of
conversationai sequencing, that a conversation comes to a close. So, for
example, there can be enormous variance between two conversations as to
how much was said. Tiiat is, you don't iiave a situation where some
certain amount of talk is required before the conversation can, or o u ^ t to,
ciose. Or, for example, there can be an oiormous variance as to how mudi
one person has said, as compared to the other. It's not a situation where
persons iiave to monitor iiow much they've talked as compared to how
much the other has taiked, to find that the conversation can, or o u ^ t to,
ciose.
Thus - if two tilings were so wiiich are not so - we could say that we
have a 'minimai conversation', "HeUo," "HeUo." And we couid say that if
at ieast that took piace, then a conversation occurred. And we couid
describe how tiiat couid take piace, given tiiis A-B RedupUcated format,
given an 'adequate complete utterance', given the 'paired' ciiaracteristic,
pius a few minor things wiiich I'U point to later oa But the two tilings are
not so. One is, it's not invariabiy the case that things we wouid say are
'conversations' contain greetings. The second is, it's not invariably the
case tiiat 'greeting items', such as "HeUo", occur as 'greetings'.
Now those facts lead us to require the foUowing: We need to distin-
guish between a 'greeting item' and a 'greeting place'. Where, then,
something is a 'greeting' only if it's a 'greeting item' occurring in a
'greeting piace'. If a greeting item occurs elsewhere it's not a greeting,
and if some other item occurs in a greeting piace it's not a greeting -
though some items that are ciose to greetings might take on tiie character
of a greeting by occurring in a greeting piace. We need, then, to be able to
say that there's a 'greeting place', and tiiat any 'conversation' has it And I
take it we can say that there is a greeting place in any conversation, by
virtue of the foUowing kind of consideration.
First of aU, it does seem that there is no ruie of exciusion for greetings.
Peopie can know eadi other 35 years, talk to each other every day, and
nonetheless greet each other when they begin a conversation. But take a
whole range of other items, for example 'introductions' (teUing someone
your name, etcetera). About introductions it can be said that there are rules
for tiieir iiistoricai use. At some point in the history of persons' conversa-
tions, introductions are no longer relevant And if they're not relevant,
then, when tiiey don't occur, one can't say tiiey're not tiiere b>ecause
there's no reason to suppose tiiat they would be tiiere. Notice that what
354 [172]
conversation, and iiave rK)t i)een properiy treated. That is to say, one ofthe
ways that one shows tiiat one has done sometiiing wiiich is an adequate
complete utterance - tiiat is, wiiich is appropriate for the use of the
sequencing ruies - is to repeat it So I have these reports where a child
says "Hi," there's no answer, and the ciiUd says again, "Hi!" And then
there's a "Hi" in retum, and the cbiUd wiU take that as having been
sufficient, and go about iiis business - wiiich he doesn't do when he says
"Hi" and there's no retum.
That use of repetition as a way of indicating in the first piace that an
item was adequate for whatever it is that's supposed to come next, is
obviously tiie simpiest way of doing that task. In the ciiiid's use of it,
however, we get sometiiing that's wortiiy of some brief mention. And that
is the way that adults come to see that the ciiUd knows sometiiing of
ianguage. The way adults know that the ciiild is now 'speaking' and not
babbling, invoives the fact that the minimaUyrecognizabieunits of infant
speech - and tiiis is essentiaUy cross-cuituraUy vaUd - are combinations of
"p" or "t" or "d" foUowed by a vowei like "a". And those combinations
seem by and large to be used witiiout respect to what the ianguage is; tiiat
is, without respect to however the adult language may be constructed. And
the way, apparentiy, that one teUs that the ciiUd is now speaking is by
virtue of the fact that it doesn't simpiy produce a series of syUabies, but it
repeats a syUable. In tiiis cuiture, then, prototypicaUy the first word that a
ciiUd speaks is the word for 'father', "da da".^ The interest of tiiis
phenomenon Ues in the fact that if you get tiiat kind of stabiUty, across
fantasticaUy different ianguages, then tiie social sciences and bioiogicai
sciences come to some ciose relationsiiip.
So, in the first place, tiiis dupUcation business is a non-triviai fact, and
it's pretty much as simple a way as you can have of indicating a range of
tilings - in tiiis case, tiiat sometiiing iiad b)een done, and was adequate for
the relevance of the sequencing rules. And you can notice the way that
parents point out to ciiiidren their vioiations on the matter. Suppose
somebody comes to the house and says "Hi" to the ciiiid and the ciiiid
doesn't respond. One tiling the parents wiU say is, "Didn't you hear them
say 'lii' to you?" Where they take it tiiat they don't have to restate the
sequencing rules, but simpiy point out that the ruies liave been adequately
invoked.
I take it we can say, then, that the unit 'conversation' is warranted by
the fact tiiat we iiave at ieast a minimai tiling tiiat's recognizabie as 'a
conversation'. For it the sequencing ruies are reievant We can talk about
356 [174]
introduce it is by just reporting what I did the iast time I was trying to
introduce tiiis same material, so as to indicate right off that it wasn't as
triviai as it iooks. Before I presented the phenomenon, I'd asked people in
the ciass to write down the first iines of wiiat they took to be 'pickups'. I
got 60 first Unes, of wbiich just under 60 were questions.
What I had wanted to be saying to them, and wiiich they couid see once
they iiad tiiose coUections, was that a person who asks a question has a
right to talk again after the question has b)een answered. So, with a
question byeginning, the conversation goes at ieast sometiiing like A-B-A.
It can go on from there, or it can end Uke that And that may be without
regard to what the question consists of or wiiat the answer consists of.
Now, one way that the conversation can go on from there is that the
person who asks the question can use iiis initiai right to talk again, to ask
another question, and the same right hoids. So you can get indefiniteiy
long chains, running Q-A, Q-A, Q-A, eteetera. EventuaUy I'U go over the
special relevance for certain conversations, of the 'chain' possibility. It
tums out to be extremely important Whenever it iiappens to occur in a
conversation - and it doesn't necessariiy have to occur in the beginning -
but that point where somebody starts questioning, then the 'chaining'
possibiiity can be quite cmciai to the way that the conversation goes."*
Now, of the sorts of questions that occur in first conversations, iet's
begin by iooking at those wiiich iiave a ciose reiationsiiip to "HeUo,"
"HeUo". Note that the use of "HeUo" is areguiatedmatter. It is the sort of
thing wiiich can be used to b)egin a conversation where two persons have
some initial right to talk to each other, such that the fact that they happen
to by physicaUy copresent provides the occasion for the conversation. But,
especiaUy for tilings iike pickups, the fact that the two persons are physi-
caUy copresent is not sufficient grounds for them to begin taUdng, and
"HeUo" may be inappropriate. You can get conversations wbiich go:
A: HeUo
B: (No answer)
A: Don't yourememberme?
Where that invoives proposing that there had l)een an initial right to use
"HeUo".
In the absence of some obvious warrant for the conversation to take
piace by virtue of two persons being copresent and notiiing else, you get
that sort of question wiiich provides tiiat aithough it doesn't seem to be the
case, there is indeed a warrant. There's a whoie range of tilings wiiich tend
360 [178]
Notes
1. Ttie nine "Winter 1965" iectures (aU of them owed to 'transaiber unknown')
pretty much recapitulate the considerations of "FaU 1964", sometimes in a
more developed, formal way. Most of them have been incorporated into
those earUer lectures: Lecture (1) - the parentheses indicate that the originai
transcripts were unnumbered, the current numbering likely but not
guaranteed - has hoca absori)ed into Lecture One, Lecture (4) and (5) into
Lecture Six, Lecture (6) into Lecture Nine, mucii of Lecture (7) into Lecture
Three, leaving Lectures (2), (3), (8) and (9). (2) and (3) comprise this Lecture
Twelve, (8) and (9) Lecture Thirteen.
2. Sacks cites the paper in which "this is aU discussed", but the title wasn't
caught by tiie transaiber, and I can't identify it.
3. The fragment is taken from Sacks' research notes and is sUghUy different
from, and closer to the actual data tiian, the one in the transcribed lecture.
4. This, and the foUowing materials, constitute a next run at some of the
phenomena considered in Lecture Seven. I chose not to incorporate them into
the earlier lecture, although I have done so with most of the "Winter 1965"
materials, i)ecause it would introduce an anachronism. SpecificaUy, in this
second run we see the first reference to "the 'chaining' possibiiity", which
iater crystaiiized as 'the ciiaining ruie'. It makes for some repetition and
creates a bit of awkwardness by addressing the fu:t that materiais I've put
together as a more or less continuous flow actuaUy comprise separate units,
but the genesis of the term 'chain' seemed worth preserving.