Pursuing a Response by Repairing an Indexical Reference

Abstract

Prior conversation analytic research has demonstrated that when, following a sequence-initiating action, a response is relevantly missing (or is forthcoming but is apparently inadequate), speakers may use a range of practices for pursuing a response (or a more adequate response). These practices—such as response prompts, preference reversals, or turn extensions—treat the missing (or inadequate) response as indicative of some problem, and they may either expose or mask the response pursuit and the problem they attempt to remediate. This article extends this prior research by showing that speakers can also use repair technology—specifically, repair of an indexical reference—as a resource for pursuing a response. It demonstrates that speakers can use repair of indexicals, particularly when no uncertainty as to the referent seems possible, in order to pursue a response while obscuring some other possible source of trouble. Initiating repair on an indexical reference in transition space claims that a missing response is due to a problem of understanding or of recognizing the reference, and by repairing it, the speaker makes available another opportunity for a response without exposing recipient disinclination as the possible source of the trouble. Likewise, repairing an indexical reference in the third turn can pursue a more adequate response, while avoiding going on record as doing so, by treating the sequence-initiating turn as the source of the trouble. We show that, by ostensibly dealing with problems of reference, repairs on indexicals manage (covertly) other more interactionally charged issues, such as upcoming disagreement or misalignment between interlocutors.

Notes

¹Note that the second proffered assessment deploys “zero anaphora” to refer to the sentential subject (“some of these kids”), which is a practice for marking the current TCU as a second saying (Oh, 2005).

²Some offers (“pro forma” offers) are designed to be rejected (Schegloff, 2007, p. 60); however, there is no evidence the grandmother is doing it here. And yet, offers of food by a host might be ritualistically rejected by a guest on the first offering so that they can be then reoffered and possibly accepted. The ritualistic nature of the first (possibly pro forma) rejection sets up an expectation for a second offer. Offerers may be oriented to the possibility that the recipient may take it that the offer is to be rejected (at first), and, thus, may issue subsequent offers to counteract the supposition that the offer was a pro forma one.

³In Russian, the word order is relatively free. The new version of the offer kanfetku vaz'mi (“candy”+“take”) is not particularly marked; however, the different word order allows the speaker to avoid producing a hearable repetition of the initial offer.