Loosely Portrayed Speech in Interaction: Constructing Multiple Complainable Utterances

ABSTRACT

Conversation analysis is used in investigating the interactional uses of loosely portrayed speech in interaction. This device combines elements of direct and indirect portrayal, conveying some fidelity to an original while, at the same time, indicating that it is not verbatim enactment of specific utterances. The instances in the current collection are in English, deriving from informal interaction, mainly telephone calls recorded in the UK and USA. They occur in complaints about a third party, recurrently by portraying the reported speaker’s criticisms of the current speaker. The reported speaker is depicted as making multiple criticisms, which adds to the reprehensible nature of their actions. By constructing the reported speaker’s actions, and, at the same time, indicating the stance of the current speaker toward them, the complained-about speaker’s behavior is portrayed as infringing the moral order and therefore the complaint as legitimate. Data are in British and American English.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ For the provenance of these data, see the “Data and Method” section.

² See, Günthner (1997, pp. 253–254) for discussion of how different ways of reporting speech can contribute to distinguishing speakers in a reported dialogue.

³ See Bolden (2004) for analysis of the marking of the boundaries of reported speech in Russian. She shows how speakers can “fade out” of reporting can be deployed for particular interactional ends. Also see Klewitz and Couper-Kuhlen (1999) on the prosodic marking of quotes.

⁴ Interestingly even in this loose (highly nongranular) gloss of her actions, the prosody gives some insight into both the delivery and Lesley’s assessment of her actions: The voice quality and prosody enacts a moaning voice, particularly through the emphasis on the first part of both uses of “moaning” and the emphasis and stretching on “me” and “ohh.” Further, the “‘n ohh” at the end suggests a possible continuation, with a tail-off. The breathiness of the “ohh” simultaneously conveys the continued, self-pitying moaning of the mother-in-law, at the same time as her stance toward the reported complaint.

⁵ Although the beginning of DRS is often clearly marked, the end is less so (Bolden, 2004; Holt, 1996).