Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article considers how two different question designs as positive polar questions and wh-questions occurring in different interactional contexts (institutional calls and ordinary face-to-face interactions) set up a sequence in which a direct complaint is produced in third position as the result of an interactional achievement. Positive polar questions are employed to establish immediately a common ground of understandability between caller and call-taker. Wh-questions are used as challenges and speakers subsequently provide explicit grounds for the challenges in third turns, due to the interpretation of the question given by their recipients.

Keywords

direct complaints Italian positive polar questions pre-sequences wh-questions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atkinson, J.M. and Drew, P. (1979) Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan .

Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bertinetto, P.M. and Caldognetto, E.M. (1999) `Ritmo e intonazione' [`Rhythm and Intonation'], in A. Sobrero (ed.) Introduzione all'italiano contemporaneo: Le strutture [Introduction to Contemporary Italian: The Structures], pp. 141—92. Rome / Bari: Laterza.

Canepari, L. (1983) Italiano standard e pronuncia regionale [Standard Italian and Regional Pronunciation]. Padua: CLEUP.

Dersley, I. and Wootton, A.J. (2000) `Complaint Sequences within Antagonistic Argument' , Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4): 375—406.

Garcia, A. (1991) `Dispute Resolution without Disputing: How Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argument' , American Sociological Review 56: 818—35.

Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. (2002) `The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content' , Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1472—46.

Heritage, J. and Sefi, S. (1992) `Dilemmas of Advice', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 359—417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Koshik, I. (2003) `Wh-questions as Challenges' , Discourse Studies 5: 51—77.

11.

Kotthoff, H. (1993) `Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context-sensitivity of Preference Structures' , Language in Society 22: 193—216.

12.

Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Maynard, D.W. (1991) `Perspective-display Sequences and the Delivery and Receipt of Diagnostic News', in D. Boden and D.H. Zimmermann (eds) Talk and Social Structure, pp. 164—92. Cambridge: Polity Press.

14.

Maynard, D.W. (1992) `On Clinicians Co-implicating Recipients' Perspectives in the Delivery of Diagnostic News', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 331—58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Monzoni, C.M. (2005) ` Direct Complaints in (Italian) Calls to the Ambulance: The Use of Negatively Framed Questions ', paper presented at the 9th International Pragmatics Conference, July, Riva del Garda, Italy (submitted to Journal of Pragmatics ).

16.

Muntigl, P. and Turnbull, W. (1998) `Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing' , Journal of Pragmatics 29: 225—56.

17.

Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation, Vol. I , ed. G. Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell.

18.

Schegloff, E.A. (1984) `On Some Questions and Ambiguities in Conversation' , in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 28—52. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

19.

Schegloff, E.A. (1987) `Some Sources of Misunderstanding in Interaction' , Linguistics 25: 201—18.

20.

Vehviläinen, S. (2001) `Evaluative Advice in Educational Counselling: The Use of Disagreement in the “Stepwise Entry” to Advice' , Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(3): 371—98.

Introducing direct complaints through questions: the interactional achievement of `pre-sequences'?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References