1. S522 Lecture 7 March 9 Discursive practices; managing interaction and dialogue

2. Dialogue; the work of Deborah Tannen What happens in dialogue; overlap and interruption Questions of dominance v. collaboration: gender issues

3. Male-female differences in speaking (quantity) Eakins & Eakins: Faculty meetings - Males: 10-66 - 17.07 secs Females: 3.0 - 10.0 secs Swacker: conferences - % papers: M 59.3 F 40.7 % questions: M 72.6 F 27.4

4. Interruptions Zimmerman & West: naturally occurring campus conversations - 96% of interruptions were by men Eakins & Eakins: faculty meetings Male interruptions 2 - 8 Female interruptions 0 - 2

5. Edelsky 1981 Singly developed floor: one person speaks and others listen - men talk more Collaboratively developed floor: more than one voice can be heard - women talk as much as men.

6. The meta-message What is being conveyed overall and received overall How is this negotiated How are participants positioned

7. Who is speaking In what body Telling what story From what perspective In what social and cultural frameworks

8. Discursive action model: Edwards & Potter 1992 p 154 The focus is on action, not cognition Remembering and attribution become, operationally, reportings (and accounts, descriptions, formulations etc) and the inferences that they make available There is a dilemma of stake or interest, often managed by doing attribution via reports Reports displayed as factual Reports rhetorically organised to undermine alternatives Reports attend to agency and accountability Reports attend to accountability of current speaker

9. Michael Billig TALKING OF THE ROYAL FAMILY Routledge 1992

10. Description as attribution: positioning other(s), blaming, inviting, making responsible etc

11. Beckyoi (.) sh shh (.) It could have been that NeilNo that’s not making a noise AlanNo (.) something outside (0.4) it was definitely outside BeckyNeil you’ve got shoes on

12. Interest and stake: ascribing stake - [Mandy Rice Davies]

13. It wasn’t, in truth, much of a case. The only defense witness was a cousin of one of the defendants and she got her story muddled up anyway; and the prosecution witnesses, many of them passers-by with no conceivable axe to grind, were articulate and plausible

14. Stake inoculation

15. [Stereotype of tortured genius] Dr Post was initially skeptical, but having looked at the lives of nearly 300 famous men he believes exceptional creativity and psychiatric problems are intertwined. In some way mental ill health may fuel some forms of creativity, he concludes

16. Stake confession/discounting; including the “would say that, wouldn’t I” allusion

17. My own feeling is that the British theatre critics are a kindly and perpetually hopeful bunch, and that if we have a fault it is that we tend to praise shows too much. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?

18. Blaming and excusing: normative role accountability

19. Category entitlement: different credibility, and managed differently

20. Disclaimers: preliminary statements which anticipate a particular response to future utterances

21. I’m not anti them at all you know, I, if they’re willing to get on and be like us but if they’re just going to come here, just to be able to use our social welfares and stuff like that, why don’t they stay home

22. Extreme case formulation: pushing example to extreme, normalising extreme case

23. I’m not anti them at all you know, I, if they’re willing to get on and be like us but if they’re just going to come here, just to be able to use our social welfares and stuff like that, why don’t they stay home

24. Footing: highlights the basis on which an account is offered; who is speaking, who is accountable, who is credible?

25. Use of metaphors to create descriptions with different rhetorical goals

26. Description as attribution Interest and stake: ascribing stake Stake inoculation Stake confession/discounting Blaming and excusing Category entitlement Disclaimers Extreme case formulation Footing Use of metaphors rhetorically