trilogue orecchioni

Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma Introducing polylogue Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni Groupe de Recherches sur les Interactions Communicatives§, ´ ` ` CNRS-Universite Lumiere Lyon 2, 5 av. Pierre Mendes France, 69676 Bron, France Received 26 February 2002 Abstract The introduction to this special issue begins by defining the notion of ‘polylogue’. Then, after having summarized the results of our previous work on ‘trilogues’, I propose a survey of the general perspective adopted by the authors, and of the main analytical tools they use. Finally, the articles gathered in the volume are introduced in more detail in relation to the particular situations and data they deal with. # 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dilogue/trilogue/polylogue; Plurilevel analysis; Typology of polylogues; Participation framework 1. Criticism of dyadic communication models Dyadic communication is widely thought to be the communicative situation par excellence—not only by linguists, semioticians, psychologists, and communication theoreticians, but also by ‘the man on the street’, as witnessed, for example, by the fact that the word dialogue, despite its etymological origins,1 is generally understood to mean ‘conversation between two people’. This can, of course, be explained by the confusion between the two paronymous prefixes di- and dia-, but is doubtless also All the authors of the articles composing this issue belong or are associated to this research team, working in Lyon (France). The different texts which are collected here must in fact be considered the result of a collective research project. Some of the articles were originally written in French, some others directly in English. All the data we analyse was originally produced in French. The whole text was translated or edited by Louise Nicollet, whose thoroughness we are sincerely grateful for. Many thanks also to Dick Janney for his encouragement, his patience, and his perfectionism in the revision process. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni). 1 Since the Greek prefix ‘dia-’ means not ‘two’, but ‘through’. In order to avoid ambiguity, we prefer to speak of ‘dilogue’ when referring to exchanges between two people. 0378-2166/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00034-1 § 2 C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 due to the deep-rooted tendency to associate interaction with interaction between two people, considered as the prototype of all forms of interaction. For some time now, this ‘privilege’ in favour of dyadic communication has been severely criticized by numerous researchers such as Hymes, Goffman, Levinson, and specialists in the field of Conversation Analysis (henceforth, CA), e.g.: The common dyadic model of speaker-hearer specifies sometimes too many, sometimes too few, sometimes the wrong participants. (Hymes, 1974: 54) Traditional analysis of saying and what gets said seems tacitly committed to the following paradigm: two and only two individuals are engaged together in it, [. . .] the two-person arrangement being the one that informs the underlying imagery we have about face-to-face interaction. (Goffman, 1981: 129) In the study of verbal interaction, there has been undoubtedly some bias towards the study of dyadic interaction. (Levinson, 1988: 222–223) Levinson even speaks in this connection of a ‘straightjacket’, and he shows that ‘dyadic triumph’ has been achieved at the price of greatly limiting, first, the situations which are examined (in any society, dyadic exchanges tend, in fact, to be in the minority), second, the cultures under consideration (many societies accord an even more important role than Occidental societies do to ‘multi-party gatherings’2 and to all sorts of relayed or ‘mediatized’ communication). So Levinson regards this dyadic diktat as ethnocentristic. As for CA, in their seminal article on the turn system, Sacks et al. (1974/1978) claim that their ‘simplest systematics’ of turn-taking is applicable to all conversations, no matter how many participants are involved. But at the same time, they recognize that ‘‘numbers are significant for talk-in-interaction’’, as the title of a more recent article by Schegloff (1995) recalls. The conversational data used by CA specialists is in fact diversified in this respect.3 However, it cannot be said that analyses in this field have exhaustively covered the topic in which we are interested, that is, the description of all the phenomena which characterize the functioning of polylogues. First, the situations looked at by CA correspond to focused interactions whose participation formats and consequent functioning are relatively simple (in any case much simpler than those of the interactions which will be examined here). In addition, CA concerns itself mainly with local phenomena such as the turn-system, 2 Also see Aronsson (1996), who asserts that in many non-Occidental cultures, basic communication situations are of ‘polylogal’ type (e.g. in traditional African societies, the mother–child dialogue generally takes place in the presence of siblings or other members of the family). 3 In his Lectures on Conversation, Sacks already bases his observations mainly on a set of data composed of a therapy session bringing together an adult therapist and a group of teenagers. Concerning SSJ’s article on turn system, O’Connell et al. (1990) note, however, that 71% of the 35 examples mentioned only involve two speakers; and that the large majority of empirical studies carried out in this perspective (exactly 82% out of a corpus of 22 publications—the sample is therefore limited, and stops in 1990) is based on ‘dilogal’ data. but for the moment. or ‘dialogism’. in the ordinary sense. turn-taking operates per se between speakers. in designating the topic dealt with in this publication we will not speak of ‘multi-party conversations’ but of multi-participant conversations. being only one particular type of talk-in-interaction).4 for example. or their several attributes relative to a momentarily current interactional contingency. in point of fact. 523–524): ‘‘two parties does not necessarily mean two persons’’. ‘trilogue’. 2. In a completely different sense from the meaning attributed to this term by Julia Kristeva (in Polylogue. allowing. ranging from four (e. although seemingly trivial. the interactions involving a divorced couple and their respective notaries studied by Bruxelles And before him. for example. for example. Schegloff (1995: 32–33). Picking up on Maurice Blanchot’s idea of ‘parole plurielle’. roles. speakers’ objectives. on the contrary. The notion of polylogue For the reasons discussed above. Paris: Seuil. already poses some problems owing to the difficulty of clearly defining the category of ‘participants’. Thanks to this notion of party. with speakers considered only as being ‘incumbents’ of these parties. Thus defined. as we will see. that is. whether they are host or guest. Sacks (Lectures vol. play an important role in conversation. 5 4 . it is possible ‘‘to introduce order into this potentially chaotic circumstance’’ constituted by the large number of participants. for proponents of CA. (1995: 40) For us. covers diverse phenomena) belongs to another level of analysis. the derived adjective. I. whereas our perspective in this issue is rather ‘dialogal’. Kristeva’s approach is related to what is commonly known as ‘polyphony’. ‘tetralogue’ etc. we will say that Kristeva’s perspective is ‘dialogic’. and it is easy to handle. I will come back to this point. We will also speak of polylogues. and above all. the notion of polylogue. the succession of turns is first and foremost a phenomenon which takes place between individuals. The notion of ‘party’ (which. turn-taking operates not between speakers but between ‘parties’. 1977).5 This term is etymologically appropriate. Even if mechanisms of alignment based on statuses. such as the co-telling of a story or siding together in a disagreement.’’ This can involve: their relative alignment in current activities. real live individuals. To use the terminological distinction (introduced by Eddy Roulet) between dialogal discourse (which brings together several distinct speakers) and dialogic discourse (which refers to a plurality of enunciative voices. or rather multi-participant interactions (conversation. more abstract entities which can be embodied by one and the same speaker).g. Finally. let me say that the situations analysed in this issue involve variable numbers of participants.C. whether—as a new increment is being added to a number of interactional participants—they are the newly arrived or pre-present. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 3 whereas many other aspects can be taken into account that are affected even more by the number of participants. etc. it fits into a coherent paradigm (‘dilogue’. Thus.). but among parties. claims that ‘‘the turn-taking system as described in SSJ organizes the distribution of talk not in the first instance among persons. we will refer to as polylogal all communicative situations which gather together several participants. were eliminated from this study because our research team has previously carried out work on these configurations. secondary addressee. This idea was already put forward by Sacks (Lectures.2. This variability is in part a result of lack of balance in floor-holding. for example. the pragmatic value of an utterance can be modified in the course of the exchange (an initially informative segment being.6 3. I: 530–534 and vol. the hospital shift-change briefing sessions studied by Grosjean) all the way to a theoretically infinite number of participants (e. who note that ‘‘speakers perform illocutionary acts not only toward addressees. who stated that an utterance addressed to B can very well ‘‘do something’’ to C that is different from what it does to B (if. A flirts with B. A similar idea is elaborated by Clark and Carlson (1982: 333). An utterance can also simultaneously convey different pragmatic values for its different hearers. Given the continuity between these two categories. O’Connell et al. for example. see Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1997). it is preferable to talk of main addressee vs. for example. for the particular case of three-party conversations. or vice versa). for a synthesis of this research project. but also toward certain other hearers’’ (an order. Goodwin (1981) shows very clearly that.g. reconverted into a demand for confirmation. and the related question of addressing cues. Ford et al. Power and Dal Martello (1986). The organization of turn-taking Turn-taking7 in trilogues is generally characterized by variability in alternation patterns. the minimal form taken by polylogues. which are most often fuzzy. (1996).1. The hearers’ roles We were particularly interested in studying the distinction between an ‘addressed recipient’ and a ‘non-addressed recipient’. 3. 1995). and interruptions and simultaneous talk. and talk in different institutional contexts). vol. exchanges in the media. particularly applied to complex participation formats. Results which led to a publication (Kerbrat-Orecchioni and Plantin. ‘Trilogues’. In our studies. II: 99–101). For more or less radical (and more or less justified) critiques of this approach. along with the change in addressee. see Edelsky (1981). through a large range of data (everyday conversations. Trilogues were studied at every level of their functioning. ‘‘then she may be teasing C’’). here. Trilogues The objective of our earlier studies was to bring to light the specific features of trilogues that distinguish them from dilogues. 3. can have the value of an informative act for ‘lateral’ hearers. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 and Kerbrat-Orecchioni) through various intermediate situations (e. Raffler-Engel (1983). we constantly observe fluctuations in address. the Internet newsgroups studied by Marcoccia). violations of speaker-selection rules. (1978: 23). 7 See Sacks et al. (1990).g. and possibly even some additional values). I will just briefly outline the objective and the results of that earlier work. 6 .4 C. . I will be completely satisfied if it is B who answers me. which more often than not have a collaborative function. Intrusions (which happen when the participant who takes the floor is not the one who has been selected by the current speaker) are frequent.C. and for violations or failures in the functioning of the turn-system) and more open to mediation and conciliation The potentially destabilizing presence of a silent participant is superbly illustrated by Nathalie Sarraute’s play Le Silence (1967). General lack of balance in floor-holding In dilogues.1. Or to stay with the example of ‘Le masque et la plume’ [‘The Mask and the Quill’]:9 there are times when Bastide [the moderator] mistakenly asks for a commentary or explanation from one of the critics who has nothing whatsoever to say on that subject.2. based on the following situation (Paris: Folio. as well as the variety of ways in which these are carried out. As is quite normal. Violations of speaker-selection rules In the selection of the next speaker. The first impression created by the overlaps is one of unbearable cacophony. but deeper analysis reveals the concerted organization of these interruptions. and it is always possible for a participant to be left out. Abstract p. In trilogues. [.3.2. To summarize.] Why does Jean-Pierre remain so obstinately silent? Why doesn’t he answer when someone asks him a question? What is he thinking? Does he pass judgment on his more talkative partners? Is he hostile? indifferent?’’—all these puzzling and unanswered questions will end up. or to temporarily eliminate him.2. multi-participant conversations are both more conflictual (there are more opportunities for a struggle for the floor. as the play shows. there are constant overlaps of three or even four voices superimposed over each other. translated from the French): ‘‘Six people—or rather six voices—find themselves unable to pursue a ‘normal’ dialogue due to the silence of a seventh person. on the other hand.8 3. In Muller’s (1995) study of discussions among eight French ¨ students. increases in trilogues. 8 . judges) and children accompanied by their parents. selection rule: If for example I ask A what time it is. trilogues often feature violations of conversational rules that are unknown in dilogues. 1995) and in situations involving professionals (doctors. According to Dausenschon-Gay and Krafft (1991: 148–149). for different reasons and with varying effects. another critic answers and no one even entertains the thought of taking offense. It should be noted that such intrusions do not always constitute real conversational offenses. for example. for example. analysed by these authors. in interviews of couples (Marcoccia. This possibility increases where the participants are more numerous. 9 A discussion on a French radio program. 93. only unequal lengths of turns make for disproportionate amounts of participation in the interaction. ¨ they sometimes follow an ‘efficiency rule’ which overrides Sacks et al. 1998. unequal participation is first based on the number of turns.’’ (translated from the French) 3. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 5 3. and a fortiori in multiparticipant interactions.or herself from the exchange. Interruptions and simultaneous talk The frequency of interruptions and simultaneous talk. .2. undermining the conversation. knowledge. and the phenomenon of ‘truncation’ takes different forms. 3. Analyzing in detail such a contradictory response. conflicts over structuring.4. and found that exchanges (defined as a succession of moves dependent on a single initial move) with 3–5 speakers and 4–8 moves were dominant. For the participants themselves. can be composed of several contributions produced by different speakers. as Muller (1997: 386) points out in his comment on Lonardi and Viaro’s ¨ (1990) work on interviews between therapists and their patients: In contradictory situations of this kind. They also place fewer constraints on participants.6 C. and the recipients themselves are intrinsically heterogeneous due to differences in status. when we are dealing with configurations as complex as these.). 3. The complexity is obviously even greater in configurations with more participants. à The question of the completeness/incompleteness of exchanges is posed in different terms. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 than dilogues. this issue).3. for the analyst. etc. studied the division of exchanges in discussions within groups of nine pre-adolescent children. responding in a confused manner. Delamotte-Legrand (1995). dialogal ‘exchanges’. The level of interpersonal relationships With regard in particular to the relation of dominance among the participants. pretending to have forgotten. a notion developed by Theodor Caplow which will be investigated later (see Bruxelles and KerbratOrecchioni. like the reacting move. This situation can lead to apparently contradictory utterances. expectations. Speakers must take all their recipients into account to some degree. it is necessary to re-think the ‘canonic’ structure of the exchange as well as the notion of ‘truncation’. members respond by contradicting themselves. etc. the more numerous they are. the functioning of trilogues is in all regards more complicated to describe than that of dilogues. the more delicate conversational activities become. the trilogue allows certain members of the triad to form coalitions. for example. objectives. LV suggest that these contradictions . etc. Delamotte-Legrand’s findings suggest that.) in trilogues is also different from that of dilogues: à Within one and the same exchange. the initiating move. In conclusion. since the obligation to cooperate—being in a way ‘diluted’ by the larger group—is not as strong for each individual speaker. à The structural organization of trilogues is clearly more complex than that of dilogues (intertwining of exchanges. The structuring of dialogue The structuring of interaction into hierarchically organized units (monologal ‘moves’. These represented more than half the exchanges in the data studied. 10 For example. even greater in interactions involving more numerous participants.e. these moments of ‘dilogues within trilogues’ must not be dealt with as real dilogue. and Paddy Austin goes so far as to state (1987: 20): ‘‘An individual’s face is vulnerable in direct proportion to the number of people to whom she presents that face in any given interaction. For example. as we will try to show in the following analyses. The first impression created by an audio recording of such an interaction is one of such confusion and anarchy as to discourage any attempt at analysis. But then. that is. the mechanisms of ‘connecting’ and ‘disconnecting’ the third participant. and several types of units. the moments of ‘genuine’ trilogue (in which all three members are actively engaged) never last long. . and unpredictability.C. the problems of describing the interaction increase dramatically (especially in case of informal non-focusing interactions). this fact is always relevant and should be taken into account. Flexibility is.1. instability. the speaker attempts to tell. Describing the interaction therefore requires above all observing gradual shifting from dilogal structures to trilogal ones and vice versa—observing. involving two active speakers and a third participant who can adopt various attitudes and show extremely variable involvement in the interaction in progress. islands of organization and regularity begin to emerge. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 7 can be read as cases of ‘multiple recipient design’. they alternate with phases which seem rather dilogal in character. that is. 4. we consider ‘turns’ and ‘moves’ to be two different kinds of monologal units. Principles of analysis Our study of polylogues is based on the same principles which we developed for describing trilogues. within one and the same turn. When a triad is conversing. of course. via immersion in the data. 4. Levels of analysis We distinguish among several levels of analysis. Beyond four participants. in comparison with dilogues. which are identifiable at all levels of their functioning: this is the major conclusion to which our observation of trilogues has led. . i. are their flexibility. a new possibility appears: ‘splitting-off’.’’ . instead.10 The main characteristics of trilogues. this issue). the forming of distinct conversational groups which continue parallel exchanges (see Traverso. In any case. a proposition A to the therapist. since they take place in the presence of a third party. Beginning with four participants. the seriousness of a FTA (Face Threatening Act) increases in the presence of third parties. as pointed out by Brown and Levinson (1987: 12). but non-A to his co-present wife. that is. In summary. such as greetings and farewells. They pertain to another level of analysis.) of the speakers. as shown by Goodwin’s (1981) example ‘‘I gave up smoking cigarettes one week ago today. constituted by pragmatic units that belong to different ‘ranks’:12 4. At any rate. Roulet (1992: 92–93): In fact. since it is uniquely marked by a change of speaker and does not necessarily coincide with the speech activities (like questions. or in multi-focus settings where different encounters are closely intertwined with each other. a turn is a unity which pertains to the surface structure of conversation. But Goffman adds that this definition is in some cases totally contradicted. such as Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). that is ‘‘a predetermined.11 These segments are sometimes very short. more generally. stereotyped sequence of actions that defines a well-known situation’’ 11 An ‘‘utterance-event’’ is for Levinson (1988: 168) ‘‘that stretch of a turn at talk over which there is a constant set of participant roles mapped into the same set of individuals’’.1. ‘‘surface units’’. in others. 2000: 511). *Moves. a ‘social encounter’. on the other hand. Although in many cases the largest unit is clear-cut. and the investigator is wise to drop the idea of even attempting to describe a global interaction. naturally bounded stretch of interaction comprising all that relevantly goes on from the moment two (or more) individuals open such dealings between themselves and continuing until they finally close this activity out. actually’’. ratified participation. requests. Upper rank: conversation. and instead be content with taking a more modest approach and examining only certain ‘moments of talk’. A turn is produced by only one speaker. which is composed of three successive ‘utterance-events’ (sections according to Goodwin’s terminology). particularly in discontinuous situations characterized by an ‘open state of talk’. cf. these establishing and terminating open. 12 The principle of rank-analysis was developed by various discourse analysts.8 C. ritual brackets will also be found. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 *Turns (as well as Turn-Constructional Units) are ‘‘epiphenomena’’ (Selting. correspond to activities that participants intend to accomplish via turns. joint engagement. Edmondson (1981).1. or Roulet (1981). it is not. official. answers. moving together and bodily addressing one another. Typically. that is. or. the closing by their departing in some physical way from the prior immediacy of copresence. it is at this ‘macro’ level that the notion of script comes into play. interaction Conversation is traditionally assumed to be. Schank and Abelson define a script as ‘‘a structure that describes appropriate sequences of events in a particular context’’. . but it can have several successive recipients and hence it can be divided up into different utterance-events (Levinson. 1988). The opening will typically be marked by the participants turning from their several disjointed orientations. etc. as in Goffman’s definition (1981: 130): a substantive. and the nature of our aims. seen in relation to its different ranks. and à Conversation Analysis.15 13 In this perspective. one and the same move can (more exceptionally) be distributed over several turns. in particular. for example in order to describe the mechanisms of preference organization (Lerner. ´nonciation (Jeanneret. 1987). Thus.2. 4.2. have entailed that rather than opting for a single descriptive model a priori. with a consensus as to requirements gradually emerging. and whose configurations vary according to the type of interaction. whose theory of politeness is of great use to interaction analysis. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 9 (1977: 42–43).14 à Discourse Analysis (‘Birmingham school’ or ‘Geneva school’) for an interaction’s internal organization.13 4. But our basic kit of tools is supplied more specifically by: à Goffman’s theory of the participation framework. for example in case of co-e 14 These phenomena are described more precisely by Brown and Levinson (1978. 1991. what we commonly call the ‘Restaurant Script’ is. a series of models have been examined. but it is also claimed by some Anglo-Americain researchers. etc. Inversely. face-work phenomena. A turn can be composed of several moves. Intermediate rank: episodes. Lower ranks: exchanges and moves Exchanges are defined as the smallest pragmatic units to be produced by at least two different speakers. exchanges (such as the adjacency pair ‘question-answer’) are in fact combinations of moves and not of turns. for example. like Aston (1998: 13): ‘‘Since our primary objective was not that of testing a specific discourse theory. in fact. 1999). 1996). 4. Gumperz’s sociolinguistics. 1995. phases. the different theoretical backgrounds of the various members of the group. Hymes’s ethnography of speaking. it is necessary to call upon various descriptive traditions.3. 15 This ‘eclecticism’ characterizes most of the French research work in analysis of interactions. We believe that there is no incompatibility among these different theoretical approaches.1. as they do not compete on the same turf. a script of waiter–customer interaction as seen from the customer’s point of view.C. and his description of the interpersonal relationship level. our approach to the description of the data has been substantially eclectic. sequences These terms designate blocks of exchanges which possess a high degree of thematic or pragmatic cohesiveness. however. social psychology.1.’’ . Moves correspond to the contribution a given speaker makes to a given exchange. and therefore be part of several exchanges. our analyses will occasionally make reference to Searle’s or Grice’s pragmatics. for all aspects regarding local arrangements. Descriptive tools Since the same tools are not appropriate to describing the different levels and components of interaction. They add that ‘‘a script must be written from a particular role’s point of view’’. cognitive approaches. Grosjean and Traverso bring other relevant axes to light. which can be extremely variable. there is first of all the number of participants. Their highest level of frequency is to be found in everyday conversations among friends. but copresence in an enclosed space brings about a situation of ‘latent communication’. formality being a gradual phenomenon (Drew and Heritage. an ‘open state of talk’ can develop. this issue). However. in some societies. as Grosjean and Traverso state (1998: 51): The question of number is not in itself fundamentally the main question.16 5. Although they bring together the same number of people. Multi-focus gatherings Multi-focus gatherings are situations in offices. (translated from the French) In this same article..2. These interactions can take place in a formal or informal frame. they introduce a number of useful distinctions which sharpen that of Goffman between simple ‘gatherings’ and veritable ‘encounters’. workshops. the different participants are oriented towards one and the same activity. then relapse 16 A situation which is managed in very diverse ways depending on the culture: unlike the way things work in France. 5. On this topic.10 C. Problems of typology Polylogues can be of very diverse nature. the more phenomena of ‘splitting-off’ can be observed. etc. where the group forms around a common focus of attention. eight individuals who work in the same office. where the different participants or groups of participants go about different activities in the same place: Under these conditions. 1992a: 27. eight friends sharing a meal. .1. copresence in the same place almost automatically leads to beginning conversation. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 5.3. one of these being the focused or unfocused nature of the interaction being observed. see also Grosjean’s and Traverso’s analyses of ‘semi-formal’ situations. 5. Among the classification criteria on which a typology can be established. Shared focus encounters In shared focus encounters. The less formal the situation is. the following situations have hardly any aspects in common: eight people in a waiting room. where noninvolvement is the rule. participants having the right but not the obligation to initiate a little flurry of talk. Unfocused gatherings The classic example of an unfocused gathering is the waiting room. verbal or non-verbal. the interviewer shifts from ‘neutral’ footing (consisting of producing purely factual utterances) to an ‘evaluative’ or even ‘controversial’ attitude. . For each of the situations earlier. multi-focusing is ‘structural’. 6. *Participation framework: When a word is spoken. for example. 1981: 134–135) In professional settings. The codification of these various positions and the normative specification of appropriate conduct within each provide an essential background for interaction analysis. all those who happen to be in perceptual range of the event will have some of participation status relative to it. But the criterion of perceptual access (visual and/or auditory) is too limited.1. In more informal situations. 1981: 3) The participation framework corresponds to the ensemble of ‘participation statuses’.C. Clayman (1992) shows that in news-interview discourse. because 17 See Marcoccia (this issue). we differentiate within the participation framework between the production format and the reception format. 6. or ‘principal’. as though adding but another interchange to a chronic conversation in progress.1. it can be said to be ‘emergent’.17 In addition to this. all this with no apparent ritual marking. Participation Participants are defined by Goffman as being ‘‘in perceptual range of the event’’. there is a corresponding participation framework. ‘author’. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 11 back into silence. as in the double-focus and even triple-focus interactions in the home described by Vincent (1995) and Grosjean and Traverso (1998: 62–63). (Goffman. Erving Goffman’s notion of participation framework Goffman (1981: Chapter 3) contributes the three following important notions: *Production format: the speaker can take on the roles of ‘animator’. in order to restore symmetry. Curiously enough. Problems 6. where participants are pulled to and fro between different foci of attention. In our approach. (Goffman.1. he or she can adopt variable footing. *Participation status: Goffman distinguishes between ‘ratified participants’ (‘addressed’ and ‘unaddressed recipients’) and ‘non-ratified participants’ (‘bystanders’: ‘overhearers’ and ‘eavesdroppers’). he does not refer in this connection to a ‘reception format’. These very useful distinctions nevertheless bring up a number of difficulties. It seems therefore advisable to recognize the existence of different degrees of participation. adopts a kind of intermediate position. ratified recipients. . addressed (maximal degree). relayed talk. ratified. for example. eye-contact network).1. noting a continuum between evident engagement and total disengagement (and vice versa).’’ Nevertheless. suggesting that even those who are ‘momentarily disengaged’ should be included in the category of participants. Yet there is a great deal of disagreement among theoreticians regarding this issue as well. It is also too broad. In fact.2. In the last case. unaddressed (minimal degree). according to the scheme proposed by Bell (1984): addressee: known. unratified. . Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 it excludes situations such as written discourse. given the legitimacy of their presence on the site. insofar as this copresence cannot fail to have some impact on the behaviour of the people who are in contact with each other. For Drew (1992). *modes of ratification: Complete ratification (in both the production and reception formats) can be opposed to ratification as a listener only (ratification in the reception format). In a sense. according to Goffman. both are ratified as listeners. 19 18 .12 C. whether officially ratified or non-ratified as a participant. has ipso facto a certain ‘participation status’. there are two categories of spectators. officially a part of the conversation group. in the viewpoint of some researchers.19 Indeed. a town council meeting. auditor:18 known.]. And Goodwin (1981: 107 ff). or a TV talk show. and eavesdropper: unknown. though they in many cases are intended recipients. as witnessed by the way the members of the group are physically positioned (proxemics. defines only those who are ‘ratified’ and ‘attentive’ as ‘participants’. overhearer: known. unaddressed. however. unaddressed. 6. such as the spectators attending a court trial. The latter is the case of all kinds of ‘audience’. jurors in courtrooms are considered ‘overhearers’ since they are forbidden to speak. etc. ratified. Indeed. for Goffman. claiming that ‘‘the jury are only very loosely speaking ratified recipients [. if seems difficult not to admit that jurors and even spectators of a trial in a courtroom are ratified to a certain extent. in opposition to Goffman. who are nevertheless still ratified. and the fact that the discourse produced is also (sometimes even mainly) intended for them. Ratification Ratified participants are. every person present on the site of the interaction. their displayed interest in the proceedings. Levinson (1988). and McCawley (1984: 263) contributes a very slight nuance to this view. postures. unratified. The spectators are not. Heritage (1985) has the same attitude regarding the ‘audiences’ of news interviews. it seems preferable to recognize that there are different: *degrees of ratification: We can agree with McCawley that the jurors are ‘more ratified’ than the spectators. even in a loose sense. this is the way Bell designates Goffman’s category of ratified non-addressed recipients. those who are present in the television studio and those who are watching the program on their TV screens. or paralinguistic and kinesic indications (vocal intensity. But such markers are often ambiguous.1. ‘auditors’ for Bell). . 6. mainly kinesic.3. the roll-call procedure constitutes the main ratification technique. ratification is based on the script. in relation to a particular episode or task (see Bruxelles and Kerbrat-Orecchioni’s analysis (this issue) of a radio discussion in which. which defines official roles. some types of ratification (and non-ratification) are only determined at a local level. Cases of this would be: In the example of the town council meeting (Witko. *levels of ratification: On a global level. instead of referring to a discrete opposition between ‘addressees’ and ‘non-addressees’. and they may even be contradictory with each other (examples of a clash between verbal and non-verbal markers: a sweeping glance accompanying an utterance in the second person singular or just the opposite). one participant or another will be officially ratified by the moderator). a recipient can have a status that is intermediate. As explicit signals (principally terms of address) are rather seldom present. Continuum at a moment t1. . poses the problem of address markers. 22 For an example during a corporate work session.1. head movements). These techniques vary depending on the interaction situations. Goffman insists in particular on ‘visual cues’. we most often have to deal with subtle and gradual cues such as the content of the utterance (which more specifically ‘concerns’ a particular listener). on a global level. eye and body orientation. between that of an addressed and a non-addressed recipient. This continuum can have two forms. Address Within the category of ratified participants. Goffman distinguishes between addressed recipients (to whom the speaker officially addresses his or her utterance) and non-addressed recipients (‘side participants’ for Clark. At any given t1 moment of the interaction. however. however. The determination of addressee(s). all the participants are ratified. or by the participant seeking ratification (indicators.3. and *ratification devices: Various devices can be used by the ratifier. 6. depending on the sequence. 20 .22 So.20 Ratification may of course give rise to negotiating among the participants. We note here that the problem is posed in completely different terms when the data being studied is written: see in this issue Marcoccia’s study on a case of communication via the Internet. i.1.21 and defines the addressee as ‘‘the one to whom the speaker addresses his visual attention’’ (1981: 133). 2000). Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 13 whose permissible reactions are limited to a few non-verbal manifestations such as laughter or applause. but. intonations. of attentiveness and involvement).C.e. it seems preferable to assume that address cues often establish a gradual ranking of main addressee(s) and secondary addressee(s). 21 Inaccessible to the analyst who does not have access to a video recording. see Lacoste (1989: 266–267). in a murmur. Between t1 and t2 (two consecutive moments in time). Non-ratified recipients (or bystanders) Non-ratified recipients. 1988: 206 ff). or by an office employee working in front of a computer.23 Well-known examples are interjections. they must theoretically (pretend to) be disinterested in what is going on within the conversation group. and ‘out-louds’ (cf. particularly in Moliere’s comedies. ‘favouring’ some members (because they perhaps produce more back-channel signals). which are not in fact authentic ‘self talk’. as in a classroom setting. Goffman. Goffman distinguishes between two sub-classes within the category of bystanders: overhearers and eavesdroppers. as in private comments by a customer in a cafeteria line. although still not exactly leaving the other members of the audience ‘unaddressed’. this is not always what really happens. Unlike ratified recipients. in fact. as in the following two examples (one of which is excerpted from a television debate and the other from an informal conversation): (1) He doesn’t want to be reduced to one of the two aspects of your personality. Paris: Gallimard.2.4. the main addressee can be changed in mid-sentence by shifts of gaze.1. Levinson.1. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 *Semi-self talk: This is the case when it is not certain whether the speaker is talking to him. *Collective address: This is the case when a speaker is talking before a large audience. 1995). or ‘adventitious participants’. she doesn’t know how to talk! 6. since the presence of other people exercises a certain degree of control over the vocal productions of all the participants (see Vincent. ´) translated from the French). and the intentionality/unintentionality of the bystander’s hearing. For example. and in domestic situations where each participant goes about his own activities. subtle vocal variations. [co-reference between ‘‘he’’ and ‘‘your’’. where the teacher’s sweeping glance over the audience is perforce unequal. are present in most communication situations (‘‘Their presence should be considered the rule’’). a gradual shift can occur from one addressee to another. However. . The criterion most often applied to distinguishing between overhearers and eavesdroppers is whether the speaker is aware or unaware of the presence of the 23 ‘‘She said something in a muffled voice. The ‘semi-self talk’. for example.14 C. ‘response cries’ (cf. 1981: Chapter 2). in relation to a change in the orientation of the speaker’s glance] (2) Since you stopped teaching the class. but it was difficult to know whether she was saying that for his benefit or to herself.’’ (Milan Kundera. producing brief apparent soliloquies. Risibles amours. based on two different criteria which do not necessarily converge: the speaker’s awareness/unawareness of the bystander. 1974: 180.or herself or to someone else. 6.3. etc. This can even be done more brusquely by using the pronominal marker. as Goffman notes. exclamations. This distinction is. or ‘half-aside’ (semi-aparte is a frequent theatrical ` device. There are also cases in which someone thinks aloud in someone else’s presence. Continuum between t1 and t2. Goffman’s definition brings in another criterion.2. à Bystanders (either overhearers or eavesdroppers) (among non-ratified recipients). and inadvertently. ‘‘they may surreptitiously exploit the accessibility they find they have. since the audience is an ‘eavesdropper’ for the characters. non-ratified participants (with. on the other hand. where I propose an ‘extended theory of the trope’. 1984). reception format. Proposals 6. The target does not always coincide with the addressee. Eavesdroppers. And we will add another category to those of Goffman: à Target (Levinson. I then studied this mechanism on several occasions. according to Goffman. follow the talk temporarily. on the other hand. Examples of eavesdropping. à Ratified participants vs. Interviews and various types of talk on the media operate to a certain extent in the same way—cf.C. . or staff in charge of handling technical problems during a conference. in particular as it operates in drama: theatrical discourse can indeed be considered an immense communicational trope. I introduced the term ‘trope communicationnel’ in L’implicite (Paris: Colin.’’ (1981: 132). On the basis of this criterion. 6. 1988: 210 ff) or intended recipient (McCawley. Greatbatch (1992: 269–270). Such participants are only exceptionally promoted to the status of ‘addressees’. we will base our study of polylogue on the following distinctions: à Production format vs. When there is a discrepancy between these two types of recipients. enacting shows of disinterest and minimizing their actual access to the talk. i. 1986). different degrees and modes of ratification). who considers the audience as the ‘primary address’ in news interviews (the term ‘primary’ actually meaning here ‘intended’). in Goffman’s words. secondary (or side) addressees (among ratified recipients). are indiscreet listeners who do everything they can to intercept discourse which is in no way intended for their ears.2. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 15 bystander within the perceptual space. 24 . the person for whom the utterance is really intended. we speak of a ‘communicational trope’ (trope communicationnel)24—a phenomenon which is described masterfully by ` Marcel Proust in various passages of A la recherche du temps perdu (translated from the French): See Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1990: 92 ff) on the different forms of this phenomenon (also see Mizzau (1994) on triangolazione communicativa). Main distinctions Within the participation framework (ensemble of participation statuses).1. unintentionally. but a target for the author and the actors. examples of overhearers would be: factory workers doing repair work in an office where a meeting is being held. would be hearing a private conversation through a half-open door—or listening to a recording of a conversation which just happens to have fallen into your hands as a conversation analyst. In addition to this speaker-linked criterion. . as we have seen. connected to the attitudes or motives of hearers themselves. à Main addressees vs. Overhearers.e. 334. and discursive roles.2.3.). answering questions. you were born in Paris in 1940. The recipient design principle Cicero has already said of the orator: The eloquent man should demonstrate the wisdom which will allow him to adapt to circumstances and to people.: 212) This indirect strategy of address is applied with varying degrees of ‘audacity’. 6. to tell the truth.2. which are based on the script.]. buyer (these roles being. I do indeed think that one should talk . . italics added) ‘The duchy of Aumale was in our family for a long time before becoming a part of the Maison de France’. in front of an astounded Morel to whom. salesperson vs. etc. This opening sequence is apparently addressed to the interviewee. but the functioning of an interaction also involves other types of roles as well: for example. which are based on tasks which are carried out (giving the floor. . interactional roles. that Chopin. teacher vs.2. X. i. in part. in relation to whom it has a stronger value. depending on the situation. . as when playing billiards. if not addressed.1. speaking to no one in particular. Paris: folio. a tradesperson). a professor. determined by social and institutional statuses. far from being out of fashion. for whom its value is at most a request for confirmation. explained Monsieur de Charlus to Monsieur de Cambremer. in order to hit a ball one plays against the edge of the billiard-table. the entire dissertation was. but did it by addressing the information to her mother-in-law. then at least intended. so as to be heard at the same time by Madame de Saint-Euverte to whom he was speaking and Madame de Laumes for ˆte whom he was speaking [. After brilliantly pursuing studies in philology at the Sorbonne. of multiplication of the illocutionary values of the utterance depending on its different addressees. Additionally. Different types of roles Participation statuses can be called interlocutive roles. such as those of a journalist. For example. you were obliged to leave in order to go into military service in Algeria [. here a ‘knowing participant’. student. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 ‘Ah!’ he said. For example. 6. was Debussy’s favorite musician. the strategy is more audacious when the real target is an overhearer than when he or she is a secondary addressee. (Sodome et Gomorrhe II: 212) I afforded myself the pleasure of informing her.16 C. interviewee. interviewer vs. examples: moderator. .] (Du co ´ de chez Swann. an interview usually begins as follows: Mr. that of an informative statement.e. But its main target is clearly the listener. the communicational trope can be accompanied by a ‘syllepsis’ (or double meaning). It is obviously compatible with the phenomenon mentioned in Section 3. (ibid. Following Sacks et al. Paralleling this. described in detail by Goodwin. 6. the elderly) may consider themselves to be ratified participants. etc. ‘‘speakers can legitimately choose among a range of attitudes’’. there are three cases of partial change: byplay. whereas towards overhearers. 123. the main purpose of byplay is not to disrupt the dominant interaction. which arises among ratified participants. or disguisement (1992: 255–256). These continual fluctuations in the framing can take place by means of either gradual shifting or abrupt changes. nor for everyone. as it can for the people who are themselves involved in the interaction. but be treated as unratified participants by their partners in interaction. we ‘design’ our utterance with all our potential listeners in mind. involuntary or voluntary. In addition. 1984: 161). of ratification. nor against everyone.25 crossplay. This principle has been illustrated for all types of participants. One ‘slides’ from one conversation to the other in gatherings. 1992) also notes that when we speak. Johnson and Roen. Special attention should be paid to one’s addressee. the man who is capable of adapting his language to what is ´ appropriate to each case will be said to be eloquent. Thus. the listeners’ responsibilities are not the same. Fuzziness and graduality of categories Attribution of a given status to a participant can pose problems for the analyst. 1982). 1989. The fuzziness of the markers also brings about the possibility of misunderstandings. or partial when ‘subordinate communication’ arises parallel to the ‘dominating communication’. audiences (Drew. nor to everyone in the same way. Clark (1989. it can also occur that participants’ statuses can be seen differently from each other’s points of view. l’Orateur: XXXV–XXXVI. denoting different degrees of participation. constant changes in format and in footing can be observed throughout interaction. of address. Goodwin shows that the framework is at the same time both undermined and upheld—generally. but we do not deal with them all in the same way. the Recipient Design Principle is ‘‘the most general principle particularizing conversational interaction. resulting in what Goffman (1981: 135) calls ‘‘structural instability’’. All the categories which go to make up the participation framework are gradual. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 17 neither all the time. Goodwin (1991) of playful commentaries made in the course of a narrative episode during family table talk in an American home. nor are their abilities and handicaps. interlocutive configurations are frequently moved around. 1992). . concealment. 1992). people in disadvantaged positions (children. which takes place between 25 On byplay also see the analysis proposed by M. translated from the French) Conversation analysts express the same idea in their own terms. side participants (Clark and Carlson. Change is complete in cases of ‘splitting-off’. (Ciceron. For example.C. patients.’’ It is valid for all types of listeners and not only for the addressee: ‘‘audience design informs all levels of a speaker’s linguistic choice’’ (Bell.4. (1974: 727). that is. In the same way. and even within the same conversation. The intrusion can be negotiated by the participants by means of different procedures. Finally. and overhearers (Schober and Clark. such as indifference. According to Goffman. disclosure.2.H. by leaning on the counter.18 C. The other customers who are standing in line at the same counter. studied by Traverso (1997). of the reception format configuration at t1. but this ‘sliding’ from one addressee to another will sometimes have to be accompanied by the speaker’s reshaping and redesigning the utterance. let us take the example. and can use his or her ‘quasilegitimacy’ in order to speed up a transaction which is dragging on too long. shows that when it seems that the targeted addressee is not listening. an employee. Still another case is when a speaker favours one member of the audience to an excessive extent in a situation where the address is supposedly collective. if only to verify whether his/her turn at the counter is coming up.27 Likewise. It is up to the speaker to attribute a particular participation status to each member of the reception format. where a line on the floor marks off a physical boundary for the exchange taking place at the counter.26 But they are also highly adaptable. in Leonardi and Viaro’s study (1990) of encounters between doctors and their patients. in contrast. a customer. are at the same time more ‘legitimate’ listeners than. in order to safeguard the confidentiality of the interaction in progress (since many French residents also do their banking at the post office). more specifically. which consists of ‘‘hushed words exchanged entirely among bystanders’’ (1981: 133–134). above all. Building the participation format is a fundamentally collaborative process. negotiable. such a strategy is aimed at getting the speaker to distribute address signals more equitably.3. for example. to choose one or several main addressee(s). 6. and an unaddressed participant can. to illustrate these principles of analysis.e. and. It is in no way prohibited for a person who is standing directly behind B in the line at the post office to follow the exchange between A and B. the speaker will fall back on another addressee who seems better disposed to listening. of what goes on in a French post office. and sideplay. Goodwin (1981). a veritable overhearer. a person sitting near us on a bus (i. etc. behave in such a way as to display a wish to be treated as an addressee—and can even manage to get this to happen. for example. and first of all. by moving in closer. a moment in time when A. An example As a conclusion. The customers in the waiting-line have hierarchical ranking in terms of ratification. without being really ratified in relation to the interaction in progress. The first in line is ‘more ratified’ than the last. the people Such as ‘Preference for the best source’ and ‘Preference in selecting a spokesperson’. and especially the graduality of the categories. At t1: B is ratified and is the main addressee. for example. and. 27 This behaviour would be impossible now in most French post offices. who must hide whatever interest he or she may have in our conversation). The point of the preceding remarks is that an addressed participant can behave in such a way as to display a relative lack of involvement. Such choices are made on the basis of various principles. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 ratified participants and bystanders. 26 . and the person who is ‘too often looked at’ tries to remedy this embarrassing situation by refusing eye-contact with the speaker. addresses B. C. we would not see a clearlyoutlined frame. it is. . that we are interacting with each other face-to-face. to other participants’’: It is said. in fact. be ‘called to the rescue’. but also owing to perpetual movements within the reception format. (1994: 590. Other postal workers who happen to be present in the post office are also legitimate listeners. 1997). if necessary. like a ‘crossroads of interactions’. . all absent now. as well as of our present inability to simultaneously integrate micro approaches (concerning the interaction itself) and macro approaches (concerning background and social aspects). and ‘reorientation’ (cf. Observed as it unfolds. where interactions between A and various successive customers. the words we are using were not designed for the situation.] If we wanted to draw a spatio-temporal ‘map’ of all that is to be found in an interaction. The other postal employees behind counters are more ratified than the waiting customers. but they become ratified participants less easily than the employees actually behind the counters who are specifically in charge of customer contact. and if we wanted to make a list of all those who are participating in one way or another. . to other times. without looking too closely. such as ‘broadening’. They are part of the staff and can. They are therefore legitimate listeners. . not only because the main addressee at t1 moment in time becomes the current speaker at t2 moment in time. has been given a particular status. translated from the French) This is a salutary reminder of the over-simplistic nature of the classical perspective on interaction. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 19 standing in the same line as B are more ratified than those who are standing in lines at the other counters (although the people in the other lines may nonetheless be taking an interest in the goings-on in front of another counter. but instead a very disheveled intertwining network implying an untold number of extremely diverse dates. Traverso. although their actions continue to make themselves felt. Among them. To be sure. places and people. [. ‘reduction’. C. but the garment we are wearing comes from somewhere else. if only to change lines in case their own line stops moving). ‘restratification’. an on-the-job trainee. the walls we are leaning against were designed by an architect for a client and built by construction workers. for. to other places. as Latour (1994: 590) reminds us. and interactions between A and other postal employees closely intertwine—and this description is valid only if analysis is limited to what takes place among the people who are present within the four walls of the post office. Even the person whom we are addressing comes from a background which goes far beyond the framework of our relationship. But this notion of an ‘interaction behind closed doors’ is really an artifice. all interactions are infinitely open ‘‘to other elements. close to that of a secondary addressee (as he is more or less supposed to observe everything that goes on). This post office participation framework constantly changes. . in fact. So this is a complex polylogal situation. Finally. Such is indeed the leitmotiv which runs through these studies: that of the extreme complexity and flexibility of polylogal organizations—especially since. the authors make a distinction between two main categories of coalitions: those which are imposed by the frame of the interaction and ‘emerging’ coalitions. and not merely [. These notions are illustrated by an analysis of two excerpts of data of quite different types: a discussion among five participants within the setting of a French radio program. whose complexity presently defies all attempts of formalization. Such complexity would be enough to discourage any researcher. However. After examining the various procedures which can be used to form a coalition. the ‘crowding’ phenomenon and the ‘splitting-off’ phenomenon. Yet. The article focuses on shift-change briefing sessions between teams going off duty and teams coming on duty in different types of hospital wards. She emphasizes the fact that. The newsgroup’s mode of communication obviously has a great deal of influence on the structure of exchanges and the way they work. examining in detail two phenomena peculiar to the polylogue. as early as 1967. After having distinguished among global. The studies in this publication ` This special issue investigates different types of polylogal situations.] as a variant off two-party conversation’’ (Lectures. which emerge at certain specific points in time. at the same time. ´ Veronique Traverso’s study concerns a semi-formal meeting of researchers belonging to the same research group.20 C. she takes an even closer look at the macro-local level. Marcoccia concludes that this mode of communication only makes more salient certain problems which are characteristic of all polylogal exchanges. local. Sacks recommended that the functioning of multi-party conversations be ‘‘investigated in its own terms. unlike dilogues (which are objects possessing a sort of fractal structure: on a different scale. revealing gradual shifts in the basic participation structures of these encounters from straight dilogues between departing and arriving parties to genuine polylogues. . and ‘macro-local’ levels. . Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 7. which she describes in relation to the topical lines followed by the participants. the parts have the same structure as the whole). Michele Grosjean’s article examines the participation framework in a particular type of talkat-work produced within the hospital context. the functioning of the participation framework can only be described in relation to the professional statuses of the respective participants. Michel Marcoccia’s study specifically analyses how polylogues function ‘on line’ in Internet newsgroups. polylogues have an organization which is so mobile and so changeable that observing them at a t1 point in time can never provide a representative picture of the whole. and ‘quadrilogal’ encounters in French notaries’ offices in the context of divorce settlements. the investigation moves towards the interpersonal relationship level. In the article by Sylvie Bruxelles and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni. while implicitly modeling themselves on face-to-face speech. . via the written channel. in such hospital contexts. focusing on still another type of phenomenon which characterizes polylogues: the possibility of establishing alliances or coalitions. Stephen. Carlson. Introduction.C. Grosjean and Lacoste (1999). pp. Francesca. 1997b. PhD Dissertation. 59–81. Negotiation and compromise: A microanalysis of discussion in the United States Federal Trade Commission. In: Lefevre. Politeness. Cambridge University Press. Delamotte-Legrand (1995). 1998. Clark. 248–274). Amsterdam. pp. The discourse of corporate meetings. 56–289. Herbert H. 1997c. Astrid. pp. (chapter 8 with Edward F. 1991. Collaboration in dialogues. J.. Barthomeuf (1991). multi-party conversations ‘‘could be much more interesting’’ (ibid. Pragmatics 7. 1992. D. Aix-en.. Studies of Language in the Workplace. Berrier. In: Verschueren. pp. Cambridge. 13–33. Allan. 332–373. on patient-therapist encounters: Leonardi and Viaro (1990). Bell. Kathleen M. E. Jacques. Bailey. Clark. Oxford. In: Firth. The Discourse of Negotiation. (1992). M. 1997a.: 533). 1996. H. Penelope.).). . 1987. 211–232. 1982. Goodwin and Goodwin (1997). Clark. ` ´ ´ Berrier. Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. 1987. on telephone conferences: Perin and Gensollen (1992). on classroom interactions: Pica and Doughty (1985). ‘‘Dealing with overhearers’’. S’opposer dans une conversation a quatre: de quelques moyens. Astrid. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research to Language Teachers. La conversation a quatre: quelques aspects interculturels. Some Universals in Language use. Levinson. Cragan and Wright (1980. Karin. Language style as audience design. ´ ` ´ C. Cambridge.).. Arenas of Language use.H. Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction..g. Allwright and Bailey (1991). Asymetrie et apprentissage dans les activites de groupe en classe. Pergamon. Benjamins.. Hearers and speech acts.. 325–366.-L. 1999. Stoffel. and communication studies (see e. Penelope. 1–23. . Handbook of Pragmatics. Sandra J. Cognitive Psychology 21. (Eds. Traverso (1997). Language in Society 13. Managing language. Chicago. Vincent (1995).). Paris. 1997. Cambridge University Press. Language 58. 1995). Lerner (1993). (Ed. pp. Brown. (Eds.. pp. Wright (1987). Boulima (1999). Publications de l’Universite de Provence. Amsterdam. Jamila.. Brown. L’Harmattan. Thomas B. Schaeffer. (Ed. (Ed. In: Goody. Veronique. Berrier (1997a–c). Cambridge. Interactions en langue etrangere.).. Aston. Four-party conversation and gender. Harris. 1991. Guy. Larrue and Trognon (1993). 145–204. 249–258. Negotiating Service. In: Aston. 60–81. CLUEB. Levinson. Bilmes (1995). Boulima. Revue quebecoise de linguistique 25 (2). ´ ´ Barthomeuf. et al. J.Provence. Stephen. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 21 vol. I: 523). University of Canterbury. Herbert H. Dick. Olson et al. on various talk-at-work situations: Lacoste (1989. Diamond (1996).-A. Bilmes. M. 1989.). Drew and Heritage (1992b). Linguistic investigations on this issue are much less numerous—see among others: on everyday conversations: Tannen (1984). Les situations plurilingues et leurs enjeux. Austin. . Amsterdam. Universals in language use: politeness phenomena. on various types of meetings: Cuff and Sharrock (1985). how can one resist the urge to take on this challenge?28 References Allwright. social psychology. Muller (1995). M.. Traverso ¨ (1996). Bargiela-Chiappini. Jack. Cambridge University Press. Herbert H. With such encouragement. Multi-participant situations have already been much investigated in the field of sociology (following the work of Georg Simmel). adding that if two-party conversations are ‘‘much blander’’. 28 After quite a number of other scientists. Aronsson. The University of Chicago Press. Benjamins. 1984. The Dark Side of Politeness: A Pragmatic Analysis of Non-cooperative Communication. Astrid. A. 1995. ` Berrier. Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1997). Paddy M. Understanding by addresses and overhearers. Benjamins. 1–12. 1978. (Eds.. Bologna. Hily. Goodwin (1991). 1990) for a critical synthesis of about one hundred studies carried out in the 1980s on communication in small groups). In: Russier. G. In: Veronique. Diamond. In: Drew. Longman. Steven E. Heritage. B. Aix-en-Provence.. Practices in the construction of turns: the ‘TCV’ revisited. ˆ ` ´ Grosjean. 383–421. Therese.). pp. Cragan. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Byplay: Participant structure and framing of collaborative collusion. Tache conversationnelle et organisation du discours. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. Amsterdam. Heritage. London.. 27–57.). Paris. Pragmatics 6. Donna H. Academic Press... Kerbrat-Orecchioni. Who’s got the floor? Language in Society 10. 1996. Central States Speech Journal 31. Edelsky. W. Heritage. Heritage. Krafft. 1981.). Du dialogue au polylogue. U. Vion. 1985. Goodwin. In: Van Dijk. David. Paul. Drew. 129–162. PUF. pp. pp. Drew. Academic Press. John F. Modeles de l’interaction verbale. 1989. (Eds. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. In: ´ ´ Conein. Sandra A. Thompson. Erving... P. In: van Dijk. 1999. Communication et intelligence collective. Polylogue enfantin ou comment dire a neuf. Veronique. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. ´ ` ´ Jeanneret. Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. 3 Vol. 1–20. Foundations of Sociolinguistics. Greatbatch. David W. Plantin. John (Eds. Parole plurielle et prise de decision. 1997. On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. ¸ Johnson. 1999. J. de Fornel. Carole. ` ´ Lacoste. Cecilia E.W. 1996. Niemeyer.. Quere. Charles. Bern..). 95– 117.). Sharrock. 427–454. Presses de l’Universite de Provence. In: P. 1991. Forms of Talk. 1985. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Drew. (Eds. Christian (Eds. 3–65. ` ` ` Grosjean. 268–301. Catherine. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. Barbara A. Cahiers de Linguistique Francaise 12. Traverso. Regine. Edmondson. 1998. John. (Eds. 1981. Paul. Les interactions verbales.. Cuff. In: Veronique. Minuit. 470–520.. Roen.). Conversational Organization. Ulrich. (Eds. CNET. London. 149–159. Modeles de l’interaction verbale. Willis. Goodwin. Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. 470-520. pp. 397–406.. Charles. Philadelphia... Conversations pluri-locuteurs et co-enonciation. D. Blackwell. 1981. In: Drew. Linguistische Interaktionsanalysen. Goodwin. Heritage.). John. Heritage. Dausendschon-Gay. 1995. Paris. Julie. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. Heritage.). London. . Colin. In: Le parler frais d’Erving Goffman. Hymes. 83–102. PUL. Ford. Catherine. U. New York. M.. 1995. pp. Goffman. 155–180. Drew J. Michele. L. Academic Press.. F. Le trilogue. Pragmatics 7. Publications de l’Universite de Provence. pp. 1990-1992-1994. eds.. University of Pennsylvania Press. 1991.. Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. D. Lyon. R.. La cooperation au travail dans un aeroport. (Ed. 197–213. Gulich. 1991. 1997. Paris. Michele. Fox. pp. Duane H. 131–154.C. Fabrication du texte conversationnel et conversation pluri-locuteurs. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 Clayman. ´ ` Jeanneret. pp. Language in Society 21. CISU.). Reseaux 85. Les formes de la conversation. Therese.. 1981. Oxford. Therese. Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. ` ´ R. Krafft. Pp. (Ed.. 1992b. Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. 51–66. Marjorie H. 1995. Marjorie H. eds. Ulrich. T. ¨ ¨ Tubingen. Rome. Catherine. 1992. Dell H. La co-enonciation en francais.. 1974. Cambridge University Press. (Ed. In: P. E. 1992. Peter Lang. Small group communication research of the 1970s: a synthesis and critique. 1992. Wright. Aix-en-Provence. Le travail a l’hopital. Drew and J. Cambridge. ` ´ (Eds. ¸ ´ ` ´ ´ Jeanneret.. Paul. 1980.22 C. 257–273. ´ ´ ´ Goodwin. (Eds. pp. Les cadres participatifs dans les polylogues. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. Benjamins. A.. P. Michele. T. ¨ ´ ` ´ Delamotte-Legrand. E. Meetings.A. 1992. 1992. In: Cabasino. Lacoste. Paris. Vion.). Michele. In: ˆ ¨ Dausenschon-Gay. J.). 379–390. . 331–343. 2000. Michel. 1992. D. Journal of Pragmatics 28. Paolo. Sabine. J. 1989. Benjamins. pp. Review of Paolo Leonardi and Maurizio Viaro. ¨ L’intervista circolare. Plans. 1994. C.). Amsterdam. Academic Press. Eddy. Publications de l’Universite de Provence.. Sacks. 1995. Interaction et syntaxe. (Eds.. Benjamins. Psathas. Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. 161–227. L’intervista circolare.. 1977. Mark R. P. Viaro. A. Frank E. 1997.. Gene H. Paroles d’action sur un chantier. 177–196. Organization of turn-taking and mechanisms for turn-taking repairs in a chaired meeting.D. R. Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. In: Schenkein. Stephen C. Sociologie du travail 4. Paris. Eddy. 1995.. Harvey. Amsterdam. Polity Press. Blackwell. Conversazione e terapia. Nonverbal Behaviour in the Career Interview... 1995. James D.. Pascal. Columbus. Journal of Pycholinguistic Research 19. Mizzau. 1995. pp. Erica.F. Gensollen. ´ ´ Etudes de Linguistique Appliquee 44. In: Haves. C. Michael F. 1990. 1978. Marianne.. 1993. 7–55. 7–39.). In: Searle. In: Kerbratˆ Orecchioni. Harvey. Judith S. Des savoir´ faire communicationnels. Turn-taking: a critical analysis of the research tradition. Abelson.. (On) Searle on Conversation. Scripts. 211–232. In: Drew. Emanuel A. Language in Society 29. Oxford. O’Connell. Muller. New York. In: Veronique. Schank.). 345–373. Daniel C. pp. Selting. Text 13. 1981. Raffler-Engel. Janine. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Lerner. Kaltenbacher. Speech acts and Goffman’s participant roles. Finding ‘face’ in the preference structure of talk-in-interaction. Situated order. Some criticisms of Sacks. Il terzo commodo. Lerner. Schegloff. pp.. Schegloff. 213–245. L’interaction dans les tele´ conferences. Roulet. Lectures on conversation. 1986. Michel. 587–607. The construction of units in conversational talk. La communication plurielle. 1988. 1992. (Eds. 347–374.. Aix-en-Provence. Cognitive ¨ Psychology 21. R. 1992. Erlbaum. Maurizio.C. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia XXXV 189–203. Jefferson. 1996. Journal of Pragmatics 19. Les interviews de couples. Rafaello Contina. In: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Storrosten.T. interventions et actes de langage dans la structure de la conversation. Wootton. 1990. 1992. Herbert H. Semiotica 58. and Understanding. ´ Roulet. DC. Kowal. 81–107. (Eds. Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Cambridge. 1993.. ´ Marcoccia. (Eds. In: Veronique. 91–99. Olson. Human–Computer Interaction 7. R. Gene H. (Eds. Bruno. 1994. 1990: Conversazione et terapia. 261–274. Vion. Ohio State University Press. Aix-en-Provence. Roger C. Goals. Larrue. Alain. Sacks. Milano. Dal Martello. Small group design meetings: An analysis of collaboration. Michele.). Leonardi. Plantin.). 1983. On the structure of conversation as negotiation. Trognon. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America. pp. Levinson. ´ ´ ´ Perin. Frank.. ´ Latour..). pp. Schober. (Ed. 29–40. Emmanuel A. ¸ Power. Echanges. Parties and talking together: Two ways in which numbers are significant for talk-in-interaction. .. Publications de l’Universite de Provence. Structures de participation et structures syntaxiques dans ¨ ` ´ ` la conversation a plusieurs participants. G. Social Psychology Quarterly 59.. McCawley.. (Eds. 451–463. 303–321. (First published 1974 in Language 50: 696-735). La Documentation Francaise. J. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. Schegloff. 383–412.R. Walburga von. Hillsdale. 1984. Modeles de l’interaction ´ verbale. Marina.). An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structure. pp.. et al. Gary M. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 23 ` ´ Lacoste. Margaret.J. Une sociologie sans objet? Remarques sur l’interobjectivite. Understanding by adressees and overhearers. M. and Jefferson on turn taking. 477– 517. Olson. P. Carter. Clark. Robert P.. D.. Muller. Gail. Reflexions sur le role de porte-parole. Vion. Washington. trilogues. Wright. L’Enonciation. 2000. Vincent. Malcolm.24 C. Les Interactions verbales (3 vol. L’Harmattan. S. Cahiers de Linguistique Francaise 16. Roles of Teachers and Learners.). Veronique. She is the author of several books: La Connotation. Tannen. Deborah. and interaction. Paris.). 1987. Agnes. La Conversation. Du dialogue au soliloque: des interactions plus ou moins conversationnelles. ´ ` Traverso. ´ ´ ` Traverso. 1995. Oxford University Press. 57–77. La conversation familiere. PUL. (Ed. Oxford University Press. 53–69. She has been a Visiting Professor in the French Departments of Columbia University (NYC) and the University of Geneva. France). . Ablex. The English used by teachers and pupils. 1975.. 1984. 1997. Oxford. discourse analysis. and Les actes de langage dans le discours. In: Pene. She also holds the ‘‘Linguistics of Interaction’’ chair at the Institut Universitaire de France. Diane. Kerbrat-Orecchioni / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 1–24 Sinclair. ` Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni is a Full Professor at Lumiere University (Lyon. ¸ ` ´ ´ ` Witko. Towards an analysis of discourse. Lyon. 1996. John McH. Veronique. L’Implicite. R. Norwood. polylogue(s)? Cahiers de ´ Praxematique 28. Her main interests are pragmatics. Tony. De nouvelles communications dans les organisations. Conversational Style. Une reunion mise en forme par des ecrits. Le conseil Municipal. Oxford. Coulthard. Analyzing talk among Friends. Des echanges a la poste: dilogues.