The paucity of overt negative evaluations is testament to the potential face-threatening aspect (Brown & Levinson, 1987) of such evaluations. In the data, two examples of overt negative evaluations were found. Both occurred in more conversational segments of
therapy sessions (where the conversation was the ‘task’). In contrast to the bald, turn-initial use of negative evaluation terms (i.e. no), seen in sequences where the SLT was focusing on supporting a client to produce an accurate self-correction of an error, both instances presented below include laughter as a form of mitigation. It is the use of laughter that denotes an awareness of the potential face threat of negatively evaluating the client, an awareness that was noticeably absent from the bald, turn-initial negative evaluation elements described in the previous section.
In excerpt 6.15, the SLT and the client are discussing the latter’s first weekend home since his car accident. In an attempt to clarify the sequence of activities he has described, the SLT asks the client to identify what day it is (line 98). When he replies that he doesn’t know (line 99), the SLT responds, in the third turn of this sequence, with laughter and then a well-prefaced negative evaluation (line 100: “heh heh heh heh. ↓well ↑that’s ↓no ↑good!”).
Excerpt 6.15: what day is it today?
98 T okay, so what day is it today?
99 C (I::don’t kno::w)=
100 T = heh heh heh heh. ↓well ↑that’s ↓no ↑good! .h
huh huh. Okay, is it- is it
The actual referent for the demonstrative that is perhaps designedly ambiguous: it could reference either the client’s disorientation in time, caused by his lengthy stay in hospital, or his inability to remember. ither way, the negative evaluation references the client’s state of knowledge (identified by the demonstrative) rather than something that the client has
done (Koole, 2012). The negative evaluation also aims at addressing the ‘state of affairs’ at a more general level, and in this light the action is more affiliative: the SLT is “making light of trouble” (Jefferson, 1984: 433). However, the turn includes features of dispreferred responses, namely laughter, the use of a well-preface and the fact that the negative element is pushed back into the turn. The use of well, described by Pomerantz (1984) as a means of
delaying the production of a dis-preferred response, and the laughter work together to mitigate the possible face-threatening action of mentioning any of the above negative possibilities (poor orientation in time, lengthy stay in hospital, poor memory), perhaps because all of these in turn reference the significant injury the client has sustained.
Excerpt 6.16 (below) also includes the use of mitigating laughter, though here the laughter mitigates a much more serious potential face threat: the SLT is reminding the client of something he should already know. The excerpt is taken from the beginning of a recording of a therapy session involving the client, a SLT and the client’s wife. The client uses a combination of gesture and vocalisation (line 10) to reference both his wife and the
therapist, upon which the SLT gently rebukes the client for not using words (lines 11-12).
Excerpt 6.16: finger pointing is not acceptable
09 L well done
10 G (gestures and vocalisation)
11 L I’::m sorry (.) but you k(h)no::w that finger poin(h)ting(.)
12 with(h)ou::t any words is not acceptable(0.2)in this room.
13 O::k:::?
14 G Right
15 L th- Now could you try and tell me sh:::e? or Dot
The SLT’s turn starts with an apology, which works both to signal that something negative is forthcoming and to soften the impact of the negative evaluation, which does indeed follow. As Goffman (1971) points out, speakers constantly monitor their contributions to interaction for any potential offensiveness, both retrospectively and prospectively.
Raymond (2004) claims that apologies can also be used for non-apologising actions. In this instance, the apology prefaces a rebuke, as the SLT goes on to remind the client that
gesturing (line 11: “finger poin(h)ting”) without attempting to use words is not
acceptable in the context of a speech-language therapy session (line 15: “in this room”). The SLT’s negative evaluation references the client’s understanding (Koole, 2012) of the implicit ‘rules’ for interaction in the context of speech-language therapy sessions: namely, that clients are expected to use words. The evaluation also references the client’s actual performance, suggesting that more effort is required. In the context of a therapy session, this means words must be used instead of other modes of communication. Throughout the
turn, intermittent laughter particles soften the strength of the rebuke. The timing of this rebuke is also important: it occurs near the beginning of the session. Thus, the SLT is reminding the client of the ground rules which will apply for the remainder of the session, but doing so in such a way as to minimise the potential face threat of not only referencing his impairment (difficulty initiating speech) but also overtly rebuking him.
In both examples, it is the client’s knowledge or understanding that is at issue – not their performance on a particular task. In both instances, the SLTs attempt to mitigate the face- threatening potential of their negative evaluations, indicating their awareness not only of the ways in which their interactions with the client might undermine the client’s sense of self, but also of their therapeutic relationship with the client.