Llamadas PTT
2. Los demás participantes en la llamada
The following extract is a continuation of the previous one, after the meeting has officially ended with an explicit end statement from the chairperson S2. S1 who is seated right next to S2 initiates a topic through back referencing and in-conversation objects (Button, 1987) to a previous topic and orients to it as not part of the official meeting.
Extract 5.07: licensing
[2:13:31 -2:13:55]
21. S1 so (.) you've got the licensing↑ 22. (0.1)
((S2 is looking at the document))
((S1 is looking at S2))
23. S2 ah↑ no↑ i wrote a little bit (.) just er::m (0.6)
24. [about ho::w ] marine scotland (.) were like (.) 25. S1 [>cuz i was going to say<]
26. S2 [er::m] (0.3) reducing their applicants and stu[ff↓] 27. S1 [yeah ]
28. S1 [uhm] (0.3) 29. i've got a few (0.2) articles you might want to do
30.
(.) you-you might
121 31.
(0.1)
((S2 glances at S3))
32. S2 i just did a lit review you know like on the: el ey cy sort of 33. things (0.1) [and the levy ]extension certificates a:nd
34. S1 [privacy and stuff↓] 35. (0.2)
36. S1 yeah i'll get the bit about the el ey cys too 37. (0.3)
38. S2 °cool° 39. (0.8)
In line 21, S1 re-topicalises material drawn from prior topic (Liddicoat, 2007). He does so by formulating his TCU as in-conversation objects (Button, 1987), so you've got the
licensing↑, which are used to mark the receipt of prior talk and to provide for the speaker to continue (Liddicoat, 2007: 272; Button, 1987). They work to show that S1 is not offering any new material for talk in the conversation, instead, they indicate that the speaker is available for further talk. Interestingly, S1 initiates his re-topicalized material with the transition marker ‘so’ that has only been deployed by the chairperson during topic transition.
In lines 23 and 24, S2 chooses to produce SPP to S1’s in-conversation objects, thereby produce more talk on the topic ah↑ no↑ i wrote a little bit (.) just er::m (0.6) [about ho::w] marine scotland (.) were like (.)[er::m] (0.3) reducing their applicants and stu[ff↓]. While S1 overlaps with acknowledgment responses in lines 25 and 27. The topic is further developed with S1 in lines 28, 29 and 30 providing commentary statements of academic articles that could help S2’s writing part [uhm] (0.3) i've got a few (0.2) articles you might want to do(.) you-you might. At the same time both S1 and S2 are gazing at their documents. S1 and S2 do not orient to the interaction or topic as part of the official meeting in regard to the situated and discourse identities. However, they orient to the topic as institutional since it is related to the previous talk. The topic is developed with exchange of information between S2 and S1 in lines 32-36. After that, the topic is
terminated with a gap of 0.3 seconds in line 37 then a summary assessment in line 38 produced with a low volume by S2 °cool° (Pomerantz 1984;Howe, 1991).
122
The final extract of this chapter presents how social talk is managed in post-meeting talk. After the closing of the meeting, all of the co-participants in extract 5.08 participate in social talk. The topic is quickly developed and the interaction is rapidly moving forward when the participants are joking around and trying to decide where to go for Christmas drinks. This extract is similar to social talk in Chapter 4 as there are hardly any gaps or pauses and it is full of humour.
Extract 5.08: drinks for Christmas
[1:34:56 – 1:35:24]
1. S7 are we going out (.) fo::r a drink for christmas↓= 2. S6 =>i was gonna say that↑<
3. Ss laughter 4. (.)
5. S6 i think we should↑
6. S3 i’ll check my schedule↓ (hhh.) 7. (.)
8. S6 °i was just about to do that too::°= 9. S1 =go for it (.) >where d’you wanna go↑< 10. S7 it’s up to you guys↓=
11. S3 =doug doesn’t even drink↓ 12. S1 i [don’t]
13. S3 [ if we go] out for a drink you have to have alcohol↓= 14. S1 = >no i don’t↓<=
15. S3 =>yeah you do ↓<= 16. S1 no↓
17. S3 °please↑°= 18. S1 = >nope ↓< 19. S3 °i’ll spike it↓°
((S7 laughs)) 20. S1 i’ll taste it 21. Ss laughter
22. S1 [the joys of being teetotal ]
23. S6 [e::rrm do we wanna -do we wanna ] go out for da (0.1) drink or 24. do we wanna go out fo::r (.) for dinner maybe↑
In line 1, S7 initiates a topic with an itemised news enquiry (Button and Casey, 1984, 1985) as a first pair part are we going out (.) fo::r a drink for christmas↓=. The topic is very quickly accepted and oriented to by S6 in line 2 with a commentary statement indicating that she was about to ask the same question as S7 =>i was gonna say that↑<, which elicits group laughter in line 3. All of the participants agree to go for drinks and start to check their schedules in lines 5, 6, 8 and 9. After that, in line 9, S1 develops the topic further with an itemised news inquiry (Button and Casey, 1985) in the form of a question (FPP) (Heritage, 2012) >where d’you wanna go↑<, which receives a second pair part from S7 in line 10 it’s up to you guys↓=. S3, in line 11, quickly takes a turn with a news item (Button and Casey, 1985) =doug doesn’t even drink↓ that leads to stepwise topic transition from talking about Christmas drinks to S1 does not drink. In line 12, S1 confirms S3’s news item i [don’t], and that is when S3 participates again in the interaction with an overlap in line 13
123
[if we go] out for a drink you have to have alcohol↓=, ordering S1 in a friendly way to drink with them. Interestingly, the topic is rapidly developed from lines 13 to 24 through humour, group laughter and friendly teasing between S1 and S3 orienting to their identity as close friends and classmates. In line 23, S6 overlaps with the previous turn to suggest going for Christmas dinner instead of drinks since S1 does not drink. Unfortunately, the recording was cut off, and so it is not possible to know the end of the topic.
5.5 Concluding Remarks
This chapter has demonstrated that the formulation of each turn achieves an interactional action in relation to topic managment. It has illustrated how topic management and multimodality are intertwined, which is evident in:
1) The five sequentially organised moves deployed by the chairperson to make the disjunctive transition to meeting talk or to bring the meeting to a close. More specifically the chairperson recipient-designs his turn by the employment of verbal and embodied actions to be recognised and accepted by the co-participants and the co-participants individually construct their actions in order to orient together to topic transition.
2) How the participants manage topics in roundtable update which is different from the previous forms of talk (see chapter 4). It has illustrated how the co-participants’ turns accompanied by embodied actions worked in developing their topic. In addition, how changing discourse identities according to the situated identities is seen as an interactional resource or means to manage topics and move the interaction forward by the co-participants.
3) The turn-taking system in this phase is different from the opening phase since there is a clear control over the floor and speaker transition by the chairperson, and there is a clear floor transition between adjacent floor holders. In this part of the meeting, topic transition is only possible if the chairperson allows it.
4) How topic is developed by a non-chair, non-primary speaker when his/her area of responsibilities is related to the primary speaker and how a non-chair, non-primary speaker puts in more embodied and interactional work to take a turn to develop the topic. This topic development is only possible if the chairperson allows it by changing his/her discourse identity to be the listener and monitor of the ongoing sequence of interaction. Overall, the participants’ monitoring and understanding of each other’s embodied actions have illustrated how topic management and multimodality are closely interlinked.
124