Embedded Adjacency Pairs and Emotional "Economics"

Mr. Kim:   Remember this?   A: can I have a bottle of Mich? B: are you over twenty one? A: no. B: no (Seedhouse, 2004:18)   Now, you can see that this is not ONE adjacency pair. It's two. But that doesn't mean that the adjacency pairs are adjacent. They are EMBEDDED--there is one adjacency pair INSIDE the other.   A: can I have a bottle of Mich(elob Beer)? ADJACENCY PAIR ONE, FIRST PAIR PART B: (Well, that depends.) are you over twenty one? ADJACENCY PAIR TWO, FIRST PAIR PART A: no (I am not over twenty one.) ADJACENCY PAIR TWO, SECOND PAIR PART B: no (you cannot have a bottle of Michelob beer.) ADJACENCY PAIR ONE, SECOND PAIR PART   We can't always assume that the second pair part comes RIGHT after the first pair part! With this in mind, let's have a look at your data.   This audio data was tried to record after dinner while Yangil was playing with his toys. When the father asked Yangil come and join this conversation, Yangil reluctantly went to his father.   F : who? 어(.)  he is a shoemaker. K : 한국말로 해줘::.   Remember that CA obeys the principle of INDEXICALITY. We said that indexicality meant REFERENCE TO CONTEXT. Obviously, "who?" refers to context,and so does "a shoemaker". What is the context?   Notice that F BEGINS with an UP question. But UP questions have to refer BACK to information just given. Is that what F is doing?   Father tried to ask the oldest Yangil . When he first says who? , he noticed that starting with who question might be difficult for his child.   Remember the RULES of intonation. The rule is that an UP wh-question is functionally CHECKING, asking for repetition of information. So here an UP wh-question should not be possible.    So he changed with statement. Before the father check the understanding, Kyongil intrerrupted suddenly in this conversation and complained that he could not understand English.   That's not what the data says, Mr, Kim! Stick to the data!   Kyongil put stress on 한국말 so that he wanted to listen story from his father in Korean.    Now, if you go back to the example of the bottle of Mich, you will see that this is ANOTHER instance of an EMBEDDED adjacency pair. So you probably should NOT cut up the data like this.   F: 자(.) 자 잠깐(.) 형아가 한번 해봐 자(.) 자 봐봐. Y : 아::::       Mr. Kim's assumption, which I think is INCORRECT for this data, is that everytime F speaks it is a first pair part and a new adjacency pair. But this is actually a SECOND adjaceny pair and a SECOND pair part, not a first pair part.   Despite  Kyongil's interruption and complaint, the father would like to focus on Yangil's response and ask him to respond .   The structure of this seems exactly the same as the example of the bottle of Mich we discussed in Conversation Analysis 3 (see p. 9 of the agenda). I realize that you didn't come to class last week and so you don't know about chains and complexes. But you DID come that week.    However, Yangil didn't want to participate this recoding job because responding in English seems boring. He wanted to play with his toys.    When we do conversation analysis we are supposed to stick to the data. But there is no evidence of either boredom or toys in the data. <STRIKE></STRIKE>    R : 나도 하고 싶어↓ F : 알았어. he is a shoemaker. who is HE?   Mr. Kim is RIGHT to note that this is an initiate, that is, a first pair part. But he doesn't notice that it's a remarkable initiate.   Remember the rules we saw for turn-taking:   a) Other nomination b) Self nomination c) Continuation   What does R do? Is she obeying the rules or not?   Suddenly, little Ryongeun wanted to take part in  this job. But the father wanted to get response from Yangil so he asked Ryongeun to wait  by saying 알았어 ( I know but wait) and keep on asking again to Yangil.   Actually, the data does NOT say "wait" at all. Take a look at the intonation. Is it right or wrong?     Y : 아:::: K : 쉬 shoemaker.   We saw this from K before! He uptakes the last word. But we need evidence that he knows it is an answer.   Our poor father only got denial expression‎!s from his oldest son.   What is a "denial" expression‎!? Why do you think "아::::" is a denial? Isn't it usually a FILLER, that suggests that someone is taking the floor?   Instead of Yangil , Kyongil responded what his father wanted to get.   F: shoemaker? K : yeh.   Again, Mr. Kim treats this as an initiate. But the data suggests that it's not an initiate.The data ALSO suggests that K's response is WRONG. Since "HE" is stressed, it must be indexically NEW. So  F cannot be talking about the shoemaker.  Either K's response is wrong or the initiate is wrong.   Father uptook Kyongil's answer with pleasure. and Kyongil responded.   R:  아빠 내가 해줄게.(1.0) 아빠 내가 해볼레.(1.0) 아빠 내가 해볼레에↓ F: 알았어. 령은이. he is a shoemaker. WHO is HE?   When she noticed that her father responded to her brother with pleasure, she also wanted to get praise from her father. So She said to her father that she could also do what Kyongil did.   Why do you think that R is talking about "could"? Isn't she talking about WILLINGNESS? DESIRE? Not ability?   We saw earlier that R is very self-confident, not always with good grounds. But she feels (correctly) that aptitude comes with achievement rather than the other way around!   Now, previously, F DENIED R's request for a turn using 알았어. But here the SAME expression‎! is used to GIVE R the floor. Can you explain?   However, the father did not respond to her first initiate. The father just turned his focus on the conversation with Kyongil.   Yes!    When Ryongeun did not get answer and attention from her father, she asked again and the father still looked at Kyongil. Finally, Ryongeun said with complaining tones.   a) R volunteers. b) F snubs R (because she is a girl? Because she is young? Because she is too obstreperous? We don't know). c) K volunteers just as R did. d) But F praises K. No wonder R is mad!   When the father heard his youngest daughter's grumbling voice, he turned to her and gave her a chance to respond.   R : WHO is HE?   We saw that F's intonation was very misleading. Now we see the result!   K : [shoemaker.]   Ryongeun repeated what she heard from her father with same stress on WHO and HE and Kyongil said at the same time with Ryongeun. Kyongil knew what the question meant (who is he?)   F: 어! 잘했어요.   Note the use of polite speech! Can you explain?   The father encouraged Ryongeun with praise.    Mr Kim--you have a lot of catching up to do! Take a good look at Ms. Yi's data. She also deals with the "emotional economy" of the data (that is, the extent to which the desire for affective valence drives conversation).   In your case there is also an "emotional economy" to talk about. But you have to get the exchanges right first.