What's that you said Sooty? Puppets, parlance and pretence

Pergamon

Language & Communication, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 17 35, 1996 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0271-5309/96 $15.00 + 0.00

0271-5309(95)00011-9

W H A T ' S T H A T Y O U S A I D S O O T Y ? P U P P E T S , P A R L A N C E A N D P R E T E N C E

MICHAEL E M M I S O N and LAURENCE G O LD MA N

Introduction ~ Researchers are currently divided over the question of how appropriate or usable fictional materials are for investigating human spoken interaction. For writers within the conversation analysis tradition relying on naturally occurring talk is methodologically axiomatic. Indeed, Schegloff's well-known critique (Schegloff, 1988) of Goffman's writ- ings on talk (see in particular Goffman, 1975, Cha. 13, 1981) was rooted in what he perceived to be the paradoxically anti-empirical nature of Goffman's materials founded as they often were on imagination or intuition. 2

For others, however, fabricated talk of all forms can serve to illuminate both what models of pretence actors operate with (cf. Emmison, 1993; Goldman and Emmison, 1996) as well as what continuities subsist between fictionalized and spontaneous conversation (cf. Tannen, 1984; McHoul, 1987; Herman, 1991). That is, implicit in fabricated discourse which presents itself as non-fictional in nature is a model of what ordinary talk is like, a model which is relied upon to convince an audience of its verisimilitude.

In this paper we wish to endorse this position by demonstrating the potential for serious analytical inquiry existing in one particular series of fictional conversational encounters which on the surface has the added burden of appearing to be entirely devoid of intellectual import or significance. The object of our attention is The Sooty Show, a popular, long-running - - indeed dynastic - - children's television show which features, as we detail below, the antics of three puppets who differ crucially in their 'verbal' abilities. We want to suggest that The Sooty Show is uniquely equipped to illustrate and explore models of conversational organization for, despite the inability of two of the puppets to 'speak' in ways which are recognizable to a human audience, this deficiency in verbal competences presents no problems for the smooth flow of interaction. By the artful use of strategies and devices which are commonplace in both ordinary conversation as well as various forms of institutional talk (Drew and Heritage, 1992), all participants in the show collectively succeed in generating a sense of spontaneous, naturally occurring interaction for the viewing audience. Our aim in this paper is to document these strategies and to demonstrate their effectiveness in the animation of this small fictional world.

Background and Dramatis personae There can be little doubt that despite pretenders to the throne of pre-eminent British

Correspondence relating to this paper should be addressed to Dr Michael Emmison, Department of Anthro- pology and Sociology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.

17

18 MICHAEL EMMISON and LAURENCE GOLDMAN

puppet, Sooty has reigned supreme for over four decades and is established as an endur- ing British institution. The yellow bear in the hands, first of Harry Corbett and then his son Matthew (since 1976), has taken centre stage in the longest-running children's television show in the world. For an actor who has yet to be heard to speak a word this remains a quite remarkable achievement.

Nevertheless, the history of The Sooty Show reveals endemic dynastic quarrels not only between the puppeteers but also (a) within the kingdom that contains Sweep - - a spaniel cross whose conversational style consists of squeaks - - and Soo - - a panda who alone of the puppets has the ability to talk; and (b) between the puppeteers and the BBC who at various times deemed the Sooty Soo relationship as dangerously sexual and, under pressure from the feminist lobby, demanded changes to the blatantly chauvinistic behaviour of Sooty.

Whilst not without interest, the social relations obtaining between the three puppets are of much less concern to us than their communicative abilities. Sooty does not speak but is perceived to 'whisper' in the ear of his handler - - and at times his sister puppet Soo - - who in turn act as both 'mouthpiece' and decoding gatekeepers. The squeaks which Sweep produces appear to mimic the syllabic patterns of words including prosodic features such as intonation, stress, volume and extension. However the majority, but interestingly not all, of Sweep's squeaks are subject to a similar 'translation' on the part of Corbett and Soo. In contrast to the 'boys' Soo, the female panda, is totally verbal and is able to converse on equal terms with Corbett as well as act as surrogate mouthpiece in those sections of the show when the puppets appear by themselves,

Our argument, in brief, is that the credibility of these interactional episodes - - and indeed the uniqueness of the show - - turns on the manner in which Corbett converses with the puppets 'as if' it is quite obvious to him that they have full verbal competences. The Sooty Show, of course, is not alone in having non-human characters engaged in interlocution with human actors or presenters (the American production Sesame Street is perhaps the most obvious case in point here) but we are not aware of any other television show in which the interaction has this unique structure.

The primary clue to the show's credibility lies in Corbett 's ability to disguise the translations he performs qua translations through the generic device of repetition. It is by this device that he normalizes the interaction rendering it entirely matter-of-fact. Rather than appearing as supernaturally endowed, as privy to some secret puppet communicative code, Corbett artfully renders the interaction as utterly mundane. There is nothing extraordinary about what Sooty has 'whispered' or Sweep has 'squeaked'. Simply through his proximity to them he has gained access to their deliberations and his repetition of their talk - - the vehicle through which he relays this to the viewing audience 'first time through' ostensibly has only local relevance. Although the utterances which he produces subsequent to Sooty and Sweep's turns are, of course, technically not repeti- tions our argument is that he is able to capitalize upon the pervasiveness and familiarity of repetition in successfully disguising his artifice. That is, Corbett trades upon our everyday knowledge of the use and occurrence of repetition in ordinary conversational encounters to successfully engender in the show's audience what the English essayist and poet Samuel Coleridge once referred to as 'poetic faith' - - the 'willing suspension of our disbelief' (Coleridge, 1906, p. 161). In short, children's predilection to believe in the dramatic reality of Sooty is anchored firmly in their understandings of everyday conversational practice?

PUPPETS, PARLANCE AND PRETENCE 19

D a t a a n d m e t h o d s In what follows we report on the devices and strategies which are evident during the

interaction. In doing so we have undertaken two primary forms of analysis: firstly, a descriptive account of the particular types of sequences through which Corbett (hereafter MC) interacts with the puppets and they with one another; and secondly, a distributional analysis of the incidence of the grammatical forms which constitute the interaction. Our results are based on transcriptions of video recordings of approximately 220 minutes of televised broadcasts of the show covering 12 episodes. In producing the transcripts we have followed the conventions currently adopted by conversation analysis (CA) (see Appendix for details).

In the following initial examples we can observe the 'canonical forms' of interaction that transpire between MC and each of the three puppets, in particular the artful manner in which MC employs ordinary conversational devices and practices to fabricate the interaction with Sooty and Sweep as believable. In essence the task confronting MC is to manage passing sufficient information on about what Sooty or Sweep have 'said' to him so that the audience can follow the interaction as well as packaging it in a way which masks the communicative process. That is, MC has to act as 'interpreter' or ' translator' while simultaneously constituting himself as a normal interlocutor with the puppets.

Example (1) 1 MC: 2 3 4 Sooty: 5 MC: 6 Sooty: 7 MC: 8 Sooty: 9 MC:

I0 Sooty: 11 MC: 12

R I G H T in you come, come on Soo, come on Sweep, come on Sooty in you come move along move along (.) We::(hh)ll what do you think eh? ( ) You better leave now? (nods) Why are you leaving why are you leaving? ( ) Because we're in the wrong house? (nods) were not in the wrong house, Sooty, this is our house and THIS (.) is your brand new bedroom

Example (2) 1 MC: 2 Sooty: 3 MC: 4 Sooty 5 MC 6 Sooty: 7 MC: 8 9 Sooty:

10 MC: 11 Sooty: 12 MC: 13 14 Sooty: 15 MC: 16 Sooty: 17 MC: 18

Oh Sooty ( ) How's the cuddly toy machine? Well I haven' t [ev-

) t ~

Is it finished? (nods) What do mean is it finished I haven ' t even started it yet Sooty ( ) Can you lend a hand? (nods) You can actually I've got to measure and mark this piece o f wood to thirty six centimetres ( ) You can do that? (nods) Well I 'm pleased to hear it (.) right here's the measure (.) there's the pencil (.) off you go (.) go on


E x a m p l e (3) 1 Soo: 2 MC: 3 4 5 6 Sweep 7 MC: 8 Sweep: 9 MC:

10 11 Sooty: 12 MC: 13 Sweep: 14 MC:

Well it all sounds rather complicated Matthew Oh not really Soo on the contrary - - I mean once I've built the machine you see Soo all you have to do is feed the material in at ONE end (.) at then out the other end (.) comes a cuddly toy

What shall we make? ___) Well we could make anything (.) w'cud make cuddly fro::gs or cuddly du.'.'cks or [ what?

l~ ) Cu-cuddly teddy bears

Good idea yes good idea

Examples (1) and (2) record typical dyadic ' in teract ion ' between M C and Sooty whilst in example (3) all three puppets are shown as interlocutors. In [1] it is M C who delivers the opening quest ion in a quest ion-answer adjacency pair sequence with Sooty the initia- tor in [2]. We consider the implications o f this variat ion shortly. M C is the an imator o f Sooty both in the sense that he acts as 'mouthpiece ' for the puppet and in the literal sense that he is the agent behind the glove puppet ' s actions. Dur ing the show M C is posi t ioned behind a rudimentary stage setting which shields his body up to his upper torso. Sooty is held in his right hand with the stage setting acting as a cover for this physical manipulat ion.

This a r rangement ensures that M C ' s head and shoulders are at approximately the same height as Sooty thereby facilitating their interaction. Sooty is shown to ' speak ' by M C bringing the puppet close to his ear as if whispering his turn. The dura t ion o f these 'whispers ' varies little - - approximately one second - - regardless o f the a m o u n t o f infor- mat ion that Sooty is presumed to have conveyed. M C then takes the puppet away f rom his ear and while holding Sooty at arms length and looking directly at him, he ' repeats ' what he has 'heard ' Sooty to say. Typically M C will deliver these ' t ranslat ions ' o f the contents o f Sooty ' s turns using a lower pitch in his delivery, quest ioning intonat ion or some combina t ion o f these. We have represented these translations in the transcript examples in italics so as to distinguish them from any addit ional content that M C may have in his turn.

A similar procedure is evident in relation to M C ' s interaction with Sweep notwith- s tanding this puppet ' s vocalizations. In lines 1-5 o f example (3) M C and Soo 'converse ' normal ly over the feasibility o f the const ruct ion o f a ' cuddly toy machine ' . Having topi- calized the theme, the second puppet Sweep then joins the conversat ion at line 6. Sweep's utterance - - a mos t un-canine-like four syllabic squeak ending with an extension on the four th squeak - - is then subject to a similar ' t ransla t ion ' by M C in such a way that it appears to merely repeat what he has heard Sweep already 'say ' .

The grammat ica l structure taken by the translations M C undertakes can take a num- ber o f forms which we have detailed in Table 1.

In what we refer to as ' repeats ' M C simply presents a recycle o f the 'proffered ' utterance without any quest ioning intonat ion. In 'repeat/clarification requests ' MC conveys the content o f the prior turn by offering a ' candidate ' t ranslat ion which, by virtue o f its quest ioning intonat ion, indicates a measure o f uncertainty. In doing so M C can be heard to bolster the verisimilitude o f the puppets ' conversat ional abilities: he has clearly heard

PUPPETS, PARLANCE AND PRETENCE

Table 1. Frequency distribution of selected discourse features (row percentages)

21

Addresser Dec* Dir t Q~ Q-wh § QTag~ Rll RCR** RRCR tt RS L+ - - )

addressee

MC --~ Sooty 24.5 18.5 5.5 10.5 1.5 13.0 10 16 0 MC ---) Sweep 26 22.5 3 14.5 0.5 5 11 16.5 0.5 MC ---) Soo 49.5 20 9 16 1 0.5 3 1.5 0 MC --~ Audience 38 15 8 6 2 0 0 0 31

Sooty ~ MC 90 2 4 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 Sweep --* MC 85.5 6.5 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 Soo ---) MC 74.5 8.5 7.5 5.5 3.5 0 0 0 0

Soo --~ Sweep 32 8 10 8 7 24 9 1 0 Soo ---) Sooty 26 19.5 9 12 12 7 7 7 0.5 Sweep ~ Soo 89 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 Sooty --~ Soo 80 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0

*Dec = Declaratives. tDir = Directives. ~Q = Simple question. §Q-wh = WH question. ~[Tag -- Tag questions. aIR -- Repeats. **RCR = Repeat/clarification requests. ttRRCR = Reformulated repeat/clarification requests. *%*RS = Reported speech

them say someth ing bu t is no t qui te sure precisely what . F ina l ly , there a re ' r e fo rmu la t ed repea t /c la r i f ica t ion requests ' . In this form, dur ing M C ' s t rans la t ion , the con ten t o f the p u p p e t ' s prof fered u t te rance undergoes a simple, bu t crucial , p r o n o m i n a l change f rom ' I / W e ' to ' Y o u ' thereby enhanc ing the appea rance tha t speaker t r ans i t ion has occur red (example (1), line 5; example (2), lines 10, 15).

In the canon ica l fo rm o f in te rac t ion (as exemplif ied in example (1) the sequence does no t t e rmina te at tha t point , for bo th o f these la t ter cons t ruc t ions then a l low for a ' fou r th t u rn ' to be taken by Soo ty to del iver a con f i rma to ry head nod (e.g. lines 6, 10). Where the puppe t s a re the in i t ia tors o f the sequences then the conf i rmat ions - - a shor t squeak (in the case o f Sweep, example (3), lines 8, 13) and head nod (in the case o f Sooty , example (1), lines 6, 1 1, 16) occur in a ' t h i rd turn pos i t ion ' . In s u m m a r y fo rm the full interac- t ional mode l for a ques t ion -answer ad jacency pa i r can be represented as follows:

1st Turn: M C ques t ion 2nd Turn: Soo ty answer (whisper) or Sweep (syl labic mimick ing p rosod ic squeaks) 3rd Turn: M C repea t or recycle o f 2nd turn 4th Turn: Soo ty conf i rma t ion (head nod) or Sweep (single shor t squeak)

A l t h o u g h the in te rac t ion d i sp layed in the show has a manifes t ly conversa t iona l char - ac ter to it, we wan t to suggest tha t the s t ruc ture o f this mode l is in fact ideal ly sui ted for its pa r t i cu l a r con tex t and purpose : namely tha t the ta lk is being p r o d u c e d for an over- hear ing audience. The impl ica t ion o f this is that , a l t hough M C ' s repeats a p p e a r to be o r d i n a r y conver sa t iona l devices by which he a t t emp t s to d i sp lay to Soo ty and Sweep tha t he has u n d e r s t o o d them, their func t iona l significance is m o r e ak in to one o f the devices which have been identif ied as cons t i tu t ive o f cer ta in forms o f ' ins t i tu t iona l ta lk ' .


That is, they serve much more as 'hearing checks' - - as means to ensure that the viewing 'overhearing audience' has been given every opportunity to take in the interaction it is witness to.

In a lecture delivered in 1969 Sacks drew attention to the sequential importance of a ' third turn ' within ordinary conversation as a mechanism by which a speaker can check that his or her 'second turn' has correctly been understood. Sacks observed that third turns which 'involve the producer performing an operation on the second utterance' (Sacks, 1992, Vol. 2, p. 141) are, in fact, a more certain way of showing understanding than simply repeating the material of the second turn. To use Sacks' own examples, although it may appear a simpler procedure, a sequence such as:

A: Where are you staying? B: Pacific Pallisades A: Oh. Pacific Pallisades

remains equivocal in respect to its capacity to demonstrate understanding. In contrast a sequence involving a third turn such as:

A: Where are you staying? B: Pacific Pallisides A: Oh at the west side of town

provides more certain material for the second speaker to check that their utterance has been understood. Sacks' argument is that for conversationalists, 'understanding' and 'displaying understanding' are more central tasks than routine hearing checks and that the conversational 'architecture' (Heritage, 1984a, p. 254) provides, through the mechanism of the 'third turn' , an inbuilt procedure through which such understanding can be achieved. This is not to suggest that understandings always occur successfully: candidate or proferred understandings may turn out to be misunderstandings as in:

A: Where are you staying? B: Pacific Pallisades A: Oh in the centre of town

where the first speaker can see that the second does not know where Pacific Pallisades is. What is significant here is, as Sacks observes, ' that understandings can fail would seem to be related to the fact that they can succeed' (Sacks, 1992, Vol. 2, p. 142); the option being open to the second speaker to correct the first speaker 's demonstrated understanding in a fourth turn.

While ordinary conversation provides speakers with these inbuilt mechanisms for achieving understandings this option is not available within institutional talk such as occurs in cour t room or news interviews. More precisely it is not available for the overhearing audience for whom the talk is primarily being produced. Within courtrooms, as Drew in particular has observed (1985, 1990, 1992), the talk between counsel and witnesses is designed specifically to be heard by a group of overhearers - - the jury - - who must reach decisions of some magnitude on the basis of what they have heard. This feature of cour t room talk, which is produced primarily for the benefit of a large group of non-speaking overhearers, has important consequences for the organization of the talk. As noted above, within ordinary conversation, the sequential or turn-by-turn structure provides speakers with the mechanism by which they can demonstrate understanding of their co-interlocutor's utterances and have those understandings, in turn, confirmed or repaired.

Within courtrooms, however, the jury as non-speakers has no opportunity to show its understandings. Hence cour t room deliberations between counsel and witnesses frequently exhibit ' third turns', that is the turn after a question-answer pair, which are


deployed more as a means of checking or confirming so as to best ensure that the witnesses' answers are heard correctly and their significance appreciated by the overhearing jury. Moreover, such court room third turns are typically direct repeats:

A: Uh now Sergeant P. was the print put on these before the shotgun shell was fired or after? B: Before it A: Before? B: Yes sir

Our argument is that MC's repeats of what he ostensibly has heard Sooty or Sweep to have 'said' stand in a closer relation to such courtroom third turn confirmings than they do to the sequential process of understanding within ordinary conversation. For, despite the gross dissimilarity in the two contexts, the tasks confronting MC and courtroom counsel are remarkably similar: to ensure that a non-participating overhearing audience is able to follow an ongoing interaction which it is witness to.

Results Although we have presented the incidence for the various forms of 'repeating' under-

taken by MC separately, their function within the interaction is similar. Accordingly it is their cumulative incidence which is of analytical note. As can be seen in Table l, the major difference in the interaction between MC and the puppets concerns the incidents of the various R forms. Moreover, the incidence appears to follow directly the verbal abilities of the three puppets. Thirty-nine per cent of the utterances MC addresses to Sooty comprise R forms; for Sweep, who has 'limited' verbal abilities through his mini- mally understandable prosodic squeaks, the incidence of R forms falls to 31 per cent. Finally, in the case of Soo who is totally verbal, MC requires only 5 per cent of R forms to sustain ongoing interaction.

Support for our general thesis concerning the strategy of repetition can be found in the interesting parallel in the incidence of these R forms between MC and the puppets when the interaction between Soo and the two other puppets is considered. As we noted above, at various times during the show the puppets are seen interacting by themselves and in these sequences Soo takes on the role of translator for the other two. The incidence of R forms when Soo speaks with Sweep is almost identical to that of MC (34 per cent), but Soo appears to use fewer R forms in her interactions with Sooty (21 per cent). We suspect that the latter variation may be a function of the production requirements of the show and that this is also reflected in the variations in the incidence of the various dyadic encounters. In the data we have collected Sooty 'speaks' to MC a total of 180 times, but only 21 times with Soo. It is relatively easy for MC (who holds Sooty) as pup- peteer to bring Sooty to his ear for Sooty to whisper his turns but this procedure would be more difficult to enact when the two puppets (who are being held by different opera- tors) are alone. It is far easier for Soo to interact with Sweep as this requires no silent delivery stage.

Further evidence of how the credibility of the show turns on its specific linguistic structures can be found by considering briefly some of the other discourse features in the table. In regard to the distributional frequencies of questions and directives there appears to be no marked difference in the gross incidences for these features when MC initiates talk with each of three puppets. Perhaps more significantly there is similarly little difference in the occurrence rates for these same features when the three puppets address MC, although Soo asks marginally more questions. Notwithstanding their conversational


handicaps, Sooty and Sweep therefore appear to be just as interactionally competent as agents within conversation as their fully verbal sister puppet. The discrepancy in the use of declaratives when MC addresses Soo (49.5 per cent) when compared with Sooty and Sweep (approximately half this figure) is a reflection of the lower incidence of overall repeat forms required in Soo's case. The cumulative effect of this combination of interactional features is that all puppets present as conversational equals.

Repetition in conversation Given its centrality to the staged coherence of the show it is perhaps relevant to con-

sider briefly the significance which analysts from a range of disciplines have accorded to repetition within discourse or conversation. The literature on the functions of repetition does not, of course, embrace uses such as the one we are describing here but there are some obvious analytical connections that can be made. Researchers have identified at least four broad approaches to the study of repetition. In the first utterance repetition has been investigated as a component of conversational repair or correction (see, for example, Jefferson, 1972, 1987; Schegloff, 1987; Sacks et al., 1977). Secondly, repetition has been examined for the functions it performs as a coherence or cohesive device in both spoken and literary discourse forms (Halliday and Hasan, 1976; Norrick, 1987; Ochs, 1979; Tannen, 1987a, b). Thirdly, and relatedly, there are studies of repetition which investigate the role it plays in language acquisition and linguistic socialization (Ochs and Schieffelin, 1979; Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986). Finally, repetition has been analysed primarily for its rhetorical functions. Repetition has been identified within discourse analysis and conversation analysis as a core component of the persuasive strategies of both advertisers and political orators (Atkinson, 1984; Heritage and Great- batch, 1986), whilst anthropologists have documented the constitutive role of repetition in verbal art and reference (Sherzer, 1984; Bauman, 1977). 4 Although not all of these research foci are of relevance to the occurrence of repetition on The Sooty Show, a num- ber of analytical connections can be explored.

Repetition, repair and correction Despite the pervasive occurrence of the use of repetition throughout The Sooty Show,

there is a marked absence, at least in the data we have collected, of the conversational corollary to this: namely sequences involving some form of repair or correction. The connection between utterance repetition and the phenomenon of conversational repair or correction has, of course, figured prominently within the conversation analysis tradition. In one of the earliest formulations on this issue Jefferson identified a type of repetition she classified as a ' repeat ' as:

an object that has as its product-item a prior occurrence of the same thing, which performs some operation upon that product-item (Jefferson, 1972, p. 303).

Specifically, she was concerned with the occurrence of conversational sequences where a second speaker, by repeating an utterance of a first speaker using questioning intonation, draws attention to some problematic feature of the utterance and thereby invites the first speaker to ' talk some more with reference to that object' (ibid). Subsequent papers focused upon the structural organization involved in repair - - which party "notices the error or initiates the error correction sequence, which party undertakes the actual repair - - with a general preference for 'self-correction' being shown to operate in most conversational repair sequences as well as certain forms of institutional talk (McHoul, 1990).


Utterance repetit ion in The Sooty Show is not associated with repair or correct ion for the obvious reason that the talk has only the surface appearance o f repetition, but not its functional ends. Because Sooty and Sweep have not ' said ' anyth ing there is technically no th ing that can be clarified, repaired or corrected. Nevertheless, there are instances o f repetit ion by M C being linked sequentially to associated phenomena such as 'misunderstandings ' , 'clarifications' , and ' re-runs ' to be found during the show. In each case these appear to have been scripted into the p rog ramme for their h u m o r o u s import. The closest example we have in our data set to a classic repair sequence is the following example:

Example (4) 1 MC: Hey EUREKA we've done it 2 Sooty: ( ) 3 MC: You reeka? 4 Sooty (nods) 5 MC: No not you reeka you smell - - eureka we've made a cuddly to::y machi::ne (.5) turn that

off- Soo, Sweep come and see it In line 1 M C gleefully utters the Archimedean interjection in response to the success-

ful opera t ion o f the toy machine they have been building. The sequence then proceeds by exploiting the potential for a characteristically juvenile pun on the word 'eureka ' . Sooty ' s turn in line 2 is revealed by M C in line 3 to have presumably been a quest ioning repeat itself in which he (Sooty) has drawn at tent ion to the relevance o f M C ' s reference to his body o d o u r at that point in the conversat ion. In line 4 Sooty confirms that M C ' s repeat o f his unders tanding was accurate before having M C correct what turns out to have been his misunders tanding o f the original word in line 5. Al though cumbersome to dis- sect in this degree o f analytical detail, the episode only occupies a mat ter o f seconds in real time and presents no problems o f comprehension. However , it serves to demonst ra te the difficulty facing M C - - and indeed the skills he demonstra tes - - in adequately cap- turing the dynamics o f a conversat ional repair sequence given that the ' repairable i tem' gets to be heard only once, i.e. during his turn. Other instances o f 'repair-like' sequences in which clarification, requests for re-runs etc. occur all involving h u m o u r can be seen in the following examples:

Example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1o 11 12 13 14 15 16

(5) MC: Well who does that belong to? Sooty: ( ) MC: Belongs to the fortune teller? Sooty: [ (nods) Sweep: --~: MC: You're kidding? by the way wh-what's this fortune teller called what's her name7 Sooty: ( ) MC: Gypsy Nose Lee? Sooty: (nods) MC: Gypsy NO:se LEE? I think you've got that wrong. I think

it's probably Gypsy Rose Lee yeah that's [ wh- Sweep: [ ---~---~--~ 7"~ :: MC I haven "t seen her? Sweep: ---~: MC: Well no I take your point

Example 1 2

(6) MC: Switch it on then Sooty (.) there's a good boy Sooty: ( )

26 MICHAEL EMM1SON and LAURENCE GOLDMAN

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

MC: MC:

Sooty: MC:

Move the jumper (.) yes I can move the jumper What do you think we wil! get out using the sawdust then what d'you reckon Soo? ( ) You've got a nasty feeling it's going to be what?

((wooden blocks appear from machine))

Soo: Heh he he MC: Oh you were right sooty Soo: It's building blocks

In example (6) it is Sooty who answers (line 6) M C ' s quest ion a l though he had selected Soo to speak 5. M C ' s explicit request to Sooty for a re-run of the substance o f Sooty ' s suggestion is arguably a further way in which he animates the interaction. By this request he can be heard as indicating that he was expecting Soo to respond and was therefore 'pay ing less at tent ion ' to Sooty than if he had posed him the question.

Example (7) 1 MC: 2 3 4 Sooty: 5 MC: 6 Sooty: 7 MC: 8 Sooty: 9 MC:

10 Sooty: 11 MC:

Soo's picked up my white shirt and white tie from the cleaners (.) because they were there (.) they were there for a stain I had on them (.) anyway err ( ) This'll do nicely for your e.xperiment? (nods) What do you mean it'll do nicely for your experiment? ( ) It'll be perfect? (nods) Listen to me you are not using my tie for an experiment

Repetition and language socialization

One of the obvious connect ions that can be made here concerns the familiarity which the largely kindergarten age viewing audience are likely to have with repetit ion as a conversational feature as a consequence o f their interaction with care-givers, elder siblings and the like. The adult-child interactional pat terns to which they are exposed in their own lives thus become an available template for f raming - - and legitimizing - - the encounters which M C undertakes with his young charges.

We can pursue this theme in more detail by drawing at tent ion to some striking simi- larities between M C ' s invocat ion o f repetit ion devices to generate his facade o f normal interaction with the non-verbal puppets and the strategies that Pollner and McDona ld - Wikler (1985) identified in their case study of a family who persisted in at tr ibuting competence to a severely retarded child. Despite unan imous professional agreement on the accuracy of this diagnosis, the family in question held fast to a collective belief in the normal i ty o f Mary, their youngest (5 years old) member. In their view the condi t ion was one in which Mary only appeared retarded largely as a consequence o f her persistent and habitual uncooperat iveness in public settings. In their article Pollner and Wikler sought to explicate the 'reality work ' th rough which the other family members convinced themselves o f Mary ' s normali ty. Drawing u p o n observat ions o f videotaped interaction o f the family, they identified a range o f practices which 'presupposed, documented and sus- tained the family 's version o f the child's competence ' .

The range o f strategies - - ' f raming ' , the a t t r ibut ion o f meaningful intentional activity to whatever activities M a r y under took; 'postscript ing ' , discerning meaning or significance


in her actions after the fact; 'puppeteering', physically manoeuvring her through activities so as to allow her to appear as an autonomous agent, amongst others - - that Pollner and McDonald-Wikler identified are extensive and we do not space to document them fully here. Of particular interest to our case here, however, is the practice they refer to as 'putting words in Mary's mouth' . From the standpoint of an outside observer, Mary's utterances appeared unintelligible yet the family insisted that she spoke well and could be easily understood. Pollner and McDonald-Wikler outline how the family came to the belief that Mary's conversational output was intersubjectively available:

Often, when Mary made an utterance, a family member would repeat what Mary said. But, of course, they did not repeat it all, for they would babble were they to do so. More precisely, then, when family members 'repeated', they were actually creating a novel, intelligible utterance and stating it as though they were repeating what they had heard Mary say or imply. While putting words in Mary's mouth, they implicitly claimed that she was putting words in theirs (Pollner and McDonald-Wikler, 1985, pp. 248-249).

Although their competence as socialized actors is not at issue, an identical outcome is, of course, being sought by MC in relation to Sooty and Sweep in his relayings of the words he has presumed to have heard them utter. Pollner and McDonald-Wikler note in conclusion that the practices they discerned bear more than a passing coincidence to those that the majority of parents employ with preverbal children:

Parent-infant interaction is replete with episodes in which adults playfully treat the child's babbling as an intelligent and complex u t t e r a n c e . . . In the language of our report, interaction between adults and preverbal children is replete with 'putting words in the child's mouth ' (ibid. p. 251). 6

Securing a turn when you cannot speak One of the problems facing MC as the show's co-ordinator/host concerns the democ-

ratization of turns between the three puppets. That is, he must pay attention to who has the floor and for how long and perhaps ensure there should be an approximate equaliza- tion of turns. In natural conversation, as Sacks et al. (1974) noted, there are mechanisms intrinsic to the conversational economy which govern the allocation of turns and the procedures for turn taking. The first option is for current speaker to select the next speaker most usually through addressing them by name. If no one is selected by current speaker then the floor is open for other speakers to self-select with speaker transition occurring at the first transition relevance place. These mechanisms or 'systematics', however, are contingent upon all parties to the conversation having the ability to speak. What are the implications of this for The Sooty Show?

Soo has no problems securing a turn because she has the ability to begin at a recognizable transition relevance place. We observe, too, that Soo will frequently structure her turns using a 'summons-answer' adjacency pair sequence in which she first addresses MC by name before receiving the go ahead to continue. This construction, as Sacks (1992, Vol. l, p. 256) noted, is typical of the way 3~-year-old children secure conversational turns and this practice may well have been scripted into the show for the benefit of the predominantly young audience. Sweep, too, can at least enter the conversation through one of his prosodic squeaks; however, no such option is available to Sooty since someone who does not talk clearly has some difficulty in securing a turn in a rapidly progress- ing conversation. MC, of course, has the option of selecting Sooty to speak during the course of his ongoing turn. However, this procedure would lead to a rather cumbersome sequence which would draw attention to Sooty's verbal deficiencies. Once selected to speak by MC, Sooty would then have to be bought up to MC's ear to deliver his silent

28 MICHAEL EMMISON and LAURENCE G O L D M A N

con t r i bu t i on and then have the con ten t re layed to h im for conf i rmat ion . A l t h o u g h incidences o f this p rocedure do occur a r a the r different tact ic has been devised for Sooty to t ake an initial turn: he in te r rupts MC. Tha t is, in the course o f an ongo ing in te rac t ion with one o f the o ther puppe t s M C will sudden ly br ing Soo ty up to his ear and b reak off in wha t he was saying to the o ther puppe t so as to fabr ica te tha t he is now preoccup ied with wha t Soo ty has to say. Soo ty ' s c o m m e n t s will then be re layed to the viewers using one o f the R forms discussed above. Soo ty also uses this technique dur ing episodes o f in te rac t ion with M C which are a l ready ongo ing and this serves to add a convinc ing degree o f ' s pon t ane i t y ' to his con t r ibu t ions . The fo l lowing sequences i l lust ra te instances o f this device (see also examples (2) and (3)).

Example (8) 1 MC: 2 Sweep: 3 MC: 4 5 6 Sooty: 7 MC: 8 Sooty: 9 MC:

Sweep I wish you'd use your head y'know ~ ((Sweep put's head in machine)) I men- NO No no DON'T put your head in the machine I didn't mean that (.) I mean use your head to think of a more sensible filling what else can we use [ tha t -

) L k Sawdust (nods) Now that is a good idea Sooty

Example (9)

1 Sweep 2 MC: 3 Sweep 4 MC: 5 ST: 6 MC: 7 Sooty: 8 MC:

_..~__~__~.__~ ,~ ",~ When will you be lucky? ___~..

I don't know Sweep (.) I don't [ know when - - L ( )

Will you be lucky before Sweep? (nods) I don't kn::ow I don't know when you'll be lucky

Example (10)

1 MC: 2 3 4 Sooty: 5 MC: 6 Sooty: 7 MC: 8 Sooty: 9 MC:

Listen this is no good we're never going to have this thing finished never mind by the time Soo gets down here what are we going to do Sooty? ( ) The magic wand?. (nods) Have you got it with you? [whe - -

t ( ) In the builder's bag? Right let's use the magic wand

R e p o r t i n g to the a u d i e n c e A var i a t ion in the canon ica l forms o f in te rac t ion be tween M C and Sooty and Sweep

is ev ident when, as is the case in some o f the b r o a d c a s t ep isodes o f the show, a live aud i - ence is also present . In these sequences M C ' s t r ans la t ions o f Sooty involve two c o m p o - nents. F i r s t ly he al igns h imse l f as conver sa t iona l in te r locu to r with Soo ty by del iver ing a news m a r k e r or news receipt objec t (Her i tage , 1985, p. 96): ' oh ' , ' rea l ly ' , immedia te ly following Soo ty ' s whispered turn. In some sequences a va r i a t ion o f this can be observed in which the par t ic le ' oh ' funct ions as explici t ' change-of - s t a t e ' t oken (Her i tage , 1984b). By using this technique M C lends credib i l i ty to the appe a ra nc e o f Soo ty ' s conversa t iona l


abilities: what Sooty has told is news to him, of interest to h im and something that should be properly acknowledged in a private col loquy before he decides to inform the audience abou t its contents . After a l igning in this conversa t ional m a n n e r M C will then subsequent ly deliver the con ten t of what Sooty has said directly to the audience using a form of reported speech. Almost a third of the ut terances M C delivers to the audience take the form of this reported speech.

E x a m p l e (11)

1 MC: 2 3 Sooty: 4 MC: 5 6 7 8 9 Sooty:

10 MC:

Hey (.) Sooty (.) how's the invention business going on (.) how's this invention of yours ( ) °ohhh (.) °really ° Sooty says he only wants one more component (.) and then his experiment (.) that's it over here (.) then it's complete right you press the button and get the last component., hey listen Sooty (.)I hardly like to ask but what exactly is this? ( ) Ohh he said he's going to give me a demonstration

E x a m p l e (12 )

1 Sooty: 2 MC: 3 4 5 Sooty: 6 MC: 7

( ) °ohhh (.) °really ° Sooty says I can get the stains out (.) with this experiment of his (.) by the way I never did find out (.) what is it exactly Sooty? ( ) .hhhhhhhh Sooty says it's a nu::clear biological cleaning agent=

E x a m p l e (13 )

1 MC: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sooty: 9 MC:

WAITER (0.5) waiter (1) listen I'd like to change my order I don't want the pea soup I want the err the bone broth the same as Sweep (.) alright some bone broth ((Sooty deposits bowl in front of MC)) thank you very much (1) hang on a minute that err that dish is empty (0.5) Sooty (1) err Waiter the dish is empty ( ) Oh I see it comes in a pan (1) gonna get it delivered - -

I n t e r - p u p p e t c o n v e r s a t i o n In the examples we have presented so far M C has either been the co- inter locutor with

one of the puppets or else he has been responsible for orchestra t ing a mul t i -par ty encounter . However, this does no t exhaust all the in teract ional possibilities since there are scenes dur ing each episode when the puppets interact by themselves. Al though the non-verba l con ten t of these scenes is generally high - - the puppets play games, engage in slap-stick routines, etc. - - they also speak, and the representa t ion of the three as fully in teract ional ly competen t wi thout M C on hand serves to further under l ine the show's plausibili ty. One of the cur ious features of the show is that whilst historically the two boy puppets have been its 's tars ' , Sooty and Sweep cannot , of course, hold a single verbal exchange. This communica t ive deficiency is at least part ial ly disguised, however, by the m a n n e r in which Soo allocates turns between the two non-verba l puppets which in

30 MICHAEL EMM1SON and LAURENCE GOLDMAN

effect const i tutes them as her conversa t ional equals. A typical example of this strategy which also invokes something of the adult (serious)-child (playful) d ichotomy which characterises these episodes can be seen in the following:

E x a m p l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

( 1 4 ) Soo:

Sweep: Soo: Sweep: Soo:

Sweep: Soo:

Sweep: Soo:

Sooty: Soo: Sooty: Soo:



Sooty: Soo: Sooty: Soo: Sweep: Sooty: Soo: Sweep

Really you two are the limit (.) fancy your thinking my bean bag contained real beans hhm ----)---->----)---~ ~ ~ .---):: Why is it called a bean bag then?

I don't know why its called a bean bag but I d_o_o know they're not filled with real b._ge::ans

I mean you wouldn't expect to find handbag filled with hands would you? (squeaky laughter) N::o any way what are we going to use to fill our cuddly sooties? ( ) Matthew's old socks? (nods) Huh hh don't be silly we want cuddly sooties not smelly sooties ---->--->--q.---) ~ :: What about old bones?

Oh really Sweep the sooties wouldn't be very cuddly if we filled them with old bones, no I think we should use feathers ~ ( . ) ~ - ~ ,~',~ :: What about water? .___)

How silly Sweep who ever heard of a toy filled with water I certainly haven't have you Sooty? (nods) You ha::ve? (nods) A toyfil led with water? -__)

(nods) Well what is it then? ---):---~/~ ~

(Sooty squirts water pistol all over Sweep)

Clearly from the above we can appreciate how Soo is interact ional ly pivotal in facili- ta t ing conversa t ional exchanges. Al though Sooty and Sweep are s tructural ly i ncommuni - cado, Soo manages to present them as sharing and col labora t ing in the ma in tenance of a c o m m o n intersubjective world in which their communica t ive deficiency is simply no t an issue. However, no twi ths t and ing the fact that the data in Table 1 reflect the m a n n e r in which Soo operates as a surrogate MC, the conversa t ional s tructure for these inter-puppet communica t ive episodes is frequently quite different. As we noted above, unlike his involvement with MC, Sooty has almost no in teract ion with Soo and the overwhelming major i ty of the in ter -puppet commun ica t i on takes place between Sweep ~nd Soo. More- over, the substance of their in teract ion at times bears little resemblance to that which occurs when M C is present. A characteristic feature of these scenes involves Sweep in revealing details of some newsworthy or un toward circumstances to which he is initially


s o l e l y p r i v i l e g e d b u t w h i c h a r e o f r e l e v a n c e t o al l t h e p u p p e t s . S w e e p ' s r o l e a s ' n e w s -

g i v e r ' is, h o w e v e r , h i n d e r e d b y t h e s m a l l m e a n l e n g t h o f u t t e r a n c e w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s

h i s p r o s o d i c s q u e a k s p e a k i n g s t y l e w h i c h m e a n s t h a t h e c a n n o t r e v e a l v e r y m u c h i n f o r -

m a t i o n in e a c h t u r n . I n s t e a d , t h e n e w s h a s t o b e d e v e l o p e d i n c r e m e n t a l l y a n d it is h e r e

t h a t S o o ' s r o l e a s t r a n s l a t o r is a g a i n p i v o t a l in u n p a c k i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n :

E x a m p l e ( 1 5 ) 1 Sweep ___.>/zxx :: ~ / z , , , ~ :: ~ / z ~ :: 2 Soo: What on earth is it Sweep ca:lm do::wn what 's the matter? 3 Sweep ___~___~,7,,~ 4 Soo: The box room? 5 Sweep --~--~---~:: 6 Soo: Next door? (.) yes I know that Sweep what about it? 7 Sweep: __~__~ 7 :: 8 Soo: It's locked?. 9 Sweep: --~

10 Soo: Is that it is that what all the excitement is about 11 because the box room is lo::cked? 12 Sweep: __,__, ,,z :: x~ 13 Soo: Oh with chains? 14 Sweep: .__> ,,z -,~ 15 Soo: And padlocks? 16 Sweep: ---/'~ :: 17 Soo: And ba::rs? 18 Sweep ___~___~___~,,zxa 7x~ 19 Soo: And a keep out notice? 20 Sweep: ,-~ x~ 21 Soo: Really Sweep? 22 Sweep: ---~: 23 Soo: Promise? 24 Sweep: --*---~--* 25 Soo: Cross your heart? 26 Sweep: --~---~ ,~ "~ 27 Soo: And hope to die?

E x a m p l e ( 1 6 ) 1 Soo: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sweep: 8 Soo: 9 Sweep:

10 Soo: 11 Sweep: 12 Soo: 13 Sweep: 14 Soo: 15 Sweep: 16 Soo: 17 Sweep: 18 Soo: 19 Sweep: 20 Soo: 21 Sooty: 22 Soo: 23 Sweep: 24 Soo:

Yes certain things are supposed to be lucky (.) f'instance it's supposed to be incredibly lucky if you find a four leaf clover (.) on the other hand it's supposed to be very unlucky if you walk under a ladder (1) anyway it suits me to believe that seeing two magpies is lucky because I 'm the only one who's seen two together --->---~',~ :: ---~---3. xa :: ---->----> ",a :::::: You've seen them? You've seen what? ---~--->--> ~ :: ,,~ You've seen two magpies?

You sure Sweep?

Positive? _..)

Are you sure there were two? ___~____>/z Positive (.) and were they together?

Positive (.) well I don' t believe it Sweep. Do you Sooty? ((shakes head)) No (.) we don' t believe you've seen two together --, ~z,,~ ((disappears)) He says he'll prove it


25 Sweep: 26 Sweep: 27 Soo: 28 Sweep: 29 Soo: 30 31 Sweep: 32 Soo: 33 Sweep: 34 Soo: 35 Sweep: 36 Soo: 37 Sweep: 38 Soo: 39 Sweep: 40 Sooty: 41 Soo: 42

((reappears carrying two meat pies)) ~ (.) ~ ::

N o no Sweep not meat pies (.) magpies magpie::s

N o not meat pies (.) magpies those big black and white birds ----> ----)

You saw one?

Where?

Out of the landing window? --.)

Just the one? _..) ( ) You're right Sooty that sounds like extremely bad luck to me too

We can observe in these examples how Sweep's requirement for a means to relay his news successfully, and Soo's primary task as translator of his squeaks, dovetail nicely. Because her translations are couched in a predominantly questioning repeat form, Soo appears to be more like an interrogator 'directing' the interaction and actively eliciting the news from Sweep. The translations that Soo undertakes can therefore be seen to capitalize on one of the properties of question-answer pairs, namely their ability to be strung together to generate lengthy sequences of interaction. Such question-answer sequences, as Sacks (1992, Vol. 1, p. 256) observed, exhibit a 'chaining rule' which provides, if both parties are willing, for one - - the questioner - - to organize the other party's talk to a very high degree. Having someone question him in this way is an ideal way for Sweep to disclose his information incrementally under the norm of an obligation to answer.

At the same time, because she has an obligation to receipt Sweep's news and develop it topically, Soo is provided with an appropriate cover through which she can manage efficaciously the continual translations she must perform. Although she appears to be cast as an interrogator Soo is, in fact, more correctly described as a 'news recipient' aligning herself with Sweep in his role as 'news teller'. 7

Conclusion It is through conversational interaction that actors build and maintain their common

social worlds collaboratively. The sequential organization of social interaction provides the necessary scaffolding with which participants effortlessly, and ceaselessly, demonstrate the achievement of their shared understanding. Of course intersubjectivity relies crucially on the abilities of the participants to verbalize their shared understandings and have these confirmed or corrected. Being able to talk, then, would seem to be the minimum condition for such common world building.

In this paper we have examined a fictional realm in which, despite the inability of key participants to meet this minimum condition, conversational interaction proceeds just as smoothly. Through its strategic use of ordinary conversational practices to achieve the appearance of conversational competency on the part of these participants, The Sooty Show provides a unique illustration of the dynamics of 'reality creation'. Like the delusion world so convincingly created by the family in Pollner and McDonald-Wikler's case study, the fictional world of The Sooty Show draws upon nothing other than routine


i n t e r a c t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e in its f a b r i c a t i o n . I t s s t a t u s as f i c t iona l d o e s n o t in a n y w a y

d i m i n i s h the a r t f u l m a n n e r in w h i c h th is k n o w l e d g e is d e p l o y e d , b u t se rves i n s t e a d to

u n d e r s c o r e t h e p e r m e a b i l i t y o f t he t w o r ea lms . In s h o r t , t he p o i n t o f th is p a p e r h a s b e e n

to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t f a b r i c a t e d ta lk impl ic i t ly i n v o k e s a m o d e l o f s p o n t a n e o u s c o n v e r s a -

t i o n t h a t is c l ea r ly s h a r e d b y b o t h i n t e r l o c u t o r s a n d a u d i e n c e alike.

N O T E S

i We would like to thank our colleague, Phil Smith, in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, for his helpful suggestions on this project. Final responsibility for the paper, of course, rests with us. 2 In Scheglofi's view the clue to this paradox lies in the depiction he makes of Goffman as an 'analytic pointil- list' - - i.e. a writer whose insightful and darting observations of the social world somehow conjures up with his readers the necessary, but unacknowledged, contextual empirical details. 3 Although we have no systematic evidence on this point, our parental experience has been that children up to approximately 5 or 6 years of age genuinely believe that Sooty has spoken to MC. Moreover, we should not be surprised by this observation: in a television world in which literally anything is able to talk, a bear who prefers to whisper is quite acceptable. 4 This list is by no means exhaustive - - see, for example, the range of papers in Barbara Johnstone's recent two-volume edited collection (1994). 5 It is possible that this violation of the turn taking order goes unsanctioned because since Sooty has not in fact been heard to speak his turn it is therefore less 'invasive' than it otherwise might be. Answering on behalf of one of the other puppets is, however, also one of the ways in which Sooty can enter the conversation (see the following section: 'Securing a turn when you cannot speak') 6 Pollner and McDonald-Wikler suggest that it is quite likely that Mary's family may have interacted with her in the fashion that all families interact with infants. The intriguing possibility arises, then, that the family in question was not so much engaged in creating a new delusion social world as refusing 'to relinquish an old one'. 7 In their structural form these chained sequences between Sweep and Soo bear an interesting similarity to the kind of episodes which Hughes (1982) argued that doctors engage in when they attempt to elicit diagnostic relevant information from patients during medical consultations. Hughes suggests that, contrary to conceptions of the medical encounter which see the patient as a subordinate participant yielding reluctantly to the professional dominance of the medical practitioner, a characteristic feature of medical encounters is that patients are often reluctant to speak at length because they are uncertain about the relevance of the information they can offer. In his research Hughes found that the practitioners he observed would frequently provide patients with ample opportunities to volunteer information but that patients appeared to be unsure about exactly what kind of information about their symptoms would be appropriate. An important implication of this asymmetry in knowledge within the medical interview is that patients are generally relieved to encounter a speech exchange situation where they can be appropriately 'lead' through the disclosure of relevant medical information through such techniques as a tightly organized question-answer sequence.

R E F E R E N C E S

ATKINSON, J. M. 1984 Our Master's Voices: the Language and Body Language of Politics. Methuen, London.

ATKINSON, J. M. and HERITAGE, J. C. 1984 Structures of Social Action." Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. University Press.

BAUMAN, R. 1977 Verbal art as performance. American Anthropologist 77.

COLERIDGE, S. T. 1906 Biographia Literaria. Dent, London.

DREW, P. 1985 Analysing the use of language in courtroom interactions. In van Dijk, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3. Discourse and Dialogue. Academic Press, New York.

DREW, P. 1990 Strategies in the contest between lawyer and witness in cross-examination. In Levi, J. and Walker, A. (Eds), Language and the Judical Process. Plenum Press, New York.

DREW, P. 1992 Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. C. (Eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge.

DREW, P. and HERITAGE, J. C. (Eds) 1992 Talk at Work." Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

EMMISON, M. 1993 On the analysability of conversational fabrication: a conceptual inquiry and single case example. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 16, 83 108.


GOFFMAN, E. 1975 Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organisation o f Experience. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

GOFFMAN, E. 1981 Forms of Talk. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

GOLDMAN, L. and EMMISON, M. 1996 Fantasy and double-play among Huli children of Papua New Guinea. 16

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. and HASAN, R. 1976 Cohesion in English. Longman, London.

HERITAGE, J. C. 1984a Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology: Polity Press, Oxford.

HERITAGE, J. C. 1984b A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. C. (Eds), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

HERITAGE, J. C. 1985 Analysing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In van Dijk, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3. Discourse and Dialogue. Academic Press, New York.

HERITAGE, J. C. and GREATBATCH, D. 1986 Generating applause: a study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences~ American Journal o f Sociology 92, 110-157.

HERMAN, V. 1991 Dramatic dialogue and the systematics of turn-taking. Semiotica 83, 97-121.

HUGHES, D. 1982 Control in the medical consultation: organising talk in a situation where co-participants have differential competence. Sociology 16, 359-376.

JEFFERSON, G. 1972 Side sequences. In Sudnow, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. Free Press, New York.

JEFFERSON, G. 1987 On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In Button, G. and Lee, J. (Eds), Talk and Social Organisation. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

JOHNSTONE, B. (Ed). 1994 Repetition in Discourse." Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Vols 1 and 2: Advances in Discourse Processes, Series XLVIII. Ablex, Nortwood.

McHOUL, A. W. 1987 An initial investigation of the usability of fictional conversation for doing conversation analysis. Semiotica 67, 83-104.

McHOUL, A. W. 1990 The organisation of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society 19, 349-377.

NORRICK, N. 1987 Functions of repetition in conversation. Text 7, 245-267.

OCHS, E. and SCHIEFFELIN, B. (Eds) 1979 Developmental Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York.

POLLNER, M. and McDONALD-WlKLER, L. 1985 The social construction of unreality: a case study of a family's attribution of competence to a severely retarded child. Family Process 24, 241-254.

SACKS, H. 1992 Lectures on Conversation, Vols 1 and 2, Jefferson, G. (Ed.), Blackwell, Oxford.

SACKS, H., SCHEGLOFF, E. A. and JEFFERSON, G. 1974 A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696-735.

SACKS, H., SCHEGLOFF, E. A. and JEFFERSON, G. 1977 The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361-382.

SCHEGLOFF, E. A. 1987 Recycled turn beginnings: a precise repair mechanism in conversation's turn-taking organisation. In Button, G. and Lee, J. (Eds), Talk and Social Organisation. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

SCHEGLOFF, E. A. 1988 Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A. (Eds), Erring Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Polity Press, Oxford.

SCHIEFFELIN, B. and OCHS, E. (Eds) 1986 Language Socialisation Across Cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

SHERZER, J. 1984 Kuna Ways of Speaking." an Ethnographic Perspective. University of Texas Press, Austin.

SNOW, C, and FERGUSON, C. (Eds) 1977 Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

TANNEN, D. 1984 Conversational Style: Analysing Talk Among Friends. Ablex, Norwood.

TANNEN, D. 1987a Repetition in conversation as spontaneous formulaicity. Text 7, 215-243.

TANNEN, D. 1987b Repetition in conversation: towards a poetics of talk. Language 63, 574-605.

FUPPETS, PARLANCE AND PRETENCE 35

Appendix: transcription details In producing the transcripts we have followed the system originally devised by Gall Jefferson, full details of

which can be found in Atkinson and Heritage (1984). In the interests of clarity we have simplified the system used by excluding features which are not directly relevant to our analysis. The principal symbols used in relation to the talk of MC and Soo are as follows: [ Onset of overlapped talk (1) Timed pause within a speaker's talk or between speaker turns (.) A micro-pause - - A dash indicates the cut-off of the prior sound or word wo:::rd Extension of stretching of the sound or syllable word Emphasis in delivery word Italics used to indicate the component of MC or Soo's turn which contain the repetition forms ? A question mark indicates questioning intonation over the course of a turn For describing Sooty we have used the following symbols: ( ) An empty bracket indicates any whispered (i.e. presumed spoken) turn ((nods)) Head nod, used as confirmation (i.e. presumed to be a 'yes')

In the case of Sweep we have endeavoured to capture something of the prosodic nature of his vocalizations by representing his syllabic squeaks with the following symbols:

A non-intonated squeak /~ An upwardly-intonated squeak "~ A downwardly-intonated squeak ---~::: Long or elongated squeaks -O Very loud squeaks

What's that you said Sooty? Puppets, parlance and pretence

Documents

Transcript of What's that you said Sooty? Puppets, parlance and pretence