"The first call is in, hallo, it's Germaine":
Negotiating frames in radio counselling: opening sequences
Paul ten Have©, University of Amsterdam(*)
Paper for the conference on
'Broadcast Conversations: Interaction in the Media',
Roskilde University, Denmark, March 25. - 26. 1999
The point of all this, of course, is that an utterance does not carve
up the world beyond the speaker into precisely two parts, recipients and
non-recipients, but rather opens up an array of structurally differentiated
possibilities, establishing the participation framework in which the speaker
will be guiding his delivery.
Abstract
As has been noted in studies of news interviews, an essential aspect of
broadcast interactions is that, while the people talking together may officially
ignore the fact that their interaction is broadcast, their orientation
to an 'overhearing audience' is still observable in various details of
how they proceed (cf. Heritage, 1985). The
paper will elaborate this theme for a call-in radio program, broadcast
in the Netherlands in the late 1970s, which invited listeners to call the
host to discuss 'problems with sex and relationships'. The combination
of intimate discussions and public broadcasting was quite new at the time
and the program drew a massive (amazed, fascinated, shocked) audience.
The paper, however, will focus on the local work of the participants, the
host and her callers, to deal with this condition, and the multiple frames
involved in it, on the basis of detailed transcripts of some typical scenes.
The paper will focus on the negotiated establishment of a frame during
the opening sequences.
Introduction
In any encounter, the first exchanges are used to establish, or re-establish,
what may be called a specific 'participation framework', i.e. who the interactants
are for each other and what they are going to do together(1).
The organization of such first exchanges has been most consistently studied
in telephone call openings, especially by E.A. Schegloff (1968,
1979,
1986)
and others who have elaborated some of his findings (Hopper, 1992:;
Houtkoop, 1991; also Ten Have, in
prep.). In the cases to be discussed in this paper, the interaction
does proceed through a telephone line, but is is at the same time broadcast
over the radio, in the context of a particular weekly program with an overall
format and a particular, even if recently established 'tradition'. One
task for the interactants, especially the program's host, is to 'leave'
the program framework, i.e. her talking to an audience, and to enter into
a one-to-one counselling framework. Saying that she 'leaves' the program
framework, does, of course, simplify the situation: she does, for the moment,
stop addressing the audience, and starts to address the caller instead,
but she is in all probability fully aware of the 'presence' of the radio
audience, as is the caller, although probably to a lesser extent. That
possible awareness of the audience tends to be hidden, most of the time.
It does surface now and then, in a more or less open fashion, in what I
will call 'frame breaks' -- which would be the topic of another paper.
In the present paper, I will, as announced, focus on the transition from
the radio frame to the counselling format, in order to explicate the interactional
means used to accomplish it.
A first case
Here is a data excerpt that offers ample illustrations of the issues involved:
Case 1 ('eerste') 6 May 1977
01 G (het eerste gesprek is bin)nen hal
lo met Germaine.
the first call is in hello it's Germaine
02 C jà:
yes
03 G dàg.
hi
04 C ik moet even wat zeggen van te voren?
I have to say something before
05 G ja
yes
06 C als er iemand binnen komt?
when someone enters
07 G ja
yes
08 C moet ik dus de haak op de horen gooien?
I have to throw the hook on the receiver(1)
09 G goed dat merken we dan.
okay we'll see that then
10 C jà.
yes
11 G oké vertel het 
maar.
okay just go ahead
12 C ik ben zestien jaar,
I am sixteen years
13 (.)
14 G ja
yes
15 C en heb een vriend van (.)veertien
and have a boyfriend who's fourteen
16 G ja
yes
This excerpt represents the opening exchanges of the first call in that
particular night's program.
In line 1, the first part of the utterance, '(het eerste gesprek is
bin)nen' (the first call is in) suggests the participation framework
of the radio program, i.e. the program's host telling her audience that
'the first call is in'. The second part, 'hallo
met Germaine.', however, is part of a different framework, the telephone
call: it represents a version of the Dutch standard for answerer's first
utterance, a 'hallo' followed by a first name self-identification (cf.
the other cases cited, also: Houtkoop, 1991; Ten
Have, in prep.). By directly addressing
the caller, the status of the radio audience is being 'reframed' into that
of an overhearing one.
In line 2, the caller's 'jà:' can be heard as a recognition-marker:
the caller makes it clear that she now understands that she has reached
her 'destination'. She does not, however, reciprocate the host's self-identification
with one by herself, as many other callers do; she avoids giving her name
(cf. Sacks 1992 a: 3-11).
The host's greeting, 'dàg.'(3),
in line 3, not only 'does a greeting', but also in so doing accepts the
caller's anonymity.
In the next few lines, 4-10, the caller states a condition for the call,
which the host accepts: when someone enters the caller will have to interrupt
the call. This invokes yet another framework: the caller at home making
a secret call to the studio. She does not explain the background of this
condition and neither does the host make any remark on it.
These conditions, i.e. anonymity and secrecy, having been established,
the call proceeds to its main business, with the host inviting the caller
to come forward with her topic and the caller starting her explanation
with the essential categories involved.
Call opening formats(4)
As I remarked earlier, there is quite an extensive literature on the structure
of telephone call openings, dominated by E.A. Schegloff's seminal contributions.
In his 1986 paper, 'The routine as
achievement', Schegloff argues that actual openings, especially those to
private homes, can be seen as variants of a basic model which he calls
'canonical'. Others have objected that the model, being based on North-American
data cannot be generalized as a universal one for calls made in different
linguistic and cultural contexts. Robert Hopper has challenged these objectors
on the basis of a number of comparative studies. In his book on Telephone
Conversation (1992: 90) he concludes an extensive
discussion with a firm statement:
Telephone openings around the world resemble nothing so much as each
other.
Just before that, he has summarizes the characteristics and functions
of a canonical model in the following terms.
Telephone partners orient to four routine sequential tasks,
within ordered slots, each of which may be filled by adjacency pair constructions.
The model shows close detailed fit with only a minority of telephone openings.
Its picture of interaction is built upon divergences from routines. These
marked openings unfold across turns, including issues of relationship and
culture.
He states that, in fact, 'we find far more non-routine openings than routine
ones'. And 'Canonical cases provide a template for participants, a line-of-best-fit
when nothing special is going on.' Deviations such as pauses, deletions
and contractions may be used, then, to mark the talk as possibly special,
in terms of relationship, urgency or whatever. 'Any first-occurring marking
may be followed up in future turns, or participants may let the possibilities
pass. The participants on the scene, in interaction, work out what, if
anything, is special about any encounter.'
The model is called 'canonical', because it is seen as being, for members,
a basic format that is used as an implicit criterion for inference and
action; treating an opening as a normal, 'unmarked' one, or, alternatively,
as more or less special. This conception resonates with the more general
idea in a lot of CA writings that 'conversation', as informal talk among
peers, is functioning as a model for unmarked talk, and therefore as a
criterion for marking other formats as, for instance talk 'belonging to'
one or another institutional setting (cf. Sacks at al, 1978:
47; Heritage, 1984: 280-90; Drew & Heritage,
1992).
In both cases, the informal format is presented as somehow primordial,
while other formats are often seen as resulting from a 'reduction', that
is applied to it (cf. the general discussion in Ten Have, 1999:
161-81).
Returning to the canonical model of telephone openings, we can see that
its formulations, as given in Schegloff (1986)
and Hopper (1992) tend to have both 'structural'
and 'functional' versions. The structural versions refer to specified elements
such as sequences, i.e. adjacency pairs, while the functional ones are
conceived in terms of a common set of 'organizational jobs' (Schegloff,
1986:
113). I take it that the latter are more basic, and less prone to a North-American
cultural 'bias'. Different cultural conventions, then, can be seen as different
structural ways of doing general functional jobs.
What is achieved in a telephone call opening is that by a few exchanges
the participants establish a fully functioning interactional state. That
process can be broken down in the following three functional phases (cf.
Schegloff, 1986: 113):
-
establishing contact
-
(re)establishing a relationship
-
working towards a (first) topic.
As Schegloff (1968) has demonstrated,
establishing contact requires a minimum of two exchanges in what he has
called a summons-answer (S-A) sequence. In the case of telephone openings,
the summons is generally achieved by the telephone 'ring', while a voicing
by the one who picks up the phone acts as an answer to the summons. That
voicing in general achieves other functions as well, especially to (re)establish
a relationship between caller and called. This means that the participants
accomplish a mutual recognition of who-they-are-for-each-other, as an intimate
other, a recognized acquaintance, or a member of a particular membership
category. When the participants are intimates or acquaintances, the function
of re-establishing their relationship as such may me achieved on the basis
of voice recognition and/or explicit identification. In these cases, it
most often also involves greetings and quite often how-are-you-sequences
as well (cf. Schegloff, 1979; 1986).
Among non-acquainted participants, the task is to establish which are the
relevant Membership Categories for the encounter and what kind of Standardized
Relational Pair (SRP) will be enacted (cf. Sacks, 1972
a: 37-8; 1992 a: 326-7). Especially
among the non-acquainted, mutual categorization will tend to involve proposing
or implying a topic, i.e. a Reason-for-the-Call (Sacks, 1992
a: 773-9; 1992 b: 157-74). In other
words, calling someone you don't know very well is an 'accountable action'
(Sacks, 1992 a: 73-4). Among the acquainted,
how-are-you-sequences may quite naturally lead to a first topic, such as
a party's health condition or some recent experience (cf. Jefferson, 1980).
My proposal to stress a functional, rather than a structural, perspective,
is meant to suggest that underlying any differences in forms and formats
there is a kind of functional similarity, in the sense that in all cases
similar kinds of work have to be done: connection work, relation work and
topic work. In the canonical model, as developed by Schegloff (1986)
and taken over by Hopper (1992), what I call relation
work is, so to speak, divided over three separate sequential phases or
'slots': identification/recognition, greetings and 'howareyou?'s or 'initial
inquiries'. In the canonical model, topic work in principle follows after
the actual opening, at what Schegloff calls 'the anchor position'. In many
concrete cases it starts earlier, through what Schegloff calls 'preemption',
i.e. by deleting canonical elements.
The opening may be thought, therefore, to supply a metric of
sorts for the introduction of various tellables, with the degree of claimed
priority or urgency embodied in the degree of preemption before anchor
position pursued by the preempting party.
It requires the parties' local sensitivity and ingenuity to bring
off these kinds of work in a manner that serves their goals in an unremarkable
fashion, using whatever conventions their culture provides.
Application
of the canonical model 1: establishing contact, 'hallo'
When we want to 'apply' the canonical model to the cases in the radio counselling
corpus, we have to take a number of conditions into account. The first
of these is that the participants in these calls are modelling their opening
contributions on Dutch cultural conventions for ordinary telephone calls
(cf. Houtkoop, 1991; also Ten Have, in
prep.). The major difference with the American model is that answerers
generally self-identify in their first turn followed by the callers self-identifying
in their next turn as well. The second part of the summons-answer sequence
also tends to be used to initiate an identification sequence. The second
condition to be taken into account is a much more specific one. The call-in
part of the program was organized in such a manner that a caller would
at first talk with a staff member in the studio who would select which
of the incoming calls would be passed on to the host(5).
The moment a call was passed on was in all probability signalled in a visual
way. There are, therefore, no 'rings' in these call as recorded from the
radio. The host has the first turn which she generally formats in a way
that is compatible with the Dutch conventions for answerers' first turns,
i.e. a 'hallo' followed by a name identification, as can be seen in the
next few examples:
Case 2 ('vijftien')
01 ((music fades out))
02 G: hallo met Germaine Groenier?
hello it's Germaine Groenier
Case 3 ('Harriët') 24 June 1977
0 ((muziek fade out))
1 G hallo met Germain.
hello it's Germain
Case 4 ('Annelies')
0 ((music fades out during 01)
1 G hallo met Germaine.
hello it's Germaine
Case 5 ('Henk')
01 G we beginnen met de::: (.) >telefoontjes<
we start with the phone calls
02 G het eerste telefoontje is binnen
the first call is in
03 G hallo (.) goedenavond (.) met Germaine Groenier
hello good evening it's Germaine Groenier
04 G hallo?
hello
As can be seen, the actual call routinely starts with a 'hallo', which
is, in the Dutch system, an common optional element in this position. It
seems to function here as a Janus-faced element(6),
on the one hand a first voicing by the host for the caller, and on the
other a marker for the audience that she is no longer addessing them, but
rather the caller. In case 5, we see a repetion of 'hallo' by the host
in line 4, although it was already used in line 3. In that context, the
rising 'hallo?' functions as a repeat-summons, probably motivated by an
absence of sound over the line, although she had been doing her opening
utterance very slowly, with mini-pauses in between parts.
A more extensive case showing repeated hallo's from both sides is given
below.
Case 6 ('Anna') 4 March 1977
00 ((music fades out during 1))
01 G hallo met Germaine Groenier?
hello it's Germaine Groenier
02 C (ook) goeienavond met Anna?
(also) good evening it's Anna
03 G hallo.
hello
04 C goei-=hallo?
goo- hello?
05 G hallo ja
hello yes
06 C goeienavond met Anna
good evening it's Anna
07 G daaag
hi
08 C nou (eh) ik zit met een probleem?
well I have a problem
09 G vertel het maar
just go ahead
10 C ja?
yes?
11 G ja
yes
After her usual opening line (1), the host gets a greeting plus self-identification
(2), to which she reacts with a 'hallo' (3). This can be taken in several
ways, but here it seems to be given as a greeting. The caller in line 4
starts to give it a return greeting, but interrupts herself with a rising
'hallo?', that is now used as a summons. The host reacts with another flat
hallo followed by a 'yes' (5), which seems to reassure the caller that
she has been heard and is indeed speaking to her intended party. The caller
then repeats her opening line, a greeting and self-identification, which
gets another greeting from the host (7). Next the caller announces having
a problem (8), she gets a go-ahead (9), but she requests (10) and gets
(11) still another confirmation.
As is also noted in the U.S. texts on openings, 'hallo' can have a number
of functions, including answering to a summons, summoning and greeting.
It's actual significance depends on its positioning, but that significance
may also be unclear for its recipient, leading to various kinds of clarification,
especially repetition. In the position of 'first utterance in a call',
it marks the speaker's position as a call recipient. In the case of broadcast
calls, it also has the function of marking that 'we are now in a call'.
So here, it has a double function as a Janus-faced 'boundary object', to
borrow a concept from science studies(7),
facing the audience as well as the caller.
If we take it that the host gets some kind of non-broadcast signal that
a call is 'in', which we can take as a summons, than the host's 'hallo'
is her answer to that summons. As has been noted, these 'hallo's are immediately
followed by the host's self-identification, giving her first name, sometimes
with her last name, sometimes preceded or followed by a greeting. In contrast
to the American way, then, these 'hello's are not used as free-standing
answers to a summons, but as an additional element to a self-identification.
Within the Dutch 'system', however, this is an optional, rather than a
required element as is the self-identification. It's pervasive use by the
host might be related, then, to its local functionality as a Janus-headed
boundary object.
In the context of the call, the opening 'hallo' does work to establish
contact, the first of the three ordered jobs around which any encounter's
opening is organized, but that work is only completed when the caller produces
a voicing (cf. case 5 above, where it is not forthcoming as expected).
Establishing contact, then, requires three acts: a summons, an answer,
and a continuation from the summoner (cf. Schegloff, 1968
on the 'non-terminality' of the summons-answer sequence). Most often, the
items used as answers and continuations do more than establishing contact;
they also contribute to the other two jobs: '(re)establishing a relationship'
and 'working towards a (first) topic'.
Application of the
canonical model (2): relating
In the canonical model, as I noted before, the function of '(re)establishing
a relationship' (or 'relating', for short) is divided over three separate
sequential phases or 'slots': identification/recognition, greeting and
'howareyou?'s or 'initial inquiries'. Furthermore, 'working towards a (first)
topic' (or 'topicalizing') in principle follows after the actual opening,
at what Schegloff calls 'the anchor position', although 'preemptions' are
quite common.
Looking again at the examples given so far, we can conclude that the
host routinely self-identifies in her first turn, as is usual in Dutch
phone openings. The callers, however, quite often do not reciprocate. In
case 1, the caller reacts with a 'jà:' (yes), which
marks her recognition of the host, but does not provide any clue as to
who she is herself, except that she can be heard to be a young female.
In the following exchanges, the issue of her identity is only raised in
categorical terms, i.e. her age, but not as a name. Let me give a bit more
extensive excerpts from some of the cases discussed so far, and some new
ones, to investigate how 'relation work' is organized in these calls.
Case 2 ('vijftien')
01 ((music fades out))
02 G: hallo met Germaine Groenier?
hello it's Germaine Groenier
03 C: ja hallo e:h
yes hello uh
04 (.)
05 C: ik e:h ben eh >(een) meisje van vijftien=
I uh am uh a girl of fifteen
06 C: =en ik word [eh volgende week zestien
and next week I'll be sixteen
07 G: [(ja)
(yes)
08 C: en nou ·hh en eh >m'n vriend=
and well ·hh and my boyfriend
09 C: =>die wil graag gemeenschap met me hebben.
he would very much like to have intercourse with me
This caller's contribution to the call starts in a way similar to Case
1, in that the caller also uses a yes-response to the host's self-identification,
here followed by a 'hallo' that acts as a greeting (as well as being an
echo). Next she does identify herself, but also only in categorical terms,
giving her age (lines 5 & 6), followed by a summary statement of her
problem (8 etc.).
Case 3 ('Harriët') 24 June 1977
0 ((muziek fade out))
1 G hallo met Germain.
hello it's Germain
2 C ja met Harriët.
yes it's Harriet
3 G dag.
hi
4 C ja,
yes
5 (.)
6 C ik eh:
I uh
7 (.)
8 C ik heb een probleem met een leraar,
I have a problem with a teacher
9 (.)
10 C hij eh: mag me erg graag en eh
he uh likes me a lot and uh
In case 3, we again have the host's standard opening line (1), followed
by the caller's 'recognitional' (?) yes, but this time immetiately
followed by a first name self-identification. The caller gets a hi
(3) and produces another yes (4), before she, after a false start
(6) and a restart (8), introduces her problem.
Case 5 ('Henk')
01 G we beginnen met de::: (.) >telefoontjes<
we start with the phone calls
02 G het eerste telefoontje is binnen
the first call is in
03 G hallo (.) goedenavond (.) met Germaine Groenier
hello good evening it's Germaine Groenier
04 G hallo?
hello
05 C ja: met e:h Henk Nieuwkoop=
yes it's uh Henk Nieuwkoop
06 G dag Henk
hi Henk
07 (.7)
08 G vertel het maar
just go ahead
09 C nou e:h (.) ik heb een probleem
well uh I have a problem
After the long radio audience-focused introduction, and the repeat-summons
'hallo?' (4), discussed before, the caller answers this summons with yes
and self-identifies with first and last name (5), and gets a first-name
greeting from the host (6). After a pause the host prompts him with 'vertel
het maar' (just go ahead, 8),
to which he responds a bit hesitantly with 'ik heb een probleem'
(I have a problem, 9).
Cases 1, 2, 3, and 5 seem, as far as their openings are concerned, quite
ordinary within the corpus(8). It may, therefore,
be instructive to look at some other cases that seem to be deviant in some
way. Here's a first one.
Case 4 ('Annelies')
0 ((music fades out during 01)
1 G hallo met Germaine.
hello it's Germaine
2 A hallo Germaine,
hello Germaine
3 G hallo.
hello
4 A hallo,
hello
5 A met Annelies.
it's Annelies
6 G dag Annelies.
hi Annelies
7 A uit Den Haag.
from The Hague
8 (1.2)
9 G zo!
well!
10 A (en) zo.
(and) well
11 A hoe is het met je
how are you doing?
12 G ja prima.
yes alright
13 A en met mij ook goed
and me also alright
14 G nou
well
15 A e:h ja wat ik-=
uh yes what I-
16 A =(eh) ik had dus een probleempje:?
(uh) so I had some kind of problem
17 G ja:.
yes
18 A ja nou ja min of meer,
yes well yes more or less
19 A (o)f: >voor de één een probleem voor de ander niet.=
or for one person a problem for another not
20 A =>ik weet 't eigenlijk niet.=
I don't know really
21 A =nou >'t is (dus) namelijk zo,
well it happens to be the case
22 A <e:::h dat ik dus e::h
uh that I so uh
23 (1)
24 A nou ik vind dus om vrouwen niets meer aan,
well I don't like it anymore with women
25 A en ik vin' eh
and I don't uh
26 A nou eh >mannen vind ik ook niet meer zo gezellig.
well uh I also don't like men anymore very much
27 (1.4)
28 G ja:?
yes?
Already in her first turn (2), this caller departs from what the first
three callers did, in that she greets the host with 'hallo
Germaine,'. The host returns the greeting with a simple 'hallo' (3), which
is echoed by the caller with another 'hallo' (4). Then the caller self-identifies
with her first name (5), which gets a greeting from the host, also using
her first name (6). This is followed by an additional self-identification
from the caller, giving her place of residence, 'from The Hague' (7), in
a tone that might be called 'jubilant' or 'triumphant' and similar to her
previous self-identification (in 5). One may wonder what kind of function
such an addition might have. In ordinary calls it may be used as an add
in recognizability, or as a marker of a long-distance call, but here neither
seems very relevant. It is hard, therefore, to imagine a fitting 'second'
to it. The host, in any case, at first does not react, and after a longish,
1.2 second pause, produces 'zo!' (well!, 9), which is echoed
by the caller (10). Then the caller initiates a 'howareyou'-sequence (11),
to which the host responds at first positively (12), and at the caller's
positive self-report (13) with a kind of puzzled 'nou'
(well, 14). It is only then that the caller
starts, hesitantly and with a lot of diminutives, with a presentation of
her problem (15 and following) which amounts to a general erotic ennui.
This is really a rather strange call and the host clearly has some difficulties
dealing with it. My impression is that the caller is drunk. She has a mocking
kind of talking. In the transcript excerpt, we can at least note the frequent
echoing from both parties. In terms of the structure of the opening exchanges,
I note that the caller uses items that would fit with an informal call
to an acquaintance as specified in the 'canonical model', especially the
'howareyou?'-sequence (11-3), but that is absent in the other examples.
Another rather deviant and quite complicated case is number 7:
Case 7 ('Chris') 13 May 1977
01 ((music))
02 G hallo. met Ger[maine.
hello it's Germaine
03 C [mag ik eh
may I uh
04 (1.4)
05 G hal[lo?
hello?
06 C [frikandel speciaal.
have a) hot-dog special
07 (2.1)
08 G hallo?
hello?
09 C ·hh jà.
·hh yes
10 G met Germain'
it's Germain
11 C ·hh eh Germaine.
·hh uh Germaine
12 (.)
13 C met eh Chris,
it's uh Chris
14 (.)
15 C Chris Verbrugge uit eh Groningen.
Chris Verbrugge from uh Groningen
16 G dag Chris.
Hi Chris
17 C ·hh e:h [(
18 G [ik hoor e:h achter jou frikandel speciaal.
[I hear uh behind you hotdog special
19 C j(h)a
y(h)ess
20 (.)
21 C ja die heb ik net besteld (an eh)
yes that's what I just ordered (and uh)
22 (.)
23 C anders wordt-ie weer afgesloten.
otherwise it will be cut-off again
24 (.)
25 G oh.
26 C en zoals eh strakkies.
and like uh just before
27 C ·h ·h (in de) Bierpul.
·h ·h (in the) beer mug
28 C maar eh ik zit dus met een probleem.
but uh so I have a problem
29 C ·hh
30 G oh >jij jij was:- jij werd opgehangen of zo hè?
oh you you was- you were hanged-up or something, right?
31 (1)
32 C e:h
33 (.)
34 C [ze hebben dus gewoon eh
[they have just uh
35 G [of het werd-
[or it was-
36 (.)
37 C de knop omgedraaid van de telefoon.
turned the switch of the telephone
38 G oh.
39 (.)
40 C ·hh maar e:h
·hh but uh
41 (.)
42 C ik zit dus te: met het probleem e:h
so I have uh the problem uh
43 (.)
44 C ik ben dus twee-en-dertig jaar,
so I'm thirty-two years
45 C e:h ik werk voor het uitzendbureau,
uh I work for the temping agency
46 G ja
yes
47 C ·hh en ik krijg dus een minimumloon van twee
·hh and I get a minimum wage of two
48 C eh twee-honderd-twee-en-veertig gulden,
uh two hundred-forty-two guilders
49 C ·hh e:h buiten de vergoedingen om.
·hh uh apart from the expenses
50 (1.2)
51 G ja
yes
52 C en dat vind ik dus e:h
and I think that's uh
53 (3)
54 C voor mijn leeftijd te weinig dus(t)
for my age not enough
55 (1.3)
56 C en dan wou ik (es) vragen
and then I would like to ask
57 C wat kan ik daar aan doen
what can I do about that
This call starts with the host's usual opening like, but then we hear someone
ordering a hot-dog (3, 6), alternated with two try-marked 'hallo?'s (5,
8), which act as repeat summonses. Finally, the caller answers to the last
repeat-summons with a yes (9), after which the host produces a truncated
version of her opening line (10). The caller, then, starts with a self-identification,
giving at first his first name (13), then his first name plus last name,
together with his place of residence (15), which is met by a greeting plus
first name by the host (16). His next utterance is interrupted by the host,
reporting what she heard 'behind him', the hot-dog ordering (18). Now the
caller explains that this was necessary because otherwise his connection
would be again interrupted, as happened earlier (19-27). As he starts to
announce his problem (28), he is again interrupted by the host, suggesting
that he was the one who was apparently interrupted earlier during the broadcast
session (30). The caller again explains what happened (34, 37) and then
is able finally to state his problem (40-57).
This case is in a way similar to case 1, in that the local environment
of the caller is evoked in a call as 'hostile' to the call itself. Because
of that complication, the actions it necessitates, and the inquiries and
explanations that are triggered by those call-external actions, this call's
opening has become very complicated indeed. But apart from that, it is
quite ordinary, except for two less common items in the caller's self-identification,
his last name and his place of residence. Giving these details makes him
much less anonymous than the other callers, but then his problem is not
a sexual or relational one (although he later mentions that he has been
detained).
Case 8 ('Rob')
00 ((music fades out during the first utterances))
01 R ja:eh met eh Rob.
yessuh it's uh Rob
02 G dag Bob.
hi Bob
03 R ·hh e:h ik heb eh
·hh uh I have uh
04 R toen heb ik 'n keer gebeld naar jou?
called you once then
05 (.6)
06 G da' moet je me even bij helpen
there you have to help me a bit
07 G want er bellen zo veel mensen.=
because so many people call
08 R =ja da' weet ik.
yes I know that
09 R ·hh dat is ongeveer begin November geweest
·hh that has been about early November
10 R >want da' was ik dus vijf jaar verloofd en eh
because then I had been engaged for five years and uh
11 R anderhalve dag voor m'n trouwen
a day and a half before my marriage
12 R heeft ze me toen< in de steek gelaten
she has left me
13 (.3)
14 G ja:ja.
yeayea
15 R en e:h [(nou-)
and uh [(well-)
16 G [begint me iets te dagen.
[begins to dawn on me
17 R toen moest ik naar het ziekenhuis toe en eh
then I had to go to the hospital and uh
19 R nou eh al die toestanden en zo
well uh all those conditions and such
20 R en eh heb ik dus weer een poos
and uh I've been again for a time
21 R in het ziekenhuis gelegen,
been in the hospital
22 G jaa
yes
23 R en had ik beloofd
and I had promised
24 R dat ik je nog een keer terug zou bellen.
that I would call back some time
25 (.4)
26 R e[n dat doe'k nou duss
a[nd that's what I'm doing now so
27 G [(d's)
(that's)
28 G dat vind ik heel aardig.
I think that's very nice
29 G [huh huh huh
30 R [(wat dat bet')
[(concerning that)
31 R ik ga gewoon >helemaal te gek op het ogenblik
I'm going just absolutely great at the moment
32 R eh ik heb namelijk echt e:h
uh it has really uh
33 R 'n hoop t'r aan gehad toen < e:h
done me a lot of good then uh
34 R aan dat praten met jou.
talking with you then
35 (.)
36 G oh.
37 R ·hh
38 G nou kijk [es aan.
well look at that now
39 R [en daar wou 'k je
[and I would like to
40 R (hier es) voor bedanken en eh
thank you for that (here for once) and uh
Case 8 is different because it concerns someone who had called earlier
to the show, and now calls again to tell the host it did him a lot of good
and he's doing fine now. The opening, therefore, is not a prelude to counselling
for a problem. The opening line is missing, so the call starts with the
call's self-identification with his first name (1), after which the host
give a greeting plus first name (2). The caller refers to his earlier call
(3,4), but the host asks him for more cues as she is getting so many calls
(6, 7). In a way, then, she excuses herself for not recognizing someone
who claims to be an acquaintance of sorts. The caller, then, summarizes
his story (9-12), which she claims to recognize a bit (14, 16). The caller
continues his story (17-21), tells that he had promised to call back (23,
24), which is what he is now doing (26). The host expresses her appreciation
(28). The caller continues saying he is doing very well (31) and talking
to her has done him a lot of good (32-4), which the host takes with an
elegant surprise (36, 38). The caller thanks her for that and continues
his happy-ending story (he's now doing steady with a nurse who took away
his radio when he was listening to the host's program).
In this call, then, we see how a different format develops on the basis
of this being a call-back thank you call, rather than the usual problem-oriented
one. Consequently, we see elements of conversational forms, having to do
with recognition, 'thank you's, and complements. At first, these items
concern the former 'talking with you', i.e. the counselling format, but
in the part not quoted here, the broadcast format, i.e. listening to the
radio late at night, is also evoked.
What we can conclude from these explorations is that ordinarily, the
amount of relating work in the openings of the broadcast calls is very
limited indeed. As mentioned before, the canonical model specifies three
subsequent 'slots' for doing relation work: identification/recognition,
greetings and 'initial inquiries', mostly in the form of 'howareyou?'s.
As to the first of these, the host almost always self-identifies in her
very first turn, which may get a recognizing yes, sometimes followed
by a first-name self-identification. Full-name and residence identifications
are less common and mostly restricted to non-sexual problem cases. These
name- and sometimes residence-identifications are obviously not designed
for recognition. The name-identifications seem to have a personalizing
function, allowing the host to speak to the caller in a personal way, using
his or her first name. What is done with a residence-identification is
even less clear; the host does not take them up at all. In short, the identification/recognition
part of relating work tends to be minimal and asymmetrical: the host self-identifies
and is recognized in a minimal fashion, but most callers do not self-identify
or only use their first name.
The second element for relating work, greetings, is equally used in
a minimal fashion, with the host mostly greeting the caller with a hi and
first name, if that is given by the caller, while callers quite often do
not greet at all, or only minimally (using 'hallo' or 'dag' - hi),
and sometimes with the host's first name added.
The third 'slot' for relating, mentioned in the canonical model, as
almost always empty, and when it is used as in case 4, it's clearly a deviation
from the program's conventions.
What we have, then, is that the host is acting like and treated as a
public personage who chats with members of the audience of her program:
she is the recognizable Germaine. Her callers' identity, on the
other hand, in not 'in play' as it would be in a private encounter; it
tends to be (half) hidden by skipping or first-name-only identifications.
So the fact that these calls are broadcast is taken into account by a general
absence of self-identification or using a minimal version of it, which
the host does not treat as in any way inappropriate. Other elements of
relation work tend to be done asymmetrically, with the host being more
active, or minimally, or not at all.
In this fashion, the stage is prepared for a presentation of the problem,
the expected task of the caller. What many callers seem to do is to rush
through the opening as such, getting to what Schegloff (1986)
has called 'the anchor position' as quickly as possible, with a minimal
amount of self-revealing work on their part. 'Preemption', then, is a major
characteristic of these calls' openings.
Application of the
canonical model (3): topicalizing
The third 'organizational job' that the call participants have to work
on in the first few moments of their call is to establish what the call
will be about, what I call 'topicalizing' or 'topic work'. What we observed
in the cases considered so far is that, except for special conditions,
the overall tendency is to go 'fast forward' to the anchor position, the
actual exposition of 'the problem'. The issue now is to explore how the
problem exposition is entered.
Sometimes, the topic is entered not only very fast, but also with none
or minimal specialized 'topic work' to prepare for it, as in the cases
2 and 3:
Case 2 ('vijftien')
01 ((music fades out))
02 G: hallo met Germaine Groenier?
hello it's Germaine Groenier
03 C: ja hallo e:h
yes hello uh
04 (.)
05 C: ik e:h ben eh >(een) meisje van vijftien=
I uh am uh a girl of fifteen
06 C: =en ik word [eh volgende week zestien
and next week I'll be sixteen
07 G: [(ja)
(yes)
08 C: en nou ·hh en eh >m'n vriend=
and well ·hh and my boyfriend
09 C: =>die wil graag gemeenschap met me hebben.
he would very much like to have intercourse with me
Case 3 ('Harriët') 24 June 1977
0 ((muziek fade out))
1 G hallo met Germain.
hello it's Germain
2 C ja met Harriët.
yes it's Harriet
3 G dag.
hi
4 C ja,
yes
5 (.)
6 C ik eh:
I uh
7 (.)
8 C ik heb een probleem met een leraar,
I have a problem with a teacher
9 (.)
10 C hij eh: mag me erg graag en eh
he uh likes me a lot and uh
In case 2, the caller uses her first turn, after just two minor elements,
'yes' and 'hello', to introduce herself in categorical terms,
her age, followed by an essential characterization of her problem, which
evokes the Standardized Relational Pair (SRP): 'girl friend / boy friend',
as well as a common problem, he wanting to have sex with her, while she
is not ready for it.
In case 3, the caller at least uses a name identification and leaves
room for a greeting by the host, before starting her problem exposition,
which she announces as such: 'I have a problem' (8), while its first
specification, 'with a teacher', evokes another SRP: pupil / teacher
(making an age specification superfluous). Here, the problem is a bit less
common: the teacher likes the pupil, asks her out, but the girl's real
problem is that the teacher discriminates against the girl's boy friend
in class.
In case 1, we get a more extensive preparation as the caller first negotiates
the condition that she may have to interrupt the call when someone enters.
Then we get:
Case 1 ('eerste') 6 May 1977
09 G goed dat merken we dan.
okay we'll see that then
10 C jà.
yes
11 G oké vertel het maar.
okay just go ahead
12 C ik ben zestien jaar,
I am sixteen years
13 (.)
14 G ja
yes
15 C en heb een vriend van (.)veertien
and have a boyfriend who's fourteen
16 G ja
yes
17 C en daar word ik erg mee gepest,
and I get very much pestered about that
18 (.)
19 C op de sport waar ze zitten,
at the sport we are on
20 G ja
yes
21 C kan ik daar iets tegen doen?
can I do something against that?
The anchor position is here marked explicitly by the host, giving a 'go
ahead' in (11). Literally, her invitation should be translated as 'okay
just tell it'. The pronoun 'it' marks that participants can be supposed
to know what these calls are about, i.e. to discuss a problem. These are
reason-for-a-call-calls (cf. Sacks, 1992
a: 773-9; 1992 b: 157-74) and that
reason is limited to a specific kind of topic, a relational/sexual problem.
This pre-given topic provides for the relevance of the frequent evocations
of SRPs, and age-categorizations in this phase of the encounter, as is
done here also. The caller first introduces herself and her boy friend
in age-categorical terms, he being her junior by two years, and then summarizes
the problem as being pestered about that. Not the relationship itself is
the problem (to the contrary, she is quite happy with him), but public
reactions to its age-categorical properties. A similar structure is present
in case 5:
Case 5 ('Henk')
01 G we beginnen met de::: (.) >telefoontjes<
we start with the phone calls
02 G het eerste telefoontje is binnen
the first call is in
03 G hallo (.) goedenavond (.) met Germaine Groenier
hello good evening it's Germaine Groenier
04 G hallo?
hello
05 C ja: met e:h Henk Nieuwkoop=
yes it's uh Henk Nieuwkoop
06 G dag Henk
hi Henk
07 (.7)
08 G vertel het maar
just go ahead
09 C nou e:h (.) ik heb een probleem
well uh I have a problem
10 C ik e:h heb eh (.) >sinds een half jaartje ongeveer<
I uh am uh since about half a year
11 C een eh (.) verkering met een eh (.) meisje vanveertien
uh going steady with a uh fourteen your old girl
12 C ·hh [en dat e:h (.) dat gaat uitstekend
·hh and that uh that's going first rate
13 G [(ja)
yes
14 C ·hh [maar de ouders die eh (.) zijn er eh (.) fel op tegen
·hh but the parents they uh are uh very strongly against it
15 G [(ja)
yes
16 (.6)
17 G waarom?
why
18 (.)
19 C ·hh e::h nou: die zeggen=e:h (.)
·hh uh well they say uh
20 C die vinden dat e:: h (.)dat ze er niet rijp vooris
they tink that uh that she is not ripe for it
21 G hoe oud ben jij zelf?
how old are you yourself?
22 C e:h vijf en twinteg
uh twenty five
After a first-name and last-name self-identification, followed by a first-name
greeting, we see both parties marking the anchor position; first the host
with a routine 'vertel het maar'
(just go ahead, in 8), then the caller with 'nou e:h (.) ik heb
een probleem' (well uh I have a problem,
in 9). Within the corpus, this pair was quite a standard way to open up
the topic, either as here
just go ahead / I have a problem, or the
other way around I have a problem / just go ahead (cf. case 7).
Having gained the interactional space to present his problem, the caller
describes it as her parents not accepting their 14 year old daughter's
relationship with him, being 25, again a problem of lack of external acceptance
of an unusual age-categorical combination
(9).
In case 6, another rather uncommon problem situation is presented in
a relatively cool, although nervous, fashion:
Case 6 ('Anna') 4 March 1977
00 ((music fades out during 1))
01 G hallo met Germaine Groenier?
hello it's Germaine Groenier
02 C (ook) goeienavond met Anna?
(also) good evening it's Anna
03 G hallo.
hello
04 C goei-=hallo?
goo- hello?
05 G hallo ja
hello yes
06 C goeienavond met Anna
good evening it's Anna
07 G daaag
hi
08 C nou (eh) ik zit met een probleem?
well I have a problem
09 G vertel het maar
just go ahead
10 C ja?
yes?
11 G ja
yes
12 C dat eh kijk
that uh look
13 (.5)
14 C ik ben getrouwd hè
I am married right?
15 G ja
yes
16 C vier jaar getrouwd.
married four years
17 G ja
yes
18 C enne (.) kijke namelijk eh m'n man?
and-uh look namely uh my husband
19 G ja
yes
20 C die is ja >wat z' je zo kan noemen kan zo<impotent
who is what th' you can call like impotent
21 G [ja
[yes
22 C [ja?
[yes?
23 (.)
24 C en
and
25 (.)
26 C ik zit er mee want
I am troubled with it because
27 (.)
28 C kijk ik zit in het leven?
look I'm in the Life(2)
29 (.)
30 G ja
yes
31 C enne
anduh
32 (1.0)
33 C dinges
whatsit
34 (.)
35 C ik ben een b(h)eetje z(h)enuwachtig
I'm a b(h)it n(h)ervous
36 G nou dat geeft niet hoor huh
well that doesn't matter huh
37 C nee. ik zit in het leven
no I'm in the Life
38 (.)
39 C kijk en
look and
40 (.)
41 C ik kom zo vaak per dag klaar met die klanten allemaal
I come so often a day with all those clients
42 G hmhm
uhuh
43 C ja kijk en nou voel ik toch aan de ene kant=
yes look and now I do feel on the one hand
44 C =voel ik mij dus schuldig tegenover m'n man
I feel guilty towards my husband
45 (.8)
46 C omdat ik dus toch nog van hem toch dus omdat=
because I still do because
47 C =ondanks dat hij impotent is toch van hem hou begrijpt u?
although he is impotent still love him do you understand
48 G (humhum)
uhuh
49 C en dan probeer ik dus op de een of andere manier=
and so I try in one way or another
50 C =naar een dokter of zo mee te krijgen maar dat lukt niet
get to a doctor or someone but that doesn't work
After the preliminaries, ending in mutual greetings (6, 7) as discussed
before, topical work is opened with a version of the by now familiar pair:
'nou (eh) ik zit met een probleem?' (well I have a problem,
8)/'vertel het maar'
(just go ahead, 9), followed by a confirmation exchange, 'ja?' (yes?,
10) / 'ja' (yes, 11). Then the caller starts to explain her rather
unusual problem: her husband is impotent, she works as a prostitute, she
gets frequent orgasms with her clients, for which she feels guilty, but
she does not succeed in getting her husband to a doctor for his condition(11).
Again, the problem is set in the framework of a SRP, that of husband /
wife, but this time it's not the cagetorical combination but the failing
category-bound activities (Sacks, 1972 b)
that are the crux of the problem, with the caller's job and her frequent
orgasms as a 'slight complication'.
It should be noted, then, that the last two discusses cases, number
5 'Henk' and number 6 'Anna', although they concerned rather unusual problems
in general social terms, were not too unusual in terms of the ways in which
the openings were organized, except, perhaps, in the relatively large number
of 'nervousness phenomena' they contained.
Now I will consider the cases I did previously introduce as deviant
ones. First case 4 'Annelies', the one with the exceptional 'initial inquiries',
which I quote again below, in lines 11-14.
Case 4 ('Annelies')
11 A hoe is het met je
how are you doing?
12 G ja prima.
yes alright
13 A en met mij ook goed
and me also alright
14 G nou
well
15 A e:h ja wat ik-=
uh yes what I-
16 A =(eh) ik had dus een probleempje:?
(uh) so I had some kind of problem
17 G ja:.
yes
18 A ja nou ja min of meer,
yes well yes more or less
19 A (o)f: >voor de één een probleem voor de ander niet.=
or for one person a problem for another not
20 A =>ik weet 't eigenlijk niet.=
I don't know really
21 A =nou >'t is (dus) namelijk zo,
well it happens to be the case
22 A <e:::h dat ik dus e::h
uh that I so uh
23 (1)
24 A nou ik vind dus om vrouwen niets meer aan,
well I don't like it anymore with women
25 A en ik vin' eh
and I don't uh
26 A nou eh >mannen vind ik ook niet meer zo gezellig.
well uh I also don't like men anymore very much
27 (1.4)
28 G ja:?
yes?
After the initial inquiries, the host utters a rather impatient-sounding
'nou' (well, 14), and not her usual just
go ahead invitation. The caller then starts with announcing her problem,
using many diminuitives and other kinds of mitigations: 'e:h ja
wat ik- (eh) ik had dus een probleempje:? [ja:.]
ja nou ja min of meer, (o)f: >voor de één een
probleem voor de ander niet. >ik weet 't eigenlijk niet.' (uh
yes what I- (uh) so I had some kind of problem [yes] yes
well yes more or lessor for one person a problem for another not I don't
know really, 16-20). This contrasts sharply with the ways in which
the other callers tend to present their problems, i.e. seriously, even
in a complaining, suffering tone and formulation. Her problem itself is
deviant too, in that it is presented as an 'internal' or 'mental' problem:
'nou >'t is (dus) namelijk zo, <e:::h dat ik dus e::h
(1) nou ik vind dus om vrouwen niets meer aan,
en ik vin' eh nou eh >mannen vind ik ook
niet meer zo gezellig.' (well it happens to be the case uh that
I so uh well I don't like it anymore with women and I don't uhwell
uh I also don't like men anymore very much, 21-26). This contrasts
with the overall problem structure of the previous cases, in which a situation
involving the caller was invoked in categorical terms, often as somehow
not fitting with public expectations, while the main focus was the attitude
or behaviour of one or more 'others', which made life miserable for the
caller. In the present case 4, categories are again used, i.e. gender,
but the focus is the caller herself. Furthermore, the order in which the
partner-categories are mentioned is contrary to public expectations. In
short, this deviant case puts the 'other-directedness' of the usual calls
in perspective.
Another one of the deviant cases, 'Chris' calling from a snack bar,
puts the standard cases in perspective in a different way. I shall just
repeat the relevant parts where he announces and presents his problem.
Case 7 ('Chris') 13 May 1977
28 C maar eh ik zit dus met een probleem.
but uh so I have a problem
29 C ·hh
30 G oh >jij jij was:- jij werd opgehangen of zo hè?
oh you you was- you were hanged-up or something, right?
31 (1)
32 C e:h
33 (.)
34 C [ze hebben dus gewoon eh
[they have just uh
35 G [of het werd-
[or it was-
36 (.)
37 C de knop omgedraaid van de telefoon.
turned the switch of the telephone
38 G oh.
39 (.)
40 C ·hh maar e:h
·hh but uh
41 (.)
42 C ik zit dus te: met het probleem e:h
so I have uh the problem uh
43 (.)
44 C ik ben dus twee-en-dertig jaar,
so I'm thirty-two years
45 C e:h ik werk voor het uitzendbureau,
uh I work for the temping agency
46 G ja
yes
47 C ·hh en ik krijg dus een minimumloon van twee
·hh and I get a minimum wage of two
48 C eh twee-honderd-twee-en-veertig gulden,
uh two hundred-forty-two guilders
49 C ·hh e:h buiten de vergoedingen om.
·hh uh apart from the expenses
50 (1.2)
51 G ja
yes
52 C en dat vind ik dus e:h
and I think that's uh
53 (3)
54 C voor mijn leeftijd te weinig dus(t)
for my age not enough
55 (1.3)
56 C en dan wou ik (es) vragen
and then I would like to ask
57 C wat kan ik daar aan doen
what can I do about that
Chris' problem is different from most in that it does not concern private
relationships and sexual issues, but rather business relations and financial
matters. He still uses the core category of age to introduce his problem,
but now in terms of a discrepancy between his age-related financial needs
and the minimum wage he gets from his temporary job.
I will not again take up the last deviant case I discussed before ('Rob'),
because that did not concern a present problem.
To summarize the findings reported in this section, we can first note
that in many cases the topic phase was opened up with a version of the
pair I have a problem / just go ahead, or its alternative, just
go ahead / I have a problem. In the first version, the caller in a
way requests the host's permission to enter the topic phase, while in the
alternate the host prompts the caller to do so. Together with the generally
'fast forward' character of the previous parts of the opening, this marks
the calls as oriented to their main business. As reason-for-a-call-calls
between previously non-acquainted persons, this does not seem to be unusual
at all. The fact that the calls are broadcast does not seem to play a role
in this respect. That the callers use the pair in such a standard fashion
may be related to the broadcast character, however, in that they will have
listened in on quite a number of calls by others before they made a call
themselves. Therefore they may have learned how they should present their
problem and how to get to the point where they can start to do that. In
that sense, the calls were 'self-explicating', to use a concept coined
by Pollner (1979) in his study of traffic court
transactions, in which defendants first observed the way previous cases
were organized before it was their turn.
The second major finding was that the callers tended to present their
cases in terms of the Standardized Relational Pairs (SRPs) in which they
were involved, while age-categorizations and/or categorical discrepancies
played a major role in sketching the actual problem situation. In this
way, they could convince the host rather quickly that they were, indeed,
in a situation that could be problematic, which gained them their 'ticket'
for a problem-oriented call. One can imagine that a similar orientation
to gaining one's ticket may be present in other kinds of help line calls,
which are not broadcast. The orientation to the program's specialization
in relational, and possibly sexual, calls is quite clear in the choice
of SRPs and categories. The self-explicating possibilities of the broadcast
program may be at work here as well: the callers know what is expected
of them, and they may even have considered that their possibilities to
get in may be related to the 'originality', if not authenticity, of the
categorical combination they can present. This may specifically have been
the case in number 5 'Henk', who claims a 14/25 relationship. Apart from
those aspects, no apparent relationship of the organization of the problem
presentations with the fact of the calls being broadcast seems evident.
Finally, the tendency to focus on others in the relational matrix, rather
than on one's own contribution to the problem, can be related to the accessibility
of this kind of social assistance and to the era, the late 70s, in which
these calls were made. Cultural preferences in the repertoire of talking
about personal troubles have changed quite radically over the last few
decades. From the late 60s onwards. there has been, at least in the Netherlands,
a general tendency towards a 'therapeutic ethic', focusing on the attitude
and strategies of the sufferer him- or herself, coupled with an effort
to open-up various taboo-topics for public as well as private discussions.
The program itself was part of this broad cultural movement, showing by
example that one could talk about these things in a basically accepting
manner. The callers, however, were new to this kind of talk; they were
making their first moves in this direction. Being one-shot contacts, no
therapeutic process, in which clients slowly learn to turn the focus to
themselves, could be really started, although the host sometimes made an
effort to redirect the callers' perspective. Most of the time, however,
the host 'massively supported the resistance', as a psychoanalytically
inclined colleague once remarked, and the problem presentations did exemplify
this 'pre-therapeutic' attitude. A longitudinal study of the organization
of problem presentations over the few years during which the program was
on the air might reveal some kind of development possibly due to a learning
effect, as the host during her last year sometimes asked 'what do you expect
that I am going to say on this?', to suggest that the caller 'knew already'
him- or herself(12).
Conclusion
In this paper, I have examined the local work of participants in opening
broadcast calls concerned with 'problems with sex and relationships', as
part of an 'advanced' radio program from the late 70s in the Netherlands.
I have focused on three 'organizational jobs' that are on the agenda of
any encounter: establishing contact, (re)establishing a relationship, and
working towards a (first) topic. For each of these, I have tried to explicate
how these jobs were actually organized, on the basis of 8 cases, some rather
standard ones, while others could be considered as deviant in one way or
another.
I have argued that the first 'hallo' by the program's host was used
as a kind of 'boundary object', marking the fact that a call was started
for the audience, while at the same time marking for the caller that he
or she was now talking to the host as well as being on the air. By saying
'hallo', the host shifted the participation framework of her talking from
the program frame in which she was addressing her audience, to a telephone
call in which she was addressing an individual caller, re-framing her audience
into an overhearing one. The callers tended to round off the work of establishing
contact in a summary fashion, mostly with an acknowledging 'ja' (yes).
For the second organizational job of establishing a relationship, I
observed a general tendency to minimize this phase, especially as compared
to the so-called canonical model, based on U.S. personal calls. The host
identified herself, but the callers often did not, or used an anonymous
first-name identification. Greetings tended to be minimal, using routine
forms. And 'initial inquiries' were virtually absent. One would expect
that the callers would have used more elaborate self-identifications, if
the calls would have been made to a help line that was not broadcasting
calls. The broadcast condition seems to have been taken into account as
grounds for a general avoidance of personal elements, as well as leading
to a fast-forward approach to pre-topic work.
For the third job, topicalizing, participants frequently used a formulaic
pair: I have a problem / just go ahead, or its alternate. Having
so established a conversational space for the presentation of their problem
-- the reason for their call -- the callers strongly relied on Membership
Categorization Devices, and especially SRPs, as elaborated in Harvey Sacks'
early investigations (1972 a & b;
1992
a). Quite often, the callers in the calls examined were involved in
less usual categorical combinations for which they were apparently seeking
moral support from the host. Whether this pattern was a general one in
the corpus has to be further investigated.
The program was designed as a contribution to a larger cultural movement
of de-taboo-ization. As such, it can be considered a success. The callers
acted as willing subjects in demonstrative experiments in taking about
personal troubles in public. Their tendency to blame others in their relational
matrix shows that they were still acting in an early phase of the overall
cultural change in personal talk.
Notes
1. My use of concepts like 'frame' and 'participation
framework' is inspired by Erving Goffman's various contributions, most
notably his paper on 'Footing' (1979, reprinted
in 1981), and his earlier
Frame Analysis
(1974). A summary discussion is provided by
Duranti (1997: 294-314).
2. Note that the translation misses the alliteration
in Dutch ('haak', 'hoorn') which may in part account for the illogical
switching of the two terms.
3. 'Dag' is a shortened, informal version of 'Goedendag'
(good day), a general well-wishing greeting in Dutch.
4. This section is based on previous work (Ten Have,
in prep.), from which I quote without marking is as such.
5. The selection criteria included 'authenticity',
i.e. shifting out 'fakers', and 'fitness', as the program wanted to have
calls dealing with 'ordinary' problems, rather than 'extreme' ones (based
on interview with host). In one call, the caller starts with an assessment
of her problem in a way that demonstrates that she thinks that the host
has already been informed on it, which she denies.
6. This metaphore has been adapted to my own uses
from an earlier one by Doro Franck.
7. cf. Starr & Griesemer (1989),
as discussed in Fujimura (1992: 171-6)
8. The one item that is a bit exeptional is the use
of a last name in case 5; I'll come back to that later.
9. Apart from this rather extreme age combination,
and the frequent uh's, this opening does not seem to be too problematic.
The call continues quietly for some time, until the caller starts provoking
the host and the call turns into a scolding fight. The caller, then, turns
out not to have an authentic problem, but to have faked one as a kind of
game to get on the air. Not having been denounced, he provokes it. One
might wonder whether these later developments might have been foreseen
during the opening. The 14/25 relationship does sound improbable, but the
host did not seem to distrust it, at least not openly. The rather full
self-identification is exceptional too, surely with such a 'problem'. At
the time, a big lower-class home furnishing shop used to advertise with
the slogan 'Henk Nieuwkoop zal je nooit belazeren!' (Henk Nieuwkoop
will never screw you!).
10. Meaning: 'I work as a prostitute'.
11. Later in the call she adds as part of the problem
that her colleagues protest that she has an unfair competitive advantage
because of her frequent orgasms with clients. One might think that this
would have to be another fancy 'faker' call, but it is not treated as such.
In a later phase, the husband is asked to participate in the call, which
he reluctantly does - another case of invoking the home situation in the
call, and so another 'frame break'.
12. This summary discussion does not, of course,
do full justice to the complexities involved in such large-scale cultural
developments. Some of these issues have been treated by Abram de Swaan
(1990, part 2: 'The psychotherapy trade'), especially
related to the cultural changes emanating from the psycho-therapeutic professions.
References
Drew, P., J. Heritage, eds. (1992) Talk at work:
interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Duranti, A. (1997) Linguistic anthropology
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Fujimura, J.H. (1992) 'Crafting science: standardized
packages, boundary objects, and "translation"'. In: A. Pickering, ed. Science
as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 168-211
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis: an essay
on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row
Goffman, E. (1979) 'Footing', Semiotica
25: 1-29
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of talk.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Have, P. ten (1999) Doing conversation
analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage Publications
Have, P. ten (in prep.) 'Comparing telephone
call openings: theoretical and methodological reflections', chapter for
a book on Telephone Calls, edited by K. K. Luke & Theodossia-Soula
Pavlidou
Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.
Cambridge: Polity Press
Heritage, J. (1985) 'Analyzing news interviews:
aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience'. In: T.A.
van Dijk,ed. Handbook of discourse analysis. London: Academic Press.
Vol. 3: 95-117
Hopper, R. (1992) Telephone conversation.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1991) 'Opening sequences
in Dutch Telephone Conversations'. In: Boden, D. & D.H. Zimmerman (eds.),
Talk
and social structure. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.
Cambridge: Polity Press: 232-50
Jefferson, G. (1980) 'On "trouble-premonitory"
response to inquiry',
Sociological Inquiry 50: 153-85
Pollner, M. (1979) 'Explicative transaction: making
and managing meaning in traffic court'. In: G. Psathas, ed. Everyday
language: studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington 229-55
Sacks, H. (1972 a) 'An initial investigation
of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology'. In: D. Sudnow,
ed. Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press: 31-74
Sacks, H. (1972 b) 'On the analyzability
of stories by children'. In: J.J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes, ed. Directions
in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. New York: Rinehart
& Winston: 325-45
Sacks, H. (1992 a) Lectures on conversation.
vol. I. Edited by G. Jefferson with an introduction by E.A. Schegloff.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Sacks, H. (1992 b) Lectures on conversation.
vol. II. Edited by G. Jefferson with an introduction by E.A. Schegloff.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, G. Jefferson (1978)
'A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation'.
In: J.N. Schenkein, ed. Studies in the organization of conversational
interaction. New York: Academic Press: 7-55 (1974)
Schegloff, E.A. (1968) 'Sequencing
in conversational openings', American Anthropologist, 70: 1075-95
Schegloff, E.A. (1979) 'Identification
and recognition in telephone conversation openings'. In G. Psathas, ed.
Everyday
language: studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington: 23-78
Schegloff, E.A. (1986) 'The routine
as achievement', Human Studies 9: 111-52
Starr, S.L., J.R. Griesemer (1989) 'Institutional
ecology, "translations," and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals
in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Soology', Social Studies of Science
19: 387-420
Swaan, A. de (1990) The management of normality.
London: Routledge, 1990
====================================================================
Paul ten Have, Wethouder Tomsonbos 18, 1852 HA Heiloo
http://www.paultenhave.nl