INDEXING INFERABLES AND ORGANIZATIONAL SHIFTS: ‘NO’-PREFACES IN ENGLISH CONVERSATION by JOSHUA RACLAW B.A., Richard Stockton College, 2003 M.A., University of Colorado, 2008 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics 2013 This thesis entitled: Indexing Inferables and Organizational Shifts: ‘No’-Prefaces in English Conversation written by Joshua Raclaw has been approved for the Department of Linguistics ____________________________________ Barbara Fox ____________________________________ Ceci Ford ____________________________________ Kira Hall ____________________________________ Andrew Cowell ____________________________________ Karen Tracy Date 7-18-2013__ The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards Of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. IRB protocol # ______11-0332______ iii Raclaw, Joshua (Ph.D., Linguistics) Indexing Inferables and Organizational Shifts: ‘No’-Prefaces in English Conversation Thesis directed by Professor Barbara Fox This dissertation uses conversation analysis to examine three non-disagreeing functions of the token ‘no’ when it prefaces a turn at talk. In the first function, ‘no’-prefaces index and respond to an inferential component of a prior turn. This practice entails a number of sub- practices, in which speakers use ‘no’-prefaced responses to deny face-threatening actions produced through “off-record” formulations, display affiliation with a recipient by managing incongruent stance displays, manage inferences regarding the speaker’s epistemic stance or rights, deny an inference conveyed through a prior polar question, or produce a preferred response to delicate formulations that index a recipient’s accountability, blame, or guilt. In the second function, ‘no’-prefaces mark a shift in how the turn is organized with regard to the speaker’s footing. In this practice, speakers employ ‘no’-prefaced turns to shift between non- serious and serious interactional frames, or retroactively assert the serious footing of a prior utterance. In the third function, ‘no’-prefaces mark a shift in how the turn is organized with regard to the surrounding talk. In this practice, ‘no’-prefaced turns may be used to mark a unit of talk as hearably “misplaced”, connect back to a prior segment of talk, or close an extended telling sequence. As a study situated within the framework of interactional linguistics, this dissertation examines these functions of ‘no’-prefaces in the context of naturally-occurring English conversation. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation, and the years of education and research behind it, would not have been possible without the assistance of a great many people. I would like to first express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation chair, Barbara Fox, who has so freely given her support and guidance throughout my graduate career. My thanks also goes to my other committee members, Ceci Ford, Kira Hall, Andrew Cowell, and Karen Tracy, for their feedback and advice both throughout the dissertation and before this project had even begun. I owe so much of this dissertation to my fellow students at the University of Colorado, who were always there to talk theory and data and helped make long Saturdays in the lab all the more enjoyable. Thanks to Rich Sandoval, Yumiko Endo, Nick Williams, Velda Khoo, and Matt Ingram for being such amazing colleagues and insightful analysts of language and interaction, and especially for all of our talks and data sessions. Thanks too to Jenny Davis, Lal Zimman, Susanne Stadlbauer, Aous Mansouri, Jessica Holman, Marcus Avelar, and Alec Buchner for our countless discussions about sociolinguistics over the years and for keeping our office full of laughter, and to Jena Hwang, Kevin Gould, Will Styler, Christy-Dale Sims, Kate Phelps, and Steve Duman for doing the same for the rest of the building. To all of the teachers and mentors who furthered my education in conversation analysis and the field at large – especially Makoto Hayashi, Jenny Mandelbaum, Laura Visapää, Marja- Leena Sorjonen, Betty Couper-Kuhlen, Jack Sidnell, Geoff Raymond, and Tanya Stivers – I offer my very heartfelt thanks. My gratitude also goes out to the many people who have offered feedback and insights into this project as it was presented at the NCA, CLASP, LISO, and CLIC conferences. To my family and friends, thank you so much for not only being there for me and helping v to keep me sane, but for putting up with more than a few canceled plans and delayed visits home when the dissertation was calling. To my mother and sisters especially, I love you, and I hope you're all thrilled to finally have a doctor in the family. To my fiancée Lindsay, words cannot express how much you’ve contributed to this project, from listening to me go on about particles and preference to always being there with a hug and some tea when I had a deadline to meet. Thank you for everything. vi CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION .........................................1 1.1 Introduction to Chapter 1 ..............................................................1 1.2 Prior Work on ‘No’-Prefaced Turns at Talk ..................................5 1.3 Methods: Conversation Analysis ................................................10 1.4 Data .............................................................................................13 II. INDEXING INFERABLES THROUGH ‘NO’-PREFACED TURNS ...................................................................................................15 2.1 Introduction to Chapter 2 ............................................................15 2.2 Previous Work on Inferences in Interaction ................................16 2.3 Responding to Off-Record Actions .............................................18 2.4 Managing Incongruent Stance Displays .....................................30 2.4.1 Managing Prior Disaffiliation ............................................34 2.4.2 Responding to the Pursuit of a Stance Display ..................40 2.5 Responding to Issues of Epistemic Incongruence ......................56 2.6 Responding to Claims of Accountability, Guilt, and Self-Blame ..................................................................................74 2.6.1 Responses to Claims of Accountability and Self-Blame ...77 2.6.2 Responses to Claims of Accountability and Guilt .............87 2.7 Responding to an Inference in a Polar Question .........................99 2.8 Summary and Discussion of Chapter 2 .....................................100 III. INDEXING SHIFTS IN FOOTING AND FRAME .............................102 3.1 Introduction to Chapter 3 ..........................................................102 vii 3.2 Shifting Between Non-Serious and Serious Interactional Frames .......................................................................................104 3.2.1 Reformulating a Non-Serious Action with a Serious Footing .........................................................................105 3.2.2 Responding in a Serious Way to a Non-Serious First Turn ................................................................................... 110 3.2.3 Returning to a Seriously-Framed Main Sequence ........... 115 3.3 Retroactive Assertions of Serious Footing ................................127 3.4 Discussion of Chapter 3 ............................................................136 IV. INDEXING SHIFTS IN SEQUENTIAL ORGANIZATION ...............140 4.1 Introduction to Chapter 4 ..........................................................140 4.2 Marking a Misplaced Turn at Talk ............................................141 4.3 Skip-Connecting to a Prior-Prior Segment of the Talk .............148 4.3.1 Restarting or Extending a Prior-Prior Turn ......................151 4.3.2 Returning to a Prior-Prior Topic of Talk ..........................167 4.4 Closing an Extended Telling .....................................................170 4.5 Summary of Chapter 4 ..............................................................175 V. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................177 5.1 Summary of the Dissertation ....................................................177 5.2 Inferences and Action Formation ..............................................179 5.3 Examining Complex Prefaces ...................................................181 5.4 Implications of the Dissertation ................................................187 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………..………………………………………… ....190 APPENDIX viii A. TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS..................................................196 ix TABLES Table 2.1 ‘No’-Prefaced Response at Line 15 in Excerpt 1 ..........................................23 2.2 ‘No’-Prefaced Response at Line 21 in Excerpt 1 ..........................................23 2.3 ‘No’-Prefaced Responses in Excerpt 2 .........................................................27 2.4 ‘No’-Prefaced Responses in Excerpt 3 .........................................................30 2.5 ‘No’-Prefaced Responses to Claims of Guild and Self-Blame .....................74 3.1 Practices for Shifting Between Serious and Non-Serious Frames ..............104 3.2 Retroactive Assertions of Serious Footing ..................................................127 4.1 ‘No’-Prefaced Practices