On fo rmu la t i ng re fe rence :t o r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s i n

An in teract iona l approachEng l i sh conve rsa t i on '

Ba rba ra A . Fox

Sand ra A . Thompson

1 .0 I n t roduc t i on

The ques t i on o f f o rmu la t i ng re fe rence t o pe rsons has been o fin terest to s tudents o f spoken d iscourse for some t i rne. Var iousapproaches have been taken to th is quest ion; see e. . g . Du Bois ,1 9 8 0 ; F o x , 1 9 8 7 a a n d 1 9 8 7 b ; D u r a n t i , l - 9 8 4 ; R e i c h m a n , 1 9 8 1 ; c r o s z ,I 9 7 6 ; S a c k s a n d S c h e g l o f f , I 9 7 9 ; L i n d e , L 9 7 9 ; C l a n c y , 1 9 9 0 ,R e d e c k e r , 1 9 8 7 .

Our conce rn i n t h i s pape r i s t he ro l e o f r e l a t i ve c l auses ( i nEng l i sh conve rsa t i on ) i n f o rmu la t i ng re fe rence . We w i I I o f f e rexamp les wh i ch sugges t t ha t , i n add i t i on t o g ramrna t i ca1 andin fo rna t i ona l cons ide ra t i ons , ce r t a i n f ac t s abou t t he use o fre l a t i ve c l auses can be i ns igh t f u l l y accoun ted f o r i n i n te rac t i ona lterms. That is , the pr imary goal o f the paper is to enr ich the on-go ing pro ject o f funct iona l syntax- -which we take to be thei l luminat ion o f the re la t ionsh ips between form and funct ion inlanguage--by inc lud ing in funct ion the creat ion/ rna in tenance ofsoc ia l ident i t ies and re l -a t ions between conversat iona lpa r t i c i pan ts , ds we l I as o the r i n te rac t i ona l i s sues .

1 .1 The Da ta Base

The p resen t s tudy i s pa r t o f a l a rge r p ro jec t on re l a t i ve c l ausesin Eng r i sh conve rsa t i on ( see Fox and Thompson , 1990 ) . Th i s l a rge rp ro jec t exa rn ines t he syn tac t i c and d i s t r i bu t i - ona ] cha rac te r i s t i c so f 4 I4 re l a t i ve c l auses ; t hese re l a t i ve c l auses we re cu l l - ed f r omt ransc r i p t s o f na tu ra l l y -occu r r i ng Eng l i sh conve rsa t i ons , r eco rdedand t r ansc r i bed by a va r i e t y o f peop le , i n d i f f e ren t pa r t s o f t hecoun t r y , ove r a span o f app rox ima te l y 20 yea rs . A r1 o f t hepar t ic ipants in these conversat ions are nat ive speakers o f Amer icanEng r i sh , ds f a r as t h i s can be de te r rn i ned . Many o f t he speake rshave had at least some co l lege educat ion. Some of the conversat ionstook p lace over the te lephone, o thers are

I P r A P a p e r s i n P r a g m a t i c s 4 , N o . l l 2 ( i 9 9 0 ) , l B 3 - 1 9 6

r

l B 4

face - to - f ace ; many i nvo l ve j us t two pa r t i c i pan ts , bu t t he re a reseve ra l w i t h more t han two .

I . 2 T e r m i n o l - o g y

The te rm r r x - re l a t i ve r r i s used t o re fe r t o t he ro l e o f t he NP i nthe re l a t i ve c l ause ; t hus ob jec t - re l a t i ve re fe r s t o a re l a t i vec lause i n wh i ch t he re l a t i v i zed -on NP i s an ob jec t i n t here la t i ve c l ause . The t e rm r r x -head r t i s used t o re fe r t o t he ro l eo f t he head NP i n i t s ma in c l ause ; t hus ob jec t -head re fe r s t o ama in c l ause i n wh i ch t he head noun i s a d i r ec t ob jec t . Fo r examp le ,t he f o l l ow ing ( i nven ted ) sen tence i s an ob jec t -head , sub jec t -r e l a t i v e :

( i ) I have a f r iend that acts l ike that

I n t h i s sen tence , t he noun ph rase a f r i end i s t he ob jec t o f t hem a i n c l a u s e ( h e n c e o b j e c t - h e a d ) , a n d i t p l a y s t h e r o l e o f s u b j e c ti n t h e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e ( h e n c e s u b j e c t - r e l a t i v e ) .

2 . O F o r m u l a t i n g r e f e r e n c e

We beg in ou r i nves t i ga t i on o f t he i n te rac t i ona l - bases o f t hegrammar o f re la t ive c lauses by examin ing the choice o f whetherto use a re l a t i ve c l ause a t a l l , r a the r t han an unmod i f i edfu l l noun ph rase , o r a noun ph rase rnod i f i ed by an ad jec t i ve .

f t has been c l a imed tha t r e l a t i ve c l auses heJ -p t o spec i f y t heident i ty o f the head-re ferent , and thereby serve are fe rence - t rack ing f unc t i on . Bu t r e fe rence - t rack ing i t se l f , t hecons t i t u t i on o f pa r t i c i pan ts i n d i scou rse , i s a h i gh l yin teract iona l process, because formulat ions o f re ferences topersons .and things is one of the ways whereby speakers show theirrelationships to one another, to the topic being constructed, andto o ther people l ike them. Th is index icat i ty has been not iced bya number o f r esea rche rs i Scheg lo f f ( 1972 ) makes t h i s po in t abou tde i c t i c exp ress ions i n t he con tex t o f conve rsa t i on f o r t hef o rmu la t i - on o f l oca t i on :

on each occas ion i n conve rsa t i on on wh i ch afo rmu la t i on o f } oca t i on i s used , a t t en t i on i s exh ib i t edto t he pa r t i cu la r s o f t he occas ion . f n se lec t i ng ar r r i gh t r r f o rmu la t i on , a t t en t i on i s exh ib i t ed t or r w h e r e w e k n o w w e a r e , r r t orr who -\^re -know-we- are, rr to rr what -we - are -do i ng- at-th i s -po i nt- i n - t he -conve rsa t i on . r r A r r r i gh t r r f o rmu la t i on exh ib i t s ,

1 8 5

in t he ve ry f ac t o f i t s p roduc t i on , t ha t i t i s some " t h i sconve rsa t i on , d t t h i s p l ace , w i t h t hese members , d t t h i spo in t i n i t s cou rse r r t ha t has been ana l yzed t o se lec tt ha t t e rm ; i t exh ib i t s , i n t he ve ry f ac t o f i t sp roduc t i on , t ha t i t i s some pa r t i cu la r " t h i s s i t ua t i on "t h a t i s p r o d u c i n g i t . ( p . 1 1 5 - - e m p h a s i s i n t h e o r i g i n a l )

To see how these s ta temen ts re l a te t o re l a t i ve c l auses , I e t ' sexa rn ine a pa r t i cuLa r con tex t , name ly ( 1 ) :

t

I

et

( 1 ) ( r G :

B :

A :A :R .

8 )

T h i s f e l l e r I h a v e - ( i v - ) " f e l l u h r r ; t h i s m a : n .( 0 . 2 ) t ! . h h h H e h a : : ( s ) - u f f - e h - w h o - w h o I h a v efor L inguis t ics / / is rea l Iy too much, . ! l r ! : r / /11:Mn hm?Mm hm,- I d i dn ' t no t i ce i t bu t t he re ' s a woman i n my c l assw h o ' s a n u r s e ' n . . h h s h e s a i d t o m e s h e s a i d d i d y o un o t i c e h e h a s a h a : n d i c a p a n d I s a i d w h a : t . Y o u k n o w Isa id I don ' t see any th ing w rong w i t h h im , she says h i sh a : n d s .

o

ao

IYord

Yeo

As we have desc r i - bed e l - sewhere (Fox , I 9B7 ) , r r t he re ' s a womanin ny c lass who 's a nurser t in t roduces a new referent whoseexpe r t i se as a nu rse i s used t o es tab l i sh t he reason fo ran observat ion about an ins t ructor ( that he has a mi ldhand i . cap , so rn i l d i n f ac t t ha t on l y an r rexpe r t r r cou ld havede tec ted i t ) . Bu t i f he r ' r nu rseness r r i s t he c r i t i ca l aspec to f he r desc r i p t i on f o r t h i - s pa r t i cu la r occas ion , h rhy d id t hespeaker f i rs t in t roduce her as a woman, wi th thein format ion about her be ing a nurse occurr ing as a rnodi f ie rin a re la t ive c lause, ra ther than as a nurse in ano r d i n a r y s i n p l e e x i s t e n t i a l : r r t h e r e ' s a n u r s e i n n y c l a s s t r ?The choice between these two formulat ions is f ine ly tuned to thek inds o f i n te rac t i ona l i s sues ra i sed by Scheg lo f f i n t he passageabove.

A cursory }ook at o ther t ranscr ip ts ind icates that the fac t o ft he wo rnan ' s nu rseness does no t t e l l t he en t i r e s to r y . Cons ide r ,f o r examp le , t he f o l l ow ing u t t e rance , i n wh i ch t he noun nu rse i sused wi thout modi f icat ion and wi thout be ing i tse l f in t roduced ina re l a t i ve c l ause :

r

( 2

;\ 7 .

1 8 6

V: But you know what I want to do

f asked t he nu rse - I asked he r( 0 . 4 )

V : I s a i d a r e y o u s ( h ) u r : e t h i s i sc o m f o r t a b l e .

( F o r d : 1 - 1 0 )

But where 'd your Mom get the idea that the surgerywas unnece-

She th i nks t he who le knee su rge ry / /was unnecessa ry?Okay we l l no . hh he -

( 0 . 2 )Okay t h i s i s wha t t - t he p rob lem i s , my Dad ' s knee -Ieg was ve ry bow- legged .

\ 7 .

when I see hernurse, ton ightt w o t i m e s ,

gonna make h im more

I t i s ou r be l i e f t ha t t he re fe ren t o f nu rse i n ( 2 ) wou l -d beinappropr ia te ly formulated as the r roman who's a nurse; that is ,t ha t wou ld be p ragma t i ca l l y b i za r re t o re fe r t o such a pe rson i nthe context o f (2) as the woman who's a nurse. Why, then, is ther e f e r e n t i n ( 1 ) s o f o r m u l a t e d ?

We bel ieve that the cho ice between these two formulat ions has todo wi th the fact that in (2) the concept o f nurse has been invokedby t he su rge ry f r ame , wh i l e i n ( 1 ) no such f r ame i s ac t i ve . And ,a s h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d i n F i l l m o r e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , D u B o i s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , T a n n e n( 1 9 7 9 ) , a n d W e r t s c h ( 1 9 8 6 ) , a m o n g o t h e r s , f r a m e s , i n a d d i t i o n t obe ing ma t te r s o f cogn i t i on and cu l t u re , a re a l so ma t te r s o fr e c i p i e n t d e s i g n , t o p u t i t i n S a c k s ' ( 1 9 7 2 ) t e r m s .In f ac t , i t i s poss ib l e t o p rov ide a r i che r ana l ys i s o f t here fe rence f o rmu la t i ons i n ( 1 ) and (2 ) i f we respond to t he s i t ua tedna tu re o f t hese f o rmu la t i ons .

I n ( f ) , t he re fe rence i s comp lex . The speake r has been ta l k i ngabou t he r l i ngu i s t i c s c l ass and how aw fu l t he i ns t ruc to r o f t h i sc l a s s i s . N o w i t i s t h e c a s e , a s S a c k s ( L 9 7 2 ) a n d S c h e g l o f f ( 1 9 7 2 )have shown, that re ference formulat ion is sens i t ive to membersh ipc a t e g o r i z a t i o n , s u c h t h a t i f a n o u n i s u s e d , I e t r s s a y f o r e x a m p l e' doc to r ' , t hen re fe rences t o o the r peop le w i l l be done to makethe i r mernbersh ip in the same or a re la ted category ( for exarnp le ,' h o s p i t a l ' ) t r a n s p a r e n t t o t h e r e c i p i e n t . '

For the context o f c lassrooms, category membersh ip can bedisp layed wi th nouns l ike ins t ructor , s tudent , oy even

)e

nre

.or d

,nof

d

gS

)pee

i 8 7

person or woman; r rnurse i l is not one of the members o ft he c rass room ca tego ry (un less t he re i s a c l i n i c i n t he room,o r s /he i s t he re t o g i ve a rec tu re on a med i ca l t op i c , oy t op r o v i d e a i d t o s o m e o n e i n t h e c l a s s , e t c . ) . T h a t i ; , t h e w o m a nin t h i s u t t e rance i s no t i n t he c rass room as a nu rse , bu t asa s tuden t . He r ca tego ry - re revan t f o rmura t i on i s t hus no tnurse, and there are no pr ior categor ies evoked whose usewould nake the re ference formurat ion nurse t ransparent asa rnember o f that category . Nonethe less, for the purposes oft he s to r y t ha t B wan ts t o t e r r , t he woman i s a l so re l evan t l ya nurse, even though her tnursenessn has not been made a par to f the context as i t has been created to that po in t in thaconve rsa t i on . l o r t h i g pa r t i cu la r t e l l i ng occas ion , t hen , t hewonan has two ident i t ies as a person in the crass, t ied to thecon tex t o f c l ass room ro res , and as a nu rse , t i ed t o t hecon tex t o f de tec t i on o f phys i ca l a i Imen ts .

Now note that th is dual ident i ty cou ld not have beenestab l ished wi thout the resources of two formulat ions, which int h i s c a s e a r e r e a l i z e d b y : ( 1 ) t h e h e a d n o u n , a n d ( 2 ) t h e r e l a t i v ec lause . Th i s examp le shows ve ry c rea r l y , t f r en , how thein teract iona l and cogni t ive cons ider i t ions under ly inq the not iono f ' f r ame ' can he lp us t o unde rs tand why a re l a t i - ve c rause m igh tb e u s e d a t a I I .

Fo r exanp le (2 ) , on t he o the r hand , t he re fe rence i s mores t ra i gh t f o rwa rd . The pa r t i es have been d i scuss ing V ,s f a the r , ssu rge ry and he r mo the r ' s r eac t i on t o i t ( and V ' s r eac t i on t ohe r no the r ' s r eac t i on ) . r n hosp i t a l s (whe re su rge ry t akesp lace ) one f i nds peop le whose ac t i ons a re made i n te rp re tab lethrough ro les r ike r rnurse ' and td .octor r and whose idLnt i t iesare nade t ransparent ly members o f the same category by nouns l ikedoctor and nurse. one does not f ind people who i re-arso nurses and doctors- - they are in the f i rs t pracenurses and doctors (not ice the oddness of te l l ing someone aboutyour exper ience in the hospi tar as ' ,and then a guy whors a doctorcones in and takes my pu lse" ) .

so, y€s, in fac t i t i s the case that nurse is invoked by thesurgery f rame and not by the c lassroom f rame, but that cannot bet h e f u l l e x p r a n a t i - o n f o r t h e f o r m u l a t i o n s i n ( 1 ) a n d ( z ) . r norder to see how the formulat ions rerate to the f rames, w€need to be ab le to unders tand who the conversat iona l par t ies areto one another on the occas ion of the conversat ion, who thecharacters be ing spoken about are to one another , how thespeakers feer about the characters be ing ta lked about , and howa l l o f t hese i n te rac t . r n t he case o f u t t e rance (1 ) t h i s meansunders tanding: why B wants to character ize the hroman as a nurse,i f in fac t the woman is not prov id ing nurs ing serv ices to thec lass ; why she i s r e l a t i ng t h i s s to r y abou t he r i ns t ruc to r r shand i cap t o beg in w i t h , why she and A a re t a r k i ng abou t schoo land t he i r i ns t ruc to r s , and u l t ima te l y wha t k i nd o f r e l a t i onsh ip

r

1 8 8

the two of thern are t ry ing to create/mainta in wi th th isconve rsa t i on . We do no t have c l ea r l y wo rked ou t answers t o t heseques t i ons , bu t we sugges t t ha t t hey i r e a l l r e l evan tt o t he use o f t he re l a t i ve c l ause s t ruc tu re i n t he conve rsa t i on .

We can come to th is same perspect ive f rom another ang1e. Let ustake as ou r s ta r t i ng po in t t he f i nd ings p resen ted i n Fox andThompson (1990 ) , name ly t ha t t he f o imu ta t i on chosen fo r apar t icu lar head noun in teracts in impor tant ways wi th the syntact icro l e chosen fo r t ha t head noun i n t he ma in c l i use and f o r t he ro l eo f t ha t noun i n t he re l a t i ve c l ause . Fo r exa rnp le , w€ f ound tha tformurat ions o f the sor t somebody, anybody wnat we wi l l car rrecogn i t i on -non - re levan t f o r rns (Sacks , t g i z ) - - do no t occu r i n ou rcorpus in sub ject head ro le (as one rn ight expect for noun phrasesr e f e r r i n g t o h u m a n s ) , n o r i n e x i s t e n t i ; l n e a & r o l e , b u t r a t h e r i nob jec t head ro l e ; mo reove r , t hey t end t o occu r w i t hsub jec t - re l a t i ves ra the r t han ob jec t - re l a t i ves . Tha t i s , u t t e rancesI i k e ( b ) a r e m o r e c o m m o n t h a n u i t e r a n c e s l i k e ( a ) :

I i nven ted examp les ]

( a ) Someone tha t you l i ke has been s i t t i ng he re .

(b ) She ha tes anybody t ha t i sn , t Ca tho l i c .

on t he o the r hand , f o rmu la t i ons o f t he so r t a woman ( spec i f i c ) t endto occu r i n ex i s ten t i a l head ro l es , w i t h sub jec t - r " i a l i ves , wh i l ethe def in i te phrase the lady may tend to co-occur wiLh ano b j e c t - r e l a t i v e .

Now we mus t acknow ledge , ds scheg lo f f ( r g72 ) does , t ha t t he rea re po ten t i a l r y an i n f i n i t e number o f ways t o f o rmura tere fe rence t o any g i ven t h i ng . r can re fe i t o t he sameindividual as a fr iend of nine, a col leag"ue, someone at schoor,someone who ] ives downtown, a student or Xrs, the sister of afamous art ist, the other woman in ny department, prof. y, etc.,i n f i . n i t e r y mu l t i p l i ab le f o r d i f f e ren t con tex t s . And t hefo rmura t i on chosen w i r1 , ds we have shown above , t o a ce r ta i ndeg ree co -a r t i cu ra te w i t h a g i ven syn tac t i c s t r uc tu re . r t i stherefore o f the u tmost i -mpor tance for the analys is o f thesyntact ic behav ior o f re la t ive crauses that we unders tandhow and why a pa r t i cu la r f o rmu la t i on o f an en t i t y i saccomp l i shed . And th i s i s an i n t ima te l y i n te rac t i ona l ma t te r .

A pa r t i cu la r l y s t r i k i ng exampre o f t he ways i n wh i chin te rac t i ona l i s sues i n fo rm the se lec t i on o f f o rmu la t i ons o fre fe rence i s g i ven be low . rn t h i s passage , t he f o rmura t i on i sdone once f o r an adu r t , and t hen l a te r , ds a repa i r , f o r ach i rd . The second fo rmu la t i on i s done w i t h t he i r e rp o f ar e l a t i v e c l a u s e :

I B 9

( 3 )

(A t d i nne r , A and D a re mar r i ed , .T i s B ' s young son , Te r r y i sJ ' s younge r b ro the r )

B : So how 's Ka ren ' n eve rybody do in? I m- I mean t t o t e l lt he rn t o l i ke , send he r ou r r ega : rds ' n a1 l t ha t ,i t ' s b e e n a l o n g t i m e s i n c e w e ' v e s e e n h e r .

A : O k a y ,( 1 . 0 )

A : He ' s t a l k i ng a l - o t mo re . He knows the a lphabe t noh r ,( 0 . s )

D : Y e a h .( 0 . 2 )

D : ( ( s n i f f ) )( 0 . 2 )

D : And he , h / / e i den t i f i es numbers oh , Sesame S t ree t ' n

that k ind o f s tu f f :B : Mmm.B: =Mrn hm?

( 0 . 3 )A : I t h i nk t h i s t he rapy ' s r ea l I y h re1 - / / p i ng h im ,J : W h o k n o w s , . h h ( 0 . 5 ) n u m b e r s ' n l e t t e r s ( h u h ) ,A: A l i t t le boy Terry 's age.

( 0 . 4 )- - -> A : t ha t we know.

The f i r s t f o rnu la t i on f o r t h i s pe rson t ha t A se lec t s i s apronoun, a ra ther unusual cho ice for the f i rs t ment ion o f ar e f e r e n t ( F o x , I 9 B 7 ; G i v o n , 1 9 8 3 ) . B u t t h i s f o r m u l - a t i o n a c h i e v e sa nurnber o f impor tant in teract iona l goa ls . F i rs t , s ince B has

, asked about r rKaren 'n everybody," knowing that A and D haverecen t l y been to v i s i t Ka ren ' s f am i l y , and no t j us t abou t Ka ren ,i t is appropr ia te for A to inc lude as par t o f her repor t thesta tus o f rnembers o ther than Karen. In fac t , w€ can hear B 'sr rKa ren ' n eve rybody , r t f o r t h i s pa r t i cu la r r ec ip i en t who knows theenunerated set o f | teverybody, t t as request ing in format ion about apa r t i cu la r i nd i v i dua t . Th i s poss ib i l i t y i s made more l i ke l y bythe f ac t , as we (as ana l ys t s ) f i nd ou t , t ha t t he re i s some th ingrrwrongrr w i th someone in the r reverybodyt t c1ass, a someone who B

. and 'A , as mo the rs t hemse l ves , r n i gh t be espec ia l l y o r i en ted t o .T h e t o p i c i s a l s o a r r d e l i c a t e r r o n e , a n d t h e p r o n o u n h e l p s t ot rea t i t as such , s i nce i t i s l ess exp l i c i t and t he reby a l l owsthe re fe rence t o be made r rob l j - que l y r r . I n a I I , t hen , A ' sp ronomina l f o rmu la t i on f o r B d i sp lays f o r B A ' s unde rs tand ing o fa l l t h e s e i s s u e s .

Bu t t h i s p ronoun , des igned as i t i s f o r a pa r t i cu la rind iv idua l adu l t , does not locate the re ferent for another

r

1 9 0

(ove rhea r i ng ) pa r t i c i pan t o f t he d inne r conve rsa t i on , name lyB ' s young son J . J r eques t s a repa i r o f t he f o rmu la t i on - to -da te , p resumab ly t o see i f he knows th i s pe rson who i s be ingcha rac te r i zed as on l y recen t l y be ing ab le t o pe r fo rmch i l d - l eve I ac t i v i t i es (and i s hav ing t o ge t t he rapy t o be ab le t oaccomp l i sh even t ha t ) , bu t whose age i s o the rw i se unspec i f i ed .A ' s r esponse add resses bo th o f t he i ssues he re : t ha t J doesno t know the i nd i v i dua l i n ques t i on (he r r esponse i snon - recogn i t i on -seek ing , even an t i - r ecogn i t i on -seek ing ( Scheg lo f f ,p . c . ) ) , a n d t h a t h e i s a c h i l d , e v e n y o u n g e rthan J h imse l f . The appended re l a t i ve c l ause wa r ran t s t hed i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c h i l d t o b e g i n w i t h : s i n c e A ' s f o r m u l a t i o nfo r J d i d no t seek recogn i t i on , J can assume tha t hedoes no t know the ch i l d , and t he re fo re f r o rn h i s pe rspec t i vethe ch i l d ' s r e l a t i on t o h i s pa ren t s ' f r i ends (and t he re fo re t oh i s pa ren t s , and h imse l f ) i s obscu re . Do t hey knowabout h i rn f rom reading the newspaper , hear ing about h imth rough someone e l se , o r wha t? The re l a t i ve c l ause responds

ry r i n ima l l y t o t h i s i s sue by t e l l i ng J t ha t t he ch i l d i s someonetha t t t t hey knowt r (whe re even t he re fe ren t o f we i s unc l -ea r : i si t a l - I the adul ts present? Just A and D? One fami ly and not theo the r? ) .

We can see f r om th i s examp le t ha t t he se lec t i on o f f o rmu la t i onof re f erence is thoroughly an i -n teract iona l ach ievernent , whichbo th re f l ec t s and cons t i t u tes t he re l a t i ons among thepa r t i c i pan ts , and t he i r r e l a t i on t o t he t op i c .

Fu r the r ev idence o f t he i n te rac t i ona l cha rac te r o f t hesyntact ic cho ices made in the formul -a t ion o f re ference can befound i n ano the r examp le f r om ou r co rpus :

( 4 ) ( T G : 5 - 6 )

A : A n d i t ' s l i k e a m i c k e y m o u s e c o u r s e .hh i h - Speech .

( 0 . 2 )A: . | l ' } : . / /hhB: Sp/ /eec} : l ,A : I t ' s t h e b i g g e s t j o k e . g o i n g . i t r e a l l y

( 0 . 3 )B : ( ( s n i / / t f ) )A : I f i g u r e I ' m g o n n a s t a r t t a l k i n g w i t h

by t he end o f / / t he t e rm I ' 11 ge t anI have t o imp rove .

B : hhhnhh lB : . h h hB : r R i : z g h / / t . h hA : Y ' k n o w I m e a n i t ' s r e a l l y s t u p i d y o u

. h h f t ' s a j o k e ,

i s .

a l i s p a n dA / / because

go up there

B :A :

- - - - > B :

1 9 i

and jus t s lop anyth ing up and anyth ing f rom there cou ldbe an imp rovemen t .Y ' / / know , i t ' s a rea l m i ckey mouset h i n g . :Mmm.= I t ' s r e a l I y s t u p i d . . h h

( 0 . 4 )Eh-you have anybody: that uh:?

( r . 2 )- - - ->B: I would know f ron the Engl ish depar t rnent there?

A : M n - n h . T c h ! I d o n ' t t h i n k s o .

I f we ana l yze t he u t t e rance wh i ch con ta ins t he re l a t i ve c l ausef ron an in for rnat ion f low perspect ive, we f i rs t not ice that the headnoun has never been rnent ioned before and is not par t o f a f rameevoked by ear l ie r d iscourse and thus is New, human, anchored in i tsna in c l ause by t he p ronoun you (P r i nce , 1981 i Fox , I 9B7 ) , and i san ob jec t -head . Now, 9OZ ( I 9 /2L ) o f t he humans i n ob jec t head s l o tin our corpus occur as sub jects in the i r reLat ive c lause (as int h e y h a v e a s o n w h o ' s 2 4 o r 2 5 ) , a n d 8 5 2 ( 6 f / 7 2 ) o f a l l N e w h u m a nheads occur as sub jects in the i r re la t ive c lause (Fox and Thompson,L990 ) . Even i f we na r rob r ou r f ocus t o non -spec i f i c human re fe ren t s ,we s t i l l f i nd t ha t 872 (26 /30 ) occu r i n sub jec t - re l a t i ves (as i nshe ha tes anyone who i sn ' t a Ca tho l i c ) . Examp le (4 ) , exh ib i t i ng asi t does an ob jec t - re l a t i ve , does no t f a I1 w i t h i n t he s ta t i s t i ca lpat terns which character ize the corpus. In fac t , i t i s the on lycase of a human in ob ject head s lo t occurr ing in anobject - re la t ive. The genera l s ta t is t ica l pat terns cannot prov idean accoun t o f t h i s i nd i v i dua l r e l a t i ve c l ause p rec i se l y becausethere are in teract iona l fac tors which go in to const ruct ing re la t ivec lause u t t e rances wh i ch a re pecu l i a r t o a pa r t i cu la r soc ia lin teract ion.

F i rs t , a b i t o f background about the par t ic ipants o f theconve rsa t i on i n ( 4 ) . They a re bo th young women , i n co l l ege , who(apparent ly ) used to be c loser f r iends than they are when th isconversat ion takes p lace. They both l ive in the New Yorkme t ropo l i t an a rea . A i s cu r ren t l y a t t end ing t he co l l ege t ha t t heyused to a t tend together . The conversat ion takes p lace on thet e l e p h o n e ( B h a s c a l l e d A ) .

A l though i t is beyond the scope of th is paper to suppor t th isc la im, i t would not be d i f f icu l t to show that A and B havenade ef for ts throughout the phone caI I to r rconnect , r r to createa conversat iona l dynanic that woul -d re-estab l ish/ rna in ta inthe i r f r iendship ( that cou ld be heard as ' r the way f r iends ta lkto each otherr r ) , and at each such ef for t they have fa i led inth i s a t t enp t (Scheg lo f f , c l ass l ec tu res ) . The passage g i ven as (4 )shows one o f t hese f a i l ed e f f o r t s . A f t e r A ' s desc r i p t i on o f he r

I

192

speech c l ass , B p roduces a t op i c p ro f f e r r e l a tedc lass (by t op i c p ro f f e r we mean the o f f e r i ng o f ao f c o n v e r s a t i o n ) :

t o A ' s speechposs ib l e t op i c

B :

B :

Eh-you have anybody: that uh:?( r . 2 )

I would know f rom the Encr l - ish depar tment there?

No t on l y i s t h i s a t op i c p ro f f e r he re , i t i s a sens i t i vep r o f f e r , t h a t i s i t o f f e r s a t o p i c w h i c h , i f t a k e n u p , w i l lpa r t i a l l y es tab l i sh t ha t B and A s t i l l have a re l a t i onsh ip i ntha t t hey can s t i l 1 goss ip abou t mu tua l l y known peop le , bu ta lso which, i f not taken up, wi l l move even fur ther towardsshow ing t ha t B and A have "no th ing t o t a l k abou t . t f f n f ac t ,A re j ec t s t he p ro f f e r , bu t t ha t i s pe r i phe ra l t o t he ana l ys i sr / ' re are bu i ld ing here; we are in terested in the syntact ics t ruc tu re B uses f o r he r t op i c p ro f f e r , i n pa r t i cu la r t he useo f a n o b j e c t - r e l a t i v e .

We sugges t he re t ha t t he ob jec t - re l a t i ve i t se l f does pa r t i cu la rin teract iona l work in th is context . Given that the u t terance inques t i on pe r fo rms a t op i c p ro f f e r , abou t a t op i c wh i ch i s sens i t i vefor these two par t icu lar women, we could expect that B has severa lop t i ons f o r how to ph rase i t . She cou ld p rov ide f o r a poss ib l ere jec t i on on A ' s pa r t by ph ras ing i t t o r n i n i r n i ze t he s i gn i f i canceo f a re j ec t i on , f o r examp le by d i s tanc ing t he t op i c f r om he rre la t ionsh ip to A. Such a d is tanc ing could have been produced byus ing a re l - a t i ve c l ause wh i ch makes no re fe rence t o he rse l f , wh i chwou ld have been qu i t e na tu ra l , dS i n t he f o l l ow ing i nven tedv e r s i o n :

I i nven ted examp le ]

(5 ) You have anybody t ha t ' s s t i l l a round f r om the Eng l i shdepar tment there?

Such a f o rmu la t i on avo ids ove r t l y b r i ng ing i n B ' s r e l - a t i onsh ipto t he cand ida tes and hence a re j ec t i on o f t h i s ph ras ing i s ,a t l e a s t o n t h e s u r f a c e , l e s s o f a r e j e c t i o n o f A , s a t t e n t i o nt o B ' s p a s t ( a n d t h e i r s h a r e d p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s ) .

Ano the r op t i on B has f o r ph ras ing t h i s u t t e rance i s t o r i s k t here jec t i on and t o ove r t l y pu t t he i r r e l a t i onsh ip on t he l i ne byus ing an ob jec t - re l a t i ve w i t h a f i r s t o r second pe rson p ronoun assub jec t ( t ha t i s , t he i r r e l a t i onsh ip i s t hus encoded i n t heg rammat i ca l r e l a t i ons o f t he p ronouns ) . Th i s i s t he op t i on she

1 9 3

e lec t s ; t he f o rmu la t i on she e lec t s requ i res A (1 ) t o r emember whoB took cLasses f rom, or would have known through some othercon tac t , i n t he Eng l i sh depa r tmen t , and (2 ) t o sea rch t o see i fshe , A , i s t ak i ng c l asses f r om any o f t hose peop le . O f cou rse ,on l y a c l ose f r i end wou ld be ab le t o keep t r ack o f someone e l se ' sh is tory in the way requi red by ( 1 ) , so th is formulat ion in asense max im izes t he chance o f t he p ro f f e r f a i l i ng (bu t p rov idess t ronge r p roo f o f t he i r f r i endsh ip i f i t succeeds ) . ' I t i s t husposs ib l e t o see t h i s f o rmu la t i on as a bo ld , and pe rhaps f oo l i sh ,r i s k , w i t h obv ious i n te rac t i ona l consequences .

Exanp le (4 ) t hus p rov ides a f u r t he r i l l u s t ra t i on o f t he way i nwh i ch i n te rac t i ona l cons ide ra t i ons re l a te t o syn tac t i c cho i ces i nthe use o f r e l a t i ve c l auses i n f o r rnu la t i ng re fe rence .

3 . 0 C o n c l u s i o n

In th is paper , w€ have prov ided ev idence that the grammat ica lresources for re la t ive c lauses are exp lo i ted in the formulat iono f r e fe rence acco rd ing t o a w ide range o f soc ia l f ac to r s i nhe ren tin the communicat ion s i tuat ion, and we have argued for an approachto granmar which inc l -udes the ent i re in teract iona l d imension ofthe connunicat ive s i tuat ion in which conversat iona l is tsconst i tu te the people and th ings they want to ta lk about .

I

1 A / ,

REFERENCES

C l a n c y , P . 1 9 8 0 . R e f e r e n t i a l c h o i c e i n E n g l i s h a n d J a p a n e s en a r r a t j - v e d i s c o u r s e . I n W . C h a f e ( e d . ) T h e P e a r S t o r i e s .N e w J e r s e y : A b l e x .

D u B o i s , J . 1 9 8 0 . r r B e y o n d d e f i n i t e n e s s : T h e t r a c e o fi d e n t i t y i n d i s c o u r s e . r r I n W . C h a f e ( e d . ) T h e P e a rS t o r i e s . N o r w o o d , N . J . : A b l e x .

Du ran t i , A . l - 984 . The soc ia l r nean ing o f sub jec t p ronounsi n f t a l i a n c o n v e r s a t i o n . T e x t 4 z 2 7 7 - 3 1 1 .

F i l l m o r e , C . 1 9 7 7 . T o p i c s i n l e x i c a l s e m a n t i c s . f n R . C o I e( e d . ) C u r r e n t i s s u e s i n l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y .B loom ing ton : f nd iana Un i ve rs i t y P ress .

F o x , B . 1 9 8 7 a . T h e n o u n p h r a s e a c c e s s i b i f i t y h i e r a r c h y r e v i s i t e d :sub ject pr inacy or the absolu t ive hypothes is?L a n g u a g e 6 3 : 8 5 6 - 8 7 0 .

Fox , B . 1987b . D i scou rse S t ruc tu re and Anapho ra .Cambr idge : Canb r i dge Un i ve rs i t y P ress .

Fox , B . and S . Thompson . 1990 . r rA d i scou rse exp lana t i ono f t he g rammar o f r e l a t i ve c l auses i n Eng l i sh conve rsa t i on . r lL a n g u a g e 6 6 2 5 I - 6 4 .

G i v o n , T . ( e d . ) . 1 9 8 3 . T o p i c C o n t i n u i t y i n D i s c o u r s e .Ams te rdam: John Ben jam ins .

Goodw in , C . I 979 . r rThe i n te rac t i ve cons t ruc t i on o f a sen tencein i r a tu ra l conve rsa t i on . r r I n G . Psa thas (ed . )Everyday Language: Stud ies in Ethnomethodology.New Yo rk : I r v i ng ton Pub l i she rs .

G r o s z , B . 1 9 7 7 . T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d u s e o f f o c u sin d i a l ogue unde rs tand ing . S tan fo rd Resea rchIns t i t u te Techn i ca l No tes 5 .

L i n d e , C . 1 9 7 9 . F o c u s o f a t t e n t i o n a n d t h e c h o i c e o fp r o n o u n s i n d i s c o u r s e . f n T . G i v o n ( e d . )Svn tax and Se rnan t i cs , vo l 12 . New Yo rk : Academic P ress .

P r i nce , E . 1981 . Toward a t axonomy o f g i ven and newi n f o r m a t i o n . I n P . C o l e ( e d . ) R a d i c a l P r a g m a t i c s .New Yo rk : Academic P ress .

I

Redecke r , G . 1987 . I n t roduc t i ons o f s to r y cha rac te rsi n i n te rac t i ve and non - i n te rac t i ve na r ra t i on .I n J . Ve rscheu ren and M . Be r tuce l l i -Pap i ( eds . )' The Pragmat ic Perspect ive. Arnsterdam: JohnB e n j a m i n s .

R e i c h m a n , R . 1 9 8 1 . P l a i n s p e a k i n g : a t h e o r y a n d g r a m m a ro f spon taneous d i scou rse . Ca rnb r i dge , Mass : Bo I t ,Be ranek and Newman , repo r t 4681 .

S a c k s , H . 1 , 9 7 2 . O n t h e a n a l y z a b i l i t y o f s t o r i e s b y. c h i l d r e n . I n J . G u m p e r z a n d D . H y m e s ( e d s . ), D j - r ec t i ons i n Soc io l i ngu i s t i c s . New Yo rk :. Ho l t , R ineha r t and W ins ton .

S a c k s , H . a n d E . S c h e g l o f f . 1 9 7 9 . T w o p r e f e r e n c e s i n t h eo rgan i za t i on o f r e fe rence t o pe rsons i n conve rsa t i ona n d t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . I n G . P s a t h a s ( e d . )

. Everyday Language: Stud ies in Ethnornethodology.New Yo rk : I r v i ng ton .

S c h e g l o f f , E . 1 9 7 2 . N o t e s o n a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e :f o rmu la t i ng p lace . I n D . Sudnow (ed ) S tud ies i n Soc ia l -' I n te rac t i on . New Yo rk : Academic P ress .

Tannen , D . 1979 . Wha t ' s i n a f r a rne? Su r face ev idence f o runde r l y i ng expec ta t i ons . I n R . F reed le (ed . ) New D i - rec t i onsin D i scou rse P rocess ing . No rwood , NJ : Ab lex .

W e r t s c h , J ( e d . ) . 1 9 8 6 . C u 1 t u r e , c o m r n u n i c a t i o n , a n d' cogn i t i on . Ca rnb r i dge : Canb r i dge Un i ve rs i t y P ress .

I

1 9 6

1 . We wou ld l i ke t o t hank Wa l l y Cha fe , S tephan Schue tze -Cobu rn ,Jack Du Bo i s , Sand ro Du ran t i , Pau r Hoppe r and Manny scheg lo f f f o rt he i r he lp fu l commen ts on ea r l i e r ve rs i ons o f t h i s pape r . O fc o u r s e , w € a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a n y r e m a i n i n g i n f e l i c i t i e s .

2 . Sacks ' exp lo ra t i on o f t he t op i c ac tua l l y add resses t he i ssuef ron t he pe rspec t i ve o f t he hea re r , bu t i t i s no t d i f f i cu l t t oformulate i t f rom the perspect ive o f the speaker .

3 . She marks t he re l a t i ve c l ause ' s de l i cacy , howeve r - - shou ld t ha tbe l os t on A - -w i t h a l ong s i l ence .