In his answer to the IR’s question, the IE produces a multi-unit turn with seven possible completion points indicated in the square brackets.. It is
noticeable that first, there are no attempts by the IR to initiate a turn at any of these possible completion points. Only after the IE provides a summary
assessment to his experience ‘and it was out of the blue to me’ does the IR begin the next question. Second, the IE does not use any techniques to signal
that he intends to continue speaking beyond possible completion points. He clearly expects to be able to extend his turn.
Finally, consider the following extract, in which an IE offers only a minimal answer.
3.8 From Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991: 102
IR: And d’you expect these reforms to be pa:ssed?
IE: Yes I do:.
1.2 IE:
The major ones certainly
The IR does not move on to another question but withholds further talk. After a 1.2 second gap the IE speaks again to elaborate on his earlier answer. The IR
was thus clearly orienting to the expectation that the IE should provide a more developed answer.
By examining the organisation of turn-taking and the ways in which ques- tions and answers are built, we have established some of the normative expec-
tations which underpin news interview interaction. The design of participants’ turns displays their sensitivity to obligations and expectations regarding the
kinds of contribution they can and should produce in this context. However, normative expectations do not determine behaviour: they are not law-like rules
which govern conduct. Indeed, in extract 3.8 it is clear that the IE has deviated from the expectation to produce an extended answer. The analysis of these
kinds of deviant cases is an important step in conversation analytic research.
Analysing deviant cases
A key stage in building a conversation analytic account of an interactional phenomenon is to examine cases in which there seems to have been some
departure from an established pattern. We can analyse these deviant cases to investigate how participants’ utterances display their understanding of the sig-
nificance of that departure. So, if someone displays that they are ‘noticing’ the absence of a certain type of turn from a co-participant, then that demonstrates
their own orientation to the normative expectation that it should have been produced.
To illustrate this, look at this fragment which we discussed in Chapter 2, in which a question is not followed by an answer.
METHOD AND CRITIQUE 61
3.9
Child: Have to cut the:se Mummy
1.3 Child:
Won’t we Mummy 1.5
Child: Won’t we
Mother: Yes
It is clear that the child’s second and third versions of the initial question dis- play that she has ‘noticed’ the absence of the mother’s answer. Moreover, her
repeated attempts to solicit an answer display her orientation to the norma- tive expectation that an answer should follow a question. Thus what seems on
first inspection to provide evidence which undermines claims about the prop- erties of paired action sequences for example, that second parts should
follow first parts, actually displays the participants’ orientation to the nor- mative relevance of those properties. So too in extract 3.8, we can see that the
IR’s withholding of a further question and the subsequent elaboration by the IE demonstrated that they were orienting the expectation albeit belatedly in
the case of the IE that answers should be extended.
However, participants’ orientation to normative expectations is not only exposed in those circumstances in which a specific kind of turn is noticeably
absent: it is also revealed by the way in which participants engage in non- normative activities.
One of the overriding norms of news interview interaction is that it is the IRs who ask questions, and thereby guide the interview. It is not expected that
the participants will initiate their own topical agenda. But there are circum- stances in which IEs do offer comment or opinion which is not directly
solicited by the IR. Some news interviews are conducted with more than one participant; and to generate a lively exchange, or to ensure that a wide range
of perspectives will be represented, it is often the case that the IEs will hold different opinions. In such interviews it is not unusual to find disagreement
between participants. This disagreement can result in attempts to by-pass the IR and address directly what the other IE has said. Yet when this happens, the
IE asking the question will seek permission from the IR, thus displaying that they are aware that their question deviates from normative conventions.
Extracts 3.10 and 3.11 provide illustration. The two participants in this interview hold differing opinions about imprisonment as a deterrent to crime.
3.10 From Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991: 103
IE 1: … and therefore I’m not going to accept the
criticism that I haven’t tried to help victims =
= I’ve . been trying to help them 0.2 off and
on for twenty-five years. =
62 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
