A Study on the Initial Question-Answer Sequences in Kalkal: the Case of Dorehami

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Languages,, Arak University, Arak, Iran

Abstract

This paper investigates the initial question-answer sequences in entertaining Kalkal to see what features potentially activates the Kalkal frame . Instances of kalkal from Dorehami reality TV talkshow that were uploaded and shared on the internet as "kalkal" were downloaded and transcribed. Then the designs of the initial question and the answer to it and their relationship were analyzed using a conversation analytic approach. The results show that kalkal is co-constructed by the host and the guests, beginning with an initial unmitigated question that, depending on the topic, sets various types of restrictions, which is then answered not with the most relevant second pair part in an adjacency pair, but with an unmitigated alternative response which, more or less, resists the topic, the agenda or a presupposition of the initial question, the most frequent response being 'counter' which reverses the direction of restriction set by the initial question...

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

- جهانگیری، نادر. (1378). گونه های احترام، سلطه و همبستگی در زبان فارسی، در زبان، بازتاب زمان، فرهنگ و اندیشه (مجموعه
مقالات). صص. 157-125. تهران: نشر آگه.
- حسینی، سیدمحمد. (1399). کل کل به مثابه آیین تعاملی رابطه ای: مطالعه موردی کل کل در برنامه دورهمی. پژوهش های
زبان شناسی، سال ،12 شماره ،23 صص. .197-219
- حسینی، سیدمحمد. (1396). وجهه در فرهنگ ایرانی و ارتباط آن با ادب: مطالعه موردی گفتوگوهای زنده تلویزیونی. رساله دکتری
منتشرنشده. تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
- فرنیا، م. و ن. عابدیان (1399). پرسش های چالشی خبرنگاران در مصاحبه های سیاسی ایران و آمریکا. علم زبان، سال ،9 شماره ،12
صص. 311-372.
- Atkinson, J. M. & J. Heritage (Eds.) (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Bax, M. & Padmos, T. 1983. Two types of verbal dueling in Old Icelandic: The interactional structure of the "senna" and the "mannjafnaðr" in Hárbarðsljóð. Scandinavian Studies. 55, 2, p. 149–174.
- Beach, W. A., & Metzger, T. R. (1997). Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research, 23 (4), 562–588.
- Clayman, S. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3), 403–442.
- Clayman, S. E. (2013). Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 290–302.
- Clift, R. 2016. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
- Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
- Flores-Ferrán, N. (2020). Linguistic Mitigation in English and Spanish: how speakers attenuate expressions. London: Routledge.
- Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Pantheon Books, New York.
- Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: pp. 64-75.
- Harré, R. (1987). Grammar, psychology and moral rights. In M. Chapman & R. A. Dixon (eds.) Meaning and the Growth of Understanding: Wittgenstein’s Significance for Developmental Psychology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag: pp. 219–230.
- Hayano, K. (2013). Question Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley Blackwell, pp. 395-414.
- Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In: J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-15.
- Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In: J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191-221.
- Kádár, D. Z. (2013). Relational rituals and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
- Kádár, D. Z., and M. Haugh. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Koutlaki, S. A. (2009). Two sides of the same coin: how the notion of ‘face’ is encoded in Persian communication. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 115–133.
- Küttner, U-A. (2020). Tying Sequences Together with the [That’s + Wh-Clause] Format: On (Retro-)Sequential Junctures in Conversation, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53:2, 247-270.
- Labov, W. (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Press, pp. 297-352.
- Lee, S-H. (2013). Response Design in Conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley Blackwell, pp. 415-432.
- Murphy, S. P. (2015). Humor orgies as ritual insult: Putdowns and solidarity maintenance in a corner donut shop. Journal of contemporary ethnography, 44, 1-25.
- Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Raymond, C. W. (2016). Sequence Organization. In Jon Nessbaum (Ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, Oxford University Press. Doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.133 (accessed: 22/05/2020)
- Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967.
- Raymond, G. (2013). At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: On the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk - Units of action. John Benjamins, pp. 169–206.
- Sacks, H., Schlegoff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
- Scheff, T. J. (2005). The structures of context: deciphering Frame Analysis. Sociological Theory, 23(4), 365-385.
- Schegloff , E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Schegloff, E. A. (2015). Conversational Interaction: The Embodiment of Human Sociality, In: D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, D. Schiffrin (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd edn). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 346–366.
- Schwebel, D. C. (1997). Strategies of Verbal Dueling: How College Students Win a Verbal Battle. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(3): 326–43.
- Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 82–106.
- Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley Blackwell, pp. 191–209.
- Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s con-straints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25.
- Tannen, Deborah. (1986). Frames Revisited. Quaderni di Semantica 7(l), 106-109.  Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
- Tolson, Andrew. (2006). Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics