148 Advances in spoken discourse analysis
for example, who are not expected continually to acknowledge the teacher’s
informing moves. In the case of tourists being given information by a guide (as
in Example (21) above) the state is a temporary and optional one.
The second circumstance in which an exchange is complete even though
the predicted R is not realized is when the R part is implied by what
precedes it and what follows. This is discussed in full on pp. 152–6 below,
but we include an example here by way of illustration:
Example 24
A: Oh hold on I’ve got to get the extension hold on
This realizes the opening move of a Structuring exchange (see p. 137 above),
which in theory requires an answering move at R. As the utterance is a
metastatement, however, and as the silence or ‘holding on’ which follows
is taken as an accepting sort of silence, an acquiesce occurring at R is
coded even though it is unrealized by an utterance. It is for this reason that
we extended the definition of acquiesce to include silence (see p. 129 above).
There remains one fundamental difficulty which analysts face and which
is inherent in the definitions of elements of structure in terms of predictability.
As the table on p. 146 shows, both F and I are unpredicted. If there is a
secondary knower eliciting move at I we can predict that what will follow
will be an informing move at R (leaving aside for the moment the possibility
of R/l). It is this, of course, which predisposes us to hear the utterance
following a question as an answer, if at all possible. After that, however, we
can make no predictions and cannot tentatively code in advance as we can
with R. What follows may be an acknowledging move at F or a new initiation.
This ‘third’ contribution may be an eliciting move, identified either by its
form as in exchange (14) of our data, or because it is heard thus by the
other participant as in exchange (11). In this case there is no problem, as
the move must be coded as I. (It should be noted, however, that where the
coding depends upon how an utterance is interpreted by the other participant
(as in exchange 11), it is carried out retrospectively.) If the ‘third’ contribution
is not an eliciting move, however, the coding decision is based entirely on
the content and/or intonation of the utterance. It often happens in casual
conversation that the utterance following the answer to a question is a ‘comment’
or an ‘observation’ which is indeterminate between an acknowledging move
at F and an informing move initiating a new exchange. An example from
our data is:
Example 25
36 A: (laugh) What do you Ib
mean good exercise it
B: (laugh) I mean walking round R
looking for the fair was exercise
A: Yeah my feet hurt F? I?
(Actually we decided to code it as F)