Analysing everyday conversation 161NOTES
1 It also seems possible that Structuring, Greet and Summon exchanges may contain
the elements of structure R/I and F. Since we have not encountered an example,
however, we simply state this as a possibility.
2 It qualifies as a transaction in spite of the fact that it has no exchange realizing
the M element, which we have categorized as obligatory. It is possible that a
sub-class of transactions, consisting of those which open and close whole conversations,
is needed. These would have no obligatory M element.
3 It is possible that Hasan’s (1984) concept of GSP may offer a way of representing
the structure of an Interaction.
4 The concept of the exchange as a unit for the transmission of information seems
to us to be far from unproblematic. For example, in some Direct exchanges a
directing move predicts a behaving move, which is analogous to an eliciting
move predicting an informing move. In other Direct exchanges, however, the
directing move predicts an acknowledging move, no equivalent of the informing
move being needed, (see pp. 135–6).
5 We see ‘anyway’ as an embedded framer; the identification of a transaction
boundary on this basis is reinforced by considerations of topic.
6 Exchange (22) is enclosed in this way to capture the fact that B repeats his
inquire in almost identical words (Re-initiation exchange bound to exchange 20).
A, however, has already initiated a new free exchange (Inform, exchange 21) and
she ignores B’s contributions in exchanges (20) and (22) completely. We therefore
have to see the participants as not communicating with each other at this point,
creating an awkward problem for linear analysis. What eventually happens is
that B abandons his question, and contributes to exchange (21), which is a
complete exchange.
7 The sign ‘&’ at the end of 1.80 and the beginning of 1.83 indicates that this is
seen as a continuous eliciting move by B. B finishes his neutral proposal after
A has spoken, but the exchange is heard as complete because A has anticipated
the end of B’s move and has supplied an appropriate informative at ‘No’ (followed
by ‘but I mean’ which is itself uncompleted and therefore uncodable).
8 Here we have used two symbols: ‘&’ at the end of 1.108 and at the beginning
eliciting move by B 1.111, to indicate that this is seen as a continuous informing
move by B; and ‘+’ at the end of 1.110 and the beginning of 1.113, indicating
a continuous acknowledging move by A. The situation is similar to that described
immediately above: again the exchange is heard as complete. A and B are speaking
simultaneously (a fact that we have not been able to indicate in the analysis): B
is finishing his informing move while A, taking his point and anticipating its
conclusion, is supplying an appropriate acknowledging move.
9 For the unusual coding of this exchange see the discussion of a similar exercise
on p. 151 above.
‘Analysing everyday conversation’ was first published in Coulthard (1987a)
Discussing Discourse, 107–48.