Key and Termination – Increments 179
As there is no text prior to (25) there are no prior discourse expectations
which an analyst can classify the increment as being contrary to. Sn’s selec-
tion of prominence on think rather than on don’t or I indicates that she does
not project a context where her selection of initial high key termination
particularizes (cf. example (27) below). Instead the high key/termination
signals to the hearer that some kind of active intervention is required
perhaps no more than making a mental note that Sn has started to speak!
Thirty-fi ve of the remaining increment initial high key/terminations
appear to label the increment as being contrary to the previously generated
expectations, e.g.
(26) but \↑ACtually // you –KNOW // this is ↑PRObably
c a con N V a
where the POlicy makersw+ d N+ N+
such as \MYself // were TRUly in \ERror // [T2-Rf-7]
p a n V A+ P N #Prior to increment (26) Rf has described a world where the September
the 11th attacks were the culmination of what the terrorists wished to do
and has stated that the terrorist attacks caused policy to change. Nothing
however, has been said which would lead a hearer to expect that the realiza-
tion of (26) will result in a target state where the state of speaker/hearer
convergence includes acknowledgement of past policy errors prior to the
September 11th attacks.
In example (27) the initial high key/termination projects that the target
state which will be achieved by the production of the increment is contrary
to the previously generated discourse expectations.
(27) and i ↑\DONT dispute // PART of the impliCAtions of your
c N V V' A+ P+ d N P dQUEstion at \ALL //
N PHR # [T2-Emi-34]
By choosing to attach the high key/termination to the marked item don’t
Emi appears to project a context where don’t is particularized; the local
meaning generated serves to add force to her assertion.
Nineteen of the increment initial high key/terminations do not appear
to realize a value other than that of a high termination.