146 Difference
grandfather really gave her the gift [[Prof.: Okay]] because she does go
back to work, after a year ().
Prof.: Okay. And when she says “I’d like to collect on, collect on my gift,” the
grandfather’s estate says what?
Ms. B.: Lack of consideration.
Prof.: It was lack of consideration, okay. Back to Batsakisagain[... ]By this point, almost halfway though the semester, we see a very smooth coproduction
of the fact narrative. Note the use of “we” inclusive to begin the dialogue, aligning
the professor and student as fellow travelers who are located together within the
bounds of the case narrative, and asking the student to provide some guidance in
explaining “what’s going on.” The student responds by providing a succinct sum-
mary of some of the key details needed for purposes of a legal reading. The profes-
sor immediately approves this summary and provides a frame for the student’s
ongoing narration; he characterizes the case as a token of the legal-discursive type
“consideration questions,” and then indicates that the next step in telling the story
involves discussion of any “return promise” (or absence thereof). The primacy
of legal issues and categories in organizing the narrative is assumed here, and the
particular issue selected for organizing this issue is also mentioned in a casual
manner. As the student proceeds, the professor encourages her with positive
backchanneling (“Right”; “Okay”). Note that through the framing commentary
and questioning, the professor is essentially providing the links needed to move
from one part of the narrative to another.
Thus, following this smooth opening, the professor continues to prompt the
student, using these highly structured question frames, guiding her through a dis-
cussion of how legal categories apply to the facts of the case. After eliciting one
side of the argument, he signals a shift to the other side, asking the student to de-
scribe “something” that goes in the other “direction”: “What’s the something?” The
student responds, “Well, that she was able to quit her job, which she did do.” The
professor both slightly corrects and builds on this: “Well, let’s just say, ‘give up job.’
Let’s just say, ‘give up job.’ It’s going in this direction. I guess we would have to ask
two questions about that.” A great deal of the work of narrative cohesion is done
as the professor takes each response and places it in the larger setting of a legal story,
which is not simply about the conflict at issue but about the process by which a
legal resolution can be reached. Notice also the repetition here as both student and
professor begin turns with “well”; the student’s next turn continues this pattern:
“Well, only if he- he sought that term.” (We will see more substantial versions of
this cohesion-creating repetition below.)
The basic semantico-referential structure of the dialogue, as it is unfolded
by the professor, proceeds as follows: (a) first, a recitation of relevant facts; (b) a
statement of the grandfather’s estate’s position; (c) an examination of the argu-
ment for the granddaughter, leading to (d) an exchange delving into whether the
granddaughter’s actions could constitute “consideration” in this case, with par-
ticular attention to the possible application of the categories of “benefit” and “det-
riment” to the facts; (e) a brief analogy to a previous similar case; (f) a return to the
consideration problem in this case, focusing now on whether the granddaughter’s