150 Difference
Transcript 7.5 [4/17/7, 10]Prof.: Okay. And when she says “I’d like to collect on- collect on my gift,”
grandfather’s estate says what?
Ms. B.: “Lack of consideration.”
Prof.: [... end of 2.06 turn... ] Then the case looks more like what, Ms. B.?
Ms. B.: Hamer.
Prof.: Yes, that’s right. So, when we ask question number two here, “was the
return promise for performance sought in exchange for the promise for
the money?”, [[Ms. B.: Yes]] your answer would be what?
Ms. B.: “Yes,” in that situation.
Prof.: The court says, what?
Ms. B.: (“The promise was given without consideration.”)
Prof.: “The promise was given without consideration,” and we know, okay?
that, uh, where there’s no consideration, promises aren’t enforceable,
right?In these examples, the professor in essence provides the first part of a sentence which
the student completes by replacing the anaphoric cue “what” with the specific
content it indicates. In several cases, the content takes the form of reported speech.
Interestingly, toward the end of the class, Ms. B. attempts to fill in a similar blank,
in this case when the professor pauses, creating a potential ellipsis or zero sign:
Transcript 7.6 [4/17/16]Prof.: Right, the question you would ask yourself of course is, how likely is it
that somebody would spontaneously quit their job, if there hadn’t been
some-(.)
Ms. B.: reliance--
Prof.: --promise, coming the other way. You’re saying, “Not very
likely,” right? [... ]The professor simply continues on through his turn, not pausing to acknowledge
the attempted interjection. But the student’s proffered comment reveals the ex-
tent to which the professor has succeeded in creating a discursive rhythm in which
the student is literally finishing sentences and thoughts begun in his turns and
questions.
Finally, we can also examine the places in these classroom exchanges where
the generally strong coordination between these particular speakers breaks down.
At one point, for example, the professor asks a question that appears to stump the
student momentarily: “What’s estoppel, and who is estopped from doing what, in
the case?” The student responds by saying, “Um... ” And then the professor moves
into a sequence of cuing and positive commentary designed to facilitate the ongo-
ing discussion: “Two-part question rolled into one.” Student: “The grandfather’s
estate is getting estopped--” Prof.: “--Yeah, that’s- you’re on the right track--” Stu-
dent: “--from not fulfilling the promise.” Prof.: “Estopped from not fulfilling the
promise.. .”