rosenblum question accusation
Post on 23-Feb-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
1/14
hen
is aquestion anaccusation
K A R E N
E R O S E N B L U M
With in
the stud y of n atura lly occurring talk, the sequencing of utterances,
and
in
particular
the
structure
of adjacency
pairs',
has
drawn continuin g
at tent ion (e.g., in Sacks 1974; Sacks etal. 1974; Schegloff 1968, 1979;
Schegloff an d Sacks 1973; A tki n son an d D rew 1979). Ad jacency pairs are
two-part sequenced utterances in the first part of wh ich a speaker specifies
both
the
next speaker
and the
type
of
response appropriate,
for
example
in summons/response, greeting/greeting, o r request/acceptance-denial ad-
jacency pairs. W hile there m ay be options available in the construction of
th e
second part of an adjacency
pair
for ex ample, a request may be m et
with an
acceptance, denial,
or a
coun ter-request
a
failure
to
produce
at
least one of the expected second parts is noticeable and would merit
explanation or
action.
For
example,
in a
summons/response sequence
a
failure to answer a sum mon s might lead to a repetition of the summons,
or a
request
for an
explanation
of the
failure
to
answer (Schegloff 1968).
Because of the
constraints which surroun d
the
production
of the
second
part of an adjacency
pair,
much attention has been directed toward its
accomplishment.
However, producing a response which
falls
within the
range of
expectations
fo r
that sequence
is not
actually
the
respondent s
init ial problem. Rather,
the first difficulty
rests
in
recognizing some
utteranceas the initiatin g firstpart of a sequence: an utterance must first
be identified
as a greeting, question, or sum m on s before one can begin the
construction of a
response. This
is a
problem
of
recognition
faced by any
respondent, and i t tu rns our a ttention to the first
part
of the adjacency
pair.W hat are its markers? How is it recognized? Certainly each type of
adjacency
pair poses its own problems concerning
the
recognition of its
first
part.
In the discussion wh ich follows, atten tion focuses on identifying
th e
markers
of an
accusation,
the first part of the
adjacency pair
accusation/denial-acceptance.
em iotic 65-1/2
(1987),
143-156. 0037-1998/87/0065-0143
2.00
MoutondeGruyter, Amsterdam
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bib
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
2/14
144
Karen
E
Rosenblum
ckground
Discussion about
the
worth
of
persons
or
actions
is a
commonplace
of
social
life.
Often
such talk proceeds without
any
explicit identification
of
the norms
o r
values which
are
presumed
to
h ave been violated. Nonethe-
less, some of these interactions a re recognizable as encom passing accusa-
tions
of serious wrongd oing. O n w hat basis do w e conclude that we face
an
accusation? When does an utterance become a charge?
These are questions characteristic of discourse, or conversational,
analysis, i .e., that analysis wh ich focuses on wh at speakers m ust kno w in
order to identify such acts as, for example, declaratives, questions,
requests, or suggestions (Gum perz 1982: 156). Tapp ing in to these
accomplishments requires a search for the structure of discourse, a
structure which
is
analogous
to, but
distinct from, that
of
phonology
or
grammar. In discourse analysis th e attempt is to uncover the culturally
specific
conversational structures which cut across settings and statuses,
and to determine th e interactive functions which are accomplished by
those structures (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; Coulthard and Montgom-
ery
1981; Burton 1980). The goal is to produce ideotypical descriptions
that can be dissected into
significant
components and used to produce
typologies
(Gumperz 1982: 157).
Drawing on the assumptions and methods of discourse analysis, the
discussion which follows explores the premise that accusations are
recognizable by their structure as
well
as by their content, i.e., that
accusations may be conveyed without an explicit articulation of norm
violation. Indeed, in the utterances which
will
be examined here, there are
only a few
marginal instances
of an
actual naming
of
some norm
violation.
It
seems reasonable that
at
least
in the
public domain people
rarely level their criticism straightforwardly the possibility of m asking
an
accusation operating both as a resource and a trouble for interactants.
Still,
accusations
are embedded and discovered within utterances. Thus,
in
the
world, people routinely
and more-or-less successfully
make
infer-
ences abou t the presence of a charge o f wrongdoing. A re they relying only
on their members know ledge of the culture s norm s and values, or do
they
supplement that with an appraisal albeit unselfconscious of the
structure
of an
utterance?
Because accusations are the first part of an adjacency pair, students of
discourse have usually deduced their presence from
the
appearance
of an
appropriate second part. For example, speaker A uses a statement,
question, o r command that is heard as requiring either an apology, or an
excuse/explanation, or justification .... Wherever the responses to this
type of act can be coded as an apology or excuse, I label the first-pair part
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bi
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
3/14
W he n is a questionan accusation 145
accuse
(Burton 1981: 67). By contrast, this investigation focuses on the first
part of the pair. Although responses m ay provide confirmation of the
presence of an accusation, the aim here is to ascertain what any respondent
must
ascertain: whether
one is the
subject
of
strong criticism. Thus,
the
method
here applies
the
ethnomethodological insight which infuses dis-
course
analysis,i.e.,
that a researcher s goal is to m ake explicit the shared
common-sense resources by which utterances are heard to h ave coherence
in
this case the resources by which utterances are heard to be accusations
(Garfinkel
1967, 1972;
Mehan
and
Wood
1975;
Sacks
1972;
Turner
1971,
1974).The
[researcher]...
m ust pose as problematic how utterances come off
as recog nizable un it activities. This requires
[the
researcher] to m ake explicit
theresources [he/she] shares w ith participants in m aking sense of utterances
in a stretch of
talk
(Turner
1971:
177). However, this is not to claim that
utterances
may be
definitively
classed as accusatory or
non-accusatory.
By its
nature, talk is
indexical (G arfinkel
1967;
Kjolseth 1972);
i.e., an
utterance
m ay
point to a v irtually infinite variety of meanings, an d thus understanding
is
always tied
to (or
delimited
by) the
context
in
which
an
utterance
appears.
Th us, we can never argue th at some utterance is an accusation, or that all
accusations
must take a particular form , but o nly that some types of talk are
likely
to be construed as accusations across a variety of settings.
trategiesfor
accusation
in a
public orum
To examine the structure of an accusation, I have turned to Richard
N ixo n s last three presidential press conferences. This is a setting
likely
to
yield
accusations not only because of its historical particularities, but
because
press conferences
per se
provide excellent opportunities
fo r
uncovering
accusations. To press conferences, reporters bring their need
for events on which to report. Such needs sometimes encourage them to
challenge accounts or to pursue contradictions between and/or within
accounts (Molotch
an d
Lester 1974). These impulses
are
bolstered
by
press
conference
norms which both ensure nominal responsiveness from
th e
convener of the
press conference
and
prohibit
an
imm ediate punitive
mobilization of
social
control.
1
Thus,
in
press conferences
th e
real
disparities
of power between interactants are temporarily circumscribed,
and conditions more conducive to the leveling of accusations emerge.
Finally, this is a setting amenable to analysis. Unlike other situations in
which
accusations m ay emerge, for this event there is a relatively full an d
public record, a finite time-span established by the event itself, and a
setting
which
greatly restricts the number and status of participants as
well
as the nature of their interaction.
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bi
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
4/14
146
aren E Rosenblum
Still,
th e
sequencing
of
utterances
in the
press conference
differs
considerably
from wh at would be found in na turally occurring conversa-
tion.
Reporters are, after all, expected to produce questions. Conversa-
tional
moves
d o no t build on one another as they m ight in other settings;
e.g., it is the respondent who designates the next speaker; reporters are
limited to one turn per press conference; they are precluded from
responding to an answer and may ask follow-up questions only at the
discretion of the respondent; and reporters are expected to direct their
remarks to the
respondent
and not
other reporters,
the
audience,
or the
cameras. None of these norms are taken lightly by participants on either
side of the
pod ium .
2
While
the no rm s which govern talk in this setting encourage caution in
generalizing from press conferences to routine interaction, the norms
themselves
prim arily function
to
reduce reporters volu bility, prevent
th e
em ergence of d ialogues, and enfo rce the casting of utterances as questions.
Only th e
last
of
these
is likely to
seriously bear
on the
construction
of
accusations. Th at is, accusations are certainly m ore easily form ulated (and
recognized)
as
declaratives tha n
as
interrogatives. H ow ever, there
are few
settings
in
which
one may
baldly charge misconduct; more
often
such
sentiments m ust be em bedd ed within utterances w ith other ostensible aim s.
Thus, press conferences offer only a slightly more formalized level of
constraint than operates
in
most public interactions. That reporters
sometimes use questions to level accusations is an achievement they share
with
a wide variety of others at a minimum, parents, teachers, police,
and politicians. T hus, w hile press conferences are structured quite
differ-
ently
from other interactions, they share with innumerable settings
th e
occasional production of an accusatory question.
The
ixon press
conferences
Perhaps the most noticeable feature of the press conference is its
organization as a question-answer session. Questions and answers have
held
a special interest for students of discourse. They exemplify the
interdependence
of
utterances (e.g.,
see
Schegloff
and
Sacks 1973; Sche-
gloff
1979; Ervin-Tripp 1970); they characterize the discourse in certain
settings, e.g.,
in
court,
th e
classroom,
or the
press conference;
and
they
display
certain functions, e.g., to show relative status (e.g., Philips 1982),
or to control th e topic of conversation (e.g., Heath 1978). Here questions
were examined for the structure which would allow them to function as
accusations.
The data analyzed h ere are transcripts of presidential press conferences
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bi
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
5/14
When is aquestionanaccusation? 147
(Johnson
1978) held October
26,
1973; February
24,
1974;
and
March
6,
1974.
These transcripts were analyzed
so as to
include
all
those questions
whichin any way
addressed
or
alluded
to law or
norm violation
by
Nixon
or his
representatives.
3
The aim here was to determine which of those
questionsgenerally addressed to law/norm violation were recognizable as
accusations. Thisprocedureaimed
to
maximize
the
probability
of
unco-
vering accusations, but rejected the assumption that questions which
addressed
law/norm violation were axiomatically accusatory.
Reportersin these press conferences posed two broad types of ques-
tions:
those which asked
for anaccountof
events,
and
those which asked
foran opinionor
evaluation
of
events. Queries soliciting
an
account either
asked
about what might happen in hypothetical
future
events
(41 ;
N = 17),
called here future-action questions,
or
they asked about
a
past
event (17 ; N= 7), called here past-acts questions.
4
Solicitations of
opinion
(41 ;N =
17), called opinion questions, were distinguished
by
their
request for an appraisal as opposed to a detailing of events.
Followingare examples of these three question types:
after the
tapes
a re presented to Judge Sirica a nd
they
a re processed under the
procedure outlined
by the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals,
will
you
m ak e
those tapes
public?
(Future
action)
who
a uthorized
M r. Rebozo to
collect campaign
contributions for your reelection
or for the Republican Party? (Past acts)
Now, M r.
President,
do you think you
paid
your
fair share
of taxes?
(Opinion)
Whilethere are various typologies which might have been imposed on
these questions, this is the classification system which emerged most
directly
from
the material. Recalling the setting of these questions, it is
not
so
surprising that requests
for
accounts
and
opinions should emerge
with such salience. Not only are questioners in press conferences moti-
vated
to gather reportable accounts, but the press conference itself is
burea ucrat ica l ly
structured' (Fishman 1980); i.e.,
it
both comes into
being
as a
function
of
bureaucratic action
and
exists
so as to
attend
to the
activity
of bureaucrats. Thus, the convener and his/her accounts and
opinions
is the central focusof attention.
Future action
questions When conferring poweraccomplishes
an
accusation
Questions
about
another's
future-action carrytheinteresting implication
that
the
other
is
actually able
to
shape that future.'Will
you
give them
the
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bi
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
6/14
148 KarenE
Rosenblum
documents?
implies that
the
documents
are
yours
to
give and/or that
your
compliance is essential to the transaction. Even in the presence of
obvious duress
Will you
give
me the
money
now
that I ve
got you
cornered?
a fu ture-action question indicates that the one who answers
has some choice, i.e., power. Because the
future
is open and susceptible to
manipulation,
the one
toward w hom
a
future -action question
is
addressed
is imbued with some capability
of
shaping that
future.
Thus, future-ac tion questions a ttribute at least a minimal level of
control or power to the one toward whom they are directed. However,
because
the
attribution
of
power
is
inherent
to the
construction
of the
question rather than responsive to theactual statusof
interactants
their
social consequence w ould
appear
to be
limited.
If
future-ac tion questions
indiscriminately attribute power, they are not especially
socially
meaning-
u l However, almost half
of the
future-action questions
in
these press
conferences
were embellished by description, i.e., by the recounting or
characterization
of
events, persons,
or
utterances.
For
example,
in the
following future-action questions notice both the recounting of Nixon s
past statements and the characterization of the benefits which might be
derived
from a hypothetical course of action.
You
have
referred to
y ou r
o wn
personal
desire to
have com plete
d isclosure and you
have also
men t ioned here
this evening
that
anybody who heard the
tape
o f
that
March 21st m eet ing or i f f e r e n t people hearing that tape or reading the transcript
might
get i f f e r e n t impressions.Have you ever
considered
the
option
of making
that
tape
and
transcript
public so that the Am erican peoplecan read i t and hear it
and ma k e their own judgem ent on whathappened a t that m eet ing?
You
have spoken to night
o f
y ou r willingness
to
take quest ions under oa th
in the
White
House f rom th e sen ior Dem ocra t ic and
Republican
m e m b e r s of the H ou s e
Judiciary
Commit tee .W ould
you
consider
as an aid to
rebuilding
public
confidence
in y ou r leadership
and in
speeding
up the
procedure
in
(sic) taking
questions in a
public forum from
the
entire
House
Judiciary
Committee?
5
The
descriptive segments emphasized above
are
clearly gratuitous
to
the construction of the particular questions. Further, as these questions
illustrate, a descriptive passage in a future-action question is likely to
crystallize
as a
recommendation
for a
course
of
action.
In
these examples,
the recommendation comes complete with the waving of unquestionable
goals (e.g., healing the divisions in the country, rebuilding public confi-
dence), and buttressed by the reiteration of Nixon s own past statement.
Yet even without such explicit markers, the injection of a descriptive
segment into a future-action question functions to at least tacitly endorse
some line
of action.
Even
the
minimal descriptive segment
as in the
following questions has prescriptive implications:
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bi
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
7/14
When is aquestionan accusation? 149
to heal th e divisions in
this
country
would
you be
willing
to
waive executive
privilege
to
give
th e
Judiciary Committee what
it
says
it
needs
to end any
quest ions ofyour involvementinWatergate?
some legal scholars including
Senator Ervin
have
said
that
th e
truth
m l
never
be
fully
established
unless all witnesses
subject themselves
or
submit
to
cross-exam-
ination. Are there circumstances under which you would submit to cross-
examina t ion
if it
would serve
to
clear
up
this Watergate
affair?
Whet her or not the
descriptive passage
in
these questions clearly emerges
as a recommendation, it does set these questions off from unadorned
future-action questions. In effect, the insertion of a descriptive passage
creates a
marked category
of
future-action questions.
Descript ion,whethero fevents, persons, orutterances, is apurposeful,
motivatedselection
from a
virtually
infinite
range
of
possibilities.
A s
such,
it isunlikelyeither to beproduced orheard as merely descriptive Drew
1978). Describing is not merely an appendage to other interactional
w o r k ; rather it is often through constructing descriptions that certain
interactional
tasksmay beaccomplished AtkinsonandDrew 1979:107).
The
descriptive components of these future-action questions do not
themselves
charge wrongdoing. However,
the
addition
of a
descriptive
componen t to afuture-action question does allowfor acomparison of 1)
ability conveyedby theattribution ofpower inherentto thequestion), 2)
desirability of
some course
of
action
as
endorsed
by
description
of
actions/utterances),
and 3) actuality i.e., the implied failure to have
pursued thedesiredcourse).Through thecombination ofpower attribu-
tion and the
descriptionwhichaccomplishes
a
recommendation, wrong-
doing
m ay be
implied without
the
question itself naming
a
specific norm
violat ion.
In
such questions the accusation is precisely what McHugh 1970)
characterized
as the
common-sense
definition of
deviance: having failed
to actcorrectly whentheconditionswhichwould excuse such failurewere
absent. The questions in these press conferences say in effect, here is
something
which you
could
do
power attribution inherent
to future-
action
question) which would
fulfill
your
ow n
stated goals and/or yield
unquest ionable national benefits recommendation v ia description), yet
you
are not
doing
it. The
descriptive component
is
vital
to the
accusation
because
itaccomplishes th erecommendation; th eattribution ofpower is
similarly
essential because it isthatwhich renders inexplicablethe
failure
to
take
the
recommended action.
W h a tso farmightb esaid about themarkersof anaccusatory question?
At aminimum, impugning the merits of another s action requires both
conferring
power
and proffering
description
of
persons, actions,
or
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bi
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
8/14
150 Karen E. Rosenblum
utterances. Q uestions which combine pow er attribution with description,
i.e., future-action questions constructed
with
gratuitous description
materializing as a
recomm endation,
are
reasonably heard
as
accusations
of
failure
or
defect.
Opinion and
past acts
questions The
conferral
and impugning of
expertise
Because a question is the outcome of an analysis about who can be
expected to know what, it has the effect of conferring authority, i.e.,
expertise,
on the one
toward whom
it is
directed. From
a
mundane
request for the formulation of location or identification Where are
you ?, Who are you ? to the questions teachers put to students and
lawyers
put to witnesses, questions are ostensibly addressed to those w ho
may
be expected to know. It is this property which makes a
failure
to
know notable, occasionally even
the
source
of
trouble.
In general, questions solicit the expertise which adheres to ascribed and
achieved status. Opinion and
past-act
questions make the nature of this
solicitation especially salient. When these opinion questions asked about
Nixon s own thoughts or feelings, as in the following question, they
addressed the ascribed domain on which he alone was an authoritative
informant.
I wond er if you could share
with
us you r thoughts, tell us what goes through your
mind, when you hear people,
people
who love this country and
people
who believe
in
you, say reluctantly tha t perhaps you should resign or be impeached. (Opinion)
When
past-act
questions asked
for a
definitive recounting
of
events,
or
when opinion questions asked
him to
apply
his
acquired expertise, they
addressed an actual or putative achieved status.
did
you not consider the option of blowing the whistle, of turning that
information
over to the authorities immediately ...? (Past acts)
Now, as we all know, you are an experienced student of the Constitution, and I
think people w ould
be
interested
to
know what
you
consider
to be an
impeachable
offense for a
President. (Opinion)
Do
questions which attribute expertise also have
the
potential
to
make
accusations? The presence of a descriptive element again contributes to
this accomplishment. Ninety-four percent
of the
opinion
and
seventy-one
percent of the past-act questions were prefaced by recountings and
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bi
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
9/14
When is a questionan accusation 151
characterizations of past events and utterances: 'You know in Congress
there
is a
great deal
of
suspicion over
any
arrangement which will permit
th e executive branch to investigate
itself;
'before you were elected, you
wrote that
to o
many shocks
can
drain
a
nation
of its energy';
there
have
been reports that you felt that Mr. Cox was somehow out to get
you'.
However, recountings
and
characterizations whenadded
to the
conferral
of
expertise
do not so
inevitably yield
the
imputation
of
defect. Such
formulations say
only
Here is a
reconstruction
of
certain events
or
utterances, what is your own authoritative opinion on, or recounting of,
them ?' Is the con ferral of expertise joined to recou ntings and characteriza-
tions
of
action/utterances adequate
to
mark
a
question
as an
accusation?
Theanswertothat appears todepend onwhetherthe recountings/char-
acterizations function
to
void
th e
attribution
of
expertise. There
are a
variety
of means by which that negation can be accomplished; one
possibility
is to
highlight
th e
subjectivity
of
opinions, i.e.,
to
stress
that
opinions are
tied
to
status.
For
example,
in 1968, before you were elected, you wrote that to o many shocks can drain a
nation of its energy and even cause a rebellion against creative change and
progress.
Do you
think America
is at
that point now? (Opinion)
Similarly,
event reconstructions
can be
shown
as
variable,
as in the
following
questions:
M r.
Haldeman, your former top aide in the White House, has been charged with
perjury
because
he
testified
thatyou
said
it
would
be
wrong
to p ay
hush money
to
silenceth e
Watergate defendants,
and
last August
you
said that
w as
accurate.
Can
you,
and
will
you, provideproofthat you die}indeed say itwould bewrong? (Past
acts)
M r.P resident, yo ur personal law yer,
M r.
H erb K almbach, entered
a
plea
of
guilty
today to a
crim inal charge
of
accepting 100,000
in
exchange fo r
an
ambassado-
rial
post, iny ou r capacity
as
President,
you
approve
of
am bassadors
and
send
th e
nominations
to the
Senate. Were
y ou
consulted
in any
manner
on
th is engagem ent
and
this
contribution by M r. Kalmbach or anyone else in the White House .. .?
(Past acts)
Is it
credible,
can theA m erican people believe that yo ur closefriend, M r. Rebozo,
for
3
years during which time
you saw him
w eekly sometimes, kept
from
you the
fact tha the had 100,000incash
from
M r. Howard Hughes?Isthat credible?Is it
credible that your personal attorney, Mr. Kalmbach, knew about this money for
at least a yearand never told you about it?(Op inion question)
O new ould thinkit adifferent matterto acknowledgeth esu bjectivityof
opinions than
to
point
out the
disparity between reconstructions
of
past
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bibl
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
10/14
152 Karen
E
Rosenblum
events. Afte r all, opinions
are
only opinions;
of
course they
are
tied
to
social location. However, in these last three questions only the opinion
question moves beyond a simple request for an account. In each of these
three questions, background description tied Nixon to highly question-
able activities.
The first two
past-act questions asked only
for an
event-
recounting. In the opinion question, however, events as Nixon had
depicted them were characterized as systematically illogical, i.e., incredi-
ble . In the
presence
of
such
a
reconstruction,
the
question itself
is
marked
as
a ploy.
6
Opinion questions
may by
their background recountings show events
as variably reconstructed, then ask for an informed opinion about th e
source or n atur e of such var iability. That is a qu alitatively
different
m atter than w hat is accomplished by past-act questions, w hich simply ask
for
an
alternative recounting.
In an
opinion question,
a
foreground
solicitation
of an
opinion
m ay
simply presume
the
legitimacy
of a
damning reconstruction offered by a background description. In the
example
above, the question was not whether Rebozo had told Nixon
about the campaign contribution, but if such a reconstruction were
credible .
Thus,
opinion questions display a potential for leveling charges
which
past-act
questions do not. Both question-types m ay
offer
discredit-
in g event-reconstructions, but past-act questions must ask whether the
recon struction is accurate, w hile opinio n questions allow the description
to stand w hile they ask for opinions about any number of other things.
For
example,
in the
following opinion questions
the
eminently noticeable
background renders
the
foreground question merely ostensive.
could
you
explain
th e
rationale
of a law-and-order
Administration covering
up
evidence, pr ima
facia
evidence, of high crimes an d misdemeanors?
Apr i l
21,
1969,
was a
significant
day for you in
taxes
and for the
country, too.
That
is the notary date on the deed that allowed you to give your papers to the
Government
and pay
just token taxes
for two
years.
O n
that same date,
y ou had a
tax
reform message
in which you
said,
and I
quote: Special preferences
in th e law
permit
far too
many Amer icans
to pay
less than
their fair
share
of taxes. Too
many others bear too much
of the tax
burden. Now,
M r.
President,
do you
think
you paid your
fair
share
of
taxes?
The accusation in these opinion questions can be described as another
com m on-sense
charge: failing to stand as an expert by virtue of
discrediting circumstances. In
effect,
this
is an
operational definition
of
untrustworthiness. y definition, questions w hich ask for
one s
opinion
address
an
arena which ought
to be a
respondent s unchallengeable
expertise more so even tha n questions about
one s
o wn past action. But
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bibl
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
11/14
When
is a
question
an
accusation
153
with appropriate background recountings, these questions
can
discredit
the same expertise they confirm, and thus accomplish an
accusation.
7
ummary nd
conclusions
B yw h at markers does one determine th at a question lodges an accusation?
Are there questions which stand as accusations even though they do not
name
a law or
norm violation?
Is the
sense that
one
faces
an
accusation
merely
a matter of subjective appraisal? These are not questions of
idiosyncratic
interest. A ccusations
are
certainly
as
constitutive
(Garfinkel
1967;Cicourel 1973)
as any
other utterances
they
structure the
perception
ofevents and
persons, they convey embedded instructions
for
understanding
(Weider
1973),
and
they
create new
practical circumstances (Mehan
and
Wood 1975: 140). While
in an arena
like
the one
examined here
the
consequences which follow from
an
accusation
are
dramatic
and fairly
accessible to observation, the consequentiality of accusatory questions in th e
everyday
world is no less substantive.
Accusations cannot
be
reduced
to any
simple present/not present
dichotomy even h urlin g an explicit charge of serious norm violation does
not
inevitably stand as an accusation. The premise here has been that
accomplishing
an utterance which serves as an accusation even without
naming
a supposed violation, requires an identifiable structuring of
discourse. When are we likely to produce denials or acceptances, i.e., the
second-part
of the
accusation adjacency pair? This investigation indicates
that questions which
ask
about futures
and
make recommendations,
and
questions which simultaneously ask for opinions and discredit those
opinions are reasonably construed as accusatory. Accusations may be
accomplished
by an
attribution
of
pow er joined
to a
recommendation,
or by
an
a t tr ibution
of
expertise coupled w i th description w hich specifically denies
the possibility of expertise. This conclusion suggests that questions move
toward accusation when they embody
a
self-cancelling
opposition
of
elements the imputat ion and denial of expertise, the a t t r ibut ion of power
and the imputat ion o f a failure to use it. It w ould also suggest th at accusatory
questions
are
essentially rhetorical. Insofar
as
they debunk w hat they also
confirm,
accusatory questions are questions not meant to be answered.
otes
1. A
fact
highlighted by former Argentine President
Leopoldo
Galtieri in an interview w ith
journalist Oriana Fallaci:
4
I accept your argument because
you are a journalist,
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bibl
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
12/14
154 KarenE Rosenblum
Madame Journalist. If youwere not ajournalist, Ipromise youthat Iwouldn t have
permitted you to say this' (Fallaci
1982).
2.
Forexample, when Sarah McClendon, correspondent for the McClendon Wire Service,
flatly and persistently contradicted Ronald Reagan in a 1982 presidential press
conference, he r colleagues later responded
with
ridicule and a call fo r censure.
3.
Law/norm violation
was
conceived
in the
broadest possible terms. Questions were
included if they pertained to the break-in at Democratic National Committee Head-
quarters in the Watergate
office
building on June 17 , 1972; the alleged or confirmed
activities to
cover-up that break-in; allegations
of
criminal
activity on the
part
of
Nixon
or his representatives; judicial proceedings or federal investigations regarding such
activities; policy debates raised by such investigations; calls for resignation; or questions
about Nixon s income
tax
returns
and
claimed deductions
for the gift of his
Vice
Presidential papers.
The
transcripts
as
edited included
33 of the
original
54
question-
answer
sets. Eight
of
these
33
questions were double; i.e.,
in one
turn
a
speaker asked
two
discrete questions. Eachofthese double questionswascoded separately, increasing
the numberto41.
4. The
classification
'present
action'
was not
applied
to
this material
on the
conviction that
actionin theimmediate present isessentially inaccessible to analysis, i.e.,
that
in order
to reflecton thepresentwemust renderitpast (Schutz 1967). Thusthequestion
'Is
Mr.
Wilson, the attorney fo r Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman, working with the White
House
or with you in
concert
in any way?
while syntactically present tense
has
been
classed
as past
action.
5. All
questions were classified
in
terms
of
their
substance,
rather than their syntactic form.
Examplesof marginal classification are
often
helpful
in illuminating coding procedures.
For
example,
in
'Have
you
ever considered
the
option
of
making
that tape
and
transcript public?' or
'Would
yo u consider
taking
questions in a public forum? an
argument might
be
made that these
are
solicitations
of an
opinion. However, reporters
havenot actually asked for an opinion on releasing the tapesorpublic inquiries, but
whether Nixon might actually do either of these at some future point. Thus, the
questions are classed as
future-action. When contrasted with,
for
example,
'Is
that
correct, you are really not ruling the clemency out, and if so, why? a true
solicitation
of an
opinion
the
distinction becomes clear.
As a
second instance
of the
problematics of coding:'Canyou and will yo u provide proof that you did indeed say it
would be
wrong?'
is classed as past action because its central request is for an immediate
recountingofpastaction,not apromise of a recountingin thefuture.Inall, however,
there werefew cases in which consignment to a coding category was problematic.
6. Note that the last question was so inflammatory that the reporter immediately
proceeded with a'safer' past-act question:
'And
if this was a campaign contribution...
who
authorizedMr. Rebozo tocollect campaign contributions?
7. A conclusion confirmed by Nixon s repeated denial of the need fo r expertise in response
to opinion questions.
eferen es
Atkinson,
J. Maxwell and
Drew, Paul (1979). Order in
Court:
The
organization
o f verbal
interaction in judicial settings London: MacMillan.
Burton,
Deirdre (1980).
Dialogue and
D iscourse London: Routledge
and Kegan
Paul.
(1981).Analyzing spoken discourse.
In
Studies
in
DiscourseAnalysis Malcolm Coulthard
and
Mar t in
Montgomery (eds.),61-81.London: RoutledgeandKegan Paul.
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bibl
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
13/14
When
is a
question
an
accusation?
155
Cicourel,
Aaron
V. (1973). Cognitive Sociology.
London: Penguin.
Coul thard , Malcolm and Montgomery, Mart in (eds.) (1981). Studies in Discourse Analysis.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul .
Drew, Paul (1978). Accusations:
th e
occasioned
use of
members knowledge
of Religious
geography in
describing events. Sociology
12,
1-22.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1970). Discourse agreement:
H ow
children answer quest ions.
In
Cognition and Language Learning.
R .
Hayes (ed.), 79-107.
New
York: Wiley.
Fallaci, Oriana (1982). Th e A rgentine general w ho never fough t in a war: Interview w ith
Argentine
President Leopoldo Galtieri. Washington Post June 13.
Fishman ,
Mark (1980).
Manufacturing the News.
Aust in: Universi ty
o f
Texas
Press.
Garfinkel,
Harold (1967).
Studies
in Ethnomethodology.
Englewood
Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-
Hall .
(1972). Studies
in the
routine grounds
of
everyday activities.
In Studies
in
Social
Interaction. David Sudnow (ed.), 1-30.
N ew
York: Free Press.
Gumperz, John (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
H eat h, Shirley (1978).Teacher talk: Language in the classroom. In Lan guage in Education 9.
Washington, D.C.: Center
fo r
Applied Linguistics.
Joh nso n, George (ed.) (1978). The Nixon Presidential PressConferences. New York: Earl M .
Coleman
Enterprises.
Kjolseth,
Ro lf (1972). Mak ing sense: N atu ral language
and
shared knowledge.
In Advances
in
th e Sociologyof Language
II , Joshua Fishman (ed.), 50-76. T he
Hague:
Mouton.
M c H ug h ,
Peter (1970). A common-sense perception of deviance. In Recent Sociology 2,
H an s
P .
Dreitzel (ed.), 152-181.
New
York: MacMillan.
M eh a n , H u gh a nd
Wood,
Houston (1975). The Reality of Ethnomethodology. New York:
Wiley.
Molotch ,
Harvey
an d
Lester, M arilyn (1974). New s
a s
purposive behavior:
On the
strategic
use of rou tin e events, accidents, and scandals. American Sociological Review 39, 101-112.
Philips, Susan
U .
(1982).
T he
social organization
of
quest ions
and
answers
in
cour t room
discourse:
A
s tudy
of
changes
of
plea
in an
Arizona court.
Paper
delivered
at the
annual
meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.
Sacks, Harvey (1972).
A n init ia l
invest igat ion
of the
usability
of
conversat ional data
fo r
doing sociology.
In Studies
in
Interaction
David Sudnow (ed.), 31-74.
New
Y o r k : Free
Press.
(1974).
On the analysabi l i ty o f stories by chi ldren. In Ethnomethodology. R oy
Turner
(ed.), 216-232. Middlesex: Penguin.
Sacks, H arve y, Schegloff, Em anuel, a nd Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplist systematics for the
organization of
t u r n - t a k i ng for conversat ion.
Language 50,
696-735.
Schegloff,
Em a nu e l (1968). Sequencing in conve rsat ional openings. American Anthropologist
70, 1075-1095.
(1979).
No tes on a conversat ional practice: Fo rm ulat in g place. In
Language
an d
Social
Context.
P. P.
Giglioli (ed.),
95-135.
London: Penguin.
Schegloff, Emanuel and Sacks, Harvey (1973). Opening up closings.
Semiotica
8 , 289-327.
Schutz ,
Alfred (1967). The Ph enomenologyof
th e
Social World.
E va ns t on ,
111 :
Nor thwes tern
Univers i ty
Press.
Sinclair,
John
an d
Coulthard, Malcolm (1975).
Toward
an
Analysis
of
Discourse:
The
English used by teachersandpupils.
London: Oxford Universi ty Press.
Turner ,R oy
(1971).
Words, ut terances, and act ivit ies. In Understanding Everyday
Life.
Jack
Douglas (ed.),
165-187.
London: Rout ledge
and
Kegan Paul .
(1974). I n t roduct ion . In Ethnomethodology. R oy Turner (ed.), 7-12. Middlesex: Pen guin.
Weider ,
D . Law rence (1973). Language and Social Re ality. T he Hague: Mouton.
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bibli
Angemeldet | 193.196.8.103
Heruntergeladen am | 02.04.13 15:54
-
7/24/2019 Rosenblum Question Accusation
14/14
156
aren E Rosenblum
Karen E. Rose nblum is Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthr opo logy at George
Mason Un iversity, Virginia.
Her
primary
areasof
research
are sex and
gender,
the
sociology
of language, and
deviance.
Recent publications include The route to voluntary non-
custody' (1985),
'Care and
autonomy:
The
conflicts
in
contemporary American gender
(1986),
and 'Revelatory or
purposive? Making sense
of a
Female
register'
(1986).
Bereitgestellt von | Institut fr Deutsche Sprache IDS) Bib
top related