Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:53:59.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2012

Jeremy Freese  and
Douglas W. Maynard
Jeremy Freese
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, jfreese@indiana.edu, dmaynard@ucs.indiana.edu
Douglas W. Maynard
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, jfreese@indiana.edu, dmaynard@ucs.indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent work suggests the importance of integrating prosodic research with research on the sequential organization of ordinary conversation. This paper examines how interactants use prosody as a resource in the joint accomplishment of delivered news as good or bad. Analysis of approximately 100 naturally occurring conversational news deliveries reveals that both good and bad news are presented and received with characteristic prosodic features that are consistent with expression of joy and sorrow, respectively, as described in the existing literature on prosody. These prosodic features are systematically deployed in each of the four turns of the prototypical news delivery sequence. Proposals and ratifications of the valence of a delivery are often made prosodically in the initial turns of the prototypical four-turn news delivery, while lexical assessments of news are often made later. When prosody is used to propose the valence of an item of news, subsequent lexical assessments tend to be alignments with these earlier ascriptions of valence, rather than independent appraisals of the news. (Bad news, good news, conversation analysis, prosody, sequencing).

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 195 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (1984), eds. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter (1996). On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In Couper-Kuhlen, & Selting, (eds.), 57–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1986). Intonation and its parts. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1989). Intonation and its uses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, Graham & Casey, Neil (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In Atkinson, & Heritage, (eds.), 167–90.Google Scholar
Button, Graham, Casey, Neil (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies 8:3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1986). An introduction to English prosody. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret (1996a), eds. Prosody in conversation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Selting, Margret (1996b). Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, & Selting, (eds.), 11–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan (1986). Intonation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, & Pearson, Mark (1986). On the analysis of prosodic turn-taking cues. In Johns-Lewis, Catherine (ed.), Intonation and discourse, 139–55. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Freese, Jeremy (1997). Politeness and the introduction of positive information about self. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Midwest Sociological Association, Des Moines.Google Scholar
French, Peter, & Local, John (1983). Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragmatics 7:17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Jo Anne (1978). Amplitude shift: A mechanism for the affiliation of utterances in conversational interaction. In Schenkein, (ed.), 199–218.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, & Heritage, (eds.), 299–345.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth (1993). The structure of death announcements: Looking on the bright side of death. Text 13:189–212.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1981). The abominable ‘Ne?’: A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response. Occasional Paper no. 6, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, England.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1986). Parameters of speech rate perception in German words and sentences: Duration, F0 movement, and F0 level. Language and Speech 29:115–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark (1979). The intonational system of English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Local, John (1996). Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In Couper-Kuhlen, & Selting, (eds.), 177–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local, John; Kelly, John; & Wells, W. H. G. (1986). Towards a phonology of conversation: Turn-taking in Tyneside English. Journal of Linguistics 22:411–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica 30:263–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1995). The benign order of everyday life: Asymmetries between good news and bad news in conversational interaction. Paper presented at EPOS (Ethnomethodological, Phenomenological, and Observational Studies) Program, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1996a). On “realization” in everyday life: The forecasting of bad news as a social relation. American Sociological Review 61:109–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1996b). Consequential figures and relationships in conversational episodes of bad and good news. Unpublished MS Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30:93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, Daniel C.; Kowal, Sabine; & Kaltenbacher, Erika (1990). Turn-taking: A critical analysis of the research tradition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19:345'73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreström, Bengt (1983). Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund, Sweden: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (1987). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet, & Hirschberg, Julia (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R. et al. , (eds.), Intentions of communication, 271–312. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, (ed.), 79–112.Google Scholar
Roach, Paul (1983). English phonetics and phonology: A practical course. Cambridge & New York: University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, Graham & Lee, John R. E. (eds.), Talk and social organization, 54–69. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schenkein, Jim (1978), ed. Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret (1992). Prosody in conversational questions. Journal of Pragmatics 17:315–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, Alene (1976). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. Social Science Working Paper 99, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne (1992). Contextualizing relevance: On some forms and functions of speech rate changes in everyday conversation. In Auer, Peter & Luzio, Aldo Di (eds.), The contextualization of language, 297–336. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne (1996). On rhythm in everyday German conversation: Beat clashes in assessment utterances. In Couper-Kuhlen, & Selting, (eds.), 303–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Bill, & Peppé, Sue (1996). Ending up in Ulster: Prosody and turn-taking in English dialects. In Couper-Kuhlen, & Selting, (eds.), 101–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Carl E., & Stevens, Kenneth N. (1972). Emotions and speech: Some acoustic correlates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 52:1238–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar