Organizing talk with contrasts: Nixon and Colson discuss watergate
Section snippets
Contrast and dualism
This paper is one of a series developing an “occasioned semantic” approach to discourse. The object of this approach is to elucidate the development and structure of meaning in verbal discourse, particularly interactive talk. The basic notion is that, in their talk, participants construct structures of semantic relations. I view this approach as, in large part, a development of Harvey Sacks’ categorical analysis (see Bilmes, 2021). My previous work in occasioned semantics has focused on two
First contrast
The Watergate burglary, which took place in June, 1972, was carried out on behalf of the Committee for the Re-election of President Nixon. The Senate Watergate Committee would open its hearings in May, 1973, but the story received extensive news coverage for some time before that. The telephone conversation that we will examine in this study, between President Richard Nixon and Special Counsel to the President Charles Colson, takes place on April 12, 1973. The segment under consideration was
Second contrast
At this point, N introduces a second contrast, centered on the content of the story rather than its area of prevalence.
(4) Eavesdropping16
C's responses
Until this point, N has been developing the topics, categories, and contrasts. Although C responds regularly, he doesn't seem to contribute much more than agreement. It is nevertheless worth examining his responses. His first response, in line 31, appears to be a continuer. His next response is in line 38, after N reaches completion of a turn constructional unit. He says “That's correct.” It may seem odd for a subordinate to be telling the president that he is correct, especially given that C
Third contrast
N, in his response (lines 67–9), chooses one of the possible interpretations of both “it” and “diversion”—the Watergate story, which he has already suggested is of little significance, is diverting the media's and, presumably, the public's attention from the really important things, the accomplishments of this administration.
(7) Great things
The problem, then, is that they are talking about Watergate instead of the great things that we have done and will do.
Although N claims that the
Discussion
Watergate is, for N, primarily a “story.” After C mentions Watergate in line 28, N says that “it's a very pervasive Washington story.” The pervasiveness of the story rather than its content is crucial to the development of this spate of talk. The content (eavesdropping or some damn thing) is mentioned once, in non-specific terms, to establish its insignificance. According to N, it is the story's pervasiveness, rather than the nature of the crime, that leads to the problems for those involved
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgment
I am indebted to Eric Hauser for his many useful suggestions, and to the anonymous reviewers of this paper.
Jack Bilmes is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa. He is the author of two monographs, Discourse and Behavior and The Structure of Meaning in Talk, and of articles on various subjects, including microanalysis of verbal interaction, narrative, public policy, social theory, and Thai social organization and discourse. Currently, his primary interest is in what he calls ‘‘occasioned semantics,’’ the study of meaning structures in discourse, particularly in
References (49)
Regrading as a conversational practice
J. Pragmat.
(2019)Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor
J. Pragmat.
(2014)Taxonomies are for talking: a reanalysis of a Sacks classic
J. Pragmat.
(2009)- et al.
Introduction to topicalizing regrading in interaction
J. Pragmat.
(2019) Regrading and implicature: sequential structures of mobility scales in Japanese rehabilitation team interaction
J. Pragmat.
(2019)A technical analysis of scaling in rehabilitation team talk
J. Pragmat.
(2017)Scaling as an argumentative resource in television talk shows
J. Pragmat.
(2019)Regrading on and through timescales
J. Pragmat.
(2019)Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements
J. Pragmat.
(2006)The interactional dynamics of scaling and contrast in accounts of interpersonal conflict
J. Pragmat.
(2019)
Indexing a contrast: the do-construction in English conversation
J. Pragmat.
From ethnosemantics to occasioned semantics: the transformative influence of Harvey Sacks
The discussion of abortion in U.S. political debates: a study in occasioned semantics
Discourse Stud.
The structure of meaning in talk: explorations in category Analysis
Occasioned semantics: a systematic approach to meaning in talk
Hum. Stud.
Scaling as an aspect of formulation in verbal interaction
Generally speaking: formulating an argument in the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
Text Talk
“I know” as part of a multi-component response
Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature: toward an empirical pragmatics
Pragmatics
“Why that now?”: two kinds of conversational meaning
Discourse Process
Contrastive stress, contrastive intonation and contrastive meaning
J. Semant.
Contrastive accent and contrastive stress
Language
Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view
Cited by (0)
Jack Bilmes is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa. He is the author of two monographs, Discourse and Behavior and The Structure of Meaning in Talk, and of articles on various subjects, including microanalysis of verbal interaction, narrative, public policy, social theory, and Thai social organization and discourse. Currently, his primary interest is in what he calls ‘‘occasioned semantics,’’ the study of meaning structures in discourse, particularly in interactive talk.