Projects of LoveInteractional projects in romantic conversationsEmily Ball Cicchini

Interactional Projects Building from Schegloff’s proposition of conversational

actions that transcend the boundaries of a sequence

Not a “sequence of sequences,” but something different

Not sequential, yet, “interactional projects” are an orderly interactional feature

Other terms that could describe it: a course of action, an interactional line, a thematic thread.

The sequences that contribute to a project are not necessarily (but may be) consecutive

— Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. p 244

Propositions Inspired by Goffman’s “maintaining the definition of

the situation,” the primary project in a “romantic” relationship is to maintain it, as long at it is considered by both partners to be “romantic.”

Some strategies used to maintain it may include: Seeking equal or satisfactory reciprocity of

communication Sharing information which confirms each other’s

willingness to continue the relationship Initiating actions intended to sustain the relationship

The preferred response to these actions between participant is acceptance

Definition of a “Date”A period of sustained interaction between two

people whose primary mutually agreed upon action is to sustain a romantic relationship

Has a discernable beginning, middle and end of engagement

Can be as short as a phone call, or as long as an evening, or weekend, or ???

Preference upon conclusion of the “date” is to initiate new “dates,” unless a satisfactory definition of romance is not sustained

Types of date conclusions

resolved Agreement to meet again

Confirmation of love

Laughter or play

unresolved Argument or disagreement

Listing of complaints without sufficient repair

Suspected information withheld by at least one participant

Data SourceAudio files were collected by Robert Hopper (1945-1998) and housed at the University of Texas Digital Repository. Samples are labeled “Dating Couples (unmarried)” and dated in the1980’s. Contextual clues indicate that the subjects are primarily college students in Central Texas. Some records contain multiple mp3 audio files. There are 28 audio files for a total of 13 hours and 35 minutes of data. Settings seem primarily to be face-to-face, as well as some recorded phone calls.

Several of these have extended passages that can be considered “dates.”

ReciprocityPlayful interactions

Taking turns complaining and giving comfort about woes

Fishing for compliments and giving compliments

Kisses, often audible on the tapes

Mutual Declarations of love:

InformationAccounts of activities since the couples were

last together

Plans of what they want to do in the future

Discussions of third parties (parents, bosses, friends)

Problem information that needs to be resolved to continue the definition of situation as romantic

ActionsTo test the other’s loyalty for one’s self

To demonstrate desirable qualities for the other

To show and give affection

To ask for exceptions to non-preferred behaviors

To assert control over the situation and/or the other

To ask for forgiveness for a non-preferred interaction

Example: Steadies talk/argue http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/6491

Line of action marked in BOLD

1: At the beginning of the dates, M initiates sharing a complaint story

22: F supports the story, allowing M to elaborate and repair for some misunderstanding

49: F continues to provides compliments, support, until like 64, where she introduces a new topic, one that relates to the overall project of sustaining the relationship, but very indirectly.

76: M tries to provide a repair here, but it’s not accepted by F. She escalates action to direct question in 79 to ask for a behavior repair.

132: He agrees to her condition, but with a protest.

135: She uses playfulness, suggestiveness to get confirmation of their continued attraction, which seems to work by 140, sounds like a kiss.

141: M immediately pulls away and changes the topic. F is supportive, until there is a breakdown about the action of schoolwork. M is supportive enough to allow recording to continue; what happened in the break is unknown.

161 is the restart of the date; F asking about activities when the couple were apart.

There is tension in the sequence, but, by 189, there appears to be another kiss. Still, by 192, F goes direct again with questions for information.

At 195, M raises the tension of the action with an unexpected, and likely un-preferred answer (one that is not the expected response). This sequence moves forward for quite some time, ending only at line 253, with what is likely a sub-textual disagreement between F and M about the worthiness/fitness of M’s reported actions.

After a long pause, M tries direct reciprocity to find out information about what F has done while the couple was apart at 255.

He is not happy with the answer, and escalates it at 279 to a past unresolved conflict. This leads to a sequence with increasing pace, pitch, and overlap, which culminates when F introduces new information on line 288.

M seems to have convinced F about his account of the new information by line 341; However, she returns to the unfinished sequence of 279.

By 345, he escalates this accusing her of unworthy behavior, which she attempts to repair in lines 356 to 377.

In 377 - 379, there is a very climactic shift, and a decision made by both parties to forget a past acknowledged wrong.

But in 380, the F waivers, and must ask for additional information to be convinced that there is nothing new that needs to be repaired.

M does not provide a satisfactory response, and she begins fishing with heavier, more general questioning about “guilt.”

M brings up another condition revealed by information from the sequence started in 288 and asks a question.

F attempts to answer it, referencing the earlier sequences about the notes about not calling.

M makes a very insensitive comment towards the notion of continuing a romance; “put it in the mailbox.”

F responds in kind by telling him to “go to hell.”

The tape is shut off.

What type was the date?

resolved Some playfulness in tone

remains.

Physical confirmation of love evident

unresolved Ended in Argument or

disagreement

Listing of multiple complaints without sufficient repair

Suspected information withheld by at least one participant

Conclusions/QuestionsUltimately, only participants can determine if

the participants if the date was resolved or not.

A better understanding of talk dynamics could improve dating results, and ultimately longer-term intimate relationships.

What are the best ways to transcribe a line of action?

What kind of place do “interactive projects” have in CA?