A collaborative theory of narrative story-telling was tested in two experiments that examined what listeners do and their effect on the narrator. In 63 unacquainted dyads (81 women and 45 men), a narrator told his or her own close-call story. The listeners made 2 different kinds of listener responses: Generic responses included nodding and vocalizations such as "mhm." Specific responses, such as wincing or exclaiming, were tightly connected to (and served to illustrate) what the narrator was saying at the moment. In experimental conditions that distracted listeners from the narrative content, listeners made fewer responses, especially specific ones, and the narrators also told their stories significantly less well, particularly at what should have been the dramatic ending. Thus, listeners were co-narrators both through their own specific responses, which helped illustrate the story, and in their apparent effect on the narrator's performance. The results demonstrate the importance of moment-by-moment collaboration in face-to-face dialogue.

The authors examined precisely when and how listeners insert their responses into a speaker's narrative. A collaborative theory would predict a relationship between the speaker's acts and the listener's responses, and the authors proposed that speaker gaze coordinated this collaboration. The listener typically looks more at the speaker than the reverse, but at key points while speaking the speaker seeks a response by looking at the listener, creating a brief period of mutual gaze called here a gaze window. The listener was very likely to respond with "mhm," a nod, or other reaction during this period, after which the speaker quickly looked away and continued speaking. This model was tested with 9 dyads in which 1 person was telling a close-call story to the other. The results confirmed the model for each dyad, demonstrating both collaboration in dialogue at the microlevel and a high degree of integration and coordination of audible and visible acts, in this case, speech and gaze.While listening to someone tell a story, listeners regularly make brief appropriate responses (sometimes called "back channels," after Yngve, 1970). The goal of the research reported here was to understand the timing of these responses, that is, why listeners respond when they do. Is this a haphazard event, is it determined by characteristics of the listener, or is it related to actions of the speaker (and if so, how)? We have pursued these questions first through an inductive qualitative analysis, then by statistical tests of the hypotheses we had developed. The data were videotapes of unacquainted dyads in which one person told a close-call story to the other.

A small group of hand gestures made during conversation (interactive gestures) seem to function solely to assist the process of dialogue rather than to convey topical information. The rate of interactive gestures was significantly higher when 27 dyads talked in dialogue than in sequential monologues, whereas the rate of other (topical) gestures did not change; this difference supports the theory that interactive gestures are uniquely affected by the requirements of dialogue. A second, microanalytic study tested hypotheses about the specific functions of interactive gestures by examining the responses of the person to whom the gesture was addressed. Predictions were correct for 78 of 88 gestures sampled randomly from a large database. These results support the conclusion that interactive gestures are an important means by which speakers can include their addressees in the conversation. Moreover, these gestures demonstrate the importance of social (dialogic) processes in language use.

Part I of this article introduces the interactional and discursive view of violence and resistance, part II illustrates its application to the analysis of sexual assault trial judgments, and part III provides a detailed analysis of an entire judgment. In giving their reasons for verdicts and sentences, the majority of judges accounted for the assaults by drawing on psychological concepts and constructs. These psychological explanations or causal attributions were grouped into one or more of eight categories: alcohol and drug abuse, biological or sexual drive, psychopathology, dysfunctional family upbringing, stress and trauma, character or personality trait, emotional state, and loss of control. The causal attributions in all categories systematically reformulated deliberate acts of violence into non-deliberate and non-violent acts. Psychologizing attributions, that is, causal attributions that functioned to conceal the violence and mitigate the perpetrator’s responsibility, accounted for 97 percent of attributions. Through line-by-line analyses of the full text of one judgment, we show how psychologizing attributions are combined in use with other linguistic devices to (i) conceal violence, (ii) mitigate perpetrators’ responsibility, (iii) conceal victims’ resistance, and (iv) blame or pathologize victims.

No abstract