and Subjunctive in German*
Andrea Golato
Abstract
The present study investigates the relationship between grammar and interaction, specifically, the forms and interactional functions of direct and indirect discourse in spoken German. The study demonstrates that quotatives and the grammatical form of quotes are context-sensitive; that is, depending on the current actions (either providing background information, telling stories, telling troubles, or giving explanations), interactants select different quotation formats. The use of the subjunctive or Konjunktiv is only one of several quotation formats used by speakers in interaction for very specific social purposes; these social purposes are oriented to as such by coparticipants.
1. Introduction: Standard Rules of Reported Discourse
Reported discourse is a topic that is very much dreaded by many teachers and students of G e r m a n grammar - this is probably so because of the variety of forms available and because of apparent differences in use depending on discourse type and register. The present study investigates the connection between various grammatical forms of reported discourse and their function in G e r m a n conversational data. While reference grammars1 give accounts of
* I wish to thank Maria Egbert, Jürgen Streeck, and Mark Louden for their extensive comments on earlier versions of this paper. Thanks also are due to Irene Koshik and Peter Golato. I am grateful for the close reading and valuable feedback provided by the editor and by two anonymous reviewers. All remaining errors are of course mine.
1 Such as Duden (1995), Durrell's (1992) Using German, Eisenberg's (1999) Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Der Satz, and Zifonun, Hoffmann and Strecker's (1997) Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, volume 3. For a very detailed (yet a bit older) description of the use of subjunctive in German on which some of the reference grammars cited above were based, see Bausch (1979), Buscha and Zoch (1992), Flämig (1959), Jäger (1971), and Kaufmann (1972, 1976). For a more recent semantic-grammatical investiga- tion focusing on the interplay of tense and mood, see Fabricius-Hansen (1999) and Morgenthaler (1998); for a semantic-grammatical analysis that also considers the
Zeitschrift f ü r Sprachwissenschaft 21.1 (2002), 2 5 - 5 6
© Vandenhoeck & R u p r e c h t , 2002 ISSN 0721-9067
reported discourse in both spoken and written German, they emphasize the rules for written or publicly spoken German. Their treatment of reported discourse always starts out with a presentation of the various subjunctive forms, namely, Konjunktiv I, Konjunktiv II, and the würde-íorm.2 All reference grammars concede that speakers can either use a direct quotation or indirect quotation when they wish to report the discourse of others. Direct quotation refers to those kinds of reported discourse in which the speech and body behaviors of others or oneself are introduced as presently ongoing speech. It is said to be a "szenische Vergegenwärtigung der originalen Äußerungssituation" (Zifonun et al. 1997:
1755) and is most common in colloquial speech (Durreil 1992: 6 - 1 0 ) , when the quote corresponds to the original utterance (Duden 1995), and when the relation between the reporter, the original speaker and the audience is said to be a very direct and immediate one (Duden 1995).
The grammars further agree that for indirect quotation, which is character- ized by subordination, pronoun switches and other deictic shifts, speakers can use a variety of forms including the indicative, one of the two synthetic subjunctive forms, or the würde-form. For written discourse, particularly official or publicly reported discourse (news reports, etc.), the subjunctive is said to be the "Normalmodus" (Duden 1995:163, Zifonun et al. 1997:1768), although it is not obligatory (Duden 1995, Zifonun et al. 1997). While writers normally elect to use Konjunktiv I (Duden 1995, Durrell 1992), the reference grammars concede that Konjunktiv II and the würde-form are used increasingly as well,
surrounding discourse in the analysis, see Breslauer (1996). Breslauer also analyzes in detail the notions of inner monologue, berichtete Rede (free subjunctive indirect discourse (Pütz 1999: 24)), and erlebte Rede (experienced speech) as well as other forms of reported discourse which most other a u t h o r s d o not discuss.
2 According to Eisenberg (1999: 117) Konj. I and Konj. II are not grammatical categories, but are merely abbreviations for the subjunctive forms of several tenses: Konj.
I = subjunctive forms for present subjunctive, present perfect subjunctive and f u t u r e subjunctive; Konj. II = simple past subjunctive and f u t u r e subjunctive. Z i f o n u n et al.
(1997: 1733) label these respective forms Konjunktiv Präsens (present subjunctive), and K o n j u n k t i v Präteritum (past subjunctive), and point o u t that these are purely morphologi- cal rather than temporal categories. Konjunktiv I is formed by taking the present tense indicative stem of the verb and adding the Konjunktiv endings (-e, -est, -e, -en, -et, -en) to the stem of the verb. Konjunktiv II is formed by taking the past tense indicative stem of the verb and adding the K o n j u n k t i v endings to it (note that back vowels in strong verbs are typically umlauted; some verbs take on a different vowel altogether). A form congruity (i.e.
forms which are orthographically or phonetically identical) occasionally exists between individual m o o d s and tenses (see, for example, D u d e n 1995:114-117, Zifonun et al. 1997:
1731 - 1 7 3 5 ) . A n alternative f o r m of the subjunctive, co-existing with the synthetic forms, is the wiirde-foTm. Speakers conjugate the auxiliary würden (roughly equivalent to English would) and combine it with the infinitive of the main verb of the sentence.
especially when Konjunktiv I is congruent in form with the indicative,3 when the speaker/writer uses a low frequency word (in these instances würde-forms are used), and when speakers are engaged in casual conversation (here either Konjunktiv II, wiirde-íorm, or indicative are used). Contrary to some accounts,4
the Duden (1995: 164) along with several other researchers5 clearly states that the use of a subjunctive form does not mean that speakers are distancing themselves from the content of the utterance or presenting it as doubtful. The following example quoted in Breslauer (1996: 103) demonstrates this. The example is an excerpt from a German novel (Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum, by Heinrich Boll):
[Die 'Zeitung' berichtet von Katharinas Freund Blorna]
Es wurde behauptet, es ginge ihm finanziell dreckig, was schlimm war, weil es zutraf.
As pointed out by Breslauer, the verb ginge is in Konjunktiv II, yet the content of the utterance makes clear that what is reported on is indeed factually true:
Blorna is really not doing well financially. Breslauer argues that since the content corresponds to the truth, it cannot be doubted. Thus she argues that one has to interpret the Konjunktiv II form simply as a variant of either Konjunktiv I or the indicative.6 Along similar lines, Zifonun et al. (1997) argue that whenever a speaker uses indirect discourse (regardless of mood), speakers leave open whether or not they believe in the truthfulness of the report:
3 Eisenberg (1999: 120) argues very convincingly for the untenability of the rule that Konjunktiv II is used when there is form congruity between Konjunktiv I and the present indicative. According to Eisenberg, research has shown that more than 8 0 % of all Konjunktiv II forms in indirect discourse actually occur in the third person singular. (A pragmatic explanation for this phenomenon may be the fact that one usually quotes the speech of another person, rather than one's own speech or that of one's coparticipant. But see section 4.2 and Golato (in press) for a discussion of the forms and functions of self-quotation). However, this is precisely the form in the verb paradigm in which there is always a distinction between Konjunktiv I and indicative, and in which a switch to Konjunktiv II should therefore be unnecessary.
4 Authors who hold that there are semantic differences between the German subjunctive forms include Coulmas (1986: 16), Fabricius-Hansen (1999: 131-132), Flämig (1959: 56), and Jäger (1971: 165). Morgenthaler (1998: 366-367) suggests that particularly in publicly spoken German, speakers use the subjunctive forms in order to signal potentiality or irreality.
5 This view is shared by Helbig/Buscha (1986: 196), Eisenberg (1999: 118), Sommer- feldt (1990: 341), and Thieroff (1992: 226).
6 See Duden (1995:162), Fernandez-Bravo (1980:115 - 1 1 6 ) , or Thierolf (1992:225) for equally persuasive proofs that semantic differences between Konjunktiv I and II cannot exist.
In Indirektheitskontexten lautet die Verbindlichkeitsqualität für (wiedergegebene Aussagesätze:
Ich, Sprecher S2, sage, dass S1 (der Sprecher der Originaläußerung) sagt, daß p, aber ich lasse offen, ob ich sage, dass p. (Zifonun et al. 1997:
1762).
However, Plank (1986:296) points out that if speakers want to clearly mark their doubtfulness or any kind of epistemic stance, it is best done in the quotative and not in the quote itself:7
Die eindeutigste Möglichkeit für den wiedergebenden Sprecher, seine eigene epistemische Distanz zur wiedergegebenen Rede zu bestimmen, ist auf jeden Fall die Verwendung entsprechender epistemischer Aus- drucksmittel in der Redeanführung, nicht innerhalb der wiedergegebe- nen Rede selbst. (Plank 1986: 296).
As mentioned before, most reference grammars primarily focus on written German. This is also true for the scholarly literature over the past thirty years.8
In many studies, researchers focused on indirect discourse and were particularly interested in the use of the subjunctive. Some inquiries (particularly Dieling 1986, Fabricius-Hansen 1999, and Steube 1983) used a semantic approach and analyzed reported discourse solely at the sentence level, either using constructed sentences or taking reported discourse out of the overall context of the utterance. The remaining works focused on reported discourse as it appeared in literary texts or in the press. While these studies take into account the context in which a writer employed reported discourse, their findings cannot necessarily be generalized to the overall use of reported discourse in spoken German, be it conversational or institutional talk.
There are exceptions to the focus on written German, though, as Kaufmann (1976), Morgenthaler (1998) and Scheidweiler (1991) also investigated publicly
7 In this regard, Eisenberg's discussion of quoting verbs is relevant as well. Eisenberg does not see a connection between the use of the subjunctive and indirect discourse per se, but does see one between the subjunctive and non-factive verbs. He states that it would be semantically illogical to have a factive verb followed by a subjunctive. According to Eisenberg, factive verbs (e.g. to know) always require the indicative, whereas non-factive verbs (to believe) always require the subjunctive. Similarly, verbs with a factive and a non-factive reading {to report) can be followed by either the subjunctive or the indicative;
in these cases the subjunctive always indicates a non-factive reading of the verb.
8 Andersson (1994), Buscha (1987), Breslauer (1996), Dieling (1986), Fabricius-Hansen (1999), Fernandez-Bravo (1980), Firle (1988), Gramberg/Heinze (1993), Kaufmann (1976), Kuhn (1988), Lerch (1922), Plank (1986), Pütz (1994), Scheidweiler (1980,1991);
Siefer (1982), Sommerfeldt (1974,1983,1990); Starke (1985), Steube (1983,1985); ten Cate (1996).
spoken German (e.g., political talk shows, news broadcasts, etc.). While Bausch (1975) investigated conversational German, this study involved asking subjects to provide their intuitions on spoken German through written response. This is problematic since in asking subjects about their intentions, researchers risk eliciting folk knowledge about a grammatical phenomenon; this folk knowledge may be very different from what people actually do in conversation. In more recent years, interest seems to have shifted to social uses of reported discourse in ordinary German conversation,9 to the prosodie features and functions of reported discourse,10 and to embodied speech (Streeck 1988b, Golato 2000).
The last studies mentioned were based upon conversational German and included in their analysis the situational context in which the reported discourse occurred. However, no study to date has addressed the question of whether the design of quotatives and reported discourse is sensitive to the actions speakers are doing within a particular situational context. This leaves open a number of questions, such as: do different actions (such as providing information, re-enacting a story, backing a claim, etc.) call for different quotatives and reported discourse? Are subjunctive forms used for some of these actions but not for others? These are some of the questions the present study aims to address. In trying to answer these questions, subjunctive forms are treated as one resource among a range of other grammatical and lexical resources speakers have available to indicate that they are reporting the discourse of others. Rather than focusing on stylistic variation, grammatical correctness, or truth value, the present study focuses on the functions of the various forms as they are used in real-time speech. Hence, this study of reported discourse is not limited to the various reported discourse forms, but always considers the interactional function of each quotation. It is argued that speakers use different types of quotation formats in order to accomplish certain activities or to distinguish different activities from each other. Thus this article takes a new approach to the study of reported discourse (and by extension to subjunctive forms) in that it situates grammar in its interactional context. This new approach will hopefully also explain why there is this variety of reported discourse forms available to speakers whenever they want to represent the words of others.
2. Data and Methodology
Since speech within speech is a social phenomenon (Goffman 1981, Bakhtin 1981; Parmentier 1993), it comes as a surprise that it has so often been analyzed
9 Brünner (1991), Couper-Kuhlen (1996,1999); Elstermann (1991); Golato (2000, in press); Günthner (1997a, 1997b, 1997c); Streeck (1988a, 1994); and Vlatten (1997).
10 Couper-Kuhlen (1996, 1999); Günthner (1997b, 1997c, 1999); Klewitz/Couper- Kuhlen (1999), and Kotthoff (1997).
exclusively with respect to grammar and syntax. As early as 1929, Volosinov (1929/1986) remarked that reported discourse was often seen in isolation and not within the reporting context. However, the reporting context is of crucial importance in the study of reported speech as it takes into consideration the three (or more) persons involved in this type of speech exchange: the person quoting, the person being quoted, and the person receiving the quote. This is not to say that one should lose sight of the grammatical structures and linguistic descriptions used so far. Put differently, "There must always be a principled way to relate technical detail to other aspects of a general picture" (Wertsch 1991:
122). For this reason, conversation analysis was selected as the research methodology for the present study. Examining reported discourse in ordinary conversation from a conversation analytic perspective treats grammar neither in a vacuum nor at the sentence level, but instead allows one to take into account the interactional context as perceived by and displayed by the actions of the interlocutors.
The research presented in this paper is based on a corpus of 35 hours of naturally occurring spontaneous conversation. Twenty-three of these hours were video-taped everyday conversation, while the remaining 12 hours consisted of audio-taped telephone conversation.1 1 The data were collected during the summers of 1996 and 1997 in various cities in Germany (Brandenburg, Hamburg, Mannheim, Würzburg, Köln, Pirmasens, Konstanz). Altogether, a total of 60 different speakers were recorded from various regions in Germany, with the vast majority of speakers stemming from northern/north-eastern Germany. Most speakers are from either middle class or upper middle class.
3. Reported Discourse in Conversation
My own data (taken from conversational German) corroborate Durrell's statement that Konjunktiv I is not used in conversational German, as I did not find a single case of Konjunktiv I usage within my 35 hours of ordinary conversation1 2. In my data, reported discourse in the form of direct discourse was the predominant way of reporting what other speakers had previously said.
This preference for direct discourse has also been noted by other researchers (Breslauer 1996:83, Kaufmann 1976:32, Macaulay 1987:4, Thieroff, 1992:226).
Konjunktiv II and würde-forms were only used a total of 20 times in my data;
judging from this sample, these forms appear to be used interchangeably by
11 My thanks to Maria Egbert for making nine of these hours available.
12 A n a n o n y m o u s reviewer pointed out that this m a y be due to the fact t h a t the majority of speakers in this study were f r o m northern G e r m a n y . S/he held that an analysis of conversations a m o n g of speakers f r o m the south would show Konjunktiv I f o r m s as well.
native speakers.1 3 However, I would argue that the subjunctive forms that actually occur in my data are used for very specific purposes or interactional achievements. When looking at quotatives and reported discourse in German, the data suggest that there is a distinction between contexts in which participants are using reported discourse to provide information to which they do not have direct access, and when they are using story-tellings for other purposes.
4. Delivering Information to which Speakers do not have direct Access In this category, the main interactional achievement is that of providing a coparticipant with information. This can be done in any of the following four ways: (a) an information-elicitation, in which speaker A asks speaker Β a question, whereupon speaker Β answers the question by reporting the discourse of a third speaker C; (b) information is introduced into an ongoing conversa- tion by a speaker reporting on an information-elicitation situation which took place earlier, (c) a speaker provides reported discourse in order to provide background information for upcoming utterances, and (d) in storytellings, when the point of telling the story is to provide information. Together, these four categories account for all 20 occurrences of subjunctive forms in my corpus. In the following, I will describe these categories in more detail, providing always one representative data segment for each category.
My data in these categories suggest that while speakers do not use the subjunctive very often for discourse within discourse, they do use it when they are either in information-elicitation situations, are reporting on such situations, or are providing some contextualization of talk. That is, in all three cases, they are concerned with language given as "information" (i.e., as answers to questions, or background information). In this sense, this finding corroborates Lee's (1993) finding that when using subjunctive mood in reported discourse, speakers "are stressing their role as a reporter of secondhand information and are not indicating whether they believe it is true", (p. 370).
In all of these instances, only one particular quotative combined with reported discourse is used. This construction in fact corresponds to the rules which the Duden (1995) suggests for reporting what other speakers have said in colloquial talk. Specifically, a verbum dicendi et sentiendi (i.e. a form of sagen (to say),
13 This is in contrast to Fabricius-Hansen (1999: 133), who characterized the wiirde- construction as having a middle position between expressing future in experienced speech and potentiality in indirect discourse. However, Fabricius-Hansen seems to base her study only on constructed examples, and analyzes her examples only at the sentence level, disregarding any discourse-level interactional achievements. For a more detailed discus- sion of the problematic issues surrounding the wünfe-construction, see Eisenberg (1999:
121-122).
meinen ( to say ), hören ( to hear ),οτ fragen ( to ask j) in the past tense is used a s a quotative, followed by indirect discourse. The pronouns are shifted according to the speaker's perspective, and the mood of the indirect discourse is either Konjunktiv II or the würde-form. While the Duden does not specify the particulars of the usage of this construction, recordings of everyday conversa- tions in German suggest that this construction is only used under the specific circumstances briefly outlined at the beginning of this section. This finding for German thus supports the work of Bauman (1986) who stated that, in the case of English, indirect discourse occurs primarily in those situations where informa- tion is provided, whereas speakers tend to switch to direct discourse when they tell the climax of a story.
4.1 Reported Discourse in Answer to Information Elicitation
Speakers seem to use indirect discourse and the subjunctive when one participant requests a piece of information and the coparticipant complies with the request, but passes on information that was originally provided by somebody else. I will label situations like these 'information-elicitation ex- changes'. In the following information exchange, the request for information is made in lines 3 - 4 in the form of a question (marked with the first arrow in the transcript). The second pair part, the answer to this question-answer sequence, is forthcoming in line 8 in the form of reported discourse (marked with the second arrow in the transcript). In this telephone excerpt, Manuel (Ma) tried to call his friend Swen. Swen's former roommate Jochen (Jo) tells Manuel that Swen is spending the semester in Italy.
(1) [PH-3-1-040]:14
1 Ma: ja weiss ich kenn ich- kenn ihn doch, chehe .hh aber
14 T h e data were transcribed using the transcription notation developed by Jefferson (1983 and 1985). See also Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974: appendix) for an early description of the transcription notation; see Atkinson and Heritage (1984: i x - x v i ) for a more detailed version. In general, transcription notations in conversation analytic research capture characteristics of speech delivery, overlaps, and pauses. In this paper, relevant body movements are described in italics above the t o p line of the transcript, while brackets indicate the duration of the action. Since the present study uses G e r m a n data, the transcript provides the original talk on the top line, a literal gloss on the second line, and an English idiomatic translation at the bottom. Only d a t a segments 1 - 4 are glossed because they contain grammatical information specific to G e r m a n (i.e. the subjunctive) which needs to be coded as it cannot be expressed in English. Starting with d a t a segment 5, the gloss will be omitted since all information can be translated into English. F o r easier reading, the English version is given in italics.
yes I know know I- k n o w him PART, chehe .hh but yes I know I know- know him. chehe .hh but
2 M a : anyway isser denn ä h h m (1.2) ((swallowing)) ä h m anyway-E is he P A R T u h h m (1.2) ((swallowing)) uhm anyway is he uhhm (1.2) ( (swallowing) ) uhm
3 Ma: k o m m t der nach göttingen zurück?
comes he to göttingen((city)) back?
will he come back to göttingen?
4 Ma: o[der geht der nach hamburch]
o[r goes he to h a m b u r g ] o[r will he go to hamburg ]
I
]
5 Jo: [ja. (denk ich mal) ] [yes. (think i P A R T ) ] [yes. (i think so) ] 6 Jo: also der hat sich fffür h a m b u r g beworben
well he has R E fffor h a m b u r g applied well he applied ttto hamburg -but i 7 Jo: -aber ich glaube nicht dass das klappt
-but i believe not that that works don't think it will work out
8 Jo: er meinte er es eh säh nich so gut aus.
he said he it uh l o o k + S215 not so good P E he said he it uh didn 't look so good.
9 M a : ah [so ] oh [okay ] oh [okay ]
[ ]
10 Jo: [ich ] glaube er k o m m t nach göttingen zurück, [i ] believe he comes to göttingen back.
[i ] believe he will come back to göttingen.
15 Subjunctive I of the verb sehen (to see) in the third person singular is sehe, while subjunctive II of the same verb in the same form is sähe. Depending on the region the speaker is from, these two forms can be pronounced exactly the same way. In this instance, however, the speaker (Jochen) must come from somewhere in the south of Germany since there is a noticeable difference in his pronunciation of e and ä; thus, this form clearly can be identified as subjunctive II.
In this data segment, Manuel asks a series of questions in order to find out where to reach his friend. In lines 3 - 4 , Manuel asks a question about the future plans of his friend. This is the first pair part of a question-answer sequence. At the end of line 4, the turn is possibly complete but Manuel continues his question, turning it from a yes-no question into an alternative question. After transitional relevance space, where Manuel's turn is possibly complete, Jochen comes in with an answer to the questions. This answer is in overlap with Manuel's continua- tion of the question. In line 5, when Manuel has finished his question in overlap, Jochen provides a more elaborate answer to the alternative question of lines 3 - 4 . Note that in his answer, Jochen does not relate information that is his own;
rather, he relates information that his roommate (Swen) once provided him with. This latter information is given in the form of a quotative in a past tense form, i.e., meinte 'said', combined with reported discourse in Konjunktiv II (sâh, look in subjunctive II).
4.1.2 Reported Information Elicitation Exchanges
The data samples within this category are very similar to the ones described in the previous section. While in the first category, speakers were engaged in information elicitation in their talk (and reported discourse is used only in the answer to the question elicitation), in the present category the entire informa- tion-elicitation exchange is reported on. As in the previous category, the second pair part to the information request is provided in reported discourse, specifically in a Konjunktiv II form. Speaker Inge (I) reports on a question- answer sequence between herself and a coparticipant (Sigried Gabel) in an earlier conversation. In this earlier conversation, Inge elicited information from Sigried. In the videotaped conversation, this whole question and answer sequence is reported. The discourse act of information elicitation is reported in the quotative (line 5; first arrow), and the answer is reported in the reported discourse segment (line 6; second arrow).
(2) [FAC 46:22, simplified]
1 I: da haben wir die mal mitgenommen da hab ich schon once have we them P A R T taken along there have i P A R T once we took them along then i was always
2 I: immer gedacht MEI:ne güte so'n kaputter kerl always thought GOO:d heavens what a messed up guy thinking GOO.d heavens what a messed up guy
3 I: [ob das wohl ihr freund is [if that P A R T is her boy-friend
[is that possibly her boyfriend
[
4 B: [( ) ((from kitchen))
=> 5 1: und dann hab ich mal sigried gabel gefragt and then i have P A R T sigried gabel asked and then i once asked sigried gabel
=> 61: und die sachte das wär der bruder and she said that is-S2 the brother and she said that was her brother 7 A: mhm
uhu uhu
In this segment, Inge states that she has always wondered if a strangely-behaving man might be the boyfriend of one of her acquaintances. She then reports that she asked yet another acquaintance (Sigried Gabel) if he in fact was her boyfriend (line 5). The second pair part to that question, which was conveyed in the past-tense quotative, is given in line 6. Die sachte 'she said' refers to Sigried Gabel, who provided Inge with the information that the man in question is not the boyfriend, but the brother of her acquaintance. Again, this information is not Inge's personal information, but was given to her by somebody else. It is thus marked by Inge in the subjunctive mood when she passes it on to her family members.
4.1.3 Background Information for upcoming Utterances
In this category, use of the subjunctive in indirect discourse occurs when a speaker wants to provide a coparticipant with information necessary to understand some upcoming talk. In other words, the speaker is contextualizing talk by providing background information. In the following transcript, Manuel is calling Michael about, among other things, Michael's unfinished business with an American insurance company. Michael used to be a student at a university in the USA but is now back in Germany. An insurance company in the USA still owes him money. The check from the insurance company was supposed to go to Manuel's address.1 6
16 This is evident from an earlier conversation between Michael and Manuel, in which Michel informed Manuel that he had previously mailed a letter to the insurance company requesting that the check be sent to Manuel. This background information suggests that the subjunctive should not be interpreted here in a counterfactual sense.
(3) [PH 2-2-058]
1 Ma: .h ähm. was- a- halb ich auch noch .h uhm. why- a- i also
.h uhm. another reason for my call, 2 Ma: anru:fe,du hattest doch gesacht > d u
call y o u h a d PART. said-PP. > y o u you had said > you had from the, you
=> 3 M a : hättest von der,Versicherung:: denen had-S2. of the insurenc::e them had told the insurance:: they 4 M a : gesacht die solin mir den scheck
told they should me the check should send me the
5 Ma: zuschicken < . d a i [s bis je]tz noch nix send < . there I [s until n o ]w so far check <. nothing h [as arrived ]
[ ]
6 Mi: [ j a : : : · ] [ye::: s. ]
\ye:::s. ] 7 Mi: gekommn,
nothing has arrived so far
8 (0.8)
9 Mi: ehm.(0.2). muss ich > da wohl nochmal u h m .(0.2). must i > there P A R T uhm.(0.2J. i guess i > have to write 10 Mi: hin < schrei:bn.
again P A R T - w r < ite them< again.
In line 1, Manuel states the reason for his phone call and introduces reported discourse with a verb of saying in a past tense form, followed by reported discourse in the subjunctive du hättest von der, Versicherung:: denen gesacht 'you had f r o m the, you had told the insurance::'. F o r now we will only concentrate on this p a r t of the quote, although another, embedded quote is following. In lines 1 - 3 , Manuel provides background information for the utterance in line 5 - 7 da is bis jetz noch nix gekommen 'nothing has so far arrived'. H a d this sentence been
uttered in isolation, Michael might not have been able to contextualize it. The quotative provides the necessary contextualization or background information f o r the talk that is a b o u t to unfold.
4.2 Delivering I n f o r m a t i o n in Storytelling Situations
When participants in a conversation are telling a story a b o u t other people (people not present in the current discourse situation), and have to introduce other people's discourse into the conversation, they sometimes use the subjunctive. U p o n close analysis of those instances of storytellings in which it is actually used, it appears that the subjunctive is used in order to provide the participants with information. It seems that the story outcome is more important than the process of telling itself. This is illustrated in the following segment in which the two coparticipants, Manuel and M a r k , are talking about mutual friends who all stayed in the U S A at some point in time and who all returned to G e r m a n y early because of their girlfriends. Of particular interest are lines 9-12 in which reported discourse in the subjunctive is used.
(4) 1 M a : ja aber so ne andere geschichte hasse j a noch nich yes but such an other story have-you P A R T not yet yes but there is another such story you haven't 2 Ma: gehört ((smile voice)) da war nochn Stefan
heard ((smile voice)) there was another stefan heard yet ( (smile voice) ) there was another stefan 3 M a : in rivershain
in rivershain-townname in rivershain
4 Ma:(.)
5 Ma: un der stefan der is nach hause geflogen and that stefan he is to h o m e flown and that stefan he flew home 6 ((smile voice))über Weihnachten, .hh
((smile voice)) over Christmas, .hh ((smile voice)) over Christmas, .hh 7 M k : e h m
m h m mhm
8 Ma: und da hat die freu(heu)ndin ihm am flugplatz
and there has the gi(hi)rfriend picked him up and there his gi(hi)rlfriend picked him up at the 9 Ma: abgeholt((smile voice)) und hat zu ihm dann gesacht
at the airport((smile voice)) and said to him then airport ((smile voice)) and told him then
10 Ma: so etwa auf der fahrt auf der zwei stunden fahrt so approximately on the way on the two hour drive somewhere along the way on the approximately two 11 Ma: oder so nach hause dass sie nen andern
or so to home that she another
hour drive home that she had met somebody 12 Ma: kennengelernt hätte, .hh und der is nur wegen
got-S2 to know, .hh and he has only come because of else, .hh and he only came
13 Ma: ihr nach deutschland gekommen.((smile voice)) her to Germany, came, ((smile voice))
back to Germany because of her.( (smile voice) ) 14 Ma: und wir ham der hat .hh[( )die hat]
and we have he has .hh [( )she has]
and we have he has .hh [( )she has]
[ ]
15 Mk: [echt? ] [really? ] [really? ]
16 Ma: ihm das erst in deutschland gesacht. ((smile voice)) told him that only in germany. ((smile voice)) told him that only in germany. ( (smile voice) ) 17 Ma:eidu der hätt die umbringen [können hehehehe]
man you he could have killed [her hehehehe ] man he could have killed [her hehehehe ]
[ ]
18 Mk: [booarr hehehe] echt?
[uuaahh hehehe]really?
[uuaahh hehehe]really?
19 Ma: .HHH ja.
.HHH yes.
HHH yes.
Manuel is telling this story as the second in a sequence of storytellings on exchange students who interrupted their stay abroad because of their girlfriends.
Manuel marks his story clearly as a 'second' story in the story-preface (Sacks 1972, 1974) by introducing it with ja aber so ne andere geschickte hasse ja noch nich gehört 'there's another such story you haven't heard yet'. With this story-preface, Manuel also marks the information provided as newsworthy.
Proceeding in smile voice indicates that the story to be following is a humorous one and shows the coparticipant what to expect and what next action will be relevant. Manuel's continuous smile voice and laugh particles (line 8) indicate that he finds the story funny, and he invites Mark to join his laughter (which actually happens in line 18) (Jefferson 1984c). The story is set up as a joke (Sacks 1974). We already know early on that it will be funny and that some sort of punch line is to follow. Manuel uses a quotative in a past tense form and reported discourse in subjunctive II in providing information that he did not have direct access to (lines 9 - 1 2 ) . This information is the purpose for his telling the story. As Manuel is only reporting information that he has been told by somebody else, this example ties in nicely with the previous three data segments in which a past tense quotative followed by indirect discourse (in the subjunctive) was used to relate information that was not the speaker's own but was given to him or her by somebody else.17 In all of the data segments mentioned so far, speakers were concerned with transmitting information which they, for some reason or another, did not have direct access to. I am not claiming that the speakers question the truthfulness of the utterance or its content, but am simply stating that they are clearly marking the information that they are providing as not being their own. In the remainder of this paper, I will discuss storytellings that are quite different from the one just analyzed in that they are not involved with informings, but with other interactional purposes.
17 It was suggested to me that the use of the subjunctive in this data segment could be read differently. Specifically, it was proposed that using an indicative form would have made the telling less funny, and that using the subjunctive form more accurately emphasizes the blunt and carefree attitude of the woman in the story. It was further suggested that use of the indicative mood could not have given rise to this alternative reading. It was thus argued that the subjunctive form was not used to present second-hand information, but instead to present the stance of a speaker - not the stance of the storyteller, but the stance of the character within the story. However, no evidence was offered for how this reading either reflected the orientation of the participants, or was otherwise justifiable based upon the data; thus, the alternative reading appears to be based upon an analyst's subjective evaluation of the data segment. A further reservation to the alternative reading of the subjunctive as indicating character stance is that it does not appear to hold for other instances in the data set in which subjunctive forms were used for story-telling purposes. Be that as it may, for either interpretation, it remains that speakers are marking information (or stance) that is not their own and to which they do not have direct access.
5. Storytellíngs not involving the Subjunctive
The vast majority of storytellíngs that occurred in my 35 hours of data did not contain any subjunctive forms at all. When analyzing the quotation formats and reported discourse forms in these storytellíngs, a large number of them patterned after each other. That is, certain interactional functions that my speakers achieved could be paired with specific quotation formats.18 For storytellíngs not involving the subjunctive, the following functions/categories will be discussed briefly below: 1) embodied action 2) rendering past decisions, 3) illustra- tions/demonstrations.
5.1 U n d ich so/Und er so 'and I'm like/and he's like': Embodied Action When looking at my data samples, it becomes very obvious that speakers use direct discourse in the vast majority of instances in which they use reported discourse in storytellíngs. This is particularly the case at the climax of the story (Günthner 1997c). Younger speakers (speakers in their teens and twenties) regularly make use of a particular quotative und ich so, which is the German equivalent of the American English and I'm like (Golato 2000, Vlatten 1997).
With this quotative, speakers predominantly introduce sound effects, body movements, and gestures of the quoted speaker combined with verbal elements.
Thus, speakers are not only animators (Goffman, 1981) in the sense that they represent the quoted discourse verbally, but they also represent the body movement and facial expression of the speaker they quote. In this way, the quote is turned into a performance or enactment. Data segment 5 below (taken from Golato 2000: 30) illustrates a prototypical form and use of this quotative. In this data segment, Gabi, her roommates and a friend of her roommates' are spending an evening in the yard together. They are talking about Gabi's hobby - collecting postcards with bicycles on them. Several of the roommates have already told a story about their difficulties in finding bicycle postcards wherever they go on vacation. Gabi then tells the others about a particularly creative and inventive postcard she received in which the bicycle was difficult to spot. Her story is rather long and involved and for the sake of brevity, only the relevant segment (climax of the story) is presented below. Of particular interest is line 3 where the quotative and the quote are indicated by the arrow.
18 Readers should keep in mind that I am not claiming that these interactional functions can only be rendered with reported discourse. I a m also not claiming to be comprehensive in my discussion of the interactional functions that various f o r m s of reported discourse may have. I a m simply stating that the patterns f o u n d in my d a t a seem very suggestive, but need to be verified and expanded by future research. Such research would ideally draw f r o m a d a t a base that represented speech samples f r o m a variety of regions within Germany.
(5) [WG2 B: 058]
1 G: ja:, ich war auch- ich hatte meine Sonnenbrille ye:s, i was also- i still had my sunglasses 2 G: noch auf
on
=> 3 G: > ich so <
> i'm like <
high pitch voice, childlike holds fists 6 inches apart as if holding a card, moves head quickly from left to right
I
4 G: > wo is das < fa:hrrad = das fahrrad he
> where's the < bike = the bike he 5 G: [hi hi hi ]
[he he he ]
[ ]
6 H: [he genau ] (h) [hey right ] (h)
As mentioned above, this segment is produced at the climax of the story Gabi is telling. In line 3 she produces the quotative ich so 'I'm like' followed by the quoted material > wo ist das fa. hrrad < das fahrrad ' > where is the bike < the bike'. The quoted discourse is presented entirely in direct discourse without subjunctive forms. Line 3 also shows that the quoted material does not consist of verbal elements alone, but also includes a change in pitch, gestures, and body movements. Gabi holds her hands about 6 inches apart, as if she were holding a postcard, and moves her head quickly from left to right as if scanning/reading a postcard. In other words, she is not merely telling her audience how she reacted when she received a postcard from friends; she is also acting it out for her coparticipants, thereby turning a telling into a very lively and entertaining performance that is regularly honored with laughter, just as in line 6 above.19
Typical for this interactional achievement is the quotative the speaker used und ich so 'and I'm like'.
19 For a more detailed discussion of the function of prosody in reported discourse, see Günthner (1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1999), Couper-Kuhlen (1999), and Klewitz/Couper- Kuhlen (1999).
This story differs from the previous story Manuel was telling: a) While Manuel was telling a story about an event he did not have direct access to, Gabi is telling a story about an event she herself experienced; b) Gabi is performing her story, making it more immediate for her audience, while Manuel is informing his coparticipant about a mutual acquaintance, and not acting out (performing) the story as Gabi is. One could almost say that he instead opts to summarize the story.20 At first glance, it seems logical that Manuel does not act out the dialogue between Stefan and his girlfriend: since he was not present at the time of the actual occurrence of the (unfortunate) encounter between Stefan and his girlfriend in her car, Manuel would not know exactly what was said.
However, my data for this paper (see also section 4.3) show that speakers report on all sorts of events, even on those that have not yet taken place or are completely hypothetical. Obviously, in such situations speakers cannot possibly have been witnesses to the dialogue they are quoting; thus, speakers are creating or inventing these dialogues.21 It therefore follows that in the example above, Manuel could also have opted to invent the dialogue between boyfriend and girlfriend at the airport. We might ask why he chose not to do so, but instead opted for a summary, or an informing. The answer may lie in the distinction between performing and informing. In order to summarize a story, event, or action, a speaker must have understood it and analyzed it. Once this is accomplished, he or she is then free to introduce additional information from his or her point of view and knowledge. Relating talk that has been analyzed is exactly what indirect discourse is all about: "analysis is the heart and soul of indirect discourse" (Volosinov 1929/1986:129). Thus, a speaker is not restricted to a verbatim quote, and his use of reported discourse is always adapted to the discourse situation he or she is currently in (Coulmas 1986). In using indirect discourse, Manuel is analyzing, describing, and telling about a discourse event;
he is not reenacting the scene at the airport. Thus, Mark's responses (markers of disbelief, line 15; assessment, laughter, and disbelief marker, line 18) are not oriented towards the performance of the telling, but rather to the content of the telling. This is the opposite of direct discourse events, which are reenactments or performances of an earlier discourse event (Streeck 1988b).
I would argue that these differences between the storytellings are a clear indication of the different interactional achievements associated with the two stories. I would further argue that, based on these different interactional achievements, coparticipants will regularly opt for different quotatives and
20 We can imagine that the actual utterances of the girl in the story were much longer and possibly full of hesitations. We can assume this because terminating a relationship definitely counts as a dispreferred action, especially if the partner came from several thousand miles away and interrupted his stay abroad because of the relationship.
21 This has also been observed by Breslauer (1996: 50) and Günthner (1997c: 263).
quotation formats. In the following, I will discuss two other types of storytellings which have very different interactional functions from the ones discussed before; again, speakers employ different quotation formats for each of them.
5.2 Rendering past Decisions
In one particular kind of storytelling, namely that of a troubles-telling (Jefferson 1984a, 1984b), speakers regularly employ direct reported discourse. They do this for a very specific interactional achievement: when they tell their coparticipant what they decided to do in a particularly difficult situation (Golato, in press).
Again, speakers do not use indirect discourse and subjunctive in order to report on their decision, but instead use a quotative in the present perfect tense (the German colloquial past tense) followed by direct discourse. The following data segment, taken from Golato (in press), illustrates this form and function of reported discourse. Kirsten and Rita, her sister-in-law, are talking about financial problems. In that context, Kirsten complains about a dilapidated fence. Of particular interest are lines 1 2 - 1 4 , marked by arrows, in which Kirsten reports on the decision she and her husband Kent (mentioned in line 2) reached concerning the fence. The letters a-d refer to specific turns within the sequence to be discussed below:
(6) Kirsten [B2: 145-150]
al Κ: aber bei uns kommt auch wieder wat, unser zaun but with us something is coming up too our fence a2 K: fallt draußen zusa(h)mmen. he. kent hat so ne olle
outside is colla(h)psing. he. kent yanked out an a3 K: hecke rausjerissen am wochene(h)nde. und [jetz ]
old hedge last weeke(h)nd. and \now\
[ }
4 Ri: [°ja° ] [°yes]
smile voice ι a5 K: stellte sich raus, dass dahinter der ja(h)nze zaun
it turns out that behind it the who (h) le fence
smile voice I
a6 Κ: von termiten total zerfressen wird. > der war ja has been eaten up entirely by termites, it was a7 K: sowieso schon schief und < krumm, aber jetzt fallt
anyway leaning already and < crooked but now it is a8 K: er so richtich in sich zusammen, jedes Wochenende
really collapsing, each weekend
a9 K: repariert er ein zaunfeld und dann fällt's nächste
he repairs one area of the fence and then the next alO Κ: wieder ei(h)n, weeßte.
colla(h)pses, you know.
b l l Ri: [a:ch gott! hhhe ] [o:h god! hhhe ]
I
]
c l 2 K: [hhhhe ham wir ] jesacht [hhhhe we ] said
c l 3 K: müssen wir im herbst mal sehn, we'll have to see to it in the fall
smile voice ι
I I c l 4 K: dass wir dat ding ersetzen.
that we replace that thing.
15 (.)
16 K: [is im]mer sowas blödes, weil, dat [it's \always something stupid it
I
]
17 Ri: [mhm ] [uhum ]
18 K: interessiert mich überhaupt nich, nen zaun zu does not interest me at all to replace
19 K: ersetzen! da würd ich lieber irgendwie wat a fence! i would rather somehow do something 20 K: änderet damit machen mit dem geld ja. he he he
different with it with the money, right, he he he d21 Ri: j a gut, [aber muss denn wahrscheinlich
alright, [but this probably ]has to
I
]
d22 K: [aber musste machen ] [but you have to do it ] d23 Ri: doch sein [da, oder?
be done [right?
t
24 Κ: [musste, sonst kriegste auch ärger.
[you must otherwise you are in trouble.
Looking at this data transcript, it becomes apparent that there is a very specific sequence of turns associated with this form of retrospective talk on decision- making (Golato, in press):
a) troubles telling
b) troubles-recipiency (Jefferson 1984c: 351) on part of the coparticipant c) reporting on the decision using reported discourse
d) evaluation of the decision on the part of the coparticipant. (Golato, in press) These sequential elements are marked by an arrow and the equivalent letter in the transcript above.
The first part of the sequence is a troubles-telling (Jefferson 1984a, 1984c) on the part of the speaker, that is, the speaker is talking about some trouble, problem, frustration, or nuisance (see arrow a). In this instance, it is a financial problem (replacing a dilapidated fence) that the speaker is describing. The laugh tokens in her speech indicate that she is coping with the problem; although there is some problem, it is not getting the better of her and she is able to take the problem lightly (Jefferson 1984c: 351).
By uttering a:ch gott 'oh god' (line 11, arrow b), Rita is expressing 'troubles-recipiency' (Jefferson 1984c: 351), the preferred response to troubles- talk. Expressing troubles-recipiency can be done by acknowledging the trouble (as in the data segment above), by addressing serious talk to the trouble, or by making an assessment of the trouble (Auer/Uhmann 1982: 25, Pomerantz 1984:
63, and Vlatten 1997: 125).
The third component of the sequence is the decision itself, which is given in the form of reported discourse (Golato, in press, Firle 1988:179, Tannen 1983: 364).
In lines 1 2 - 1 4 (arrow c), Kirsten utters the solution to the problem ham wir gesacht müssen wir im herbst mal sehn, dass wir dat ding ersetzen 'we said we'll have to see to it in the fall that we replace that thing'. In this instance, the quotative is given in the present perfect tense, which is the conversational past tense of German, while the quote itself is rendered in direct discourse in present tense indicative. Wolfson (1978: 220) has argued that speakers switch tenses (past to present and vice versa) to structure stories. It has also been shown that reported discourse in the form of direct discourse in the present tense makes the quoted material more dramatic or more lively (Schiffrin 1981: 59) allowing the speaker to cast it as if she is reliving the moment she is talking about (Johnstone 1987: 35; Scheidweiler 1991: 341). This may explain Günthner's (1997c: 268) observation that direct reported discourse seems to be used preferably for representing one's own discourse. In the data sample above, Kirsten reports on the consensus she and her husband reached when talking about their collapsing fence; she is not reporting on the decision-making process, but only on the outcome thereof (Golato, in press, Vlatten 1997).22 Golato (in press) and Vlatten (1997) showed that these reports on past decisions are given predominantly in the first person (either singular or plural). It appears that this use of first person marks that the speaker was somehow involved in reaching the decision.
Again, this is very different from data segments 1 - 4 in which the speakers were reporting on information they did not have direct access to. By reporting the decision in the form of direct reported discourse, the telling is made more immediate (Schiffrin 1981: 59), and the coparticipant is cast as a witness to the decision (Golato, in press). Such immediacy seems to elicit an evaluation of a given situation more readily (Golato, in press). In the data segment above, this evaluation of the decision takes place in lines 2 1 - 2 3 (arrow d) where Rita states that the decision was necessary, unavoidable, and the only sensible one to make.
Addressing talk directly to the reported decision is one form of evaluation of the decision, with the other form being collaborative completion (Lerner 1987, 1993) of the reported discourse (Golato, in press; Vlatten 1997). It is noteworthy that the recipients of the troubles-tellings seem to display a preference for alignment with the teller, that is, they seem to take on the perspective of the troubles-teller and support the decision they reached.
22 For a more detailed discussion on the various ways to report on a couples-decision and on the format of the quote, see Golato (in press) and Vlatten (1997). For a cross-cultural comparison of reporting on decisions, see Golato (in press).
5.3 Illustrations/Demonstrations
Yet another form of reported discourse devoid of both indirect discourse and subjunctive forms occurs when speakers illustrate, demonstrate, or support a claim they have made in their talk. Moreover, it is clear from certain contextual features that the words "quoted" were never actually uttered before. Instead of summoning a witness or reporting the actual words of another person, speakers invent a hypothetical situation replete with hypothetical characters, whose hypothetical 'talk' is then relayed in the form of quoted discourse (Vlatten 1997).
In the following discussion, invented discourse of this kind will be called either 'constructed discourse' of'hypothetical speech' (Haberland 1986:225). Report- ed discourse of this type is exemplified in the following transcript in which Werner (W), a business student, is explaining how a controlling department is embedded in the overall structure of a company. It is apparent from the preceding talk that it is a controller's task to remedy problems in individual departments. Of particular interest are lines 4 - 5 in which a general descriptions is made (see arrow a), line 6 in which the quotative occurs (see arrow b), and lines 7 - 8 where the invented discourse occurs (see arrow c).
(7) SVW [B: 059]
1 W: .hh u:nd jetzt also zur zur angliederung des .hh a:nd now well about about the structural place 2 W: controllings da gibt es eine stabstelle für das
of Controlling there is a central place for the
3 W: controlling diese stelle hat kontakt zum chef, controlling this place has contacts with the boss
=> a) 4 W: das hat dann den vorteil dass man sich alle that then has the advantage that one can ask to
=> a) 5 W: bereiche zeigen lassen kann.
be shown all areas.
=> b) 6 W: man kann zum chef sagen one can say to the boss
=> c) 7 W: Î.hh hey chef die lassen mich gar nicht gucken wenn
\.hh hey boss they won't let me look at all when
=> c) 8 W: irgendwas schief läuft. J. und diese stelle ist
something goes wrong. J. and this place is independent
9 W: unabhängig von den abteilungen so dass man da nicht of the departments so that one does not look
10 W: wie der nestbeschmutzer dasteht like the snitch
This transcript contains at least two features suggesting that the reported discourse at lines 7 and 8 } .hh hey chef die lassen mich gar nicht gucken wenn irgendetwas schief läuft J. 'hey boss they won't let me look at all when something goes wrong' is in fact constructed discourse. First, it would be inappropriate in Germany to address one's boss with hey chef hey boss'. In addition, the change of pitch (as marked by in the transcript) gives the whole utterance an almost childlike, tattle-tale character. This obviously hypothetical discourse illustrates the previous descriptive utterance (lines 4 - 5 ) das hat den vorteil dass man sich alle bereiche zeigen lassen kann 'that then has the advantage that one can ask to be shown all areas'. In other words, the quoted discourse illustrates or exemplifies one general situation in which one might ask one's boss to be shown a certain department within the company, namely when the workers within this department are uncooperative.
In all data segments in which this type of constructed discourse occurs, the quoting speaker is either explaining or is arguing a point. Put differently, it seems that this form of reported discourse is used when speakers are trying to illustrate what they have said or to warrant a position they have taken. Supporting or warranting a position has been called 'claim-backing' by Antaki and Leudar (1990): "Claim-backing is the use of explanations to warrant the truth of what one has said, or the way one has said it" (p. 279). In presenting evidence for a claim made and in giving an example of an explanation, a speaker marks a turn as possibly unclear or disputable, and at the same time deals with this disputability by trying to eliminate it.
Interestingly, Goodwin (1990) demonstrates that speakers might summon witnesses (i.e. real people or third parties) to assert the validity of a claim such as in the following example taken from Goodwin (1990). In this data segment, several children are arguing whether the speaker and his friend(s) had visited the college of art:
(8) Derrick: Okay. I can prove that we went.
Randy! come here. (0.8) U m , didn't we go to the Moore
College of Art? Don't we go every Wednesday?
(p. 166)
Goodwin (1990) argues that summoning a witness or a third party asserts the validity of some claim (in this example, going to the Moore College of Art) because the children feel that "if two parties agree on a common version of the event being disputed, this is felt to 'prove' the correctness of that version" (p. 166).
As an alternative to summoning a witness, a speaker might simply quote the speech of another to back a claim (Goodwin, no date, cited in Jackson and Jacobs 1980). This occurs in the next segment in which the participants, M and S, are arguing whether one person who is talked about (Mark) actually has a brother. In line 7, M is backing her claim that Mark has a brother by citing somebody else (arrow a), and in line 8, S is quoting somebody else to back her claim that he does not have a brother (arrow b):
(9) 1 M: How old is Mark's brother?
2 S: He don't have a brother.
3 M: He's gotta have a brother.
4 S: Nope.
5 M: N o w I know that family's got two brothers and two sisters.
6 S: No. They've got one brother and two sisters.
=> a 7 M: Well now, she iold me she had two
=> a sons and two daughters.
8 S: Not in Mark's family. Now the only
=> b other brother I know of-Mark, he
=> b told me that he had a brother that
=> b died a long time ago.
9 M: Oh. Well, that must be it. The older brother's dead.
(Goodwin, no date, cited in Jackson and Jacobs 1980: 256, arrows added)
In this example, both speakers quote the discourse of somebody else, citing the information they obtained from that person to back their claims (see lines 7 and 9).23 In other words, in contrast to the example given in data segment 8), the speakers have no person presently available that they can summon in order to be a witness to back their claim. Therefore, they have to resort to reported discourse. However, because of the multivoicedness inherent in reported discourse (Bakhtin 1986/1952-3) the witness nonetheless comes into play since he or she is being quoted. In her research on social organization among black children, Goodwin (1982,1990) shows that children back claims in instigating, dispute, and gossip in a similar fashion. Tannen (1983) finds a similar phenomenon in analyzing stories about molesters. She pointed out that speakers
23 This paper, or any similar academic work, is a further example of a speaker (or, in this case, writer) attempting to support his or her argument or position by quoting the (written) discourse of others.
insert stories (in this case, stories that really happened) in order to illustrate an assessment or claim. Günthner (1997c: 256) shows that this is a strategy used in German conversations as well. Stories of this kind have previously been called 'throwaway' stories (Polanyi 1982) because they are only told in order to support a point a speaker is making in the conversation.
The difference between my data and the data of Goodwin (1982, 1990) and Tannen (1983) in supporting a position or explanation is twofold. First, the stories and dialogues inserted by Goodwin's and Tannen's speakers make reference to actual events and actual dialogues, whereas the events and dialogues in my data are hypothetical ones (which admittedly are realistic in that they could possibly have happened). And second, in my data sample above, only snippets of dialogues are inserted; one cannot claim that these are stories since they lack the typical sequence associated with full-blown stories (Sacks 1972, 1974). Hypothetical discourse of this sort has been observed by Hanks (1993) in the speech of Mayas. Mayan speakers switch frequently from real to hypotheti- cal discourse in order to make fun of each other, to reason through a problematic situation, or to give a rationale for some action. Antaki (1994) has pointed out that when speakers argue and explain, "they set up different versions of what is the case in the world" (p. 186). I would add that in doing so, they sometimes make use of hypothetical situations and worlds.
6. Grammar in Interaction
In the paragraphs preceding this section I have shown how a particular grammatical phenomenon, that is, reported discourse, is used by native speakers of German in everyday conversation. I showed that there are various quotation formats available to speakers. While including the morphological, semantic, and syntactic details of reported discourse, the investigation also considered the interactional contexts and achievements of each reported discourse event. By examining in this way a notoriously difficult grammar topic such as reported discourse (and by extension the use of subjunctive), the otherwise confusing variety of forms of speech within speech suddenly become orderly and clear.
Considering the interactional contexts and achievements of reported discourse events also reveals that the selection of one of the various telling formats available to a speaker is not random but instead is rule governed; specifically, it is determined by the context of the utterance. My analysis thus follows Günthner's (1997c: 268) suggestion to always examine reported speech within the context of the interaction:
"Instead of postulating that there is a stable and constant function that can be attributed to direct (or indirect) reported speech, we seem to be dealing with a complex web of factors in the dynamic interrelationship
of reported and reporting discourse, factors which have to be analyzed in the concrete interactive situation."
Speakers choose different telling formats depending on the interactional function of a telling. Or, to reverse figure and ground, there are specific interactional achievements associated with the various telling formats. Further- more, depending on the action they are doing within a situational context (providing information they did not have direct access to, re-enacting a story, reporting on a decision, etc.), speakers employ different forms of reported discourse. I also showed that the use of the subjunctive, which is featured in many reference grammars of German, proved to be only one form among the many available to native speakers when they want to provide information that has been previously uttered by someone else. Moreover, speakers use the subjunctive only in certain situations - situations that can be defined interactio- nally.
Thus, the term 'grammar' as it is used in this article is to be understood not in its traditional sense, but as defined by Schegloff, Ochs, and Taylor (1996: 38):
" . . . grammar is not only a resource for interaction and not only an outcome of interaction, it is part of the essence of interaction itself. Or, to put it another way, grammar is inherently interactional". In the present paper, grammar was shown to be a resource for interaction in that various linguistic structures for expressing reported discourse are part of the German native speaker's grammatical knowledge, with each of the different structures allowing speakers to represent past events in different lights. That is, through the use of a particular grammatical form - for example, a quoting verb in the present perfect followed by direct discourse - speakers can show how they themselves behaved in past social realities, and can present this situation for evaluation to their copartici- pants.
At the same time, the discussion above also showed that social interaction can organize grammar. To put it differently, this viewpoint "positions grammar as an outcome of lived sociality" (Schegloff et al. 1996: 36). As argued above, the grammar of reported discourse is designed for interactional purposes. Different interactional purposes, such as rendering a decision or providing background information to a story, routinely utilize different grammatical forms, with each form clearly associated with an interactional achievement. We have also seen that certain social activities (e.g., quoting nonverbal elements as part of the climax of the story) may even lead to linguistic innovations, as in the case of German with respect to the quotative und ich so / und er so 'and I'm like / and he's like'.
German grammar in the traditional sense has been mostly concerned with the rules (and their exceptions) of written German, and has focused primarily on the sentence level. However, I hope to have shown that grammar and interaction can be very much intertwined and that some grammar rules (such as those for
