Vestluskaaslase identifitseerimine telesarja “Õnne 13” telefonikõnedes

Abstract

https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa21.15

Artiklis analüüsitakse vestlusanalüüsi meetodil, kuidas telesarja “Õnne 13” telefonikõnedes vestluskaaslane identifitseeritakse. Enamasti näidatakse neis kõnedes vaid üht osalejat, kes imiteerib dialoogi. Vestlejate tavapärasele vastastikusele identifitseerimisele lisandub ülesanne televaatajatele teada anda, kes on teine suhtleja. Seetõttu kasutatakse uuritavates telefonikõnedes eksplitsiitsemaid vahendeid kui loomulikus suhtluses. Keskne identifitseerimisvõte on üte, mida kasutati 2/3 kõnedes. Partneri nime ütlemine võib sealjuures väljendada nii äratundmist kui mitteäratundmist. Nimele võib lisanduda üllatusele viitav marker. Vaatamata sellele, et omavahel suhtlevad pereliikmed ja sõbrad, osutatakse sageli küsimusega partneri mitte äratundmisele. Kui näidatakse mõlemat suhtlejat, poleks eksplitsiitset identifitseerimist televaataja jaoks tarvis, kuid ka nendes kõnedes kasutatakse samu võtteid.

***

"Identification of the conversation partner in the phone calls of the TV series “Õnne 13”"

The paper analyzes phone calls from the Estonian Television series “Õnne 13” (“Happi ness Street 13”). The study follows the methodological approach of conversation analysis. The data consist of 60 everyday phone calls from various seasons (1994–2024). A characteristic feature of these calls is that usually only one participant is shown, who imitates a dialogue. The central analytical technique of conversation analysis, the next-turn proof procedure, allows for hypothesizing the missing turns of the interlocutor based on how the speaker interprets the previous turn. A key characteristic of film dialogue is the need to consider the audience’s knowledge: the turns must be designed not only with the conversation partner in mind but also with the viewer. When only one phone call participant is shown on screen, the viewer must be able to understand who the interlocutor is. The content of the conversation may not always reveal this. Therefore, the phone calls under analysis use significantly more explicit means of identifying the partner than in natural communication. Some of the techniques used are typical in authentic conversations, while others are not. If both participants are shown, verbal identification would not be necessary for the viewer, yet the identification methods do not differ from those used in calls with only one participant. In two-thirds of the calls, the speaker addresses the partner by name, which is rarely done in natural conversations. In the caller’s turns, there is often a long pause after the name, marking the partner’s reaction or the expectation of it. In this case, saying the name may indicate an identification problem. In the recipient’s turns, saying the partner’s name expresses recognition. The name is usually said in a surprised and/or laughing tone, often accompanied by a marker indicating surprise (e.g., aa ’oh’; sina elistad ’it’s you calling’). This differs from natural phone conversations: in none of the phone calls from the Corpus of Spoken Estonian does the recipient express surprise at receiving the call. In seven calls, an identification question is asked (e.g., kes räägib ’who is speaking’). The conversation partner is not recognized, even though family members and friends are talking to each other. As one method of identification, the recipient tells a face-to-face partner who is calling. In such a phone call, there is no explicit identification of the interlocutor. The same identification techniques are generally used for both landline and mobile phones. No special attention is given to the fact that, with a mobile phone, the caller can be identified from the screen before the call begins.