This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 04 November 2014, At: 17:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20

Communicative dynamics ofhermeneutical conversation in oralhistory interviewsEva M. McMahan aa Associate Professor of Speech Communication , The Universityof Alabama , TuscaloosaPublished online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Eva M. McMahan (1983) Communicative dynamics of hermeneuticalconversation in oral history interviews, Communication Quarterly, 31:1, 3-11, DOI:10.1080/01463378309369479

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463378309369479

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMUNICATIVE DYNAMICS OF HERMENEUTICALCONVERSATION IN ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS

EVA M. MCMAHAN

Oral history is a form of conversation. Its generic function is to transmit a culture by word of mouth. In thispaper, the potential of oral history interviews for becoming dialectical, here termed hermeneuticalconversation, is examined. In addition, the speech actions and the usage rules necessary for producinghermeneutical conversation are identified and explained. The process of making events disputable, whichhas been neglected by discourse analysts, is emphasized as a central feature of the communicativedynamics of hermeneutical conversation.

Eva M. McMahan (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1974) is Associate Professor of Speech Communication at The Universityof Alabama, Tuscaloosa. The author is grateful to Julia T. Wood, Annabel D. Hagood, and Michael J. Hyde for their helpfulcomments about earlier drafts of this manuscript. The research reported here was supported by National Endowment forthe Humanities Grant #FT-00208-80-0841. An earlier version of this essay was presented at the InternationalCommunication Association Convention, Boston, May 1982.

In 1948 Allan Nevins founded the Columbia OralHistory Research Office. Since that time, oral his-tory—the collection of oral testimony as a supple-mentary method of historical investigation—hasdeveloped into what Roddy (1977) recently charac-terized as "academia's growth industry" (p. 9). Thelevel of popularity which oral history enjoys, how-ever, does not indicate an absence of controversiesamong its practitioners and critics. One such con-troversy concerns the conceptual and methodologi-cal problems inherent in using the interview methodfor gathering historical data. A central issue in thatdispute is whether the analytical focus of oral histo-rians should be the text (transcript) or the interviewitself. Persons who favor the text orientation regardthe transcript of an interview as being equivalent toother traditional written historical sources such asdiaries, personal letters, autobiographies and thelike. These persons see no reason to consider theperformance situation as an important context forinterpreting the historical data. Indeed, they oftenare "content to interview and transcribe, makinglittle effort to comprehend more than the literalreferential meaning of the words" (Joyner, 1979, p.48).

On the other hand, the voices raised in oppositionto the text orientation are establishing momentumand prominence. These oral historians argue that"an oral history interview is a communicative event,not comprehensible apart from social interactions"(Joyner, 1979, p. 50). Their position is that a fullunderstanding of the products of an oral historyinterview (audiotape and transcript) can beachieved only when historians recognize and ana-lyze the communication variables which constitutethe interview. Furthermore, these proponents(Grele, 1975; Moss, 1975) openly seek directivesfrom disciplines such as speech communication inorder to understand better the communicative expe-rience of oral history interviews.

Recently, Hyde (1980a) responded to that call forhelp by explaining the relationship between commu-nicative features of the oral history interview andthe historical data generated during the interview.Utilizing the perspective of philosophical hermeneu-tics as discussed by Heidegger (1962) and Gad-amer (1965/1975, 1976), he presented a model for"conceptualizing how the historical process ofmeaning construction shows itself in and throughthe lived experience of spoken communication"(Hyde, 1980a, p. 94). In so doing, he described"how this spoken communication assumes thestructure of hermeneutical conversation . . . ," astructure which is isomorphic with the "interview'shermeneutical nature" (Hyde, 1980a, pp. 94-95).

Clearly, this kind of theorizing represents a valu-able move toward understanding the nature of thecommunicative experience which is oral history. Atthe same time, though, Hyde (1980a) recognizedthe need for additional investigation saying, "Al-though I have described how this spoken communi-cation assumes the structure of hermeneutical con-versation, the specific communication variablesconstituting such conversation were not identified. . . what must be determined is those 'ideal types'of behavior that constitute the content of the struc-ture of hermeneutical conversation" (Hyde, 1980a,p. 94).

This essay is a response to Hyde's challenge.Specifically, my purpose is to elaborate Hyde'sstructural model of oral history interview conversa-tion by describing the principles of conversationalproduction which underlie the emergence of her-meneutical conversation in oral history interviews.This probe, conducted from the perspective of dis-course analysis, assumes that just as "the funda-mental coherence of conversation is found in con-nections between actions rather than in connectionsbetween utterances" (Labov & Fanshel, 1977, p.70), so the coherence of oral history interview

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY, Vol. 31 , No. 1, Winter 1983 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

conversation will be found in the connectionsbetween speech actions. Further, if meaning con-struction in oral history interviews is to be explainedfully, then empirical inquiry which examines Hyde'stheoretical model by investigating features beyondthe surface structure of spoken communication isneeded.

This type of investigation when applied to her-meneutical conversation in oral history should bene-fit both oral historians and communication scholars.Oral historians can profit from a description of howhistorical data created during an interview can beunderstood only as the joint intellectual product ofthe participants in the communicative event, per-haps helping to settle the dispute over analyticalfocus discussed earlier. Communication scholarscan gain insights into the nature and production of adialectical form of conversation—an issue of endur-ing interest to the discipline.

The essay is divided into two sections. The firstsection contains a discussion of the potential of oralhistory interviews for becoming dialectical heretermed hermeneutical conversation. The secondsection is an explanation and illustration of theprinciples of conversational production whichaccount for the emergence of hermeneutical conver-sation during the communicative experience of oralhistory interviews.

The Potential of Oral History Interviews ToBe Dialectical

Oral history is a form of conversation. Its genericfunction is "to transmit a culture by word of mouth"(Clark, Hyde & McMahan, 1980, p. 29). The label,oral history, can be used to encompass a variety ofactivities ranging from a grandmother reminiscing toher grandchildren about the Depression of the1930's to an anthropologist collecting folklore in themountains of Appalachia. In this paper, my concernis with oral history interviews which are conductedin order "to corroborate, to correct, and to extendtraditional historical inquiry" (Clark et al., 1980, p.29). As one noted oral historian, Ronald J. Grele(1975), explains:

The oral historian's aim is to bring to consciousarticulation the ideological problematic of theinterviewee, to reveal the cultural context inwhich information is being conveyed, and tothus transform an individual story into a culturalnarrative, and, thereby to more fully understandwhat happened in the past. While this can onlybe done through the interplay of the variousconceptions of the past held by both the inter-viewer and the interviewee, the particular pres-ent ideological conceptions of the interviewershould not structure that articulation, (p. 142)

Thus, oral history is defined as "the processwhereby an historian seeks to recreate historicalevidence through conversation with a person whose

life experience is deemed memorable" (Clark, etal., 1980, p. 30). The process involves "understand-ing and interpreting a past event in such a way as tosediment its meaning at a given point in time"(Clark, etal., 1980, p. 30).

Whenever philosophical hermeneutics serves asthe theoretical base for the interpretative processof oral history, the oral history interview can beviewed as a hermeneutical process, with particularfocus on the conversation between interviewer andinterviewee as both parties seek to establish themeaning of the historical phenomenon. Of specialrelevance is the conceptualization of an "idealtype" of what the communicative experience of oralhistory should be in order to remain congruent withthe hermeneutical nature of oral history.

That ideal type is hermeneutical conversation, adialectical process of communicative interactionwhich involves the articulation of conflicting per-spectives of an historical phenomenon (what Grelecalled the interplay of various conceptions of thepast held by the interviewer and the interviewee).One assumption of this view is that the new meaningwhich emerges out of the interview, hence becom-ing a part of the historical record, will depend uponthe extent to which both parties adhere to thisdialectical process. How, then, can oral historyinterviews be conducted in order to approximatethis dialectic? Hyde's structural model offers direc-tives for answering this question (see Figure 1).

In the model, communicative interaction refers tothe face-to-face interaction between interviewerand interviewee during an interview. Conflict refersto the inherent conflicting perspectives, or differentconceptions of the past, which the parties bring tothe discussion of the historical event. For example,the historian brings the perspective of an informedresearcher about the event, and the respondentbrings her or his own perception of that eventformed from actual experience—"the memory oflived-through experience." Since "the interviewee'smemory . . . becomes the 'taken-for-granted'assumptions directing the interviewee's discourseabout the historical phenomenon," the goal of theoral historian is "to make problematic the taken-for-granted assumptions of the interviewee—toconfront his or her memory of lived-through experi-ence" (Clark, Hyde, & McMahan, 1981, p. 240).Whenever the discourse between the interviewerand the interviewee reaches this level of articulatedconflict, the potential of oral history conversation tobecome dialectical is realized.

It is this conflict, articulated through the interviewconversation, which enables the interviewer and theinterviewee to transcend their respective perspec-tives about the historical event in question. Theunderstandings which emerge during the interviewwill depend upon how the articulated conflict ismanaged by both interactants.

One possible outcome is that the discourse willtransform into contradiction. The general form of

4 COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Communicative Interaction (concerning Z)

ConflictjCommunicative Interaction

Ia l

Conflict

/ \

Contradiction Contrariety

I a l

I ' l l

Ib2I

Ib3I

Ib4I

Ib2I

Ib4I

I a l (X) affirms his/herperceptionand Ib1I(Y)affirms his/her perception.

I ' l l (X) affirms his / her perception and I b21(Y)acq'jiescesto (X).

I"21 (Y)affirms his/her perception and I"31(XJacquiescesto (Y).

I b41

The perception of (X) affirmed;the perception of (Y) disaffirmed.

The perception of (Y) affirmed;the perception of (X) disaffirmed.

The perceptions of both (X) and(Y) are affirmed as theseperceptions are synthesized andacquire new meaning.

The perceptions of both (X) and(Y) are disaffirmed as newmeaning of (Z) emerges.

Figure 1

A Structural Model of Oral History Interview Conversation.

contradiction is that each interactant affirms her orhis own perception of the historical event which, inturn, results in disagreement. That is, contradictionrepresents the reification of the articulated conflictof perspectives, including those instances when oneparty acquiesces to, but does not accept, anaccount by the other party.'

The potential of oral history conversation tobecome dialectical is actualized when the articu-lated conflict in the interview transforms into con-trariety. For precisely that reason, contrariety is thefocus of this paper. Contrariety is "the indicator" ofthe emergence of hermeneutical conversation—that dialectical form which is isomorphic with thehermeneutical nature of the oral history process. Itis only through contrariety that new meaning canemerge during the interview.

Contrariety "occurs when both the interviewerand the interviewee maintain their separate under-standings, interpretations, and meanings of any fea-ture of the event while acknowledging the potentialvalidity of the other's perception" (Hyde, 1980a, p.92). Whenever the interactants enter into a relation-ship of contrariety both parties assume the risk oftheir perceptions being disaffirmed. There are fourpossible transformations of contrariety which con-

stitute hermeneutical conversation (see Figure 1). Ishall call the outcomes of these transformationscorrected meaning and constructed meaning.

In the first two transformations, b, and b2, theoutcome is corrected meaning. That is, the meaningof the event for one party is confirmed while thesecond party acquires a new understanding of theevent in that his or her prior understanding no longercan be maintained. For example, interviewers, byvirtue of their extensive research about an historicalevent, often amend interviewees' perceptions aboutwhat occurred during the event. Likewise, inter-viewees frequently are able to modify interviewers'accounts of the event. In each instance, the cor-rected meaning is significant for its influence onsubsequent dialogue and on the historical record.Hence, through transformations b, and b2, we seeone feature of creative production in oral historywhich Hyde (1980b) refers to elsewhere as "theliberating function of speech" (p. 62). Only throughoral history can the historian be a part of this featureof creativity, for such participation is possible onlythrough the type of communicative interaction whichis dialectical in nature. Needless to say, an under-standing of this process ought to facilitate thehistorian's quest for an accurate sense of history.

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Moreover, this view underscores the necessity forregarding the oral history interview as a communica-tive event and the interview transcripts as the jointintellectual products of interviewers and inter-viewees.

Nowhere is this joint creativity more salient thanin transformations b3 and b4 in which the element ofjoint discovery characterizes constructed meaning.Here both parties are able through their conversa-tion to evolve new understandings of an event eitherby affirming or disaffirming their prior conceptions.In this way, both parties share in the creation of newmeaning—meaning which emerges out of mutualaffirmation or disaffirmation of prior understandingsof the historical event. Constructed meaning tran-scends corrected meaning in terms of its generativeforce during the conversation and in terms of itsimpact on the historical record. How these transfor-mations of hermeneutical conversation are pro-duced during interviews, therefore, should be ofspecial concern both for historians and communica-tion scholars.

To summarize, oral history interview conversa-tion, when viewed as a hermeneutical process,contains the potential for becoming a dialecticalform of conversation. Indeed, prominent oral histori-ans suggest that the trained oral historian is obligedto turn the interview process into dialectical interac-tion in order to transform individual accounts into acultural narrative. In section one, I explored thetheoretical assumptions which accompany this viewof oral history as a hermeneutical process, and Isuggested that the application of the principles ofdiscourse analysis to an investigation of that her-meneutical process can illuminate one's under-standing both of oral history and of dialectic. In thefollowing section, I will explain and illustrate theprinciples of conversational production whichaccount for the emergence of hermeneutical conver-sation during the communicative experience of oralhistory interviews.

Producing Hermeneutical Conversation inOral History Interviews

The data pool for this analysis consists of audio-tapes and transcripts of thirty interviews conductedby trained oral historians.2 Since the focus here ishermeneutical conversation, only those interviewscontaining episodes which conform to the transfor-mations of corrected meaning or constructed mean-ing, i.e., b,-b4, were considered for the analysis.The goal was to explain how such transformationsemerged during the selected episodes. Oneresearch question guided the investigation: Whatspeech acts and rules of discourse are needed toaccount for the production of hermeneutical conver-sation?

Defining the SituationThere is one characteristic of the oral history

interview situation which is particularly significant

for establishing the context for the episodes used inthis analysis. This is the fact that unlike routineconversation whose components are speaker andhearer, oral history discourse occurs in a situationwhich contains three fundamental components:speaker, hearer, and audience. The audience is animagined audience composed of persons who mighthave access to the audiotapes and transcripts ofthe interview. The inclusion of this third partycreates a communicative event in which the dis-course contains features found in ordinary conver-sation as well as features which are not routinely apart of conversation.

The similarities to ordinary conversation are quiteobvious. For example, interviewers and inter-viewees alternate in the roles of speakers andhearers during the talk exchanges. In doing so, theycooperate with each other in accomplishing turnconstruction and allocation, topic selection, and inthe management of arguments. Yet the distinctdifference between the oral history situation androutine conversation is the addition of the imaginedaudience. The cooperative management of talkoccurs within a shared assumption that the inter-view is "for the record."

Nowhere is the influence of the imaginedaudience any more salient than in the lengthyanswers which tend to characterize oral historydiscourse. Space restrictions here force me todelete large portions of the episodes presentedhere as evidence. In editing the episodes, I retainedthat discourse which was essential for understand-ing the sense of the exchanges. Two impartialreaders verified that editing which resulted in theepisodes designated here as Episode One, EpisodeTwo and Episode Three. In the transcript of eachEpisode, "R" denotes the interviewer and "E"denotes the interviewee.

Episode One is taken from an interview con-ducted by a male interviewer with a former statepolitician from New Jersey. The interview rangesover several hours during which R and E discuss E'spolitical career relative to New Jersey state politicsand to national politics. The subject of Episode Oneis the feasibility of county government in New Jer-sey. The series of interchanges during which her-meneutical conversation, in the form of constructedmeaning, emerges revolves around these issues offeasibility.

Episode One(1) 01 R: Before we go forward and talk

about the sort of fight to get pas-sage, let's go talk about substancejust a little bit. Because one of thethings that interests me about theidea, or even the commission tostudy counties, is that there is asense—and you even sort ofalluded to it—that the county gov-

6 COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

ernment is antiquated.... Politi-cally, it's certainly not going to bepoliticians who abolish it becauseof the way in which county patron-age is one of the key links in thewhole thing. I was wondering howclear cut this sense of compromisewas?

02 E: Well, I don't think the issue was asclear in black and white terms, asyou described i t . . . . There were anumber of us on the commission,including myself, who believed thenand who believe now that you haveto have a middle tier of govern-ment. . . .

03 R: That's a good argument. None ofthe three elected officers in eachcounty directly get involved them-selves in any—as I think of them—in any of the county institutions youjust listed.

04 E: Well again, you know, the countyclerk does a certain amount ofwork on elections . . . He operates,or helps operate, the courts of thejudiciary system.

05 R: But that could go in the direction ofsome state and some city, somelocal.

06 E: Well, it could go under the state,really, because they have to gounder state standards anyway inregulations....

07 R: Yes, I can see, It doesn't matterwhat I think, one way or another,I'm just trying to sort of sharpen theargument. What could be done, youcould put that under some sort ofstate administered locality ba-sis. . . . My sense of the way, forexample, that the unemploymentcompensation offices operate:there's nothing very close to thepeople.. . .

08 E: Sure.09 R: Although I think what you say is a

correct principle, I'm not sure interms of unemployment anywaythat gives us that.

10 E: No, I'm not saying that unemploy-ment would be better administered.I think that perhaps it would havemore problems if it were adminis-tered on a county basis. . . .

11 R: What you're really saying is that tomy suggestion that there is thistug-of-war between political expe-diency, and what really was abelief in administrative efficiency,that in fact there are some levelson which the counties were an

administratively efficient neces-sary level.

12 E: Yes, on the whole.. . .13 R: Okay, that just got us a little further

i n . . . .

Episode Two is excerpted from an interview con-ducted by a male interviewer with a senior militaryofficer who served during the John F. KennedyPresidency. The topic of the episode is the KennedyAdministration's policy toward meeting threats tonational security without resorting to nuclear weap-ons. As the episode begins, the interviewer isexplaining the nuances of the policy. As the inter-viewer probes for clearer understanding, correctedmeaning emerges.

Episode Two(2) 01 E: Now, when Max Taylor became

allied with President Kennedy, theview on the use of the army broad-ened . . . McNamara's first movewhen he took over as Secretary ofDefense was to call for some stud-ies about how much army wasneeded. And I was directed to get astudy prepared . . . on what thesize of the army ought to be. Hewanted this army to be able to fighttwo wars at one t ime. . . . So wemade such a study and put it inthere to him... . This counter gue-rilla thing was a development of ascheme Max originated to haveforces that would allow the Presi-dent to move where anything wasrequired, from an MP to a nuclearweapon, so that in between therehe had freedom to do somethingand countering guerillas was one ofthe things in there. If you rememberMax made a much quoted state-ment to the effect that if a snipergot up in a church steeple we hadto have some way to get him outother than destroying the church,the bishop, and the diocese. So hewas pushing this scheme of his.And I forgot what he called it. Hemight have called it variable forceor something like that. The reason Imention it to you is to make clearthe difference between what I willcall variable force, though that wasnot his language, and the so called

02 R: Flexible response.03 E: It's not the same. That's the point

I'm making04 R: No? All right. Fine.05 E: Yeah. It's two different things.06 R: Okay.07 E: Now, the difference has gotten

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

los t . . . . The object of the thingwas to avoid provoking the enemyinto nuclear attack by keepingthose wars on a small scale. Youkick me in the shins, I'll kick you inthe shins. You hit me in the nose, I'llhit you in the nose. Well, it was amanner of making war which nomilitary type has ever believedi n . . . .

08 R: How is this different from what youwere talking about, the variableforce thing?

09 E: We were talking about developinga capability of meeting threatswithout having, on our part, to usethe nuclear weapon. And every mili-tary man would support this, thatyou should have the capability, butno military man would propose thattheory as a means of conducting awar which somebody else broughton you to keep them from usingnuclear weapons. Do I make myselfclear?

10 R: I believe so.11 E: It's a fine point in there.12 R: It's a rather fine distinction.13 E: Which is why I brought it up in the

first place.14 R: You're saying that your response is

not the mirror image of the enemy'saction, but you have options shortof nuclear war that would do thejob.

15 E: Absolutely. Very well stated. Andit's a very different thing.

Episode Three also illustrates corrected meaningbut in a more abbreviated exchange. This excerpt isdrawn from the same interview as Episode One. Thesubject of this exchange is the historical develop-ment of the interviewee's career in New Jerseystate politics.

Episode Three(3) 01 R: Well, let's wait. Dumont goes on to

win the nomination.02 E: No, he did not win the nomination in

1961.03 R: Oh, he did not.04 E: He did not. Jim (James P. Mitchell)

won. Dumont came in third, al-though we came in second in thecourts.

05 R: Oh, I see.

Speech Acts, Rules, and StructureAdjacency pairs are the elemental units in oral

history interview conversation. There are at leasttwo levels, however, at which adjacency pairs arefunctional: the propositional level (what is said) and

the performative level (what is done). It is neces-sary to address each of these levels in order todescribe how hermeneutical conversation can beaccomplished in oral history interviews. My conten-tion is that the coherence of hermeneutical conver-sation as a form of dialectic will be found in thecomplex relationships between expansions of adja-cency pairs (and their usage rules) at the proposi-tional level and at the performative level.3 In addi-tion, the identification of those relationships willserve to elaborate Hyde's model, which is limited toa description of the structure of the products ofhermeneutical conversation.

The first class of speech acts necessary forunderstanding oral history interview conversation isrequests. A request is any speech action that soli-cits a reciprocal action from the listener (e.g., arequest for information). From such a view, oralhistory interviews can be conceptualized as aseries of requests by an interviewer (R) for theinterviewee's (E) perceptions of a lived-throughexperience of a historical event (Z). Thus, theinterviewer requests information, clarification andthe like (see Figure 2) about a feature of thehistorical event which is the topic of a given episodeduring the interview. As the diagram in Figure 2suggests, the request is the central mechanism foropening topics or pursuing topics so as to articulatethe conflicting perspectives that R and E bring to theinterview. Direct requests dominate over indirectrequests since R and E discuss the event for therecord. Throughout the interviews, the "Rule ofRequests" is the foundation upon which decisionsover validity of the requests rest. The Rule ofRequests (Labov & Fanshel, 1977) states:

If A addresses to B an imperative speci-fying an action X at a time T,, and Bbelieves that A believes that1. a. X should be done for (a purpose Y)

(need for the action)b. B would not do X in the absence of

the request (need for the request)2. B has the ability to do X (with an

instrument A)3. B has the obligation to do X or is willing

to do it.4. A has the right to tell B to do X,

then A is heard as making a valid requestfor action (p. 78).

Furthermore, elaborate pre-sequences are usedoften to establish the validity of a given request andto preclude a refusal by E in terms of the request.Such is the case in episode (1) turn 01, in which Rasserts a proposition and requests an evaluation ofthe assertion. The pre-sequence by R serves a dualfunction in this turn. It sets up the potential area ofconflict and it validates the legitimacy of R'srequest for an evaluation of the assertion by E.Hence, in ('1), (02), E both acknowledges the legiti-macy of the request by R and disagrees with the

8 COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

ArticulatingConflict

Hermeneutical Conversation

R E

Request Xinformationinterpretationevaluationconfirmationclarificationamplification

I provides and agrees II provides and disagrees II refuses w/explanation jI refuses w /o explanation I

MakingDisputable

QuestionAssertInterpretEvaluateChallenge

DenyAgreeAdmitDefendReinterpretRe-evaluate

AdmitDefendAgreeDenyReinterpret

Re-evaluate

Figure 2Speech Actions Referred to in Analysis of Hermeneutical Conversation.

Transforminginto

Contrariety

QuestionAssertInterpretEvaluateChallenge

etc.

proposition proposed by R. This is what Hyde callsarticulated conflict, the prerequisite for contrarietyand contradiction.

It is at this juncture in the conversational process,however, that the model, due to its focus on struc-ture, offers little insight into whether the articulatedconflict will transform into contrariety or contra-diction. To state that the outcome will depend uponhow the conflict is managed provides little insightinto the communicative dynamics of dialecticalinteraction nor does the statement provide direc-tives for the oral historian whose primary goals areto engage in hermeneutical conversation and toavoid contradiction. How, then, can the conversa-tional movement from conflict to contrariety beunderstood so that the link between conflict andcontrariety is elaborated? I submit that the processof "making events disputable" which derives fromthe class of speech actions known as challenges isthe key for explaining the communicative dynamicswhich lead to the emergence of contrariety and tothe transformations known as corrected meaningand constructed meaning.4 Prior to examining therelevance of challenges to oral history conversa-tion, some preliminary observations about disput-ability of events are necessary:

1. Making events disputable (i.e., both R and Eacknowledge the potential disputability oftheir respective interpretations of the histori-cal event) is a prerequisite for the emergence

of contrariety transformed as corrected mean-ing or constructed meaning.

2. To make events disputable is to open up thepotential for reinterpretation of 2 by one orboth interlocutors.

3. Disputability of events is locally occasionedand retrospective in the conversational pro-cess.

4. Once interpretations of events have beenclassified as disputable, that state of disput-ability remains valid throughout the interview.That is, any subsequent interpretation canlegitimately be disputed without having toengage in the discourse necessary for makingevents disputable.

An explanation of the above propositions requires afocus on a second class of speech acts and theirrules—challenges.

A challenge "is a speech act that asserts orimplies a state of affairs that, if true, would weakena person's claim to be competent in filling the roleassociated with a valued status" (Labov & Fanshel,1977, p. 97). By definition, an utterance by R whichis heard as having the illocutionary force of achallenge can call into question both E's responseto a previous question and her or his competence asan informed respondent about 2. Is this the kind ofillocutionary force needed to make events disput-able? No, clearly the oral history interview situationis such that a challenge as defined here would be

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

inconsistent with the hermeneutical nature of oralhistory and with the dialectical process which issupposed to emerge during the interviews. Hence,what is required is a speech action which pos-sesses the illocutionary force to call into questionthe propositions offered as interpretations of R'slived-through-experience while preserving R's com-petence in the role of informed respondent. I submitthat mitigated challenges (propositional chal-lenges) are sufficient to account for the action ofmaking events disputable.

Mitigated challenges are utterances such asquestions, assertions and the like (see Figure 2)which call into question E's interpretations of Zwithout questioning E's competence as an informedreporter of her or his lived-through-experience. Inoral history discourse, mitigated challenges areoften accompanied by explicit performatives whichestablish the mitigated nature of the challenge. Forexample, in Episode One, turns (01), (03), and (07),the interviewer reassures E that the questions per-tain to "arguments," orto "substantive issues," andexist above any personalized disagreement be-tween the interlocutors. Further, in turn (07), Runderscores the depersonalization by revealing hisreasons for initiating the exchange. Hence,exchanges such as these illustrate the means forestablishing the foundation for the emergence ofcontrariety in turns (01-03) and for the transforma-tion into constructed meaning during turn se-quences, (03-13), during which the interviewerasserts, challenges and reinterprets the inter-viewee's propositions about Z and during which theinterviewee responds to the mitigated challengeswith speech actions such as admitting, defending,and reinterpreting. Having identified the accom-plishment of hermeneutical conversation in this epi-sode, what rules of discourse production wereshared by R and E in order for disputability of eventsto be acknowledged and for constructed meaning toevolve in a coherent and manageable way?

Two rules are needed in order to explain howevents are made disputable. The first rule is the keyfor transforming discourse from conflict to contrari-ety. The rule addresses a process in conversationmanagement which has been taken for granted byLabov and Fanshel (1977) but which has not beenexamined as a central feature of the process ofdisputing assertions. This Rule for Admitting Disput-ability of Events states:

If A makes an assertion which calls into ques-tion an interpretation of an event (Z), and if Bresponds to the assertion without mentioningthe presuppositions or implications underlyingthe assertion, then B admits those presupposi-tions or implications, hence the disputability ofthe interpretation.

Having established the rule guiding admission ofdisputability, the second rule which becomes appli-cable is the Rule of Disputable Assertions (Labov &Fanshel, 1977):

If A makes an assertion about a D-event, it isheard as a request for B to give an evaluation ofthat assertion, (p. 101)

Both rules are in operation in Episode One, turns(01-02), as R makes an assertion which is evalu-ated negatively (denied) by E; at the same time, Edoes not mention the presupposition that a "senseof compromise" was inherent in the issue of countygovernment. Further, by not addressing that presup-position and by denying R's direct assertion that"county government is antiquated," E's responseillustrates that making events disputable is locallyoccasioned and retrospective in a hermeneuticalconversation. The shared knowledge and skillswhich enable the interlocutors to utilize this rule arecentral to the emergence of the dialectical form,hermeneutical conversation. The existence of therules also underscores an earlier observation thatthe coherence of hermeneutical conversation is tobe found in the hierarchical relationship amongpropositions, performatives, and rules. The implicitacknowledgment of disputability is the meanswhereby R and E create the potential for interpreta-tions of Z which constitute constructed and cor-rected meaning.

Episode Two (2) is an illustration of the samerules in operation, yet there is an additional conver-sational technique used for challenging E's interpre-tation which derives from the Rule For SocraticQuestions (Labov & Fanshel, 1977):

If A directs to B a yes-no interrogative about aD-event, it is heard as a request for informationabout B's position on this event, which will formthe basis for further discussion, (p. 102)

In turns (08-09), R asks a "How-question" whichsubstitutes for the yes-no interrogative. The ques-tion, "How is this different from what you weretalking about, the variable force thing?" implies thatE's interpretation is not different. By responding tothe unstated assumption without articulating it, Esimultaneously admits disputability and responds toR's request for information about E's interpretationof Z, thereby providing a basis for further discussionabout Z.

Finally, a variation of the "Rule of Confirmation"(Labov & Fanshel, 1977) is necessary for account-ing for the kinds of transformations exemplified inEpisode One, (11-12), in Episode Two, (04-07),(14-15), and in Episode Three, (03-05):

If A makes a statement about B's response,then the statement is heard as a request forconfirmation of A's statement, (pp. 100-101)

In each exchange above a statement by R about E'sresponse is heard as a request for confirmation, andin each exchange E either confirms or disconfirmsR's statement. Representations of this rule in theepisodes examined underscore the central func-tions of requests and challenges as two classes of

10 COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

speech acts which allow for the accomplishment ofhermeneutical conversation in oral history inter-views. It is particularly interesting that a simpleutterance such "Oh, he did not" in Episode Three,when appropriately placed in the adjacency pairstructure, functions as a clear request for confirma-tion.

SummaryThe purpose of this analysis was to elaborate

Hyde's structural model of oral history interviewconversation by describing the speech acts andrules of discourse which account for the productionof hermeneutical conversation in oral history inter-views. Requests and challenges were identified astwo classes of speech acts which underlie thehermeneutical conversation process. The Rule forAdmitting Disputability of Events, the Rule of Disput-able Assertions, The Rule for Socratic Questions,and the Rule of Confirmation were discussed rela-tive to their contributions toward the accomplish-ment of talk characterized as hermeneutical conver-sation. In addition, the concept of disputability wasdiscussed in terms of its centrality to the process oftransforming contrariety into corrected meaning andconstructed meaning. Moreover, the Rule for Admit-ting Disputability of Events was introduced as aprerequisite for the applicability of the Rule ofDisputable Assertions in the production of herme-neutical conversation. Taken together, the results ofthe analysis serve as a starting point for under-standing the communicative dynamics of oral his-tory interview conversation.

NOTES1Even though this structured form of conversation is not within thepurview of this paper, questions about the implications which result

whenever contradiction emerges during the interviews should be thefocus of future research. Pertinent issues should include how theconversational form of contradiction influences the nature of the histori-cal records about the event, how communicative strategies can beused by interviewers to preclude contradiction or to create contra-diction, and how the emergence of contradiction can influence subse-quent transformations of conversation.

2The data were obtained from the archives of The John F. KennedyLibrary, The New Jersey Historical Commission, and The University ofAlabama.

3This analysis follows the perspective and procedures outlined by Labovand Fanshel (1977), especially my discussion of rules which reliesheavily on their previous findings. Furthermore, the procedure foridentifying a speaker (A), a hearer (B), an action (X), a purpose (Y), atime (T), and a disputable event (D-event) is consistent with Labov andFanshel's rule formulations.

4My use of the term disputable event differs from Labov and Fanshel(1977) in that they regard some events as priori indisputable. My viewis consistent with the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics and isthat the historical event in question must be made disputable during thecourse of the interaction.

REFERENCES

Clark, E. C., Hyde, M. J., & McMahan, E. M. Communication in the oralhistory interview: Investigating problems of interpreting oral data.International Journal of Oral History, 1980, 1, 28-40.

Clark, E. C., Hyde, M. J. & McMahan, E. M. Developing instruction in oralhistory: A new avenue for speech communication. CommunicationEducation, 1981, 30, 238-244.

Gadamer, H. Truth and Method (G. Barden & J. Cumming, Eds.) NewYork: Seabury Press, 1975. (Second edition, 1965).

Gadamer, H. Philosophical Hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed.). Berkeley:University of California Press, 1976.

Grele, R. J. Movement without aim: Methodological and theoreticalproblems in oral history. In R. J. Grele (Ed.), Envelopes of Sound.Chicago: Precedent Publishing Inc., 1975.

Heidegger, M. Being and Time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Eds. andTrans.). New York: Harper, 1962.

Hyde, M. J. Philosophical hermeneutics and the communicative experi-ence: The paradigm of oral history. Man and World 1980a, 13,81-98.

Hyde, M. J. On the reifying tendency and the liberating functions ofspeech. Eros, 1980b, 7, 54-81.

Joyner, C. W. Oral history as a communicative event: A folkloristicperspective. Oral History Review, 1979, 48-52.

Labov, W. & Fanshel D. Therapeutic discourse. New York: AcademicPress, 1977.

Moss, W. W. The future of oral history. Oral History Review, 1975,5-15.

Roddy, J. Oral history: Soundings from the Sony age. RF llustrated,1977, 3, 9.

LIBRARY NOTES

It is a policy of Communication QuarterlyXo survey newly published books and provide brief reviews for the guidanceof scholars who might wish to examine them, order them, or be sure that their library has them. Books are evaluated:I**** - A major breakthrough. Must reading.**** - Should be available in every library.•** - Interesting and possibly useful.** - Of specialized or passing interest.

If you wish to contribute n otes on a worthwhile book you have discovered, please send your comment, 75-100 words inlength, to the editor. Be sure to code your evaluation as noted above.

I**** Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, The Woman That Never Evolved. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.Says Professor Hrdy, "This book is about the female primates who have evolved over the last seventy million years. It is dedicated to theliberated woman who never evolved but who with imagination, intelligence, an open mind, and perseverance many of us may yet become."And so it i s . . . .

The book is in the spirit of Candace Pert, June Goodfield, Anna Brito, Carol Gilligan. It is a book on a female subject, about females, but notfor females, and an impeccable model of observation, interpretation, and argument. Hrdy, an anthropologist, and, if her picture on the backcover is at all accurate, a sturning one at that, deals with the relationship of primates and humans, presenting argument and counterargument about the nature of female evolution. To titillate potential readers, her description of primate love making is as erotic as much ofcontemporary libertine literature, yet done to justify anthropomorphizing the apes, and de-humanizing the humans, whichever comes first.

Why are women the way they are? Many a man has asked the question, and of late, so has many a female. They are the way they arebecause they grew that way, says Hrdy, and then proceeds to describe the options. The quality of research and the literacy of the writingmake this an inspirational book, not for women scholars, but for scholars. Perhaps the least criticism is in order. The publicity makes thisseem a woman's book, but that is not the case. This is an important book about apes and love, and thus an important book about humans andlove—among other things.

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY WINTER 1983 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

17:

30 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014