This paper has described three uses of Extreme Case formulationsto assert the strongest case in anticipation of non-sympathetic hearingsto propose the cause of a phenomenonto speak for the rightness (wrongness) of a practice.The interactants in the illustrations were engaged in several types of activities, among which were complaining, accusing, justifying, and defending. As concluding remarks, a few comments will be made about why participants use Extreme Case formulations in these activities.Part of the business of complaining involves portraying a situation as (...) a legitimate complainable. This may take the form of protraying the offense committed and/or the suffering endured in a way such that it would not be dismissed as minor. So as to legitimize a complaint and portray the complainable situation as worthy of the complaint, a speaker may portray the offense and/or the suffering with Extreme Case formulations. In both accusing and defending, participants ofyen present their strongest cases, including specifying Extreme Cases of their claims.Part of justifying a course of actions may involve portraying the precipitating circumstance as necessitating the action. The precipitating circumstance may be a problem circumstance which is portrayed as unfair, immoral, embarrassing, uncomfortable, or in some other way undesirable and/or intolerable. There is a shared assumption that the worse the problem, the more necessary it is to do something about it. In justifying, speakers use Extreme Case formulations to portray the circumstances that precipitated their actions as demanding their actions.A problem that participants have when engaged in, or reflecting on, conflicts, complaints, criticism, compliments, praise, etc. is to attribute the cause of the phenomenon. Who or what is responsible for the conflictual, complainable, praise-worthy state of affairs? One method that is used to determine what or who is responsible, i.e. to make an attribution, involves comparing the case in question to other similar cases. Through this procedure, persons determine that they are (are not) responsible for the state of affairsin questions. Extreme Case proportional formulations (‘everyone,’ ‘all,’ ‘every time’) are used to indicate that any individual member of that category is not responsible for the state of affairs; that responsibility is to be attributed elsewhere.The social order essentially is a moral order (Garfinkel, 1967). One of the ways of knowing what is acceptable and right is by finding out how people behave. There often is a shared assumption operating (one that is called into question on occasion): how people behave tells us what is the right way to behave. Proportional measures reporting the frequency or prevalence of practices are used to propose and substantiate the rightness and wrongness of those practices. Extreme Case formulations (‘all the time,’ ‘everybody,’ ‘no one’) propose behaviors are acceptable and right or unacceptable and wrong. (shrink)

The analysis in this article considers how dispatchers in a 911 wireless call center direct callers’ orientations from one possible trajectory of action to keeping the caller engaged and prepared to speak with a second dispatcher. We describe how dispatchers deploy two distinct actions, a directing action and an informing action, timed at a precise moment to execute successful transfers. The analysis presents largely unexplored features of the call transfer environment, including dispatchers’ management of callers’ expectations and how the transfer (...) phase contributes to a reshaping of the overall structural organization of a 911 call. (shrink)

In response to an article by Waring, Creider, Tarpey and Black, the author argues that the nature of the analytic aims of a research project determines whether or not participants’ reported goals and motives are relevant and useful. Her position is that for traditional conversation analytic studies aimed at explicating culturally shared methods for producing conversational actions and for interpreting interactional behavior, participants’ reports of their goals and motives are irrelevant. She differentiates between explanations based on participants’ reports of their (...) goals and motives and conversation analytic explanations consisting of preferences or principles to which members of a culture orient while interacting. (shrink)

When physicians take readings of health indices such as temperature or blood pressure, the practices that physicians and patients employ in discussing the readings both reflect and propose a set of expectations regarding the level of technical medical information the patients should acquire and understand. In this article we demonstrate how physicians’ reporting practices reflect and propose the roles of paternalism or independent expertise and how patients’ responding practices either ratify or contest the roles cast by the physicians’ practices. In (...) contrast to the usual assumption that roles are relatively stable for individuals over the course of encounters, we treat role enactments as matters that are negotiated turn by turn in interaction. Physicians’ practices for reporting test results implicate various sets of expectations about the knowledge, interest, and responsibility state of each participant; patients employ responding practices that ratify or contest the expectations implicated by the physicians’ prior report. In each subsequent turn within the information exchange sequence, a speaker indicates whether the level and kind of information being exchanged is appropriate/inappropriate and sufficient/insufficient for the participants. (shrink)