The Language of Law School This page intentionally left blank

Transcript 3.1 [1/5/20]
20
Prof.:
I can’t (), okay, all right, that doesn’t help me much but
// what- but what // is an offer?
21
Class:
// [[Laughter (.01)]] 
//
22
Student: It’s a commitment or a promise, which satisfies the intentions of
individuals embarking on a () agreement.
23
Prof.:
All right, so, it’s a commitment, and the reason it has to be a
commitment is?
24
Student: So someone can rely on it.
25
Prof.:
Okay, in other words, we’re trying to enforce reasonable expecta-
tions, and if I’m making a commitment or promise, there is a basis
for your reasonable expectations. Right? Okay, so an offeror is the
person who makes the offer, and the offeree, obviously, is the
person who accepts it, right?
26
Student: Right. (.01 pause)
27
Prof.:
All right. Now, do I have to know about an offer before I can accept
it?

---

36
Introduction
Note that at the very beginning of this excerpt we could characterize the turn struc-
ture in at least two different ways. As mapped in Transcript 3.1 (following the coding
structure we adopted), the class laughter simply overlaps one single turn by the
professor. This turn is also coded (under “speaker transition type”) as a background
comment.
17
 In another version, shown below, the sequence is coded as three dis-
tinct turns (despite the fact that the professor never actually stops speaking). Class
laughter, which occurs in essence in the background, in the midst of the professor’s
turn, is coded as a form of interruption. The professor’s turn up until the episode
of class laughter is coded as one turn. The “interrupting” class turn of laughter is
counted as an intervening turn. And then, when the professor renews his speech,
we have a third turn in this sequence:
Transcript 3.1.1
20
Prof.:
I can’t (), okay, all right, that doesn’t help me much but, //what-
but what--//
21
Class:
// [[ Laughter (.01)]] //
22
Prof.:
-is an
offer?
This latter approach would obviously create more, and shorter, turns. (So, former
turns 20 and 21 now occupy turns 20–22.) This approach captures the positioning
of the turns more accurately in the sense that the class turn is located neither be-
fore speech that it follows nor after speech that it precedes. However, it creates a
nonexistent interruption. Another approach might be to ignore class laughter or
“insignificant” background speech entirely. We took a middle route, neither ig-
noring the background nor giving it so much prominence that it overshadowed
the flow of foregrounded speech. If the professor, on the other hand, were address-
ing the class as a whole, asking it questions and receiving lengthy laughter in re-
sponse, the class laughter would then be counted as an individual turn, as in the
following example:
Transcript 3.2 [1/5/08]
08
Prof.:
[ . . . end of lengthy monologue on test preparation . . . ]
 What we test is
how you apply it. And as you may be able to tell at this point, that
takes a lot more effort than learning words, and rules. Any questions?
Feel better?
09
Class:
[[Laughter (.04)]]
10
Prof.:
You should start outlining some time in the near future. I don’t want
to see your outlines, and I’m not going to ask you for your outline
[ . . . continues monologue . . . ]
Here turn 9 is a response to the professor’s question, the second part of a ques-
tion-answer adjacency pair,
18
 and does not overlap with the professor’s speech.
Hence, it takes a demarcated spot in the turn-taking structure and is recognized as
such in the coding. Taking one more example from the same class, we see a bit more
of the complexity involved in coding turns:

---

Study Design, Methodology, and Profile
37