Evaluating Topical Talk in Interactional Business Settings: When “Testing the Waters” with Customers May Not Be Much of a Gamble

  • Chiara Ganapini
Part of the Communicating in Professions and Organizations book series (PSPOD)


In the last few decades, increasing attention has been given to studies of naturally occurring business interaction, both by practitioners and academics, and interest has been raised towards approaches focused on the actual use of language “as it happens”, using real-time observational data. My study belongs to this tradition and looks at spontaneous talk by sellers and clients when they visit each other or in the context of exhibitions. In particular, I focus on a practice which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been described in the literature, and that has to do with sellers performing enquiry into the clients’ doings, in the course of informal chat. I have called this practice “testing the waters”. In brief, topics are raised in conversation with clients and assessed in ways as to create clients’ convergence on the sellers’ business policy. This is done through two main courses of action, the first is supporting clients’ actions which are found to be in line with the sellers’ policy, the second is re-orienting the clients’ actions towards the sellers’ goals and expectations. What is interesting is that both courses of actions occur in informal, friendly chat, but still seem to be strategically constructed with a clear business aim. “Testing the waters” seems thus to be achieved as an important institutional practice: looking at how it is constructed may suggest to sellers and clients ways to learn, improve or make the best out of it.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antaki, C., Hanneke, H.S. & Rapley, M. (2000). Brilliant. Next question…″: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (3): 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Button, G. & Casey, N. (1984). Generating the topic: the use of topic initial elicitors. In Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J. (Eds), Structures in Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 167–190.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, C., Drew, P. & Pinch, T. (2003). Managing prospect affiliation and rapport in real-life sales encounters. Discourse Studies 5 (1): 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M.H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1, 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M.H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds), Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 147–190.Google Scholar
  6. Jefferson, G. (1978). Explanation of transcript notation. In Schenkein, J. (Ed), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press. xi-xvi.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, C.M. (1997). “That’s good sign”: Encouraging assessments as form of social support in medically related encounters. Health Communication 9(2): 119–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, C.M. (2001). Missing assessments: Lay and professional orientations in medical interviews. Text 21 (1/2): 113–150.Google Scholar
  9. Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, C., Fox, B. & Thompson, S. (Eds), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 196–224.Google Scholar
  10. Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and Territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions. In de Ruiter, J.P. (Ed), Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holt, E. (1993). The structure of death announcements: Looking on the bright side of death. Text 13 (2): 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lindström, A. & Heinemann, T. (2009). Good enough: Low-grade assessments in caregiving situations. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4): 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindström, A. & Mondada, L. (2009). Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4): 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mondada, L. (2009). The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4): 329–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Piirainen-Mars, A. & Jauni, H. (2012). Assessments and the social construction of expertise in political TV interviews. Text & Talk 32 (5): 637–660.Google Scholar
  19. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J., Maxwell, J. & Heritage, J. (Eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57–101.Google Scholar
  20. Psathas, G. & Anderson, T. (1990). The practices of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica 78 (1/2): 75–99Google Scholar
  21. Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction- A Primer in Conversation Analysis–Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Svennevig, J. (2004). Other-repetition as display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance. Discourse Studies. 6 (4): 489–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research 30(2): 260–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chiara Ganapini 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Ganapini

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations