Mobile phone call openings: tailoring answers to personalized summonses
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
A RT I C L E 339
Mobile phone call openings: tailoring
answers to personalized summonses
Discourse Studies
Copyright © 2006
SAGE Publications.
(London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 8(3): 339–368.
ILKKA ARMINEN AND MINNA LEINONEN 10.1177/1461445606061791
U N I V E R S I T Y O F TA M P E R E , F I N L A N D
A B S T R A C T Conversation analytical (CA) methodology was used to specify
the new opening practices in Finnish mobile call openings, which differ
systematically from Finnish landline call openings. Since the responses to a
mobile call orient to the summons identifying the caller, answers have changed
and diversified. A known caller is greeted. The self-identification opening that
was canonical in Finnish landline calls is mainly used for answering unknown
callers, while channel-opener openings involve orientation to ongoing mutual
business between the speakers. Some of these changes reflect real-time co-
ordination of the social action that the mobility of mobile phones enables. In
all, the adoption of new ways of answering a call shows that people orient
themselves to affordances that new technologies allow them. Mobile phone
communication opens a salient new area both for the analysis of talk-in-
interaction itself and also for understanding communicative behaviour in the
era of ubiquitous information technology.
KEY WORDS: affordances, call opening, conversation analysis, mobile phone calls,
recipient-design, telephone calls
In this article, we introduce a new pattern for initiating conversation on a mobile
phone. Mobile phone talk is an ideal object for conversation analytical (CA)
methodology as all other dimensions of communication except voice are
naturally excluded. Indeed, much CA work has been based on (landline)
telephone calls. The findings on the openings of landline telephone
conversations (including Schegloff, 1968, 1979, 1986, 2002; Houtkoop-
Steenstra, 1991; Hopper, 1992; Hakulinen, 1993; Lindström, 1994; ten Have,
2002) can be adopted as a benchmark by which new emerging forms of mobile
phone conversation can be identified, specified, and characterized. The available
findings and a Finnish dataset on landline telephone openings are utilized to340 Discourse Studies 8(3)
TA B L E 1 . Types of answers to summonses (first turns) in Finnish call openings
Type Landline calls (N=107) % Mobile calls (N=63) %
Self-presentations 104 97 24 38
Greetings 0 0 28 44
Channel openers 1 1 5 8
Try-marked openings 2 2 6 10
100 100
introduce the Finnish characteristics of call openings.1 Preliminary findings,
summarized in Table 1, suggest that openings in landline and mobile telephone
conversations are systematically different.
Finnish landline call openings resemble Dutch ones. Since they both start
with their initial self-presentation (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991; ten Have, 2002),
they differ from the canonical US call openings (Schegloff, 1968, 1979, 1986).
The Finnish calls were begun with a self-identification as an answer to a
summons; that is, the telephone ring calling for attention. The caller mainly
reciprocated with the answerer by identifying her/himself, unless the caller
performed an intimacy work by allowing the answerer to recognize her/him by
voice. This pattern, to be discussed more in detail, was robust and widespread in
Finland (see Hakulinen, 1993). The Finnish mobile call openings differ
significantly from Finnish landline call openings. Remarkably, the answerers
have adopted a new opening practice, a greeting response to the summons.
This emerging new type of opening stands for a new type of a summons–
answer sequence, in which the answerer orients to a personalized summons that
conveys information about who is calling. Correspondingly, the responses to the
phone have diversified, as they are no longer answers to a neutral summons. The
variability of openings, thus, has a systematic basis that will be discussed.
Moreover, summonses have also become variable, as calls from unknown or
silent numbers only inform the answerer about the unidentified or secret
number, and do not reveal who is calling. Hence, the initial self-identification
openings have also persisted, but mainly only in openings to unknown callers. In
all, the summons–answer sequence has undergone a number of substantial
changes. The answers to a summons have been tailored through recipient-
design, unlike the analogue telephone system, when the summonses were
uniform.
The new tailored summons–answer sequence is a phenomenon linked to the
generic properties of digital (mobile) phone technology,2 and is not limited to
Finnish data (see also Weilenmann, 2003; Laursen, in prep.). Finally, the
tailoring and recipient design of answers to a new type of summons make the
adaptation process to new forms of technology apparent. People actively
construct their meanings rather than passively adjusting to new forms ofArminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 341
technology; nevertheless, the construction of meaning for technologies is bound
to their affordances, that is, the opportunities the technology offers for action
that are unique to the technology concerned (Gibson, 1979; Raudaskoski,
2003). The development of technology also has an impact on culture, which is
realized through encounters between people whose interactions are facilitated by
the form of technology itself.
In this article, we will discuss the key differences between landline and mobile
call openings, and examine the systematic basis for variation in the latter. We
claim that this variability derives mainly from the tailoring of openings to
different summonses. The observable changes in the phone opening sequence
stand for the interactional work of parties in a new, automated environment in
which digitalized technology conveys identifying information about the callers.
Mobile talk is symptomatic of an increasing amount of omnipresent technology
that enables the emergence of new forms of social encounter. Mobile
communication opens a salient new area both for the analysis of talk-in-
interaction itself as well as for understanding the emerging new forms of
communicative behaviour in the era of ubiquitous information technology.
Data
Our study is based on 63 Finnish mobile phone conversations recorded in
summer 2002 (in addition, the opening in six calls was only partially recorded).
The mobile phone used by the study subjects – with their permission – was the
recording device. Consequently, the other party may have talked on a landline
phone (indeed, did so in a number of cases). The fact that material covers both
mobile-to-mobile and landline-to-mobile or mobile-to-landline conversations has
to be taken into consideration, as there tend to be differences between the types
of call. For a set of historical comparative materials, we have 107 Finnish
landline-to-landline telephone calls from the 1980s and 1990s.3 Of these, 53
had been transcribed and were analysed in detail, the rest of the dataset being
utilized to test and check the findings (see Appendix for details of study subjects
and on the comparability of landline and mobile call samples). The transcriptions
were based on CA conventions (see Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). The mobile
data were transcribed by Minna Leinonen.
Landline call openings in Finland and elsewhere
To provide a context for the emergence of mobile opening practices in the late
1990s, we will first detail the practices of canonical Finnish landline call
openings in the era when the answerer could not recognize the caller in advance
(i.e. the phone technology until the early 1990s). The canonical call opening
included an exchange of self-identifications, then an exchange of greetings,
followed by a topic initiation, an apology or ‘mitä kuuluu?’ [‘how-are-you?’]
question (see extracts 1 and 2).342 Discourse Studies 8(3)
(1) SG098A_03(R=N;K C=N;K) [Helsinki University, Finnish Department Data archive]
1 R: (0.5) Mäki:>sellä< ((the ending is said quickly))
(0.5) at Mäki:>nen< ((at + familyname))4
2 C: n:o: M:irja tässä hei. .hh[hh .hh
[ ]5 Mi:rja here hi:. .hh[hh .hh
3 R: [no $he:ih$=
[[] $hi::h$=
4 C: =#e# no ku- #ö# kuule tuota: mmh ö m- meinasin
=#e# [] li- #uh# listen e:rm mmh uh m- I meant
5 kyssyy paria asiaa ku taas >neuvoa tartte:
to ask couple of things as again >I nee:d advice
The Finnish landline calls were generally initiated with a self-identification, like
Dutch or Swedish calls (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991; Lindström, 1994; ten Have,
2002). The form of self-identification varied from the first or family name only to
the whole name. A household identification, as above, was also commonly used.
In our dataset only three out of 107 calls were begun with an item other than
self-identification, both due to local circumstances (‘haloo’ said because of a
technical problem (in two calls), or ‘niin’ as the opening of a returned call, which
showed the party’s orientation to return immediately to business (for the Finnish
speech particle ‘niin’, see Sorjonen, 2001). Self-identification also predominates
in the second turn. As in line 2 above, the conventionalized format of the second
turn in the Finnish landline calls includes the speech particle [no] + self-
identification + greeting.6 This format or its slight variant (as in extract 2) was
used in 70 calls out of 107 in our data set. After the return of the greeting (line
3), a topic initiation follows (as above) unless a pre-topic apology (sorry that I’m
calling late/early, etc.) or a ‘how are you?’ question is pursued.
In particular, the conventionalized second turn of the Finnish telephone call
openings is interesting in that it fulfils three functions. First, it claims
recognition. In extract 1, the household identification ‘at [family name]’ does not
actually identify the individual speaking, but the caller’s turn at line 2 indicates
that the answerer’s identity is unproblematic for her as she appears to have
recognized which of the household members is on the phone. Second, the self-
identification is done immediately after the speech particle ‘no’ and before the
greeting, which does not allow the other party, even in principle, to try to identify
the speaker.7 This format means that self-identification is preferred8 over the
other recognition in the Finnish calls. For instance, in extract 1 the caller
recognizes the identity of the speaker from the household identification.
Correspondingly, it is possible that the caller, who could distinguish the speaker
from other household members, is identifiable to the answerer. However, the
conventionalized Finnish format for the second turn in the landline telephone
call openings does not allow voice recognition. Hakulinen (1993) points out that
the callers typically identified themselves even in calls between intimates orArminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 343
relatives. Third, the greeting is performed. The return greeting in the next turn
completes the Finnish landline pre-topical opening sequence and opens the
anchor position9 for the caller to mention the reason for the call.
The turn-initial speech particle ‘no’ is extremely common in the Finnish
landline telephone call openings, in particular in the second turn, but also in the
third and the fourth turn, as in extract 1.10 According to Hakulinen (1993),
almost two-thirds of the callers’ first turns included ‘no’. This particle has both
responsive and projective functions. As in extract 1, previous studies suggest that
‘no’ occurs only in the responsive turns; that is, only in the second position turns
(Carlson, 1984; Raevaara, 1989; Sorjonen, 2002).11 ‘No’ also has a projective
function in initiating a shift in activity or topic. At line 2, ‘no’ projects a shift from
recognition to a self-identification and a greeting. At line 3, the return greeting
preceded by ‘no’ both returns a greeting and displays the answerer’s recognition
of the caller. At line 4, ‘no’ precedes the shift to topical talk.
The canonical opening sequence of the Finnish landline calls was clearly
crystallized. Permutations in the core sequence were accountable in terms of
local circumstances, as in extract 2.
(2) Emerycall [Helsinki University, Finnish Department Data archive]
1 R: hh ö Pekka Virtanen, hh=
hh uh Pekka Virtanen, hh=
2 C: =No joo: Jukka Julkunen morjens,=
=[] yea:h Jukka Julkunen howdy12,=
3 R: =No ↑moi moi.=
=[] ↑hi hi.=
4 C: =ö Ryntäsit sä pi:tkältä. hh=
=uh Did you rush from far away. hh=
5 R: =#Ei:: tuolt yläkerrast tänne alas vaan#, hh=
=#No:: from upstairs down here only#, hh=
6 C: =Jo [o joo:,
=ye [ah yeah,
7 R: [.nhh
8 C: Tota: mä tein ne (.) kii:lat nyt:te just [äskön.]
We:ll I did those (.) cho:cks no:w just [a while ago]
In extract 2, the opening runs almost the canonical way, except that at line 2 the
caller inserts ‘joo’ [‘yeah’] after ‘no’, before the standard self-identification and
the greeting. We may ask what this additional item does, and why it is there (for
the Finnish speech particle ‘joo’, see Sorjonen, 2001). The preceding turn, the
answer to the summons, seems to have some breathiness and appears to have
been delayed (though not shown in the transcript, see line 4). The caller seems to
have oriented to this breathiness and delay through the question at the first344 Discourse Studies 8(3)
possible point, the pre-topic inquiry about the answerer’s availability for
interaction or his possible problems in interacting is launched at line 4. ‘Joo’ at
line 2 seems to display the caller’s registration of the answerer’s difficulty in
answering, which were noticeable in the hesitation and breathiness. Without
‘joo’ the caller would have proceeded as usual, as in extract 1, as if the answer
had been produced in the normal routine way. Here ‘joo’ at line 2 indicates the
caller’s monitoring of the answer and his recognition of the departure from the
opening, thus anticipating the inquiry at line 4 (cf. Schegloff, 1986). After this
inquiry and the receipt (line 6) of its answer, the call opening proceeds normally,
the topic being introduced.
The Finnish landline call openings seem to involve robust patterns. First, the
self-identification opening as an answer to the summons was clearly a default
practice (in our dataset 10413 out of 107 calls). Second, the callers also generally
identify themselves (78 out of 107 calls). In the conventional second turn of the
Finnish landline calls, the self-identification precedes the greeting (Hakulinen,
1993). There are also calls in which speakers do not greet each other, the topic
being initiated after the exchange of self-identifications. However, callers did not
always identify themselves: as in Swedish or Dutch calls, the callers may do
intimacy work, and allow the answerer to recognize them from their voice (cf.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991; Lindström, 1994). Nevertheless, the voice recog-
nition was preserved only for calls between intimates. Third, the Finnish landline
calls lack a reciprocal how-are-you sequence, in contrast to the US call
conventions. In the Finnish landline calls, the anchor position for introducing
the reason for the call follows immediately after the exchange of self-
identifications and greetings, although this position may also be occupied by an
apology, such as ‘sorry, did I wake you?’, or a ‘how-are-you?’ question or some
variant. The conventionally lengthy responses to ‘mitä kuuluu?’ [‘how-are-you’]
question show that it is being oriented as an information seeking question and
not as a part of conventional call opening routine.14 Indeed, there are no
reciprocal exchanges of how-are-you questions in our data. Hakulinen (1993)
found one reciprocal sequence in 320 Finnish call openings. It is a possible
practice, but clearly not conventionalized in Finnish culture.
The characteristics of the Finnish landline call opening can be highlighted by
comparing it to typical American call openings like extract 3 below. The
American call opening involves a summons–answer sequence, identifications,
greetings and an exchange of how-are-yous.
(3) [Schegloff, 1986: 115]
0 ((ring))
1 R: Hello,
2 C: Hi Ida?
3 R: Yeah
4 C: Hi,=This is Carla
5 R: Hi Carla.Arminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 345
6 C: How are you.
7 R: Okay:.
8 C: Good.=
9 R: = How about you.
10 C: = Fine. Don wants to know...
The calls are canonically opened with a ‘hello’, which however is not a greeting,
as the answerer will provide a proper greeting only after having identified the
caller. Consequently, the caller can greet and claim recognition of the answerer
at the second turn.15 The voice sample at the second turn provides the chance for
the answerer to identify the caller by returning the greeting and/or naming the
caller. The answerer responding with only an acknowledgement token, like
‘yeah’ or ‘yes’ invites the caller to self-identify herself in the next turn. At this
position, the acknowledgement token is treated as a failed recognition, as above.
After the caller’s self-identification, the answerer responds to the greeting at line
5, and the exchange of how-are-yous follows. The anchor position for the reason
for the call emerges in American calls after the how-are-yous.
In contrast to American calls, the Finnish landline call openings canonically
follow a trajectory from the exchange of self-identifications to greetings, after
which the reason for call may be launched. The existing other opening types
seem to be reductions of this basic type, so that the topic may be initiated without
an exchange of greetings, the caller does not self-identify, or the topic is initiated
immediately after the answer to the summons. In these ‘truncated’ openings, the
parties involved show their orientation to having known the party who has not
identified her or himself (intimacy work), and/or known the reason for the call
without its being introduced. In this fashion the permutations are systematic
variations of the canonical opening sequence.
Finnish mobile phone call openings
At least on the surface, the Finnish mobile phone call openings in 2002 are quite
different from the Finnish landline call openings in the 1980s and 1990s. First,
greetings have become the most common way to answer to a mobile phone. Of
course, greeting terms had already been used in answering the landline
telephone, in particular in the US. However, as Schegloff (1986) pointed out,
‘hello’ was not done or treated as a greeting, because the answerer had not yet
had the opportunity to identify the caller on the basis of the summons only. The
‘hello’ that provided an answer to a summons was not a greeting directed to a
known recipient. Schegloff (1986) further distinguishes between ‘hello’ and ‘hi’,
the latter indicating the answerer’s supposition about knowing who is calling. In
these so-called super-confident cases, an answer such as ‘hi/yeah/yes’ shows an
orientation to the identity of the caller and a ‘pre-orientation’ to continue or
resume the business in hand. For instance, in the call-back calls, the answerer
may presume to know the caller and the parties might take mutual orientation346 Discourse Studies 8(3)
to the reason for the call for granted and omit the preceding parts of the
conventional opening sequence (Schegloff, 1986). Typical mobile phone call
openings resemble the super-confident cases. Digitalized telephone systems, such
as GSM mobile phones (or digital wired systems), allow the receiver to gain access
to the caller’s number so that the answerer may get to know who is calling before
answering. For instance, a (mobile) telephone service may allow the display of
the caller’s name if the incoming call comes from a person whose number is
listed on the answerer’s mobile phone contacts list.16 Consequently, the mobile
answerer can be super-confident of who is calling (if the call comes from the
numbers listed on the phone), and tailor the answer accordingly. A greeting
answer to a call from a known caller not only opens the call, but already
establishes a common ground between speakers known to each other.
(4) 2002–06–21_10–44–47.wav (R= Sanna v, C= Timo s)[particip. 2]
1 R: no moi,
[] hi
2 (0.3)
3 C: no mo:i,
[] hi:,
4 (.)
5 C: ooks sää lähössä,
are you leavin,
6 (.)
7 R: e,
no,
8 (0.3)
When a mobile call is opened with a greeting, the caller does not consider the
greeting as only an answer to a summons and a voice sample, but a greeting that
makes a return of the greeting relevant. Further, the caller will also know who is
likely to answer, as mobile phones tend to be personal unlike landline phones,
which are often party-lines, such as in families or work places.17 In this way, the
greeting exchange happens between parties who know each other. After the
return greeting, the anchor position for the reason for the call is established. The
opening sequence is thus systematically reduced from earlier analogue landline
openings, as in extracts 1 and 2. Further, the greeting answer to a mobile phone
is an item of a different class from the American landline call ‘hello’, which did
not indicate recognition of the caller, and thus was not oriented to as a greeting
(extract 3). After the reciprocal greetings on a mobile phone, the speakers have
achieved ratifying their availability for interaction, shown that they know with
whom they are speaking and have greeted each other. Consequently, after onlyArminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 347
the two first turns the participants are ready to launch the reason for the call.
This recurring organization is robust in the Finnish mobile calls (see extract 5).
(5) 2002–07–13_10–41–20.wav (R= Sanna v, C= Erja s) [particip.2]
1 R: no moi,
[ ] hi,
2 (0.3)
3 C: moi h,
hi h,
4 (0.2)
5 C: hei tota me ollaan ny lähdössä maalle ja,
hey18 erm we are now leavin for the country side and,
6 .hh kysymys yksi,
.hh question one,
7 h haluatko että jätän ton mansikkapiirakan sulle
.h do you want me to leave the strawberry pie for you
The core mobile opening sequence – 1) a recipient designed greeting, 2) return of
the greeting, 3) a topic initiation – seems involve some systematic features. The
turn-initial ‘no’ is commonly used for initiating the answer to the summons.
From the Finnish landline calls the speech particle ‘no’ has shifted from the
second turn to the first vocal turn of the call. Through ‘no’, the answerer
portrays the answer as a responsive action to a recognizable activity. In this way,
the answer to the summons that indicates who is calling is treated as action in
already ongoing interaction. The turn-initial ‘no’ shows that the answer is not
just to any summons but to one that announces the identity of the caller making
it a (non-vocal) turn of its own.19 Through ‘no’, the answerer claims recognition
and projects a move from the recognition to the greeting. In this way already the
first vocal turn forms part of the ongoing interaction between the parties.
The pauses both between the first and the second turn, and between the
second and the third turn are also usual in mobile calls. The pauses in these
positions seem to be occasioned by various complications. Schegloff (1986)
noticed that in a landline telephone there was a strict expectation about the
timing of the answer to the summons. If people were far from the phone they
could rush to answer it in time, while people who sat next to their phone did not
answer immediately but waited for a proper number of rings. Indeed, in the
Finnish landline data, there is also an explicit orientation to timing of the answer
(e.g. extract 2). Both the delay, as in extract 2, and rushing are accountable for.
No such strict measure for the right timing of the answer appears in mobile
conversations. Answerers are not held accountable for the exact timing of the
answer. Further, the commonly occurring pause after the answer to a summons
shows that the callers have no strict expectation of timing for the answer to be348 Discourse Studies 8(3)
ready then and there for the standard turn-allocation of talk-in-interaction with
minimal gaps between turns (Sacks et al., 1974).20 Technical problems with the
connection and at times lengthy delays in establishing the connection may also
further reduce the alertness of callers. Ethnographic observations about the
usage of mobile phones in public places suggest that answerers lack strict
measure in timing their answers to the summons (Murtagh, 2001; Vihavainen,
2002). Occasionally, phones may ring annoyingly long (from the overhearers’
standpoint) before they are answered, either because of the answerer’s attention
to business other than the summons of the mobile or difficulty in locating a
mobile phone lost in a handbag, backpack, or pocket, etc.
The pause between the second and the third turn in the mobile call openings
seems to be occasioned by a specific challenge in turn-allocation. The natural
order of things seems to guarantee the initiator of the contact the anchor
position in initiating the topic. When a person greets the other in the street, the
person greeting gets the floor after the return of the initial greeting. While this
order holds in the landline phones cross cultures (extracts 1–3), the mobile
phone technology reverses it. If the call is answered by a greeting, then the
callers end up producing the second pair part of the greetings (extracts 4–5).
After completing their greetings, the callers have arrived at the end of the turn
construction unit; a transition relevance place occurs (Sacks et al., 1974). At
that point, the answerer is the preferred next speaker as the previous turn has
been directed from the caller to the answerer; that is, the caller has greeted the
answerer. To avoid a gap between turns, the answerer should take the turn, or the
caller has to self-select herself as the next speaker. If the answerer took the turn
after the caller’s greeting, she would end up in the anchor position in initiating
the reason for call (which sometimes happens). Alternatively, the caller has to
self-select herself after the greeting. Self-selection after a greeting seems to pose
a pragmatic challenge. Since the greeting allocates the turn to the recipient;
floor-holding reverses the expected allocation and demands work to reorientate
the recipient. Indeed, reorientation signals, like ‘hei tota’ [‘hey erm’] (extract 5,
line 5) are commonly used in this position. Further, a pause often emerges before
this reorientation. Alternatively, the speaker should pre-empt the greeting, for
instance, by embedding it into a larger intonational phrase (extract 6, line 2).
(6) 2002–07–03_20–01–54.wav (C= Pekka s, R= Jouko v)[particip. 3]
1 R: MORO,
HI,
2-> C: MOI mis meet,
HI where are you,
3 (0.7)
4 R: mä oon täällä Ernestossa jo,
I am here at Ernesto’s already,
5 (0.8)Arminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 349
Using ‘MOI mis meet’ [‘HI where are you?’] the caller both returns the greeting
and initiates the topic. The greeting is thus not produced as an independent item,
but used as a turn-initial form for topic initiation. This is a reduction of the
canonical openings which emphasizes the immediacy of the reason for the call.
Here the recipient of the question orients to this immediacy through the
temporal marker ‘jo’ [‘already’] at line 4, which suggests that the question was
seen to concern an ongoing activity that had an immediate goal. The embedding
of the greeting into a part of the topic initiation thus affects the nature of the
contact opened and is oriented to by the parties.
Mobile call openings as a whole involve plenty of variation, for both
contextual and intra-interactional reasons. Unlike landline calls, the recipient-
designed shaping of a call can start immediately with the answer to the
summons, which conveys information about who is calling, making a recipient-
designed response relevant. Since different types of summons occasion various
responses, mobile calls are heterogeneous from the outset. The call can come
from a known, unknown or silent number. The calls from known numbers may
come from intimates or acquaintances inviting responses with varying degrees of
intimacy (see also Hopper, 1992). Mobile calls are recipient-designed from the
very first turn, and the mobility of these phones imposes further characteristics
on the calls. A mobile device may be carried anywhere at any time and some
moments may be awkward for the intended answerer to take calls. If the sum-
mons is not silenced, the phone may ring in places like toilets. These situational
complications also bear on the opening of the call. Technical problems such as
weak audibility may also affect some of the openings. In all, the spectrum of calls
has diversified and the opening practices reflect this change.
In addition to contextual variation, the internal organization of the call-in-
interaction is also open to variation. We have already pointed out the caller’s
dilemma about how to get a chance to initiate mentioning the reason for a call
immediately after one’s own greeting. The caller may either rush from the
greeting to the topic initiation in the same construction unit, or may drop the
greeting entirely, as if the answerer’s greeting were a return greeting.
Consequently, the call itself, the summons of which identifies the caller, is treated
as an initiation of an interaction so that the greeting is already pre-empted by the
summons conveying personal information.21 In all, the spectrum of calls has
diversified and the opening practices reflect this change. This variation is
summarized in Table 2, before entering into a more detailed analysis of the
variation.
We claim that the greeting is used as an answer to a known caller, in
particular if speakers are at least to some degree close to each other. The caller
may return the greeting (1.1.), or initiate the topic immediately (1.2.). The cases
in which the caller identifies him/herself after a greeting, which will be discussed
soon, are deviant both from the participants’ and our point of view. Self-
identifications as answers are mainly used when the caller is not known or the
number is blocked. The self-identification opening may also reflect other350 Discourse Studies 8(3)
TA B L E 2 . Finnish mobile phone22 and landline call openings
Mobile Landline
1. turn Opening type (N=63) (N=107)
Greeting 1.1. Greeting exchange, topic opening or account 33 0
Greeting 1.2. Answerer greets C, who opens topic straight away 8 0
Greeting 1.3. Answerer greets C, who identifies him/herself, 3 0
greets A and opens the topic
Self- 2.1. Exchange of self-identifications and greetings, 22 73
identification topic opening
Self- 2.2. A self-identifies, exchange of greetings, 11 11
identification C opens the topic
Self- 2.3. A self-identifies, C opens the topic 5 13
identification
Channel- 3.1. A opens the channel ‘haloo’ , ‘joo’, etc., 5 0
opener C greets A
Channel- 3.2. A’s channel opener, C opens topic [the call is 3 1
opener immediately linked to the previous call-in-a-series ]
Try-marked 4.1. A & C make a try-marked opening (channel 8 2
opening openers repeated, etc. [problem is dealt with]
Try-marked 4.2. C calls A by name after no answer [problem is dealt] 2 0
opening
All 100 100
contextual features or a social distance between the speakers.23 The caller’s
understanding of the nature of the answerer’s self-identification comes through
in the caller’s first turn. The caller not reciprocating in identifying him/herself
shows the caller’s understanding of having been known to the answerer either
by number or voice. The initial channel-openers seem mainly to reflect
contextual features, such as the call being a return call (cf. Schegloff, 1979 on
super-confident cases). Try-marked openings seem to reflect technical problems.
Greeting a known caller
In Finnish mobile phone calls, a greeting is used as an answer to a call when the
caller is identified by the summons. A greeting is canonically responded to by a
return of the greeting, as seen in extracts 4–6. The caller, however, may initiate
a topic straight after the answerer’s greeting, as in the next extract, in which the
immediacy of the reason for the call occasions pre-emption of the greeting.
(7) 2002–07–06_10–26–55.wav (R= Pekka v, C= Timo s) [particip. 3]
1 R: moro,
hi::,
2 (0.5)Arminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 351
3 C: oo kumpi Alajärvi vai Moottoriveneilykeskus,
ee which Alajärvi or Motorboat centre,
4 (.)
5 R: siihe.
that one.
6 (0.6)
7 C: HÄH,
HUH?
8 (.)
9 R: siitä,
from that one,
10 (0.7)
11 C: no kumpaa Alasjärvi,
erm which one Alasjärvi,
The call forms part of the ongoing real-time co-ordination of an activity. The car
driver asks directions by mobile phone. The omission of a greeting contributes
toward establishing a sense of immediacy. The brief response by the recipient at
line 5 may be the answerer’s attempt to align with the time pressure.
Unfortunately, the driver does not recognize the referent of the indexical
expression. The problem persists in another round at lines 7–11.
The extracts so far show that the callers do not identify themselves after the
answerer’s greeting, orienting themselves to being known by the answerer. The
initial greeting has ratified the interaction taking place between parties who
know each other. The greeting may thus have been responded to with a greeting
(extracts 4–6) or with initiation of a topic (extract 7). However, two calls in our
dataset deviate from the pattern observed in that the callers identify themselves
after the answerer’s greeting. This may mean that a greeting as an answer to
summons might after all be done as a formulaic voice sample, like ‘hello’ in
American landline openings. The more detailed analysis of one of these cases
shows, however, that this is not the case.
(8) 2002–07–08_16–48–15.wav (R= Pekka v, C= Seppo s) [particip. 3]
1 R: morjes,
howdy,
2 (0.9)
3 C: seppo moi,
Seppo hi,
4 (0.3)
5 R: moi,
hi,352 Discourse Studies 8(3)
6 C: missäs baarissa ollaan, ((In Finnish a passive construction))
in which bar you are,
7 (0.4)
8 R: OEEE EEE (h)e (h)e (h)e
9 C: aaööö
10 R: autossa kuin,
in the car why,
Why should this extract not be an example of a greeting functioning as a voice
sample answer to a summons? First, the answerer’s first turn in line 1 is highly
informal; it is not just ‘hello’, but a greeting done in a specific way. ‘Morjes’ is a
greeting used between friends so that it displays a recognition unlike a standard
greeting that could be used to greet a previously unknown person. The self-
identification and the greeting in the next turn are not done immediately, but
only after a lengthy delay (even for a mobile call opening) marking the delayed
turn as dispreferred. Thus the self-identification is produced dispreferred,
indicating the caller’s orientation to the mobile phone context. The answerer
returns the caller’s greeting in line 5, echoing the caller’s greeting term ‘moi’,
which is more standard or neutral than the ‘morjes’ in the first line. The
neutrality achieved is reversed in line 6, where the caller asks which bar the
answerer is in, which is taken as a joke as laughter tokens show at line 8. The call
opening does not show that the caller had oriented to being not recognized;
rather, the self-identification in line 3 was a playful move that preceded the joke
in line 6. In pretending not to be known, the caller established a jocular relation-
ship with the recipient. Rather than showing the answers to mobiles as mere
voice samples, the extract displays the caller’s orientation to the greeting as a
personal answer to the phone which can be used to achieving a joking
relationship by pretending not to recognize the recipient design of the answerer’s
greeting. In the other opening of this type, the caller’s self-identification after the
answerer’s greeting also involves the pretence of not being recognized, and
contributes toward establishing a jocular relationship between the speakers.
Tailoring the answer
The information about the caller the summons contains allows the answerer to
tailor the answer. When the caller is known and close enough, the answerer
greets the caller as shown. The summons that shows a call coming from an
unknown number also informs the answerer. If the caller is not known, the call
coming from an unknown or silent number, the answerer tailors the answer
accordingly. Other contextual features are also oriented to in answering the
phone. Where mobile calls are used for institutional tasks; the speakers may
orient themselves primarily to their institutional roles and identify themselves
accordingly irrespective of the mobile medium. Further contextual features likeArminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 353
local contingencies of the answerer’s situation may also be oriented to in
answering.
When the caller is not known, the answerer may return to the type of
opening practice previously used (Hakulinen, 1993). The whole opening
sequence may then be shaped like that of the landline call openings, though
some pertinent changes are also observable. In extract 9, the summons does not
seem to identify the caller. The call may actually have come from a landline
number unknown to the answerer. The speakers themselves are close
acquaintances and in regular contact with each other, as the call shows.
(9) 2002–06–10_12–24–47.wav (R= Tiina v, C= Pirita s) [particip.1]
1 R: Tiina?
2 (0.5)
3 C: Pirita täs moi,
Pirita here hi,
4 R: ↑no ↑terveh,
↑[] ↑helloh,
5 (0.2)
6 C: missä sie oot,
where are you,
7 R: eeuh T(h)oijalassa(h), (h)e(h)e
Eeuh in T(h)oijala(h), (h)e(h)e
8 C: aijaa,
oh I see,
9 (.)
10 C: mä luuli et sä oot möki ((cottage means
I thought you were at the cot summer residence))
11 R: ei ku mä olin kyllä mökilläkin joh,
no but I was already at the cottage too,
In the first line, the answerer uses her first name to identify herself, the name
being uttered with rising intonation. At this point the answerer does not seem to
recognize the caller; the name said in an upward intonation invites the caller to
identify herself. The caller’s first turn at line three resembles that of the landline
calls (cf. Hakulinen, 1993), but it lacks the turn-initial ‘no’. Noticeably, in her
next turn the caller asks the famous mobile phone question ‘where are you?’
thereby showing her orientation to the recipient being on a mobile phone (cf.
Laurier, 2000; Arminen, 2005). The lack of ‘no’ at the caller’s first turn may
indicate her orientation to the answerer’s evident inability to recognize her. The
opening thus proceeds differently to the landline openings. On the mobile phone
the answerer’s inability to identify the caller has become accountable for, unlike
landline calls.354 Discourse Studies 8(3)
In a mobile phone context, the caller’s recognizability through the summons
is the default case, but the callers may block their number if they wish. Number
blocking may be deliberately utilized to gain the interactional advantage of not
being known. In extract 10, the caller seems to have blocked his number to allow
himself to make a joke-identification.
(10) 2002–07–07_10–30–41.wav (R= Pekka v, C= Rauno s) [particip.3]
1 R: Pekka?,
2 (0.8)
3 C: hannes johannes vihannes jorolainen virolainen,
((a word play based on the name of a famous Finnish
politician Johannes Virolainen))
4 (.)
5 C: päi:vää,
goo:d afternoon,
6 R: päi:vää.
goo:d afternoon.
7 C: (h)(h)e (h)e (h)e (h)e (h)e
8 C: anteeks että herätän vahing [oss.
sorry that I’m wakin you up by [accident.
9 R: [se pitkähiuksinen
[the longhaired
10 kaveri joka
guy who
11 C: (h)e (h)e (h)e
12 C: noh mitäs
so what’s
At the first line, the name is said with a slightly upward intonation without
showing recognition of the caller. After a pause, the caller makes a joke-
identification and then utters a formal greeting with prolonged intonation. At
the next turn, the answerer adapts to the style of greeting and mimics the
intonation, thereby aligning himself with the caller. The caller continues joking
at line 8, and the answerer plays along. It seems that for this call opening the
caller used the name-blocking to allow him a joke-identification. The joke would
have suffered if the answerer had known who was calling. Since the answerer’s
alignment with the joke suggests a close acquaintance with the caller, we have
good reason to think that the answerer would have known the caller were the
number not blocked.
Another context in which self-identifications are used in mobile phone is
institutional calls. The two next examples are from different types ofArminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 355
institutional/task-oriented calls. In extract 11, the answerer seems to be on an
office phone, probably not a mobile, although it could be, and the call is from a
mobile. In extract 12, both speakers seem to use mobile phones. In both cases,
the opening is adjusted to realize the institutional task. In extract 11, note also
how the caller introduces himself at lines 11–12.
(11) 2000–01–01_01–12–54.wav (C= Jarmo, R= Marja)[particip.4]
1 R: Lehtonen Marja? ((Familyname Firstname))
2 (.)
3 C: mts. hh ((smacks)) no hyvää huomenta päivää ((idiom))
[] good morning afternoon
4 onks tää [ (logian) laitoksellah,
is this logy department,
5 R: [>huomenta?<
[>morning?<
6 (0.2)
7 R: joo:?
ye:s?
8 C: (- [ -)
9 R: [kyllä?
[right?
10 C: >hy:vä,<
>goo:d,<
11 C: hhh no: mä oon jarmo nieminen ja
. hhh [] I’m jarmo nieminen and < I’m calling >
12 h.h Turusta (oon) semmonen historian opiskelija,.hhh
h.h from Turku (I’m) this student of history,.hhh
13 R: just, =
okay,=
14 C: =mun asia koskee teidän laitoksella tehtyä tutkimusta,
=my subject concerns a study done in your department,
The answer includes a full name, a common practice in expert organizations like
universities. The caller, however, checks that the call has reached the right
institutional location. In lines 11–12, the caller introduces himself in a manner
appropriate for the institutional nature of the call. The introduction also
legitimizes the call, since as a student the caller may expect to have the right to
the kind of service he is going to ask for. The reason for call is then explicitly
initiated at line 14. Here the mobile medium of the call is clearly not the issue,
the mobile phone being used to make a task-oriented call, the features of which
both realize and reflect this institutionality.356 Discourse Studies 8(3)
In extract 12, both speakers appear to be on a mobile phone. The answer
consists of the first name only, and the caller expects to be known at his first turn,
as he does not identify himself. Details of this opening demonstrate the goal-
oriented nature of the call.
(12) 2000–10–27_15–12–32.wav (C= Jarmo, R= Ismo)[particip.4]
1 R: I:smo,
2 (0.3)
3 C: no: moro,
[ ] hello,
4 (0.6)
5 C: tuota ni,
well erm,
6 (.)
7 C: mä oon nyt täällä
I’m now here
8 (0.3)
9 C: sivulla ni
on site/page uh
10 (.)
11 C: täss on neljä riviä hepreaa ((idiom))
here is four lines of Hebrew
12 C: ja sillä sipuli. ((idiom))
and that’s it.
The answerer’s prosody at the first turn does not indicate whether he recognized
the caller. At least, it does not display not recognizing the caller. The caller does not
identify himself but seems to orient toward the answerer knowing him. The
reason for the call is then related in a way which shows an orientation to a
mutually understood task between caller and answerer. Hence, the caller may be
known through this connection. However, whether the caller expects to be known
on the basis of summons, voice, or through the ongoing task cannot be judged by
the recording only. Nevertheless, the answer with the first name only and a with-
drawal of the greeting at that point or after the caller’s greeting, shows the
answerer’s task-orientation in the opening of the call. The answerer pre-empts the
call from all other issues apart from identifying himself, and then lets the caller tell
his (computer-related) problem. The caller also orients himself to the task-driven
nature of the call, going directly to the business after the greeting and explicitly
marking the end of the problem report (line 12). In the continuation of the call,
the answerer gives some advice concerning the problem. Here the mobile call is
used for reporting a problem, and the interactional practices are adapted to that
purpose.Arminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 357
The mobility of the phone means that it may in principle be carried anywhere
with the owner. As the caller does not know (at least, not with the current
technology) where the answerer is, the call may be received anywhere, if the
answerer takes the call. At least some people do also take calls when the local
circumstances may pose interactional difficulties (Weilenmann, 2003). These
difficulties may be oriented to in answering the phone. In extract 13, the call is
answered in the toilet of a train. It seems that details of the call opening are
occasioned by these local constraints.
(13) 2002–06–07_17–09–17.wav (R= Tiina v, C= Pirjo s)24 [particip.1]
1 R: Tiina?
2 (0.5)
3 C: no ↑hei missäspäin sä olet,
[ ] ↑hey whereabouts are you,
4 R: ↓tyypillistä junan vessassa,
↓typically in the toilet of the train,
5 (1.0)
6 C: aha missäpäin juna o.
I see whereabout the train is.
7 R: no#:# tulee #m# TÄÄ ajaa tää lähti jotenki
e:#rm# comes #m# THIS drives this left some
8 kymmene minuuttii myöhässä tai jotain.
ten minutes late or something.
9 (0.8)
10 R: halo-
11 C: nii lähdiksä sielt n [eljän jälkee.
so did you leave there a [fter 4 pm.
12 R: [(vähä hämminkii) ootas
[(some trouble) wait
13 C: haloo?
14 C: haloo haloo,
15 R: odota vähä.
wait a bit.
The call is answered with the first name in upward intonation. The answer does
not display recognition of the caller. The caller, who at line 3 goes straight to
business, seems to assume the answerer knows her, and the immediate answer to
the caller’s question shows that at that point the answerer has no problem in
recognizing the caller. Lines 12 and 15 show that the answerer, however, has
some interactional constraints in her local situation in the toilet of the train. It358 Discourse Studies 8(3)
seems that the answerer may have not been able to use the caller ID of the
summons even though she is likely to have had the caller’s number in her
register. Alternatively, the self-identification opening may display her
constrained situation in the toilet, which prevented her orienting herself to or
involving with interaction with the outside world at that particular moment.
Throughout this opening there is a clear misalignment between the speakers, the
caller being oriented to the relevance of the answerer’s location to their mutual
arrangement, while the answerer is oriented to her immediate situation and the
interactional constraints it imposes (Arminen, 2005). The differing, non-
reciprocal ways of opening the call initiate this misalignment between parties.
The opening can also be tailored vis-à-vis the immediate, local circumstances of
the answerer, who may be engaged in activities that have a bearing on the
opportunity for and nature of the communicative interaction.
Mobile contingencies
The other types of opening not yet discussed seem to reflect contingencies related
to the type of medium. As discussed elsewhere (Ling, 2000), and observable in
interaction (extract 7), one of the common usages of mobile telephones is co-
ordination of the ongoing activity. The opening sequence may demonstrate the
parties’ orientation to the ongoing activity and may be shaped accordingly.
Sometimes the call itself may seem to be embedded in the activity, and the parties
may talk in a way that shows that ‘the talk’ is just a means of achieving
something else. The call opening may reflect this instrumental character. Social,
ritualistic aspects of the call may be stripped away, and the call may take on a
purely instrumental appearance. In extract 14, the call is opened with ‘joo?’
[‘yes?’], when the parties are oriented toward their mutual appointment, and the
call is purely instrumental in solving the problem of not seeing each other.
(14) 2000–01–01_06–04–32.wav (C= Jarmo, R= Sari) [particip.4]
1 R: joo?
yes?
2 (0.2)
3 C: terve,
hello,
4 (.)
5 C: no,
huh,25
6 (0.8)
7 R: missä sä oot,
where are you,
8 (.)Arminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 359
9 C: täälä h
here h
10 (0.2)
11 R: nii minäki,
so am I:,
12 (0.2)
13 C: aha (h[yvä,)
o:h (g [ood,)
14 R: [(-)
15 (0.4)
16 R: no nii mä nään sut. (h)e
oh yeah I see you. (h)e
Through the response token ‘joo’ opening, the answerer treats the caller as the
unanimous initiator of the communication, and allocates the turn to the caller.
Here ‘joo’ holds the other party accountable, as the answerer’s next turn at line
7 shows. The caller’s greeting at line 3 resists this accountability and orients to
the business as usual, and through his go-ahead ‘no’ at next turn he invites the
other to move on to the issue of the call (Sorjonen, 2002). Here both parties
orient to the location of the other; that is, both seem to hold the other responsible
for not showing up at their meeting place. Line 16 reveals that in fact both parties
had been at the right place but had not seen each other (cf. note 21 a parallel
Danish case (Laursen, in prep.)).
Technical problems pose still another set of contingencies. Although GSM
and other widespread mobile technology standards are considered quite reliable,
there are still far more technical problems than with wired telephone services.
Sometimes audibility problems interfere with openings. Connectivity and other
problems may also be solved with return calls. The opening may then reflect
these problems, as in extract 15, which is a return call after a technical problem.
The trouble comes through in the opening and the parties discuss and deal with
the technical problem before initiating the topic proper. Here the problem seems
to be the battery running low.
(15) 2002–06–05_13–44–05.wav (R= Tiina, C= Marko)
1 R: haloo? Ooksä siellä,
haloo? Are you there,
2 C: hei. joo.
hi:. yeah.
3 R: siis katkesko sult äsken taas virtah,
so did your power go off again,
4 (4.1)360 Discourse Studies 8(3)
5 R: hu[huu?
((lines 6–20 have been omitted; recurrent try-marked openings, and attempts to deal with
the problem and discuss it; at lines 15–16 the answerer claims to have found it,
presumably meaning a battery charger; after acknowledging with relief the resolution,
the caller reopens the call at lines 21–22))
21 R: hei tota,
hey erm,
22 R: onks sulla sitten muutama minuutti aikaa sen jälkeen.
do you have a couple of minutes time after that.
The technical issues and problems may thus form a set of contingencies of their
own that has to be dealt with prior to interaction proper. Only after the technical
problems have been removed can the interaction between the parties start.
Discussion
The current changes in telephone conversation practices, apparently induced by
technological change, are the second great change in the history of Finnish
telephone communication. At the end of the 19th century telephone calls were
manually connected and people were not yet familiar with using the new device.
The phone books included instructions on how to manage a telephone
connection and a conversation. Callers were instructed to report the number
they wanted to reach both to the telephone centre and to the person they were
connected with. Answerers were requested to answer with ‘halloo’ and then to
state their name. Existing data, including plays, literature and few ‘documen-
tary’ recordings, suggest that in the early days of telephony Finns used to answer
with ‘halloo’ (Immonen, 2002).
The automation of telephone centres incurred simultaneously with changes
in the call-opening practices. The shift from manual to automated telephone
connections started in the 1920s in Helsinki but continued until the 1960s in
the countryside. A new conversational etiquette was introduced side-by-side
with the technological change. The phone book instructions requested callers
and answerers to identify themselves at the beginning of the call (answerers were
alternatively instructed to state their phone number). They were forbidden to use
‘halloo’ or ‘attention’. Self-identification was taught as being the functional
answer, which was supposed to save time and spare the answerer unnecessary
questions. The functional, instrumental orientation was seen as the ideal of the
telephone medium (Immonen, 2002). Existing data, including recordings, show
that toward the end of the 20th century the opening practices had undergone a
major change, so that the self-identification had become almost exclusively the
default opening in Finland.
The adoption of mobile telephony has again coincided with changes in the
communication culture. The tailored responses to summonses represent a newArminen and Leinonen: Mobile phone call openings 361
TA B L E 3 . Changes in telephone openings and etiquette in Finland from the 19th to the 21st
century
From the late
19th century From the 1920s From the 1990s
Technology Manual switchboards Analogue landline Digital mobile
Dominant ‘Halloo’ Self-identification Greeting
opening
Telephone ‘Telephones are not ‘Be functional’, No official ideology,
etiquette meant for “small talk”’ private informality Increased informality
type of summons–answer sequence that did not exist during the period of the
analogue telephone systems, when the answerer could not identify the caller
before the answering. Irrespective of how the caller’s number is coded and utilized
in digitalized systems, the summons contains information about who is calling,
which makes this kind of summons unique. The personalized summons invites
tailored responses in which the answerer orients to knowledge of the caller. The
answers to a phone have correspondingly diversified, as they are no longer
answers to a neutral summons. In Finland, the answerers have increasingly
started to use a greeting as a response to a summons instead of the canonical self-
identification opening in analogue landline phones. This whole process from
manually connected landline calls to mobile digital calls that parallels changes in
communication patterns and etiquette is summarized in Table 3.26
The emergence of greetings as a call-answering device is an interesting
phenomenon in itself. The critical question is whether a greeting as an answer to
a call is a ‘new’ practice which is doing something not done before, or is just a new
form of doing something that was already familiar. If there was nothing new, then
the greeting opening would be a Finnish version of an American ‘hello’ as an
answer to a summons, which demonstrates a party’s interactional availability but
does not deal with the issues of identifying/recognizing the other or establishing
ratified participation. In American landline call openings, these issues are dealt
with separately. This does not seem to be the case in the Finnish mobile calls.
When a mobile call is opened with a greeting, this makes either a reciprocal
greeting and topic initiation or direct topic initiation by the caller relevant. The
mobile opening sequences are systematically truncated when the identity infor-
mation is conveyed by the summons. Consequently, the greeting opening in Finnish
mobile calls is a different phenomenon to ‘hello’ in American landline calls.
The summons may also indicate that the caller does not belong among those
the answerer has saved in the diary, or that the caller may not want to reveal her
or his number, which appears to be blocked. In these cases, the answerer still
tailors the answer from the very first turn but orienting to a person who is either
not known or who has not allowed identification. The openings to calls from
‘unknown numbers’ are also different in this respect from the analogue landlineYou can also read
