Citation: Oke, I.A. (2026). “Is the Other Guy Still There?”: Inferences and Flouting of Maxims in Emergency Calls to Police. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 5(1), 110-123. www.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2026.v05i01.012.
“IS THE OTHER
GUY STILL THERE?”: INFERENCES AND FLOUTING OF MAXIMS IN EMERGENCY CALLS TO
POLICE
By
Idris Ayomo Oke
Lecturer in Linguistics,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
idrisoke.linguist@gmail.com
Abstract
Emergency
calls to the police stand as crucial lifelines during crises and are
particularly salient within domestic violence contexts. While previous studies
predominantly examine direct request formulations in emergency calls, a notable
exception is found in Stokoe and Richardson’s (2023) work, which examines
victims' indirect requests through Conversation Analysis. This study, however,
advances their focus by examining indirect communication in United States
domestic violence-related emergency calls, employing the Cooperative Principle and Inferences as analytical tools. Through an analysis
of two extended 911 calls involving domestic violence incidents, the study
reveals a strategic shift from conventional direct requests to indirect
communication strategies, showing flouting of conversational maxims as the
linguistic strategy used by callers to make indirect requests. The study also
reveals that call takers employ selective inferences as a linguistic mechanism
to decode and respond to hidden urgencies manifested in the callers’ indirect
requests. Through inferences, the analysis shows how call takers leverage their
schematic knowledge to address a life-and-death issue. The synergy of these
linguistic strategies, therefore, underscores their importance in high-stakes
communication situations. Beyond academia, the study contributes to public awareness
of indirect communication challenges during emergencies and informs targeted
call-taker training programmes by enhancing their ability to recognise and
respond effectively to indirect requests in domestic violence emergencies.
Keywords: Cooperative
Principles, Emergency Calls, Flouting of Maxims, Indirect Requests, Inferences
1.
Introduction
The
emergency call initiated by the general public to the police is a crucial
process through which assistance is sought in dire circumstances such as
domestic violence, sexual abuse, ongoing criminal activity, and even instances
of self-inflicted harm (Raymond & Zimmerman, 2016). As the foremost point
of contact between the citizenry and the police during an emergency, this
crucial interaction requires meticulous handling on the part of both entities
involved. It typically manifests in two predominant patterns: the callers requesting
assistance by claiming a rightful claim to it (Tracy, 1997) and the call takers
granting or denying requests by verifying the genuineness of the exigent
circumstance at hand (Zimmerman, 1992). In either case, specific explicit
linguistic mechanisms (interrogation in the case of the call taker, and
projection of stance in the case of the caller) are customarily employed to
effectuate the communicative objective, which primarily entails receiving
assistance during such moments of crisis (Zimmerman, 1992).
However,
a problem arises when callers make their requests indirectly by inadvertently
failing to explicitly articulate their messages to the recipient, thereby resulting
in a two-way problem: on one end, the call takers confront difficulties in
comprehending and readily verifying the legitimacy of the emergency, while on
the other end, the callers grapple with the challenge of obtaining the assistance.
. While Stokoe and Richardson’s (2023) work has begun to address this gap,
prior studies have predominantly investigated direct requests in emergency
calls (Blais & Brisebois, 2021; Garcia, 2022). While the studies have contributed to the understanding
of direct request formulation, Stokoe and Richardson (2023), however, examined
the abstruse ways in which victims subtly communicate their need for help
without explicitly expressing it. Their study revealed various linguistic and
interactional features, such as indirect speech acts, hesitations, and
non-verbal cues, which victims employ to signal their distress while mitigating
the risk of retaliation from the perpetrator. Even though Stokoe and
Richardson’s results grounded the understanding of this study, their analysis,
anchored solely through conversation analysis, falls short in operationalising
the situation with any theoretical framework, thereby not being able to reveal
the explicit reasons for and strategies employed by both the callers and call
takers to ensure a cooperative interaction. Addressing this limit, the analysis
presented in this study is therefore grounded in two theoretical foundations:
Cooperative Principle and Inferences (see Section 3 below), to examine the
linguistic mechanisms employed by callers and call takers to realise indirect
requests and understand such requests respectively.
In
the United States, the national emergency number is 911 (911.gov, 2023). Once
the conversation starts, callers are expected to formulate their requests
directly and unambiguously to the call takers, as the modality of the request
formulation affects the tenor of the response offered by the call taker. This
also substantively determines the celerity or tardiness in the dispatch of aid.
Typically, emergency calls follows five structured sequences to realise the
overarching communicative objective: the commencement and/or identification
sequence phase (Wakin & Zimmerman, 1999); the phase wherein an entreaty for
assistance is tendered (Heritage & Clayman, 2010); the stage characterised
by a series of interrogative question-answer dyads (Zimmerman, 1984); the
remedy and/or response stage (Raymond & Zimmerman, 2016); and finally, the resolution
phase (Raymond & Zimmerman, 2016).
While
these aforementioned phases conventionally govern the operation of 911 call
takers, this paper examines exceptional cases where callers are unable to furnish
the anticipated and precise information concerning the exigency at hand. One of
these circumstances involves callers hiding their requests by seeking something
irrelevantly different from the requisite assistance necessitated by the
emergency, while another pertains to the ambiguity that permeates their
expressions precisely when lucidity is most anticipated. Nevertheless, the
outcomes of said calls, as would later be seen in the course of the analysis,
reveal that the call takers, through inference, were able to understand the
intent conveyed by the callers, even in the absence of their proffered requests
adhering to standard and/or conventional practice. Therefore, this paper
primarily examines how callers in domestic violence emergencies formulate their
requests indirectly and how call takers comprehend and respond to such
requests.
2.
Making
and Granting Requests in a Domestic Violence Emergency
As
earlier established, the context of examination in this study is domestic
violence emergencies. This is inspired by the fact that situations of domestic
violence are logically unpleasant, and such situations often engender the
formulation of requests in an oblique pattern. As this context shapes the
meaning and patterns of the communication, the analysis connects to the study of
meaning in context (pragmatics). Unlike other general emergencies, the nature of requesting and granting
assistance within the context of domestic violence is a communication fraught
with challenges and sensitivities (Stokoe & Richardson, 2023). The usual
mechanics of seeking and receiving help are reshaped in this context as, in the
first place, making a request goes beyond a simple expression of need and takes
on various forms, reflecting victims’ aspirations for safety, support, justice,
or resolution. These appeals encapsulate not only a cry for help but also a
plea to be acknowledged amidst the turmoil of abusive situations (Oram, Trevillion, Feder & Howard, 2019). Conversely,
the process of granting these requests entails more than just giving assistance
and involves validating victims' experiences, providing practical support, and
navigating the complexities of seeking justice and protection (Dobash & Dobash,
1992). Yet, the challenges lie in the very nature of the communication that
unfolds. Domestic violence calls deviate from typical emergency scenarios due
to the potential presence of the abuser during the call. This predicament
necessitates careful language choices by the victim, ensuring that the appeal
for help remains veiled, which is a protective measure against potential
escalation of harm (Stokoe & Richardson, 2023).
At
the same time, effectively addressing such requests undoubtedly requires
skilled call takers and responders who can decode urgency and coordinate swift
action (Johnson, 2010). This proficiency goes beyond understanding literal
words; it involves grasping the unspoken layers of victims' stories. This
therefore, makes comprehensive training for call takers key to their
profession, by way of teaching them to recognise signs, navigate safety
strategies, and refer appropriately (Oram et al., 2019). However, Blais and
Brisebois (2021) argue that amidst these efforts, obstacles persist. According
to them, societal stigma, victim-blaming, and limited resources hinder the
realisation of justice and support. To overcome these challenges, Hankivsky
(2014) has earlier suggested that a multi-faceted approach involving the
integration of legal measures, social assistance, and psychological support,
bolstered by community involvement and education, is crucial (Hankivsky, 2014).
Similarly, considering the diverse backgrounds of victims, intersectionality
always prompts us to acknowledge how some factors like race, socioeconomic
status, and ethnicity intersect to shape victims' experiences (Hankivsky,
2014). This awareness enables tailored responses that consider these intersecting
dimensions. Institutional responses also play a pivotal role, as robust
protocols, well-trained personnel, and effective collaboration between
emergency services and specialised agencies would ensure victims receive a
holistic support network, encompassing legal safeguards, emotional aid, and
practical assistance.
In
essence, understanding indirect requests for help in domestic violence
situations and their subsequent understanding and response requires a keen
understanding of the unique communication and comprehension strategies
involved. The data analysed in this study therefore, are representatives of
requests made by victims in domestic violence emergencies in the United States,
and the primary aim is to examine the linguistic mechanisms used by callers to
make such indirect requests and the linguistic strategies used by call takers
to comprehend and respond to them.
3.
Theoretical Consideration
This study is anchored in two complementary
theoretical frameworks, namely “Cooperative
Principles” and “Inferences”. On the one hand, Grice’s (1975) Cooperative
Principle posits that during conversational exchanges, participants generally
each other to actively contribute in an informative, truthful, relevant, and,
importantly, sufficiently lucid and concise. This principle serves as the
bedrock upon which effective communication flourishes, thereby fostering a
collective mindset encompassing shared expectations and facilitating the
expeditious flow of information (Grice, 1975). Grice's analysis of conversation
identified four fundamental maxims which participants in a talk exchange
spontaneously observe to have a harmonious talk and flow of turns: the maxim of
quantity, quality, relation, and manner. The maxim of quantity places a premium
on the provision of a judicious amount of information by avoiding both
superfluity and insufficiency. The maxim of quality underscores the paramount
importance of unreservedly conveying information that is truthful, trustworthy,
and bereft of any misleading or fallacious elements. The maxim of relation
mandates the preservation of discourse relevance, ensuring that the conveyed
information remains firmly tethered to the overarching topic at hand. Lastly,
the maxim of manner highlights the significance of lucidity, brevity, and the
avoidance of any form of ambiguity, for they are pivotal in maintaining
effective communication (Grice, 1975).
The
understanding of this principle further engenders the notion of flouting of
conversational maxims (Grice, 1975), the situation in which one or more of the
expected maxims are not observed or are violated. As one of the focuses of this
study, this violation of the expected maxims in the talk exchange may be
accidental from either of the participants or, as later argued in the analysis,
deliberately flouted by either of them to achieve another form of communicative
goal. As Grice noted, flouting occurs when a speaker openly breaks a
conversational maxim, say of quality or quantity. Ordinarily, listeners assume
the speaker aims to be cooperative, in this case they therefore immediately
reason out an interpretation that turns the apparent breach into a form of
observing the maxim at a deeper level.
With that, the analysis of the data in this study focuses primarily on the
instances of where one or more of the categories of maxims discussed above are
flouted in the process of requesting and granting assistance.
On the other hand,
inferences involve
deriving meaning that goes beyond the explicit content of an utterance, relying
on the listener's sociocultural and schematic background knowledge (Shiro,
1994). Inferences,
it should be noted, operate under the foundational premise that the
comprehension of spoken or written text, in this case the requests made by
callers, necessitates an expansion beyond the boundaries of sentence-level
understanding, necessitating a recourse to pre-existing schematic knowledge
that is inherently influenced by sociocultural factors. The fundamental
contention of the present investigation as later argued in the course of the
analysis, therefore, resides in the assertion that call takers, in their
reliance upon schematic knowledge, effectively employ the mechanism of
inference through tapping into their pre-established cognisance of the
sociocultural context surrounding instances of domestic violence, that suggests
that the perpetrator of the violence maybe potentially co-present. Squarely
then, the analysis below argues that callers in their attempts to make their
actual requests for help unknown to the perpetrators of the domestic abuse
leverage the linguistic mechanisms of flouting of maxim, resulting in their
indirect request. The analysis at the same time also argues that call takers
due to the indirect pattern of requests used by callers have to make inferences
in order to understand and respond accurately to the requests.
4.
Data
and Method
As
with other emergencies, people in domestic violence situations in the United
States request assistance by dialling 911. The data for this study therefore consist
of two audio-recorded calls to emergency made to 911 from
the United States, purposively selected from publicly available source on
YouTube. These recordings are assumed to have been released
by the relevant agency service department. As they are public data, the study
is thereby excluded from seeking procedural ethical approval for their
collection and use. The calls were transcribed using the
Jefferson’s (2004) transcription system (which has been successfully used by
similar studies, e.g., Garcia, 2022; Stokoe and Richardson, 2023). The system
offers a glossary of transcript symbols that serves as a vital resource for conversation
analysts, providing a standardised framework for representing various elements
and phenomena present in conversational data like the ones analysed in this
study. Using
these symbols enhances the clarity and accuracy of transcription, thereby
facilitating comprehensive analysis. A list of these symbols is presented in
the Abbreviation Section at the end of this paper.
The
first call was made to 911 in disguise of ordering for a pizza by a 38-year-old
woman in Ohio, United States, who is daughter to a 57-year-old woman who is the
victim of the domestic violence perpetrated by his 56-year-old boyfriend. In
reporting the domestic abuse to the emergency call taker, the call taker, a
male staffer, argued that the caller had dialled a wrong line to be ordering a
pizza from 911. Maintaining her position, the caller insisted that she knew
what she was saying. As it would be seen later in the analysis, it was after a
few arguments and counter arguments that the information was later understood
by the call taker, and the discussion continued. The second call was made to
911 by a lady in Utah, United Stated, who also called 911, but right next to
the guy who sexually abused her. Her age description, as opposed to the first
call, is unknown. With the 911 opening question, the caller was busy giving
ambiguous description of the scenario and even wrong answers to questions asked
by the call taker, a female staffer, to clarify the ambiguity. It was after few
series of turns by the duo that the call taker was able to understand the
communication by a later leading question.
5. Analysis and Discussion
The
analysis and discussion presented here is in two sections, both addressing the research aim. It should be recalled that the focus is to examine how callers make
indirect requests and how call takers consequently comprehend and respond. It should also be noted that the focus on cooperative
principle in analysing callers’ indirect requests is on how they flout the
expected conversational maxims while analysis of responses by the call takers
is informed by the notion of inference. To avoid redundancy in this section,
caller is represented by CL, call taker by CT and suspect by SP.
5.1 Making Irrelevant Request Different from the Emergency
This
first call presents a case of an assault wherein the parties to the
assault is a male perpetrator and a female victim, even though the call was
originally made by another third party who was indirectly affected by the
assault. Thus, throughout this call, the conversation is solely between the CL
and the CT.
1)
CT: ><Oregon 911
2)
CL: I would like to order a pizza at 2846 Pickle
Road.
3)
CT: You called 911 to order a ↑pizza?
4)
CL: Uh(.)Yeah. Apartment 17(.)171.
5)
CT: This is the::wrong number to call for pizza.
6)
CL: →No, no, no, no, no, no, you’re not
understanding.
7)
→You’re not getting me.
8)
CT: →I am getting you now.
9)
CT: →↑Is the other guy still there?
10) CL: Yep.
I need a large pizza.
11) CT:
Alright. How about medical? ↑You need medical?
12) CL: No.
With pepperoni.
13) CT:
Alright.
14) CT:
(())(To rescue team) Turn your sirens off before
15) you get
there. Caller ordered a pizza and agreed with
16)everything
I said that there’s domestic violence going on.
This
call opens with what Stokoe and Richardson (2023: 8) call “an institutional
identification”, used to quickly show the CL she is now connected to a certain
911 emergency centre, that of Oregon. After this is an ellipted interrogative
sentence “what is your emergency?” which is a common opening question by 911
emergency CT, following impliedly the identification sentence. This initial
establishment, to a certain extent at least, directly informs the CL that she
is expectedly at the right place and, the dictate of that institutional setting
at one end and the expected cooperative principle of their talk exchange at the
other, expects her to formulate her request “as is required, at the stage at
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange”
(Grice, 1975) which she is engaged.
However,
as it is later shown below, because the call presents a context of domestic violence
where the perpetrator is co-present at the scene, the CL is unexpectedly seen flouting
different maxims, which is an overt violation of expected contributions to be
maintained for a hitch-free conversation. The declarative sentence “I would
like to order a pizza at 2846 Pickle Road” blatantly flouts the maxim of
relation which posits that statement said in a talk exchange should “be
relevant” (Grice, 1975). By flouting this maxim in a form of irrelevant
statement seen in line 02, this study understands how the CL indirectly
requests help to her preferred location: “2846 Pickle Road”. By implication,
this sentence, nonetheless the flouting that occurs, gives a supposedly quicker
impression of the expected plea needed. Perhaps in a normal pizza ordering
conversation, mentioning of address might not be so early in a first statement,
rather discussion on type, quantity and maybe price might precede the
mentioning of the delivery address. This shows that the CL is deliberately
making such requests to disguise something (help needed) from someone
(perpetrator) and at the same time informing another person (CT) of the
location of the emergency, where it is least expected.
In
fact, if ordering for a pizza had been a relevant request in that context, the
CL is also seen flouting another maxim, this time the maxim of quantity, in
this same line by providing insufficient information about her order. The
maxim, it should be recalled, posits that one should make the conversational
contribution as informative as possible and required in the talk exchange
(Grice, 1975). It thus comes to the fore that she does not provide, “for the
current purposes of the exchange” (Grice, 1975), sufficient information to the
CT at that moment which will help the CT have enough understanding of such
request, if we want to, at least, assume the relevance of ordering for a pizza.
The occurrence of the unusual flouting of relevance maxim might have inspired
Grice’s remark on Maxim of Relation as being “terse”, the formulation of which
is concealing a number of problems spanning “questions about what different
kinds and focuses of relevance there may be, how these shift in the course of
talk exchange, how to allow for the fact that subjects of conversation are
legitimately changed, and so on” (Grice, 1975:27). In response to this starkly
unexpected turn, the CT replies with a yes/no confirmatory question, using
emphasis to highlight the perceived irrelevance of the CL's request in the on-going talk exchange.
As shown in line 03, the CT emphatically assumes that the caller might have
been wrong or perhaps made a mistake. The sentence presents, to a certain
degree, the call taker’s recognition of and adherence to the maxim of manner by
avoiding ambiguity in his question formation and being brief in confirming what
the caller has said, as opposed to the caller who has already flouted the maxim
of relation by giving a completely irrelevant statement to the conversation.
Going
further in line 04, there is another indirect request formulation operated via
flouting the maxim of relation. At a stage where much relevance is needed to
clear the CT’s confusion, the CL is again seen making another response to the
polar confirmatory question earlier asked. With “Uh (.) Yeah.”,there is an
indication that she explicitly understands the question asked by the CT. She
is, however, seen blatantly flouting another maxim of relevance to the
institutional context of the call where ordering for a pizza is an absolutely
irrelevant request by providing her further description of her address. As seen
to be adhering to the maxim of quantity by being informative about the pizza
request in the second sentence of line 04, It is clear that the CL actually
knows and understands her turn and is deliberately giving information (the
address) of where she needs help. Despite our understanding of this deliberate
indirect request to indirectly flood her addressee with enough information of her
present location, the CT is expectedly left at a great confusion with this
flouting of maxim of relation. This is evident where he emphatically denounces
the CL’s further description of the address in line 05 by saying “this is
the::wrong number to call for pizza.” Achieved with a duo adherence to maxim of
quantity (by being informative enough) and maxim of manner (by avoiding
“obscurity of expression” (Grice, 1975), with such categorical response), the
CT demonstrates a high-level projection of authority by clearly telling the CL
to have been at wrong place, even though this is without prior series of
confirmatory turns from his part.
As
someone with the mission to prevent the perpetrator from overhearing her plea
for help from an external source, the CL quickly dissents the CT’s submission
that she has dialled a wrong number with series of the adverb “no” to prove
negation. This is also accompanied with two counter clauses: “ you’re not
understanding.” and “→You’re not getting me.”, both showing that the CL has in
herself a request she is trying to make, but that the addressee has not got the
point clear. Having noted this, it is important to also note here how she
flouts the maxim of quantity. At a stage where her addressee does not get the
point she expects him to get, the cooperative principle of the talk exchange
makes it extremely imperative for her to provide enough information through
adherence to the maxim of quantity and to avoid being obscure. These two
maxims, however, are seen flouted by the CL, where she only denies a clear fact
established by the context of the talk (that only clear request for help and
related help should be made) and is not informative and clear in her turn.
Having
recognised her strong and persistent maintenance of position here, the CT is
next seen as having understood her supposedly indirect request for help through
his immediate grasp of the communication expectation, that is the expectation a
speaker or writer designs and expects his addressee or reader to make sense of
by making inferences through his understanding of the knowledge of the
world surrounding such statement (Balfour, 2022). This is shown in line 08
where, without any explicit linguistic marker, the CT unexpectedly replies to
CL’s earlier objection with the statement “→I am getting you now.” Here, the CT
shows evidence of having made inferences, and more specifically, what is called
selective inferences, to understand the CL’s indirect request for help.
In this type of inference, people, or so to speak, interlocutors, focus on
specific lexical, syntactic, thematic, contextual and/or emotional aspects of
the discourse to draw their understanding when explicit interpretive linguistic
pointer(s) is/are absent (Richardson, 2000). Combining the statement in line 08
and the series of turns in previous lines, it can be understood here that the
CT makes a selective inference at two levels: the thematic level and the
contextual level. At the former, people in a talk exchange emphasise certain
themes or ideas that resonate with their personal experiences, beliefs, or
interests to draw conclusion (Miall and Kuiken, 2001; Miall and Nalbantian,
2008), and this is evident to draw for the CT with the CL’s persistent
mentioning of her address which suggests something is happening at that place.
At the latter very relevantly, interlocutors in a talk exchange may bring their
own knowledge and background into the discursive process, leaving them to draw
their conclusion of a perceived encoded meaning from certain aspects that align
with their prior background contextual knowledge (Miall and Kuiken, 2001; Miall
and Nalbantian, 2008). This is exactly what the CT does here by being able to
respond to the indirect request made through flouting of mostly the maxim of
relation with his reliance on the contextual constraint of domestic violence
situations where perpetrators are commonly present and may harm the CL who
tries to seek any form of external help.
This
result of inference making is furthermore explicitly projected in line 09 where
the CT asks a further confirmatory yes/no question that “→↑Is the other guy
still there?” By implication, it is evident that the CT is very much aware of
the CL’s presence in a domestic violence situation, and not other type of
emergencies. This is because his mentioning of “the other guy” indicates his
background knowledge about the commonness of guys, or so to speak, men being
perpetrators of domestic violence cases. According to the National Intimate
Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), women are disproportionately
affected by intimate partner violence, including physical violence, sexual
violence, stalking, and psychological aggression (NISVS, 2021). This
supposition supports the CT’s easy assumption, as put in the polar question in
line 09, that a guy might be co-present at the event scene. This then also
forms the basis of his response to the indirect request, revealing completely
to the CL that they are now on the same page with the CT. This exhibits full
awareness of the domestic violence situation where the CL is unable to make her
request as direct as it should be. The CL is then seen affirming the presence
of the perpetrator through an adherence to the maxim of manner with her brevity
of expression in line 10: “Yep.” This surprisingly follows with another
flouting of maxim of relation where the CL, in line 10, still continues with a
further description of the pizza she wants. A crucial point of notice here is the
question of if truly this is a flout at one extreme, as the two parties in the
talk exchange now understand why irrelevant information is given, and the
question of if there truly is blatancy in the violation of such expected maxim,
as per the definition of flouting.
This
thus gives the impression that the CT is now being cooperative and assisting
the CL, as only relevant and, by extension, yes/no straightforward questions
are asked to secure more facts about the emergency situation. Doing this, as
shown in line 11, the CT further prompts questions on what the CL may
supposedly need in such a situation. While it is evident with her use of the
adverb “No” in line 12 as a response that she does not need medical aid (with
the rescue aid she primarily needs), very surprisingly again, she is seen
flouting the maxim of relation. Instead of observing the maxim of quantity to
give more information, it is surprising that she flouts this maxim alongside
flouting that of relation, in line 12, with further statement of irrelevant thing
to the question asked, thereby explaining the type of pizza she needs: “with
pepperoni”.
Lastly,
it is seen here how the CT demonstrates a complete grasp of the domestic
violence situation, even without the CL making any statement of such throughout
the call, by the former’s instruction of the rescue team to maintain some level
of silence by turning their sirens off prior to their arrival at the scene
because the CL says: “there’s a domestic violence going on.” This statement
clearly indicates that the CT has a complete awareness of the type of emergency
his addressee is in, and such awareness, no doubt, is drawn from making some
selective inference at the thematic and contextual levels, that the CL is in
distress because of domestic violence and is definitely unable to project
herself relatively well as expected by such institutional context, because of
the co-presence of the perpetrator who is highly harmful to her if aware of
such external request for help.
5.2 Making
Ambiguous Request for Assistance
This
second call, like the first, is also a case of an assault wherein the parties
to the assault is a male perpetrator and a female victim, and it happens
between the CL who is a female victim, the CT, a female emergency CT, and the
perpetrator referred here as SP as a polite legal terminology.
1)
CT: ><911, what’s your emergency?
2)
CL: ↓Help me.
3)
CL: ><What’s the address of your emergency?
4)
CL: (0.2)
5)
CT: Do you know what mile marker you’re at?
6)
CL: Umm:: I’m not sure.
7)
CT: What’s going on?
8)
CL: Um:: →I’m not sure.
9)
CT: Why are you calling 911?
10) CL:
><Pardon me?
11) CT: Why
are you calling 911?
12) CL: Um::
13) CT:
What’s your emergency?
14) CL: Okay,
→never mind.
15) CT: ↑You
don’t know why you’re calling 911?
16) CL: →Yes
I do.
17) CT: ↑Okay
then, why did you call?
18) CL;
Okay(0.3) →↑Do I have to say it right now?
19) CT: Yes
20) CL:
→><Okay then, never mind.
21) CT: →Are
you able to talk [or is there someone…?
22) CL: No
23) CT: Okay.
→Are you in danger?
24) CL: Yes
25) CT:
Okay:: Um:: →Has someone (0.2) ↑kidnapped you?
26) CL: ()
27) CL: →I
don’t know.
28) CT: Does
this person know you’ve called 911?
29) CL: No.
30) CT:
↓Okay. Then, just pretend like you’re talking to your
31) friend,[and
I’ll see if I can get somebody to help ya.
32) CL: Yeah
33) CT: Are
you in a truck?
34) CL: Yes
35) SP:
>< Who’re you talking to?
36) CL: [It’s
my sister. She’s wanting to know.
37) CT: And
why can’t you talk, are you afraid he’s going to
38) hurt you?
39) CL: Yes
40) CT:
Okay:: Has he already hurt you tonight?
41) CL: Yes
42) CT:
Okay:: >< Okay, I’m getting help your way, just stay
43) on the
phone, ↑okay?
44) CL: Okay
In
line 01 of this call, as institutionally expected, this study sees how the CT
demonstrates what Wakin and Zimmerman (1999) call the opening identification
phase. This is a convention followed in a normal 911 emergency call to receive
information that is often embedded in the proceeding request for assistance
phase (Heritage and Clayman, 2010). With the CL’s response in line 02 with the
falling tone declarative sentence “↓Help me.”, one would be prompted to assume
the conversation is being cooperative and compliant with the context of that
institutional setting, not until the CL blatantly flouts two conversational
maxims, one of quantity and one of manner, in her response to the CT’s
interrogative in line 05 “Do you know what mile marker you’re at?” after the
two-second pause to the earlier interrogative in line 03 “><What’s the
address of your emergency?”. It must be noted that this interrogative in line
03 is expected to engender a sufficiently clear statement of the address
wherein the help requested in line 02 is needed. But with the pause, the CT
assumes her question was probably not heard, and in the attempt to be
cooperative by being clear, she furnishes her with another simpler yes/no
question in line 05 so as to make the response easier for the CL.
However,
first with the flouting of maxim of quantity which requires that as much
informative statement is provided as needed in a certain talk exchange, the CL
is seen replying with a relatively less informative declarative sentence “Umm::
I’m not sure.” which really puts the CT into a communicative confusion as her
addressee is expected to furnish her with the information about the address so
the help may be rendered. Secondly, the reply also flouts the maxim of manner
as it lacks clarity and exemplifies obscurity of expression and ambiguity. One
may then ask such question as “why then did you seek help if you are not sure?”
While this response might appear to be disobliging to the ongoing talk
exchange, it is at the same time understandable, as the analysis would later
reveal the context as being that of domestic violence, that it is a deliberate
attempt to indirectly requests a help with the intent to exclude someone (the
SP) who, as described in Section 4 above, was sleeping next to the CL. The
ambiguity of this response subjects the CT to make further another form of
confirmatory interrogation in line 07, just to be sure if the CL actually knows
why she has called and to bring her out of a perceived confusion after her
earlier claim of uncertainty. It is here that this study now has a greater
clarity about the magnitude of flouting embedded in the CL’s turn. While her
repetition of “Um:: →I’m not sure.” in line 08 also indicates another flouting
of maxim of manner, it is, at this point, underscoring a flouting of the maxim
of quality, the supermaxim of which is to “try to make your contribution one
that is true” (Grice, 1975:27). As it is later argued below that she is trying
to seek help indirectly without the SP knowing, there is no doubt that the CL
knows what is happening as she is the one who has originally sought help at the
beginning of the call, and her line 08 response clearly shows that she is lying
for her to have claimed uncertainty about the occurrence. This, therefore,
flouts the maxim of quality which posits that “do not say what you believe to
be false” (Grice, 19975:27), as the implication is the potential of misleading
of the addressee as seen in the call.
This
deliberate strategy being utilised by the CL, despite the implicit motive
behind it, undoubtedly leads to her exposing herself to further interrogations
by the CT whose job is that of a gatekeeper of service provision at a stage
where swift help is most needed. As shown in line 09 to line 12, the
conversation poses two same wh-questions to the CL in order to re-confirm the
reason for the call due to the consistent ambiguity embedded in the CL’s
responses. And it should be recalled, following Tracy (1997), that the CT’s
communication must authentically express a sincere appeal for assistance,
rather than these series of flouting to the maxim of manner, thereby avoiding
misinterpretation and being categorised as deceptive or bothersome caller to
emergency. In fact, CT like the one in question must be aware that even though
they are calling emergency service where of course the CT already have an
institutionally pre-established hint on the reason for the call, they must
succinctly emphasise the critical nature of their plea, aiming to optimise
clarity and effectiveness while minimising the risk of miscommunication, delays
or the need for corrections, like the ones present in this call. Flouting the
maxim of quality by saying what is not the truth of the matter as regards the
ongoing emergency, the maxim of quantity by being less informative as a reply
to the question asked, and the maxim of relevance by giving an irrelevant
answer to a contextually forthright question, the CL is again telling the CT to
“→never mind.” This quickly has a strong potential of leaving the CT to
question the authenticity of the call and the seriousness of the CL herself
and, in addition, may subject her to “being treated as a hoax or nuisance
caller” (Stokoe and Richardson, 2023:3).
Interestingly,
this study sees the CT’s further interrogation in form of reassurance by being
emphatic in her question in line 15 as to whether or not the CL knows her
reason for putting up a call to the emergency centre. These series of
questioning, recall, is different from the interrogative question-answer phase
identified in the work of Zimmerman (1992) which normally follows the phase
where request for assistance is made (Heritage and Clayman, 2010) to elicit
right information about the occurrence. On the contrary, this interrogation is
being made to elicit the right information from the CL because of her violation
of the conversational maxims expected in that talk exchange. However, it is
surprising to see the CL answering “→Yes I do.” to the question in line 15
after those initial ambiguous, yet irrelevant responses. Such response in line
16, therefore, appears interesting to the CT, at least for the first time, as
revealed in her rising tone “↑Okay then”, following by a confirmatory
wh-question to ensure accurate information expected is received. More
surprisingly, the CL is again seen flouting two maxims at a time—the second
submaxim under quantity which posits “do not make your contribution more
informative than is required” (Grice, 1975:26) and the third and fourth
submaxims under manner which posit “be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)” and
“be orderly” (Grice, 1975:27). With her first response with “Okay (0.3)”, one
would assume the next thing to be the statement of her reason for calling. In
contrast, her primary motive to be indirect and disguise her request so she is
not overheard by the SP is projected with a further conversationally
dis-preferred answer (Holmes, 2013) “→↑Do I have to say it right now?” which
depicts that she is giving information over what is needed and at the same time
not being orderly in her turn while also flouting the maxim of brevity which
expects him to just mention the reason for the call. As someone curious to just
get one good point, the CT is cooperative, answers (emphatically) “Yes” to a
yes/no question, showing her adherence to maxim of manner, while unfortunately
the CL disappointingly again flouts the maxims of quantity (by not being
informative enough), of quality (by saying what she knows is not the truth),
and of relation (by giving what is not expected (irrelevant) in her turn).
At
this juncture, this study sees the display of the CT's capacity to comprehend
the CL's indirect and ambiguous messages while taking into account the
potential presence of the perpetrator during an emergency call involving an
ongoing domestic violence situation. The CT's communication approach
demonstrates selective inference-making, drawing upon thematic and contextual
cues to grasp the caller's predicament accurately. In line 21, the CT exhibits
keen awareness by employing an indirect inquiry through the use of a
disjunctive alternative: "Are you able to talk [or is there
someone…?" This strategic phrasing enables the CT to gather initial
information while acknowledging the possibility of a threatening situation
where the CL may not be able to speak freely. It should be noted that during
such situations, interlocutors often rely on selective inferences to understand
the underlying meaning of ambiguous statements. Continuing to demonstrate a
deep understanding of the communication expectation, the CT directly addresses
the caller's potential danger, asking, "→Are you in danger?" (Line
23) after the CL’s initial response with a simple “No” in line 22, indicating
that she is unable to talk freely. This question serves as an explicit
interpretive linguistic pointer that allows the CT to draw selective inferences
from the caller's prior statements and context, enhancing their understanding
of the distressing scenario (Balfour, 2022).
Furthermore,
the CT exhibits selective inference-making skills when posing a question about
potential kidnapping: "→Has someone (0.2) ↑kidnapped you?" (Line 25).
This inquisitive approach stems from the CT's contextual knowledge, which
aligns with Miall and Kuiken's (2001) argument that interlocutors bring their
background knowledge to bear in understanding discourses, enabling them to make
informed inferences even when explicit markers are absent. The CL's silence in
response to the question (Line 26) challenges the CT, necessitating further
inquiry to elicit pertinent information. Here, one can understand that during
such instances, interlocutors may employ indirect communication techniques to
ensure a safe and cooperative environment. The CT's reassurance to pretend to
talk to a friend is an exemplar of such an approach, safeguarding the caller's
security while eliciting essential details (Lines 30-32).
As
the conversation progresses, the CT continues to navigate the interaction
adeptly, seeking confirmation about the SP's knowledge of the 911 call (Line
28). This showcases the CT's attentiveness to the potential risks faced by the
caller, highlighting the significance of cooperative communication in crisis
situations (Miall & Nalbantian, 2008). When the SP intervenes, the CT's
empathetic inquiry about the CL's fear of speaking freely (Lines 37-38)
epitomises what can be argued to be best practices in crisis communication,
emphasising the importance of establishing trust and rapport in talk exchanges
(Miall & Nalbantian, 2008). Moreover, the CT's inquiry into past harm and
immediate danger (Lines 40-41) reflects an astute application of the maxims of relevance
and quantity, seeking crucial information to fully comprehend the severity of
the situation (Grice, 1975). This, eventually, leads the CT, having elicited
enough information about the ongoing crime, to provide the expected help
through her statement: “Okay:: >< Okay, I’m getting help your way, just
stay on the phone, ↑okay?”, showing that the communicative purpose of the call
has now been achieved.
6. Conclusion
The
analysis of the two emergency calls presented in this study has demonstrated shown
the complexities of indirect communication in domestic
violence-related emergency situations and the subtle responses
of call takers. The analysis reveals that the context
of domestic violence presents a very difficult situation for callers to conform
with the conventional standard of (direct) requests examined in previous
literature (e.g., Blais and Brisebois, 2021; Garcia, 2022), making them to
deviate from this convention and adopt an indirect pattern of request. With the
application of cooperative principle used to examine this segment of the calls,
the analysis revealed that the indirect requests were achieved through flouting
of maxims, and this directly addresses a segment of the research objective on
how callers in domestic violence emergencies formulate their requests
indirectly. Similarly, the application of inference to the other segment of the
calls revealed that the call takers were able to comprehend and respond to
these indirect requests through their utilisation of selective inferences,
thereby directly addressing the other segment of the research objective on how
call takers comprehend and respond to indirect requests in domestic violence
emergencies.
In
relation to earlier studies, this research contributes to the understanding of
indirect communication strategies employed by callers in distress, particularly
in the context of domestic violence. While prior literature (e.g., Stokoe and
Richardson, 2023) has examined indirect requests in emergency calls, this study
adds a new layer by demonstrating how callers strategically flout
conversational maxims and also transcends the scope of earlier ones by
demonstrating how call takers strategically leverage selective inference to
comprehend and respond to the indirect requests made by the callers. The study,
therefore, highlights the significance of understanding not only the
surface-level utterances but also the hidden meanings and intentions that can
be inferred from them. It also empowers the public by raising awareness about
indirect communication challenges in emergencies, aiding effective navigation
of call systems for prompt assistance. Moreover, emergency centres can leverage
insights here to refine training and protocols, optimise operations and
response efficiency, thereby amplifying the study's practical impact on public
safety and emergency services. Looking ahead, while
the study's strength lies in the analysis of two calls, revealing the findings
earlier discussed, the limited sample size restricts generalisability. Future
investigations should, therefore, encompass a diverse range of emergency calls
to capture a wider array of linguistic strategies and responses. Moreover, the
exclusive focus on domestic violence scenarios underscores the necessity to
consider varying emergency contexts, cultural backgrounds, and situational
factors.
CL Caller
CT Call taker
SP Suspect
(.) a micro pause, a notable pause but of no significant length.
(0.2) a timed pause.
[ overlapping speech occurs.
>< / <> the pace
of the speech has quickened / slowed down.
( ) words spoken here were too unclear to transcribe.
(( )) some contextual information where no symbol of representation
was available.
___ underlining denotes a raise in volume or emphasis.
↑ / ↓ a rise / drop in intonation → a particular sentence of interest to
the analyst.
CAPITALS something was said
loudly or even shouted.
= latched speech.
:: elongated speech, a stretched sound.
Bibliography
Antaki,
C., & Widdicombe, S. 1998. Identities in Talk. Sage Publications.
Balfour, J. (2022). ‘The role of reader’: Inferences and
schema theory. ENGLANG5112 Methods in Written Text Analysis. University of
Glasgow.
Blais, E., & Brisebois, D. (2021).
Improving police responses to suicide-related emergencies: New evidence on the
effectiveness of co-response police-mental health programs. Suicide
& life-threatening behavior, 51(6), 1095–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12792
Brown,
P., & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press.
Dobash, R.E., & Dobash, R.P. (1992). Women, Violence
and Social Change (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203450734
Garcia, A. C. (2022). Doing “Care Work” in
Emergency Service Calls. Western Journal of Communication, 87(4),
626–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2022.2138526
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in
Face-to-Face Behavior (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203788387
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole
& J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp.
41-58). Academic Press.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action:
Interactions, identities, and institutions. Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135
Holmes, J. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics
(4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833057
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols
with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies
from the First Generation (pp. 13-31). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Johnson, M. P. (2010). A typology of domestic violence:
Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence.
Northeastern University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211405653
Miall,
D. S., & Kuiken, D. (2001). Foregrounding, Defamiliarization, and Affect:
Response to Literary Stories. Poetics, 28(4), 259-272.
Miall, D. S., & Nalbantian, S. (2008). Toward a
Model of Experiential Response to Literature. Style, 42(2), 139-162.
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
(NISVS). (2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf (August 3, 2023).
Oram, S., Trevillion, K., Feder, G., &
Howard, L. M. (2013). Prevalence of experiences of domestic violence among
psychiatric patients: systematic review. The British journal of
psychiatry: the journal of mental science, 202, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.109934
Psathas, G. (1995). “Talk and Social Structure” and
“Studies of Work.” Human Studies, 18(2/3), 139–155. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20011079
Raymond,
G., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2016). Closing matters: Alignment and misalignment
in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction. Discourse
Studies, 18(6), 716-736. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616667141
Richardson,
K. (2000). Understanding Show, Don’t Tell: The Craft of Backstory. The Writer,
113(4), 18-24.
Shiro, M. (1994). Inferences in discourse comprehension.
In Coulthard, M. (Ed.). (1994). Advances in Written Text Analysis (1st ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203422656
Stokoe,
E., & Richardson, E. (2023). Asking for help without asking for help: How
victims request and police offer assistance in cases of domestic violence when
perpetrators are potentially co-present. Discourse Studies, 25(3),
383-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231157293
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue,
and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987
Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional Trouble in
Emergency Service Requests: A Problem of Frames. Research on Language
and Social Interaction, 30(4), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3004_3
UN
General Assembly. 1993. Declaration on the elimination of violence against
women. https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/48/104 (June 15, 2023).
Wakin, M. A., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1999).
Reduction and Specialization in Emergency and Directory Assistance Calls. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 409–437. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973rls3204_4
Whalen, M. R., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1990).
Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in Citizen Calls to the Police. Language
in Society, 19(4), 465–492. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168174
Zimmerman, D. H. (1992). The interactional organization
of calls for emergency assistance. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at
Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 418-469). Cambridge University
Press.
911.gov. (2023). Calling 911. Retrieved from https://www.911.gov/calling-911/#:~:text=In%20an%20emergency%2C%20dial%20911,police%2C%20fire%20department%20or%20ambulance (April 11, 2023).
0 Comments