1887

Organizing the “we” in interaction

image of Organizing the “we” in interaction

In this paper, I analyse a piece of interaction during which the participants seem to have trouble arriving at an agreement in a series of affective evaluations. The sequence does not contain other initiations of repair, third position repairs or fourth position repairs, places in which problems of intersubjectivity become visible in the conversation analytic tradition. I show that these problems are due to the fact that the participants do not share an understanding of the nature of the conversation, their respective roles in it, or their mutual relationship. In the end, I discuss my analysis in light of the Schuetzian (1953) understanding of intersubjectivity and suggest that initiating and accomplishing repair are not the only means for restoring intersubjectivity in interaction.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Oslo

References

  1. Etelämäki, Marja
    2009 “The Finnish Demonstrative Pronouns in Light of Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (1): 25–46. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Etelämäki, Marja , Markku Haakana , and Mia Halonen
    2013 “Keskustelukumppanin kehuminen suomalaisessa keskustelussa [Complimenting in everyday Finnish conversation].” Virittäjä117 (4): 460–493.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Goodwin, Charles , and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    1987 “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” IPrA Papers in Pragmatics1 (1): 1–55. 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
  4. Hakulinen, Auli , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2009 “Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Responses to Assessments.” InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana , Minna Laakso , and Jan Lindström , 124–151. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. 10.21435/sflin.14
    https://doi.org/10.21435/sflin.14 [Google Scholar]
  5. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Keevallik, Leelo
    2016 “Abandoning Dead Ends: The Estonian Junction Marker maitea ‘I Don’t Know’.” Journal of Pragmatics106: 115–128. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Koivisto, Aino
    2017 “Uutta tietoa vai oivallus? Eräiden dialogipartikkeleiden tehtävistä [New information or sudden realisation? On the functions of some response particles in Finnish].” Virittäjä121 (4): 473–499. 10.23982/vir.59297
    https://doi.org/10.23982/vir.59297 [Google Scholar]
  8. Laitinen, Lea
    2006 “Zero Person in Finnish: A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” InGrammar from the Human Perspective. Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo , and Lyle Campbell , 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.277.15lai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.277.15lai [Google Scholar]
  9. Lawler, Edward J. , Shane R. Thye , and Jeongkoo Yoon
    2014 “The Emergence of Collective Emotions in Social Exchange.” InCollective Emotions, ed. by Christian von Scheve , and Mikko Salmela , 189–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659180.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659180.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Pomerantz, Anita
    1980 “Telling My Side: “Limited Access as a ‘Fishing Device’.” Sociological Inquiry50: 186–198. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  11. 1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization for Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  13. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  14. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica8 (4): 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  15. Schuetz, Alfred
    1953 “Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research14 (1): 1–38. 10.2307/2104013.
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2104013 [Google Scholar]
  16. Sidnell, Jack
    2014 “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited”. InCambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by N. J. Enfield , Paul Kockelman , and Jack Sidnell , 364–399. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018 [Google Scholar]
  17. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  18. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena , and Heidi Vepsäläinen
    2016 “The Finnish Particle no .” InNU and NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer , and Yael Maschler , 243–280. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110348989‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348989-008 [Google Scholar]
  19. VISK = Auli Hakulinen , Maria Vilkuna , Riitta Korhonen , Vesa Koivisto , Tarja Riitta Heinonen , and Arja Alho 2004Iso suomen kielioppi [Finnish descriptive grammar]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Accessed 26 June 2019. scripta.kotus.fi/visk. ISBN: 978-952-5446-35-7.
    [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Etelämäki, Marja
    2009 “The Finnish Demonstrative Pronouns in Light of Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (1): 25–46. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Etelämäki, Marja , Markku Haakana , and Mia Halonen
    2013 “Keskustelukumppanin kehuminen suomalaisessa keskustelussa [Complimenting in everyday Finnish conversation].” Virittäjä117 (4): 460–493.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Goodwin, Charles , and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    1987 “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” IPrA Papers in Pragmatics1 (1): 1–55. 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
  4. Hakulinen, Auli , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2009 “Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Responses to Assessments.” InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana , Minna Laakso , and Jan Lindström , 124–151. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. 10.21435/sflin.14
    https://doi.org/10.21435/sflin.14 [Google Scholar]
  5. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Keevallik, Leelo
    2016 “Abandoning Dead Ends: The Estonian Junction Marker maitea ‘I Don’t Know’.” Journal of Pragmatics106: 115–128. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Koivisto, Aino
    2017 “Uutta tietoa vai oivallus? Eräiden dialogipartikkeleiden tehtävistä [New information or sudden realisation? On the functions of some response particles in Finnish].” Virittäjä121 (4): 473–499. 10.23982/vir.59297
    https://doi.org/10.23982/vir.59297 [Google Scholar]
  8. Laitinen, Lea
    2006 “Zero Person in Finnish: A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” InGrammar from the Human Perspective. Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo , and Lyle Campbell , 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.277.15lai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.277.15lai [Google Scholar]
  9. Lawler, Edward J. , Shane R. Thye , and Jeongkoo Yoon
    2014 “The Emergence of Collective Emotions in Social Exchange.” InCollective Emotions, ed. by Christian von Scheve , and Mikko Salmela , 189–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659180.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659180.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Pomerantz, Anita
    1980 “Telling My Side: “Limited Access as a ‘Fishing Device’.” Sociological Inquiry50: 186–198. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  11. 1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization for Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  13. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  14. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica8 (4): 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  15. Schuetz, Alfred
    1953 “Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research14 (1): 1–38. 10.2307/2104013.
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2104013 [Google Scholar]
  16. Sidnell, Jack
    2014 “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited”. InCambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by N. J. Enfield , Paul Kockelman , and Jack Sidnell , 364–399. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018 [Google Scholar]
  17. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  18. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena , and Heidi Vepsäläinen
    2016 “The Finnish Particle no .” InNU and NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer , and Yael Maschler , 243–280. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110348989‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348989-008 [Google Scholar]
  19. VISK = Auli Hakulinen , Maria Vilkuna , Riitta Korhonen , Vesa Koivisto , Tarja Riitta Heinonen , and Arja Alho 2004Iso suomen kielioppi [Finnish descriptive grammar]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Accessed 26 June 2019. scripta.kotus.fi/visk. ISBN: 978-952-5446-35-7.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027259035-pbns.326.02ete
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027259035
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error