1887
image of Claims of not-knowing as patients’ responses in psychodynamic psychotherapy
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

A fundamental aspect of psychotherapeutic conversation is the joint work of therapist and patient on articulating something previously hidden or repressed. If the patient refuses to comply with the therapist’s questions or suggestions, such cooperative work is limited. A possible non-cooperative response by the patient is the claim of not-knowing. This study examines conversation analytically, using video recordings of German-speaking outpatient psychodynamic psychotherapies, how patients express two different claims of not-knowing (German (‘I don’t know’) and (‘no idea’)) as a response to a question. The analysis results in four different functions: , , , and , which can only be determined by means of the context and not the structure of or . Some of the outlined functions might be context-specific for (psychodynamic) psychotherapy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24022.fen
2024-12-16
2025-01-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrahams, Deborah, and Poul Rohleder
    2021A Clinical Guide to Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351138581
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351138581 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, Karin
    2009 “‘So er I Just Sort I Dunno It’s Just Because…’: A Corpus Study of I Don’t Know and Dunno in Learners’ Spoken English.” Language and Computers (): –. 10.1163/9789042029101_009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029101_009 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beach, Wayne A., and Terri R. Metzger
    1997 “Claiming Insufficient Knowledge.” Human Communication Research (): –. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1997.tb00410.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00410.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergmann, Pia
    2017 “Gebrauchsprofile von weiß nich und keine Ahnung im Gespräch: Ein Blick auf nicht-responsive Vorkommen [Usage profiles of don’t know and no idea in conversation: A look at non-responsive occurrences].” InDiskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen, ed. byHardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, –. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2022 “Sprachliche Variation im Gegenwartsdeutschen: Lautliche Realisierungsvarianten im Gespräch [Linguistic variation in contemporary German: Phonetic realization variants in conversation].” InForschen in der Linguistik: Eine Methodeneinführung für das Germanistik-Studium, ed. byMichael Beißwenger, Lothar Lemnitzer, and Carolin Müller-Spitzer, –. Paderborn: Brill/Fink. 10.36198/9783838557113
    https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838557113 [Google Scholar]
  6. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
    2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2009a “Verstehensdefizit als Antwortverpflichtung: Interaktionale Eigenschaften der Modalpartikel denn in Fragen [Comprehension deficit as an obligation to answer: Interactional properties of the modal particle denn in questions].” InGrammatik im Gespräch: Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung, ed. bySusanne Günthner, and Jörg Bücker, –. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213638.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213638.21 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2009b “Therapeutisches Fragen als Hebammenkunst [Therapeutic questioning as the art of midwifery].” Psychoanalyse, Texte zur Sozialforschung (): –. https://ids-pub.bsz-bw.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/2984
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eichinger, Ludwig M.
    2018 “Keine Ahnung: Über etcetera-Formeln und Verwandtes [No idea: About etcetera formulas and related topics].” InDiskursive Verfestigungen: Schnittstellen zwischen Morphosyntax, Phraseologie und Pragmatik im Deutschen und im Sprachvergleich, ed. byLaurent Gautier, Pierre-Yves Modicom, and Hélène Vinckel-Roisin, –. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110585292‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110585292-016 [Google Scholar]
  10. Enfield, Nick J., Tanya Stivers, and Stephen C. Levinson
    2010 “Question-Response Sequences in Conversation across Ten Languages: An Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Greenson, Ralph R.
    2019The Technique and Practice of Psychoanalysis: Volume 1. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429483417
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429483417 [Google Scholar]
  12. Guxholli, Aurora, Liisa Voutilainen, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2022 “What About You? Responding to a Face-Threatening Question in Psychotherapy.” InRelationships in Organized Helping: Analyzing Interaction in Psychotherapy, Medical Encounters, Coaching and in Social Media, ed. byClaudio Scarvaglieri, Eva-Maria Graf, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.331.04gux
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.331.04gux [Google Scholar]
  13. Heller, Vivien
    2021 “Embodied Displays of ‘Doing Thinking’: Epistemic and Interactive Functions of Thinking Displays in Children’s Argumentative Activities.” Frontiers in Psychology: 636671. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636671
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636671 [Google Scholar]
  14. Helmer, Henrike, and Arnulf Deppermann
    2017 “Ich weiß nicht zwischen Assertion und Diskursmarker: Verwendungsspektren eines Ausdrucks und Überlegungen zu Kriterien für Diskursmarker [I don’t know between assertion and discourse marker: Ranges of use of an expression and considerations on criteria for discourse markers].” InDiskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen, ed. byHardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, –. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Helmer, Henrike, Arnulf Deppermann, and Silke Reineke
    2017 “Antwort, epistemischer Marker oder Widerspruch? Sequenzielle, semantische und pragmatische Eigenschaften von ich weiß nicht [Answer, epistemic marker or contradiction? Sequential, semantic and pragmatic properties of I don’t know].” InVerben im interaktiven Kontext: Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch, ed. byArnulf Deppermann, Nadine Proske, and Arne Zeschel, –. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Helmer, Henrike, Silke Reineke, and Arnulf Deppermann
    2016 “A Range of Uses of Negative Epistemic Constructions in German: Ich weiß nicht as a Resource for Dispreferred Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John
    2012a “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2012b “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hutchby, Ian
    2002 “Resisting the Incitement to Talk in Child Counselling: Aspects of the Utterance ‘I Don’t Know’.” Discourse Studies (): –. 10.1177/14614456020040020201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020201 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jager, Margot, Mike Huiskes, Janneke Metselaar, Erik J. Knorth, Andrea F. de Winter, and Sijmen A. Reijneveld
    2016 “Therapists’ Continuation Following I Don’t Know-Responses of Adolescents in Psychotherapy.” Patient Education and Counseling: –. 10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.016 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jefferson, Gail
    1985 “On the Organization of Laughter in Talk About Troubles.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.021 [Google Scholar]
  22. Keevallik, Leelo
    2011 “The Terms of Not Knowing.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009 [Google Scholar]
  23. Keiten, Sophie
    2018 “Formen und Funktionen von ‘keine Ahnung’ im Gespräch [Forms and functions of ‘no idea’ in conversation].” Studentische Arbeitspapierreihe Sprache und Interaktion (SpIn). Online: https://arbeitspapiere.sprache-interaktion.de/stud/2018/05/
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kendon, Adam
    1967 “Some Functions of Gaze-Direction in Social Interaction.” Acta Psychologica: –. 10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  25. König, Katharina
    2014Spracheinstellungen und Identitätskonstruktion: Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung sprachbiographischer Interviews mit Deutsch-Vietnamesen [Language attitudes and identity construction: A conversation-analytical study of language biographical interviews with German-Vietnamese people]. München: De Gruyter. 10.1524/9783110352245
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783110352245 [Google Scholar]
  26. König, Katharina, and Benjamin Stoltenburg
    2013 “‘Oder so’, ‘und so’, ‘und so was’, ‘und so weiter’ etc.: Eine interaktionale Perspektive auf Etcetera-Formeln [‘Or so’, ‘and so’, ‘and so forth’, ‘and so on’ etc.: An interactional perspective on etcetera formulas].” GIDI-Arbeitspapierreihe: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindström, Jan, Yael Maschler, and Simona Pekarek Doehler
    2016 “A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Grammar and Negative Epistemics in Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mack, Christina, Christoph Nikendei, Johannes C. Ehrenthal, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy
    2016 “‘[…] hab ich glaub ich die richtigen Fragen gestellt’: Therapeutische Fragehandlungen in psychodiagnostischen Gesprächen [‘(…) I think I asked the right questions’: Therapeutic questioning in psychodiagnostic conversations].” InOPAL. Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik, ed. byHardarik Blühdorn, Mechthild Elstermann, and Doris Stolberg. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. 10.14618/opal_03‑2016
    https://doi.org/10.14618/opal_03-2016 [Google Scholar]
  29. MacMartin, Clare
    2008 “Resisting Optimistic Questions in Narrative and Solution-Focused Therapies.” InConversation Analysis and Psychotherapy, ed. byAnssi Peräkylä, Charles Antaki, Sanna Vehviläinen, and Ivan Leudar, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511490002.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490002.006 [Google Scholar]
  30. Miecznikowski, Johanna, and Jérôme Jacquin
    2023 “Editorial: Epistemic and Evidential Markers in Contexts of Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.05.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.05.015 [Google Scholar]
  31. Möhrs, Christine
    2020 “‘Hast du eine Ahnung,…?’ Eine lexikografische und korpusbasierte Untersuchung am Beispiel des Lexems Ahnung [‘Do you have any idea…?’ A lexicographical and corpus-based study using the example of the lexeme Ahnung].” InSchnittstellen der Germanistik: Festschrift für Hans Bickes, ed. byJanina Behr, François Conrad, Stephan Kornmesser, and Kristin Tschernig, –. Berlin: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b16845
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b16845 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mondada, Lorenza
    2018 “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction. Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  33. Muntigl, Peter
    2013 “Resistance in Couples Counselling: Sequences of Talk that Disrupt Progressivity and Promote Disaffiliation.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Muntigl, Peter, and Loreley Hadic Zabala
    2008 “Expandable Responses: How Clients Get Prompted to Say More During Psychotherapy.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351810802028738
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028738 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2022 “Multimodal Action Formats for Managing Preference: Chais pas ‘Dunno’ Plus Gaze Conduct in Dispreferred Responses to Questions.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pichler, Heike, and Ashley Hesson
    2016 “Discourse-Pragmatic Variation across Situations, Varieties, Ages: I Don’t Know in Sociolinguistic and Medical Interviews.” Language and Communication: –. 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Reineke, Silke
    2018 “Interaktionale Analysen kognitiver Phänomene: Wissenszuschreibungen mit der Modalpartikel ja [Interactional analyses of cognitive phenomena: Knowledge attributions with the modal particle ja].” InSprachliches Handeln und Kognition: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Analysen, ed. byKonstanze Marx, and Simon Meier, –. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110575484‑189
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110575484-189 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schauenburg, Henning, Ulrike Dinger, Achim Kriebel, Julia Huber, Hans-Christoph Friedrich, Wolfgang Herzog, and Christoph Nikendei
    2019 “Zur Entwicklung tiefenpsychologischer Ausbildungsinstitute: Das Beispiel des Heidelberger Instituts für Psychotherapie [The development of depth psychological training institutes: The example of the Heidelberg Institute for Psychotherapy].” Psychotherapeut: –. 10.1007/s00278‑018‑0320‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00278-018-0320-2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten,
    2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2) [Conversation analytic transcription system 2 (GAT 2)].” Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion: –. https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2472604
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas
    2020 “Fragen und ihre Funktionen in psychotherapeutischen Gesprächen [Questions and their functions in psychotherapeutic conversations].” InInstitutionelle und organisationale Kommunikation: Theorie, Methodologie, Empirie und Kritik, ed. byHelmut Gruber, Jürgen Spitzmüller, and Rudolf de Cillia, –. Göttingen: V&R Unipress. 10.14220/9783737011259.39
    https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737011259.39 [Google Scholar]
  41. Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas, Eva-Maria Graf, Johannes C. Ehrenthal, and Christoph Nikendei
    2020 “Requesting Examples in Psychodiagnostic Interviews.” Communication and Medicine (): –. 10.1558/cam.34112
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.34112 [Google Scholar]
  42. Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas, Susanne Kabatnik, and Christoph Nikendei
    2018 “Wissens­konstitution durch Lösungsorientierte Fragen in psychodiagnostischen Gesprächen [Knowledge constitution through solution-oriented questions in psychodiagnostic interviews].” Rhetorik (): –. 10.1515/rhet.2018.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/rhet.2018.007 [Google Scholar]
  43. Steensig, Jakob, and Paul Drew
    2008 “Introduction: Questioning and Affiliation/​Disaffiliation in Interaction.” Discourse Studies (): –. 10.1177/1461445607085581
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085581 [Google Scholar]
  44. Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society (): –. 10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stremlau, Philipp
    2017 “Communicative Practices of Resistance in Psychotherapy Interactions: Patients’ Resistance through Reactive Ich-weiß-nicht-Constructions.” Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Waterloo. Online: https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/12279/Stremlau_Philipp.pdf?sequence=3
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stukenbrock, Anja, Arnulf Deppermann, and Carl E. Scheidt
    2021 “The Art of Tentativity: Delivering Interpretations in Psychodynamic Psychotherapy.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.028
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.028 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tsui, Amy B. M.
    1991 “The Pragmatic Functions of I Don’t Know.” Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse (): –. 10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607 [Google Scholar]
  48. Weatherall, Ann
    2011 “I Don’t Know as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction (): –. 10.1080/08351813.2011.619310
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619310 [Google Scholar]
  49. Weiste, Elina, Liisa Voutilainen, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2016 “Epistemic Asymmetries in Psychotherapy Interaction: Therapists’ Practices for Displaying Access to Clients’ Inner Experiences.” Sociology of Health and Illness (): –. 10.1111/1467‑9566.12384
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12384 [Google Scholar]
  50. Worsøe, Line B., and Thomas W. Jensen
    2020 “Questioning Questions in Psychotherapeutic Practice: The Dialogical Dynamics of Change in Therapy through Clients Questioning Therapists.” Scandinavian Studies in Language (): –. 10.7146/sss.v11i1.121371
    https://doi.org/10.7146/sss.v11i1.121371 [Google Scholar]
  51. Yao, Xueli, and Wen Ma
    2017 “Question Resistance and Its Management in Chinese Psychotherapy.” Discourse Studies (): –. 10.1177/1461445617695700
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617695700 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24022.fen
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