Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



All effective communication is based on the participants trusting that they share their basic orientations to the world – that is, they have a common ground. In this paper, however, we examine situations in which such trust is lacking. Drawing on conversation–analytic methodology and on 30 hours of video data featuring persons with dementia and their caregivers in a Swedish-language daycare center in Finland, we consider some of the social consequences resulting from a lack of trust. Our analysis focused on three different interactional contexts, highlighting the relevance of different facets of the participants’ common ground. These facets are anchored in the deontic, epistemic, and emotional orders, respectively. We show that, with regard to each order, a lack of trust in the existence of common ground has drastic consequences, leading to (1) problems related to getting one’s will acknowledged, (2) a scarcity of conversational partners, and (3) a lack of resources to maintain affection.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Antaki, Charles, and Mick Finlay
    2013 “Trust in What Others Mean: Breakdowns in Interaction Between Adults with Intellectual Disabilities and Support Staff.” InDiscourses of Trust, ed. byChristopher Candlin, and Jonathan Chricton, 21–35. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑29556‑9_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-29556-9_2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Antaki, Charles, W. L. Mick Finlay, Chris Walton, and Louise Pate
    2008 “Offering Choices to People with Intellectual Disabilities: An Interactional Study.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research52 (12): 1165–1175. 10.1111/j.1365‑2788.2008.01101.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01101.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Arminen, Ilkka
    2005Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayles, Kathryn, and Cheryl K. Tomoeda
    (eds.) 2007Cognitive-Communication Disorders of Dementia. San Diego, Calif.: Plural Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beeke, Suzanne, Ray Wilkinson, and Jane Maxim
    2001 “Context as a Resource for The Constructions of Turns at Talk in Aphasia.” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics15(1–2): 79–83. 10.3109/02699200109167635
    https://doi.org/10.3109/02699200109167635 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berrios, German. E.
    1998 “Confabulations: A Conceptual History.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences7: 225–241.   10.1076/jhin.
    https://doi.org/10.1076/jhin. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bortolotti, Lisa, and Rochelle E. Cox
    2009 “Faultless” Ignorance: Strengths and Limitations of Epistemic Definitions of Confabulation.” Consciousness and Cognition18: 952–965.   10.1016/j.concog.2009.08.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.08.011 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooley, Charles
    1967 [1909] “The Social Self.” InTheories of Society. Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory Vol. 2, ed. byTalcott Parsons, Edward Shils, and Kaspar D. Naegele, 822–828. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Drew, Paul
    1997 “Po-faced Receipts of Teases.” Linguistics25 (1): 219–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
    (eds) (1992) Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Durkheim, Emile
    1982 [1895]The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑16939‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16939-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Egbert, Maria and Arnulf Deppermann
    2012Hearing Aids Communication. Integrating Social Interaction, Audiology and User Centered Design to Improve Communication with Hearing Loss and Hearing Technologies. Mannheim: Verlag fur Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ekberg, Katie, Louise Hickson, and Caitlin Grenness
    2017 “Conversation Breakdown in the Audiology Clinic: The Importance of Mutual Gaze”. International Journal of Communication and Language Disorders52 (3) 346–355. 10.1111/1460‑6984.12277
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12277 [Google Scholar]
  15. Garfinkel, Harold
    1963 “A Conception of and Experiments with ‘Trust’ as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions”. InMotivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants, ed. byO. J. Harvey, 187–238. New York: Ronald Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2006Seeing Sociologically. Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2008Toward a Sociological Theory of Information (edited and introduced byAnne Warfield Rawls). Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Charles
    1995 “Co-constructing Meaning in Conversation with an Aphasic Man.” Research on Language and Social Interaction28 (3): 233–260. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_4 [Google Scholar]
  20. (ed.) 2003Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2013 The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 8–23. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InStudies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 183–98. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Guendouzi, Jacqueline, and Nicole Müller
    (eds.) 2006Approaches to Discourse in Dementia. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers. 10.4324/9781410617118
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617118 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, John
    1997 Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data. InQualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, ed. byDavid Silverman, 161–182. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  26. James, William
    1952 [1891]The Principles of Psychology (Great Books of the Western World 53). Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jansson, Gunilla and Charlotta Plejert
    2014 “Taking a Shower: Managing a Potentially Imposing Activity in Dementia Care.” Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders5(1): 27–62. 10.1558/jircd.v5i1.27
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v5i1.27 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jones, Danielle
    2013 “A Family Living with Alzheimer’s Disease: The Communicative Challenges.” Dementia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice14 (5): 555–573. 10.1177/1471301213502213
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301213502213 [Google Scholar]
  29. Keltner, Dacher, Lisa Capps, Ann M. Kring, Randall. C. Young, and Erin A. Heerey
    2001 “Just Teasing: A Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Review.” Psychological Bulletin127: 229–48. 10.1037/0033‑2909.127.2.229
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.229 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kurhila, Salla
    2006Second Language Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.145
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.145 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kurhila, Salla, and Minna Laakso
    2016 ”Puhumisen Haasteet.” [Challenges of Speech]. InKeskustelunanalyysi: Kuinka tutkia sosiaalista toimintaa ja vuorovaikutusta [Conversation Analysis: How to Study Social Action and Interaction], ed. byMelisa Stevanovic, and Camilla Lindholm, 224–242. Tampere: Vastapaino.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Laakso, Minna
    1997Self-initiated Repair by Fluent Aphasic Speakers in Conversation. Studia Fennica Linguistica8. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 “Aphasia as an Example of How a Communication Disorder Affects Interaction.” InHearing Aids Communication, ed. byMaria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann, 138–145. Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lind, Christopher, Louise Hickson, and Norman P. Erber
    2004 “Conversation Repair and Acquired Hearing Impairment: A Preliminary Quantitative Clinical Study”. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology26 (1), 40–52. 10.1375/audi.
    https://doi.org/10.1375/audi. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lindholm, Camilla
    2008 “Laughter, Communication Problems and Dementia.” Communication & Medicine5 (1): 3–14. 10.1558/cam.v5i1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v5i1.3 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2015 “Parallel Realities: The Interactional Management of Confabulation in Dementia Care Encounters.” Research on Language and Social Interaction48 (2): 176–199. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1025502
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025502 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindholm, Camilla, and Alison Wray
    2011 Proverbs and Formulaic Sequences in the Language of Elderly People with Dementia. Dementia10 (4): 604–624. 10.1177/1471301211413338
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301211413338 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lindholm, Camilla
    2016 “Luottamuksen haasteet.” [Challenges of trust.] InKeskustelunanalyysi. Kuinka tutkia sosiaalista toimintaa ja vuorovaikutusta [Conversation analysis. How to Study Social Action and Interaction], ed. byMelisa Stevanovic and Camilla Lindholm. Tampere: Vastapaino.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Linell, Per
    1998Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Matikka, Leena M., and Hannu T. Vesala
    1997 ”Acquiescence in Quality-of-life Interviews with Adults Who Have Mental Retardation.” Mental Retardation35: 75–82. 10.1352/0047‑6765(1997)035<0075:AIQIWA>2.0.CO;2
    https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(1997)035<0075:AIQIWA>2.0.CO;2 [Google Scholar]
  41. Maynard, Douglas W.
    2005 “Social Actions, Gestalt Coherence, and Designations of Disability: Lessons From and About Autism.” Social Problems52: 499–524. 10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.499
    https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.499 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mead, George. H.
    1950 [1934]Mind, Self, and Society from a Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mikesell, Lisa
    2009 “Conversational Practices of a Frontotemporal Dementia Patient and His Interlocutors.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (2): 135–162. 10.1080/08351810902864552
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864552 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2016 “The Use of Directives to Repair Embodied (Mis)Understandings in Interactions with Individuals Diagnosed with Frontotemporal Dementia.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49(3): 201–219. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1196550
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1196550 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
    (eds.) 1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pajo, Kati
    2013 “The Occurrence of ‘What’, ‘Where’, ‘What House’ and Other Repair Initiations in the Home Environment of Hearing-Impaired Individuals”. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders48 (1): 66–77. 10.1111/j.1460‑6984.2012.00187.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00187.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Plejert, Charlotta, Camilla Lindholm, and Robert W. Schrauf
    (eds.) 2017Multilingual Interaction and Dementia. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rasmussen, Gitte, Elisabeth Muth Andersen, and Elisabeth Dalby Kristiansen
    (eds.) 2019 Professional Interactional Practices in Dementia Care. Special issue ofLogopedics, Phoniatrics, Vocology, 1/2019 10.1080/14015439.2019.1554850
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2019.1554850 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rasmussen, Gitte, Elisabeth Dalby Kristiansen, and Elisabeth Muth Andersen
    2019 “Working out availability, unavailability and awayness in social face-to-face encounters: The case of dementia”. Discourse Studies21(3): 258–279. 10.1177/1461445619829238
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619829238 [Google Scholar]
  50. Reimer, Holly D., and Heather H. Keller
    2009 “Mealtimes in Nursing Homes: Striving for Person-centered Care.” Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly28 (4): 327–347. 10.1080/01639360903417066
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01639360903417066 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schermer, Maartje
    2007 “Nothing but the Truth? On Truth and Deception in Dementia Care”. Bioethics21 (1), 13–22. 10.1111/j.1467‑8519.2007.00519.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00519.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Schnider, Armin
    2008The Confabulating Mind: How the Brain Creates Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/med/9780199206759.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199206759.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Scott-Phillips, Thom
    2015Speaking our minds: Why Human Communication is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make it Special. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑31273‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-31273-0 [Google Scholar]
  54. Shakespeare, Pamela
    1998Aspects of Confused Speech: A Study of Verbal Interaction between Confused and Normal Speakers. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sterponi, Laura, and Alessandro Fasulo
    2010 “How to Go on: Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in the Communication of a Child with Autism.” Ethos38 (1): 116–142. 10.1111/j.1548‑1352.2009.01084.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01084.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2014 “Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface Between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations.” Language in Society43 (2): 185–207.   10.1017/S0047404514000037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stevanovic, Melisa, Pentti Henttonen, Sonja Koski, Mikko Kahri, Liisa Voutilainen, Emmi Koskinen, Taina Nieminen-von Wendt, Pekka Tani, Elina Sihvola, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2017 “On the Asperger Experience of Interaction: Interpersonal Dynamics in Dyadic Conversations.” Journal of Autism4 (2).   10.7243/2054‑992X‑4‑2
    https://doi.org/10.7243/2054-992X-4-2 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stevanovic, Melisa, Taina Valkeapää, Elina Weiste, and Camilla Lindholm
    2018 ”Osallisuus ja yhteinen päätöksenteko mielenterveyskuntoutuksessa.” [Participation and Joint Decision Making in Mental Health Rehabilitation]. Psykologia05–06/2018: 402–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Stribling, Penny, John Rae, and Paul Dickerson
    2009 “Using Conversation Analysis to Explore the Recurrence of a Topic in the Talk of a Boy with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. “Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics23 (8): 555–582. 10.1080/02699200802491165
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200802491165 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wilkinson, Ray
    2019 “Atypical Interaction: Conversation Analysis and Communication Impairments.” Research on Language and Social Interaction52(3): 281–299. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1631045
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1631045 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): atypical interaction; conversation analysis; trust
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