1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Adopting the methods of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, this article aims to add to our knowledge of the dynamics and resistance in professional-client encounters. It does this by examining the argumentative function of second-hand assessments in the setting of vocational rehabilitation. In the situated negotiation of appropriate work-targeted initiatives (education, job training, etc.), the practice of reporting second-hand assessments functions either as ‘opposing’ the professional’s investigations, or, when used in initiating turns, as ‘promoting’ the client’s case. Regarding the first, second-hand assessments provide opportunities to oppose and redirect the institutional agenda. That is, the issue introduced by the professional is fended off more or less openly through second-hand accounts, which provide a presumptive better grasp on the matter at hand.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.7.3.02sol
2016-09-12
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antaki, Charles
    1994Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organization of Accounts. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arminen, IIkka
    2005Institutional Interaction. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergmann, Jörg R
    1993Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1998 “Introduction: Morality in Discourse.”Research on Language and Social Interaction31(3&4): 279–294. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3103&4_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3103&4_1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Buttny, Richard
    1993Social Accountability in Communication. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2004Talking Problems: Studies of Discursive Construction. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, Steven E
    1992 “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News-Interview Discourse.”InTalk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage , 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clift, Rebecca
    2007 “Non-Narrative Reported Speech in Interaction.”InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift , 120–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clift, Rebecca , and Elizabeth Holt
    2007 “Introduction.”InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift , 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2007 “Assessing and Accounting.”InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, Paul
    1992 “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.”InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage , 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1998 “Complaints About Transgressions and Misconduct.”Research on Language and Social Interaction31: 295–325. doi: 10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595 [Google Scholar]
  13. Drew, Paul , and John Heritage
    1992Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Duell, Nicola , Shruti Singh , and Peter Tergeist
    2009 “Activation Policies in Norway.”In OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 78.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Edwards, Derek
    2005 “Managing Subjectivity in Talk.”InDiscursive Research in Practice, ed. by Alexa Hepburn and Sally Wiggins , 31–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Edwards, Derek , and Jonathan Potter
    1992Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eskelinen, Leena , Søren Petter Olesen , and Dorte Caswell
    2010 “Client Contribution in Negotiations on Employability – Categories Revised?”International Journal for Social Welfare19: 330–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2397.2009.00717.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00717.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Charles
    2006 “Retrospective and Prospective Orientation in the Construction of Argumentative Moves.”Text & Talk26(4/5): 443–461. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.018 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, Marjorie H. , and Charles Goodwin
    1987 “Children’s Arguing.”InLanguage, Gender and Sex in Comparative Perspective, ed. by Christine S. Philips , Susan Steele , and Christine Tanz , 200–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621918.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621918.011 [Google Scholar]
  21. Günthner, Susanne
    1998 “Polyphony and the “Layering of Voices” in Reported Dialogues.”InLiSt3: 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2000 “Constructing Scenic Moments: Grammatical and Rhetoric-Stylistic Devices for Staging Past Events in Everyday Narratives.”InLiSt22: 3–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hakulinen, Auli
    1993 “Inandningen som kulturelt interaktionsfenomen [Inbreath as a Cultural Phenonemon in Interaction].” InSpråk och Social Kontext, ed. by A.-M. Ivars , H. Lehti-Eklund , P. Lilius , A.-M. Londen , and H. Solstrand-Pipping . Helsingfors: Department of Swedish, Helsingfors University.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Heritage, John , and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 “Accounting for the Visit: Giving Reasons for Seeking Medical Care.”InCommunication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. by John Heritage and Douglas W. Maynard , 48–85. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607172
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607172 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heritage, John , and Rod Watson
    1979 “Formulations as Conversational Objects.”InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas , 123–162. New York: 
Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Holt, Elizabeth
    1996 “Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.”Research on Language and Social Interaction29: 219–245. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1998 “Reported Speech and Recipients’ Reactions in Interaction.”In Pragmatics in 1998. Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference , ed. by Jef Verschueren . Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Holt, Elizabeth , and Rebecca Clift
    2007Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk About a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned Matters.”InStructures of Social Action, ed. by J. Heritage and J.M. 
Atkinson , 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kirk, Jerome , and Marc L. Miller
    1986Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412985659
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985659 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindström, Anna
    2005 “Language as Social Action.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting , 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.11lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.11lin [Google Scholar]
  33. Maynard, Douglas W
    2010 “Demur, Defer and Deter: Concrete, Actual Practices for Negotiation in Interaction.”Negotiation Journal26(2): 125–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1571‑9979.2010.00261.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00261.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Mazeland, Harrie , and Mike Huiskes
    2001 “Dutch ‘but’ as a Sequential Conjunction: Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.08maz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.08maz [Google Scholar]
  35. Mäkitalo, Åsa
    2002Categorizing Work: Knowing, Arguing, and Social Dilemmas in Vocational Guidance. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Vol. 177.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Peräkylä, Anssi
    2004 “Reliability and Validity in Research Based on Naturally Occurring Interaction.” InQualitative Research, ed. by D. Silverman , 283–304. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Peräkylä, Anssi , Johanna Ruusuvuori , and Pirjo Lindfors
    2007 “What Is Patient Participation?”InPatient Participation in Health Care Consultations, ed. by Sarah Collins , Nicky Britten , Johanna Ruusuvuori , and Andrew Thompson , 121–142. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984a “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assesssments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.”InStructures of Social Action, ed. by J. Heritage , and J.M. Atkinson , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 1984b “Giving a Source or Basis: The Practice in Conversation of Telling ‘How I Know’.”Journal of Pragmatics8: 607–625. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90002‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90002-X [Google Scholar]
  40. 1989 “Giving Evidence as a Conversational Practice.”InThe Interactional Order, ed. by David T. Helm , W. Timothy Anderson , Albert Jay Meehan , and Anne 
Warfield Rawls , 103–115. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Potter, Jonathan
    1996Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. 
London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446222119
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222119 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey
    1987 “On the Preference for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequence in Conversation.”InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button and John R.E. Lee , 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 1992Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. Ed. by Gail Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sifianou, Maria
    2012 “Disagreements, Face and Politeness.”Journal of Pragmatics44(12): 1554–1564. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  46. Solberg, Janne
    2011a “Accepted and Resisted: The Client’s Responsibility for Making Proposals in Activation Encounters.”Text & Talk – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies31(6): 733–752. doi: 10.1515/text.2011.035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.035 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2011b “Activation Encounters: Dilemmas of Accountability in Constructing Clients as ‘Knowledgeable’.”Qualitative Social Work10(3): 381–398. doi: 10.1177/1473325011409478
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325011409478 [Google Scholar]
  48. Speer, Susan A
    2011 “On the Role of Reported, Third Party Compliments in Passing as a ‘Real’ Woman.”InConversation and Gender, ed. by Susan A. Speer and Elizabeth Stokoe , 155–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511781032.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781032.009 [Google Scholar]
  49. Stivers, Tanya
    2007Prescribing under Pressure: Parent-Physician Conversations and Antibiotics. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311150.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311150.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stivers, Tanya , and Federico Rossano
    2010 “Mobilizing Response.”Research on Language and Social Interaction43(1): 3–31. doi: 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sultana, Ronald G
    ., and A.G. Watts 2006 “Career Guidance in Public Employment Services across Europe.”International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance6: 29–46. doi: 10.1007/s10775‑006‑0001‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-006-0001-5 [Google Scholar]
  52. Taylor, Carolyn , and Susan White
    2000Practising Reflexivity in Health and Welfare: Making Knowledge. London: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Vuchinich, Samuel
    1990 “The Sequential Organization of Closing in Family Conflict.”InConflict Talk, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw , 118–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Whalen, Marilyn R. , and Don H. Zimmerman
    1990 “Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in Citizen Calls to the Police.”Language in Society19: 465–492. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500014779
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014779 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.7.3.02sol
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