Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Investigating Inferences in Sequences of Action: The Case of Claiming “Just-Now” Recollection with Oh That’s Right

Uwe-A. Küttner
  • Department of English and American Studies, Present-Day English Language and Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-05-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0006

Abstract

This paper offers an exploratory Interactional Linguistic account of the role that inferences play in episodes of ordinary conversational interaction. To this end, it systematically reconsiders the conversational practice of using the lexico-syntactic format oh that’s right to implicitly claim “just-now” recollection of something previously known, but momentarily confused or forgotten. The analyses reveal that this practice typically occurs as part of a larger sequential pattern that the participants orient to and which serves as a procedure for dealing with, and generating an account for, one participant’s production of an inapposite action. As will be shown, the instantiation and progressive realization of this sequential procedure requires local inferential work from the participants. While some facets of this inferential work appear to be shaped by the particular context of the ongoing interaction, others are integral to the workings of the sequence as such. Moreover, the analyses suggest that participants’ understanding of oh that’s right as embodying an implicit memory claim rests on an inference which is based on a kind of semanticpragmatic compositionality. The paper thus illustrates how inferences in conversational interaction can be systematically studied and points to the merits of combining an interactional and a linguistic perspective.

Keywords: Interactional Linguistics; Conversation Analysis; inferences; action recognition; forgetfulness; confusion; recollection; oh that’s right

References

  • Antaki, Charles. 2012. Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies 14 (5). 531-547.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Kent. 2006. The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/kbach/TopTen.pdf (accessed 29 March 2017) published as: Bach, Kent. 2006. The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Birner, Betty J., Gregory Ward (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, 21-30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, Scott E. 2011a. Claiming mutual stance: On the use of “that’s right” by a person with aphasia. Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (4). 359-384.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, Scott E. 2011b. Aphasia and topic talk: A case study. PhD thesis. Sydney, New South Wales: Macquarie University, Australia.Google Scholar

  • Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2008. Interactional linguistics. In Antos, Gerd, Eija Ventola. (eds.), in cooperation with Weber, T. Handbooks of Applied Linguistics: Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (Vol. 2). 77-105. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Betz, Emma. 2014. Confirming and agreeing: Different uses of responsive ‘genau’ in German. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA-14), University of California, Los Angeles, 26 June.Google Scholar

  • Betz, Emma. 2015. Indexing epistemic access through different confirmation formats: Uses of responsive (das) stimmt in German interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 87. 251-266.Google Scholar

  • Betz, Emma, Andrea Golato. 2008. Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token ‘ach ja’. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1). 55-98.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clift, Rebecca. 2016. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clift, Rebecca, Paul Drew, John Local. 2013. “Why that, now?”: Position and composition in interaction (or, don’t leave out the position in composition). In Kempson, Ruth, Christine Howes, Martin Orwin (eds.), Language, music and interaction, 211-232. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2012. On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. Text & Talk 32 (4). 453-457.Google Scholar

  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. 2011. A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 - Translated and adapted for English. Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12. 1-51. http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2011/px-gat2-englisch.pdf (accessed 27 April 2017)Google Scholar

  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Margret Selting. 2001. Introducing Interactional Linguistics. In: Selting, Margret, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics, 1-22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying language in social interaction.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  • Deppermann, Arnulf. 2007. Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht (Grammar and semantics from a conversation analytic perspective). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Deppermann, Arnulf. 2012. How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences 34. 746-767. Detges, Ulrich (n.d.). Implikaturen und Inferenzen. Sagen, Meinen und Verstehen; Sprachgebrauch und Sprachsystem. (Implicatures and inferences. Saying, meaning, understanding; Language use and language system.) https://www.academia.edu/11481145/Implikaturen_und_Inferenzen._Sagen_Meinen_und_Verstehen_Sprachgebrauch_und_Sprachsystem (accessed 29 March 2017)Google Scholar

  • Drew, Paul. 1997. ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28 (1). 69-101.Google Scholar

  • Drew, Paul. 2005. Is confusion a state of mind? In te Molder, Hedwig, Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 161-183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Drew, Paul. 2017. The interface between pragmatics and conversation analysis. In press. In Illie, Cornelia, Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313847355_The_Interface_between_Pragmatics_and_Conversation_Analysis (accessed 29 March 2017)Google Scholar

  • Enfield, Nick J. 2006. Social consequences of common ground. In Enfield, Nick J., Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 399-430. Oxford: Berg Publishers (Bloomsbury).Google Scholar

  • Fox, Barbara A., Sandra A. Thompson, Cecilia E. Ford, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2013. Conversation analysis and linguistics. In Sidnell, Jack, Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 726-740. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Garfinkel, Harold. 1963. A conception of, and experiments with, “trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. In Harvey, O.J. (ed.), Motivation and social interaction: Cognitive determinants, 187-238. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar

  • Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

  • Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haugh, Michael. 2017. Implicature and the inferential substrate. In Cap, Piotr, Marta Dynel (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse, 281-304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hayano, Karou. 2013. Question design in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack, Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 395-414. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 1984a. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 1984b. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell, John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 299-345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27. 291-334.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2002. Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 196-224. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2005. Cognition in discourse. In te Molder, Hedwig, Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 184-202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1). 1-29.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2013a. Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack, Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 370-394. Malden, Mass.: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2013b. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15 (5). 551-578.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 2015. Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 88. 88-104.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Robert. 2005. A cognitive agnostic in Conversation Analysis: When do strategies affect spoken interaction? In te Molder, Hedwig, Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 134-158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hutchby, Ian, Robin Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation Analysis: Principles, practices and applications (2nd edition). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Keisanen, Tiina. 2007. Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker. In Engelbretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 253-282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Koivisto, Aino. 2013. On the preference for remembering: Acknowledging an answer with Finnish Ai Nii(n) (“Oh That’s Right”). Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3). 277-297.Google Scholar

  • Küttner, Uwe-A. 2016. That-initial turns in conversation - An interactional linguistic investigation of two formats for designedly tying a current turn to a prior. PhD thesis. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2006a. Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies 8 (1). 85-93.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2006b. On the human “Interaction Engine”. In Enfield, Nick J., Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 39-69. Oxford: Berg Publishers (Bloomsbury).Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, Jack, Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 103-130. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Local, John. 1996. Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Margret Selting (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 177-230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Macagno, Fabrizio. 2017. Defaults and inferences in interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 117. 280-290.Google Scholar

  • MacWhinney, Brian. 2007. The TalkBank Project. In Beal, Joan C., Karen P. Corrigan, Hermann L. Moisl, (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora: Synchronic databases (Vol. 1), 163-180. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita. 1984a. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell, John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita. 1984b. Pursuing a response. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell, John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 152-163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita. 2017. Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In Raymond, Geoffrey, Gene H. Lerner, John Heritage (eds.), Enabling human conduct: Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, 61-76. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Potter, Jonathan, Hedwig te Molder. 2005. Talking cognition: Mapping and making the terrain. In te Molder, Hedwig, Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 1-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68 (3). 939-967.Google Scholar

  • Raymond, Geoffrey. 2010. Prosodic variation in responses: The case of type-conforming responses to yes/no interrogatives. In Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Elizabeth Reber, Margret Selting (eds.), Prosody in interaction, 109-129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2009. Managing counterinformings: An interactional practice for soliciting information that facilitates reconciliation of speakers’ incompatible positions. Human Communication Research 35. 561-587.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, Graham, John R.E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organization, 54-69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on conversation vol. 1 (ed. by Gail Jefferson). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, 15-21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50. 696-735.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1986. The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9 (2-3). 111-151.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1990. On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In Dorval, Bruce (ed.), Conversational organization and its development, 51-77. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In Resnick, Lauren B., John M. Levine, Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 150-171. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1995a. Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (3). 185-211.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1995b. Introduction. In Sacks, Harvey, Lectures on conversation vol. 1 (ed. by Gail Jefferson), ix-lxii. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a. Turn Organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 52-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996b. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102 (1). 161-216.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes 23. 499-545.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2005. On integrity in inquiry... of the investigated, not the investigator. Discourse Studies 7 (4-5).455-80.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2006. Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, Nick J., Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 70-96. Oxford: Berg Publishers (Bloomsbury).Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2010. Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “Mobilizing response”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1). 38-48.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A., Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8 (4). 289-327.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction and the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53. 361-382.Google Scholar

  • Schütz, Alfred. 1945. On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 5 (4). 533-576.Google Scholar

  • Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers vol. 1 - The problem of social reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Shaw, Chloe, Jonathan Potter, Alexa Hepburn. 2015. Advice-implicative actions: Using interrogatives and assessments to deliver advice in mundane conversation. Discourse Studies 17 (3). 317-342.Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2013. Basic conversation analytic methods. In Sidnell, Jack, Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 77-99. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2014. The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, Nick J, Paul Kockelmann, Jack Sidnell (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, 364-399. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack, Tanya Stivers. 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Sperber, Dan, Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Stivers, Tanya. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2). 131-158.Google Scholar

  • Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, Jakob Steensig. 2011. Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 3-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Walker, Traci, Paul Drew, John Local. 2011. Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (9). 2434-2451.Google Scholar

  • Wilkinson, Sue, Celia Kitzinger. 2006. Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69 (2). 150-182.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-07-05

Accepted: 2017-12-20

Published Online: 2018-05-24


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 101–126, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0006.

Export Citation

© 2018 Uwe-A. Küttner, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in