Human Studies

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 115–128 | Cite as

The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics

Special Issue

Abstract

As an Introduction to the Special Issue on “Formulation, generalization, and abstraction in interaction,” this paper discusses key problems of a conversation analytic (CA) approach to semantics in interaction. Prior research in CA and Interactional Linguistics has only rarely dealt with issues of linguistic meaning in interaction. It is argued that this is a consequence of limitations of sequential analysis to capture meaning in interaction. While sequential analysis remains the encompassing methodological framework, it is suggested that it needs to be complemented by analyzing semantic relationships between choices of formulation in the interaction, ethnography, and structural techniques of comparing selected options with possible alternatives. The paper describes the methodological approach taken to interactional semantics by the papers in the Special Issue, which analyse practices of generalization and abstraction in interaction as they are accomplished by formulations of prior versions of reference and description.

Keywords

Conversation analysis Formulation Interactional semantics Membership categorization Generalization Abstraction 

References

  1. Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 107–123). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  2. Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7(6), 627–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antos, G. (1982). Grundlagen einer Theorie des Formulierens—Foundations of a theory of formulation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, R. K. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text and Talk, 27(3), 273–296.Google Scholar
  5. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.). (2010). Prosody in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Beach, W., & Dixson, C. (2001). Revealing moments: Formulating understandings of adverse experiences in a health appraisal interview. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bilmes, J. (1981). Proposition and confrontation in a legal discussion. Semiotica, 34(3/4), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bilmes, J. (1993). Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature: Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics, 3, 387–409.Google Scholar
  10. Bilmes, J. (1996). Problems and resources in analyzing Northern Thai conversation for English language readers. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bilmes, J. (2008). Generally speaking. Formulating an argument in the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Text & Talk, 28(2), 193–217.Google Scholar
  12. Bilmes, J. (2009). Taxonomies are for talking: Reanalyzing a Sacks’ classic. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1600–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bilmes, J. (this volume). Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies, 34(2).Google Scholar
  14. Bührig, K. (1996). Reformulierende Handlungen.—Refomulating actions. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  15. Ciapuscio, G. E. (2003). Formulation and reformulation procedures in verbal interactions between experts and (semi-)laypersons. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 207–233.Google Scholar
  16. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. (Eds.). (2004). Sound patterns in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  17. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.). (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Deppermann, A. (2011). Notionalizations: The transformation of descriptions into categorizations. Human Studies, 34(2).doi:10.1007/s10746-011-9186-9.
  19. Deppermann, A. (2000). Ethnographische Gesprächsanalyse: Zu Nutzen und Notwendigkeit von Ethnographie für die Konversationsanalyse.—Ethnographic conversation analysis. On the uses and necessities of ethnography for conversation analysis. Gesprächsforschung, 1, 96–124. http://www.gespraechsforschungozs. http://de/heft2000/ga-deppermann.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2011.
  20. Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation (pp. 289–317). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Deppermann, A. (2007). Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht.—Grammar and semantics form a conversation analytic point of view. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Deppermann, A. (2008). Gespräche analysieren.—Analyzing conversation. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  23. Deppermann, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (1998). Kommunikationsstörungen durch den Gesprächsprozeß—Zur Entstehung von Interaktionsdilemmata durch zeitliche Komplexierung.—Communication problems as effects of the conversational process. In Fiehler, R. (Ed.), Verständigungsprobleme und gestörte Kommunikation.—Problems of understanding and Miscommunication (pp. 44–62). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings. In P. Glenn, C. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 293–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  28. Gülich, E., & Kotschi, T. (1996). Textherstellungsverfahren in mündlicher Kommunikation.—Procedures of producing texts in oral communication. In W. Motsch (Ed.), Ebenen der Textstruktur.—Levels of text structure (pp. 37–80). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  29. Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M. (Eds.). (2005). Syntax and lexis in conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Hauser, E. (2011). Generalization: A practice of situated categorization in talk. Human Studies, 34 (2). doi:10.1007/s10746-011-9184-y.
  31. Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 3 (pp. 95–117). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement. Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  35. Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Culture in action. Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  36. Hutchby, I. (2005). “Active listening”: Formulations and the elicitation of feelings talk in child counselling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jayyusi, L. (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Boston, MA: Kegan & Routledge Paul.Google Scholar
  38. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Mannheim, K. (1980[1922–1924]). Structures of thinking. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  40. Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad news, good news. Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: U Chicago P.Google Scholar
  41. Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture—ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia, PA: U Pennsylvania P.Google Scholar
  42. Norén, K., & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and grammar. Pragmatics, 17, 387–416.Google Scholar
  43. Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rittgeroth, Y. (2007). Reformulierungen im aufgabenorientierten Dialog.Reformulations in task-oriented dialogue.—(Doctoral dissertation.) Bielefeld: Fakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft der Universität. http://bieson.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/volltexte/2007/1058/pdf/Reformulierungen_im_aufgabenorientierten_Dialog.pdf.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2011.
  45. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago, IL: U Chicago P.Google Scholar
  46. Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography of communication (pp. 325–345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  47. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. 2 Vols. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75–119). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Schegloff, E. A. (1992a). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191–227). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  50. Schegloff, E. A. (1992b). Repair after next turn. The last structurally provided defence of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies, 9, 433–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tyler, S. (Ed.). (1969). Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  54. Watson, R. (1997). Some general reflections on categorization and sequence in the analysis of conversation. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action. Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 49–76). Washington. DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  55. Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87–106). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS)MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations