Responsive engagement: Contributions of CA

Mutual monitoring (Candy Goodwin)

“…how the speaker takes the recipients’ response into account in the organization of his or her own actions” (Goodwin, 1980, p.304)

(Re-)formulations (Charles Antaki)

Teacher’s turn in third position a form of ‘local editing’ (Antaki, 2008), where the therapist [teacher] focuses on an aspect of the patient’s [child’s] talk.

“a formulation allows the therapist [teacher] to propose a version of the client’s talk which moves it in a therapeutically-oriented [pedagogically-relevant] direction”(Antaki, Barnes & Leudar, 2005, p. 630)

but, projection of agreement (Heritage & Watson, 1979) (i.e. ‘so what you’re saying is’)

Response relevance (Tanya Stivers)

“We have shown that in initial sequential position both action and turn-design features work to mobilize response and thus can be used together such that a turn minimally or maximally pressures an interlocutor for response. Such a perspective effectively accepts the role of both the sociological and linguistic perspectives, in part. With respect to the position put forward by Schegloff and Sacks, we argue that action is indeed critical, but it is not, on its own, sufficient, except with highly ritualized actions such as greetings and farewells. From the linguistic perspective, we accept that “questions” mobilize response but suggest that with a compositional view of questioning we better understand what features of a turn mobilize response. This allows us to propose a new way of understanding how a speaker mobilizes response and how it is that a speaker holds another accountable for respondingone that relies both on the action being implemented in the turn and the turn’s design. We have done this by suggesting four response-mobilizing features: interrogative lexico-morphosyntax, interrogative prosody, recipient directed speaker gaze, and recipient-tilted epistemic asymmetry.” (Stivers & Rossano, 2010, p 29; emphasis added).

—> a cline of responsivity

Yet once the relatively highly defined domain of adjacency pairs, together with their pre- and insert sequences, is departed from, there are few resources with which to understand the undoubted complexities of postexpansions and stepwise topic shift, which arguably make up the “dark matter,” as it were, of conversational organization. Heritage (2012, p.48)

References

Antaki, C. (2008) Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehevilänen & I. Leudar (eds.) Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. (pp. 26-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7(6), 627–647.

Goodwin, M.H. (1980). Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 303–317.

Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge, Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45:1, 30-52, DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685

Heritage, J. & Watson, R. (1979) Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday language (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington Press.

Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3-31.