Cover not available
Part of
Perception Metaphors
Edited by Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O'Meara, Lila San Roque and Asifa Majid
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19] 2019
► pp. 253–274

Chapter 13
Evidential vindication in next turn

Using the retrospective “see?” in conversation

Perception verbs are frequent in conversation across diverse languages and cultures. This chapter presents a case study of a recurrent but previously undocumented use of the perception verb see in everyday English conversation. Using conversation analysis, the chapter explicates the use of “See?” – the verb see produced with rising intonation as a possibly complete turn-constructional unit – as claim of evidential vindication. With “See?” a speaker claims a just prior turn, action, or event as support for a previous assertive action. The analysis demonstrates that the practice exploits two distinct forms of sequence organisation, adjacency pairs and retro-sequences, and reflects on the fit between the perception verb see and the action it implements within this practice.

Keywords: conversation analysis, sequence organisation, retro-sequences, social action, perception verbs, perceptual metaphor, evidence, disputes, English
Article outline
  • 1.The phenomenon
  • 2.The present study
  • 3.“See?” as a retro-sequence initiator
  • 4.Provables: Actions that can be evidenced
  • 5.The relationship between the prior and the provable
    • 5.1An independent assertion corroborates the provable
    • 5.2An event instantiates the provable
    • 5.3A prior turn supports the provable
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1The sequential organisation of “See?”
    • 6.2The fit between the practice and the action
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.13ken
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2006) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y., & Storch, A.
(2013) Linguistic expression of perception and cognition: A typological glimpse. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & A. Storch (Eds.), Perception and cognition in language and culture (pp. 1–46). Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2012) Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S.
(2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1257–1280.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D.
(2000) Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D.
(2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76(3): 546–592.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, R.
(1988) On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 467–485.DOI logo
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B.
(2017) Transcribing for social research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–578.DOI logo
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G.
(2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 15–38.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, E. M., & Kendrick, K. H.
(2017) Conversation analysis. In P. Hagoort & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology of Language. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H.
(2006) Linguistic Form and Social Action: The Use of “See” in Conversational Interaction (Master’s thesis). University of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P.
(2016) Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.DOI logo
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2013) Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 101–130). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A.
(2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427.DOI logo
Pollner, M.
(1987) Mundane reason: Reality in everyday life and sociological discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
(1980) Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3), 186–198.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984) Giving a source or basis: the practice in conversation of telling “how I know”. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 607–625.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human studies, 9(2), 219–229.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Giving evidence as a conversational practice. In D. T. Helm, W. T. Anderson, A. J. Meehan & A. W. Rawls (Eds.), The interactional order: New directions in the study of social order (pp. 103–115). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1992) Lectures on conversation. (G. Jefferson, Ed.) (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dingemanse, M., Dirksmeyer, T., Enfield, N. J., Floyd, S., Hammond, J., Rossi, G., Tufvesson, S., Van Putten, S., & Majid, A.
(2015) Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 31–60.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A.
(2018) Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(3), 371–406.
https://doi.org/
Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1996) Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) On complainability. Social Problems, 52(4), 449–476.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A.
(1962) Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected Papers I (pp. 3–47). Springer Netherlands.DOI logo
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T.
(Eds.) (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J.
(2007) ‘Look’-prefaced turns in first and second position: launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 387–408.DOI logo
Stokes, D., & Biggs, S.
(2014) The dominance of the visual. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen, & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities. Oxford Scholarship Online.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Carranza, A.
(2014) Sequential markers in Mexican Spanish talk: A conversation-analytic study (Ph.D. thesis). University of Essex.Google Scholar
(2015) Análisis de oye como marcador secuencial y de acción en la conversación. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 61, 73–103.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å.
(1983) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21, 123–162.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
(2010) Experience, evidence, and sense: The hidden cultural legacy of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Hou, Lynn
2022. LOOKing for multi-word expressions in American Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Inbar, Anna & Yael Maschler
2023. Shared Knowledge as an Account for Disaffiliative Moves: Hebrew ki ‘Because’-Clauses Accompanied by the Palm-Up Open-Hand Gesture. Research on Language and Social Interaction 56:2 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Keevallik, Leelo & Marri Amon
2023. Seeing is believing. Interactional Linguistics DOI logo
Koskinen, Emmi , Melisa Stevanovic & Anssi Peräkylä
2021. Affiliation, topicality, and Asperger’s. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders 11:1 ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo
Siitonen, Pauliina, Mirka Rauniomaa & Tiina Keisanen
2021. Language and the Moving Body: Directive Actions With the Finnish kato “look” in Nature-Related Activities. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Stoenica, Ioana-Maria & Sophia Fiedler
2021. Multimodal Practice for Mobilizing Response: The Case of Turn-Final Tu Vois ‘You See’ in French Talk-in-Interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.