Article published in:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 4:1 (2015) ► pp. 86–100

The Interaction Tool

| University of Groningen
For professionals such as doctors, teachers, or different kinds of counsellors, talking with their clients is a major part of their profession. Professionals and clients give and ask information until they reach a state of mutual knowledge or understanding. This paper argues that for this talk they use a tool, the machinery of social interaction, with characteristics that influence the outcomes of their talk. One characteristic is the normative organization of interaction through which the contribution of one participant puts restrictions on the range of possible follow-up contributions of another participant. This may cause client behavior that does not align with the institutional aims of the professional. A second trait is that interactants have no access to each other’s cognitions such as intentions, interpretations, knowing, and understanding. Professionals should thus be aware that what clients say has a relatively loose relation with what they know and understand.
Keywords: professional discourse, intersubjectivity, knowing and understanding normative organization, language and social interaction
Published online: 17 August 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.4.1.08koo
References
Clark, H.H
(1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Englert, C
(2010) Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 2666–2684. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J
(1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S
(2010) Talk in action. Interaction, identities, and institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G
(1978) Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koole, T
(2010) Displays of epistemic access. Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Conversation analysis and education. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 977–982). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koole, T., & Verberg, N
submitted). Aligning caller and call-taker: The opening phrase of Dutch emergency calls. Crossref
Mondada, L
(2011) Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 542–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A
(1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J
(2013) Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Raymond, G
(2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiter, J.P. de
(Ed.) (2012) Questions. Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
(1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 981, 1295–1345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H
(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A
(1932/1967) The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Stivers, T
(2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Seuren, Lucas M.
2019. Oh (/o/) als ontvanger van informatie in sociale interactie. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 41:2 ► pp. 363 ff. Crossref logo
Seuren, Lucas M., Mike Huiskes & Tom Koole
2016. Remembering and understanding with oh-prefaced yes/no declaratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 104 ► pp. 180 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 april 2022. 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.