Part of
Fixed Expressions: Building language structure and social actionEdited by Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 315] 2020
► pp. 11–40
Edited by Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 315] 2020
► pp. 11–40
Chapter 2
‘I understand’-initiated formulations of the other
A semi-fixed claim to the intersubjective
Some language patterns appear fixed at a certain time, enabling their description as grammatical structures. Semi-fixed patterns that routinely accomplish specific social actions constitute more of an analytical challenge. This chapter targets the phrase ma saan aru ‘I understand’ in Estonian together with the ensuing other-attentive formulation ‘2nd person expression + a cognitive concept’ and argues that it is a semi-fixed expression, a “claim to the intersubjective”, that manages a misalignment between participants. While claiming to have successfully accessed the other’s motives or feelings, the speaker regularly advances her own agenda through the formulation of the other. This suggests a systematic relationship between cognitive lexicon, grammatical structure, and interactional function, and calls for a language theory that incorporates semi-fixedness.
Keywords: semi-fixed expressions, formulaic language, conversation analysis, intersubjectivity, complement taking predicates, misalignment, formulation, cognitive verb, Estonian
Article outline
- Introduction
- Data and method
- Formulating the other’s mind: With and without ‘I understand’
- Claim to the intersubjective and social sensitivity
- Degree of routinization
- Parallel cases and the abstract pattern
- Conclusion
-
Transcription conventions -
Abbreviations -
Notes -
References
References
Aijmer, Karin
2007 “The
interface between grammar and discourse: The fact is
that.” In Connectives
as Discourse Landmarks, ed.
by A. Celle and R. Huart, 31–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 
Antaki, Charles
2012 “Affiliative
and disaffiliative candidate
understandings.” Discourse
Studies 14(5): 531–547.
Brinton, Laurel
2008 The
Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic
Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language,
Usage and
Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulter, Jeff
1979 The
Social Construction of Mind: Studies in Ethnomethodology and
Linguistic Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson
2000 “Concessive
patterns in
conversation.” In Cause-Condition-Concession-Contrast:
Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed.
by E. Couper-Kuhlen and B. Kortmann, 381–410. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Reineke, Silke
2017 “Epistemische
Praktiken und ihre feinen Unterschiede: Verwendungen von ich
dachte in gesprochener
Sprache.” In Verben
in interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im
gesprochenen Deutsch, ed.
by Arnulf Deppermann, Nadine Proske, and Arne Zeschel, 337–375. Tübingen: Narr.
Drew, Paul
2003 “Comparative
analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings:
A
sketch.” In Studies
in Language and Social Interaction: In honor of Robert
Hopper, ed. by P. J. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, and J. Mandelbaum, 293–308. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Edwards, Derek
1997 Discourse
and
Cognition. London: Sage.
Endo, Tomoko
2010 “Epistemic
stance marker as a disagreement preface: wo juede
‘I feel/think’ in Mandarin conversation in response to
assessments.” Kyoto University
Linguistic
Research 29: 43–76.
2013 “Epistemic
stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and functions of
wo juede (I
feel/think).” In Chinese
Discourse and Interaction: Theory and
Practice, ed. by Y. Pan and D. Kádár, 12–34. London: Equinox.
Erman, Britt, and Beatrice Warren
2000 “The
idiom principle and the open choice
principle.” Text 20(1): 29–62.
Ford, Cecilia, Barbara Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson
2013 “Units
and/or action trajectories? The language of grammatical categories
and the language of social
action.” In Units
of Talk – Units of Action, ed.
by B. Szczepek Reed and G. Raymond, 13–56. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks
1970 “On
the formal structures of practical
actions.” In Theoretical
Sociology, ed. by J. D. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakan, 337–366. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele
2006 Constructions
at Work: The Nature of Generalization in
Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Günthner, Susanne
2011 “
N
be that-constructions in everyday German conversation:
A reanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing
is’)-clauses as projector
phrases.” In Subordination
in Conversation, ed.
by R. Laury and R. Suzuki, 11–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin
2010 “Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies.” Language 86(3): 663–687.
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2014 “Agreement
or crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd person subjects and
cognitive verbs in Finnish
conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 63: 63–78.
Heritage, John
1984 Garfinkel
and
Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, John, and Rod Watson
1979 “Formulations
as conversational
objects.” In Everyday
Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed.
by G. Psathas, 123–162. New York, NY: Irvington.
Hopper, Paul
1987 “Emergent
grammar.” Proceedings of the
Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society 13: 139–157.
Jefferson, Gail, Harvey Sacks, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
1977 “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 53(2): 361–382.
Kärkkäinen, Elise
2003 Epistemic
Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional
Functions, with a Focus on I
think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2007 “The
role of I guess in conversational
stancetaking.” In Stancetaking
in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation,
Interaction, ed.
by R. Englebretson, 183–219. Ansterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2012 “I
thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a
stance.” Journal of
Pragmatics 44(15): 2194–2210.
Keevallik, Leelo
2000 “Keelendid et ja nii et vestluses.” [Linguistic units et ‘that’ and nii et ‘so’ in conversation.] Keel ja Kirjandus 43(5): 344–358.
2003 From
Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation.
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis
Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica
Upsaliensia 34.
2008 “Clause
combining and sequenced actions: the Estonian complementizer and
pragmatic particle
et
.” In Crosslinguistic
Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of
Conjunctions, ed.
by R. Laury, 125–152. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2010 “Clauses
emerging as epistemic adverbs in Estonian
conversation.” Linguistica
Uralica 46(2): 81–100.
2011 “Pro-forms
as projective devices in
interaction.” Discourse
Processes 48(6): 404–431.
Keevallik, Leelo, and Auli Hakulinen
2018 ”Epistemically
reinforced kyl(lä)/küll-responses in Estonian and
Finnish: Word order and social
action.” Journal of
Pragmatics 123: 121–138.
Laury, Ritva, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Janica Rauma
this
volume. “Use of the verb
ajatella ‘think’ as a fixed expression in
spoken Finnish.”
Laury, Ritva, and Shigeko Okamoto
2008 “Teyuuka
and I mean as pragmatic parentheticals in Japanese and
English.” In Subordination
in Conversation, ed.
by R. Laury and R. Suzuki, 69–102. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lindwall, Oskar, and Gustav Lymer
2011 “Uses of “understand” in science education.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(2): 452–474.
Mondada, Lorenza
2011 “Understanding
as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in
interaction.” Journal of
Pragmatics 43: 542–552.
Muntigl, Peter, and Adam O. Horvath
2014 ““I
can see some sadness in your eyes”: When experiential therapists
notice a client’s affectual
display.” Research on Language and
Social
Interaction 47(2): 89–108.
Niemi, Jarkko
2014 “Two
‘yeah but’ formats in Finnish. The prior action engaging nii
mut and the disengaging joo mut
utterances.” Journal of
Pragmatics 60: 54–74.
2015 Myönnytelyn
Käytänteitä: Erimielisyys ja Yhteisymmärryksen Rakentaminen
Vuorovaikutuksessa [Practices of
Conceding: Disagreement and the Negotiation of Mutual Understanding
in
Conversation]. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, humanistinen tiedekunta, suomen kielen, suomalais-ugrilaisten ja pohjoismaisten kielten ja kirjallisuuksien laitos.
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Syder
1983 “Two
puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike
fluency.” Language and
Communication 7(1): 191–226.
Pomerantz, Anita
1984: “Agreeing
and disagreeing with assessments: some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn
shapes.” In Structures
of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis, ed. by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Potter, Jonathan
2006 “Cognition
and conversation.” Discourse
Studies 8(1): 131–140.
Ryle, Gilbert
1949 The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation (Vols. I and II). G. Jefferson (ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1984 “On some questions and ambiguities in conversation.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 28–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1992 “Repair
after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of
intersubjectivity in
conversation.” American Journal of
Sociology 97(5): 1295–1345.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996 “Confirming allusion: Toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology 102: 161–216.
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheibman, Joanne
2000 “
I
dunno… A usage-based account of the phonological
reduction of don’t in American English
conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 32(1): 105–124.
Sczcepek Reed, Beatrice
2015 “Managing
the boundary between ‘yes’ and ‘but’: Two ways of disaffiliating
with German ‘ja aber’ and
‘jaber’.” Research on Language and
Social
Interaction 48(1): 32–57.
Smith, Michael Sean
2013 ““I
thought” initiated turns: Addressing discrepancies in first-hand and
second-hand knowledge.” Journal of
Pragmatics 57: 318–330.
Steensig, Jakob, and Birte Asmuß
2005 “Notes
on disaligning ‘yes but’ initiated utterances in German and Danish
conversations: Two construction types for dispreferred
responses.” In Syntax
and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic
Resources in Talk-in-Interaction, ed.
by A. Hakulinen and M. Selting, 349–373. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 ““Object
complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic
account.” Studies in
Language 26(1): 125–164.
Thompson, Sandra A. and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
this
volume. “English why don’t
you X as a formulaic
expression.”
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity
in Semantic
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weatherall, Ann, and Leelo Keevallik
2016 “When
claims of understanding are less than
affiliative.” Research on Language
and Social
Interaction 49(3): 167–182.
Weiste, Elina, and Anssi Peräkylä
2013 “A
comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in
psychoanalysis and cognitive
psychotherapy.” Research on Language
and Social
Interaction 46(4): 299–321.
Wood, David
2015 Fundamentals
of Formulaic Language: An
Introduction. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic
Wray, Alison
2008 Formulaic
Language: Pushing the
Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.